Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
What about moving this to Wikipedia:Policies, Content, and Community. It will allow for developing these ideas further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I like what I see so far. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me say that this is a good start. I did make a change on the issue of your saying that one could not document their own views, which IMO is not quite right. If someone is familiar with a view, you want their input on it, given that the view itself is notable.
I am also concerned with the words "diverse views". Much of the time, there is only one notable viewpoint on a topic. One example is special relativity, where the viewpoints that it is wrong have become solely of historical interest. Because of that, that article is a description of the theory as it is now known and its major effects. There is no reporting of diverse views because of a lack of diversity of notable views on the topic.
My suggestion is to talk about "prominent views" or "notable views" and maybe even mention WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
Overall, I approve of the focus of this essay: That the role of policies is to empower those who seek to use the wiki process to gain consensus and create good articles. -- EMS | Talk 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely "collaborative anarchy" is only one view of what WP is. 'Anarchy' is a word loaded with political and historical baggage. I's say a more NPOV word is called for. Views? Spanglej ( talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This essay is currently linked from WP:SIMPLE. I'm not sure it is ideal for new users. Would you be opposed to me taking it down as a See Also link, and replacing it with something different? Ocaasi c 09:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
What about moving this to Wikipedia:Policies, Content, and Community. It will allow for developing these ideas further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I like what I see so far. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me say that this is a good start. I did make a change on the issue of your saying that one could not document their own views, which IMO is not quite right. If someone is familiar with a view, you want their input on it, given that the view itself is notable.
I am also concerned with the words "diverse views". Much of the time, there is only one notable viewpoint on a topic. One example is special relativity, where the viewpoints that it is wrong have become solely of historical interest. Because of that, that article is a description of the theory as it is now known and its major effects. There is no reporting of diverse views because of a lack of diversity of notable views on the topic.
My suggestion is to talk about "prominent views" or "notable views" and maybe even mention WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
Overall, I approve of the focus of this essay: That the role of policies is to empower those who seek to use the wiki process to gain consensus and create good articles. -- EMS | Talk 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely "collaborative anarchy" is only one view of what WP is. 'Anarchy' is a word loaded with political and historical baggage. I's say a more NPOV word is called for. Views? Spanglej ( talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This essay is currently linked from WP:SIMPLE. I'm not sure it is ideal for new users. Would you be opposed to me taking it down as a See Also link, and replacing it with something different? Ocaasi c 09:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)