Recent Changes for "Wiki Ethics" - Davis Wiki

Wiki Ethics

LouisM — 2009-08-08 14:08:37

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 112:	Line 112:
- ''2009-08-08 15:02:42'' [[nbsp]] I am trying to find an optometrist. - - You guys taught me a while ago to click on the poster of a comment and see if they have a substantial history or just one post. The latter indicating they may be a sock puppet. - - So I am looking at Helmus optometry since I ride by there all the time. The first two post seemed really similar, similar type names, similar content, grammar style, etc. I click on them both and look at their recent changes. MyaBrn and NicoleD the first two Helmut posters made recent changes to a string of the same websites today minutes apart from each other including Mishkas, Sudwerk, SPCA Thrift Store, etc. etc. - - Especially with apartment complexes I get really tired of phony posts. The two above are so similar I suggest to you either roommates both sitting their yaking and posting or sock puppet. - - What say you Davis Wiki? - - Can't you check IPs like wikiscanner when you review these situations? - - What use is a site of recommendations and comments if the content is suspect by illicit motive and lacking integrity. When I post something good or bad, it's what I experienced...one post. Sometimes I go back and revise it (stupid grammar, forgot something) but one post. - - Too bad. In the words of some one smarter than I, "Good idea-er, bad execution." - --["Users/LouisM"]

Wiki Ethics

LouisM — 2009-08-08 14:02:42

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 111:	Line 111:
	+ ------ + ''2009-08-08 15:02:42'' [[nbsp]] I am trying to find an optometrist. + + You guys taught me a while ago to click on the poster of a comment and see if they have a substantial history or just one post. The latter indicating they may be a sock puppet. + + So I am looking at Helmus optometry since I ride by there all the time. The first two post seemed really similar, similar type names, similar content, grammar style, etc. I click on them both and look at their recent changes. MyaBrn and NicoleD the first two Helmut posters made recent changes to a string of the same websites today minutes apart from each other including Mishkas, Sudwerk, SPCA Thrift Store, etc. etc. + + Especially with apartment complexes I get really tired of phony posts. The two above are so similar I suggest to you either roommates both sitting their yaking and posting or sock puppet. + + What say you Davis Wiki? + + Can't you check IPs like wikiscanner when you review these situations? + + What use is a site of recommendations and comments if the content is suspect by illicit motive and lacking integrity. When I post something good or bad, it's what I experienced...one post. Sometimes I go back and revise it (stupid grammar, forgot something) but one post. + + Too bad. In the words of some one smarter than I, "Good idea-er, bad execution." + --["Users/LouisM"]

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:30:15

Removed conversation that was not topical to this page, where to move it?

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 109:	Line 109:
- ''2009-05-08 13:13:09'' [[nbsp]] most recent edit war issue : user solidsender undeleted his comments from my personal page. His comments were not horribly rude but they were not nice. So i put a comments on his page that said "u are a fag, i bet you delete this comment" my point was to show that when there are rude comments on a users page, the user deletes them and its fine, but if I do it 5 people comments about how I shouldnt delete comments and then another 5 people comment about how it should be ok to delete comments. My stance is simple. If you write something mean, I'm gonna delete it. Period. No one has written any nice things on my page so all my comments have been deleted. Anyway, I deleted the comment I made to solidsender because two wrongs do not make a right. People seem to be very opinionated about this issue so why not debate it on the ethics page? And to respodn do JoePomidors comment that I like to write rude and insulting comments which he put on the real computer page instead of my personal page (little immature I think) I get upset when people write rude comments on my page, it offends me. Sometimes I retaliate and then calm down a bit later. There is a simply solution to this. Dont write rude comments on my page. Dont write rude comments ever. Its just rude. Better to be nice. What that old saying? If you have nothing nice to say.. --["Users/RealComputers"] - ------ - ''2009-05-08 13:18:15'' [[nbsp]] I just want to add that I only ask that you guys leave me alone if you have nothing nice to say to me. If you leave me nice comments or even neutral ones, I will not delete them. --["Users/RealComputers"] - ------ - ''2009-05-08 13:23:20'' [[nbsp]] william lewis, you have said that I have acted inappropriately in many different way. Disregarding what I did when I was a wiki noob, what have I done wrong? I dont think I have done anything wrong, and you are yet to give me a real example. Also, please leave your own comments instead of editing mine. --["Users/RealComputers"] - I'm not editing your comments. I'm replying to them directly. See how this is indented and separated from yours? ''Also, some people use italics to indicate that another person is writing.'' Please stop rearranging my comments. I put them where I did because I'm replying to specific comments you have made. They don't make sense out of context. --["Users/WilliamLewis"] - ------

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:28:27

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 107:	Line 107:
	+ * One benefit to retaining those comments is to prevent having to go over the same issue with the next person to come along. some editors even have comment archives that have all of the comments that they have received and many of their replies. --["Users/JasonAller"]

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:26:29

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 99:	Line 99:
- ''2008-03-05 19:09:01'' [[nbsp]] I'm pretty sure that one of the comments on an apartment page is written by the property manager pretneding to be a renter. It is pretty obvious, would it be ok to delete this comment? --["Users/HG"]	+ ''2008-03-05 19:09:01'' [[nbsp]] I'm pretty sure that one of the comments on an apartment page is written by the property manager pretending to be a renter. It is pretty obvious, would it be ok to delete this comment? --["Users/HG"]

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:23:22

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 10:	Line 10:
- * If you don't agree with something, promote dialogue by including all sides of the argument.	+ * If you don't agree with something, promote dialogue by including all sides of the argument. The use of /Talk pages is a good way to accomplish this. If you've seen two editors making and unmaking the same edit, step in and create a /Talk page using the Talk button.

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:22:28

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 9:	Line 9:
- * Try not to destroy content. When updating out-of-date content, it may be valuable to keep some of the history.	+ * Try not to destroy content. When updating out-of-date content, it may be valuable to keep some of the history. For instance, mark business pages with {{{[[Include(Departed Business)]]}}} rather than deleting them.

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:21:00

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 51:	Line 51:
	+ * Any of the classic flame wars

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2009-07-29 07:19:35

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 40:	Line 40:
- See also: ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome to the Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"].	+ See also: ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome to the Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"]. For a specific discussion of this see ["Wiki Community/Inappropriate Content"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2009-06-27 20:03:39

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 115:	Line 115:
- ------ - ''2009-06-27 21:01:15'' [[nbsp]] What do I do AFTER I accidentally deleted an entire page? I only wanted to delete one of my accidentlly redundant entries, but dumped the whole thing instead. My bad. I had no idea I could even do that. The post was about an apartment complex I hate living in and certainly didn't want my, or those of the mostly concurring renters to lose voice. --["Users/Marshall"]	+ No worries. Every edit that is made here is logged. Mistakes like you deleting an entire page are easily undone. The page you deleted is back already.... don't sweat it. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

Marshall — 2009-06-27 20:01:15

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 115:	Line 115:
	+ ------ + ''2009-06-27 21:01:15'' [[nbsp]] What do I do AFTER I accidentally deleted an entire page? I only wanted to delete one of my accidentlly redundant entries, but dumped the whole thing instead. My bad. I had no idea I could even do that. The post was about an apartment complex I hate living in and certainly didn't want my, or those of the mostly concurring renters to lose voice. --["Users/Marshall"]

Wiki Ethics

Marshall — 2009-06-27 19:59:21

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 113:	Line 113:
	+ ------ + ''2009-06-27 20:59:21'' [[nbsp]] What do I do AFTER I accidentally deleted an entire page? I only wanted to delete one of my accidentlly redundant entries, but dumped the whole thing instead. My bad. I had no idea I could even do that. The post was about an apartment complex I hate living in and certainly didn't want my, or those of the mostly concurring renters to lose voice. --["Users/Marshall"]

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2009-05-08 13:27:35

Moving to talk page.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 113:	Line 113:
- ------ - ''2009-05-08 13:26:38'' [[nbsp]] Like I said, I will not delete comments that are not rude. I have done nothing inappropriate with my business. You tell me I cant list my free diagnostics in the free services section of computer repair, even though its a free service, but you can put yourself there and write that you will help in excanage for cookes and beer? out of the two of us, you make the wiki look more less professional. --["Users/RealComputers"] - If you can't understand the difference between your commercial operation and me offering to help out friendly folk for free, that really can't be helped. Simply stated, there is a huge difference and everyone else sees it. Also, we're not really concerned about being "professional." We're a community that tries to be helpful, not a group that aspires to conform to arbitrary and irrelevant standards. We're not Wikipedia and we don't deign to be. --["Users/WilliamLewis"] - ------ - ''2009-05-08 13:41:01'' [[nbsp]] you still havent told me about any of the inappropriate things ive done. If putting myself in the free service part was it, well its not like I had a problem with it once it got deleted so its not like it was an issue. I dont know what you guys think is ok or not all the time so sometimes I just gotta put it out there and see how people react. --["Users/RealComputers"] - ------ - ''2009-05-08 13:42:32'' [[nbsp]] You don't belong under free in the same way Fry's doesn't belong there. Sure, if you buy a laptop it comes with a free laptop bag, but that doesn't really mean it's a free service. --["Users/MasonMurray"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2009-05-08 12:49:49

