Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive 1, March 20, 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Workshopping Opening Sentence

Hi RG. Not sure where you're going with this. I had many editorial alarms going off in my head while reading the first paragraph so I thought I'd make some suggestions here:

  • Wikipedia is the most liberal Encyclopedia.

Wow! What a sentence to begin with. It's a value judgement and a moral judgement. Perhaps it is best to say what wikipedia actually is that lead you to the conclusion expressed. It could be argued that, as an editor, you would have more liberty writing for another encyclopedia because you wouldn't have to always deal with annoying anons. So, I'm a little confused about what you're actually trying to express. If it's that all editors are considered equal, then why not just say so.

  • A founding principle of Wikipedia is that all editors are considered equal.

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the new opening sentence now. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Sentence

  • The philosophy behind the Wiki movement is based on the facts that:

Again, why assert fact? Perhaps the second sentence could continue

  • Behind this principle of equality is the assumption that, on the whole:

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Metta (is this enough to call you?) Thanks for your corrections and contributions. Please do not hesitate to make changes as necessary in the text. I am sure there is better ways to express the ideas here. And better ideas people have about the issue. As a native speaker, your support is greatly appreciated. Resid Gulerdem 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First List Of Items

Hi again. Not sure what these items are getting at, and I'm on a roll, so I might as well do some paraphrasing again in the name of consensus. The current list reads:

  • people have good intentions and they care about creating more informative environments
  • they intend to do so for no other than personal and academic satisfaction
  • a good source of information can be created collectively on a particular topic by editors of the same or similar interests
  • the information evolves to its perfect form while changing

Maybe you mean the following:

  • Editors mean well and care about creating an informative encyclopedia
  • Editors are motivated by direct personal satisfaction above all else
  • Editors with similar or dissimilar interests can collaborate equally well
  • The more an article is edited the better it will be expressed

I'm not sure I agree with all of them. But anyway... ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to touch the phiolosophy behind Wiki and the success of Wiki in the first paragraph. I am not trying to state some standards right away. I am trying to answer why people creates a free ensiklopedia. In the first one, I would like to say that, they just like to contribute to the knowledge of next generations, or something like that. They like to share their knowledge, etc. Second one addresses to Wiki being a free ensyklopedia. Editors contribute it because of their academic and personal satisfaction. So, the first paragraph is about, what the Wiki philosophy is standing on. Does that make things a little clear now? Resid Gulerdem 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you see what I really meant in the first paragraph? Maybe I should simplify the first paragraph and delete the philosophy part? Resid Gulerdem 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose this idea

I strongly oppose this due to the fact that not only is it just rehashing current policies it is doing them in a way that would impose on us what other people are doing and with the exception of what is required of us by law and by our own guidelines we shouldn't be hindered by outside influences as a matter of policy for all extensive purposes. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is your opposition more to the context of the proposal than the heart of it? I'm completely with you that editors must not go around pushing policy on people. But, I think it's a separate issue to having a statement of ethics.
Is it possible to have a Wikiethics standard that is optional? Would that hurt anyone? Would it be good to have multiple statements of Wikiethics. It's about aspiration really, rather than trying to foist opinions on people. It's unfortunate that it's labelled as a potential policy, because that is misleading... it's simply one persons idea at this present time.
As an aspiration, having a set of ethics that an editor might say they subscribe to, that they are proud of, could be useful. Editors could then say they have a set of values that are completely independent of their personal life and external influences. This could be a very useful way of finding a common ground for editors from widely disparate backgrounds.
Hope you see where I'm coming from. To me, ethics aren't necessarily something you can make policy, but they are still worth exploring for the sake of consensus. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, at this stage, the project reflects some of my ideas and 'poor' expressions of the ideas. But anybody is wellcome to contribute to it. Isn't it always the case? Resid Gulerdem 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't say I support this policy. Where it does not duplicate existing policy, it appears to postulate a sort of vague non-offensiveness principle incompatible with WP:BOLD. Also, it seems we have done well even without any explicit ethics policy. Sandstein 12:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Framework For Discussing Hot Content

Before I begin, I want to get out of the way that I think it's best to avoid the word pornography entirely. It is a loaded term that means many things to many people. If we focus on what our actual objections are without using loaded descriptions and definitions we can find a way of expressing our shared values that still allows us the freedom of a subjective interpretation of those values. Perhaps something like:

  • As an ethical editor, I value contributions that are:
    • encyclopedic
    • informative
    • very descriptive
    • high quality
    • appropriate to the topic
    • not distracting (from the balance of the article)
    • not degrading
    • not censored
    • legal

I've thrown up a bunch of criteria that people might like to workshop. I realise they are subjective. That's the whole point. They provide a starting point for discussing ethical standards of inclusion. A list like this could be used for debate a lot easier than:

Person A: It's pretty much porn. The article doesn't need it.

Person B: Sounds like censorship to me. It's pretty tame really. And who says it's porn anyway?


Could become...

Person A: For me it's degrading, but I'm open to a less degrading version.

Person B: I don't care if it's degrading, it's appropriate to the topic.

Person C: Well, it's descriptive, but it's a little distracting.


I'm not really sure about this as I'm brainstorming really. I realise this may be dumbing down the discussion a little, but I'm trying to find a set of values that people can use to discuss these hot issues that will lead to more fruit in less time. These discussions are recurring and they could certainly use a framework to help make them easier for everyone.

Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a good idea. On the other hand, I think we should refer to pornography as well, 'at least' for the sake of completeness. We can follow the framework as you suggested and people may choose to use the other terms as you examplified. But I feel like we should address that point (porn) somewhere in the project. If you looked at the second part of the project I clearly stated that, these definitions, like pornography, offense etc. should be determined by the contributing editors, and those classifications should be article-based. In one article a pic might seem to be 'erotic' but for some others it might be appropriate. Resid Gulerdem 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are overlooking that some people have no problem with showing porn on wikipedia, and unless you can discuss the issues without using that word you will make no progress convincing them. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this. Can you point me to any specific diffs where you've had success discussing a difficult editing issue while using the term pornography? I find it degenerates as soon as people raise any of the following terms:
  • Pornography
  • Censorship
  • Whitewash
  • Offensive
  • Tasteful
And there's more. I think they are all words that are meaningless precisely because they are overloaded with meaning. And I'd almost include encyclopedic with them. Anyway, I'll glady follow anyones links to discussion that was fruitful and used any of those terms I am calling loaded terms. Please post some diffs and we can analyse discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope this turns into a helpful guide on how to have a productive editorial discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when issues of offensiveness arise. WAS 4.250 06:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that sums it up perfectly. Perhaps that should be in the introduction?
  • This is a helpful guide on how to have a productive editorial discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when issues of offensiveness arise.
Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is there already. Resid Gulerdem 07:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Good. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Metta Bubble, I think I understand your concern. On the other hand, I strongly believe that, editors are able and should have the right to determine what is what. One of the main motivation of this policy is to remind the editors that determining such terms for a specific article are their job. Generalizations do not help and not practicle. I think we are saying similar things with different words. I do not like to impose any unnecessary restrictions to the editors. It is not good to say that they cannot take a pic off just because it becomes censorship. Similarly they should take a description off because it is offensive. They should determine that based on the information on a particular article using their own judgement. Resid Gulerdem 07:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are right. We are coming at the same solution from two angles. I think the real problem arises in trying to get two editors to express their judgement to each other in a way that facilitates them actually communicating. And that's why I thought it might be good to attach some criteria for discussion. What other approaches can you think of? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I am completely for having some criteria for discussions among the editors. Let us go for it. And please make it a little clearer to me how you want to incoorporate them. I additionally would like to mention some standard (overloaded in your terms, like porn, insult) classifications. Nevertheless, I would like to state it in a way that, editors should determine these terms for a particular article. No generalization, because it doesn't help. By the way, because they are pretty common examples I would prefer if we include the part related to 'insult' in the text. I know that they are or they will be addressed somewhere else (like Wikipedia:Pornography in pornography case) but I am using them as examples rather than original statements in this policy. If you agree on this, would you please like to incoorporate the parts related to insult back in? You can use your words if you want to. I am sure you can express much better. Resid Gulerdem 08:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Not a big deal if you choose not to... Resid Gulerdem 09:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. No biggie. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I might have a go at including the criteria. However, I'd prefer they were workshopped a bit beforehand. Give me a day or so. I certainly don't want the word pornography in this list as it's far too loaded and you can see below how quickly at least one editor started panicking that you used it. It's a patently untenable way of writing an ethics policy to immediately exclude those who have a relaxed attitude to pornography. This policy should not exclude any legally sound moral standpoint (such as a pro-pornography viewpoint). So, I hope there is no hurry. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, great! Just a quick suggestion: Would you like to use the list given in the Current Policies section of the article as part the criteria you will create? You might want to add more, of course. It would be good if there is a paragraph (or sentence) for each instead of a list as in the current version, in my opinion. Or the policy names mentioned in some paragraphs in a harmony. Good luck with that. I am done for today, gotta go now. See you around and all the best... Resid Gulerdem 10:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The fact that you people who support this are making it blatantly clear that this is going to be used as a way to excuse removing content that you don't like from articles (as blatantly seen by the above comments in this thread) is another reason why I must STRONGLY OPPOSE this. Your just asking for a situation that can be abused by writing this. The JP Cartoon Controversy article is a good example of how this would be misused (as I suspect is the goal of certain contributors to this proposal) because it is offensive to a number of people this propsal could would be used as an excuse for repeatedly removing the image from the page and it would be used as an edit warring tool. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This policy is a genral statement and nothing to do with a particular article. It also completely leaves the decision to the editors. As far as I remember, in JP case there was a concensus among the editors. This policy clearly states that determining 'acceptible' and 'unacceptible' should be article-based and based on a consensus among the contributing editors. So there is no room for conspiracy theories. Resid Gulerdem 09:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Woah Pegasus! You seem frustrated 'cos you would like reassurance we aren't using this discussion to try to set up a way of fast-tracking a pro censorship agenda? Right? I'd like to reassure you that I feel that would be an absolutely irresponsible goal and I am behind you 100% in opposing that goal (if that's what this policy turns into). I hope these diffs of mine give you the reassurance you seek and you feel you know more about who you're posting to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
I've been a member of wikipedians against censorship since I joined wikipedia and I've been advocating free speech the whole time. I received a barnstar for "my thoughtful contribution to articles in the sexuality portal". Freedom of speech is very important to me. Writing an encyclopedia is also important to me, so I think it's worth finding a way to discuss this recurring issue with a high degree of open-mindedness to all interests. I hope I am showing that in my posts, and I welcome any specific criticisms you might have.
Please remember, this isn't a policy yet. It might end up a guideline or just something curious. Nobody really knows. It's way too early to put it to a vote and it's way too early to give a strong oppose... at least, that's how I think. It's already almost entirely different to the first approximation you opposed.
Personally, I strongly oppose use of loaded words (I listed above), but I feel the issues are discussable on another level. Hope that all helps. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Public accountability

