UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/NPOV

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

What is an NPOV?

An NPOV is a viewpoint that is free of bias to a particular side (ie Survivors or Zombies). Essentially it avoids making a report filled with personal opinions, propaganda, tactics and insults to the opposite side (or same side in some cases) which may cause offense or argument over it's content.

For example:

  • "OMG!! Some zombie just broke into my safehouse and killed me!! Help me kill it back!!"
Provides no information about where, when and how many zombies were in the building, just a moan about zombies doing what zombies do. POV.
  • "A large group of zombies is currently besieging Buckley Mall. Their numbers are roughly 200 in total with a similar number of survivors sheltering inside."
Provides plenty of information without offering any tactics or opinions on the siege. A statement of fact. NPOV
  • "An awesome new group called The AWESOME ONES!! has just come into the suburb to help the struggling groups to reclaim it from the hordes!! See their wiki page to join and save the city!"
Blatant propaganda for a group which probably will end up disbanding in about a week anyway. POV.
  • "The Ridleybank Resistance Front has just moved into the suburb. More information can be found on their group's page."
A useful piece of information for both zombies and survivors alike. If several hundred zombies turn up it's going to mean lots of work for survivors, and a free lunch for any ferals. Again, there is no bias to either side, purely providing information that is genuinely useful to all. NPOV.

The list is endless really, but here are some guidelines for writing NPOV:

  1. Avoid writing solely about yourself. It's not really going to be relevant to anyone else if you just say what you plan to do that day is it?
  2. Avoid giving opinions on tactics. What you think others should do may not be something everyone would agree on so it's probably best not to post them.
  3. Avoid taunting. For example: "the stupid zombies couldn't claw their way out a paper bag" or "PKers deserve to die in a fire". It's just petty and not a good idea. Especially comments such as: "Now that more skilled survivors have entered the suburb, the mall has been secured by survivors." This basically says that the other survivors are useless. Don't do it.
  4. Avoid advertising and propaganda. If your group has about 3 members, don't make a huge post on the news page telling us about how you aim to save/destroy the city, it's obvious that you won't. Unless it's a huge zombie horde of 100+ then there is really no point in reporting group movements.
  5. Avoid starting arguments. Don't make outrageous claims that you can't back up or insult other players. It's just asking for trouble.

Where and how should NPOV be enforced?

An NPOV will be enforced on all Suburb and Suburb Danger Report Pages as well as on Building Danger Reports. A template will be placed on all affected pages to inform editors of this policy. Any posts that do not meet the criteria of an NPOV can be removed by any editor and, in the case suburb news posts, must be placed on the Suburbs POV news page, (example: Molebank/POV) and a message left on the poster's talk page informing them of it's removal and an explanation of why. Disputes can be taken to the Suburbs talk page and, in extreme cases, arbitration may be used to settle a protracted battle.

Always assume good faith. The poster may be new and not be familiar with the guidelines for posting in NPOV. A POV post in an NPOV section is not grounds for a vandalism case unless either of the following apply:

  • The post is deliberately derogatory and insulting to either a user or group within the game. Ie: "Healers R Us are a bunch of retarded douchebags who deserve to go die in a fire because of their idiotic actions in game."
  • The user is continuously placing POV posts in an NPOV section despite receiving sufficient requests not to. This will be judged on a case-by-case basis by the sysops and if necessary the usual Vandal escalation will apply.

--Cheese 22:51, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Voting closes after 2 weeks of voting. In order to pass, a policy must receive a two-thirds majority and at least 20 total votes.

For

  1. Long overdue. We need something to sort out all these NPOV disputes that keep cropping up. -- Cheese 22:51, 29 April 2008 (BST)
  2. For - This just formalises widely accepted (and enforced by a number of vandalism and arby precedents) practice. I suggest only one minor change: POV posts should just be placed in an appropriate section of the suburb/building talk page, as it's currently done in most cases... no need for a new page is there? Also, while IMO this policy isn't perfect as it's currently worded (I'm just picky), it's a fantastic start, and the minor changes that may be needed to "fix" it can be made as amendments once the main policy is passed. (weeeird ... this is my vote, i'm fixing it.) --WanYao 03:03, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  3. For- needed for the people that are constantly bitching about these issues on VB and Arbitration. -- BKM 01:54, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  4. Weak For - Something is needed. this will do until something better comes along.--'BPTmz 05:45, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  5. For - Puts into concrete terms what is already done in practice. --PdeqTalk* 06:08, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  6. Weak, this is far from perfect but it'll be handy for people removing POV news to link the concerned parties to something rather then just have them complaining on talk pages.--xoxo 06:11, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  7. Weak For - Could this policy also mandate that when a POV statement is removed some kind of note be left for the original poster (or the statement be "struck out" as well as moved)? Just something to notify the poster what happened to their statement and why.--  ZZ Argh.gifEmot-zombie.gif 07:22, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  8. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:17, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  9. Weak For - I fully agree with the principle, but the policy as written is severely lacking -Grarr 18:13, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  10. For - I'd rather have it written out more formally, but it is pretty good. --ZsL 18:21, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  11. Weak For - I agree with Zardoz. It really all depends on how it is implemented. I am relatively new to UDwiki, and at one point made a post that was called out for being non-NPOV. I removed it since I realized that it did seem to be a propaganda post, and all was good. Incidentally, my post was eventually replaced with two others that were also not NPOV, but were not removed. There should be fair enforcement if this is to be done. Nevertheless, in the end, I think it was a constructive learning experience for me and I feel I am a better wiki contributor for it.--FLZombie 00:48, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Strong for - wiki wars have been fought over less! By us! When did all this stop being part of the NPOV rules? There's too much rubbish on suburb pages right now --Crabappleslegalteam 23:07, 5 May 2008 (BST)
  13. For - I'm with WanYao on this one, it may not be perfect and some say it will be difficult to enforce, but it is better to strive for objectivity in at least some places on here.--Garviel LokenMaltesecross2.jpgNo Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk07:57, 6 May 2008 (BST)
  14. Weak For Certain places need POV (group pages, for example), but many others (such as location and suburb pages) need to be NPOV and more strictly enforced. It's no fun if the pages are full of propaganda when people are just looking for information. However, the policy needs more clarity, as Grarr has said. Colbear 09:51, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Against

