UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/NPOV 2
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
to get this ball rolling
let me be the first to say that this looks excellent. it's thorough, covers all bases i can think of, and it very balanced and even-handed. i have a little quibble about barricade plans, though: i believe they should be written in a neutral tone and be as NPOV as possible. just because they describe a tactic, doesn't mean the description of the tactic can't be neutral. and there is of course a specific reason i'm mentioning this ATM, unfortunately... --WanYao 07:19, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Well, I figured that the barricade plan pages would use the Tactical Pages system, ie "Should maintain a NPOV style of language (not to denigrate opposition players, groups or classes), while still being written from the POV of those who would be likely to use the tactic". Barricade plans arn't supposed to be neutral, they are describing specific tactics that should be used to help survivors (unless they are specifically described as a zombie barricade plan) -- boxy talk • i 07:52 24 June 2008 (BST)
- that's exactly what i meant, boxy... --WanYao 08:50, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- I'm glad you recognize that they are POV and survivor biased. (of course, how can a plan be a zombie barricade plan really?) How do you plan on settling which groups' plan is used in a suburb that has multiple survivor groups or no survivor groups at all? How do you determine which plan to use? As it stands now it seems to be whichever group is either first or the largest. That's hardly balanced, but makes sense.
- I don't think everything can be made NPOV.--– Nubis NWO 09:33, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Well it's not often a problem, but in the rare cases it does cause conflict, it can be settled via arbitration. If there are two competing plans, they could be both given their own page, and the suburb barricade plan page become a disambig page linking to the different ones available (just for example)... it all depends on the circumstances, and I don't think we should mandate what format they have to take. Let it be worked out through negotiation -- boxy talk • i 10:12 24 June 2008 (BST)
- That's what I like about boxy's policy: it doesn't attempt to make everything 110% NPOV. It recognises that we're not the wikipedia and that POV is part of the gaming experience, within reason. That being said, at one point I was referring specifically to the drama going on with the Dumbell Hills barricade plan, where in my opinion Goons are using that information page as a way to take POV stabs at their opponents, the DHPD. IMNSHO, that's not acceptable. All the other valid stuff you bring up notwithstanding... As for how barricade plans get developed, I've actually been involved in that process, and it's never been like you described. What happens is that people usually propose a plan and leave it open for discussion and modification and a consensus is arrived at among survivor stakeholders -- including unaffiliateds! And barricade plans get revised quite often... Admittedly, larger and/or more established groups end up with more "pull" in this process, but is that so bad? Also, barricade plans are useful to zombies: they tell them where potentially weaker targets, and targets with lots of juicy newblet brains, are likely to be. Of course, not as useful as for survivors, but... not totally useless, either. --WanYao 09:51, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Why should survivors be the only ones who have a voice? I propose that barricade plans actually be removed from suburbs zombies are actively holding and defending, such as Ridleybank, because the cades just arent there, and when they are its incorrect because people are Cade strafing the place. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:03, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- The policy is proposing that barricade plans get removed from all suburb pages because they are survivor POV by their very nature -- boxy talk • i 10:05 24 June 2008 (BST)
- I was responding to WanYao's idea, not the policy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:08, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Grimch, should RPs be removed from sururb pages, too? Ok... fine... then if so, what about removing all mention of TRPs, because in reality TRPs only benefit survivors, zombies can't search now can they? It's been conceded that certain "tactical" things have a place on the suburb page. Like RPs and links to barricade plans. Note links to -- this policy proposes to standardise the practice of removing barricade maps from the main suburb pages... And, finally, who's to decide what is a suburb "zombies are actively holding"? That is a totally POV decision, and while there can be empirical evidence to back one side up, it's gonna get disputed by some people... Ridley and Dumbell Hills are perfect cases in point... And, I mean, Ridley was only very recently a disputed suburb, and the old barricade plan was up and running again -- making it valid and important information that would have been lost if we had your way, Grim. Finally, zombies do have a voice. In Ridley the zombie barricade plan is published alongside the survivor one. Same thing now in Dumbell Hills. No one is looking for a perfect system, just a workable one that isn't bullshit. And I think boxy has pretty much created such an animal. --WanYao 10:15, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- And if you're asking why only survivors should have a voice in developing barricade plans... well, actually... on the wiki where all this takes place, a person isn't really a survivor or a zombie. Just a wiki user. Unless one actively chooses to self-identify as one or the other... Which means anyone can participate in the discussion about a barricade plan, which almost always gets done on a suburb or barricade plan talk page. But the "real world" makes your point moot: pro-zombies aren't interested in developing barricade plans, except for No Barricades! policies, which is why they don't have a voice: they don't want one. --WanYao 10:25, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- I was responding to WanYao's idea, not the policy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:08, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- The policy is proposing that barricade plans get removed from all suburb pages because they are survivor POV by their very nature -- boxy talk • i 10:05 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Why should survivors be the only ones who have a voice? I propose that barricade plans actually be removed from suburbs zombies are actively holding and defending, such as Ridleybank, because the cades just arent there, and when they are its incorrect because people are Cade strafing the place. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:03, 24 June 2008 (BST)
