User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Great Debate

An informal debate about how to resolve the problems arising from Wikipedia's many national and ethnic POV wars. This debate focusses on general ("meta-") issues rather than specific edit wars, although it is obviously fine to point out relevant examples from such wars. In other words, this isn't another venue to fight national and ethnic edit wars (use mainspace for that while you still can! ;)).

(Note: this is currently in my userspace but everybody with an opinion on this issue is welcome to comment here. (NB: this isn't another venue to fight specific national and ethnic edit wars. Please try to keep any personal conflicts to a minimum here.). --Folantin (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The main debate has now been archived here.

[edit] Conclusions?

(Please keep comments short)

  • Enforce existing policies more thoroughly --Folantin (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Create a National and Ethnic Wars Noticeboard --Folantin (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Targeted topic bans. Bans against certain kinds of behaviour (e.g. quarrelling over ethnicity on biographical subjects). --Folantin (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Create a noticeboard on meta to deal with interwiki disruption. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Recognize there will be situations when there are few useful NPOV sources. For the article/task force/project, try early to come up with a list of generally NPOV sources, POV sources that are accurate for their own side, and sources that will do nothing but inflame. As new sources are brought up, evaluate them in talk and agree on how they should be used. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Whenever something seems too complex to be presented simply, such as in an infobox, it probably is too complex for that. Don't use simple infoboxes or similar tables early in the project, or use a method like the Second World War infobox, which links to articles explaining a complex issue such as participants.
  • Always keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a court and not a place to place blame. NPOV often means that you can, at best, reliably source what happened, but not why. If there is no consensus on motivation, or there is too much emphasis on identifying evil, recognize it. It is possible to say what the worst war criminals did, and let their acts speak for themselves.
  • Don't fall back on "everyone knows". Source things, and there may be no NPOV sources, but at least reasonable sources about the POV of the various sides.
  • Remember modern conflicts often have more than two sides, and varying levels of foreign involvement.
  • Enforce strict civility on talk pages, but also start discussing difficult issues on the talk page rather than get into edit or revert wars. WP:SLR uses a 1RR rule in many cases, and such guidelines may be appropriate.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Enforce WP:TALK and stop endless, circular arguments over the same issues. Kill potentially disruptive edits before they break out into flame wars. --Folantin (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Enforce WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is for the general reader, not obsessive nationalists. For example, very few biographies of Alexander the Great devote much space to his ethnicity. --Folantin (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Admins need to be more proactive, really using their powers to enforce WP policy, monitor discussions and in posting and talking to the community.Akitora (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Create a policy/essay defining useful terms (chauvinism, traveling circus, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Non anonymous editors should be protected from harassment and slander better than they are now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some articles may be protected from editing by non-anonymous editors, as it is assumed they will be less likely to support extreme, fringe POVs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A time limit should be imposed on articles "best practice" method of writing articles should be encouraged via a development system or cycle - 3-12 months say to create, discuss, polish and release an article based on article importance to, amongst other things, try and avoid situations such as the endless debate on Copernicus's nationality and National and Ethnic wars. Implementation would be through word of mouth and the like, as well as one or two FA class articles that have used such a method amongst their editors to get to that quality level so as to exemplify the benefits of such a system.Akitora (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep any solutions simple and unbureaucratic, otherwise I doubt they will be effective. --Folantin (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles are there for general readers, not for the benefit of POV-warriors. For example, the most important thing about Alexander the Great is not his ethnicity as defined by the modern political concerns of the Balkans. Enforce WP:UNDUE to cut down on this kind of time-wasting nonsense. --Folantin (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A group of nationalist editors can prevent a change from happening on the bases that "we don't have consensus", no matter what other editors think even if they are a majority. And the discussion of the change can continue for months until it wears everyone out. Maybe admins should be more proactive to enforce WP:NPOV. Imad marie (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is part of the national editing problem in wikipedia. Imad marie (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Create a list of admins ready to deal with these issues. Encourage promotion of admin candidates who show a willingness to tackle these problems. --Folantin (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Come up with a simple, non-bureaucratic, workable system of content arbitration. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Establish a committee to enforce sensible referencing/footnoting standards. Right now, too many editors naively assume that any kind of footnoting -- regardless of how irrelevant or invalid the source is -- automatically makes their material NPOV. From there, these same editors feel entitled to dismiss any disagreement with their material (regardless of how reasonable the disagreement is) as POV. An arbitration committee could put an end to these circular disputes and improve the quality of articles. Kenmore (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results

  • Looks like we've got the go-ahead to set up a noticeboard [1]. Title? I'd suggest "National, ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard". --Folantin (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but I recommend keeping it short, so it's easy to link to.  :) Would "Cultural Conflict Noticeboard" cover it? WP:CCN, to go along with WP:RSN, WP:COIN, WP:BLPN, etc.? Then you can add a "Scope" section at the top which goes into more detail. --Elonka 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"Cultural"'s a bit vague. It could mean anything. --Folantin (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, but doesn't that make it perfect for this concept? It's a good "catch-all" for multiple Plague issues. However, I'm not going to argue too hard for it. Overall I've been very pleased with what you've been doing on this page, as it is an excellent parallel process to what's going on, with the Working Group. So feel free to ignore me, and do what you think is best.  :) --Elonka 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Personally, I have no strong preference about the title. It's going to be difficult to choose something snappy which covers everything the board is intended for. WP:CCN would certainly be a good shortcut. The rubric of the board could then explain in more detail just what it is intended to cover. We'd also need to "advertise" the board in the usual venues (WP:AN, WP:VP etc. and maybe the relevant "national" projects) to get the message across that it's for all kinds of national, ethnic and religious edit wars. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend a note at the talkpage of WP:DR as well. Village Pump might also be a good idea. --Elonka 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, and WP:AE. With any luck, this board should take some pressure off Arbitration Enforcement. --Folantin (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure. Do note that AE has teeth and our noticeboard has none. Perhaps we should think about giving it some, somehow? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The name is important, let's not hurry overly. Look at the noticeboards listed at the {{editabuselinks}}. All clearly explain with their title what they are for. Will "cultural conflict" noticeboard be as intuitive? Would WP:ECCN be better? "Ethnic and cultural" seems to be our wiki term for such conflicts. In related news, I strongly recommend adding notifications to mediation groups, asking them to watchlist it and participate in it, and linking it from WP:DR cycle.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seemed appropriate to let everyone know that I've read this, but have no real preference. At this point, I've pretty much burned out at Wikipedia and have found Citizendium much more comfortable. While I am not burning any bridges, I am not adding material or updating articles I've started at WP, although, for a while, I'm answering direct questions. It wasn't just the kind of edit wars here, but the drive-by "unencyclopedic" tags with absolutely no clue what the individual disliked, and the realization that if everything I ever wrote at WP became FA, or stub, it would make no difference in my life. I prefer a non-anonymous environment, also where experts can be verified and make content decisions.
Thanks to all. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I just got a ping at my talkpage about the need for a Balkans conflict-related noticeboard of some kind,[2] so I would say we should move forward on this. I'm not sure whether to tell him, "Hang on, we're working on a Cultural conflicts noticeboard," or "Sure, go ahead and create a Balkans cooperation project", or whether I should just start a page myself. Anyone here have a preference? --Elonka 13:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably call it "Ethnic and Cultural Conflicts Noticeboard" per Piotrus in the interests of clarity. Other than that I think you should go right ahead. I asked Moreschi, but he's busy. We can "fine-tune" the details when the board is operational. It seems there's a pressing need for it right now. --Folantin (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard is now up! Congratulations to everyone that had a part in making it happen.  :) --Elonka 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also