Forum:Proposal for RuneScape:Profanity
Although a recent discussion and a not-so-recent discussion did not demonstrate the need for a formal policy on the allowability of swearing on the wiki (existing policies and common sense being adequate for now at least), I have knocked up a draft proposal in the form of an essay in my sandbox. I wonder whether this might be a compromise good enough to satisfy everyone with a query in this area.
I envisage it being in the project name space, called something like RuneScape:Profanity, though the name can be altered to reflect best what it encompasses. If this would be a good idea then have a read through what I've come up with so far and critique it here. Tell me if I waffle too much in the "In-game" section, for example. ;-) Leevclarke talk 07:38, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - What about the project namespace, such as the Yew Grove, RfAs, VfDs, and so on? Was the project namespace was left out intentionally? I'm just curious...16:41, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually no, I think I just forgot about that. And the Forum name space (including the Yew Grove) needs adding too, though this could be largely parallel to the article talk page guidelines. Leevclarke talk 20:57, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Pending support - This initial draft looks to about sum up how things stand on the wiki RE: naughty words. I would think that the same prinicples that apply to talk pages would apply to YG, RFAs, and RFDs. As for other pages in the project space, I'm undecided. I love the in game example "WoW is crap" lol19:32, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, if possible, I would like to expand on:
- Remember that you do not have the right to edit or censor other people's comments, even if the choice of words offends you. If the words form part of a genuine discussion then you must not delete them.
with this section. I compiled the Civility policy a long time ago (September 2009), but I think the policy still applies now. However, it may need some updating based on recent discussions... Can the Civility "policy" be combined with this essay, or should it be discussed separately? 10:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Er, "lists some com"? Hello71 00:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support - This seems as though it would be helpful...
13:39, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I like it. Informative, nicely written, and serious with a small touch of humor (WoW is crap).15:26, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
While I would usually close this as a successful proposal since silence implies that there is consensus, since this is a proposal for implementing a policy, I request that more users comment on it. C.ChiamTalk 03:51, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Support/Neutral/Comment - I don't really see a need for this as it simply repeats the status quo as a policy. If it were to pass the in-game section seems doubly redundant as we are binded by Jagex rules in game and the profanity filter is overly protective. TEbuddy 11:09, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Support main space, userpage, and user talk page proposals. I think that they represent the current status quo. This policy simply clarifies those areas. Oppose talk page proposal as it is. It is too permissive and would likely lead to more incivility. I suggest changing it to the following:
"The purpose of an article's talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article. Profanity is seldom necessary for serving this purpose, and it can often lead to incivility or a heated discussion. For this reason, it should usually be avoided in important discussions.
Even if word choice offends you however, you do not have the right to censor another editor's comments."
I would suggest similar language for project and forum namespaces. I do not think that the ingame section is necessary, as it is clearly indicated in the clan chat policy. In general, behavioural guidelines do not discuss offsite activities. Dtm142 19:08, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to propose a change to the in-game section, in light of the discussion at Forum:Clan Chat. Pragmatic Instead Of Overzealous. In the first paragraph I would propose this addition (in italics): "Deliberate evasion of this filter in order to use banned words in an offensive way is considered to be inappropriate language or behaviour, a breach of the Rules of RuneScape, which always apply in-game." I would also propose this addition to the end of that section: "There are some words that some people may consider offensive, but which are not censored (such as "damn", "bloody" and "ass"). These are perfectly allowable under Jagex's rules, and wiki rules are no stricter, so you may use these freely. However, euphemisms and double-entendres that are not censored may still be considered offensive or inappropriate. Referring to a "downstairs garden" instead of "pubic hair" (which would be censored as "***** hair") has the same meaning, and people may find it just as objectionable as a topic of conversation." However, Dtm has a good point that this kind of guideline would be better incorporate into RuneScape:Clan Chat if it would be useful. It could be problematic to have guidelines for one topic split over different pages, especially if that topic pertains to the rules. Leevclarke talk 19:32, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not sure a policy is the right way to go with this, it could work, but may not be the best way. I think it's pretty obvious with swearing. If you are cussing someone out or swearing purely for the purpose of swearing, it's obviously unnecessary. The only reason I swear is because I use it for emphasis, some phrases just don't carry the intended meaning without certain words. I think what we are targeting is EXCESSIVE swearing, not just swearing in general. HaloTalk 19:17, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It's a good things to lead by example, and as a fansite for...well...a game that children play, we really don't need it.
05:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
- For me, this policy isn't intended to censor, rather it's intended to say that censorship is not necessary unless swearing is gratuitous. Jagex has taken a pretty hard stance on this, censoring the stronger swear words (and some relatively harmless words like "virgin") completely, but just because they want to treat us like babies, that doesn't mean that we should do the same to our users. We should not be censoring our wiki any more than Wikipedia is censored. If it's "explicitly relevant", it should be in articles - even if the words used might be considered offensive. Relevance should be a deciding factor, not the perceived profanity (words are just words). Saying that children play RuneScape is not a good argument for me, especially as it's not aimed at children. Children play Grand Theft Auto too, but it's rated 18 so they know what to expect, and they're not particularly traumatised by it (and players of that game do far worse things than swear). Gratuitous swearing would still be considered vandalism. Leevclarke talk 18:34, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I recently had to edit the page "Life's a Beach!" because someone had referred to it being a play on "Life's a b----". I typed it as such to a certain admin in the chat and asked if I should censor it. We decided that was the best idea, because, though language really does not bother me (even though I don't use it) some young users, or their parents, may find it better if we do it the way I showed above.--Cheers,13:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
- It bothers me that someone would feel the need to edit that out of an article. Even though it is a mainspace article, I think the comment is relevant, as cultural references should be explicitly pointed out. Why? Well we might get a subtle reference today and have a chuckle, but in 100 years for example, a relatively obscure cultural reference might not be so obvious, and the joke could be lost. This makes this example "explicitly relevant" (to quote the existing draft of the proposed policy), and I definitely think it should be in article. From my point of view, I would like the policy to make it clear that this kind of content is allowed, rather than trying to impose censorship unduly. Leevclarke talk 18:19, April 10, 2010 (UTC)