Wikipedia talk:Basic dignity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Basic dignity page.

Contents

[edit] Started

  • I saw lots of people starting to redlink to this, so I created a stub policy that other editors could add to and/or discuss. Smee 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
    • I essayed it, as it's merely a standard interpretation of our polices (I think), moved it to the Wikipedia: namespace and made the WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY a redirect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for doing that. Starting to look nice. Smee 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I like this

But "to document such ridicule" is wrong - if the ridicule has attained multiple non-trivial mentions in significant reliable sources, then the article could exist. It would not, however, be about the person; rather, it would be about the ridicule itself. Star Wars kid would be an example. Proto ► 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the thing that makes Star Wars Kid different is the lawsuit aspect of it. If SWK never got any father than forum people going "LOLZ LOOKIT TEH FAT NERD!!!" then we wouldn't have an article on him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making this a guideline

This is exactly the kind of thing I was saying would be a good idea to Doc. Glasgow. How do we go about converting it from an essay to a guideline? Dave 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we even need it? Attack pages are already speedily deleted, so what's left? I strongly question the need for a guideline or policy that comes out of a flawed "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" comment at a contentious DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we ought to act ethically if at all possible, but we can't go around applying individual ethics (or even worse, collective ethics). To do so would have all the known disadvantages associated with intuitionist moral arguement... but if we can codify some sort of policy and gather consensus behind it then everyone wins.
Ultimately, all votes to delete an article are based upon an IDONTLIKEIT somewhere that led to policy, or upon one of the five pillars. Dave 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any clue as to your second paragraph, but there's acting ethically and then there's going overboard. I'm not seeing anything that could be covered here that isn't already covered elsehwere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

Just to toss in my $0.02 cents here, perhaps we might also want to examine the wisdom of leaving certain in-house discussions public? For example: ANI, ArbCom, RfA, AfD? Many of these absolutely do accumulate what could be regarded as "documented disparagement" of a living person. Especially in the ArbCom cases, where complainants are allowed to say pretty much anything they want about someone at the evidence and workshop pages, regardless of whether or not such charges have any truth whatsoever. I do understand that there's a good reason for temporarily suspending WP:NPA and allowing people to speak freely during a case, so that the Arbitrators can obtain a clear and full picture of the situation. But perhaps afterwards, we might want to consider refactoring or sealing (deleting) some of these discussions, so that they're only available to those with admin access? --Elonka 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I don't know... that opens up the door to some tricky situations... Smee 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Recent additions removed

Walton monarchist89 has edited this essay recently. I've removed one of his additions, specifically:

What basic human dignity is not
Basic human dignity should not be interpreted as a reason for deleting articles which are sourced, verifiable, and written in a neutral tone. Such articles are not attack pages, and do not come under CSD G10. If an editor believes that they unnecessarily disparage their subject, or do not make an adequate demonstration of notability, then they can be nominated for deletion through the articles for deletion process, and opened to community discussion

I think this is inappropriate to the tone of an essay. Essays express an opinion that is held by one or more people, it doesn't express opinions about whether basic concepts such as human dignity are or are not appropriate reasons in and of themselves for deletion of problem pages. That's a matter for guidelines, policy and community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll write my own essay. WaltonAssistance! 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)