Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Is it simply Wild West?: There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. |
|||
Line 1,051:
::::* It would be much easier for me to agree with your point were it not for that big arrow! --<font color="#B00000">[[User:MurderByDeadcopy|<font face="Casual">'''<i>MurderByDeletionism</i>'''</font>]]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:MurderByDeadcopy|<i>"bang!"</i>]]</font></sup> 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::*Unless your monitor is exceptionally wide and your default font exceptionally small, the big arrow should be pointing at Liz's last sentence ({{tq|I'm not saying that this is good or bad, it's just the nature of how slowly organizations change, especially decentralized groups like the Wikipedia editing community.}}), a sentiment with which I concur wholeheartedly; fifteen years of inertia isn't going to shifted just by wishing it so, and if you want major changes you need not only to identify the nature of the changes you want made, but identify a means of getting them implemented and a means of persuading people that doing so will be worthwhile. Make the quote {{tq|Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it}} if that suits you better. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 17:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::* ''Why,'' yes my monitor is indeed exceptionally wide, '''and''' my default font is exceptionally small (6 pt)! <br />
::::::: Here are some identified changes I'd like to see implemented.<br />
::::::: 1. Stop admin elections. Instead editors are automatically admin based on length of time (which should be within one year or less) and number of edits. Take the power away from the fascist few. Give it back to the masses and it will not be the big deal that it is right now.
::::::: 2. Make it easier to lose admin rights. Wikipedia doesn’t need tenured admin. Admin rights should be something an editor loses, not something an editor fights to win.
::::::: 3. Create clear rules to follow, not excessive bloated essays that have other bloated essays that counter each other. Can’t be more than 10 or 12 rules. (Even AA only has 12 steps!)
::::::: 4. Greet all new editors with the rules they need to follow.
::::::: 5. Anyone using cuss words gets an automatic 48 hour ban their first use. Thereafter, that editor will receive an one month ban.
::::::: 6. Create a bot so that whenever one’s editor name is mentioned, the editor is notified.
::::::: 7. If a subject is true and can be verified by reliable sources, it stays. Stop with the esoteric value judgements which is based on one’s knowledge (or lack there of) of a subject.
::::::: 8. Eliminate the COI witch hunts. All editors show up with personal biases & POV’s. Spend that wasted time on making a neutral article. Readers only care about facts.
::::::: 9. Put warnings on all medical articles.
::::::: 10. Add links at the top to the best ranked sites for all the science topics. Wikipedia owes this much to the public since Google is now defaulting to Wikipedia. (Which is worse than being bought and paid for, it’s called being used!)
::::::: 11. Create friendlier warnings. Do they really need to look so hyperbole? Like someone’s about to be maimed? Especially since they’re really meant to bully rather than warn?
::::::: 12. Everyone gets one account only! IP’s will need to create an account if they want to edit.
::::::: 13. A mass reprieve for all banned editors. This would exclude those globally banned.
::::::: 14. Change page patrol to page approved.
::::::: Thanks for asking! --<font color="#B00000">[[User:MurderByDeadcopy|<font face="Casual">'''<i>MurderByDeletionism</i>'''</font>]]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:MurderByDeadcopy|<i>"bang!"</i>]]</font></sup> 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::* While there are some things that are part of the "unfixables" that Wikipedia will always have as long as we have the tagline "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", there are problems being raised here that have becoming more troubling in terms of "cliques" around controversial topics that are being used to quell proper discussion. Normally, in the past, things like dispute resolution or AN/I would be venues to at least engage in discussion when such problems occurred but as identified, I've been seeing more cases of these groups on controversial articles refusing to engage in dispute resolution, and if these groups include long-standing editors, AN is often hesitant to get involved. Mind you, the number of such cases is trifling small compared to the number of other disputes that happen every day and that are resolved as harmoniously as we can expect on WP, but it still exists and becoming more evident. And I think some of this ''is'' being influenced by the global situation in the world that align with the social conflicts that are happening across the globe and the change in media's role that work against our purpose as a neutral tertiary work (I've describe this in depth about a month ago here on VPP). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
| |||