Forum:All Editors Are Equal/Archive

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > All Editors Are Equal/Archive
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 December 2010 by Aburnett.

I'm once again bringing up issue of RuneScape:All Editors Are Equal. This has been addressed before in Forum:AEAE and Forum:Changes to AEAE, but I don't think a consensus was achieved in either case.

I reread AEAE, and there is nothing wrong with the policy itself. The policy makes it very clear that it deals with the weighing of opinions in debates, and the fact that an editor's status has no effect on the weighing of his opinion. So, let me use an example. If User:Azaz129 and I both support a proposal, his support does not count more than mine based solely on the fact that he is a bureaucrat. His support can count more if he argues it better.

Unfortunately, AEAE has a misleading name. With a name of "All editors are equal", I can conceivably see how people misconstrue it to have a broader meaning than it actually does. This has been going on for a very long time. Therefore, I propose that we rename the policy. The content will not have to be changed, save for a small section at the end.

My proposal is as follows: Rename the policy to RuneScape:Opinion Weighing Levels, or RS:OWL for short. (No connection to the animal was intended.) Furthermore, remove the "Remember" section at the end, because it contributes to the misleading aspect of the policy.

Here is why I like OWL more than AEAE. I prefer policy names that give the general area covered without directing a certain action or a way of thought. This way, we preclude any potential misinterpretation of the policy by removing anything there is to misinterpret. Things like RuneScape:Block policy or RuneScape:Profanity are not going to be misinterpreted because of their names, simply because their names have nothing to misinterpret. On the other hand, RuneScape:Ignore all rules, RuneScape:Assume good faith, and RuneScape:All editors are equal have names that direct a certain course of action. It so happens that all three's name implications are much more broad than what the policy itself says. So, renaming AEAE to OWL is a good idea. --LiquidTalk 23:34, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 23:34, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like it! Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 23:42, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - "Opinion Weighing Levels" sounds like there are levels of opinions. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:44, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The policy should be treated as it is written, however I think it needs a different name. I cannot think of a better one however. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:50, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support-ish - I support a re-name, but I do think we can come up with a better name than Opinion Weighing Levels. ʞooɔ 00:03, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per nom. The new name is not ideal, but it's a long shot better than AEAE. Can we come up with something different? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:22, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. I actually think that the name you came up with is fine and broad enough, but others seem to think differently, so I'll offer a couple suggestions:

  • Opinion Weighing Policy (RS:OWP)
  • Opinion Influence Policy (RS:OIP)
  • User Influence Policy (RS:UIP)
  • User Status Policy (RS:USP)
  • User Status And Opinion (RS:USAO)
  • Opinion Authority Policy (RS:OAP)
  • Consider Opinions Equally (RS:COE)
  • No Opinions Prevail (RS:NOP)
  • Status Is Not Important (RS:SINI)

The broadest names are at the top, while those at the bottom are more specific and might be misinterpreted. Tweak them if you want. Just trying to get the ideas flowing here.  Tien  02:01, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

If we're throwing names around, how about "All Opinions Are Equal" (RS:AOAE). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:03, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
Tien's last three and Evil's suggestion are the command type names, which are open to misinterpretation. Evil's name also doesn't work because that basic idea was rejected in Forum:RuneScape:Respect all opinions. --LiquidTalk 02:05, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
RS:OWP is the best of those listed, in my opinion. It most closely resembles the content of the policy and is not a command in itself. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:15, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose most heavily While I agree a name change is in order, this proposal is specifically to change the name to Opinion Weighing Levels, which is a very bad choice. It doesn't actually state what the policy is. Better to leave it a misinterpreted AEAE than a vague twisty title.--Degenret01 04:06, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose suggested name - the suggested name is extremely confusing and is probably worse than AEAE. However, I do support a new name, as stated in previous threads. One of the suggestions, "User Status Policy" is generic enough to prevent misunderstandings, yet expresses the purpose and ideas that the policy is talking about. 222 talk 06:36, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Title length note While titles such as Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist may be a bit too long for our liking, there is no real reason we need to keep it to 3 or 4 words. Sometimes you just can't say what you need to in that severe limit. Maybe something like

  • No editor will be denied the chance to speak.