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 112:	Line 112:
	+ I'm not editing your comments. I'm replying to them directly. See how this is indented and separated from yours? ''Also, some people use italics to indicate that another person is writing.'' Please stop rearranging my comments. I put them where I did because I'm replying to specific comments you have made. They don't make sense out of context. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2009-05-08 12:45:04

Please don't change this again.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 104:	Line 104:
	+ It is ''permissible'' to do just about everything you want on your userpage as long as it isn't illegal. If you are an active wiki editor, we say you pretty much own your userpage. We have deleted content a user posted on their userpage in a few instances in the past, but this is rare. However, just because you can delete comments from your page doesn't mean you always should. I periodically delete my comments when my page just gets too long. It allows easier communication. However, just deleting comments related to an ongoing issue just makes it more difficult to understand what's going on and is discouraged. + As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]
Line 110:	Line 112:
- - ----- - It is ''permissible'' to do just about everything you want on your userpage as long as it isn't illegal. If you are an active wiki editor, we say you pretty much own your userpage. We have deleted content a user posted on their userpage in a few instances in the past, but this is rare. However, just because you can delete comments from your page doesn't mean you always should. I periodically delete my comments when my page just gets too long. It allows easier communication. However, just deleting comments related to an ongoing issue just makes it more difficult to understand what's going on and is discouraged. - As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]
Line 116:	Line 114:
- -----

Wiki Ethics

MasonMurray — 2009-05-08 12:42:32

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 120:	Line 120:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:42:32'' [[nbsp]] You don't belong under free in the same way Fry's doesn't belong there. Sure, if you buy a laptop it comes with a free laptop bag, but that doesn't really mean it's a free service. --["Users/MasonMurray"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:41:35

comment seperation again

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 116:	Line 116:
	+ -----

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:41:01

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 117:	Line 117:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:41:01'' [[nbsp]] you still havent told me about any of the inappropriate things ive done. If putting myself in the free service part was it, well its not like I had a problem with it once it got deleted so its not like it was an issue. I dont know what you guys think is ok or not all the time so sometimes I just gotta put it out there and see how people react. --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2009-05-08 12:34:27

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 116:	Line 116:
	+ If you can't understand the difference between your commercial operation and me offering to help out friendly folk for free, that really can't be helped. Simply stated, there is a huge difference and everyone else sees it. Also, we're not really concerned about being "professional." We're a community that tries to be helpful, not a group that aspires to conform to arbitrary and irrelevant standards. We're not Wikipedia and we don't deign to be. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:26:38

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 114:	Line 114:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:26:38'' [[nbsp]] Like I said, I will not delete comments that are not rude. I have done nothing inappropriate with my business. You tell me I cant list my free diagnostics in the free services section of computer repair, even though its a free service, but you can put yourself there and write that you will help in excanage for cookes and beer? out of the two of us, you make the wiki look more less professional. --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:24:42

comment seperation

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 104:	Line 104:
- It is ''permissible'' to do just about everything you want on your userpage as long as it isn't illegal. If you are an active wiki editor, we say you pretty much own your userpage. We have deleted content a user posted on their userpage in a few instances in the past, but this is rare. However, just because you can delete comments from your page doesn't mean you always should. I periodically delete my comments when my page just gets too long. It allows easier communication. However, just deleting comments related to an ongoing issue just makes it more difficult to understand what's going on and is discouraged. - As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]
Line 112:	Line 110:
	+ + ----- + It is ''permissible'' to do just about everything you want on your userpage as long as it isn't illegal. If you are an active wiki editor, we say you pretty much own your userpage. We have deleted content a user posted on their userpage in a few instances in the past, but this is rare. However, just because you can delete comments from your page doesn't mean you always should. I periodically delete my comments when my page just gets too long. It allows easier communication. However, just deleting comments related to an ongoing issue just makes it more difficult to understand what's going on and is discouraged. + As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:23:20

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 110:	Line 110:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:23:20'' [[nbsp]] william lewis, you have said that I have acted inappropriately in many different way. Disregarding what I did when I was a wiki noob, what have I done wrong? I dont think I have done anything wrong, and you are yet to give me a real example. Also, please leave your own comments instead of editing mine. --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2009-05-08 12:19:19

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 105:	Line 105:
- As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"	+ As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2009-05-08 12:19:08

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 104:	Line 104:
	+ It is ''permissible'' to do just about everything you want on your userpage as long as it isn't illegal. If you are an active wiki editor, we say you pretty much own your userpage. We have deleted content a user posted on their userpage in a few instances in the past, but this is rare. However, just because you can delete comments from your page doesn't mean you always should. I periodically delete my comments when my page just gets too long. It allows easier communication. However, just deleting comments related to an ongoing issue just makes it more difficult to understand what's going on and is discouraged. + As for the other issue about people "leaving rude comments," you are completely out of touch with what's going on here. The way you are framing your question prevents me from giving you a meaningful answer. All I can say is that your behavior on your business' page has been highly inappropriate and inconsistent with our community norms. You are doing it wrong and you should stop editing your business' page for at least a month. --["Users/WilliamLewis"

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:18:15

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 106:	Line 106:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:18:15'' [[nbsp]] I just want to add that I only ask that you guys leave me alone if you have nothing nice to say to me. If you leave me nice comments or even neutral ones, I will not delete them. --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:16:31

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 105:	Line 105:
- ''2009-05-08 13:13:09'' [[nbsp]] most recent edit war issue : user solidsender undeleted his comments from my personal page. His comments were not horribly rude but they were not nice. So i put a comments on his page that said "u are a fag, i bet you delete this comment" my point was to show that when there are rude comments on a users page, the user deletes them and its fine, but if I do it 5 people comments about how I shouldnt delete comments and then another 5 people comment about how it should be ok to delete comments. My stance is simple. If you write something mean, I'm gonna delete it. Period. No one has written any nice things on my page so all my comments have been deleted. Anyway, I deleted the comment I made to solidsender because two wrongs do not make a right. People seem to be very opinionated about this issue so why not debate it on the ethics page? --["Users/RealComputers"]	+ ''2009-05-08 13:13:09'' [[nbsp]] most recent edit war issue : user solidsender undeleted his comments from my personal page. His comments were not horribly rude but they were not nice. So i put a comments on his page that said "u are a fag, i bet you delete this comment" my point was to show that when there are rude comments on a users page, the user deletes them and its fine, but if I do it 5 people comments about how I shouldnt delete comments and then another 5 people comment about how it should be ok to delete comments. My stance is simple. If you write something mean, I'm gonna delete it. Period. No one has written any nice things on my page so all my comments have been deleted. Anyway, I deleted the comment I made to solidsender because two wrongs do not make a right. People seem to be very opinionated about this issue so why not debate it on the ethics page? And to respodn do JoePomidors comment that I like to write rude and insulting comments which he put on the real computer page instead of my personal page (little immature I think) I get upset when people write rude comments on my page, it offends me. Sometimes I retaliate and then calm down a bit later. There is a simply solution to this. Dont write rude comments on my page. Dont write rude comments ever. Its just rude. Better to be nice. What that old saying? If you have nothing nice to say.. --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:13:09

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 104:	Line 104:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:13:09'' [[nbsp]] most recent edit war issue : user solidsender undeleted his comments from my personal page. His comments were not horribly rude but they were not nice. So i put a comments on his page that said "u are a fag, i bet you delete this comment" my point was to show that when there are rude comments on a users page, the user deletes them and its fine, but if I do it 5 people comments about how I shouldnt delete comments and then another 5 people comment about how it should be ok to delete comments. My stance is simple. If you write something mean, I'm gonna delete it. Period. No one has written any nice things on my page so all my comments have been deleted. Anyway, I deleted the comment I made to solidsender because two wrongs do not make a right. People seem to be very opinionated about this issue so why not debate it on the ethics page? --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

