Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Userbox content: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 108:
===Discussion 2===
:Well put. [[User:Legotech|Legotech]] ([[User talk:Legotech|talk]]) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Nuke them all from orbit, that's the only way to be sure. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]
:If you nuke politics, you have to nuke religion too. It's a very thin line between ''this user supports Israel'' or ''This user is a Zionist'' and ''This user is Jewish''. It's also a thin line between ''this user supports country X'' and ''this user is a member of Wikiproject country X''. Are you really supporting nuking all of that from user space? -- [[User:Kendrick7|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User talk:Kendrick7|talk]]</sup> 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::There's a huge difference between "This user hates dirty hippies" and "This user is a member of Wikiproject:Counterculture". One is "collaboration - relevant" and one ain't. I could be a member of Wikiproject:Canada because I'm Canadian, interested in Canada, think highly or lowly of it, or just have some expertise that allows me to comment. Similarly, anything else that's "This user is somehow knowledgable about or useful to articles on X" is still worthwhile - I may be a member of Wikiproject:Intelligent Design because I'm a <s>creationist</s> Intelligent Designer or a Scientist interested in public outreach, which means I could be from either side of the debate. "I'm interested in/knowledge about/have access to resources on the Politics of Ontario is relevant to encyclopaedia writing and encourages collaboration". "I'm a conservative with a capital L" does none of these things - it's divisive commentary that actively hinders collaboration between people of different biases and encourages the formation of cliques, bands & so forth.
::In conclusion - yeah, from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]
::The link with ''this user is a member of Wikiproject X'' might suggest that they have passionate feelings about X, but in controversial subjects like politics and religion it's just as likely to be passion for opposition as passion for support. I see the links between the other examples you give but I don't think this one is entirely legitimate. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">[[User:Zeibura|Zeibura]]</font> <sup>([[User talk:Zeibura|Talk]])</sup> 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::And there's it's even more tenuous - I might join some wikiproject because I have access to some kind of difficult to get resource on the subject, or relevant expertise, rather than any passion'd feelings. Having a university subscription to the subscription only journal "American Journal of Medieval Orthography" would be an excellent reason to join Wikiproject Medieval Orthography, even if you can't give two shits about the subject. It's relevant to collaboration. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]
:Life an WP isn't about everything being positive, there is negative in this world and user's should be allowed to say that. If positive user opinion/belief is allowed then so should negative (within common-sense constraints). There's too much political correctness as it is. At this rate the WP logo should have a rose-coloured tint. So long as there is a human element to WP then good/bad, positive/negative, light/dark will always come to the surface. One cannot hope to stop it, all we can do is give a framework that utilises realism based common-sense rather than idealism. It is human nature to express opinion and belief systems. You won't ever stop it. To attempt to do so is a recipe for either frustration, disaster or futility. There are going to be editors who disagree, there are going to be editors that are inflamed. You cannot serve all the people all the time. Life isn't like that and neither should Wikipedia. People have to learn to deal with offensiveness in the real world, let them deal with it here too. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<font color="#000000">Web</font><font color="#ff0000">H</font><font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 193:
:*And what exactly is this "serious damage" you speak of? Is it quantifiable or just a surreptitious use of hyperbole? --[[User:WebHamster|'''<font color="#000000">Web</font><font color="#ff0000">H</font><font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::What I mean by "serious damage" is the amount of nasty cases this has brought on. We are seeing XFD discussions boil down to personal attacks between established editors, and using XFD discussions to push a POV. We've already had some very good users leave the project over this, whether by others actions or their own mistakes. But it's still over this dispute over userbox content. I hope this explains my concern. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]])</small></sup></span> 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed - soapboxing outside of userboxen should also be a no-no. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]
::There are frequently angry disputes over policy. That doesn't establish that the policy is wrong, only that a large amount of people either don't understand it or choose to ignore it. <font size="4">[[Zen|☯]]</font> <font face="impact"> [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</font> ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
| |||