Grim manages to fag up yet another discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the zombie-survivor dynamic with his BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW'ing. I wish I could say I'm surprised. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 10:31, 24 June 2008 (BST)
I'd vote Keep. This policy addresses every necessary area in an evenhanded manner. --Sir Bob Fortune RR 12:53, 24 June 2008 (BST)
Not policy --> Discussion
NPOV should never be made into a policy, there's no reason why it should be enforced with escalations and thus no reason why it needs to be a policy. It's a guideline and should never leave that niche. And on a side note, it's not as complicated an issue as everyone keeps trying to make it out to be.--Karekmaps?! 13:05, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- I deliberately didn't say anything about vandal banning being involved in disputes. I see this policy discussion as simply a way of potentially gaining community support for what to place on the NPOV page. What is there at the moment is totally unacceptable (Wikipedia NPOV policy does not transfer over well to a games wiki), and just editing the NPOV page without going through policy discussion will only result in people who disagree reverting, or re-writing, it to suit their own agendas whenever a dispute comes up. I have no problem with this being a guideline, with disputes being taken to arbitration rather than a/vb (except when bad faith edits are involved, pretty much as NPOV disputes are handled under our current system). Would you like to suggest a way of making that clear on the policy? -- boxy talk • i 14:51 24 June 2008 (BST)
- We don't really have a good place for guidelines here, which is a shame, because they seem to be a good way to communicate our values and aims. People can write up an article, but there's not an obvious way to see whether there's general agreement with it, or if it represents the views of just the author. --Toejam 16:41, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Open Discussion, like how all the other guidelines were developed and refined. It's editing standards and practices not rules, and there certainly isn't any difficulty in navigating NPOV in a game, that's a bunch of hullabaloo, it's made up nonsense, excuses because certain groups of people want their views to be the only ones that matter, just like the "It's boring" comments, they're simply not true.--Karekmaps?! 15:47, 25 June 2008 (BST)
- We've already tried discussing it, at length, and got exactly no-where. This needs voting on -- boxy talk • i 11:51 26 June 2008 (BST)
- I appreciate what you're saying, karek, really I do... But I have to agree with boxy: this needs voting on. Even if we vote on it as an "official guideline -- as opposed to hard and fast policy -- we need to come to a real decision on this... but not for its own sake... rather, to get something up there that can be used as concrete reference point for NPOV. Because, while we have conventions and precedents that I think most active users understand and accept... we need more than "common law", we need a napoleonic code of NPOV!! ;p --WanYao 13:28, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- You both act like a vote will change anything, it won't, you'll still get the whiny shits who are too lazy or just don't care but will spend days complaining about it. Article neutral, it's really that simple, just start enforcing it through editing and arbitration and keep it up until they get used to it. There is also, however, the other part of it, don't try to fight battles you can't win, which means stay away from the news sections unless they go way overboard, give them some leeway.--Karekmaps?! 21:45, 27 June 2008 (BST)
- I appreciate what you're saying, karek, really I do... But I have to agree with boxy: this needs voting on. Even if we vote on it as an "official guideline -- as opposed to hard and fast policy -- we need to come to a real decision on this... but not for its own sake... rather, to get something up there that can be used as concrete reference point for NPOV. Because, while we have conventions and precedents that I think most active users understand and accept... we need more than "common law", we need a napoleonic code of NPOV!! ;p --WanYao 13:28, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- We've already tried discussing it, at length, and got exactly no-where. This needs voting on -- boxy talk • i 11:51 26 June 2008 (BST)
- Open Discussion, like how all the other guidelines were developed and refined. It's editing standards and practices not rules, and there certainly isn't any difficulty in navigating NPOV in a game, that's a bunch of hullabaloo, it's made up nonsense, excuses because certain groups of people want their views to be the only ones that matter, just like the "It's boring" comments, they're simply not true.--Karekmaps?! 15:47, 25 June 2008 (BST)
Incomplete Policy
YES. This policy does look good. It might be nice if everybody in a suburb knew everything about it and were willing to give an evenhanded measure of the situation. But because we frankly don't have that many fairytale people on the wiki, that can't happen. People cite hot topic pages, but there are still pages that would love for a little POV entry just for the sake of a new entry for this month. Crooketon, Pashenton, East Boundwood. I'd support a policy that created emergency provisions, so that mods could lock down a page with a large, developing event to prevent anything but NPOV entries from coming in. But for the most part, the quality of our entries are shitty enough as it is, let's not make policies to make them shittier. --Vandurn 14:37, 24 June 2008 (BST)