RealComputers — 2009-05-08 12:03:06

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 102:	Line 102:
	+ ------ + ''2009-05-08 13:03:06'' [[nbsp]] Is it or is it not ok to delete comments off your personal page? Also, if you are rude to someone, and they are rude to you back by leaving rude comments on the page of a company you work for instead of on your personal page, is that ok? I obviously believe it is ok to delete your comments from your personal page and I believe its everyones duty to avoid arguments about these things being displayed on business pages. They are not relevent to the business nor are they relevent to they way the business operates because business and wiki comments are so entierly different. --["Users/RealComputers"]

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2008-08-16 09:02:09

link fix, minor format

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ [[TableOfContents(right)]] +
Line 4:	Line 6:
- - [[TableOfContents]]
Line 40:	Line 40:
- -
Line 72:	Line 70:
-
Line 82:	Line 79:
- ------	+
Line 90:	Line 87:
- * If a single person is using multiple accounts, all but one account will be closed. Choosing which one is legitimate could be tricky in some circumstances, but in the past it has been fairly obvious. As for the edited comments of other people, any editing of reviews is pretty much universally not accepted by the community; they should be reverted back to the original version. As for the multiple comments from one person under multiple accounts, leaving them there clearly marked (or questioned) as a [wiki:WikiPedia:astroturfing] effort is one option, simply deleting them with a comment that gives proof that they were one user with duplicate accounts is another option. The first allows commentary and dispute, while the second is generally only good when it is undisputably clear that there was duplicitous commenting. Who specifically are you talking about? What edits? -- ["JabberWokky"]	+ * If a single person is using multiple accounts, all but one account will be closed. Choosing which one is legitimate could be tricky in some circumstances, but in the past it has been fairly obvious. As for the edited comments of other people, any editing of reviews is pretty much universally not accepted by the community; they should be reverted back to the original version. As for the multiple comments from one person under multiple accounts, leaving them there clearly marked (or questioned) as a [wiki:WikiPedia:astroturfing] effort is one option, simply deleting them with a comment that gives proof that they were one user with duplicate accounts is another option. The first allows commentary and dispute, while the second is generally only good when it is undisputably clear that there was duplicitous commenting. Who specifically are you talking about? What edits? -- ["Users/JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

MaryLieth — 2008-07-20 14:56:47

mostly just link-fixing

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 24:	Line 24:
- We would all hate to see the wiki turn into a great place to post porn and flame your professors, but this isn't likely to happen as long as we are all respectful and cooperative. Confrontational statements and material is typically ignored or removed.	+ We would all hate to see the wiki turn into a great place to post porn and flame your ["professors"], but this isn't likely to happen as long as we are all respectful and cooperative. Confrontational statements and material is typically ignored or removed.
Line 30:	Line 30:
- * ["Libel"]	+ * ["Libel"] (spreading lies via print)
Line 34:	Line 34:
- * Derisive commentary motivated by gender, race, orientation or ''political beliefs'' (''I've removed a number of really derisive comments about the campus conservatives lately - really I find it as offensive as any of the more "commonly recognized" forms of discrimination - there's no place for it here'' -["KrisFricke"])	+ * Derisive commentary motivated by gender, race, orientation or ''political beliefs'' (''I've removed a number of really derisive comments about the campus conservatives lately - really I find it as offensive as any of the more "commonly recognized" forms of discrimination - there's no place for it here'' -["Users/KrisFricke"])
Line 37:	Line 37:
- * ''Does this include links to pornography websites? (they are easy to find) Please have someone explain specifics. -["GabeKoulikov"]'' - * ''Depends on the context. For instance, there was a porn shoot done on a local bridge. A link to the gallery (with an appropriate warning) would make sense. A link on somebody's personal page may well make sense (if the person is a photographer, model, etc). A link in the middle of the entry on free-trade coffee probably wouldn't make sense. There are exceptions to taboos (which is why they are taboos, not hard rules), but only ones where it makes sense and adds to the wiki. Do you have any examples?'' -- ["JabberWokky" jw]	+ * ''Does this include links to pornography websites? (they are easy to find) Please have someone explain specifics. -["Users/GabeKoulikov"]'' + * ''Depends on the context. For instance, there was a porn shoot done on a local bridge. A link to the gallery (with an appropriate warning) would make sense. A link on somebody's personal page may well make sense (if the person is a photographer, model, etc). A link in the middle of the entry on free-trade coffee probably wouldn't make sense. There are exceptions to taboos (which is why they are taboos, not hard rules), but only ones where it makes sense and adds to the wiki. Do you have any examples?'' -- ["Users/JabberWokky" jw]
Line 83:	Line 83:
- ''2005-09-29 23:52:23'' [[nbsp]] What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned? --["OnceLivedInDavis"]	+ ''2005-09-29 23:52:23'' [[nbsp]] What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned? --["Users/OnceLivedInDavis"]
Line 86:	Line 86:
- In short, there is no authoritative person to ask. You could ask somebody who has been active on the Wiki what will ''likely'' happen -- in which case I can tell you that it's likely to either get deleted or altered to have relevance to Davis within short order. -- ["JabberWokky"]	+ In short, there is no authoritative person to ask. You could ask somebody who has been active on the Wiki what will ''likely'' happen -- in which case I can tell you that it's likely to either get deleted or altered to have relevance to Davis within short order. -- ["Users/JabberWokky"]
Line 88:	Line 88:
- ''2006-10-08 17:24:48'' [[nbsp]] If a user attempts to comment on a business' page from multiple accounts, tries to delete comments, and tries to alter the comments of others (from positive to negative), should any of his comments be allowed to remain? --["KaiTing"]	+ ''2006-10-08 17:24:48'' [[nbsp]] If a user attempts to comment on a business' page from multiple accounts, tries to delete comments, and tries to alter the comments of others (from positive to negative), should any of his comments be allowed to remain? --["Users/KaiTing"]
Line 91:	Line 91:
- * I don't see much point in asking whether the other account is his. He has already lied by saying that he didn't alter other comments (when the history tells otherwise), so it's not exactly like he's an honest bloke. However, that's not the point. We've all made unwikiful edits, especially as new users. I just don't think that any of his comments belong on the page after he's gone through such an effort to vandalize the page. He deleted entries, added pseudonymous entries, and negated the entries of others. Until he proves himself by editing other pages in a reasonable manner, his bias shouldn't be allowed on the Raja page, since the origin of the bias is suspect. Most likely, he's the owner of a competing business, or was a patron that got caught trying to run out on the bill, or whatnot. If that's the case, then his only interest on the daviswiki is denegrating Rajas. However, if he's just a misguided new user, then he'll figure things out eventually on other pages, thereby establishing that his sole purpose on the wiki isn't just to deflate Rajas. --["KaiTing" Kai]	+ * I don't see much point in asking whether the other account is his. He has already lied by saying that he didn't alter other comments (when the history tells otherwise), so it's not exactly like he's an honest bloke. However, that's not the point. We've all made unwikiful edits, especially as new users. I just don't think that any of his comments belong on the page after he's gone through such an effort to vandalize the page. He deleted entries, added pseudonymous entries, and negated the entries of others. Until he proves himself by editing other pages in a reasonable manner, his bias shouldn't be allowed on the Raja page, since the origin of the bias is suspect. Most likely, he's the owner of a competing business, or was a patron that got caught trying to run out on the bill, or whatnot. If that's the case, then his only interest on the daviswiki is denegrating Rajas. However, if he's just a misguided new user, then he'll figure things out eventually on other pages, thereby establishing that his sole purpose on the wiki isn't just to deflate Rajas. --["Users/KaiTing" Kai]
Line 93:	Line 93:
- ''2006-10-08 21:07:25'' [[nbsp]] What about creating multiple (as in two) accounts solely to protect your privacy. I use a ficticious account because some of my comments are critical of Davis government and police. I'd like to also have a non-anonymous account for non-contriversial postings. There is no sockpuppetry intended. Would that be an acceptable use? --["GrumpyoldGeek"] - * Such a thing would be in good faith, so I believe it is a fair reason. To protect one's anonymity, though, the matter of IP addresses must be considered, though. Depending on how far one wished to take it. --["JosephBleckman"] - * It's all a matter of ethics and the opinion of the community, not a hard rule. I highly doubt anybody would have a problem with that, but I could be wrong. At least Joseph and I agree. I've logged out to forums occasionally to post anonymous stories about workplaces to prevent identification of the people involved. The problem would be when some sleuth connects the two accounts. I'd also say that accountability suffers when two accounts are used for any reason, and it would have to be a good reason. Creating a secondary account to say that a band stinks, for instance, would be unlikely to be acceptable. Creating one to post about where to get confidential HIV treatments would likely be considered acceptable by most people, I believe. Like most actions in a social community, it often depends on the situation, intent and execution rather than the factual description of the act. -- ["JabberWokky"]	+ ''2006-10-08 21:07:25'' [[nbsp]] What about creating multiple (as in two) accounts solely to protect your privacy. I use a ficticious account because some of my comments are critical of Davis government and police. I'd like to also have a non-anonymous account for non-contriversial postings. There is no sockpuppetry intended. Would that be an acceptable use? --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"] + * Such a thing would be in good faith, so I believe it is a fair reason. To protect one's anonymity, though, the matter of IP addresses must be considered, though. Depending on how far one wished to take it. --["Users/JosephBleckman"] + * It's all a matter of ethics and the opinion of the community, not a hard rule. I highly doubt anybody would have a problem with that, but I could be wrong. At least Joseph and I agree. I've logged out to forums occasionally to post anonymous stories about workplaces to prevent identification of the people involved. The problem would be when some sleuth connects the two accounts. I'd also say that accountability suffers when two accounts are used for any reason, and it would have to be a good reason. Creating a secondary account to say that a band stinks, for instance, would be unlikely to be acceptable. Creating one to post about where to get confidential HIV treatments would likely be considered acceptable by most people, I believe. Like most actions in a social community, it often depends on the situation, intent and execution rather than the factual description of the act. -- ["Users/JabberWokky"]
Line 97:	Line 97:
- ''2006-10-13 15:18:49'' [[nbsp]] Suppose some company had some information published on their page that they'd rather not be public. It is factual information that is neither positive nor negative, but they may deem it to be sensitive. Are they within their rights to unilaterally delete such information without discussion? Is it ethical to restore the deleted information? --["WilliamLewis"] - * First of all, it depends on who owns the information. If it was created by the company, they own the copyright. If the information is proprietary or is a trade secret, they own the material. In those cases, the company would be justified in removing it and insisting that it stay removed. If the company doesn't own the information, usual wiki ethics should prevail. --["Grumpyoldgeek"] - * I should have been a bit more specific. The information is neither a creative work nor any type of trade secret. It's a direct phone number. --["WilliamLewis"]	+ ''2006-10-13 15:18:49'' [[nbsp]] Suppose some company had some information published on their page that they'd rather not be public. It is factual information that is neither positive nor negative, but they may deem it to be sensitive. Are they within their rights to unilaterally delete such information without discussion? Is it ethical to restore the deleted information? --["Users/WilliamLewis"] + * First of all, it depends on who owns the information. If it was created by the company, they own the copyright. If the information is proprietary or is a trade secret, they own the material. In those cases, the company would be justified in removing it and insisting that it stay removed. If the company doesn't own the information, usual wiki ethics should prevail. --["Users/Grumpyoldgeek"] + * I should have been a bit more specific. The information is neither a creative work nor any type of trade secret. It's a direct phone number. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]
Line 102:	Line 102:
- * Suspicious comments occasionally pop up and are generally flagged with supporting info rather than deleted. Every once in awhile the person even comes back and it turns out to just be a big fan of the business who created an account just to heap praise. Which entry? (Oh, and if in doubt, the talk pages are good for this kind of thing if you want to "call in a second opinion"... I've had some things that looked funky to me be pointed out as non-suspicious activity that way, especially when there's a handful of questionable reviews) --["JabberWokky"]	+ * Suspicious comments occasionally pop up and are generally flagged with supporting info rather than deleted. Every once in awhile the person even comes back and it turns out to just be a big fan of the business who created an account just to heap praise. Which entry? (Oh, and if in doubt, the talk pages are good for this kind of thing if you want to "call in a second opinion"... I've had some things that looked funky to me be pointed out as non-suspicious activity that way, especially when there's a handful of questionable reviews) --["Users/JabberWokky"]
Line 104:	Line 104:
- * You just edit it. In this case, I added a note to the end of the entry. You can also check an editor's info by visiting their profile (in this case there was none), and clicking "Info" and then "User Info". It shows all the edits that they have ever made. If they reviewed an ice cream place, a laundromat and an apartment complex, they are probably a legit editor. In this case, they only ever made the single edit from that account, which is... well, at least semi-suspicious. I appended a note to the review noting that fact for people who are reading the reviews. --["JabberWokky"]	+ * You just edit it. In this case, I added a note to the end of the entry. You can also check an editor's info by visiting their profile (in this case there was none), and clicking "Info" and then "User Info". It shows all the edits that they have ever made. If they reviewed an ice cream place, a laundromat and an apartment complex, they are probably a legit editor. In this case, they only ever made the single edit from that account, which is... well, at least semi-suspicious. I appended a note to the review noting that fact for people who are reading the reviews. --["Users/JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2008-05-28 17:53:31

