 The Paragon Wiki Archive documents the state of City of Heroes/Villains as it existed on December 1, 2012.
|
Difference between revisions of "Paragon Wiki Archive talk:Policy"
From Paragon Wiki Archive
Blondeshell (Talk | contribs) (→Vote for Policy Adoption, 2012-04-26) |
(→Minor changes: new section) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
It occurred to me that we have various "work in progress" policies, but had no means of officially making them official. This seeks to rectify that. Better late than never? I drafted this up pretty quickly tonight, I'm sure I've missed things and I'm sure there's things that'll need to be changed. Let's hammer it into shape! -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | It occurred to me that we have various "work in progress" policies, but had no means of officially making them official. This seeks to rectify that. Better late than never? I drafted this up pretty quickly tonight, I'm sure I've missed things and I'm sure there's things that'll need to be changed. Let's hammer it into shape! -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | {{vote close top}} | ||
== Vote for Policy Adoption, 2012-04-26 == | == Vote for Policy Adoption, 2012-04-26 == | ||
Given that this has received no comments in the week+ since it's been up, I assume that there's nothing contentious (and as it's largely just procedural, that's not surprising). Please vote below on whether you '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' adopting the policy as [http://paragonwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Paragon_Wiki:Policy&oldid=224552 currently drafted]. If you oppose, please state what needs to change in order for you to support it. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | Given that this has received no comments in the week+ since it's been up, I assume that there's nothing contentious (and as it's largely just procedural, that's not surprising). Please vote below on whether you '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' adopting the policy as [http://paragonwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Paragon_Wiki:Policy&oldid=224552 currently drafted]. If you oppose, please state what needs to change in order for you to support it. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
* '''Support.''' Caveat: I think the text that reads ''"Very clearly specific what is being voted on"'' should probably read ''"Very clearly specify what is being voted on"'' --[[User:Eabrace|Eabrace]] [[File:Healthbar notify phone.png|20px|link=User talk:Eabrace]] 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | * '''Support.''' Caveat: I think the text that reads ''"Very clearly specific what is being voted on"'' should probably read ''"Very clearly specify what is being voted on"'' --[[User:Eabrace|Eabrace]] [[File:Healthbar notify phone.png|20px|link=User talk:Eabrace]] 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
* '''Support.''' I support this policy for making policies(!), with the added support of Eabrace's suggestion as noted above. -- [[User:Blondeshell|Blondeshell]] 22:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | * '''Support.''' I support this policy for making policies(!), with the added support of Eabrace's suggestion as noted above. -- [[User:Blondeshell|Blondeshell]] 22:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | * '''Strong Oppose''' Majority votes encourage groupthink, bandwagoning, and giving a fast thumbs up/down instead of thinking about the issue critically. Consensus forms from discussion and reasoning, not head counts. [[User:Rigel Kent|Rigel Kent]] 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I don't know that this policy-making procedure precludes any discussion that would take place, either on the forums or a talk page, about any actual policy that would be proposed. I believe the voting process is just for the formal adoption step. -- [[User:Blondeshell|Blondeshell]] 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::True, votes don't preclude discussion. Votes just makes the discussion not count. The only thing votes count is thumbs up or down from a small and disproportionately powerful group of users who are aware of the vote. It's not consensus building. It's not even democratic. [[User:Rigel Kent|Rigel Kent]] 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::Democratic? Powerful group? What do you think you are talking about here? World politics? This is discussion of policy that 99% of visitors to the Wiki wouldn't give two shits about. This policy is being written to inform the choices and methods of that small group of people who actively edit the Wiki and want it to be uniform. Nothing says that something can't be changed or altered even after a vote... that's the founding principle of a Wiki in the first place: everything is mutable! I am not sure what your crusade is here, Rigel, but stow the pitchforks and think about what this is actually for!!! —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :: The policy as currently written indicates that voting is not to occur until "policy seems to reflect at least majority consensus" and clearly indicates that discussion needs to occur ''first''. Your comments appear to entirely discount these aspects of the policy as if they aren't there. As a side note, building consensus involves actually reading and understanding the ideas others have raised and then suggesting constructive ideas and alternatives that sometimes involve compromises from both sides. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 22:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Support.''' I have no idea what Rigel Kent is talking about regarding groupthink, bandwagoning, and fast thumbs up/down regarding the "creation of policies" policy. ~ {{:User:Aggelakis/Sig1}} 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | * '''Support.''' I made a small change in wording to the document to clarify the comment voting section... implying that they could and probably would lead to further discussion before a final vote is determined. —[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] [[File:Talk-Icon.jpg|link=User talk:Thirty7]] 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Voting is closed with a majority result of Support.''' The tally was 5 Support and 1 Oppose. The policy will be marked as official. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | {{vote close bottom}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Minor changes == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I tweaked the guidelines to indicate that closed votes should get bracketed off to prevent modification after the fact. I think that as well as the other changes made since voting started are all non-substantive changes but if anyone disagrees, just say so. -- [[User:Sekoia|Sekoia]] 22:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:14, 3 May 2012
Policy for Policy
It occurred to me that we have various "work in progress" policies, but had no means of officially making them official. This seeks to rectify that. Better late than never? I drafted this up pretty quickly tonight, I'm sure I've missed things and I'm sure there's things that'll need to be changed. Let's hammer it into shape! -- Sekoia 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The following is an archived vote. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.
