Forum:Keep the main page clean

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Keep the main page clean
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 Liquidhelium.

Really simple proposal here. We should keep our front page clear of POV statements, inflammatory comments, and overly dramatic sounding statements. We are a wiki, we are not a blog. Newspaper editorials are not on the front page of a newspaper for a reason, they are not news. They are opinionated statements. While we should respect each persons right to their opinion, it is very non wiki-like to have a biased opinion of some sort on our main page. Keep it on the Wikipaper page. Thats it.--Degenret01 08:24, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support --Degenret01 08:24, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate please - Where are the POV statements, inflammatory comments, and overly dramatic sounding statements? 222 talk 08:25, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

He is talking about Wiki post editorials that aren't neutral, because they are editorials. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:27, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom the main page should be complete NPOV. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:27, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd need some examples of what you find to be POV statements, but if you're just talking about RSWP editorial titles, then I would tend to oppose, unless the title itself was extreme, such as "Dungeoneering is garbage!" or "Dungeoneering is awesome!" I don't think I've seen a RSWP title that fits those criteria, but I'll admit that I don't pay much attention to RSWP kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:44, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

From the main page, only the italicized words are what I consider to fall into my proposal "...As Wikia's controversial new skin makes its appearance, a wave of protest washes across the wikis. Who will win? Wikia or the communities..."

Those words make it appear that there is some united group against Wikia, or that we could even possibly fight to change what they are doing. That is the type of thing, among others, that should not appear on the main page of the wiki. There have been others in the past I have also disagreed with being on our front page.--Degenret01 08:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Another example would be Boniziis' article on being selected to be a player mod. I don't think that should have had any place in the rotation at all.--Degenret01 09:03, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have any problem with any of those appearing on the main page. Sure, things like the featured article summary should be NPOV, but the RSWP by its very nature does not need to be NPOV, and given its status it should appear on the main page. I don't see how, save from asking you to personally approve of each article, there's any way to prevent what you would consider POV articles to appear in the rotation. Given that, it would be more concise of you to propose removing the article rotation from the main page rather than this. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 09:25, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
You oppose keeping the main page free of controversy? Okay. --Degenret01 09:47, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
That's a rather inflammatory oversimplification of my position. This coming from someone who opposes free speech! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:01, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Psycho. bad_fetustalk 09:43, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Right now every thing on our front page is carefully chosen by consensus. Except for that Wiki post section, which is what ever one individual chooses to add. We do not work so hard to let one person put whatever nonsense they want to have on our front page.--Degenret01 10:03, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I trust that person that he won't put whatever nonsense he puts. Oh, and if you dislike that it's one person, go propose discussing on articles first, not this. bad_fetustalk 10:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - Maybe instead of removing the newspaper (RSNP?) completely from the main page, remove articles that are written that seems to say that you speak for everyone or a large group? I'm fine if it's actually an article about a quest review since it only expresses your opinions or fan fiction. Removing the newspaper might make one less thing for some users to do on the wiki. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 10:21, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I've already created Template:Disclaimer, which is as follows: [Dis.]. This already appears next to controversial articles on the main page, so I don't see how this is still a problem. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:11, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

That would be pretty messy... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 14:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's quite small, actually. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:23, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
It's quite annoying, actually. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 15:03, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
It is still a problem becuase we stil have a really stupid line appearing on our front page. I tried to remove it with common sense but you reverted me. Although common sense still tells me I should pull those lines.--Degenret01 15:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
If it were actually common sense, we would not be having this discussion. What is not being accomplished by the disclaimer that you want to see removed? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:00, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per nomnomnomnomnom. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 14:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I like Stelercus's template. If we remove the Post from the mainpage, it'll be a project that is never viewed. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Zam, the proposal is NOT to remove the paper, or the links to the paper. It is ONLY for stupid, controversial, overdramatic, or other attention grabbing POV lines from the header section. Please read a proposal before you comment.--Degenret01 15:07, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
I read the proposal, but I suppose as I was reading through the comments my view of what the proposal changed. Terribly sorry. I support removing those NPOV items. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 15:15, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
"It is ONLY for stupid, controversial, overdramatic, or other attention grabbing POV lines from the header section." If that's the case, then this proposal is flawed in that it's based purely on your (Degenret01's) opinion. An opinion cannot be made into a policy because opinions can't be measured. However, If you want to propose to remove POV comments, that's fine, because whether or not a comment is POV is fact and not opinion. Regardless, I don't see why such is required considering the existence of the disclaimer. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:04, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think see where degen is going with this. I am assuming that the editorial and follow up interview on the oasis skin is what he is talking about. If this is the case, I agree that an editorial and interview about a wikia change is not warranted in our wiki post, especially on the front page. Our post should be about runescape, not our site host. I do think the paper should stay on the main page. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 15:17, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty good idea too, similar to Powers idea.--Degenret01 15:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Articles about the wiki itself, not necessarily RS, have always been acceptable (see RuneScape:Wiki Post/Style guide). I see no reason to change this. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:00, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We should assume that our writers for the post aren't just going to put up whatever garbage they want, and I'm sure the articles are at least reviewed before they are published. Since the wiki post is editorial-like by nature, it seems kinda silly to not let people see it and even purging the content of the wiki post box. :/Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 14:19, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Stelercus on this one. What is biased or controversial is based on a person's opinion. I don't think that Bonzi's player moderator article is controversial, and it certainly isn't biased. I'll concede that my Oasis Wars editorial is biased and controversial, but it's supposed to be biased and controversial. It's an editorial, for crying out loud. Unbiased journalism ends on the editorial pages of any newspaper.

Anyways, I don't see the point for removing these from the main page, especially since all articles are read, edited, and approved by the RSWP staff prior to any publication to make sure that nothing outrageous gets published. (That includes people like Stelercus or Jack Spirall.) This proposal really just amounts to censorship of the press. As a wiki that prides itself on individual freedoms, I'd think it's pretty ironic to remove the freedom of the press. --LiquidTalk 01:55, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

That is the silliest thing you have said yet. This wiki is about Runescape game info, not freedom of speech. If it was freedom of speech our articles would not be NPOV.--Degenret01 02:23, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Psycho. ----クールネシトーク 05:30, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

If this is about if the WP should be on the main page when it has subjects like the skin, i'd like to know how WP subjects are chosen. If it is by community consensus: Oppose - We chose it with consensus. Therefore, it should be treated the same as other WP articles. if it is chosen by someone who just liked the article, Support - And we should make WP consensus based. If it is not about the WP: what is it about? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:11, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "subjects"? All articles submit to the post are given a place on the main page rotation. Making the RSWP consensus based (I'm assuming you mean that we would have to determine consensus on each article) would be overly bureaucratic, and while I see the reasoning behind it, that would not be desirable. I will elaborate on this if you need me to. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Question - If wiki post is POV, to what degree of neutrality should a featured article be to make it NPOV? And then how will removing the wiki post "contribute to neutrality"? And, what is the difference between "Neutral" and "Consensus-based neutral"? Rewlf2 06:25, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While the Wiki as a whole should be neutral, some items displayed on the Main Page aren't, and shouldn't be. We should not censor one of the few ways editors have of expressing themselves (aside from userpages), the Post itself is not an article, nor does it document game info in a unbiased and neutral way, and it need not be! Editorials are meant to cause discussion and disagreements, and I find it unlikely it will cause disagreements to the point that a viewer will leave the Wiki and find another site. 222 talk 06:40, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to implement the proposal. --LiquidTalk 16:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)