This week saw a major change in focus from conduct ( last edition) to policies. Discussions have been started through various avenues on Wikipedia about a number of policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COI.
A discussion was opened by ASCIIn2Bme at the urging of the Arbitration Committee for the following reason:
Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.
This discussion has commenced in light of the recently closed TimidGuy ban appeal arbitration case. Some suggestions under debate include deleting the guideline outright, tagging it as {{ historical}}, upgrading it to a policy, and requiring editors to openly declare conflicts of interest on their user pages.
Are you a close follower of important discussions within the project? Do you consider an informed community essential for Wikipedia's health and future? The Signpost is seeking regular contributors to the Discussion report feature; step forward if interested in the comments, at the WP:NEWSROOM, or by email at wikipediasignpostgmail.com.
This week saw a major change in focus from conduct ( last edition) to policies. Discussions have been started through various avenues on Wikipedia about a number of policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COI.
A discussion was opened by ASCIIn2Bme at the urging of the Arbitration Committee for the following reason:
Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.
This discussion has commenced in light of the recently closed TimidGuy ban appeal arbitration case. Some suggestions under debate include deleting the guideline outright, tagging it as {{ historical}}, upgrading it to a policy, and requiring editors to openly declare conflicts of interest on their user pages.
Are you a close follower of important discussions within the project? Do you consider an informed community essential for Wikipedia's health and future? The Signpost is seeking regular contributors to the Discussion report feature; step forward if interested in the comments, at the WP:NEWSROOM, or by email at wikipediasignpostgmail.com.
Discuss this story
I like this section a lot - major ongoing discussions are of great interest to me and often easy to overlook. Dcoetzee 00:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply