UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Changing NPOV

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

Group NPOV Sections

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. --Karek^{maps 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)

Which is actually part of the reason why this discussion is being started. Obviously people don't want it, or it's considered particularly necessary. At least not for groups, and at least not until the groups get involved in some stupid drama. Honestly, for owned pages it should probably be completely dropped except when added due to an arbitration case which should be the extremely rare exception. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:35, 18 April 2011 (BST)

Yeah, the NPOV on group pages is a pretty lame idea, honestly. The SoC does it, but that's mostly because we want to head off any issues later, should they arise. Ditching it except in cases of arbies (which would, at most, require that a notice be at the top which says something like, "The content of this page is owned by X group, and can say whatever they want, however they want, so long as no wiki rules are broken") seems like the best idea. Anything more than that and it's being used to bully groups around. —Aichon— 03:42, 18 April 2011 (BST)

Dropping all objective commentary is not a solution; it makes every group page completely irrelevant. Just take a look at the page for The Fortress. It's incoherent shit and impossible to decipher anything meaningful from. I'm sure someone had hours of fun tightening up the graphics on that turd, but it serves no functional purpose for anyone else using the wiki because it provides no useful information. Letting people create Outsider POV sections would still let people have a ball with their wannabe Geocities pages, but it would make room for objective summaries or criticisms of group activity. I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO 05:52, 18 April 2011 (BST)

Outside POV sections wouldn't end up being Objective though, they'd be used by warring groups for harassment to screw with groups. Group pages should either be the sole control of the group, or should have a properly NPOV section, not commenting on drama, but actually given a neutral summary of the group (playstyle, location, numbers, etc.) --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:20, 18 April 2011 (BST)

The point isn't to be objective. Impartiality sounds like a great thing, until the sperglords who own a page stamp out everything that might paint their group in a negative light because it's "biased." The closest you're going to get to a neutral summary of a group is as a net balance between a paragraph of outsider views and the usual pages of masturbation created by the page-owners. I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO 03:50, 19 April 2011 (BST)

DHPD put an explicit one in recently because it was one of the major sources of Wiki drama last time the Dead were really active on here. It seemed simpler to convert our top paragraph to something clearly labelled NPOV than argue the toss about whether we were obeying wiki rules. I think there's a value for an impartial group description but there's a big practical problem over who is going to write it, especially if the group itself isn't interested. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 11:47, 18 April 2011 (BST)

While I believe that there should be some sort of option to insert an impartial, explainitary section on some group pages, perhaps we should limit it's use a bit, and be a bit flexible about where it is placed. If a group page is shown to be deliberately misleading about the nature of the group, for example overestimating their size (by a large margin, including alt abuse issues) or misrepresenting their orientation (survivor/zombie/PKer/dual nature), then a NPOV section on the main page would be appropriate. In other cases, where a group is controvertial, or influential in the game, and an impartial statement on their nature/impact could be placed on a sub page (which wouldn't, however, be a group owned page).
I think the biggest problem we have with NPOV sections at the moment, is that they are usually only fought over by involved parties, and impartial input is only done to try to put a stop to the drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:36 18 April 2011 (BST)

All you've done is shift the arguments to being about whether a group needs an NPOV section. Is the DHPD page being deliberately misleading by claiming they have any influence whatsoever over Dunell Hills? Is the Fortress page being deliberately misleading with their wild overstatement of their significance and the busload of "ops" like "Operation Retarded Eagle" that probably didn't happen? Even if increasing the impartiality of input on group pages wasn't a stupid goal to begin with when they're all bloated puff pieces, this does nothing to advance it. I WARNED YOU ABOUT TEMPLATES BRO 03:50, 19 April 2011 (BST)

Another Solution?

