Campaigns Wikia:Allow Points of View/Approval Vote

From Campaigns Wikia

[edit] Poll

We're still testing the poll function. If there are problems with the vote, we will use the Confirmation below as "voter verified balloting".

This vote will determine whether Allow Points of View will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia. Before voting on this policy, you may want to read its Talk page.

Vote ends September 30th. You may change your vote until the end of the vote count.

[edit] Confirmation of vote (6/3/0)

Please vote here as well. Votes should be in the following form:

{{myvote|[Approve/Disapprove/Abstain]|~~~~|[optional comment]}}

• Approve. - whosawhatsis? 02:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Approve. - Chadlupkes 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Lou franklin 03:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This policy is far too vague. Can't we be more specific than it "discourages us from doing anything that would prevent others from expressing other viewpoints"? Yesterday some bonehead posted "JIMMY WALES IS AN ANIMALFUCKER". The text was removed, and I agree that it should have been. But under this policy the poster could claim that removing the text prevented him from expressing his viewpoint. Whoever removed the text would be in violation of the policy. --Lou franklin 03:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some factual basis would be a good idea. That way blantant vandalism can be removed without the silly red tape that plagues government. Jfingers88 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Approve. - Y2Keynes 22:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement regarding Jimmy Wales is not a viewpoint. If that person say he believes Jimmy to be one then I think that should be allowed. In an intelligent discussion, one would gain credibility by providing evidences or arguments to support their statements. The idea of APOV is not just here to allow "stupid" statements to be presented but also allow them to be challenged. What we should do is make some template that call for citation or allow a statement to be tagged "unsubstantiated." --Y2Keynes 22:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

APOV doesn't negate the need for civility, and doesn't negate the No Personal Attacks policy. A statement like the one mentioned above wouldn't be considered "stupid", it would be considered vandalism. If it's an opinion, it's the kind of opinion that we should keep to ourselves. Basically, any statement that you make here is public. If you're willing to be known to the world for having such an opinion, fine. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the community has to stand for it. Chadlupkes 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true. I was merely speaking to the APOV aspect of that statement. There are certainly other aspects to it as well.

• Approve. - ШΔLÐSΣИ 23:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disapprove. - Ferguson 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about 'sprawl.' While on one hand it's fun to voice your opinion, we also must consider the reader. Allowing all viewpoints on all issues would potentially be overwhelming for someone who is casually interested. I think all viewpoints must be allowed to be voiced somewhere, but not everywhere. Until I see more mechanics in place to ensure the issue articles won't be overrun with thousands of individual opinions, I can't approve. --Ferguson 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. I think a parallel issue was addressed by the US Supreme Court, where they ruled that yelling fire in a movie is not an exercise of free speech. APOV is a principle as much as a policy. Questions and concerns will be made by the users of the system, and rulings will be made by the administrators or by the people. Votes have so far had a bad record, but we'll work on that. But any opinion anywhere would certainly get out of control. And posts that violate civility and no personal attacks, once those policies get approved, will be dealt with according to each incident. I do think articulating specific rules and procedures is important, but seeing as how this site is barely 2 months old, I'm not sure how much we can or want to put forward beforehand. This kind of a forum has never been seen before. Wikipedia doesn't county, because their NPOV policy just won't work with a political website. Nobody on any side of any political argument can be considered neutral. Chadlupkes 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I would recommend keeping APOV a principle for now and not make it a policy. I like the 1POV policy because it is very practicle and contributes to the APOV principle. I think we can achieve an overall APOV atmosphere by making clear deliniations between the NPOV sections (which I think are necessary) and 1POV sections (which I think are necessary). I think we should explore those areas more and see how we can get them to interact. Ferguson 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether we call it a policy or a principle, and I see the difference, they're pretty much the same right now. And it still needs approval by the community. We're of course going to be working on the details as we move forward. Chadlupkes 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure... Ferguson 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

...those concerns are out there, so as we do move forward we have those issues in mind. I think I had the ALLPOV policy in mind when I voted, so I may change my vote, having reviewed the APOV policy again and finding it more open-ended than I recalled. If all this is saying is, 'Any point of view is allowed on this site,' then I'm for it. As long as we keep in mind not all point's of view have equal relevancy and should not be given equal visibility (though they should all have equal exisitance status). But we need to be working on the next stage of this policy, which is how we organize all these POVs into a cogent aggregation of political philosophy and ideas.

• Approve. - Jfingers8822:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this one, just not the ALLPOV policy, per Ferg's argument about over-crowding and also ALLPOV's inherent POV of POVs. (Yes, it makes sense. Sorta.) --Jfingers8822:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Approve. - McLurker forgot to sign

• Disapprove. - JenniferForUnity 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be premature. I wrote some of my concerns with the tone of the porposal on the talk page of the proposal. Personally, I'd like to see more stuff happen with 1POV pages, NPOV factual writeups, and perhaps "Debate pages" or something. Summarizing things as "Allow Points Of View doesn't help me visualize how the potentially contentious issues are likely to be resolved. For example, I can imagine a "POV catagory hierarchy" that could develop *after* major buy in from a lot of democracts and republicans and slashdotters and queer groups and PETA and on and on... who knows what the groups will be... or how the groups will defend the "integrity of the POV"... and what common ground and alliances might be found... and so on. This is the kind of stuff a simple "Allow Points Of View" policy doesn't help me to understand. What does that mean when aggregations of people all want identify as "POV of X" while disagreeing with each other over who is really X? I don't think we even know what the issues this site will create and raise are. Why announce/debate/vote about a totalizing vision of the site until then? --JenniferForUnity 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final vote tally (6/3/0)

Policy is approved. - Chadlupkes 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)