User:Scott Free

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy


If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single purpose account
Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#Handling_and_advice

What is consensus decision-making? The word 'consensus' derives from the Latin cum meaning 'with' or 'together with', and sentire meaning to 'think' or 'feel'. Thus, etymologically, 'consensus' means to 'think or feel together'.

As a decision-making process, consensus aims to be:

  • Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.
  • Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.[1]
  • Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority.[1]
  • Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to table, amend and veto or "block" proposals.
  • Solution-oriented: An effective consensus decision-making body strives to emphasize common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#What_is_consensus_decision-making.3F

[edit] Reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#First_step:_talk_to_the_other_parties_involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reversion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ESkog/Rationales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Removal_of_fair_use_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright

'Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.' Avoidance section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#First_step:_talk_to_the_other_parties_involved

  1. To assume good faith. This is the very basic presumption that every wiki user must have.
    • What to do if you later realize that this presumption is not true?
      1. Do not use wiki, or
      2. Just pretend to believe that this is true
  2. Respect for freedom and equality among wiki users in editing the page.
  3. Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.
    • creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information
    • suppression-oriented editing is, for example, page deletion, blocking user, protecting page

Essay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_spirit

'Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,...'

'Other words of advice'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

'Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative. '

'A few things to bear in mind'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

'Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.

Amend, edit, discuss. '

'Principles of Wikipedia etiquette' in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

'Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.'

'A few things to bear in mind' in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

'Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.' 'Do not' in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reversion

'Be careful about deleting material that may be factual. If you are inclined to delete something from an entry, first consider checking whether it is true. If material apparently is factual, in other words substantiated and cited, be extra careful about deleting. An encyclopedia is a collection of facts. If another editor provided a fact, there was probably a reason for it that should not be overlooked. So consider each fact provided as potentially precious. Is the context or overall presentation the issue? If the fact does not belong in one particular article, maybe it belongs in another.

Examine entries you have worked on subsequent to revision by others. Have facts been omitted or deleted? It may be the case that you failed to provide sufficient substantiation for the facts, or that the facts you incorporated may need a clearer relationship to the entry. Protect your facts, but also be sure that they are presented meaningfully.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_facts


'Aaron makes the argument that when you count words rather than edits (as Jimmy Wales does when citing Wikipedia contributor statistics), most of the content in Wikipedia does indeed come from contributors outside the core.

Aaron's principal point was that from a governance point of view, Wikipedia should focus more on random, individual contributors of content, rather than on the core of editors. (And recent controversies have supported Aaron's contention that Wikipedia's core community may be too ingrown.)'

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/wikipedia_community_publishing.html