RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Revamp draft

Well done, Weaseloid. I find all of the additions and changes you've made (so far) acceptable. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:50, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you. I thought, since the debate was petering out, the best way forwards was to get a proper look at what we've got so far & the changes people have talked about. I'm off to bed now, but might do the rest tomorrow; or somebody else can start on it. I think some of the later sections are still a bit more disputed anyway. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, it looks like we're nearly done so it's just really polishing and taking care of the red text. I assume green is either for emphasis that isn't threatening or is essential info? ArmondikoV^sshole 14:15, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Green is changes I made to RA's version of the text. Most of them were a result of the discussions; one or two are fairly minor changes of my own. I still haven't copied over the bits on moving, deleting, voting, demoting, etc. There still isn't much of a consensus on most of those yet. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:25, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I've gone ahead and thrown the two rewrites I think would work below. The Vandal Bin/Blocking I'll leave for now, once people are happy with the two parts below, we can use them to update the community standards and concentrate on the vandal policy. ArmondikoV^sshole 14:37, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Missions

RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia, and articles not somehow related to the above mission statements are generally moved out of the mainspace (see below).

Replace with:

---

"Rational Wiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of Rational Wiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world.

---

Discussion

Just my ideas anyway. I think it would be easier for anyone with additions or alterations to just go ahead and alter the above paragraph. ArmondikoV^sshole 14:29, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I think the first couple of sentences are enough? ħuman 15:43, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe the rest of it belongs somewhere else (project whitewash?). Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:51, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, I was thinking about reducing it down. The four points below could work as part of a style guide. Do we have a guide to writing articles? The page explaining SPOV is sort of one. ArmondikoV^sshole 16:02, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Altered the above text to condense it. ArmondikoV^sshole 16:10, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Looks better to me. ħuman 17:05, 27 January 2009 (EST)

POV

Scientific point of view — Less talked about but arguably more important, the scientific point of view means that our articles take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue. Unlike Wikipeda, which effectively treats all viewpoints and theories as legitimate, we will call bullshit on an unscientific or just plain stupid idea and treat it like the crap it is.[can/should we express this without the vulgar language?]

Replace with:

---

• Scientific point of view — Less talked about but arguably more important, the scientific point of view means that our articles take the side of the scientific consensus on an issue. Rational Wiki should be and will be highly critical of any unscientific, irrational or just plain stupid idea, movement or ideology.

---

Discussion POV

I still decided to keep the "plain stupid" part because sometimes you just have to go with "argument from ridicule". But generally, this is less needlessly aggressive. ArmondikoV^sshole 14:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I think all we need is the first sentence. The comparison to WP is not very accurate IMO. ħuman 15:45, 17 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Plain stupid is fine. I didn't like using "crap" or "bullshit" here. Much as these words are used around the site & even in articles, putting them in the community standards seems a bit much. Human has a point. The WP comparison is unnecessary (already mentioned when we say we don't have NPOV). The bit about us being critical of unscientific ideas in covered in the 'no policy on religion' bit just below this is the text. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:49, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think it's correct to say that WP treats all viewpoints as legitimate. Rather, it aims to report on the existence of all major viewpoints, without taking a stand for or against them. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:01, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, altered that. I was wondering about adding "other projects may treat all ideas equally or perhaps may be heavily biased" but decided against it. ArmondikoV^sshole 16:03, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I feel the section on our POV and the statement of our policy on religion should be in separate sections. I don't think they belong together because they're really talking about separate issues. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:30, 24 January 2009 (EST)

While I think you are probably right, I seriously object to discussing this in two separate places. I feel this page needlessly muddles the discussion (sorry, weasel, but it really does). Let's keep it in one place? ħuman 01:46, 24 January 2009 (EST)

To some extent. I don't agree with RA that "policy on religion" is a separate issue from POV since it's basically talking about how we treat religion in articles - i.e. our POV on it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:38, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but the I feel the issue is sufficiently controversial and important enough on its own to merit its own section. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:00, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's fine under POV. It fits in well there. ħuman 22:01, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Colors