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 46:	Line 46:
- There are some topics that have never (and likely will never) have a satisfactory conclusion. That's because the people who make up the Wiki feel differently about them. You can discuss them in ["Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion"], but it is unlikely that you can present an argument that will have everybody agreeing with your personal feelings on the issue.	+ There are some topics that have never (and likely will never) have a satisfactory conclusion. That's because the people who make up the Wiki feel differently about them. You can discuss them in ["Wiki Community/Ethics Discussion"], but it is unlikely that you can present an argument that will have everybody agreeing with your personal feelings on the issue.

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2008-03-05 22:01:09

Okay, I REALLY need to get back to work... :)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 104:	Line 104:
	+ * You just edit it. In this case, I added a note to the end of the entry. You can also check an editor's info by visiting their profile (in this case there was none), and clicking "Info" and then "User Info". It shows all the edits that they have ever made. If they reviewed an ice cream place, a laundromat and an apartment complex, they are probably a legit editor. In this case, they only ever made the single edit from that account, which is... well, at least semi-suspicious. I appended a note to the review noting that fact for people who are reading the reviews. --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

HG — 2008-03-05 21:10:41

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 103:	Line 103:
	+ *I comment by KS on the Cambridge House Apartments page. There are a few things that make me question it. For instance saying that the windows are going to be fixed soon, because I haven't seen or heard about any window fixings and it seems like something only a property manager would say. As well as the comment about the high speed internet, because it is actually extremely slow and everyone who lives here complains about it. Also there is no maintence on the landscaping and the maintence guys never come the same day, or the next or next. It just seems really weird to me, and I'm new to Wiki so I didn't know how to approach it. Is there a way to flag it similar to craigslist?

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2008-03-05 19:33:51

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 102:	Line 102:
- * Suspicious comments occasionally pop up and are generally flagged with supporting info rather than deleted. Every once in awhile the person even comes back and it turns out to just be a big fan of the business who created an account just to heap praise. Which entry? --["JabberWokky"]	+ * Suspicious comments occasionally pop up and are generally flagged with supporting info rather than deleted. Every once in awhile the person even comes back and it turns out to just be a big fan of the business who created an account just to heap praise. Which entry? (Oh, and if in doubt, the talk pages are good for this kind of thing if you want to "call in a second opinion"... I've had some things that looked funky to me be pointed out as non-suspicious activity that way, especially when there's a handful of questionable reviews) --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2008-03-05 19:32:00

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 102:	Line 102:
	+ * Suspicious comments occasionally pop up and are generally flagged with supporting info rather than deleted. Every once in awhile the person even comes back and it turns out to just be a big fan of the business who created an account just to heap praise. Which entry? --["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

HG — 2008-03-05 19:09:01

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 100:	Line 100:
	+ ------ + ''2008-03-05 19:09:01'' [[nbsp]] I'm pretty sure that one of the comments on an apartment page is written by the property manager pretneding to be a renter. It is pretty obvious, would it be ok to delete this comment? --["Users/HG"]

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2007-09-21 17:47:11

(quick edit)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 18:	Line 18:
- * There's a consensus that FirstnameLastname pages are the property of that user. Edit them if you'd like, but respect the owner's wishes.	+ * There's a consensus that {{{["Users/FirstnameLastname"]}}} pages are the property of that user. Edit them if you'd like, but respect the owner's wishes.

Wiki Ethics

CraigBrozinsky — 2007-07-12 18:59:56

good gnomingclature

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 20:	Line 20:
	+ * The wiki is about the Davis community. If you find yourself in a tangential debate or edit war, balance things by matchings every contribution you make on that page, with a positive contribution about Davis on another page, even if it's just some minor ["Wiki Gnome" gnoming].

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-12-08 16:43:57

Setting up, new intro.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics. Check the ["Wiki Ethics/Archive"] as well.	+ The Wiki is a powerful tool and there are few strict rules, but over time the community has developed a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. Check the ["Wiki Ethics/Archive"] as well. + + If you are completely new to the Wiki, a light primer of common mistakes is located at ["Welcome to the Wiki"].