  1. incomplete - Meh... sounds fine, though " removed by any editor" and "must be placed" are somehow contradictive: there's no guarantee that "any" editor would go ahead and "place" them to the right place and nothing saying about what actions are made if he don't. --~~~~ [talk] 23:39, 29 April 2008 (BST)
  2. This doesn't need a policy.--Karekmaps?! 02:20, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  3. Do not agree with policy.--Norsely 05:38, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  4. incomplete - It doesn't talk about people hiding information / inputting wrong information (say, overrated suburb danger level) for strategic purposes. See recent history of Molebank as an example. --Xypoglub 13:31, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  5. I agree with Karek and Garland. It's not needed and it's incomplete. Incomplete because I don't think it covers every situation... and not needed because you can't really do that anyway. I believe most people understand whats POV and whats NPOV. And those that don't learn quite quickly (see: recent changes addicts). ;) --Kikashie ELT 21:04, 30 April 2008 (BST)
  6. Against - I thought about this for a long time because i agree that people shouldn't make ridiculous claims and taunt people with status reports. I am aware that some people are less considerate than others. However, i do not like the spirit of this rule. For one thing, it leaves open the problem of selective enforcement. Besides, everything is really propaganda, it doesn't matter if you can back it up or not. Furthermore, stupid comments are part of life. If you start telling people what they can and cannot say (too much) then it will suck the fun out of this game for many kinds of people. Zempasuchitl 00:37, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  7. Against - There's nothing wrong with a bit of side-talk... Standard Zombie 03:16, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  8. I don't agree with the policy text. --Starplatinum 05:10, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Smarter users will use this to have people they don't like banished from the wiki. Also - this doesn't address the key problem - which is that pages which are supposed to be sources of information are full of signed comments. Go look at wikipedia - none of the article editors sign their work on the article pages. Just remove the signing, and you'll get rid of most of the egocentric bullshit that orbits those pages. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:55, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  10. Against - For all the reasons already listed. Plus I think the occasional POV does a lot of good for role-playing. Some of these buildings have nothing special about them, and to kill all the POV postings kills the flavor of the building.--Actingupagain 16:26, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  11. As Funt. I'd rather have the edit fixed to be NPOV, then be deleted. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:48, 1 May 2008 (BST)
  12. Too many holes which as stated by Funt will result in "people they don't like banned from the wiki." This policy requires a lot more work in order to be acceptable. Anyway, most users understand the difference and know when each is appropriate. If they don't, they soon will. No need.--Scurley7 05:18, 2 May 2008 (BST)
  13. Against Incomplete --Janis petke 11:16, 2 May 2008 (BST)
  14. Against Needs work/Revision -- BlackReaper 21:05, 3 May 2008 (BST)
  15. Against - This is really just fluff that is covered by existing policies. --Kid sinister 06:18, 4 May 2008 (BST)
  16. Against - POV? In my RPG? It's more useful than you think! --Randyest 21:54, 4 May 2008 (BST)
  17. Against - Not needed. This is just more red-tape to cover what should be common sense.--Jorm 01:13, 7 May 2008 (BST)
  18. Against As stated above. And its a RPG! It needs a bit POV.--MisterGame 17:16, 7 May 2008 (BST)
  19. Against POV is important. Omega 01:51, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  20. Against Nice try to slip in another way to punish people. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 14:28, 10 May 2008 (BST)
  21. Against POV is fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with clarity or factual nature of the message. --Jon Pyre 23:39, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Policy fails, 21 Against, 14 for. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:41, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/NPOV&oldid=1142279"