Can you change the "still in dispute" to something other than blue? It's the same as links, and I thought scientific method was in dispute -- Nx ^talk 05:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)

If it simple and distinctive yes. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 05:22, 27 January 2009 (EST)

How about teal? -- Nx ^talk 05:28, 27 January 2009 (EST)

That is nice. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 05:29, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Not as easy to scan now though. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 05:37, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Try teal for the rewordings and darkorange for in dispute (easier to read than orange) -- Nx ^talk 05:40, 27 January 2009 (EST)

You can try that if you like then. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 05:43, 27 January 2009 (EST)

No, it's too difficult to read. I changed it back to blue, but changed the rewording to teal as it shouldn't stand out and it's easier to read. Not a big deal anyway, since there aren't that much links in it. -- Nx ^talk 05:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I'm having trouble using the colors while editing, since the font tags often aren't "inside" the section being edited. Can someone explain to me how to understand the way the tags are set up so I can leave a better trail behind me? Thanks... ħuman 17:08, 27 January 2009 (EST)

You have to edit the whole article and find the closest font tag, then break it up. -- Nx ^talk 17:20, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Oh. I was afraid of that. Sounds like fun... anyway, I see someone has been cleaning up after me a bit, thanks. ħuman 22:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Rationalist POV?

I think it's a really bad idea to self-identify as specifically "rationalist". For one thing, identifying with a particular philosophy is a considerable departure from previous policy. For another, I'm not even sure I know what rationalism is. I'm guessing we're not talking about Descartes here? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:42, 27 January 2009 (EST)

It looks like the word only appears once so could be taken out if it's a bone of contention. It's still implicit in the name of the site. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)

"Rational" is not the same as "rationalism". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:15, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Cut. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Vandal bin / blocking

Technical question: is it possible to make the vandal bin more visible? It would save time on the occasions where you try to bin a vandal & find they're already in the bin, plus it would help avoid situations like yesterday where a user has been vandal binned inappropriately & nobody else knows about it.

Anyway, my suggestion about blocking is that we should rewrite the dropdown menu for expiry lengths (I can't find where this file is located), taking out all the Fibonacci sequence stuff, & include only 30 seconds, 3 minutes, 30 minutes, 3 hours, and "other", with guidelines something like this:

• 30 seconds for "fun" blocks of other users.
• 3 minutes for petty vandalism, or other disruptive behaviour such as edit warring. This gives you time to write the user a message or warning, and put them in the vandal bin if necessary.
• 30 minutes for serious vandalism to the site, such as blanking pages or offensive edits. This should be used for first offences of this kind, and should be accompanied by a note on the user's talk page explaining the reason for the block.
• 3 hours for serious and repeated vandalism, especially by known vandals or users who have already been blocked for 30 minutes and continued to cause disruption.
• Longer blocks can be made manually, if a vandal is continuing to cause problems more than once a day. Blocks of more than one day should only be made by agreement with other sysops.

Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Mediawiki:Ipboptions. As for the lengths, how about 31.1415 seconds, 3.1415 minutes etc. in keeping with tradition -- Nx ^talk 09:23, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I've got no problem with π-shaped numbers. Good idea. + Thanks for the link. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:27, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Decimals don't work, by the way. Hence the things like "314 seconds (about five minutes)", with their "translations". I do agree we should pare them down to all being less than a day, and sure, get rid of the fibo things - so, 3, 31, 314, and 3141, and 31415 seconds (8 hours) would be all we'd need. ħuman 16:52, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Ideally vandal bin would appear in recent changes, there are some technical hurdles to getting things to display in RC that I haven't bothered to explore in depth yet. Eventually I will. There are several things I would like to have update in RC. tmtoulouse 09:33, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Is vandal-binning IPs in the realm of possibilities yet? TheoryOfPractice 09:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Vandal binning showing in RCs must be a priority: yesterday the idiot CUR vandal binned a sock of mine and its IP and no-one was any the wiser. This could be done to any non-sysop who happens to annoy a sysop and should be prevented somehow.Love² 09:52, 27 January 2009 (EST)