Just wish to express some of my thoughts on why wikiethics is needed. My main position is that wikipedia does have moral responsiblity and public accountability:

  • Wikipedia is a form of publication. As wikipedia becomes more popular and readership increases, the potential impact of published material, whether positive or negative, also magnifies. Therefore, journalism ethics and standards become relevant and shall be considered when editing wikipedia. As we publish information about individuals, we must uphold a moral (and even legal) responsibility to be objective and fair. We should consider their rights to privacy (especially for private people) and strive to limit unnecessary harms or discomfort to them.
  • These factors should be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. We recognize that this might occasionally lead to ethical dilemma, and requires greater effort on the part of editors to discuss and deliberate when making editorial decision. We must also exercise special sensitivity towards more vulnerable group of people, such as children, juveniles, or other individuals who are victims of crimes, damaging ridicules or discrimination, and people who are suffering grief and tragedy.
  • We have an obligation towards our donors who are also our readers. Their financial contributions signify their trust placed upon us. As these donations are tax-exempted, they are considered as public fund. It is not in our interest to act irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is contrary to public interest and violates the trust of our donors and the public. Keep in mind that once we lose the public's trust, it is difficult to gain it back.
  • Anonymity does not exempt any editor from these responsibilities.

Could some of the above be added to the proposal? --Vsion 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Great... I grouped them into some subtitles. I hope you find the organization appropriate. Resid Gulerdem 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

moral responsibility section I

I have removed the moral responsiblity section since that is exactly the type of thing that we need to avoid in this. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The journalistic section is also very bad since it pretty much amounts to us self censoring ourselves in the name of not hurting people's feelings. That is exactly why I think this proposal should be marked failed and scrapped since it is flawed from the get go. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have trimmed this down quite a bit and removed all the extra stuff and the parts that pretty much state that we need to self censor ourselves. I also removed some duplicate info that slipped into there. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The manner in which these content are removed looks like censorship and suppression of opinions. --Vsion 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing the project. You need to discuss and convince the contributing editors first. Deleting a section or sections is called Vandalism. Resid Gulerdem 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, it's just removing parts that are ludicrious since they go against everything Wikipedia and it's contributors stand for. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That is your POV Resid Gulerdem 02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't repurpose this proposal

If you wish to contribute to a no censorship proposal, please contribute to Wikipedia:Censorship defined as "No censorship. What is "offensive" or "immoral" varies between people in areas such as sex, religion, politics, and violence. Wikipedia disregards these labels as valid grounds for the removal of information, whether in text or image form. Information will only be removed for editorial reasons or to comply with applicable laws". WAS 4.250 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to contribute to somewhat the same thing, only avoiding the use of the word censorship, please contribute to Wikipedia:Offensive defined as "Offensive is not a valid editorial criteria for a Wikipedia article". WAS 4.250 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

While the exact definition of this proposal is still finding its feet, it's fair to say that its origin lies in dissatisfaction with those two alternatives, so whatever it is - it is something else. Don't repurpose this proposal to be the same as either one of those two proposals. Thank you. WAS 4.250 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial ethics and standards are much more than just two factors: WP:O, WP:C. Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The proposal in itself (as I see it) already means violating several existing policies as well as the spirit of Wikipedia as a free, open, and unhindered project since what you are proposing is self censorship just so people don't get their feelings hurt. The changes that I made left the core of the policy intact while taking out some of the parts that go against the general philosphy that we all stand by. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fairs fair

I don't think you can request an editor not to repurpose the proposal when it is unclear exactly what the proposal is. What we definitely know is that it's called Wikiethics and it's a spinoff from WP:Censorship and WP:Offensive and some editors are worried that it's a euphemism for WP:Antiporn. WAS, what specifically do you think is radically different between the approach on this page? What are we in danger of losing sight of in this proposal? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship proposal

This proposal in its current form reads as a pro-censorship policy. --KimvdLinde 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad someone agrees with me on this, I am wary of this propsal entirely but I have tried (and been reverted trying) to work it into a non censorship proposal. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The proposal should not condone pro-censorship or anti-censorship. I concur with that and I am also concerned with these seemingly non-arbitrary copy and pastes from the Journalism ethics and standards article. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
At current, it reads for me as a very powerfull tool for censorship. Much of the wording is vague, and formulated such that you can use it to eliminate everything you do not like. --KimvdLinde 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Then be against it. Or write your own proposal. Don't repurpose someone else's proposal. WAS 4.250 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone should be welcome to write a proposal here that relates to ethics on wikipedia, whether they are pro-pornography, pro-censorship, or whatever. The uniting theme is ethics, not censorship. Nonetheless, the proposal is getting off to a rather biased start. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You are entirely misinterpreting the point of proposing a policy or guideline. The point is so that people can rework it to make it better. If you want a proposal that only you can edit then go write it on a piece of paper and lock it in a military safe, otherwise deal with the fact that this is a wiki. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You could hijack this proposal and force the original author to start up another proposal other than this one. To what end? If you disagree and can't talk him into a change why not let the original author retain this proposal and you can start another proposal that suits you. Or is the name of the proposal worth the fight? "Wikipedia Ethics" isn't taken, I bet. WAS 4.250 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly you are disappointed because you would like editors to believe Wikiethics is synonymous with values and decency, but you would like to exclude free speech and anticensorship from those values because you don't believe in them. I'm fine with that viewpoint as long as you state it clearly in the policy:
  • This policy is about ethics and standards, except the ethical standard of valuing free speech and fighting censorship.
Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What this proposl hopes to achieve

Perhaps I can shed light on what this proposal hopes to achieve by copying a snippet of conversation from Wikipedia talk:Censorship:

So the images in Sex in advertising would be made a click away and not actually on the article page itself? WAS 4.250 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes... Resid Gulerdem 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you believe there is a consensus for doing that? I don't. WAS 4.250 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That is what I am looking for here. Resid Gulerdem 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing this proposal so the images in Sex in advertising stay put prevents the author of this proposal from having the right to make proposals. Unless he wants to say otherwise. WAS 4.250 01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was invited to participate in a pro-ethics discussion. You're telling me that it's just a euphemism for "pro-censorship", and you openly admit it? Since that also seems to be the consensus here, I've added it to the introduction of the policy. I'm a little disappointed because the term ethics to me means much more than whether somebody is pro or anti censorship. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
MB, there is no consensus on anything here. It is just the same, 3-4 people, they appear everywhere. They are trying to dictate their own agenda to all Wiki. Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with these people, and you personally requested my input. The current consensus on THIS page is that this is a pro-censorship policy proposal. It is completely justifiable to clearly indicate this in the overview of the policy. I'm not saying such text will be there forever. But as long as consensus is that it's a pro-censorship proposal, the text belongs. To remove such text is violating the wiki process in favour of your own opinion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with WAS 4.250, he even said linking to images in automobile would be a good idea! I'll look for the quote if you want. Gerard Foley 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This whole proposal is just a "Remove-all-images-that-offend-somebody" policy wrapped in in the sheepskin name of ethics, and blatantly so. (especially the section "Conflict removal"). And flowery talk of "Collective consciousness" won't change that one bit. I oppose it, obviously Azate 02:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You read it incorrectly. What it says is: if the contributing editors decide, they should be able to take a pic off. That is it. The policy doent dictate any rules, it rather leave the determination of these term to the editors and this decision can be different for each article. Resid Gulerdem 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a good start. But I think editors are proposing more needs to be said to encourage users that wikipedia is not censored. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
MB, that is one of the main points to rely on the editorial judgement. We have even a different (and very bad) policy for censorship. It is said everywhere. It can be repeated here as well, if we have a chance to put the policy into a more mature form. Can't you see their attitude? Resid Gulerdem 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I feel that in some cases the "ethics standard" can serve to justify the inclusion of some controversial information, similar to Whistleblower, to uphold public interest to information and disclosure especially in cases about abuse of power. Remember the "Google case" where they self-censor to satisfy PRC government. If Google had an "ethical standard", they probably would have greater internal resistance against this controversial move, which had damaged their reputation quite a bit. Thus, ethical standard can work both ways with regards to inclusion or exclusion of content, but many editors have no experience in journalism or any form of publishing, and they need to be informed that these are the issues to be considered. Note that wikipedia is still a dictatorship, if Jimbo decides to remove certain content for political reasons (unlikely as it may seem, but he may run for political office, etc.) , do the editors have any defense against that? What if there is a scandal involving wikipedia, do we inform or disclose? I would suggest to add a sentence about this issue to the "standards" section, if someone can help. --Vsion 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
About Wiki being a dictatorship? Resid Gulerdem 04:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I used the wrong wordings, but I'm refering to the "fact" that Jimbo or the Board of Trustee have overriding authority over any content in wikepdia, and their decision is not questionable or appealable by other editors. Isn't this the case? Appreciate if someone can clarify or correct me if I'm wrong. --Vsion 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of their excessive power over Wiki. I do not mind if you would like to... But do you think it is appropriate for this policy. Maybe it would be better if you have a draft posted here first. Let us see in what context you would like that be incoorporated into the policy. Resid Gulerdem 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Be civil and discuss

