Campaigns Wikia talk:Allow Points of View

From Campaigns Wikia

Contents 1 General Comments 2 Concern: Permission Orientation 3 Sub Pages 4 Is NPOV Sufficient?

[edit] General Comments

I think this is a good policy. -Y2Keynes 02:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the development that's happening and the experiments that are being tried, but I prefer the idea of letting things work themselves out organically (and inclusively) as much as possible and then describing the process to educate other people on "what has seemed to work". I'm not so up for creating formalisms like this (with voting by a handful of early adopters who are few enough that they can talk things out). I'd wait until serious disuputes about the nature of the site develop, see what the major issues turn out to be *in practice* and then solve them democratically at that point. - JenniferForUnity 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern: Permission Orientation

So this is sort of an abstract concern... but I'll offer it anyway. It seems to me that the current proposal is offered as a guideline for "what 'those with influence' should permit" rather than "what the goal should be". For example APOV is described as "a policy that... would discourage us from doing anything that would prevent others from expressing other viewpoints". Who is "us"? Another source of my impression is having APOV stand for "Allow Points Of View" rather than, say, "All Points Of View". - JenniferForUnity 19:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, "us" is the community. In a wiki, everyone has influence, in most cases even those who haven't registered an account. Removing viewpoints, chastising people for posting them, or (in the case of admins) unnecessarily protecting pages would be counter to this policy. The policy promotes that you allow other points of view to be posted, rather than trying to post all points of view, including ones that you disagree with and are likely to misrepresent, intentionally or otherwise. --whosawhatsis? 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Pages

I think that this page shows a good way to allow points of view here. This proposal involves having pro and con subpages, available as tabs, as well as a perspectives page for users to add their personal views. McLurker 10:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

See Space Exploration for an example of how this might look. McLurker 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is NPOV Sufficient?

I'm going to create links for references to NPOV. The NPOV entry on Wikipedia is a big page with a lot of information. Without really mastering that information, my feeling is that NPOV covers our needs here. That is to say, I don't see a clear distinction between NPOV and APOV. The difference I see between Wikipedia and [Campaigns Wikia] is mearly one of subject matter... that is: I think if we define the subject of [Campaigns Wikia] to be "what the contributors think" about various political subjects, the result of applying NPOV to that subject is the same as applying APOV. What I'm worried about here, to use the language of the free software movement, is a needless fork. In this case we're talking about forking a successful policy. If instead of creating a new policy, we refine the discussion on the NPOV page of wikipedia, our efforts will be usable by a broader community. Also, understanding how the subject of Campaigns Wikia differs from Wikipedia will allow the Wikipedia community to direct confused contributers here instead of just saying it doesn't belong there. SethDelisle 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seth. Here's the difference the way I see it. With APOV, we encourage all points of view to be expressed, and it discourages deleting contributions made by people we disagree with. NPOV is used in Wikipedia to declare that an article or section is against policy, and needs to be fixed, edited or deleted. 1POV as used here should be used to declare that an article only has one point of view articulated, and thus needs other viewpoints added. Unless something is offensive or otherwise violates the TOS of Wikia, I believe that we need to be able to listen to everyone, and agree to disagree. I see a danger in using the NPOV policy, because if you don't agree, you can just delete. I'd rather not see that here. Chadlupkes 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chad and there is a fundamental different between APOV and NPOV. The NPOV in wikipedia is geared towards encyclopedia article, which must remain objective at all time. This place the burden on the author to present all views, which is fine for an good objective article, but creates a problem when it comes to political discussion. A person holding a particular POV may not be aware of all POVs and even if s/he does, that person may not have as extensive knowledge on all views. So what ended up happening is that you either have a fairly representative but possibly superficial article on a subject or you don't have one at all. The change of subject matter is not a solution either, the NPOV article actually calls that a POV fork. Check out wikipedia:Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great#NPOVness. I want to stress that we should not view CW as a fork of wikipedia but as something that complment it. In fact, I'd hope to see people referencing factual information from wikipedia instead of re-writing article here. -Y2Keynes 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)