Vote for Policy Adoption, 2012-04-26
Given that this has received no comments in the week+ since it's been up, I assume that there's nothing contentious (and as it's largely just procedural, that's not surprising). Please vote below on whether you Support or Oppose adopting the policy as currently drafted. If you oppose, please state what needs to change in order for you to support it. -- Sekoia 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. -- Sekoia 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Caveat: I think the text that reads "Very clearly specific what is being voted on" should probably read "Very clearly specify what is being voted on" --Eabrace
18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) - Support. I support this policy for making policies(!), with the added support of Eabrace's suggestion as noted above. -- Blondeshell 22:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Majority votes encourage groupthink, bandwagoning, and giving a fast thumbs up/down instead of thinking about the issue critically. Consensus forms from discussion and reasoning, not head counts. Rigel Kent 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know that this policy-making procedure precludes any discussion that would take place, either on the forums or a talk page, about any actual policy that would be proposed. I believe the voting process is just for the formal adoption step. -- Blondeshell 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- True, votes don't preclude discussion. Votes just makes the discussion not count. The only thing votes count is thumbs up or down from a small and disproportionately powerful group of users who are aware of the vote. It's not consensus building. It's not even democratic. Rigel Kent 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Democratic? Powerful group? What do you think you are talking about here? World politics? This is discussion of policy that 99% of visitors to the Wiki wouldn't give two shits about. This policy is being written to inform the choices and methods of that small group of people who actively edit the Wiki and want it to be uniform. Nothing says that something can't be changed or altered even after a vote... that's the founding principle of a Wiki in the first place: everything is mutable! I am not sure what your crusade is here, Rigel, but stow the pitchforks and think about what this is actually for!!! —Thirty7
00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Democratic? Powerful group? What do you think you are talking about here? World politics? This is discussion of policy that 99% of visitors to the Wiki wouldn't give two shits about. This policy is being written to inform the choices and methods of that small group of people who actively edit the Wiki and want it to be uniform. Nothing says that something can't be changed or altered even after a vote... that's the founding principle of a Wiki in the first place: everything is mutable! I am not sure what your crusade is here, Rigel, but stow the pitchforks and think about what this is actually for!!! —Thirty7
- True, votes don't preclude discussion. Votes just makes the discussion not count. The only thing votes count is thumbs up or down from a small and disproportionately powerful group of users who are aware of the vote. It's not consensus building. It's not even democratic. Rigel Kent 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The policy as currently written indicates that voting is not to occur until "policy seems to reflect at least majority consensus" and clearly indicates that discussion needs to occur first. Your comments appear to entirely discount these aspects of the policy as if they aren't there. As a side note, building consensus involves actually reading and understanding the ideas others have raised and then suggesting constructive ideas and alternatives that sometimes involve compromises from both sides. -- Sekoia 22:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know that this policy-making procedure precludes any discussion that would take place, either on the forums or a talk page, about any actual policy that would be proposed. I believe the voting process is just for the formal adoption step. -- Blondeshell 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I have no idea what Rigel Kent is talking about regarding groupthink, bandwagoning, and fast thumbs up/down regarding the "creation of policies" policy. ~ AGGE talk/cons 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I made a small change in wording to the document to clarify the comment voting section... implying that they could and probably would lead to further discussion before a final vote is determined. —Thirty7 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Voting is closed with a majority result of Support. The tally was 5 Support and 1 Oppose. The policy will be marked as official. -- Sekoia 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the vote. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Minor changes
I tweaked the guidelines to indicate that closed votes should get bracketed off to prevent modification after the fact. I think that as well as the other changes made since voting started are all non-substantive changes but if anyone disagrees, just say so. -- Sekoia 22:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