He vandal binned your IP and it prevented your normal account from editing? I thought vandal binning IPs didn't work yet. -- Nx ^talk 10:17, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry, the little twit blocked me @ the same time - that's why I couldn't edit - not the vandal bin. It was Pi who blocked me not CUR, (thinking I was Fall down?) Love² 10:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, I see. I'm assuming you're talking about this, in which case that's an abuse of power. -- Nx ^talk 10:30, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Not me: I think that was fall down Love² 10:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Falldown or not, I don't think that block was justified. Check his/her contribs and the reason for the block. -- Nx ^talk 10:42, 27 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, you are an puerile idiot. --blockworthy or not? Human would be banned for years if we held to that standard...TheoryOfPractice 10:46, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Vandal group moves show up. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 17:13, 27 January 2009 (EST)

But those can only be done by bureaucrats, & dealing with vandals is supposed to be something any sysop can do. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Anyway, I think making the Vandal Bin visible is definitely desirable, as it should promote greater transparency, reduce the scope for sysop abuse, and alleviate the symptoms of Headless Chicken Mode (I hope!). Klapaucius^{Esteemed Constructor} 10:45, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, and we shoudl be able to easily see who is in it at any time (like the current blocks list). Oh, and to paste in an edit comment I made when removing "isn't it officially called the vandal brake" - Trent called it the "vandal break" [sic] at first, but it has become known as the vandal bin. ħuman 17:02, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Can the vandal bin be added to sysops toolbox on the left? - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 17:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)

You can vandal bin IPs associated with an account that you are putting in the bin. There is a check box for that. You can not vandal bin just an IP. Since IPs are all ready slowed down greatly in terms of their editing rate and what they can do I am not sure it is needed. I will work on making it appear in recent changes, I understand that it is a "priority" but I have limited time and it is much more complex than one might think. tmtoulouse 17:13, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Is the vandal bin anymore effective than blocking? At the moment all that happens is they get another account and resume vandalising. A block at least keeps them out for a while, except when they are using Tor or something similar. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 17:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I seem to be failing to make this clear...............if you check the IP box it adds the associated IP into the vandal bin as well which will stop editing from any account that is using that IP address. I added in that functionality specifically to address this loop hole. Yes it can be avoided by getting a new IP, but that is identical to avoiding a block. tmtoulouse 17:44, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I do agree that we should specify what block lengths are appropriate for what situations. However, I see no point in blocking vandals for a half hour or less. The vandal bin already prevents vandals from editing more than once every half hour—in effect, it functions as self-renewing half-hour block. Additionally, three minutes is nothing—it's not uncommon for three minutes to be the natural timespan between edits anyways, and even if they are editing more often than that, three minutes is so short that it isn't worth it. If the person blocked is a hardcore vandal, then they'll wait it out easily. If the blockee is not a vandal, then approaching them on their talk page is far more productive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:59, 27 January 2009 (EST)

3 minutes is just an "aggressive" friendly block, really. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but we don't attract "hardcore vandals". Or, at least, everything they do has been reverted before I wake up. I think I have only had the privilege of reverting one vandal edit in the last, oh, say, six months. ħuman 02:34, 31 January 2009 (EST)

3 minutes is a good friendly block. 30 minutes is an annoying block. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 02:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I would describe Fall down, the Freds, and the Tits as hardcore vandals. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:56, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Yup, three people. I think we can handle that. ħuman 02:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)

My point still stands: three minutes is useless for even "light" vandal work. So why bother listing it in the dropdown menu? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:00, 31 January 2009 (EST)