What I believe is different from what this proposal is for. I am not including my ideas here. It is cleaer in every sentence. Deleting a section is called vandalism. I warn you: don't do that. Resid Gulerdem 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse other people of vandalism. Ironically despite the title of this section accusing people of vandalism just because you disagree with them on a matter of content is definitely not civil. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that section as well as you know. And you very well know that what you are doing is Vandalism. If you look at my discussions in the page WP:C you may find it examplary for yourself in regard to 'how to discuss an issue'. Resid Gulerdem 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
How is trimming down blatantly useless portions of a proposal vandalism, if we worked with the trimmed down version it would probably pass (something I'm not entirely opposed to) but the version you want has no chance of getting any support since it is a censorship based policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
useless portion in your sight. Resid Gulerdem 03:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Pegasus on this. It isn't vandalism in my eyes to trim parts of the policy that people find objectionable bring them to the talk page instead. That is the standard way of achieving consensus on wikipedia. Are we interested in consensus here? Or pushing a pro-censorship agenda? Why the hurry to include every hotly contested idea?
I suggest that everyone should SLOW DOWN and try to create an ethics policy that accurately reflects ALL other current policies, without trying to create new values or new policy ideas. This is simply a matter of factual inclusion and shouldn't introduce new ideas of arguments about what we should do in future.
Once we have an ethics policy that reflects the ethics behind current policy standards, we can explore the idea of adding new moral values or whatever else. Unless we start with a stable established base of ethics, I believe this proposed policy is promoting an agenda. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That is not a common practise. I tried for example in WP:C to include just a section. By the very same editors appear here, it is deleted immediately. I couldn't neither delete any part of it nor add a section. I was expected to convince the people before any action. Why the rules are suddenly chaning here? If someone want to take a part from the article, s/he should discuss and get an agreement first. Trimming looks to be different from cutting 2/3 of the article to me. Resid Gulerdem 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually you'll find it's quite common practice when the article is as bad as this proposal is. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not expecting a compliment from you... Resid Gulerdem 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What this policy is for

The policy is about ethics and standards. It is needed in this media Wiki. It is growing and ethic considerations are important. It is nothing to do with specific articles nor with policies. I would like ot remind you that the policies WP:C or WP:O are not even accepted policies yet.

The policy says basically that, editors should determine something being 'unacceptable' based on consensus. What is wrong with that?

It also says that, article-based classifications are important. Otherwise, people like you are saying that (see WP:C) it is not possible to determine what the offensive is, so everything is OK. This approach is no good and not acceptable.

And lastly, what is your pannic for? What is your fear for? Eventually, when it gets mature, we will ask people to vote for it. If they disagree, than it will be rejected. That is it.

It is not acceptible that some people with no ethic concerns impose and dictate what to do to all editors. Resid Gulerdem 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversly it is not acceptable for those who want Wikipedia to be censored so everyone feels warm and fuzzy and nobody has any hurt feelings at the expense of factual information to impose their will on the community as a whole. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Which expression makes you think that way. Resid Gulerdem 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any admin around here to remind 3 revert rule and that vandalism is not acceptible to Pegasus1138 Resid Gulerdem 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked the history, I have reverted twice, you have reverted three times so neither of us have violated the three revert rule. Also it is solely your POV that my changes were vandalism just because you don't agree with them so stop calling them vandalism and be civil. Just because you aren't getting your way doesn't give you an excuse to be incivil to other editors who are working on a page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
In my sight you are a true vandal. Why you are not discussing your ideas if you are so comfortable with them, instead reverting the article. Be civil was my invitation to you. Check the titles. Resid Gulerdem 03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Your sight is fogged by your own POV then, just because people disagree with you doesn't make them vandals. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Me saying vandal doesn't make anybody vandal, but their attitude and behaviour... They can make them vandal for sure. Resid Gulerdem 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well luckily for those of us who don't toe the line with your views, nobody else really agrees that I'm a vandal... and there's some support for my trimming down the censorship sections of this proposal. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I do know the editors opposing me here. And I wouldn't get shocked if they award you with a star. When you go to a barbershop, do not say 'trim it a little'. If s/he understand trimming as you do, you may have your head off. Resid Gulerdem 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Pegasus, could you kindly lend some courtesy, to allow the proposal to take its shape over the next few days, instead of shooting down any content that you feel is threatening free speech (ironically as it may be). On hindsight, it was probably better to first prepare a proposal draft in a user sandbox before putting this up in the wikipedia space. I wonder if we can do that now, perhaps this will save time for everyone. --Vsion 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A Way Forward

Introducing moral values and value judgements isn't a good starting point for this policy. The first point of call should be to acknowledge the diversity of ethical values that we all have.

A good starting point is to write ethics that only concerns relevant actual policies on wikipedia. The most relevant policies to ethics are:

The most relevant guidelines are:

The approach of trying to upscale the importance of WP:ATK and Wikipedia:Profanity to policy status is unhelpful. The process we undertake in building this ethics policy should begin by:

  • firstly, reflecting actual policies (as listed above)
  • secondly, (maybe a few weeks from now) taking into account actual guidelines
  • thirdly, (maybe a month from now) soliciting new ideas about where to head with ethics and standards

Currently we have this backwards, and the policy is already trying to push ideas that have been voted down many times before over many years. This is inflaming the censorship issue. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

MB, yes good idea. Most of these policies and guidelines already in the current text. A coherent and good explanation would become just wonderful. Which ideas you think are voted down before? I am not aware of that... Resid Gulerdem 04:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If people do not have any problem, I would like to keep the organization of the policy as is... Resid Gulerdem 04:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and the new section. Though, I think it's clear people do have a problem with the structure of the proposal. Perhaps solicit new ideas for structure here without insisting upon vsion's version. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship section

Can anybody have a look at the censorship section if it is clear enough that this policy no way supports censorship?

It's a start. However why does it get a proviso?
  • On the other hand 'no censorship' policy can not be interpreted as 'no editorial standards'
None of the other sections have a proviso... i.e.
  • On the other hand moral responsibility cannot be used as an excuse for using personal editorial standards over consensus decision.
Seems like a slight bias, but you made a good start. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it would be better if I take that statement off? Resid Gulerdem 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason for it maybe because of the current form of the Censorship policy. They start with a crude generalization. Please see my note on the Wikipedia:Censorship with the title, Generalization do not help. And with respect to that policy there is no value or standards at all in Wiki. They imply: since we cannot determine what is offensive, everything is fine. Do not even try to classify something being offensive. etc.. What I believe is having editorial or ethical concerns is not censorship. If an editor take a pic off just because it is not ensyclopedic, WP:C gives a reoson for others say 'it is a censorsihp'. Censorship also should have some standards and I am trying to address that issue here. Resid Gulerdem 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant: No-Censorship also should have some standards and I am trying to address that issue here. Resid Gulerdem 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moral Responsibility Section

  • We must uphold a moral responsibility for and exercise special sensitivity towards more vulnerable group of people, such as children, juveniles, or other individuals who are victims of crimes, damaging ridicules or discrimination, and people who are suffering grief and tragedy.

Reasons To Object:

  • This wording above, violates Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions, in that it says we must uphold. I find this strict. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
  • special sensitivity can be loosely interpreted to become ammunition for pro-censorship groups. It is unclear whether this assertion is refering to the WP:OFFICE policy or trying to imply some stricter behaviour by wikipedians. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
  • vulnerable groups of people can be loosely interpreted to become ammunition for pro-censorship groups. ॐ Metta Bubble puff

Reasons To Support:

  • Most people can be assumed to feel some responsibility for the effects their edits will have on readers. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
  • WP:OFFICE is accepted policy and refers to being sensitive to our readers pains. ॐ Metta Bubble puff

Comments:

I invite editors to contribute opinions about this section of the article, by adding your opinions above. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As an overall comment on this tread: I believe the reasons you listed for objection is valid but the section can easily be put into an 'acceptible' form. I do support this section and I believe it should stay there. Depending on the reasons you raised, User:Vsion might choose to make some modification. Resid Gulerdem 06:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting, how about this modification: "When making editorial decision, editors should strive to exercise special sensitivity towards vulnerable groups of people, namely children and juveniles who are victims of crimes and damaging ridicules, and people who are currently suffering grief and tragedy." --Vsion 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It works well for me. Just a simple point: By saying 'people who are currently suffering grief and tragedy' what you have exactly in mind and what kind of Wiki articles you think might not appropriate for them. Resid Gulerdem 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It usually refers to not publishing gruesome picture of someone who just died, eg. by suicide and accident, especially those showing the face of the deceased. On the Internet, these pictures can be found; and sometimes the tabloid publishes them for shock effect. --Vsion 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Updated accordingly. Resid Gulerdem 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This really needs more input from other editors. We addressed one objection. What about the problem of this becoming too loosely interpreted?ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
MB, how would you restate it, if you want to try? Can you think a new version that reduce possible concerns further? Resid Gulerdem 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Disregarding the context, do people have any concern about the structure and organization of the policy? First part is about guidelines which includes the guidelines when it comes to writing an article. Second part is about standards which are some general regulations for better articles. The last part is for existing policies and guidlines. I think we should have an explanatory paragraph for each of them. I know there are some concerns regarding the context, but disregard it for a moment. We will come to that slowly but surely. Resid Gulerdem 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the structure should have existing policies and guidelines high on the page. Maybe once the policy evolves we could deprecate their importance. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure about that. The projest propose some new ideas and maybe a new approach or look at the existing policies as well. I would prefer the order as is. But it is also reasonable to see how it will evolve... Resid Gulerdem 05:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying to copy the list but rather to acknowledge that ethics in a wikipedia context can only be founded upon existing policy, and to briefly mention the kind of policies we currently we have and how they assume certain ethics already exist, without rigidly defining what those ethics might be. Hope that makes some sense. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It makes complete sense to me. I have also the same in mind and actually I remember we talked about it before too. Besides the existing Wiki policies, the culture in the mainstream media should also be refered in that section, I believe. 05:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
No!!! What is your obsession with introducing new values? It's like you don't really want your policy to go anywhere. If you stick to what is policy here on wikipedia you might make some progress. To include stuff from the culture of mainstream media is to introduce a POV that is undiscussed. Why can't you see that one way of doing things is inflammatory and the other is passive? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Did I mention about introducing new values? I meant that some additional standards need to be mentioned in this policy like the editorial standards already given in the current text (moral resp, privacy etc). There are no policies for those, explicitely, as far as I concerned. If there is, the current policies should definitely be used, they have priority. I would like to mention from others for the sake of completeness as needed. I think if we can set the tone, it wont raise further concerns. We can all together determine here if some additional terms are needed or not. At this point, I do not see that the current policies are complete, and that is one reason I started to write this policy. Resid Gulerdem 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand now that you are choosing to ignore that additional standards is exactly the same as new values. I won't be a part of this agenda. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't understand what you mean, what agenda? Additional standards to Wiki does not mean they are new. There is a real world out there and a media tradition for centuries. Is it bad to lend some terms practised for long from them? And as I said, we should incoorporate them as necesssary and if we agree on. Just like you are doing for section about responsibility. Do I miss something? Resid Gulerdem 06:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is, why don't you start with basic standards before you start on additional standards. As soon as you introduce values from outside sources you need to ask for input from hundreds of editors in order to achieve consensus. If you started by simply basing the discussion around existing policy there would be no need to achieve consensus on what is and isn't a worthwhile standard. I think you are underestimating how much resistence you will encounter. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
OK let us go with basic ones first. So, will you able to start writing about how should we understand current policies in a harmony and what do they imply in terms of ethics and standards? Resid Gulerdem 08:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your compromise. Thank you. Okay, I'll give it a go. I've listed the policy above that might be taken into account. Can you find any others that we should be considering when writing this? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel like the list (Current Policies and Guidelines) in the current version of the proposal are all related and need to be mentioned. Don't you think so? You have some others below too. It would be great if all of them are nicely incorporated. Resid Gulerdem 18:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the ones you mentioned above, and a few others to the current list. Resid Gulerdem 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How To Get Your Policy Rejected

