UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Unbiased Group Listings

Discuss

I'd like to know how to word it better, and if anyone has any suggestions on this before it is submitted for official discussion/review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyx94 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 February 2011.

Should be moved to UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Unbiased Group Listings if you actually want to bring it up as a policy. If you just want to polish on it before bringing it to the wiki public, it should go to your userspace. Regardless, mainspace is the wrong place for it. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment

Because I'm waiting for both parties to agree to an arbitrator. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can comment

And I think this is a completely unnecessary policy proposal. There absolutely should not be a wiki policy concerning where a group should or should not be listed on suburb listings. If there is a dispute (such as the dispute that arose today) then it should be worked out between the involved parties or brought to arbitration if a compromise cannot be worked out. ~ 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OR we could use what's already the practice and leave arbies alone entirely. 20:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean really, who cares? -MHSstaff 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I nodded my head furiously to all the points made under this header. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree (obviously). Look, the wiki is supposed to be a source of information for people to use, correct? As long as I've been on this wiki, suburb pages have always supposed to have been neutral. You aren't supposed to be reporting heavily biased news (I've seen said news deleted before). For all intents and purposes, suburb pages are supposed to be usable by all, which means keeping all bias out of them. That includes the group listings. Either they need to be unbiased categorizations of each group, or we should just throw the categories out of the window. Because any newbie using that page should be getting unbiased, neutral information, and not what certain groups want him to see.--tyx94 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of talk about NPOV

You need to start by defining the range of this policy. Would it apply to all groups? If not, how would it be enacted? How would the neutral persons be selected? How would the decision be carried out? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Make it simple

Groups who feel their membership is generally >50% human most of the time go into "Human." This will probably include traditional "Survivors," and "Pkers/Gkers/Whatever." Groups who feel their membership is generally >50% zombie most of the time go into "Zombie." This will probably include traditional "Zombie hordes," and maybe "Life/Death cultists" depending on how they swing. Have a third category called "Other" as a catch-all. Basically remove the stigmas associated with "Survivor," "Hostile" and just divide how the game divides players now. You are either a zombie or a human at any given time. Otherwise, you might as well throw out categories since any definition based on "Helping the Survivor Cause" or "Helping the Zombie Cause" or "Helping the Hostile Cause" will be interpreted differently by different groups who want to be associated with a given stigma for certain reasons.-MHSstaff 20:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'd just punt on it as it's not worth doing. -MHSstaff 20:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Right

First things first, where is this going - your userspace while you work out details, or off to policy discussion so that it can be discussed and refined as a policy? Second, the wording here is incredibly vague. It essentially demands arbitration for every dispute, which is pretty much what we have now. What's more, not many third parties are active in all areas and soforth. If this is going to go to PD, it needs to all be nailed down.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Something more along the lines of what MHS is saying could also work - three categories being "Human" - personally I'd prefer "survivor", because PKers are survivors too, and if you remove hostile then it all gets lumped in together, and "human" implies zombies aren't, which has been frowned upon before - "zombie", which is all zombies, and finally "Other" - which deals with those that aren't either e.g. OXIII, or other DN groups. All currently Hostile would become survivor, and everything else would stay the same. I think that's going to be one avenue worth investigating.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's better to just add Dual Nature as a category... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I said other (and I assume MHS did too) is because it encompasses more ground than just Dual Nature. E.g. Pacifist groups or Radio groups who don't do anything towards the fight between zeds and survivors.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely thats a different question. Changing the titles does nothing about the issue this policy is supposed to deal with, it just moves the argument.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the issue has been almost entirely about survivor and hostile, merging them would make it a moot point, imo.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead, Alive, Other? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those names would probably be better.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto.-MHSstaff 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should probably list DN as a forth category. Dead, Alive, DN, Other. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Covered by other. By listing DN as a separate category, we would also be encouraging the creation of other categories as well, which would make this cumbersome. -MHSstaff 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)