The point of the 3 minute block (could be 5 if it's more practical) is to stop somebody in their tracks for long enough to write them a message, & possibly put them in the vandal bin. It would be useful if, as sometimes happens, there's a new editor making lots of really odd edits in quick succession & it's not clear whether it's vandalism or just their strange ideas about the site. Also if somebody's doing something erratic like creating a weird category & putting loads of articles in it, you can block them just long enough to stop them & ask what it's about. Also, no doubt it will be used for friendly blocks, since 30 second blocks don't always get noticed by the blockee. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:08, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I thought Fred and Tit were the same person: they make the same sort of edits. Bastard educated Phantom Hoover! 11:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I think they are. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:08, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Addition

I just added a section specifically about blocking, under "Dealing with vandalism". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:39, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Bump

Per RationalWikiWiki.......way to much good stuff going on here for this to get lost to disinterest and the sands of time. tmtoulouse 16:54, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Are We Done?

Okay, it looks like everyone's said what they need to say (even if the voting thing is not sorted out, nothing's perfect). Can we just go ahead and publish these? Anyone need anything else, are we just bored, everyone too lazy? Z3ro^talk 11:29, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I agree, we should just publish and be damned. Vandalism and how to deal with it is always going to be a problem and voting may just have to be a bit more on an ad hoc basis until we figure out what works. ArmondikoV^sshole 11:46, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Unless there is serious objections, I'm just going to update the standards when I get home from work at the end of the day. There haven't been any substantive changes in a week, and I don't think there will be. And again, if there is a problem, it's a wiki, we can change it back. Z3ro^talk 11:52, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I haven't read through the changes since I handed this page over, but will do so now. I think we need to announce on the intercom & give everyone a chance to look over it before publishing. This was started as a community project so it isn't really fair for one or two editors to declare it finished when there are still missing or disputed passages.

I don't really care about the voting policy - we'll use it so rarely that it's hardly worth the amount of disagreement it's already generated - but we do need to put in something up to date about blocking (see my suggestion above), & something about privacy & disclosing real life personal details (both of editors here & at other sites) since that's been a source of controversy recently. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:00, 31 January 2009 (EST)

While I agree that it's not right for a few users to declare it finished, the only reason I was going to suggest unilateral action on it was to give it the kick up the arse needed to progress. ArmondikoV^sshole 12:03, 31 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)No problem, I can wait; I'm just concerned that we will debate this endlessly and never actually update things. Z3ro^talk 12:05, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed. So maybe it would be appropriate to send a site news intercom message saying that we go live with this on Monday, or something like that. That way we set a time frame for final changes (not that any of this necessarily has to be final) & let everybody know. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:12, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Rather than ruffle more feathers than I already have, would you care to do the honors Weaseloid? Z3ro^talk 12:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks. Z3ro^talk 12:50, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I also support forging ahead with this and putting it up to vote on Monday. I have only a few (very minor) objections, none of them dealbreakers, so I look forward to voting "for" in the ensuing vote. Cheers! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:22, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Most of this looks good to go, once we delete the old bits & take out all the odd colors. I've added categories, templates & images to the list of namespaces, but these can be taken out if people reckon it muddies up that section too much. There's just a few things left we need to sort out. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I'd say we're done. I still am a bit sour over the tolerance clause, as even though I agree it needed a huge amount of work, I thought it was a good standard, but I doubt such a standard will be passed, and it would probably just make things worse. So yes, we're done. If necessary, we can always revamp them again. --"ConservapediaUndergroundTransistor^{is a bored teenager} 18:25, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I think ideals of tolerance & mutual respect are at least implied in some parts of this (policy on religion, personal attacks are frowned upon). The problem with the tolerance clause was that it would have limited people's freedom of speech about a lot of issues. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:31, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Still left to finalise

These issues still need sorting out. Let's try & finalise them as much as possible before we lay this project to rest. Add any more you think are important. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Blocking policy / duration