- Why do people equate NPOV with boring?? That's not a valid conclusion. I don't feel that NPOV stifles my "creativity", and neither apparently do the many people whose entries I read which are both NPOV and entertaining. Basically, if you're a slightly decent writer, NPOV won't hinder that. And if you write spammy junk, a lack of NPOV just makes it that much worse... The fact that there are places with crap all for good content has nothing to do with NPOV and everything to do with people being not arsed enough to do something about it, i.e. to actually post some News or whatnot. Don't blame NPOV... --WanYao 12:25, 25 June 2008 (BST)
- Also, if you READ the policy, you'll notice that it makes provision for "creative licence", i.e. we don't consider this, or want this to be the frikken Britannica ... and so some POV/editorialising is permitted. Which is how it works now, this just codifies that practice. Basically, you're whinging about something that isn't even valid, or is valid only because too many people can't be arsed to contribute. Don't blame NPOV. --WanYao 12:29, 25 June 2008 (BST)
- Putting undue restrictions on a system that is having troubles is invalid? If a uniform NPOV policy is enacted and enforced which, right now, it is not, then it would place stress on the people who can be "arsed" to post. Which is what we don't need. That's the kicker. I did mention I liked this policy. But I can't even imagine the trouble it would cause if this policy was made "the rule" where all entries in the wiki have to follow the template written on the project page. There is no bit for "creative license" indicated in either of the two discussions on NPOV on this wiki. And there is no indication of disobeying this policy would result in a warning, or minor penalty. I put my first post under Karek's for a reason, because I support NPOV as a guideline, not a policy of the wiki that could hinder the efforts of the posters that matter. --Vandurn 14:39, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- How is a codification of NPOV going to make any difference for people who can't be arsed in the first place, even when it isn't codified? That makes NO SENSE. Think about it... The problem is not NPOV, it's people not being arsed. Meanwhile, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but it honestly doesn't even seem like you've read the policy. The policy talks pretty explicitly about what I am re-terming as "creative licence". I'm very specifically referring to the most controversial pages, News articles, of which boxy writes, "Some leeway has always been given to this section (mainly due to the huge amount of work it takes to maintain true NPOV), however if disputes start, they should be resolved by converting to a true NPOV state." "Some leeway"....... There are similar passages throughout. The policy is IMO all said and done, quite flexible. Yet also quite explicit. Which is perfect. Meanwhile, in the discussion above we're talking about (ok, mostly I am talking about it...) making the "policy" an official guideline rather a set of r00lz. But a guideline that is codified as opposed to being based on precedent and convention. Which often leads to people seeing bias in Arby decisions etc., for example, exactly because the expectations are not clearly labelled and set out. By clearly defining what we strive for in asking for NPOV we clear up misunderstandings and make everything that much smoother and less drama-prone. How can this be a BAD thing??? And, as I have been arguing, perhaps what we need is to agree that this policy be adopted not as a set of super-rules, but as a GUIDELINE. But a very CLEAR and EXPLICIT set of guidelines. For all the reasons I just argued. Seriously, how can this be bad for the wiki? And, again, the people who can't be arsed... they won't be arsed, NPOV or no NPOV. Meanwhile, a lot of the people who are scared off by the drama and insults and POV garbage might just feel a little more secure in joining the wiki if they know there are some clear expecations as to what is and isn't acceptable. And... in any event... the "posters that matter" are the ones who actually post useful and informative stuff to the wiki... And, guess what? They contribute as it is, and they mostly follow NPOV... Sooooooooooo... --WanYao 17:30, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- I have read the policy, and I think you're taking what I'm saying way out of context. Let me start with "creative license." Having "leeway" is all fine and good, but unless we have clear examples where it STOPS it means nothing except a loophole through which people can get fucked. While I understand boxy may have spoken on NPOV in news articles, I want to see any mentions of "leeway" on the project page in question, not hidden in news archives. Second. No shit NPOV isn't going to matter for people who don't post. I didn't say that, I said that it places stress on posters, which is true of any rule, and I don't believe we need that right now. I believe that if there were set in stone examples, drawn from the archives and in the policy, it would be alright. Taking into consideration the "leeway" is still there, of course. I can't really say much else of the rest of your essay, as you obviously didn't take the time to read what the I said before and it's mostly irrelevant. Let me highlight this so you'll read this bit first. I will only vote for NPOV as a policy if explicit examples are cited from the archives. As long as you get that, you don't really have to read anything else I wrote, which is probably for the best considering you didn't anyway. --Vandurn 20:05, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- Uhm, vamdurn, this is the first time you've mentioned stuff about giving specific examples as models. I can't read your mind, so don't chide me for that "error". And, for the record, I fully endorse putting specific examples of "Dos and Do Nots" into this "policy". It is effectively a style guide, and all style guides give concrete examples. As for "adding stress" to people who're posting, well, I just think that's a silly argument. Period. Sorry, but that's all I have to say on that. And... I did read what you wrote, and I disagreed with it. And had a lot more to say on related, if different, issues than you did. Meanwhile, you didn't address what I said. Soooooo... Whatever... --WanYao 12:12, 27 June 2008 (BST)
- Let's start from the top then, m'dear.