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-12-08 16:42:09

link fix

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 39:	Line 39:
- See also: ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome To Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"].	+ See also: ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome to the Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"].

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2006-10-13 14:30:15

+ clarification

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 96:	Line 96:
	+ * I should have been a bit more specific. The information is neither a creative work nor any type of trade secret. It's a direct phone number. --["WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

GrumpyoldGeek — 2006-10-13 14:26:15

Posting information about a company

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 95:	Line 95:
	+ * First of all, it depends on who owns the information. If it was created by the company, they own the copyright. If the information is proprietary or is a trade secret, they own the material. In those cases, the company would be justified in removing it and insisting that it stay removed. If the company doesn't own the information, usual wiki ethics should prevail. --["Grumpyoldgeek"]

Wiki Ethics

WilliamLewis — 2006-10-13 14:18:49

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 93:	Line 93:
	+ ------ + ''2006-10-13 15:18:49'' [[nbsp]] Suppose some company had some information published on their page that they'd rather not be public. It is factual information that is neither positive nor negative, but they may deem it to be sensitive. Are they within their rights to unilaterally delete such information without discussion? Is it ethical to restore the deleted information? --["WilliamLewis"]

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-10-09 05:21:25

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 92:	Line 92:
	+ * It's all a matter of ethics and the opinion of the community, not a hard rule. I highly doubt anybody would have a problem with that, but I could be wrong. At least Joseph and I agree. I've logged out to forums occasionally to post anonymous stories about workplaces to prevent identification of the people involved. The problem would be when some sleuth connects the two accounts. I'd also say that accountability suffers when two accounts are used for any reason, and it would have to be a good reason. Creating a secondary account to say that a band stinks, for instance, would be unlikely to be acceptable. Creating one to post about where to get confidential HIV treatments would likely be considered acceptable by most people, I believe. Like most actions in a social community, it often depends on the situation, intent and execution rather than the factual description of the act. -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

KaiTing — 2006-10-08 22:11:35

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 88:	Line 88:
- * I don't see much point in asking whether the other account is his. He has already lied by saying that he didn't alter other comments (when the history tells otherwise), so it's not exactly like he's an honest bloke. However, that's not the point. We've all made unwikiful edits, especially as new users. I just don't think that any of his comments belong on the page after he's gone through such an effort to vandalize the page. He deleted entries, added pseudonymous entries, and negated the entries of others. Until he proves himself by editing other pages in a reasonable manner, his bias shouldn't be allowed on the Raja page, since the origin of the bias is suspect. Most likely, he's the owner of a competing business, or was a patron that got caught trying to run out on the bill, or whatnot. If that's the case, then his only interest on the daviswiki is denegrating Rajas. However, if he's just a misguided new user, then he'll figure things out eventually on other pages, thereby establishing that his sole purpose on the wiki isn't just to deflat Rajas. --["KaiTing" Kai]	+ * I don't see much point in asking whether the other account is his. He has already lied by saying that he didn't alter other comments (when the history tells otherwise), so it's not exactly like he's an honest bloke. However, that's not the point. We've all made unwikiful edits, especially as new users. I just don't think that any of his comments belong on the page after he's gone through such an effort to vandalize the page. He deleted entries, added pseudonymous entries, and negated the entries of others. Until he proves himself by editing other pages in a reasonable manner, his bias shouldn't be allowed on the Raja page, since the origin of the bias is suspect. Most likely, he's the owner of a competing business, or was a patron that got caught trying to run out on the bill, or whatnot. If that's the case, then his only interest on the daviswiki is denegrating Rajas. However, if he's just a misguided new user, then he'll figure things out eventually on other pages, thereby establishing that his sole purpose on the wiki isn't just to deflate Rajas. --["KaiTing" Kai]

Wiki Ethics

KaiTing — 2006-10-08 22:10:04

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 88:	Line 88:
	+ * I don't see much point in asking whether the other account is his. He has already lied by saying that he didn't alter other comments (when the history tells otherwise), so it's not exactly like he's an honest bloke. However, that's not the point. We've all made unwikiful edits, especially as new users. I just don't think that any of his comments belong on the page after he's gone through such an effort to vandalize the page. He deleted entries, added pseudonymous entries, and negated the entries of others. Until he proves himself by editing other pages in a reasonable manner, his bias shouldn't be allowed on the Raja page, since the origin of the bias is suspect. Most likely, he's the owner of a competing business, or was a patron that got caught trying to run out on the bill, or whatnot. If that's the case, then his only interest on the daviswiki is denegrating Rajas. However, if he's just a misguided new user, then he'll figure things out eventually on other pages, thereby establishing that his sole purpose on the wiki isn't just to deflat Rajas. --["KaiTing" Kai]

Wiki Ethics

JosephBleckman — 2006-10-08 21:16:00

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 90:	Line 90:
	+ * Such a thing would be in good faith, so I believe it is a fair reason. To protect one's anonymity, though, the matter of IP addresses must be considered, though. Depending on how far one wished to take it. --["JosephBleckman"]

Wiki Ethics

GrumpyoldGeek — 2006-10-08 20:54:49

Revert to version 128 (Revert because screen refresh duplicated my comment).

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 90:	Line 90:
- ------ - ''2006-10-08 21:53:23'' [[nbsp]] What about creating multiple (as in two) accounts solely to protect your privacy. I use a ficticious account because some of my comments are critical of Davis government and police. I'd like to also have a non-anonymous account for non-contriversial postings. There is no sockpuppetry intended. Would that be an acceptable use? --["GrumpyoldGeek"]

Wiki Ethics

GrumpyoldGeek — 2006-10-08 20:53:23

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 90:	Line 90:
	+ ------ + ''2006-10-08 21:53:23'' [[nbsp]] What about creating multiple (as in two) accounts solely to protect your privacy. I use a ficticious account because some of my comments are critical of Davis government and police. I'd like to also have a non-anonymous account for non-contriversial postings. There is no sockpuppetry intended. Would that be an acceptable use? --["GrumpyoldGeek"]

Wiki Ethics

GrumpyoldGeek — 2006-10-08 20:07:25

Comment added.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 88:	Line 88:
	+ ------ + ''2006-10-08 21:07:25'' [[nbsp]] What about creating multiple (as in two) accounts solely to protect your privacy. I use a ficticious account because some of my comments are critical of Davis government and police. I'd like to also have a non-anonymous account for non-contriversial postings. There is no sockpuppetry intended. Would that be an acceptable use? --["GrumpyoldGeek"]

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-10-08 18:49:31

Reply to Kai.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 86:	Line 86:
	+ + * If a single person is using multiple accounts, all but one account will be closed. Choosing which one is legitimate could be tricky in some circumstances, but in the past it has been fairly obvious. As for the edited comments of other people, any editing of reviews is pretty much universally not accepted by the community; they should be reverted back to the original version. As for the multiple comments from one person under multiple accounts, leaving them there clearly marked (or questioned) as a [wiki:WikiPedia:astroturfing] effort is one option, simply deleting them with a comment that gives proof that they were one user with duplicate accounts is another option. The first allows commentary and dispute, while the second is generally only good when it is undisputably clear that there was duplicitous commenting. Who specifically are you talking about? What edits? -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

KaiTing — 2006-10-08 16:29:48

ethics question

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 78:	Line 78:
- ''What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23	+ [[Comments(Do you have a question about ethics?)]] + ------ + ''2005-09-29 23:52:23'' [[nbsp]] What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned? --["OnceLivedInDavis"]
Line 82:	Line 84:
- - ''If a user attempts to comment on a business' page from multiple accounts, tries to delete comments, and tries to alter the comments of others (from positive to negative), should any of his comments be allowed to remain?''	+ ------ + ''2006-10-08 17:24:48'' [[nbsp]] If a user attempts to comment on a business' page from multiple accounts, tries to delete comments, and tries to alter the comments of others (from positive to negative), should any of his comments be allowed to remain? --["KaiTing"]

Wiki Ethics

KaiTing — 2006-10-08 16:24:48

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 78:	Line 78:
- ''Question: What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23	+ ''What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23
Line 82:	Line 82:
	+ + ''If a user attempts to comment on a business' page from multiple accounts, tries to delete comments, and tries to alter the comments of others (from positive to negative), should any of his comments be allowed to remain?''