Discussed further up the page. Still no consensus. I think we should add some guidelines. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Block and lock as rarely as possible. Block should be avoided if they can be vandal bin IP, about an hour should get rid of them. Page locks should be discussed on the talk page, always focusing on unlocking as soon as possible. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 01:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I see some text about blocking is now added. Should we explain (or change) the different block lengths used on the dropdown menu? Also, probably the most useful thing about blocking is that it effectively stops a vandal in their tracks, so it's useful when a vandal is using multiple accounts to dodge the vandal brake. Should we mention that specifically, since it's under a "dealing with vandalism" header? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Privacy policy / disclosing personal info

Again we need some guidelines, especially as we now have powers specifically for dealing with privacy breaches. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Common sense should apply. Persons name, okay; family members names, bad; general description of where they live e.g, Buffalo NY, okay; precise address and phone number, extremely bad; photo you get off their personal website (that they advertise), wikipedia or CP, okay; one obtained through Google or actual stalking, bad. Grey areas we can discuss. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 01:00, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, Pi is right, or at least irrational. Now, can you figure out a way to write that as a "guideline", ie, a sentence or two that is clear? ħuman 01:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I'll give it a try:

Personal information regarding a living person should be limited. Information about the person should be limited to information they have themselves released into the public domain, either through their personal website or a website they are associated with. Only reputable third party resources are exempted. No information gained through personal research should be presented. No information divulging the name of family members - that are not themselves figures of interest - contact details or address of the person should be posted. No more personal information than is essential for the subject article should be presented. If you are unsure, don't post.

How is that? - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 01:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Personal information regarding a living person should be limited to information they themselves have released into the public domain, either through their personal website or a website they are associated with, or other formal publications. Only reputable third party resources are exempted. No information gained through personal research should be presented. No information divulging the names of family members (that are not themselves figures of interest) or "real world" contact details should be posted. If you are unsure, don't post such information.

I tweaked it a bit, what do you think? Not sure we need the line "Only reputable third party resources are exempted", either. ħuman 15:43, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I think it's important to also mention other RW users, as in the old version of the standards. How about starting like this:

Personal information about other RationalWiki users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site. This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information based on their IP address (even if publicly available) is frowned upon.

In pursuing RationalWiki's missions, we often comment on the activities of individuals at other websites, but similar caution should be taken in respecting their privacy. Personal information regarding a living person should be limited . . . (as above)

Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:56, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Looks good to me. And drop the "third party..." sentence I queried above? ħuman 16:20, 1 February 2009 (EST)

In view of the nature of the web and of CP's alleged homeschooling pretensions; some mention should be made regarding minors or suspected minors.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 17:24, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I think we're trying to avoid mentioning Conservapedia specifically in the community standards. Possibly we could have a separate page of guidelines for writing about Conservapedia, which could mention this issue? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:41, 1 February 2009 (EST)

EC) didn't particularly mean cp: just minors anywhere (such as CUR?)  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 17:54, 1 February 2009 (EST)

What's your suggestion? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:03, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, it's complicated, really, since minors (known or unknown) can come here and reveal info. But, I'm not sure if we need to mention it specifically in the guidelines since this section pretty much protects minors at, say, CP, from people digging into their stuff. 18:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I think the Weaseloid-Human guideline is good and support its inclusion. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 23:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Added in to the text (under the Conduct header). Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:09, 2 February 2009 (EST)

This raises another silly point - should minors be allowed to vote? ;) ħuman 18:12, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Anything that keeps CUR out of a decision process ;) - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 23:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Voting

Still under discussion here & here. Personally, I think the less we use formal voting to make decisions, the better. When we do need a vote, ad hoc methods are usually fine, so we don't necessarily need to write a fixed policy on it. Others disagree, however. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with the ferretish thing. ħuman 00:25, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Relax the guidelines, just make it a clear majority after an appropriate amount of time. If you don't understand what that means why are you here? - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 00:56, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not even sure a "majority" of any kind is the solution. What matters is for the "minority" to be convinced, creating "consensus". As opposed to 40% of users utterly disagreeing, yet being over-ruled. ħuman 01:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Please continue the discussion at RationalWiki:Voting_Procedure. Cheers. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:54, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Why? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Because, apparently, AK wants to bury most previous discussion because he felt it was "unproductive". ħuman 22:32, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not trying to bury anything. The previous discussions are still there, and there are clear links back to them on the new page. But if I had tried to move a couple of dozen pages of discussion to the new page, it'd rather have been the new discussion that I wanted to encourage that had been buried. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 22:41, 1 February 2009 (EST)

