Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Policy
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Policy
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Shane, what the heck is this about? "Policy Enforcement committee"? "Chairpersons"? What do you think is lacking in our current system that necessitates this draconian replacement? --[[User: | Shane, what the heck is this about? "Policy Enforcement committee"? "Chairpersons"? What do you think is lacking in our current system that necessitates this draconian replacement? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:13, 14 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
:just throwing my ideas out. I had to run before I could finsh the page. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 20:29, 14 May 2006 (CDT) | :just throwing my ideas out. I had to run before I could finsh the page. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 20:29, 14 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
::Can't you raise this stuff on the wikipedian quorum first? Putting it in the Battlestar Wiki namespace makes it seem like it's already been decided, and leaves the rest of us feeling out of the loop. --[[User: | ::Can't you raise this stuff on the wikipedian quorum first? Putting it in the Battlestar Wiki namespace makes it seem like it's already been decided, and leaves the rest of us feeling out of the loop. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:04, 14 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::Honestly, I don't feel that chairpersons are really all that necessary... it just adds more felgercarb to deal with in the long run. On the other hand, since there's stuff on this page that hasn't been decided yet, it is best that you either move the current version of this page to your namespace under a subpage or bring this stuff up for discussion, as | :::Honestly, I don't feel that chairpersons are really all that necessary... it just adds more felgercarb to deal with in the long run. On the other hand, since there's stuff on this page that hasn't been decided yet, it is best that you either move the current version of this page to your namespace under a subpage or bring this stuff up for discussion, as Peter suggests. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 08:12, 15 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Review == | == Review == | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:The enforcement section seems unnecessary to me. We do not need a comittee to enforce our policies - all of the admin staff are familiar with them, and any user can file an RFC if an abuse has gone unremedied. The community here is very small, and in the few situations where a major dispute has come up ([[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#The_Rumor_Vote|only]] [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Spoiler_Policy/Archive01#Vote|two]] incidents come to mind), a full vote of the community has been sufficient to resolve the matter. | :The enforcement section seems unnecessary to me. We do not need a comittee to enforce our policies - all of the admin staff are familiar with them, and any user can file an RFC if an abuse has gone unremedied. The community here is very small, and in the few situations where a major dispute has come up ([[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#The_Rumor_Vote|only]] [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Spoiler_Policy/Archive01#Vote|two]] incidents come to mind), a full vote of the community has been sufficient to resolve the matter. | ||
:The centralized list of policies is useful, however, as are instructions on proposing a policy. However, I still think users should be encouraged to raise ideas on the quorum and see if there's any kind of community support ''before'' putting together a proposed policy page. --[[User: | :The centralized list of policies is useful, however, as are instructions on proposing a policy. However, I still think users should be encouraged to raise ideas on the quorum and see if there's any kind of community support ''before'' putting together a proposed policy page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:13, 15 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
: I agree with | : I agree with Peter. A committee is unnecessary for a small wiki such as ours. It only adds complication and bureaucracy where there doesn't need to be any. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:19, 15 May 2006 (CDT) | ||
:"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Even if a committee were necessary, I'm not sure if we would be able to properly staff it. Heck, we haven't been able to get a featured article for the front page yet. More formal processes might be necessary if we grow, but for the time being the peer-to-peer enforcement seems to do the job. I'd reccomend swapping out the "committee" text in the enforcement section to a short paragraph indicating that everybody enforces the policies (on everybody), and that in the event of dispute over enforcement that consensus (or Joe) rules. Mechanisms in consensus establishment might include discussion on the relevant talk pages, or an RFC if necessary. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:54, 16 May 2006 (CDT) | :"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Even if a committee were necessary, I'm not sure if we would be able to properly staff it. Heck, we haven't been able to get a featured article for the front page yet. More formal processes might be necessary if we grow, but for the time being the peer-to-peer enforcement seems to do the job. I'd reccomend swapping out the "committee" text in the enforcement section to a short paragraph indicating that everybody enforces the policies (on everybody), and that in the event of dispute over enforcement that consensus (or Joe) rules. Mechanisms in consensus establishment might include discussion on the relevant talk pages, or an RFC if necessary. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:54, 16 May 2006 (CDT) | ||