Forum:RS Wiki Rules

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RS Wiki Rules
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 March 2010 by Calebchiam.

It has come to my attention that there is no rule against editors lying. It's not found here nor here. Proposal: We institute a new rule that states that editors must be honest (except in cases where it is obvious that it is a joke). If an editor does not want to give an honest response to the question (which is certainly acceptable for personal questions), then he or she should not answer the question in the first place.

----LiquidTalk 00:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nominator. ----LiquidTalk 00:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Though I have to say that lying shouldn't be allowed, I think it shouldn't be forced that you're not allowed. The wiki policies are decided by the community, and, like with all communities, Freedom of Speech is allowed, and there's óne case you're not allowed to lie: Under Oath. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 00:03, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

If editors don't want to be honest, then they do not have to respond to questions/comments. Also, RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY. ----LiquidTalk 00:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since you removed the democracy references, I can get at the essence of your argument. I agree that we should have freedom of speech, but I also think that we need SOME sort of honesty policy. Having a handful of liars as editors isn't the best idea. ----LiquidTalk 00:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment While I support the idea, in practice it is unenforceable. How are we to know if someone is lying? There is no way for us to tell who is lying or not, unless it involves something recorded on the wiki. It is that simple. Like with the recent kickings, anyone could be guilty, but just refuses to admit it. How can we know? We can't. FSHWGBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:07, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

We can't know, but I think that we should definitely do something to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. ----LiquidTalk 00:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that user is being discussed elsewhere, and such a policy probably would not have stopped him. CVWZYPBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
I know, but in an argument with Tedjuh over the IRC channel, I was unable to find a Wiki policy to cite. All I could use was common sense. It would strenghten the argument considerably if there was an actual concrete policy against purely making stuff up, especially something as serious as this. ----LiquidTalk 00:14, February 20, 2010 (UTC) (sorry Scoot, edit conflict, I must respond to Rwojy so I'm bumping you down.)
Maybe make a policy where if you are caught lying you get ... as a punishment. scoot4.pngscooties 00:13, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - A user is welcome to Freedom of Speech. I can't imagine someone lying, then getting a message on your talkpage directing them to a policy "Don't lie". -_- Although lying is obviously highly discouraged, it should not be put down in law and is common sense that we don't want lying deceivers around here. And, as was said above, I don't think a policy would've changed that example about Parsonda. "Hmmm," Parsonsda thinks. "Should I make a fake forum post? No I should not, because there's a policy about lying!" Chicken7 >talk 01:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Er...Idk, but how will we know if editors are lying or not? Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 01:15, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The policy wouldn't stop him, but I really need more than common sense and etiquitte to use in my argument against that faked forum post. ----LiquidTalk 01:19, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

'Comment I just realized what our stance against lying is: anti-vandalism. Think about it, anyone who lies about something important hurts the wiki, so the are blocked. Right here

False or deceptive information is being added to an article when the contributor knows that it is false.

See? People that do lie, or be 'deceptive' get blocked when it is found out. CTRGNBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If that is the case, then Iiii I I I did not do his job properly. He merely removed Parsons's image, he did not block Parsons. ----LiquidTalk 03:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

That is because of how the community feels about parsonsda, any block would be brought to the yg, most likely. NJWSFRBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:09, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
If Parsons was blocked for that, it would be unfairly done. It was in his userspace, not in the article space which is what is written there. Chicken7 >talk 03:12, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but we definitely need some kind of integrity rule. Obvious lies created for the intention of deceit (and not humor) should not be allowed, especially some as serious as the one Parsons did. ----LiquidTalk 03:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - because I think this rule would just feed trolls. I foresee it playing out something like this:

  • A: I'm from Mars
  • B: ZOMG ur lying u should be banhammered!
  • A: You don't know that I'm not
  • B: Sure I do (cites wikipedia article on Mars)
  • A: Lol whatever I have a right to FREE SPEECH!
  • B: But u cant lie on our wiki (starts YG ban discussion)
  • A: (starts flame war about free speech)

(wikidrama ensues)

whereas I much rather see:

  • A: I'm from Mars
  • B: (ignore)
  • A: (gets bored, goes away)

If someones lying they are going afoul of DBAD (see wikipedia) but the great thing about a wiki is that there's alwasy evidence of peoples actions, so you can just call them on it (or ignore it) and move on. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 09:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per rowjy Hitpoints 54 Supawilko 10:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While lying is usually not a good thing, it's a bit rediculous to make a policy saying that it shouldn't happen. Aren't we all grown-up enough to be able to judge whether it's good or not? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:23, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - The only reason you're proposing this is that you want Parsonsda banned. FredeTalk 11:45, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

No, Frede, that's not the reason I'm proposing this. I'm doing it so that we have some kind of integrity policy on the wiki. Some things are plainly unacceptable. ----LiquidTalk 12:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Throwing accusations around isn't going to help anybody. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose policy - Enforcing it would be a nightmare and may end up more trollbaiting per Tollerach. Instead, I think it'd be better to write an essay, on how lying can be detrimental to a wiki, which editors can refer to without it being an explicit do not lie policy, much like RS:SNOW. If there's not already one on Wikipedia I'll be surprised. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Honesty --Iiii I I I 15:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks =D Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose policy per Gaz Lloyd. We don't have to block people for lying that often, so a policy isn't really needed. About Parsons, I think we could use RS:IAR for RS:BLOCK, if we end up blocking him because of that fake image. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 14:33, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - you can't get the pre-teen editors to follow the rules that are already in place, e.g. "Do not edit Userpages." What makes you think you can make them follow this rule? --TheLastWordSword 15:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken7 and Iiii I I I never broke RS:DEU. Removing red links is allowed under that policy. ----LiquidTalk 15:40, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I didn't mention any names, why so defensive? deleted / moved / redirected the brand new page I had started just to create the necessary red-link? Hmmmmm.... --TheLastWordSword 15:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
I saw the changes in Recent Changes and the discussion on the talk page. I didn't do any of that, btw. Check my contributions list or the page histories. This forum is not the place to discuss this issue anyways. IF you want to discuss if further, please move it to a user talk page. ----LiquidTalk 15:55, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose policy, Support essay - Per Chicken, Human Rights should come before any rule or policies  Swiz Talk to me 17:31, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Tollerach. That's an excellent example, the last thing this wiki needs is another way to create wikidrama, we have plenty of ways of doing that already. It should be expected that a user is honest, but not a policy. Per RS:AGF, we should always assume a user is telling the truth, so speculating that a user is lying in order to enforce this policy would most likely violate another. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:46, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support essay, oppose policy - Per Gaz. An essay would be much better. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:19, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support essay, oppose policy - Per Telos and Gaz. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 21:06, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support essay, oppose policy - Per Telos, Gaz, and Brux. scoot4.pngscooties 22:14, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose policy, support essay - There are a number of reasons that I'm opposing this idea, if this policy was put into action, it would completely contradict certain elements of AGF, a policy that all users stand by. Also, as Swiz noted out, to impede someones right to speech should not be supported, even if they are suspected of lying,as the right to speech is one undisputed human right that all human beings are entitled to.

However though, I support the idea of an essay, to point out the Cons of lying and the consequences that may occur if/when somebody uses lying periodically. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 21:39, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Question - In the event that the consensus comes out to be No policy, yes essay, who is going to write the essay? --LiquidTalk 22:59, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

We can always use Wikipedia's essay if no one wants to write it. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:05, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I would be very annoyed if consensus was met, this was closed, but nothing happened!! If consensus is reached to write the essay, I'd ask that this thread is not closed until an actual essay has been created. This happens a lot where consensus is met to do something but it doesn't happen, and it gets on my nerves. Chicken7 >talk 05:32, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - I have copied over the honesty "essay" (if we can call it that) from Wikipedia, and adapted some of the links to link to RSW policy pages (and removed some gibberish in Korean and Arabic at the bottom). It can be found here. Tell me what you think of it, and if it's acceptable, then this thread can be closed. --LiquidTalk 02:07, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support On the subject of RS:AGF, the current policy says "Actions inconsistent with good faith include... lying." Anyone who lies is acting in their own interests, not the interests of the wiki, and this is clearly not acceptable. It seems very annoying to me that we are spending so much time laying down policies and essays that should be common sense anyway (see also Forum:Spamming other clan chats), but since this is currently the only policy that tells users not to lie, and it seems like an afterthought itself, let's put Wikipedia's policy into effect here and not waste any more time on it. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 17:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else want to comment on this before I request closure? --LiquidTalk 01:01, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Since the essay is ready, and there is a consensus to implement it, I am hereby requesting closure, since people are apparently too lazy to actually comment on the essay. --LiquidTalk 03:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The essay can be found at RuneScape:Honesty. C.ChiamTalk 03:14, March 13, 2010 (UTC)