- AS a system, Neutral Point Of View is good. While it minimizes the number of mistakes made, it also makes for a smoother ride on the wiki. I understand that, and acknowledge that. However, in the form it's in, I can't see a working model, so I can't vote for it. You cite what you are re-terming as "creative licence" but I can't see it on this project page, and I can't vote for it in good conscience. As it is right now, there is nothing that even remotely looks like that. The policy states clearly what should and should not be NPOV, and that ideally all suburb pages should be NPOV.
- Before I continue, I would like to mention that I know you cannot "read my mind". I only wrote my first post to disagree with the policy, not to start this tirade where we both don't understand each other. I'll go into everything I believe now, of course.
- First off, I'd like to address the manner in which NPOV is being brought up. It seems the predominant reason is slander, cited from here "or have to read taunts from their opposition when viewing danger reports". While I agree that this sort of behaviour is totally inappropriate, I also think it should be covered in another, less wide-reaching manner. I was under the impression we had the arbitration books down on this already, but if they aren't, include a clause for slander rather then a policy we haven't been able to enforce totally in the past.
- I've never quite understood how the descriptions have been drawn up in the first place, so I'll make this section brief. Suburb Descriptions/Histories should be static and largely unaffected by NPOV. Deal with it the same way as Historical Events, just smaller and with a committee from the suburb. There should not be so much "historical activity" in a suburb that we need to qualify what goes in with NPOV. It might even be good to encourage every suburb page to discuss the histories and the changes to them, News articles wouldn't be necessary for every time a historical event goes down in merely one suburb. Large groups rising and falling, population rises and drops, "wars" between groups that wage for an abnormally long time...these need to be weighed evenly, but not by any member who thinks that their group is worthy.
- As for news section on suburb pages...this is where I want examples of specific conduct, and the other reason I cannot vote for this policy in good faith. Without examples of inappropriate behaviour and the penalties for each (for example, a "good" entry, a slightly flawed entry, a bad entry, and the worst entry, which would probably be outright slander). If these aren't included, then the policy either cannot be enforced or is not a just policy.
