UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Suburb Pages

General Discussion

I feel this policy is needed so the Suburb pages are all in one format and are not biased. Bias on the discussion page is fine but a page describing a suburb and recent events is not a place to be biased. Pillsy ^FT 20:37, 10 October 2006 (BST)

If such a policy is done, we will adhere to it. However, seeing as how Duce Nauks spread lies all over the page and removes other's contents that he doesn't like, to write in a NPOV would be hard, as I have to refute his claims. However, I did put the {{Propaganda}} template so others are warned that the NPOV is not respected. I must say, though, that the page is a good place to send a message to the people of the suburb. -Certified=Insane_UG 21:34, 10 October 2006 (BST)

I think it is great that you have shown interest in this area of the wiki which I too feel needs quite a bit of attention. I completely agree that many of the suburb pages reflect unneeded bias. I am not as confident that a policy is the the most appropriate way to stimulate interest in correcting the problem. I feel the problem has been a long standing one which seems to have escalated in recent months. (IMHO) .. A more appropriate way to resolve the issue might be for us all to contribute some of our suggestions as the basis for the long overdue page UDWiki:Suburb_Style_Guide. There we could also solicit the rest of the community to contribute their ideas as well and help shape the use of those pages in a more wiki-traditional way. If the concepts we come up with there are reasonable they should stand up within the systems of conflict resolution we already have in place. Example: by first attempting to resolve the matter by expressing the problem via each authors talk page pointing out a rational desire to improve the point of view and/or, failing that, by pointing out the same rational desires through M/A and M/VB as appropriate. One of the most difficult challenges to this this alternate proposal is that fact that many News Items are now being entered as signed comments which precludes authors from correcting, altering or improving them without being brought up on impersonation charges on M/VB. While I agree it is not in the best interest of readers to have information presented in this way, I also don't see these as the type of edits which need such a direct course to a record of vandalism. I think that enacting this as a policy will create a harder edge that discourages contributions to suburb pages instead of encouraging more frequent and accurate updates. If you continue to hold the opinion that a policy is the best way to proceed, consider a wording that disallows signed comments in some if not all areas of the suburb page itself, and perhaps allows authors to archive and or re-write any such comments that currently stand. This would keep the suburb pages in a shape that allows any author to make genuine improvements to the page without being brought up on vandalism charges themselves. What I would like to see is a way that we can fix the problem with out being vandals ourselves but without having to declare every author that came before us as having broken a policy or committed vandalism. Maybe that is what stating all news and information on the Suburb page would need to be in a NPOV means. If that's what your proposing then I'm for it. I just don't want to see so many M/VB cases arise from a policy when M/A might be able to handle the issues as they arise. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 21:55, 10 October 2006 (BST)

The thing with Duce Nauks (the Dakerstown page was cited, so I'm continuing on it...) is that he is unreasonable. He exagerates everything, edits other's posts, and goes out of his way to call others liar and promote himself. Hell, he even modified signed posts. That is why I can't go along with an "unsigned" entry concept that allows anyone to modify news entry, because users, like Duce Nauks (I'm not hiding it, I hate that guy, you should check all the changes he did on wiki pages, it's incredible), would be allowed to totally delete others entry and give their "version" of the truth, as in, for exemple, saying "suffered a high percentage of casualties", instead of "we killed 1 member", and stating facts that may be true to their knowledge, but is not the real truth. An unrelated exemple could be if a horde moves in a suburb. Say they take the east half only. Well, the suburb would have two entries, one saying "OMG WE FUCKING DOOMED!!11!!1!", and another saying "no zombies seen". Each respects the NPOV, and is stated to the poster's full knowledge, but the second poster will obviously overwrite the first entry as he will deem it a lie, an exageration, or something else. However, I would like to suggest an extra section for groups to deliver messages to the suburb, which would not need to follow the NPOV. That would allow groups to advertise their activities in a suburb. -Certified=Insane_UG 00:27, 11 October 2006 (BST)

I see what your saying, for editing other users comments he should be reported for vandalism as that is classed impersonation. I have no issue with groups recording their activities but in a description of the suburb and also the news should not be biased. I like Max's idea about the comments not being signed. At the moment this is just under discussion so any good ideas or tweaks would be great. If it's found a policy is not needed then even better but like I say it, it just seems to be getting out of hand on cerating suburbs. Max's idea of a style guide is also good. Pillsy ^FT 09:50, 11 October 2006 (BST)

• Let the individual suburbs take care of themselves to a point. While even my own 'home' of Yagoton is in need of a shape-up from time to time, espcially with less Wiki-experienced members (case in point is its current news state?), we can't go around making a form for everything. Let innovation and codemonkey obessisive-compulsives manage it on their own time, unless a blatant major eyesore occurs that threatens the Wiki as a whole. Like THAT will really happen. :) --MorthBabid 04:52, 11 October 2006 (BST)

• Let the population of individual suburbs take care of their wikis in the fashion they see fit. A fragmentary knowledge base is part of a post-apocalyptic game. Some suburbs will be beacons of clear, accurate information. Others, overrun with Zs and Griefers, will be nothing but poisonous misinformation (and kudos to those who highlight their suburb's "ironic state" somehow). While others will be more of a Rashomon report, where the "truth" will clearly have to be decided by future readers. The city's big enough to allow all of this. The policy proposes smacks of information totalitarianism, which might ultimately stagnate the feel of the game.--The Envoy 14:28, 11 October 2006 (BST)

• There needs to be certain rules about those pages though, I just moved a big chunk from the October 12th entry of the Dakerstown page... Check it's Talk page, you'll see what things are deteriorating to (and keep in mind this was posted under the news section). -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:42, 13 October 2006 (BST)

Withdrawing

I'm withdrawing this policy. Max has started UDWiki:Suburb_Style_Guide and I feel that is a better option that having a policy. Pillsy ^FT 13:14, 13 October 2006 (BST)