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-06-19 06:48:48

Reply, minor refmt

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 34:	Line 34:
- *''Does this include links to pornography websites? (they are easy to find) Please have someone explain specifics. -["GabeKoulikov"]''	+ * ''Does this include links to pornography websites? (they are easy to find) Please have someone explain specifics. -["GabeKoulikov"]'' + * ''Depends on the context. For instance, there was a porn shoot done on a local bridge. A link to the gallery (with an appropriate warning) would make sense. A link on somebody's personal page may well make sense (if the person is a photographer, model, etc). A link in the middle of the entry on free-trade coffee probably wouldn't make sense. There are exceptions to taboos (which is why they are taboos, not hard rules), but only ones where it makes sense and adds to the wiki. Do you have any examples?'' -- ["JabberWokky" jw]
Line 36:	Line 37:
- ''Question: What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23 - * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkeley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkeley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors.
Line 39:	Line 38:
- In short, there is no authoritative person to ask. You could ask somebody who has been active on the Wiki what will ''likely'' happen -- in which case I can tell you that it's likely to either get deleted or altered to have relevance to Davis within short order. -- ["JabberWokky"]
Line 77:	Line 75:
	+ + == Questions == + + ''Question: What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23 + * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkeley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkeley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors. + + In short, there is no authoritative person to ask. You could ask somebody who has been active on the Wiki what will ''likely'' happen -- in which case I can tell you that it's likely to either get deleted or altered to have relevance to Davis within short order. -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

GabeKoulikov — 2006-06-19 06:18:59

Links to pornography websites?

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 34:	Line 34:
	+ *''Does this include links to pornography websites? (they are easy to find) Please have someone explain specifics. -["GabeKoulikov"]''

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2006-05-20 08:15:13

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics.	+ The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics. Check the ["Wiki Ethics/Archive"] as well.
Line 40:	Line 40:
- See also: - ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome To Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"].	+ See also: ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome To Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"].

Wiki Ethics

GrumpyoldGeek — 2006-05-17 16:38:16

Re: Foobar, no posting 3rd party personal info without permission.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics.	+ The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics.
Line 4:	Line 4:
-	+
Line 28:	Line 28:
- * Creating pages that intentionally mislead users. This is not to say that dramatic or humorous wording is disallowed; just that it should be clear to an average reader when something is true versus when something is a joke or tongue in cheek. - * Anything that might legally be construed as "Hate".	+ * Creating pages that intentionally mislead users. This is not to say that dramatic or humorous wording is disallowed; just that it should be clear to an average reader when something is true versus when something is a joke or tongue in cheek. + * Anything that might legally be construed as "Hate".
Line 32:	Line 32:
	+ * Personal information regarding an individual without their permission. Some leeway might be acceptable for public figures. When in doubt, get permission.
Line 35:	Line 36:
- * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkeley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkeley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors.	+ * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkeley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkeley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors.

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-04-20 15:15:32

rm disputed guideline (I agree -- too inflamatory by wording)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 16:	Line 16:
- * Don't be a jackass. Even when combatting jackassery. - ''This statement doesn't seem to mean much. On the surface level you're telling people to be polite, to be respectful, and to not intentionally provoke and so forth. But what is a "jackass?" It's just someone you don't like. So you're saying, perhaps, that you shouldn't be unliked. I think "polite, respectful, don't intentionally provoke.." is much better, and mostly already covered here, except possibly provoking people. ''

Wiki Ethics

BrentLaabs — 2006-04-20 14:16:14

Jick's Law

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 70:	Line 70:
	+ * ''In the real world, it's possible to randomly punch strangers in the stomach. What stops us from doing this? The fact that we're not assholes, that's what.'' ([wiki:WikiPedia:Jick's_Law Jick's Law]) + +

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2006-04-20 14:13:11

commented on "dont be a jackass"

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 17:	Line 17:
	+ ''This statement doesn't seem to mean much. On the surface level you're telling people to be polite, to be respectful, and to not intentionally provoke and so forth. But what is a "jackass?" It's just someone you don't like. So you're saying, perhaps, that you shouldn't be unliked. I think "polite, respectful, don't intentionally provoke.." is much better, and mostly already covered here, except possibly provoking people. ''

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2006-04-20 12:51:50

TravisGrathwell's wisdom enshrined.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 16:	Line 16:
	+ * Don't be a jackass. Even when combatting jackassery.

Wiki Ethics

CraigBrozinsky — 2005-12-17 12:23:23

sock puppet comment

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 17:	Line 17:
	+ * Use a single user-account, and refrain from creating [wiki:WikiPedia:Wikipedia:Sock_puppet sock-puppets], i.e. a user that mimics thoughts expressed by your primary account, but in no way reveals the two speakers to be one and the same.

Wiki Ethics

EdwinSaada — 2005-12-02 04:57:05

rem wanted page

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 33:	Line 33:
- ''Question: What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ["CoffeeShrine"] which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23	+ ''Question: What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ''CoffeeShrine'' which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23

Wiki Ethics

CraigBrozinsky — 2005-11-30 16:51:27

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-11-30 16:37:44

+"When your edits cause disagreement, it is best to discuss them."

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 10:	Line 10:
- * Avoid Wiki ["Edit War" Edit Wars] by respecting others content in your edits.	+ * Avoid Wiki ["Edit War" Edit Wars] by respecting others content in your edits. When your edits cause disagreement, it is best to discuss them.

Wiki Ethics

JeffreyNonken — 2005-09-30 20:51:35

Possessive pronouns do not have apostrophes.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 71:	Line 71:
- * [http://c2.com/ c2.com] -- Cunningham & Cunningham, Inc.'s Wiki is an early Wiki, but certainly not the last word on Ethics - each Wiki builds it's own set of beliefs and choices.	+ * [http://c2.com/ c2.com] -- Cunningham & Cunningham, Inc.'s Wiki is an early Wiki, but certainly not the last word on Ethics - each Wiki builds its own set of beliefs and choices.

Wiki Ethics

TarZxf — 2005-09-30 10:08:40

You may be in PA, but Berkeley didn't change its spelling ;)

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 34:	Line 34:
- * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors.	+ * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkeley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkeley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors.

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-09-30 03:00:02

Reply to Once Lived in Davis

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 34:	Line 34:
	+ * First off, you are an admin. You are an editor with equal rights to define what content is relevant. That also means that every other user is equal to you. Somebody may well decide to delete it (or you might decide to delete ["KittiesAreCute"], citing the same non-relevance). Somebody else might come along and undelete it and add a couple Davis related images. Then you return and add some more stuff, another person adds a poem about Coffee by a Davis poet, another person deletes some of the images and adds better lit pictures, two people make spelling changes, somebody mentions the Berkley Free Trade Coffee law and links to Berkley, somebody else grammar checks it... i.e., if you create a page, all those equal editors (including you) often have a tug of war that winds up positioning the "center" of the page above a point where it is useful, relevant, fun and well written -- as defined by the entire Wiki full of active editors. + + In short, there is no authoritative person to ask. You could ask somebody who has been active on the Wiki what will ''likely'' happen -- in which case I can tell you that it's likely to either get deleted or altered to have relevance to Davis within short order. -- ["JabberWokky"]

Wiki Ethics

OnceLivedInDavis — 2005-09-29 22:52:23

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 32:	Line 32:
	+ + ''Question: What's the Wiki admins stands on worthless pages? Like say I want to create a page called ["CoffeeShrine"] which is a shrine to all things coffee and I decide to put up all sorts of random coffee images and paraphernalia. It's generic, spammy, and not related to Davis, however it isn't harmful, in poor taste, or inappropriate. Would that be poor Wiki Ethics as far as the Davis Wiki is concerned?'' ["OnceLivedInDavis"] 2005-09-29 23:52:23

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-08-18 07:39:23

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- ==Some loose guidelines==	+ == Some loose guidelines ==
Line 22:	Line 22:
- ==Should anything be taboo? If so, what?==	+ == Should anything be taboo? If so, what? ==

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-08-18 07:38:47

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 46:	Line 46:
- = Philosophy =	+ == Philosophy ==

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-08-18 07:38:29

consist. headlines

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 36:	Line 36:
- = Topics =	+ == Topics ==
Line 64:	Line 64:
- = Helpful Websites For Wiki Ethics =	+ == Helpful Websites For Wiki Ethics ==

Wiki Ethics

AlphaDog — 2005-08-18 07:32:30

+link +toc

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 2:	Line 2:
	+ + [[TableOfContents]]
Line 46:	Line 48:
- Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in an artful phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts:	+ Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in an ["Davis Wiki in One Sentence" artful phrase] is difficult, but here are some attempts:

Wiki Ethics

JasonAller — 2005-08-17 17:35:16

sadly a needed addition.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 23:	Line 23:
	+ * '''Threats''' of any kind. Threatening other users is totally inappropriate.