- The rest of the policy I'm perfectly fine with. However, as the most important news hits suburb pages (and often the suburb pages are the most updated), we need to be perfectly clear on what we let in. And this is important enough to turn my vote, even if everything else is fine. I hope this clarifies my stance on NPOV on the wiki, and I hope at least a few people agree with me. --Vandurn 15:33, 27 June 2008 (BST)
- I disagree with your assessment of this policy on many counts. But, I'm not going to go into that. What I will say is that I fully agree with you that examples need to be included. Otherwise, many people really aren't going to "get it", and we're still going have the same problems and conflicts and blah blah blah that we currently have when someone isn't familiar with what NPOV actually should look like. --WanYao 17:05, 29 June 2008 (BST)
- Yeah. Most of what I said won't really fly. I'd be happy to settle for examples added to the policy, really. If voting occurs sometime soon, while this is still in my mind, of course. --Vandurn 22:05, 29 June 2008 (BST)
- I disagree with your assessment of this policy on many counts. But, I'm not going to go into that. What I will say is that I fully agree with you that examples need to be included. Otherwise, many people really aren't going to "get it", and we're still going have the same problems and conflicts and blah blah blah that we currently have when someone isn't familiar with what NPOV actually should look like. --WanYao 17:05, 29 June 2008 (BST)
- Uhm, vamdurn, this is the first time you've mentioned stuff about giving specific examples as models. I can't read your mind, so don't chide me for that "error". And, for the record, I fully endorse putting specific examples of "Dos and Do Nots" into this "policy". It is effectively a style guide, and all style guides give concrete examples. As for "adding stress" to people who're posting, well, I just think that's a silly argument. Period. Sorry, but that's all I have to say on that. And... I did read what you wrote, and I disagreed with it. And had a lot more to say on related, if different, issues than you did. Meanwhile, you didn't address what I said. Soooooo... Whatever... --WanYao 12:12, 27 June 2008 (BST)
- I have read the policy, and I think you're taking what I'm saying way out of context. Let me start with "creative license." Having "leeway" is all fine and good, but unless we have clear examples where it STOPS it means nothing except a loophole through which people can get fucked. While I understand boxy may have spoken on NPOV in news articles, I want to see any mentions of "leeway" on the project page in question, not hidden in news archives. Second. No shit NPOV isn't going to matter for people who don't post. I didn't say that, I said that it places stress on posters, which is true of any rule, and I don't believe we need that right now. I believe that if there were set in stone examples, drawn from the archives and in the policy, it would be alright. Taking into consideration the "leeway" is still there, of course. I can't really say much else of the rest of your essay, as you obviously didn't take the time to read what the I said before and it's mostly irrelevant. Let me highlight this so you'll read this bit first. I will only vote for NPOV as a policy if explicit examples are cited from the archives. As long as you get that, you don't really have to read anything else I wrote, which is probably for the best considering you didn't anyway. --Vandurn 20:05, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- How is a codification of NPOV going to make any difference for people who can't be arsed in the first place, even when it isn't codified? That makes NO SENSE. Think about it... The problem is not NPOV, it's people not being arsed. Meanwhile, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but it honestly doesn't even seem like you've read the policy. The policy talks pretty explicitly about what I am re-terming as "creative licence". I'm very specifically referring to the most controversial pages, News articles, of which boxy writes, "Some leeway has always been given to this section (mainly due to the huge amount of work it takes to maintain true NPOV), however if disputes start, they should be resolved by converting to a true NPOV state." "Some leeway"....... There are similar passages throughout. The policy is IMO all said and done, quite flexible. Yet also quite explicit. Which is perfect. Meanwhile, in the discussion above we're talking about (ok, mostly I am talking about it...) making the "policy" an official guideline rather a set of r00lz. But a guideline that is codified as opposed to being based on precedent and convention. Which often leads to people seeing bias in Arby decisions etc., for example, exactly because the expectations are not clearly labelled and set out. By clearly defining what we strive for in asking for NPOV we clear up misunderstandings and make everything that much smoother and less drama-prone. How can this be a BAD thing??? And, as I have been arguing, perhaps what we need is to agree that this policy be adopted not as a set of super-rules, but as a GUIDELINE. But a very CLEAR and EXPLICIT set of guidelines. For all the reasons I just argued. Seriously, how can this be bad for the wiki? And, again, the people who can't be arsed... they won't be arsed, NPOV or no NPOV. Meanwhile, a lot of the people who are scared off by the drama and insults and POV garbage might just feel a little more secure in joining the wiki if they know there are some clear expecations as to what is and isn't acceptable. And... in any event... the "posters that matter" are the ones who actually post useful and informative stuff to the wiki... And, guess what? They contribute as it is, and they mostly follow NPOV... Sooooooooooo... --WanYao 17:30, 26 June 2008 (BST)
- Putting undue restrictions on a system that is having troubles is invalid? If a uniform NPOV policy is enacted and enforced which, right now, it is not, then it would place stress on the people who can be "arsed" to post. Which is what we don't need. That's the kicker. I did mention I liked this policy. But I can't even imagine the trouble it would cause if this policy was made "the rule" where all entries in the wiki have to follow the template written on the project page. There is no bit for "creative license" indicated in either of the two discussions on NPOV on this wiki. And there is no indication of disobeying this policy would result in a warning, or minor penalty. I put my first post under Karek's for a reason, because I support NPOV as a guideline, not a policy of the wiki that could hinder the efforts of the posters that matter. --Vandurn 14:39, 26 June 2008 (BST)
Looking good.
Seems pretty clear. As usual the main flare up is always going to be news. A couple of suburbs/buildings have created a POV news page. Thoughts on that? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:53, 24 June 2008 (BST)