You should have gone to the effort of bringing the discussion from other places to the new page. A couple dozen? I think it was two or three. More like two. ħuman 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Standards of Style / Advice when writing articles

I reckon these should be a separate Help page, much more detailed & linked from this page, rather than part of the community standards themselves. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I think things like this should be in a copious "see also" section. And perhaps we should put the helpnav box thing at the bottom, too. ħuman 18:50, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Due to historical contingency just leave. After this, Human should submit his manual of style to the mob and we can add it to the see also section. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 00:57, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I added the helpnav box; and yes, after the main guts of this are approved, we should move on to discussing the MoS, if we want, as a "sub-guideline". ħuman 01:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

"Internal links should lead directly to the article, not a redirect". I've heard people say this before, but what difference does it actually make? I quite often link to a redirect. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:17, 2 February 2009 (EST)

The problem is, if the target is moved, the resulting double redirect makes life harder for the reader. It's just a matter of housekeeping - ideally all ILs are to the actual target page. However, linking to a redirect is not a serious crime unless one knows better ;) ħuman 16:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Good point. I think I do it most with redirects which are very unlikely to be moved, but yeah I see why it makes sense for linking to the article itself to be a good standard. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:28, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Namespace

Is "help" officially replacing the RationalWiki namespace or are both going to be used? If so, what's the difference? Also, if we're mentioning namespaces, should we include the techy ones like category & template? For now I've penciled them in in purple as a proposed addition on the standards. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:44, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry about that, Ermine (it's snowing outside: get your winter coat on) I assumed that everyone realised that the Help namespace was already there - It does what it says on the tin - nothing to do with the RW namespace at all, really - it was (my) fault for putting the Help files in RW originally so it was only right that I should move them.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 18:05, 1 February 2009 (EST)

RW is for metadiscussion, guidelines, stuff like that. Help is exactly that - the help files. I saw you added the others, I see no problem with that (in fact, didn't I jiggle them around a little after your edit?) ħuman 17:49, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry, I didn't check whether it had been updated since I added those. I've moved the RW & help under a separate sub-header from the technical ones as they're not quite the same thing.

Not a big issue, but do we still need a Recipe namespace? I don't think I've seen it used at all since I've been here. We could move the existing recipes into fun or something. It just stands out as slightly odd when listed with the other namespaces. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Just leave it unless a bot can be made to move everything - it's doing no harm even though it's got little relevance.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 18:08, 1 February 2009 (EST)

How about ditching the sub-headers and just describing the namespaces in descending order of relevance? (BTW, the poutine recipe is a major draw, for some odd reason) ħuman 18:14, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Either way. My only reason for putting in the sub-headers is without them it's a list of a dozen namespaces, which makes the site look more complicated than it is. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 1 February 2009 (EST)

OK, no sub headers then ;) They make things (to me) seem more complicated. ħuman 22:29, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Or not. They're just sub-bullets. Only thing is they elevate recipe and fun. But they look fine to me. ħuman 22:31, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I think the subheaders are kindof useful for explaining the different namespaces. If they're out of place here, they could be used on the help:namespace page instead. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:11, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Please for to (re) read

Take good care: defining ourselves could lead to orthodoxy and thus heresy. Thank you. CЯacke® 18:41, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Heresy, yay! ħuman 01:08, 1 February 2009 (EST)

A modest proposal

I propose that the central authoritie [sic] be empowered to tax the residents of this wiki, and to also be empowered to place tariffs on exports and imports as we see the need, in order to better the common weal. ħuman 00:24, 1 February 2009 (EST)

TRENT TOULOUSE FOR PRESIDENT OF RATIONALWIKI!!! Oh, sorry, I was getting ahead of myself. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:50, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Timmy Tooloose already has the server within kicking range (he hears us when he sleeps), and a simple act of unplugging it would kill RW. So, I propose Timmy Tooloose for Prime Server Kicker and Plug Keeper Inner. ħuman 01:08, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I would also like to warn our future members against the rise of ugly "factions", which lead to fractured discourse. ħuman 15:39, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Consensus? votes?