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-04-04 02:02:34

added ward quote

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 47:	Line 47:
	+ * ''Back in 1994, the Web was a pretty wonderful place, with lots of people putting up stuff just because they thought someone else would find it interesting or useful. Wiki preserves that feeling in a place that has become too much of a shopping mall. It reminds people that sometimes to work together you have to trust each other more than you have any reason to.'' --Ward Cunningham +

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-04-03 16:37:13

All four links created locally, reflecting local tradition. Renamed one.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 31:	Line 31:
- ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome To Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Delete Insults"] (but be careful).	+ ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome To Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Insults"].

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-04-03 16:17:31

Made links local, since Davis Wiki culture is local, not enforced.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 31:	Line 31:
- [wiki:Wiki:UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [wiki:Wiki:WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [wiki:Wiki:WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [wiki:Wiki:DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful).	+ ["Unethical Editing"], ["Wiki Social Norms"], and ["Welcome To Wiki"]. Also, when it comes to flames, see ["Delete Insults"] (but be careful).
Line 61:	Line 61:
- * [http://c2.com/ c2.com] -- (please add information about c2 here)	+ * [http://c2.com/ c2.com] -- Cunningham & Cunningham, Inc.'s Wiki is an early Wiki, but certainly not the last word on Ethics - each Wiki builds it's own set of beliefs and choices.

Wiki Ethics

BrentLaabs — 2005-04-03 03:39:45

actually, those *aren't* wikipedia links, and they're *not* arlen's

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 2:	Line 2:
-	+

Wiki Ethics

BrentLaabs — 2005-04-03 03:37:22

Revert to version dated 2005-04-02 18:20:03.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 29:	Line 29:
	+ + See also: + [wiki:Wiki:UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [wiki:Wiki:WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [wiki:Wiki:WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [wiki:Wiki:DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful).

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-04-02 23:28:42

Removed Arlan's Wikipedia links - Wikipedia has formalized rules we don't share.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 29:	Line 29:
- - See also: - [wiki:Wiki:UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [wiki:Wiki:WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [wiki:Wiki:WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [wiki:Wiki:DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful).

Wiki Ethics

ArlenAbraham — 2005-04-02 18:20:03

wiki:Wiki:

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 31:	Line 31:
- [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful).	+ [wiki:Wiki:UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [wiki:Wiki:WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [wiki:Wiki:WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [wiki:Wiki:DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful).

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-03-23 19:46:16

Revert to version dated 2005-03-23 18:16:02.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- =All Wiki Ethics= - Wiki Ethics are whatever ["SaulSugarman"] says. Ask him if you have any questions before editing a page, because everyone else on the wiki is biased and libelous. But ["SaulSugarman"] is very objective, and being objective is what this wiki is all about.	+ The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics. + + ==Some loose guidelines== + * Respect the opinions of others. On the other hand, make it clear whether you are expressing a fact or an opinion. + * Try not to destroy content. When updating out-of-date content, it may be valuable to keep some of the history. + * If you don't agree with something, promote dialogue by including all sides of the argument. + * Use the wiki for good and not evil. + * Avoid Wiki ["Edit War" Edit Wars] by respecting others content in your edits. + * This is not a good place to have a casual conversation. Don't be afraid to summarize or re-organize past entries for the sake of readability. + * 'Conversation' on a page can usually be turned into something when meaningfully structured. + * Little streams of comments on the bottom of a page can usually be reworked into different areas of the page. Use comments left to improve the writeup by putting them in the proper spot. + * Do not fear disagreement and debate. It is the most important part of the process. + * Always be civil to all, and be especially nice to those who are new to our community. + * There's a consensus that FirstnameLastname pages are the property of that user. Edit them if you'd like, but respect the owner's wishes. + + It likely remains true that Wikis sort themselves out. Certainly in the case of Davis Wiki, we are blessed with intelligent and respectful people. That is why any talk of ethics wouldn't be rules but mere guidelines that people might like to follow. + + We would all hate to see the wiki turn into a great place to post porn and flame your professors, but this isn't likely to happen as long as we are all respectful and cooperative. Confrontational statements and material is typically ignored or removed. + + ==Should anything be taboo? If so, what?== + + Possible ideas (add what you want, even if it's just a bud of an idea): + * ["Libel"] + * Creating pages that intentionally mislead users. This is not to say that dramatic or humorous wording is disallowed; just that it should be clear to an average reader when something is true versus when something is a joke or tongue in cheek. + * Anything that might legally be construed as "Hate". + * Confrontational speech is usually edited or removed. Controversial statements should be attributed to those who say them. + * Derisive commentary motivated by gender, race, orientation or ''political beliefs'' (''I've removed a number of really derisive comments about the campus conservatives lately - really I find it as offensive as any of the more "commonly recognized" forms of discrimination - there's no place for it here'' -["KrisFricke"]) + * Pornography + + See also: + [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful). + + = Topics = + + There are some topics that have never (and likely will never) have a satisfactory conclusion. That's because the people who make up the Wiki feel differently about them. You can discuss them in ["Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion"], but it is unlikely that you can present an argument that will have everybody agreeing with your personal feelings on the issue. + + Here's a list: + + * Profanity + * Opinions stated as fact + * Geographic comments ("This is far away from where I live") + + = Philosophy = + + Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in an artful phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts: + + * ''It's better to convince someone of something through argument than to delete.'' + + * ''Put a flier on the wall. Just don't put a flier over someone elses.'' + + * ''The Wiki is made to be altered.'' + + * ''Your house will be the next builder's brick.'' + + * ''"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."'' -- John of Salisbury (11th century monk) + + ''Note that these aren't really rules or subjects to discuss, just attempts at witty turns of phrase that convey a personal philosophy about the Wiki. Think beautiful words, not legal clauses. If you want to discuss Wiki Ethics, try the ["Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion" discussion area].'' + + = Helpful Websites For Wiki Ethics = + + * [http://c2.com/ c2.com] -- (please add information about c2 here)

Wiki Ethics

SaulSuxx0rman — 2005-03-23 19:36:11

This page is now completely fixed. No more debate needed.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- The Wiki is a powerful tool. It therefore might be a good idea to have a discussion about wiki ethics. - - ==Some loose guidelines== - * Respect the opinions of others. On the other hand, make it clear whether you are expressing a fact or an opinion. - * Try not to destroy content. When updating out-of-date content, it may be valuable to keep some of the history. - * If you don't agree with something, promote dialogue by including all sides of the argument. - * Use the wiki for good and not evil. - * Avoid Wiki ["Edit War" Edit Wars] by respecting others content in your edits. - * This is not a good place to have a casual conversation. Don't be afraid to summarize or re-organize past entries for the sake of readability. - * 'Conversation' on a page can usually be turned into something when meaningfully structured. - * Little streams of comments on the bottom of a page can usually be reworked into different areas of the page. Use comments left to improve the writeup by putting them in the proper spot. - * Do not fear disagreement and debate. It is the most important part of the process. - * Always be civil to all, and be especially nice to those who are new to our community. - * There's a consensus that FirstnameLastname pages are the property of that user. Edit them if you'd like, but respect the owner's wishes. - - It likely remains true that Wikis sort themselves out. Certainly in the case of Davis Wiki, we are blessed with intelligent and respectful people. That is why any talk of ethics wouldn't be rules but mere guidelines that people might like to follow. - - We would all hate to see the wiki turn into a great place to post porn and flame your professors, but this isn't likely to happen as long as we are all respectful and cooperative. Confrontational statements and material is typically ignored or removed. - - ==Should anything be taboo? If so, what?== - - Possible ideas (add what you want, even if it's just a bud of an idea): - * ["Libel"] - * Creating pages that intentionally mislead users. This is not to say that dramatic or humorous wording is disallowed; just that it should be clear to an average reader when something is true versus when something is a joke or tongue in cheek. - * Anything that might legally be construed as "Hate". - * Confrontational speech is usually edited or removed. Controversial statements should be attributed to those who say them. - * Derisive commentary motivated by gender, race, orientation or ''political beliefs'' (''I've removed a number of really derisive comments about the campus conservatives lately - really I find it as offensive as any of the more "commonly recognized" forms of discrimination - there's no place for it here'' -["KrisFricke"]) - * Pornography - - See also: - [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing], [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiSocialNorms Wiki Social Norms], and [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeToWikiPleaseBePolite Welcome To Wiki Please Be Polite]. Also, when it comes to flames, see [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DeleteInsults Delete Insults] (but be careful). - - = Topics = - - There are some topics that have never (and likely will never) have a satisfactory conclusion. That's because the people who make up the Wiki feel differently about them. You can discuss them in ["Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion"], but it is unlikely that you can present an argument that will have everybody agreeing with your personal feelings on the issue. - - Here's a list: - - * Profanity - * Opinions stated as fact - * Geographic comments ("This is far away from where I live") - - = Philosophy = - - Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in an artful phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts: - - * ''It's better to convince someone of something through argument than to delete.'' - - * ''Put a flier on the wall. Just don't put a flier over someone elses.'' - - * ''The Wiki is made to be altered.'' - - * ''Your house will be the next builder's brick.'' - - * ''"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."'' -- John of Salisbury (11th century monk) - - ''Note that these aren't really rules or subjects to discuss, just attempts at witty turns of phrase that convey a personal philosophy about the Wiki. Think beautiful words, not legal clauses. If you want to discuss Wiki Ethics, try the ["Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion" discussion area].'' - - = Helpful Websites For Wiki Ethics = - - * [http://c2.com/ c2.com] -- (please add information about c2 here)	+ =All Wiki Ethics= + Wiki Ethics are whatever ["SaulSugarman"] says. Ask him if you have any questions before editing a page, because everyone else on the wiki is biased and libelous. But ["SaulSugarman"] is very objective, and being objective is what this wiki is all about.

