UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/NPOV

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

---

All ur comments r belong to me. -- Cheese 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think we all should know that NPOV has to do with not straying the comment to not being "for" one side. But...we can always make this so that the only news that can be placed should be short and to the point, like "Caiger Mall falls yet again!" and that's it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem though. This is an RPG. There are many people who enjoy writing in POV and do so, even on a serious news page for NPOV. -- Cheese 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...something like, "Don't keep it short and to the point, as well as not swaying to favorism (that's not a word, I know...) of one side over the other may get reported to A/VB, and probably get a warning"? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an RPG, Urban Dead is an RPG, the Urban Dead wiki however is manual for the game that provides in depth information on game elements, including the groups, within Urban Dead. By definition facts can not be biased so for a NPOV policy all you have to do is require all edits to be supportable by provable facts except where stated in the Specific Case Editing Guidelines. - Vantar 00:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get this discussion going again. Frankly, I think it would be better if we did a way with the signing process and allowed everyone to edit eachothers comments. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just stop signing news posts - Vantar 00:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it works, NPOV is not now nor should it ever be a policy. NPOV is a general editing guideline that applies to all pages with talk pages and votes being the only exceptions. NPOV is pretty damn simple, it's neutrality for the purpose of information being useful and non-hostile to all involved parties. It's something that is verifiable when challenged and the exclusion of tactical tools that are not necessary and serve only the purpose of making the game easier for one group of players. Scrap this policy and go to UDWiki:Open Discussion, where it belongs. We will not, ever, punish users for not being able to edit in an NPOV manner, that's just foolish, policies are enforcible rules.--Karek^maps?! 03:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

and by removing or rewriting POV statements a NPOV can be enforced, meeting your definition of a policy.- Vantar 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be punished for it Karek. What I am saying, is that we as a community need a clear consensus on what is seen as a Neutral Point of view, where is should be used and backup for a user who is removing a POV post in a NPOV section. At the moment, these can just be reverted continuously as there is nothing to say who is right. See Giddings Mall page for example. There's been an edit war over Mall Tunes there for at least a month. -- Cheese 10:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what arbitration is for.--Karek^maps?! 04:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vantar that's twisting and you know it. You can't punish a user for it and that is what I meant, policies are the rules of the wiki, all NPOV can ever be is an editing guideline.--Karek^maps?! 04:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe, but it is an indirectly enforceable "guidleline". because mods i'd expect will rule in favour of NPOV in conflicts... and breaking an arby decision can lead to a van ban. as i said, indirectly... but still enforceable, no? --WanYao 01:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda exactly my point, we are not moderators, we aren't here to police what you do and do not say on the wiki and it's not in the job description that we are any more responsible for keeping the wiki neutral than any other user is. We are here purely for dealing with real problems and trouble makers not policing the communities neutrality.--Karek^maps?! 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's the real problem here? Is it that we can't come to a consensus on NPOV, or is it simply that users are abusing the guideline by deleting edits that shouldn't be deleted? I think the policy should be thrown out, i mean: it seems, to me at least, that the problem has very little to do with what NPOV is, and a lot more to do with a lack of respect between users for each other's posts. --Catman03 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An idea for inclusive POV

Just a small idea. We can say that an article must be utterly NPOV, and thus not written in a reportage style, and not written to overtly favour one side over the other. However, we can also allow for POV writing. Place a box in any article, or a section or sub-section of any article, where POV commentary is allowed. This makes it clear that a contributer can write something like "Caiger fell because the survivor's sucked - even when they were using zerg-tactics", as long as such POV diatribe be kept inside an obvious area set aside for such commentary.

This method would make it clear to contributers what is expected of them, and make editing and vandal reporting easier. Anyone placing POV in the main article area could have it moved to the NPOV area (rather than deleted) - which would lessen the desire for edit wars. Anyone who insists on placing their commentary in the wrong area (repeatedly) could be taken to A/VB.

One idea for implementation I've had is to have a clearly boxed area, with a title such as "reportage" or "commentary", and some kind of template be made that indicates what it's for (a bit like suggestions has a little template indicating how to vote properly). Ideally, we'd be able to place commentary boxes in sections and sub-sections, rather than have one per page. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated... and it's going to clutter EVERYTHING up. Maybe a seperate page which gets linked to... in an easy-to-spot place... Okay... But not some cluttered, gawdawful box inside the main text... Even though its "heart is in the right place", I just don't think that this idea would work well in practice. --WanYao 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Just an idea. You've got more experience of this topic than I have, I think - so I'll bow to your opinion. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A good idea, but it won't work. People will inevitably abuse it, it will degenerate into a flamewar on some pages, and it will clutter up pages and make them harder to read. Sorry.--Catman03 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Random Ramblings.

Ive been toying with this for a while. Kind of an idiots guide. anything of merit here?

