UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Changing NPOV: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
('Sup)
Line 9: Line 9:
Do you have any examples of old groups with a NPOV section on them, just to give an indication of how it's meant to work?--[[User:Yonnua Koponen|<span style="color: DarkOrange">Yonnua Koponen</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Yonnua Koponen| <span style="color:Gold">T</span>]][[DvB| <span style="color: Goldenrod">G</span>]]</sup><sup><span class="stealthexternallink">[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=840689 <span style="color: DarkGoldenrod"> P</span>] </span></sup> [[User:Yonnua Koponen/Sandbox|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]][[Discosaurs|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]][[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#Donkey|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]] 23:52, 17 April 2011 (BST)
Do you have any examples of old groups with a NPOV section on them, just to give an indication of how it's meant to work?--[[User:Yonnua Koponen|<span style="color: DarkOrange">Yonnua Koponen</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Yonnua Koponen| <span style="color:Gold">T</span>]][[DvB| <span style="color: Goldenrod">G</span>]]</sup><sup><span class="stealthexternallink">[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=840689 <span style="color: DarkGoldenrod"> P</span>] </span></sup> [[User:Yonnua Koponen/Sandbox|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]][[Discosaurs|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]][[{{TALKPAGENAME}}#Donkey|<span style="color: Red">^</span>]] 23:52, 17 April 2011 (BST)
:[[Crossman_Defense_Force#NPOV]], [[Malton_DEA]], pretty sure the [[DHPD]] currently has one. It usually represented as an [[NPOV]] [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Lead_section|Lead Section]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:42, 18 April 2011 (BST)
:[[Crossman_Defense_Force#NPOV]], [[Malton_DEA]], pretty sure the [[DHPD]] currently has one. It usually represented as an [[NPOV]] [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Lead_section|Lead Section]]. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:42, 18 April 2011 (BST)
::That Crossman Defense Force page is a perfect example of the problem. Oh hey there's controversy, oh hey this leader was controversial. The NPOV section can't talk about what people found objectionable without leaving NPOV, but the group-maintained part of the article isn't going to talk about anything bad, so who the fuck knows what the controversy was about if you're just going by the page. As long as the page owners give a shit (which the Malton DEA clearly didn't), they'll argue the NPOV into a flat description and pump themselves up with the rest. My suggestion: let the page owners say what they want with page-owner POV, and have an Outsider POV section near the top where people that aren't part of Dicksucking Tour 2011 can offer some alternative perspective on the page. Actual balance instead of bureaucracy and page protections. [[User:I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO|I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO]] 01:18, 18 April 2011 (BST)

Revision as of 00:18, 18 April 2011

Purpose

The goal of this discussion is to gather ideas on how to change NPoV best to make the wiki an interactive news source while still allowing users to post competing PoV and such in news posts on suburbs and location blocks. Newer additions from editing standard upgrades like the Location Style Guide have significantly changed the use of these affected pages as they've simultaneously made the need for accuracy in reports less prevalent through changes like the User:DangerReport system and interactive danger maps which provide a inherently Neutral point of view information source.

In addition to these changes to the standard homes of NPoV disputes group and event pages have grown away from the standards put in place 4-5 years ago putting in place editing guidelines calling for NPoV header sections and lead in for groups in all but the most extreme cases while event pages have steadily become increasingly PoV, often with one side not even being allowed to be involved in the event page's development before it goes to Historical Voting or gets permanently locked.

While it's understood not all of these issues are likely to be settled over the course of this discussion it is at least worthwhile to try and make the attempt to find a new set of standards for editing guidelines and PoV in these various problem areas. All comments are welcomed and as consensus become clear they will be added to the Project Page so as this can become a fuller accounting of editing expectations throughout the wiki.

Discussion

Do you have any examples of old groups with a NPOV section on them, just to give an indication of how it's meant to work?--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 23:52, 17 April 2011 (BST)

Crossman_Defense_Force#NPOV, Malton_DEA, pretty sure the DHPD currently has one. It usually represented as an NPOV Lead Section. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:42, 18 April 2011 (BST)
That Crossman Defense Force page is a perfect example of the problem. Oh hey there's controversy, oh hey this leader was controversial. The NPOV section can't talk about what people found objectionable without leaving NPOV, but the group-maintained part of the article isn't going to talk about anything bad, so who the fuck knows what the controversy was about if you're just going by the page. As long as the page owners give a shit (which the Malton DEA clearly didn't), they'll argue the NPOV into a flat description and pump themselves up with the rest. My suggestion: let the page owners say what they want with page-owner POV, and have an Outsider POV section near the top where people that aren't part of Dicksucking Tour 2011 can offer some alternative perspective on the page. Actual balance instead of bureaucracy and page protections. I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO 01:18, 18 April 2011 (BST)