Wiki Ethics

ChrisTakemura — 2005-03-23 18:16:02

noted personal pages.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 14:	Line 14:
	+ * There's a consensus that FirstnameLastname pages are the property of that user. Edit them if you'd like, but respect the owner's wishes.

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 17:32:26

Revert to version dated 2005-03-23 17:26:39.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 52:	Line 52:
	+ * ''Your house will be the next builder's brick.'' +

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 17:30:20

Sorry, didn't like the last one. That means I can delete it acc. to Philip.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 52:	Line 52:
- * ''Your house will be the next builder's brick.'' -

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-03-23 17:26:39

Added a couple more items.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 52:	Line 52:
	+ * ''Your house will be the next builder's brick.'' + + * ''"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."'' -- John of Salisbury (11th century monk) +

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-03-23 17:22:58

a for consonants, an for vowels.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 44:	Line 44:
- Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in a artful phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts:	+ Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in an artful phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts:

Wiki Ethics

JabberWokky — 2005-03-23 17:21:55

Moved debate to the discussion page and linked. Sheesh.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 44:	Line 44:
- Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in a phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts:	+ Trying to sum up the Wiki philosophy in a artful phrase is difficult, but here are some attempts:
Line 47:	Line 47:
- * But a lot of people on the Wiki delete stuff. Especially mine, even if I added and wasn't deleting.	+
Line 49:	Line 49:
- * Flyers tend to cover flyers. This happens because people often have disregard for what others post. They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. The Davis Wiki is similar to posting fliers in this sense. - * Sometimes the billboard is too small for all the voices. Because billboards are ''designed'' to be posted over, and over, and over. Not out of disregard, but because everyone wants to be heard. On the wiki, you can alter others' 'flyers', move them around, and reorganize the same thing. Space might be limited, but there is organizational potential. (''I rephrased to not use the word students, and I think the part "They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. " could be cut because it's common knowledge, as you state, that they don't enforce their rules''). - * Everyone does not want to be heard. Everyone wants to spam. Spam spam spam. (''I like it the way it is. There is a lot of common knowledge on the Wiki. If you rephrase it I will have to assume you will not want common knowledge and go around deleting everything that is common knowledge.'')	+
Line 53:	Line 51:
	+ + ''Note that these aren't really rules or subjects to discuss, just attempts at witty turns of phrase that convey a personal philosophy about the Wiki. Think beautiful words, not legal clauses. If you want to discuss Wiki Ethics, try the ["Wiki Community:Ethics Discussion" discussion area].'' +

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 17:14:24

Spam spam spam.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 51:	Line 51:
	+ * Everyone does not want to be heard. Everyone wants to spam. Spam spam spam. (''I like it the way it is. There is a lot of common knowledge on the Wiki. If you rephrase it I will have to assume you will not want common knowledge and go around deleting everything that is common knowledge.'')

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-03-23 17:09:14

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 49:	Line 49:
- * Flyers tend to cover flyers. This happens because students often have a flagrant disregard for what others post. They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. The Davis Wiki is similar to posting fliers in this sense. - * I rephrased the above to express what I think you added in your reply? - * My above didn't need rephrasing. How about I ["RobRoy" Rob Roy] it for you?	+ * Flyers tend to cover flyers. This happens because people often have disregard for what others post. They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. The Davis Wiki is similar to posting fliers in this sense. + * Sometimes the billboard is too small for all the voices. Because billboards are ''designed'' to be posted over, and over, and over. Not out of disregard, but because everyone wants to be heard. On the wiki, you can alter others' 'flyers', move them around, and reorganize the same thing. Space might be limited, but there is organizational potential. (''I rephrased to not use the word students, and I think the part "They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. " could be cut because it's common knowledge, as you state, that they don't enforce their rules'').

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 16:58:35

That is what I meant.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 49:	Line 49:
- * Flyers tend to cover flyers. Sometimes the billboard is too small, and if it grows too big it's hard to tell what's going on.	+ * Flyers tend to cover flyers. This happens because students often have a flagrant disregard for what others post. They can have such disregard because it is commonly known that SPAC does not enforce its rules regarding posting fliers. The Davis Wiki is similar to posting fliers in this sense.
Line 51:	Line 51:
	+ * My above didn't need rephrasing. How about I ["RobRoy" Rob Roy] it for you?

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-03-23 16:51:27

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 49:	Line 49:
- * Everyone puts up flyers that cover up other peoples. They then violate SPAC rules by covering up other flyers and posting the same flyer over and over. This happens all over Davis campus. Similar things have happened on the Wiki, but this little bit of philosophy seems to have a nice ring to it so it is left on the Wiki ethics page.	+ * Flyers tend to cover flyers. Sometimes the billboard is too small, and if it grows too big it's hard to tell what's going on. + * I rephrased the above to express what I think you added in your reply?

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 16:46:18

Edit edit.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 49:	Line 49:
- * Everyone puts up flyers that cover up other peoples. Sometimes the billboard is too small, and if it grows too big it's hard to tell what's going on.	+ * Everyone puts up flyers that cover up other peoples. They then violate SPAC rules by covering up other flyers and posting the same flyer over and over. This happens all over Davis campus. Similar things have happened on the Wiki, but this little bit of philosophy seems to have a nice ring to it so it is left on the Wiki ethics page.

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 16:42:26

Edited a comment to demonstrate what you're doing to mine.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 48:	Line 48:
- * ''Put a flier on the wall. Just don't cover up someone else's.''	+ * ''Put a flier on the wall. Just don't put a flier over someone elses.''

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 16:41:29

Stop it, this is rediculous. I've been told by so many people not to delete.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 50:	Line 50:
	+ * ''The Wiki is made to be altered.''

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-03-23 16:38:27

i fail to see that as philosophy

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 50:	Line 50:
- * ''You may like what you've written. Someone else will change it.''

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 16:35:56

Pooty on you.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 50:	Line 50:
- * How about: ''Try to recognize alternative points of view from the outset.'' ?	+ * ''You may like what you've written. Someone else will change it.''

Wiki Ethics

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-03-23 16:33:10

rephrased response to be more like zen koan

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 49:	Line 49:
- * This is a Davis Wiki. Everyone in Davis (save for SfaOS) puts up flyers that cover up other peoples. - * ''The Wiki is not crafted by a single person's point of view.'' - * I'm not sure this is any different than ''Respect the opinions of others. On the other hand, make it clear whether you are expressing a fact or an opinion.'' - * Hi there. Is there a reason why I'm under such heavy scrutiny? Not that I don't love this whole communal thing, but how is it that some people can post their junk without it being sucked into an abyss of conversation. Really, my comment isn't bad. Hey, how about I start writing over all of it? Hmm? -	+ * Everyone puts up flyers that cover up other peoples. Sometimes the billboard is too small, and if it grows too big it's hard to tell what's going on. + * How about: ''Try to recognize alternative points of view from the outset.'' ?

Wiki Ethics

SaulSugarman — 2005-03-23 16:21:10

Meanie.

Differences for Wiki Ethics

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 47:	Line 47:
	+ * But a lot of people on the Wiki delete stuff. Especially mine, even if I added and wasn't deleting.
Line 48:	Line 49:
	+ * This is a Davis Wiki. Everyone in Davis (save for SfaOS) puts up flyers that cover up other peoples.
Line 50:	Line 52:
	+ * Hi there. Is there a reason why I'm under such heavy scrutiny? Not that I don't love this whole communal thing, but how is it that some people can post their junk without it being sucked into an abyss of conversation. Really, my comment isn't bad. Hey, how about I start writing over all of it? Hmm?