So there does seem to be some protestation about how functional the NPOV sections are for <underline>Group pages</underline>. I've been thinking about a solution to this issue and one in particular comes to mine. How about we just remove the sections entirely, add in a "This is a group page and is inherently PoV, many of the things you read here may not be completely accurate, factual, or current. For objections to some of the claims made by this group, should any exist, please check the talk page." template to the top of the page. Have the section on the talk considered an unowned part of the page and leave it at that?--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:53, 30 April 2011 (BST)

This is a group page and is inherently POV, many of the things you read here may not be completely accurate, factual, or current. (Discuss Accuracy Here)

What does everyone think of that template in place of Group POV sections? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:09, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Looks good but discussion link is broken. Or perhaps it just appears broken becaus eit is being transcluded onto a talk page right now. ~ _{16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

Fixed it up a bit. ~ _{16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

Pretty much. I just copied the code from somewhere else for the sake of speed. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:39, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Suburb POV Sections

I don't know how this would be done, and still keep the suburb pages information orientated rather than filled with propoganda (to an even greater degree than now) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:36 18 April 2011 (BST)

Well, we already have methods to provide the information needed. Primarily the news section is less actively updated than the various Danger Reports templates on those same pages. Bale Mall is a particularly good example of that. In addition to that the notoriety of those templates, and the fact that they're an inherently neutral update system along with the fact that we can always retain NPOV rules for those should make the need for information still present and primary(it's easier to see). Other than that, has there really been anything but drama generated from the removal of propaganda on the older news sections? I know my history with it was such that even with fairly straight forward removals of PoV there was always someone willing to fight for their signed comment and they probably really shouldn't have to. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:22, 18 April 2011 (BST)

I know that the removal of POV news creates drama... I'm just unconvinced that it creates less drama than would be created by allowing open slather. I know the lowest common denominators here, and it doesn't change much over time. Having said that, I can see that it may be acceptable to allow suburb pages to become propoganda and recruitment "battlegrounds", but we should go into it with our eyes open to the downsides -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:08 18 April 2011 (BST)

Oh certainly but, we could probably address that by the formulation of some rules with examples of inappropriate and egregious drama mongering. Things like accusations of botting and zerging being talk page content(or, possibly, allowing things like the Zerge Liste to partially set up here as a shunt). If we can help further groups using the wiki to spread information by making it easier and more beneficial wouldn't that be largely worth what drama comes with it? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:59, 19 April 2011 (BST)

I think the Suburb News Intro section pretty well sums up where POV commentary should go and where it should be moved if found. In practice, POV should not be removed but instead moved to the Suburb's discussion page. It's pretty explicit in the intro but perhaps it could be updated to make it less overbearing and more prevalent. It reads a bit like fine print written author completely against POV and it's often overlooked I think. ~ _{15:30, 19 April 2011}

Looking more for rules in that format but along the lines of "Zerging reports should be discussed one This page, PKer should be reported to This place, Comments in response should be kept to a minimum and may be moved to talk, Conflicting reports are fine please don't argue the validity of a report without proof that it isn't/wasn't correct. Advertise here instead of in the news for the sake of neatness. Civility rules may be enforced and result in needless editing of your additions." Stuff like that. The goal is to find out how we can better suit the sections to be used in the way the community has always shown a desire to use them and less in a way that's set out to make the wiki clean, sterile, and absolutely neutral(which should be saved for things that have absolutely objective states). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:42, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Note - Adding context. The link above is about keeping the page NPOV, it was actually developed as an NPOV news notice for standards of what NPOV news should look like. In it's current form it wouldn't be particularly useful for this change. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:44, 30 April 2011 (BST)

NPOV Danger Reports and Maps

You say that they are inherently NPOV but a pretty substantial cross-section of the wiki disagrees. This is bound to come up during a discussion of NPOV so I'm going to go ahead and ask: is it time to rehash that discussion? It's been years coming IMHO. √^¶°® ™ _{15:20, 18 April 2011}

Honestly, nitpicking over terms is irrelevant. The point is the information they provide doesn't come with player based bias, we all know what green means, we all know and understand what red means and unless someone's trying to create stupid needless drama it's left at that. It's verifiable and generally accurate. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:51, 18 April 2011 (BST)

I agree with you, I'm just making a point that it will likely come up since the Danger Map is in your opening statement and its POV was recently debated. ~ _{15:30, 19 April 2011}