--Degenret01 12:31, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well we don't really need EVERY word to be in the name. How's RS:NEWB sound? - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 13:14, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
RS:NEWB is awesome--Degenret01 13:33, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
While I see how you came up with that, I don't think the title covers the content of the policy. In addition to being one of the easily misinterpreted command-style names, the purpose of AEAE is to prevent a user's status from determining the weight of his opinions. One's ability to speak is not relevant to the policy, that's covered in RS:CONSENSUS. Now that I think of it, I would not mind the content of AEAE being merged with CONSENSUS. As the policy is about opinion-weight when determining consensus, that would be a logical place to put it. Anyway, if we changed to "No editor will be denied the chance to speak", what will we do when an IP comments on an RFA or if a user with <50 mainspace edits votes on FIMG. A user in both conditions would be denied the right to speak, in this sense. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:54, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
Interseting examples Steler. Becuase IPs are allowed to comment on an RFA. We nowhere deny them the opportunity to comment, only to vote as an IP. And you know quite well why we do not allow IPs a vote where votes are counted over the weight of an argument.--Degenret01 22:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
I am aware that they can speak in the sense that they can say things. However, my interpretation of the word "speak" in this context is something to the tune of, "Express their opinion on a matter in a consensus-determining discussion that will be weighed based on its validity." The point I'm making is that the title "No editor will be denied the chance to speak" is a command in itself, which often results in the title's command being enforced and not the policy it titles. The only times command-style titles should be used are when the content of the policy/essay is nothing more than an elaboration of the title (RS:BOLD, RS:DBAD). AEAE, in its current state, does not elaborate on the idea that "No editor will be denied the chance to speak". It explains that "An editor's status, popularity, or in-game experience does not affect how they are treated and how their opinion is "weighed" in a discussion." Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:54, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
I suggest RuneScape:No Editor Will Be Denied. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
That's still a command type, and what are they being denied? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Simply speaking, RSwiki must avoid anyone's opinion dominate over another. Editors are not equal but opinions are equal by some means. Wiki stands for a neutral view, that's like "The majority of players do this" rather than "The wiki recommends you to do this". When the wiki recommends something that must be done by someone. Then that's simply not weighing. That's effort to seperate opinions from facts in wiki. Rewlf2 12:56, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's what AEAE currently says: your status should not affect the validity of your opinion. The problem is that people aren't reading past the name, and it has often been used in places that have nothing to do with an editor's status and his or her opinions. This proposal is aiming to make this more apparent. Riblet15 14:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose suggested name - The way I interpret AEAE, everyone is equal, whether it's in a discussion or anywhere else on the wiki. The current title allows for AEAE's use outside discussions, for example, in organising events, we should make sure that everyone has a chance to participate, after all, that's partly why we included F2P Clan Wars in the fansite tournament, right? I'd suggest, if a name change is inevitable, changing the title to Rights to Participate, or RTP. Don't worry, I'm not trying to twist it into an in-game thing, but it would include things on and off the wiki, inside and outside of discussions. Real Nub 16:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have been, am, and always will be a fan of RS:AEAEBSEAMETO (All Editors Are Equal But Some Editors Are More Equal Than Others). kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:41, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

I support RS:AEAESBAUAE (All Editors Are Equal Should Be All Users Are Equal). --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Let sleeping dogs lie. Andrew talk 21:18, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

The dog ain't sleeping if it keeps barking this often.--Degenret01 01:12, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Well, I like the clarification, but that name is weird... Maybe RS:All Users Opinions Matter? --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The name sucks, but it's better than AEAE and AOAO (All Opinions Are Obsolete)--Scimitar77 04:25, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose RS:OWL, Support RS:USP - It does need a new name but i don't like OWL, but i think User Status Policy (RS:USP) suggested by tien is a great name as it is exactly what the policy is about, the status of users. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:11, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support RS:USP - Per Sentra. Matt (t) 08:45, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support either RS:USP or RS:AUSBTTSWBTCHBRTMTME Which is "All Users Should Be Treated The Same Way But They Can Have Better Reasons To Make Them More Equal". I prefer the second. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:25, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Can we stop with the stupid names? I know you guys find them funny but this isn't the place. ʞooɔ 10:30, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

To stop us from making those names you should first make a policy about it. I suggest RS:DMTLNOAYGPATINF (Don't Make Too Long Names On A Yew Grove Proposal As That Is Not Funny) or RS:JSMTLNADSU (Just Stop Making Too Long Names And Do Something Useful) or just RS:SU (Shut Up) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Helpful. Real Nub 18:01, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
RS:GTS RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 13:38, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Andrew. bad_fetustalk 18:22, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - One could argue that I was one of the largest proponents against AEAE as a policy in general. But it really has stopped being used in incorrect ways. I like to think that my thread caused that, but I'm lying to myself. Thus I see no reason for a name change, especially to such things as are being suggested. HaloTalk 14:43, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus (surprising, on an AEAE thread?). AEAE will remain AEAE. -- Aburnett(Talk) 16:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Reopened -Close was bad. Consensus is to change name but undecided to what. Please focus on names that make sense and not the jokes that were occuring above.--Degenret01 03:31, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus to do even that..furthermore, are you above Aburnett when it comes to archiving discussions? Andrew talk 04:22, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
All editors are equal. Lol Matt (t) 05:17, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
While Degen probably should have discussed the validity of the close before opening it again, Lefiness made a few points causing me to believe the thread should be left open. "Looking at the discussion, I see support of a name change on the argument that the name is misleading. However, an exact name is vehemently disagreed upon, which gives the illusion of no consensus. [...] To me, it looks like everybody said what they wanted to say, and a name should have been compromised upon, but, like many threads, the end of vehement discussion meant a sudden death for the thread" -Leftiness. So, if we have established some sort of consensus that the name simply needs to be changed, then we can worry about what name we will go with once we get though the first step. The whole proposal shouldn't be thrown out over the exact title. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:11, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with Degen re-opening it. Lefiness made valid point. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:40, December 21, 2010 (UTC)