Hello editors. This is fast turning into a how to get your policy rejected page. Please read Wikipedia:How to create policy and you will see there's only ever been 7 policies introduced by consensus on wikipedia.

  1. Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy - December 2005
  2. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - September 2005
  3. Expanding criteria for speedy deletion - July 2005
  4. Enforcement of the three-revert rule (3RR) - November 2004
  5. Creation of the arbitration committee and adoption of its initial rules - January 2004
  6. Widening of the speedy deletion criteria - January 2004
  7. Creation of the process for gaining adminship by vote - April 2003

And there's been over 70 rejections of policy requests, including (but not limited to):

Wikipedia:Image_censorship Wikipedia:Content_labeling_proposal Wikipedia:Descriptive_image_tagging Wikipedia:Rating_system Wikipedia:Toby Wikipedia:Use_of_pics_of_genitals_in_articles Wikipedia:Censorship and Wikipedia:Offensive

So, I implore you to be more open-minded in this discussion on Wikiethics. If you want to stand a any chance whatsoever of having this proposal taken seriously please try and learn from history.

In a nutshell my advice is, FIND A COMMON GROUND OF ETHICS BASED ON CURRENT WIKIPEDIA POLICY, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

That's about enough input from me overall. I really have nothing more to add than this advice at this stage. If you can follow the advice perhaps this page will survive long enough to warrant further advice. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether you feel like it's a "how to get your policy rejected" page or not, it stll has a right to be written. Furthermore, if only 7 policies have been put into consensus, then this proposal is HARDLY the prototype as to how to get a policy rejected. Jennifer 06:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I want this policy get approval. I want also this policy get approval by a consensus. I want to do something meaningful for all wiki editors. I want to provide the editors with the options they have or might want to practise. I do not want to propose a statement that puts any unnecessary restrictions on them and onto the community. In doing so, I do not care much about the fact that a few people I know will resist to this policy for no reason. I have enogh energy and ideas to discuss them that their way of imposing restriction to the community is not a way to proceed. All these in mind, I am for consensus and agreement as well. I am open to any positive suggestions. MB, you are an experienced editor and I value your comments. I hope you can see what I am doing here and what I am trying to do as well. Resid Gulerdem 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well if you want to get this policy approved stop acting like you own this proposal since the history proves pretty well that you are acting like this is your policy and nobody else has a right to modify it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that this policy is my initiative. It is wrong that I am acting like it is my own. I wellcome any contribution to it, not destruction though. I annonced this in WP:C page, I personally invited some people for contribution, and I will invite some others. Can you see anyone who is as you claimed but invite people for contribution? It is open to modification but again not destruction. The way to modify it should be:

  • copy the part from it here onto the discussion page
  • express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate
  • give your suggestion to fix the problem

If your suggestions get approval then we can go ahead and fix it. I believe this policy is necessary and important. I hope it becomes successfull. I would be glad to work on it with you to see how far we can go. I am not sure if we can agree on all points. Once we are done, I will start a vote to seek community approval. Resid Gulerdem 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No Porn Section

Pornography which can be described as visual or verbal descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause sexual excitement should generally be avoided in Wiki articles. The determination of a material being 'unacceptible' or 'pornographic' should be done by the contributing editors in a particluar article.

I think this statement is good enough to be included in the policy, because:

  • The definition of prnography is taken from Britanica.com.
  • It doesn't defy with any particular article. It is not aimed so...
  • All it says, editors have a right to decide if a desription is 'acceptable'. I cannot think any better way to say it.

'At least' for the sake of completeness, 'no porn' should be mentioned in the article. I cannot think of an ethics policy which leaves this part blank. The determination is already left to the editorial judgement. Resid Gulerdem 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the section is untenable because:
  • It doesn't reflect any policy or guideline on wikipedia. There is no policy or guideline that renounces pornography in whole. (I think perhaps we can't even find a partial renunciation of porn in policy).
There is nothing wrong with being new. There is no policy for legality either. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with it being new except you already agreed above to refrain from introducing ethics that aren't covered by existing policy. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I remember that I said: OK let us start with basic ones. And it was after inclusion of the section in question. Now, I am waiting to see your addition to the policy regarding the basic standards. I am sure it will add valuable info to the current text. Resid Gulerdem 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The definition of porn 'causes sexual excitement' defies the norm that certain articles which have already been approved of by the wikipedia community, might in fact be deleted (i.e. sex in advertising, lolicon, etc). As such, this 'no porn' section does not reflect consensus. These articles are desired by the community consensus.
I do not think that it is true. It is a definition from reputed dictionary. This section no way implies that some articles (i.e. sex in adv) should be deleted. Please do not miss the point that community consensus is required for determination of being acceptible. If there is a consensus already for having those kind of pics in that article, what make you think that this section imlies that the pics shuld be deleted? Please do not confuse what I think and what is stated in the policy. I personally believe that, those pics is not so good in that article. I sincerely stated in WP:C and it is copied to this discussion by some people. That is toally differnt issue. What I believe is far different from what policy states and what the consensus is. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You've already had this discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Censorship and you were in the minority there. The fear is that if the definition "causes sexual excitement" is used, the policy can be used as an argument to remove images from articles such as sex in advertising and lolicon. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, I can see that concern. And in fact, that is why I am so insisting on the consensus. If this project turns out to be a policy, I do not believe that some people will read first half of the section, but not the second one. The very second sentence says that you need to have a consensus to label a description being pornographic and consequently unacceptable. If someone interpret the policy out of context, there will be some other people remind the remaining half, I am sure... Resid Gulerdem 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The section does not accurately reflect morality of the US nation (or many nations around the world) because pornography is both legal and morally accepted in these places.
It is not the point. Pornography should be OK here in US or many other placaes. The point is, do we want to have them in a Wiki article? Wiki is considered to ba an ensyklopedia, not a porn site. And I would like you reconsider its impact on the children and juveniles. They are natural readers of an ensiklopedia. I cannot imagine that there is a middle school study group doing their homework and while doing that they see some irrelevant pictures with heavy sexual context in Wiki. I think it is not acceptable. I am not emposing my moral values here, that is just common sense. Kindly reconsider this point seriously... Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is exactly the point. Under what consensus do you say pornography is an issue of ethics? There are very different standards for what people want show their children. Current policy conveys that wikipedia viewers are capable (indeed mandated) to police article content for themselves. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is just getting mature. If we try to find a base in it for everything new we cannot add anything to it. It simply wouldn't worked before as well if that was how people wrote policies, guidelines, etc. previously. And similarly, that is the case for, say, privacy or legality. I see in the news that some people encourge or force their children to steal something. But they look to be extreme in my opinion. Lastly, and more importantly, if the editors in that particular discussion says that a picture is not pornographic, then it is not. This policy do not provide any base for someone to get a pic down from an article without a consensus. If there is a consensus, it is not practical to say: No you cannot take that pic off! The proposal values the editorial judgement and consensus over anything else and gives them the ultimate ability to decide on both inclusion and exclusion of some materials. Resid Gulerdem 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And similarly, consensus should determine whether this pornography clause is included or not. It seems to me that you are in the minority on a pornography clause being included and you should let the issue go. Otherwise I'm afraid pegasus is right and you're just trying to force your POV. Someone else might equally well argue for a non violence section in the ethics document, but that doesn't immediately make it consensus. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The section does not adequately reflect when references and images of pornography (or deviations thereof) might be most appropriate or least appropriate.
This can be included. I or maybe you if you prefer doing so, could a statement about it. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but I'm not sure exactly what the guidelines should be. Obviously people felt some "sexually exciting material" is okay on wikipedia, because we already have some in various articles. So perhaps say something like: It is accepted on wikipedia that potentially sexually exciting material is appropriate and encyclopedic in some circumstances. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me think on your suggestion a little more. I will turn back with a fuller response later. At a first glance, I would prefer to add on your suggestion a condition like 'based on consensus' and also something like 'if the material is not primarily aiming for sexual exitement and it is informative'. Resid Gulerdem 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The section is inflammatory in that it is so loosely defined, editors will see it as a pro-censorship clause.
I am not sure about it. I believe good will of people and I think there is a real concern here that anybody can see. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I accept that. It remains to be seen. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I certainly expect to hear some unhappy voices but I believe many people can see what is this all about. Resid Gulerdem 09:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's enough to start with. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, the definition is from a highly reputed dcitionary. The determination of a material being acceptable is clearly left to the editors and consensus among them. So, it won't change anything contrary to the desire of community. It is practical and meaningful, I believe. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how you define pornography, it still isn't part of wikipedia policy. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And with this policy, I hope it will be partially mentioned or covered if the policy gets approval from the community. Resid Gulerdem 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to seek community input before you try to get approval. There's already way to much precedent for pornography clauses being shouted down. It would be wasting peoples time to ask for approval before you've sought ideas. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I am trying to get some input here right now. At this point, I cannot see a community consensus aganst that section. Is there any way to check if the people against that section? What would you suggest? Resid Gulerdem 09:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside. What will you do if consensus is to remove the pornography section of this policy? Will you follow consensus on this? I ask because you said above, "I hope it will be covered". So, regardless of your personal hopes, are you willing to follow the consensus? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If a consensus is a real consensus, I would follow that. Just a few and same people (I do not mean you here!) who like to argue with me wouldn't indicate a consensus to me. Maybe we should do this: When we feel ready for the poll, we can put two options before the pople; with or without that section. That would indicate a real consensus to me if they choose a policy without no-porn section. Please look at the no-porn section update. I hope you like it. Resid Gulerdem 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't like it. The primary purpose of a nude woman picture in an article about sex in advertising should be to sexually excite the viewer so that it conveys the information that sex sells. Your clause doesn't allow for this fact. An image on a page about a woman voted the 'sexiest woman in the world' should sexually stimulate. I consider these things self-evident.
I would like to invite contribution here before you put this to a vote. I find editors putting things to a votes prematurely quite saddening. If you insist on pushing this clause I might as well add a no violence clause and a no religion clause because I know quite a few people who find these two concepts ethically distasteful. It's only fair. We can ask people to vote on different versions which exclude or include my personal penchants. We could also have a no sarcasm clause because there's plenty of peopleful that find sarcasm offensive. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
New sections look to be fine to me. I am not planning to put no-porn section or the whole policy to a vote right now. I am open to any suggestions regarding the section. At the end of the day, if we are not agree, than we might consider asking to people. Resid Gulerdem 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone has a suggestion regarding a picture or a photo that might be approprite, or maybe partially represent, this policy page? Something like a picture of a writer while writing an article or just his/her hand, etc... Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. Resid Gulerdem 05:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Public Accountability Section

  • We have an obligation towards our donors who are also our readers. Their financial contributions signify their trust placed upon us. As these donations are tax-exempted, they are considered as public fund. It is not in our interest to act irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is contrary to public interest and violates the trust of our donors and the public. Keep in mind that once we lose the public's trust, it is difficult to gain it back.

Reasons to object:

  • This sounds a lot like we are trying to promote the idea that pay for comment is possible if you donate enough to wikipedia and kick up enough stink about something. This is unaaceptable to me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It implies we should tame our articles to offend as few people as possible. This would be the heart of censorship and the absolute antithesis of freedom of information. For me, Encyclopedic merit has to take precedence over offending the public. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The last sentence doesn't really stack up (I think we should delete it). I'm not sure what it's saying. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is in essence a censorship policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty much automatically states that many articles would have to be deleted to comply. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Limits Wikipedia as a whole for no good reason other than a small set of editor's personal opinions. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • is in conflict with WP:NOT and about half a dozen other existing policy which take precedence. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to support:

  • We are already publicly accountable in many senses. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is shows goodwill towards the public to say we have them in mind. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Pegasus' conmments:

  • I think it calls for being responsible. And being responsible no way implies censorship in my opinion. Public control, especially in the case that public is no different than editors, is inevitable.
  • Inclusion or exclusion of any material is subject to editorial consensus. It is over-stated in the whole policy. So, there is no reason to think that this policy implies deletion of some articles. Assuming that there is a consensus regarding the deletion of a particular material or a specific article, so what?
  • I do not think that anybody here or elsewhere can dictate or impose unnecessary restrictions onto the community. The standards are clearly stated, determination of being 'acceptable' is left to the editorial consensus.
  • I cannot see any conflicts with the preceeding policies. If we assume so, even in that case, No_binding rule implies that, everything here is man-made: they can be changed and updated.

Resid Gulerdem 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

Please add your own objections or supports above, and make comments and amendments below. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that, any text can be put into a form that it doesn't offend people but still gives the core information very clearly. To name the sponsors explicitely doesn't look to be so inappropriate to me simply because they are also mostly the editors. And not only them but public is also mentioned. I also agree that we shouldn't hurt public unnecessarily. Being under control of the public is not bad either. The section looks to be maybe not ideal but practical to me. Resid Gulerdem 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this section may be salvageable. Perhaps wait for someone to provide some more input. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence basically means : "Don't screw up". This is also a practical concern. Our donation drive depends entirely on goodwill, we can't afford bad publicity and mainstream media aren't always kind to wikipedia and seems ready to jump on our mistakes. I also notice that many donors are parents, and they commented that wikipedia is good for their children, that's why they donated. --Vsion 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

If and when you have a poll on any version of this that is less than "no censorship. period", please go to Wikipedia talk:Censorship and copy the votes over to here of all the people that voted for "no censorship. period"; so we don't have to reregister again here against censorship. Thanks. WAS 4.250 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you are suggesting we won't accept voters who may have change their minds? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, it is worth to try, huh? Resid Gulerdem 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. I was feeling rather than thinking. Go for it. I applaud the attempt. At the worst, it will be a great addition to the wikipedia culture category and stimulate thought. At the best it will stimulate productive behavior whether it is called a policy or not. Please forgive my negativity. I remain against censorship but on the fence about any specifics with regard to implementing such a thing. WAS 4.250 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to apologize. Best... Resid Gulerdem 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New Sections (violence, racism, sexism)

I've added sections on violence, sexism, and racism. I believe these all ethically belong directly beside clauses about pornography. I also intended to add a section on religious division. According to the rules laid down by the creator of this policy, this policy:

"Is open to modification but again not destruction. The way to modify it should be: copy the part from it here onto the discussion page express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate give your suggestion to fix the problem"

Please follow the rules in good faith if you want to make changes. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

MB, I liked the sections you added. They will fill some more gaps, I believe... Just great! Resid Gulerdem 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some modifications on religions part. I think no article should aim to encourage animosity between the religions. Resid Gulerdem 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
They're way too constricting. Many of the articles deal frankly with these things and Wikipedia can't be dumbed down just to make people feel all warm and fuzzy, these types of sections are one of the many reasons why I am strongly against this policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with you. I would cast a strong object vote against this proposal and I imagine so would most of wikipedia. I said these ethical clauses all belong together and I believe they do. They belong together on the cutting room floor! That said, I won't let these ethical freedoms be fought out one at a time (or worn away slowly). If we must try to have a pornography clause, we should have the whole kit of extremism. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is no harm if everybody feel warm. There is no room for fuzziness, if you do not define fuzziness as: consensus among the contributing editors... Resid Gulerdem 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Suggest some changes in wordings of 2nd sentence in the "No racism" section, the bolded are the new additions: "Where there exists material the possibility that such descriptions may that glorify or incite ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife, and violence, someone to racist beliefs or behaviour, an effort should be made to minimise this impact." . --Vsion 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also suggest merging the two sections on "No racism" and "No religious division", the two are often strongly intricated. --Vsion 01:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with last to statements made by Vsion. After all I am aving hard time to understand what this religion section is really for: For the articles that there is a possibly of causing animosity between spiritual beliefs, it should be either edited to note the harm this may cause earlier in the article, or edited to minimise this impact. I think these points can be mentioned in the previous sections. Resid Gulerdem 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, religious animosity is so important that deserves a seperate section too. Resid Gulerdem 14:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Changed 'no religious ...' section to 'no bias' and modified. Resid Gulerdem 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, majority

I am not sure if such regulation exists... Since it is refered in the text quite often, a quantitative measure of the 'consensus' and 'majority' might be necessary. How about this, if it is not given elsewhere:

  • Consensus: %75 or more of the editors
  • Majority: more than %50 of the editors Resid Gulerdem 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
'contributing editors' is a problematic term for me. I'd almost want consensus from non-contributing editors. Sometimes those who aren't involved directly have a clearer view. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted that term above. Resid Gulerdem 14:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote

How close do you think we are from putting the policy to a vote? Resid Gulerdem 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A vote with what goal? If the goal of the vote was "do you think this policy is heading in a good direction?", we could start now. If the goal of the vote was "should we make this policy today?" I think it's about 2 months or more premature. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It was just a question. 2 months is OK, no reason to rush. Resid Gulerdem 09:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
How about putting notice first at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or other pages, to solicit inputs from others and have more discussion? Also do you intend to have just one poll on the policy, or allow voters to have multiple options on which section to include or exclude? I would prefer the second one (with options). For example, editors might reject the "Pornography" section, but agree on the others like "offense" and "violence", etc.
Would you like to post a note to the page you suggested, and any others you think are appropriate. I do prefer optional vote system too. Resid Gulerdem 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I also have the following suggestions:
  • Remove "Legality" section, this is a separate issue. Also there would be dilemna if there exists unethical laws. Under ethics, it doesn't imply we should always follow the law. Also it kinda contradicts the "Collective consciousness" idea, because it considers only specific legal jurisdiction, that is in Florida, USA.
Good point. Fine with me. Resid Gulerdem 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename heading title "Privacy" to "Harm limitation"
Privacy seems to be a better title to me. Resid Gulerdem 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename heading title "Moral responsibility" to "Special sensitivity". This avoid the subjective word "Moral", and be more specific on the groups it is protecting.
It could be 'responsibility' or 'sensitivity' alone? Resid Gulerdem 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How about having a "in a nutshell": "Do no harm!"
A more possitive one: Maybe like 'be nice and productive'? I am not good at finding a slogan but 'Do no harm' doesn't look to be a good summary to me and sounds negative. Resid Gulerdem 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as a feedback, thanks for all the effort.  :D --Vsion 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I also shared some ideas, not sure at all points you raised. What do you think about my suggestions? Resid Gulerdem 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(with edit conflict) Your decision is fine with me. Just for discussion, in my opinion, there are three levels of seriousness:
  1. Content that cause harm (some people will get hurt as a result, effect is potentially long-term)
  2. Content that cause offense (some people will be terribly disgusted, and it may linger for some time)
  3. Content that are politically incorrect (people will be uncomfortable or feel insulted, but only for a while)
My greatest concern is with (1), and it includes revealing juvenile victim's identity, adding to people's grief, bomb-making manual, inciting violence, serious defamatory, etc. Child pornography would also falls under (1), but most other sexual content is at most (2), as with insulting others' religion (although the Danish cartoon is under (1), as history proved). Sexism, rudeness, and sarcasm, I feel, would be under (3). I hope this explains the rationale of my suggestions. As I mentioned earlier, my main concern is on "harm limiting" (1), so I'm trying to nudge the proposal to emphasize more on it, but it now clearly covers more than that, which is fine with me. --Vsion 10:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I post a note to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Resid Gulerdem 09:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I value very much your approach and I think I can clearly see your motivation. I do completely share your concerns. Your classification is a smart one shows that you already thought on these issues for quite some time. If you would ask me to put my concerns into the order as you did, I think I would have the same order. Only a minor difference would be in the sexual content. Insult and porn are the keywords for me. Insult not only to religion but also ideology and even lifestyle of the other is not acceptable. As you examplified, JP dispute proved that how bad that could be. Pronography and sexual context is the other one. I have a simple and clear reasoning for this: If you think carefully on some crimes, for example some of the points you mentioned in (1), maybe like sexual abuse, child porn, etc, you will see that, one of the reasons behind all those is sexually over-sitimulated people... Their brains are numbed with these kind of materials. They live for almost only lower part of the body. They cannot think properly. They are unaware what is going on in the country or elsewhere in the world. Can you see my point. It might require more explenations but I feel that you can see what I mean easily. So being against pornography is equivalent to being agains child porn, being against sexual assault, etc for me. Going in the same manner it is also equivalent trying to protect children from harm, sexual assault, abuse, etc for me. Not every prople have enough self control so that the images s/he see everywhere and everyday do not have an impact on him/her. Everybody impacted in fact, the volnerable ones are kids and juveniles. When I see some news about sexual assault, or related crimes, I become sad for not only the victim but for also the person commited that crime. Pornography young people exposed excessively for long, for example, might be a factor behind their motivation as it shapes young peoples brains. Anyways, this is a deep discussion. I am not sure if I could explain myself clearly. But I hope at least you can see what I mean. Briefly ponography is swamp in my sight, and related crimes are mosquitoes living in it. Victims we are all sad for... Resid Gulerdem 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pornography

Pornography which can be described as visual or verbal descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause sexual excitement should generally be avoided in Wiki articles. The determination of a material being 'unacceptable' or 'pornographic' should be done by the contributing editors in a particular article. Nevertheless, in some circumstances potentially sexually exciting material which is primarily aiming for sexual excitement, but is also informative, might be found appropriate and encyclopedic based on consensus.

This section in this form look to be just fine. I cannot see your point. How come you would like to stick a pornography statement into the section in an ethics and standard policy. I really cant see a rationale for it. Whay do you mean by 'these two edits reflect what both the actual ethical standard and consensus', what consensus?

This is the section I wrote, so I would like to please discuss here and do net revert it back. As I said before, if we cannot get an agreement, I am planning to ask people about this section, as an option in the poll.

The form you want me change to is far from being acceptable. Your reasoning is not true. 'The sexiest women of the world' can be a wiki article, if there is a consensus on it and on any possible picture in that article. But your version do not restrict a nasty picture taken during a sexual intercourse. How if one would like to put a dirty picture to a possible article like 'sexual intercourse', 'orgasm' or whatever (I do not like to use these terms, so sorry for my language). Based on your request and suggestion before, I added a new statement which use a simple restriction like 'primerily aiming sexual exitement'. You should find it a good comprimise, I believe. Resid Gulerdem 08:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This section of the pronography section was written based on my words. I am restoring it to what was actually discussed. Please refer to the initial discussion above where we talked articles like "sex in advertising" and how there are definite times when representations are intended to sexually stimulate. This was why we decided to add a sentence at the end. Only you twisted my wording to be the opposite of what we discussed. That is unacceptable. Discuss your objections here. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You remember it incorrectly. I wrote that section. First of all I asked about your suggestion. And I added the restrictions like 'primarily' and 'consensus'. We do not need to agree on it. You should wait for vote. You can choose your option then. This is the section I am writing, you are invited for contribution, not for the changing the course of discussion with your POV. Thanks for understanding... Resid Gulerdem 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the conversation where you agreed to include my words yet twisted them to mean the opposite before posting it into your project:
  • The section does not adequately reflect when references and images of pornography (or deviations thereof) might be most appropriate or least appropriate. MB
  • This can be included. I or maybe you if you prefer doing so, could a statement about it. Resid Gulerdem 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but I'm not sure exactly what the guidelines should be. Obviously people felt some "sexually exciting material" is okay on wikipedia, because we already have some in various articles. So perhaps say something like: It is accepted on wikipedia that potentially sexually exciting material is appropriate and encyclopedic in some circumstances. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me think on your suggestion a little more. I will turn back with a fuller response later. At a first glance, I would prefer to add on your suggestion a condition like 'based on consensus' and also something like 'if the material is not primarily aiming for sexual exitement and it is informative'. Resid Gulerdem 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You see here that it is you who twisted my words before adding them into the article. This is completely unacceptable. To add in the weasel word primarily completely negates the point you conceded. This seems disingenuous to me and shows that you are refusing the input of the consensus discussions we reach. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You make me feel bad and lose my trust to your sincerity. Let us see what happen above:
  • I wrote a section
  • I invited you to make a contribution for the sake of compromise due to your concern
  • I suggested two restrictions and said I will think more on it
  • You twisted my word: 'if the material is NOT primarily aiming for sexual exitement AND it is informative' according to your POV.
  • And now you are claiming otherwise.
I am really losing my trust to you. I deleted the related statement. The existing part is already self explanatory. For an addition, it looks to be that, we need more discussion. But sincerity and honesty are the key words. Resid Gulerdem 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't make you feel anything. How you choose to feel is your business. Emotional blackmail won't change that it is you who twisted my words (highlighted in bold above). You have done nothing but police this policy page since you created it. You have obsessively edited your POV into the policy, going against all discussion to the contrary. Even when you did concede you felt you were in the minority you still wrote your own POV into the article.
That you didn't place my words in the article correctly in the first place is a gross display of bad faith. You appear to be simply upset because I'm am no longer tolerating you applying one set of rules to yourself and a different set of rules to everyone else. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To many subjects in a single page

I think that this page has no change of surviving a vote. The reason is that it contains so many new things and aspects where people have different opinions about, that it will be impossible to find language that is strong and acceptable by all. Anything that smells like facilitating censorship will likely be voted down (see all attempts to that previously). Same for anything that is ambigious, or fluffy language. Another thing, stick to accepted definitions for words. KimvdLinde 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, one day this page will serve as a nice piece of evidence for what happens when people try to force their personal ethical standards on wikipedia. I am looking forward to the vote. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
KL, all definitions are from reputed sources. Yes there are quite a few new things but the point here also summerize all those stuff coherently. With your contributions it might be even stronger. By the way there is no part for facilitating censorship in it. Resid Gulerdem 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hyper-Sensitivity

I think this policy is flawed first because it tries to accomplish too much. We already have Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV), Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Civility. I have problems with most of the additions beyond those simple but vital policies.

There is nothing new in the Editorial guidelines section, other than an arbitrary definition of consensus. In the Editorial standards section the real problems begin. The Objectivity section seems harmless, but we already have NPOV which expresses this idea better and somewhat differently. For example, the section implies editors should evaluate what is true (and do some based solely on empiricism). However, this violates Wikipedia:No original research. We should only describe ideas and judgements published elsewhere, not "reflect" our own judgment. Also, if judgment of validity is based only on observability, that would eliminate many significant (albeit incorrect or unprovable) ideas.

The privacy section is flat-out unacceptable. All notable, relevant, and verifiable information should be included. This excludes unnecessary private details without compromising the article. As for "Moral responsiblity", the same is true. We must include information according to NPOV, not a sympathetic point of view (SPOV), as used at Wikinfo. If notable offensive POVs are expressed (even about the innocent or grieving), we must describe them (see for instance God Hates Fags).

"Public accountability" claims "we have an obligation towards our donors": we do not. Wikipedia does not exist to get donors or readers. Donors should provide money (as I do) because they support Wikipedia's existing goals and policies, not because they want special consideration. We do not have an obligation to act in the public interest either; we have an obligation to act in furtherance of our goals. I believe these are worthy, but the general public need not agree.

The "Censorship" section is clearly contrary to the rest of the page, which means it's not worth addressing. For example, the "Offense" section states directly the opposite with "Insulting or offensive expressions should generally be avoided in Wikipedia." However, offensive quotations should certainly be included. If the offensive text is original to Wikipedia, it is doubtless original research, editor POV, unverifiable, or simply non-descriptive. "Deliberate attacks to [...] religious values or people, cultures, life styles" should certainly be included in a NPOV way. To do anything else is again SPOV. "It is always good to be considerate for the concerns raised by the 'minorities'" is essentially an over-simplification of the NPOV policy.

Pornography, by any definition, should be included where relevant (such as in articles about pornographic actors). I also strongly disagree with the section about violence. Regardless of POV issues, this is all wrong even from a moral standpoint. Being "sensitive" about portraying things like the Rwandan Genocide or The Holocaust just makes it easier for them to happen again. The same applies to racism. If we don't describe the "descriptions that are intended to be divisive over nationality, race, colour or creed", how can people understand them? Ignorance contributes to bigotry. If we could not include Hitler's Mein Kampf quote about gassing Jews, readers would be worse off. Perhaps more importantly, we can not compromise NPOV on demand.

The propaganda section is again addressed much better by NPOV policy. Expressions about "sexism" should be included for the same reasons given above for racism and the offensive section (i.e. NPOV). The bias section is also addressed by NPOV, except that policy has no provision for hiding verifiable information that could cause "animosity between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies." The Language section is unnecessary for the reasons I gave when discussing "offensive."

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that we are not journalists and thus Journalism ethics and standards are irrelevant. In fact, journalism is unwelcome here because of our "no original research" policy; many of the standards for journalism are equally unwanted. Also, Wikipedia is an enyclopedia.Wiki is a technology. Please stop confusing the two; wikis are used on many sites with no connection to Wikipedia. Superm401 - Talk 00:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposal aims to outline these standards and create a policy that summarizes them. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently, their place in the whole picture and their relations to the Wiki ethics and standards are also important issues to be addressed.
One of the reasons we have this proposal is mentioned above. We would like to cherently combine all relevant policies into one ethics policy. There are couple of original and very important points here: (1) The policy refers to article-based classifications, and (2) it leaves determination of the 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' to the editors. (3) It also values consenssu over anything else. So the policy simply summerizes the policies coherently, using their common definitions defines and outlines some standards, but again leaves to the community to determine 'acceptability' of any materials. Please not that ethics are always more demanding. Resid Gulerdem 03:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from refering to we in your comments that are meant to include my contributions to this project. I have no idea what your conception of we is at this present moment but I am almost positive we don't agree on what is and isn't consensus. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You have not addressed any of my real complaints. The problem is that this policy is not just combining existing policies. It is changing them, and many of the changes are unacceptable. Also, I still don't understand what you mean precisely by "article-based classifications." Could you add a simple definition to the main page?
It is not changing anything, at all, ever, never. It gives the basic definitions, and says that editors will determine if a material is appropriate. What is wrong with that? It doesn't dictate any unnecessary restrictions or rules onto the community. Article based classification is well explained in the text, I do not think that I cannot make it more clear: It says that, to have a consensus on definitions, you need to think about them case-by-case. Some terms, say 'porn', are almost impossible to determine in the most general terms and it may depend the article. If a material is appropriate for an article, editors can use it there. Otherwise they don't have to. One material can be considered as inapprpriate for one article but can be good for another. Resid Gulerdem 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As for editors determining what's acceptable, that's obviously true. However, if this becomes policy, they will use it (as we use all policy) to make those determinations. Thus, we would want the advice as good as possible. That's why I went into detail about what I didn't like. Finally, what do you think ethics are more demanding than? If you mean Wikipedia policy, I disagree. Ethics are general guides that can be interpreted very subjectively; Wikipedia policies like verifiability, NPOV, and original research have more clearly defined meanings. Superm401 - Talk 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)  ::As for editors determining what's acceptable, that's obviously true. However, if this becomes policy, they will use it (as we use all policy) to make those determinations. Thus, we would want the advice as good as possible. That's why I went into detail about what I didn't like. Finally, what do you think ethics are more demanding than? If you mean Wikipedia policy, I disagree. Ethics are general guides that can be interpreted very subjectively; Wikipedia policies like verifiability, NPOV, and original research have more clearly defined meanings. Superm401 - Talk 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Brief definitions are given from reputed dictionaries, and Wiki policies are refered in the policy. You can find this clearly stated in the policy: ... With Wiki policies in mind, an editorial consensus .... What does that imply in your opinion? The policy refers to all existing approved policies. If you assume not, for a moment, WP:No_binding already implies that eveything here are man-made and can be updated. Again, I cannot see any big differences from the existing policies, though... Resid Gulerdem 05:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If there are no significant changes, I'd just as soon not have the policy. This avoids instruction creep. Superm401 - Talk 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, just the opposite. It will help for a good understanding of the policies coherently. So far the rules are seperate and hard to have a an overall understanding of all (or at least more important ones). This policy can be a good first step to get information about Wiki editing for the new editors and also a rule of thumb for the others. Resid

Vandalism and Violation

I am tired of the fact that Pagarus is continuously vandalizing either the policy page or the discussion page. We, the contributing editors to this article are already decided that we need two more months to improve the policy. Then we will put it into a vote. Now this user (maybe admin) Pagarus is without contributing to the article starting an edit war. Besides, he threatening me that I am violating 3 revert rule. Apperantly he has admin privillidges and planning to block me from the editing. He is setting a good example of misusing the admin priviliges... He is starting an edit war and violating 3 revert rule. He definitely do not prefer contribution but instead violation and vandalizing the work. Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but there are plenty of nice admins who watch WP:AN/3RR who would be more than willing to take it up, furthermore I attempted to constructively make the proposal into something good that would have a chance in hell of passing and you rved it every time (see page history) as well as every other edit you don't personally agree with in blatant violation of WP:OWN. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We here decided to have a poll later when it is mature. Why can't you see this. We are planning to put it into a vote 2 months later. You raised some concerns here and me and someone else responded back. Why do not try to answer those responses but instead insisting on your agenda in contrast to the public desire here? Resid Gulerdem 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've given up trying to help this since my help to make this a better proposal is clearly not welcome so I'll stop. I'll wait for two months until someone puts up the poll to vote and I apologize for edit warring. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Making good-faith edits to a developing proposal page is not vandalism. I agree with him that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You say "we, the contributing editors" agreed to a vote in two months and . However, I see only you and one other editor agreeing, and only today. Pegasus1138 and I are also contributing editors, and did not agree. It appears by "contributing editors" you actually mean just you and those who closely agree with you. The "public desire" is not only what you desire. Superm401 - Talk 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
By we he thought he was also refering to me. He was mistaken and is not empowered to speak on my behalf, ever! I have explained my restoring of the poll in the poll section above. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I answered this at the beginning. There are three editors here continuously contributing: Me, Vsion, MB. Pegasus partially contributed to the discussion and decide himself to have a poll individually. As an expert on twisting, MB contradicts his/her statements above. There are more than one statements actually. I am kinda shocked how a person can contradicts himself/herself in such a short period of time. I know it wont help if I copy them down here, as it didn't help for porn section. Resid Gulerdem 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I already explained this. I went from let's wait to let's get this over with. I think it's obvious why. There's no reason to be nasty just because I disagree with you. And please stop deleting other peoples comments! ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I did not delete anything but you did. I copied two comments, including mine to Comments section for a better organization of the poll. You deleted a comment from me about you. You are really a very strange person. It is not enough to say Peace for peace. Try to be a person of peace. It requires some honesty and sincerity of course... Resid Gulerdem 08:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The editting history confirms Metta's accusation. --24.184.24.134 08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Apperantly you can read, maybe you shoul look at it a little more carefull. I just reorganized for efficiency of the poll. The part I deleted is the first comment on the comment section. Metta did delete my comment. Would you like to see the link. I am sure you can figure it out... Resid Gulerdem 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you did not delete another user's comment? - * The poll is already underway. Get over yourself. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC) <----this comment maybe? I've read it quite carefully before posting. --24.184.24.134 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of that comment. Probably it happened because I was trying to organize the page on an earlier version. COuld you figure it out which comment of mine is deleted too? Or you are just interested in my edits? Resid Gulerdem 08:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming you referring to here? Your comments deletion were caused by revert on the grounds of 'reorganizing' the posts. In any case, I don't think it was intentional, nor do I think you gutted Metta's comment on purpose, anymore. --24.184.24.134 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you On the other hand I did not mean the page you provided the link. Please look at this to see a real and intentional deletion (vandalism?). Resid Gulerdem 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not believe it was intentional. I see it as collateral damage when Meta reverted for the same reason stated in the previous post. I would let this matter go. --24.184.24.134 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe so, simply because of his/her 'edit summary' and also the version s/he revered to did not fix any of his/her concern, in terms of poll organization. But anyways, we can forget it of course. Resid Gulerdem 10:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Rgulerdem, please stop your ad hominem attacks. I apologise for calling you obsessive. Please just chill out a little and stop moving everyone's edits about everywhere. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with reorganizing the poll for a better efficiency? Stop giving me advise. I do accept you apology for once, I hope you do not vandalize my comments anymore. Please lend some courtesy. Resid Gulerdem 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
"Reorganising for efficiency" is a euphemism for "moving someone's comments around so my POV would come first." That's tantamount to deleting their comments. When in fact you move the actual opening comment of a thread. That's vandalism. I hope you understand. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you quote this from 'Assume good faith' section? Resid Gulerdem 08:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ALL EDITORS OF THIS PAGE

Since I am taking an administrative role in an aspect of this dispute (a 3RR violation report) I am ethically obligated to stay out of this issue in terms of content however I would like to urge all involved editors to take a deep breath, step back, and be nice to each other... None of you look like newbies so with all due respect I don't think I have to explain what will happen if things will get out of hand and I doubt anyone wants to get blocked for incivility or 3RR. Thanks. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Rgulerdem hasn't stopped reverting. And the text moves are getting quite large now. Pretty soon we'll have a completely re-edited talk page. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
What you are talking about? What an imagination... Should I copy the definition of a liar here from a good dictionary? Resid Gulerdem 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).
Please stop your ad hominem attacks on me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
I am not attacking: just naming your actions... Do not claim anything about me, that I actually did not do, please... Otherwise you need to prove it. Peace. Resid Gulerdem 09:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if I am the only one that does not know. I have been editing wikipedia since early 2004, but before this article I only saw cililized editing everywhere, so in this respect, I am still very new. I used to think that personal attacks and edit wars only happened to articles that I would never edit. So please do inform us what happens if things get out of hand. Perhaps you have a handy link to a policy or something? DanielDemaret 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Daniel, you are much more experienced than me. Any suggestions for getting out of this mess? Resid Gulerdem 08:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Why don't you restore Pegasus1138's poll to the way he intended it? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing different than that. We first need to decide if it is good time for a poll. Why this is wrong? Why you insist on Pegasus intensions? And actually what do you mean by that? Resid Gulerdem 09:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. What I mean by that is... When a user posts a new thread in good faith, they have every right to expect their post to remain untouched and for other users to post their responses underneath. Pegasus1138 posted a thread in good faith. It is fair for Pegasus1138 to expect that thread to remain.
So, when you mve pegasus' introduction to the thread down the page and replace it with your own introduction, many editors (including myself) will see it as vandalism.
When you follow up this vandalism by start another poll and pretending it makes the first poll obsolete, that is disruption. I hope I've explained better now.
Please undo the damage you've caused to Pegasus1138's thread. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no demage at all. I reorganized it to a form that the poll is more productive. It is not good to ask people where, what and how they should place their contribution. I did it without deleting or demaging anything. I think I have right to do that. I would like to see what people would suggest for an improvement in any case. Isn't it the reason we are starting an opinion survey? I think it requires applause. Period. Resid Gulerdem 09:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You deleted Pegasus1138's introduction to his own poll and replaced it with a different introduction that you wrote, and you moved his introductory text to the bottom of the section. Pegasus1138 objected and you stated he has no right to object to your actions? Are you serious? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the poll to the way it was written. It is perfectly satisfactory and succinct. Do not change it again please, I see it as vandalism (and obviously so does pegasus). At the very least you should respect that you are warring against 2 other editors who are sincere. I have moved the comments about the poll into chronological order. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not like to say you are a liar again but, let me say this, you do not tell the truth for sure. You are vandalizing my edits. I totally lost my trust to you. I did not delete anything. All notes from the poll owner is there. Did you make a rule that I cannot add to a poll? Resid

Built in liberal bias

The two consecutive paragraphs "Censorship" and "Offense" can basically be summarised as follows:

  • Censorship: Censorship based on conservative values (decency, propriety etc) is banned.
  • Offense: Censorship based on liberal values (political correctness) is strongly encouraged.

Any comments? Osomec 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish you could examplify what made you think that way? Resid

More blatant than I thought

The word "liberal" appeared in the opening paragraph of this description of a supposedly npov encyclopedia. That was a joke wasn't it? Yes, I know that liberal has a variety of meanings (some of the original ones are now more widely held by conservatives), but manipulative use of the term is one of the ways in which the liberal establishment creates a warm glow around itself. Osomec 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see your concern exactly, what do you mean?
By the way, the policy refer to the approved Wiki policies clearly: ..With wiki policies in mind, an editorial consensus... quoted from the policy. So there is no ambiguity. Resid

Semi-protection

This page has been unprotected. Do not refactor the comments of others unnecessarily. The polls currently on the page should not be modified (obviously except for voting in them). If you have disputes, feel free to comment and start an alternate poll if you so choose. The page may be re-protected if anyone ignores this advice. Superm401 - Talk 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that Resid had been blocked. However, there is still no need for protection here. I have blocked the IP he is using until his account block expires. Superm401 - Talk 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The poll is supposed to get peoples opinion and suggestions. Not to kill the process. Please check the hitory and be fair to both sides. Resid—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.45.117 (talk • contribs)

The reason behind the poll

This poll is designed to get peoples opinion, not to kill the process. Unfortunately a user is playing with it. S/he is reverting continuously my edits and moeover s/he is crying out loud in 3rr admin page. Consequently, I am blocked by an admin who has apperantly no time to check the case carefully. The poll should be in this form so that it is useful for an improvement.

For the ones who think this policy is needed, but should be improved, please add your comments so that we can go for a better policy. In doing so, itemize your concerns: each can be addressed accordingly. We are here trying to do something useful to Wiki. No reason to be completely disagree with the whole policy or ideas. Please help to improve the policy and to put it into a better from. Resid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.45.117 (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

I can see that some editors only mention about the thing they found problematic. To improve the policy we need possitive feedback too. Actually that is more important. Could you please add your suggestion to your critiques...

Something like this: This section doesn't sound good because of 'this'. If it is modified 'that' way, it can be better. etc... Resid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.45.117 (talk • contribs)

Suggested Comprimise On Voting Procedure

I was given the suggestion that we extend the APPROVAL POLL so it goes for two weeks. That would seem to deal with RG's main objection and it might also support those that think the proposal needs a decent burial. It's a win win situation. So to be precise, my suggestion is that we add exactly seven days to the end date written in the approval poll. Your thoughts? Does this mess with the voting process too much? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this compromise as per Meta. It will give Resid the extra time needed to raise additional objections, if he feels it is required. It would be quite unfair otherwise, when the main proposer of the policy does not have adequate time (six days instead of seven due to ban) to address to his concerns, in addition to the points above. Extending the ending date will make the poll results stronger. Pegasus, please consider this. --24.184.24.134 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I rescind my support. Lets get this over drama with. Extending it is not needed. --Jqiz 11:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

The earlier form of the poll allows input from the editors. This form looks like a YES-NO game. I would recommed to go back to earlier version suggested by main proposer so that everyone could make suggestions. That would be a real compromise. The duration of the poll has secondary importance. I cannot see why Metta Bubble insist on this version? While crying for a change on the Pegasus version, I cannot explain to myself why Metta Bubble changing the poll suggested by main proposer mercilessly? No fair! ThoMas 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgulerdem (talk • contribs) Banned sockpuppet. KimvdLinde 04:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not use different names. If I want to write something I do write it. And always sign. So you will know when I am here. Metta Bubble played a dirty game on me. She reported my edits on 3RR page. Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s reverts much more than mine, but since I do not know the system here as good as MB and his/her fanatic friends, I did not report MB's vandalism. Eventally I am blocked. It shows me that MB is not a good editor for this ethics page. But anyways... Regarding Thomas, he is one of my good friends who was trying to help me. But now, he swear he doesn't even want to hear the name of Wiki, after some fanatics actions here. See you tomorrow... Peace. Resid
And by the way, stop changing the poll I started. MB, I know that it is very hard for you to be respectfull to others, but please try once. Who knows, you might even be successful... Resid
Until admins say he is not a sockpuppet, it remains the way it is. BTW, you are violating the block again. KimvdLinde 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
That is true, I wish I did not have to do this. As an experienced editor you can see the bias here. Although MB deleting, distorting, vandalizing my edits, reverting the poll I started no body takes an action for it. MB is so foxy so that s/he could make admins block me. I understood his/her attitude although I do not respect at all. What I cannot see is yours behaviour? Why you are like completely against for this policy? Do not you think it can be improved and be useful? Really, why?... Resid
First of all, you are advocating an ethics page, but I do not see you living by your own ethics page. You are setting a nice example of how NOT to do this. You violate: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, WP:NOT, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
I have repeatedly indicated why I am against this policy, and you just choose not to want to do anything with that. It is vague, to many new things, in conflict with other policies and guidelines, introduces censorship etc etc etc etc. KimvdLinde 07:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
First that is your POV. I do not think that I am violating any policies. What I am doing is this: trying to stop people who is trying to kill this process. But unfortunately, I am kinda naive so couldn't manage the case well against foxy people. I did not see anytime you told those to MB for example... S/he set much worse example than I did, in this talk. And you know all that. Do you have an answer for it too, why? You look to be more supportive to MB... Is it fair?
Second part: If you do not want to understand, how can I explain it to you? Let me try once more, but please try to understand this time:
  • Two many things: The main ideas is to summerize the policies coherently so that it becomes a source for newcomers, and also reference for all.
  • It conflicts: It does not: I quote: .. Wiki policies in mind, the editorial consensus.. from the policy. Can't you see what does this mean?
  • Introduce censorship: No. Tell me how and where. I will fix it..
Third part is this: I continuously calling all editors not only criticize but also make alternative suggestions. So for example what wuld your suggestion be to fix the problem, for example about censorship? Isn't it more productive if you make some suggestions as well? I do want to do something but I would like you tell me what makes you unhappy so that I can change it. It would be better if you put your version into the discussion.
Eventually, please think about this: If this is a good idea, and if it can be beneficial, what is the reason to kill this process? Why we do not try to improve it. It would add to Wiki a great deal I believe. So far there is no an ethics policy. Do not you think that it is needed? It is not my personal problem, if there is a lost, it will be of Wiki. I hope this helps. Resid
In this post, you violate: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and evasion of a 3RR block. KimvdLinde 08:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


I see that there is are two polls at the top of this article. The first which asks whether it is time for a poll, and then suddenly after that an approval poll, as if one side of the first poll had won. I was about to vote to wait with an approval poll, but then I saw that the approval vote was on the way already. Could anyone please explain what I missed here? DanielDemaret 11:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First poll was created to undermine the second poll. --Jqiz 11:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see now that the date on the first vote of the do-we-need-a-poll vote is later than the date on the approval-poll. I would prefer to vote for no on the do-we-need-a-poll vote, but the strangeness of having two votes going at the same time makes me feel I have to ask first. Are both votes valid at the same time, and if they not, perhaps there is some policy one might refer to? DanielDemaret 11:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Input for both polls if you can. It's utter chaos right now, so I cannot answer your question. But, the pieces should fall into place, eventually. --Jqiz 11:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I shall do as you suggest then, Jqiz.DanielDemaret 11:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting question. Does current policy say anything about what to do when someone creates another poll in order to undermine an existing poll? It would be good to remove the confusion by deleting the readiness poll. Perhaps combine the two polls? It roughly appears editors are split over voting NO in the readiness poll or Oppose in the approval poll. Perhaps we could start a 3rd poll to decide whether we should combine the first two polls? And perhaps even a 4th poll to decide whether the 3rd poll is premature. And then! A 5th poll too... Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments from this page

DO NOT delete anybody else's comments. If you want to archive them, then do so properly, but removal of other comments is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, speaking of not deleting comments. I think you grabbed a very early edit there. There's a much much much more recent version of the text you restored that includes a bunch more votes. Anyway, I request someone archives that poll, per your request. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. It's done. Message me if there's any problems. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I just restored the comments at the time of my last posting. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)