[[1]]--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a great idea, IMO. What I think would be very, very good is a list of Dos and Don'ts ... Give concrete examples where possible. Don'ts would include examples some of "livejournal crap", blatant propaganda, using the news for tactics, etc. etc. I would also give examples of what is perfectly acceptable and what ought not to cause controversy... I seem to recall reading short thing just like this, it was too short I believe, but... Where the hell is it, anyway? --WanYao 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaah... I saw the link just now, you ought to make it more obvious... It's a good start... Perhaps I'll come help you out, a little later? We should all collaborate on this, though. And... pulling real examples from the wiki would be a good idea, too, IMO. --WanYao 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah theres a link. Im more than up for a think tank to polish an idiots guide. Its more of a step towards a policy than anything, but it could be useful to show people whats NPOV and why.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good, and quite helpful. I already knew all that, but it could be quite useful to new users. The main problem is, it's hard to find. You have to click the policy discussion page and scroll down and identify the link. If only there was some way we could make it so that new users could find it easier...--Catman03 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Suggested Guidelines

I wrote up some guidelines that I thought might be helpful [[2]]. Of course, this isn't in competition with Rosslessness. Anyway I agree that strict POV enforcement takes away some needed character from the wiki so I think general do's and do not's would make a better policy. Your opinion? --Norsely 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks norsely ill leave some feedback on the discussion page of your proposal. I also feel that its best to start small say a POV system for suburb pages, should be easy enough to enforce, as there are only 105 of them. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the real feeling that the only place the POV rule is in contension is on the suburb pages. So yeah, I agree the best place to start is with these. To say it more broadly, I think NPOV should be enforced only on articles that are generally technical (game mechanics & information) or historical (events, groups, & past battles).

As for NPOV's definition itself, maybe use a condensed version of Wikipedia's own policy (I'm paraphrasing): "Articles should be written based on a fair, if not abosolute, represention of facts, and, as far as possible without bias or editorialization. Where neccessary, controversial articles should include, if significant, competing interpretations of contested facts and events."

I hope I'm making sense.--Norsely 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, and a good summary of NPOV. Two things: 1.more examples 2.the "harmless taunting" part might be considered a tad POV, if not simply bad editing.--Catman03 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wan Yao's Rant on NPOV

As many of you know I am one of the hardcore bitches of NPOV on the wiki. Or so people think... But, in fact, thing is I'm actually pretty fucking slack. Rather, it's because soooo many people have been sooooo badly abusing POV lately that I've sometimes been such a bitch. Yes, abusing it. Totally...

Outside of blatantly abusing the NPOV sections for tactics, propaganda or just spammy livejournal crap... I personally don't want to see super-strict controls on style. Or even on content, for that matter. For example, banning the use of the first person is a bloody awful idea: just because something is written in the first person does not invalidate it as a neutral and/or useful piece. I strongly oppose that idea. Or... someone said that facts can't be biased. Bullshit. "Facts" without context are meaningless... and "facts" can be slanted in a completely biased manner. An emphasis on "facts" is not a genuine argument for neutrality. Therefore, an element of subjectivity, of -- gawd forbid -- bias (!!) is often going to come into play in any attempt to present facts or arguments in a meaningful, useful context.

Now, some people have argued that NPOV makes the wiki dull, deprives it of its "character"... That, too, is bullshit. A neutral, non-biased article can also be very entertaining. It's a question of good, creative writing, that's what does the trick. And puh-lease... endless "2 zombies broke into my building today" posts are anything but interesting...

Within this broad context that I have painted, I think there is a lot of room to move. Personally, I want the wiki to have character and to be a fun read... That means allowing some articles that are a little POV. I encourage flavour, even if may stretch some of the "rules". I myself write many News reports that are a little POV -- because it makes them fun. But... there is that. And then there going way over the effen top. And a lot of people have been going way out the bounds... Which IMNSHO ain't cool... --WanYao 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Current NPOV Arbitration Case (Thekooks vs. WanYao)

This Arbitration case -- the arguments for both sides, and its eventual outcome -- is very relevant to this discussion... --WanYao 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Different types of pages, different treatment

I've started on this a while ago, and got busy elsewhere, but basically, I think what is needed is for different types of pages to be treated differently in regards to NPOV. It's just that we need to set out the limits for each type of page. More can be found in my sandbox, atm -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:25 28 March 2008 (BST)

I've said it before I'll say it again, Barricade Plans being allowed is equivalent to saying "NPOV except when it comes to survivor tactical advice, then be as POV as you want on suburb pages", it's already bad enough that Revive points are allowed but at least those can be considered useful to everyone in some way and serve the purpose of helping new players. Barricade plans are purely there for aiding survivor groups.--Karek^maps?! 04:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got to barricade plans, and stopped :) I think they all need to be removed from suburb pages, and a link given. Keep the suburb page as community property, and barricade plan pages survivor POV -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:46 28 March 2008 (BST)

Exactly. Would you do a barricade plan link, or a sub page, say Vinetown/Survivor_Tactics? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well given that most of them are already on a barricade plan page of their own, it wouldn't be much trouble to move the rest to similar pages. Hell, you could even move the suburb news section to the talk page where it can be as POV as anyone likes, and just leave danger reports (which are easier to keep NPOV) on the main page to give an idea of the current situation. News sections have a natural tendency to turn into chat/argument, which fits better on the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:41 31 March 2008 (BST)

Other factors

A neutral point of view is one of a number of factors influencing article content. Others include:

• Readability
• Clarity
• Article length
• Organisation/structure
• Humour
• Role-playing
• Fun-ness to write/read
• Usefulness

Sometimes there are trade-offs between these factors, and when there are, NPOV is not always kept absolutely. A good example of an article improved by a roleplay/humourous slant over a strict NPOV style is the Zombie Renaissance.

We may make different trade-offs than wikipedia because we're in a different situation, and we may make different trade-offs between one article and another. --Toejam 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) NB I like this.

General Innoffensive taunting??

BS! Why should this be allowed? I've done it before and i got arbied to have it taken off because people took general offense at it. So yeah, are you actually ok with people clogging up the news section with taunts?--xoxo 10:02, 26 April 2008 (BST)