This page was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
There are a lot of essays and many are safely ignored. More essays make instructions WP:CREEP even more likely. Such essays may perfectly be personal. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This stuff all feels like trying to smuggle political values into @ikipedia's bureaucracy when the behaviour they try to prevent is already dealt with by other policies like WP:FORUM, WP:CIVILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
Exactly what statements can people say that are disruptive but are simultaneously not a personal attack, not a forum STYLE comment, and not a fringe idea. I think these cases are unlikely.
On the other side, hate is a vague and ill-defined concept and it seems perfectly construe truthful statements about groups as hateful. There are any number of things that may be true about a person that an individual may feel form part of their identity and having to deal with questions of hate on these topics feels like a tedious and pointless process since it becomes an exercise in discussing motive and ideology as opposed to just reading the sources. I guess we could a protected characteristic approach, where only certain aspects of an individual's identity are considered potentially helpful. But even then if people are going to write *anything* about these topics you get into WP:POV issues, where one side is defined as hateful.
All seems like a bad idea, unless you can demonstrate something that isn't caught by one of these policies. TALpedia 22:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
There are a lot of essays and many are safely ignored. More essays make instructions WP:CREEP even more likely. Such essays may perfectly be personal. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This stuff all feels like trying to smuggle political values into @ikipedia's bureaucracy when the behaviour they try to prevent is already dealt with by other policies like WP:FORUM, WP:CIVILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
Exactly what statements can people say that are disruptive but are simultaneously not a personal attack, not a forum STYLE comment, and not a fringe idea. I think these cases are unlikely.
On the other side, hate is a vague and ill-defined concept and it seems perfectly construe truthful statements about groups as hateful. There are any number of things that may be true about a person that an individual may feel form part of their identity and having to deal with questions of hate on these topics feels like a tedious and pointless process since it becomes an exercise in discussing motive and ideology as opposed to just reading the sources. I guess we could a protected characteristic approach, where only certain aspects of an individual's identity are considered potentially helpful. But even then if people are going to write *anything* about these topics you get into WP:POV issues, where one side is defined as hateful.
All seems like a bad idea, unless you can demonstrate something that isn't caught by one of these policies. TALpedia 22:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)