I see that we are going to go live with this on Monday. But I have a slight concern. I'm not entirely sure that we have got consensus on all or any of these points. I see some points being raised and their being answered, but are all our members really happy with those answers? Now, you could say that if people are not happy then they should speak up - but it is possible that some people don't want to engage in debates with the alpha males on the site and simply keep quiet.

Consequently I think that each of the individual sections should be subject to - dare I say it - a vote, before being implemented, in order to insure that it really is the will of the community. Now, I know that's a bit of a problem as we're presently debating the voting procedures, but it would seem to be the only way to ensure that we're actually doing what all the mob thinks is good - and not what the more vocal members feel is good.--Bob^{bing up} 13:24, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I agree, section-by-section voting would make sense. ħuman 15:47, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Hard bloody work this democracy thing isn't it?--Bob^{bing up} 16:52, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Always. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:58, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I do agree that we should check with the rest of the mob before proceeding, but I'm a bit confused as to how we're doing it. Are we calling for an vote on each individual section as a run-up to the big vote to replace the community standards all at once, or are we giving each section the final go ahead, and placing them on the final community standards page one at a time? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:34, 1 February 2009 (EST)

If we vote for the sections individually, there's no reason to also vote for the standards as a whole. However, it raises the question of how to deal with a potential rejection in practice. I guess that means the section in question goes back to the drawing board, and then I'd strongly expect the people voting against it to get involved and speak up about what they want changed. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:54, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I think we vote section by section, anything that is "obviously" approved gets used. If there are any sections that seem highly "contested", we continue to discuss and improve them, hoping to find a consensus. I think we can approve things one section at a time? Do we need to vote on that? ;) (Doh, of course not) ħuman 22:26, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Voting section by section would seem to be the obvious way to go. I imagine that most will go through though. Although I understand that voting procedures are being discussed elsewhere, might I suggest that in this case a simple majority over 24 hours would be sufficient?--Bob^{bing up} 04:17, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Are we ready to take the pretty colors out yet? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:21, 2 February 2009 (EST)

MAJOR FLAW

There's nothing about the right to bear arms arm bears or to teach our younger members the evils benefits of Evolution in RationalWiki funded establishments.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 18:11, 1 February 2009 (EST)

It's Monday

Ideally changes to the community standards will be implemented today. Do we want to set up voting for each section (as discussed previously), seeing if any major objections are raised? Any other ideas? Z3ro^talk 13:21, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Personally, I want to ignore the whole damn thing.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 13:24, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Either way. I think we can at least wash the colours out of it now. Really any major objections should have been raised in any of the dozen-odd discussions so far. If we're doing the section voting thing, do we do that before moving it, or just move it first & then let people hold votes & further discussions if they want to? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:27, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know. It doesn't appear there are any major objections (maybe someone doesn't like some wording or something) so we should just be able to move it. If we do, however, I guarantee someone will have some serious problem. Shrug. Z3ro^talk 14:37, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I doubt there will be with what's here. The only outstanding bone of contention is the voting process, which I've taken out of this for now, until such time as there's any conclusion on it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Then I think we're good to move. Z3ro^talk 14:54, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Done. I'll keep this talk page here for now, in case people want to argue or vote about anything. Otherwise, it can be archived at the Community Standards page when we're sure we've finished with it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:54, 2 February 2009 (EST)

EC.I think we should go to a vote as discussed above.--Bob^{bing up} 15:55, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Talk pages

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards.