Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive 1, March 20, 06

message: Hi RG. Not sure where you're going with this. I had many editorial alarms going off in my head while reading the first paragraph so I thought I'd make some suggestions here:
* Wikipedia is the most liberal Encyclopedia.
Wow! What a sentence to begin with. It's a value judgement and a moral judgement. Perhaps it is best to say what wikipedia actually is that lead you to the conclusion expressed. It could be argued that, as an editor, you would have more liberty writing for another encyclopedia because you wouldn't have to always deal with annoying anons. So, I'm a little confused about what you're actually trying to express. If it's that all editors are considered equal, then why not just say so.
* A founding principle of Wikipedia is that all editors are considered equal.
Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new opening sentence now. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshopping Opening Sentence 

message: *  The philosophy behind the Wiki movement is based on the facts that:
Again, why assert fact? Perhaps the second sentence could continue
* Behind this principle of equality is the assumption that, on the whole:
Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Sentence 

message: Hi again. Not sure what these items are getting at, and I'm on a roll, so I might as well do some paraphrasing again in the name of consensus. The current list reads:
*people have good intentions and they care about creating more informative environments
*they intend to do so for no other than personal and academic satisfaction
*a good source of information can be created collectively on a particular topic by editors of the same or similar interests
*the information evolves to its perfect form while changing 
Maybe you mean the following:
*Editors mean well and care about creating an informative encyclopedia
*Editors are motivated by direct personal satisfaction above all else
*Editors with similar or dissimilar interests can collaborate equally well
*The more an article is edited the better it will be expressed
I'm not sure I agree with all of them. But anyway... ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you see what I really meant in the first paragraph? Maybe I should simplify the first paragraph and delete the philosophy part? Resid Gulerdem 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First List Of Items 

message: Just wish to express some of my thoughts on why wikiethics is needed. My main position is that wikipedia does have moral responsiblity and public accountability:
* Wikipedia is a form of publication. As wikipedia becomes more popular and readership increases, the potential impact of published material, whether positive or negative, also magnifies. Therefore, journalism ethics and standards become relevant and shall be considered when editing wikipedia. As we publish information about individuals, we must uphold a moral (and even legal) responsibility to be objective and fair. We should consider their rights to privacy (especially for private people) and strive to limit unnecessary harms or discomfort to them. 
* These factors should be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. We recognize that this might occasionally lead to ethical dilemma, and requires greater effort on the part of editors to discuss and deliberate when making editorial decision. We must also exercise special sensitivity towards more vulnerable group of people, such as children, juveniles, or other individuals who are victims of crimes, damaging ridicules or discrimination, and people who are suffering grief and tragedy.
* We have an obligation towards our donors who are also our readers. Their financial contributions signify their trust placed upon us. As these donations are tax-exempted, they are considered as public fund. It is not in our interest to act irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is contrary to public interest and violates the trust of our donors and the public. Keep in mind that once we lose the public's trust, it is difficult to gain it back.
* Anonymity does not exempt any editor from these responsibilities.
Could some of the above be added to the proposal? --Vsion 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great... I grouped them into some subtitles. I hope you find the organization appropriate. Resid Gulerdem 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public accountability 

message: I have removed the moral responsiblity section since that is exactly the type of thing that we need to avoid in this.  Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The journalistic section is also very bad since it pretty much amounts to us self censoring ourselves in the name of not hurting people's feelings.  That is exactly why I think this proposal should be marked failed and scrapped since it is flawed from the get go. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed this down quite a bit and removed all the extra stuff and the parts that pretty much state that we need to self censor ourselves.  I also removed some duplicate info that slipped into there. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The manner in which these content are removed looks like censorship and suppression of opinions. --Vsion 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop vandalizing the project. You need to discuss and convince the contributing editors first. Deleting a section or sections is called Vandalism. Resid Gulerdem 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism, it's just removing parts that are ludicrious since they go against everything Wikipedia and it's contributors stand for. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is your POV Resid Gulerdem 02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moral responsibility section I 

message: If you wish to contribute to a no censorship proposal, please contribute to Wikipedia:Censorship defined as "No censorship. What is "offensive" or "immoral" varies between people in areas such as sex, religion, politics, and violence. Wikipedia disregards these labels as valid grounds for the removal of information, whether in text or image form. Information will only be removed for editorial reasons or to comply with applicable laws". WAS 4.250 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editorial ethics and standards are much more than just two factors: WP:O, WP:C. Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't repurpose this proposal

message: I don't think you can request an editor not to repurpose the proposal when it is unclear exactly what the proposal is. What we definitely know is that it's called Wikiethics and it's a spinoff from WP:Censorship and WP:Offensive and some editors are worried that it's a euphemism for WP:Antiporn. WAS, what specifically do you think is radically different between the approach on this page? What are we in danger of losing sight of in this proposal? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairs fair 

message: Perhaps I can shed light on what this proposal hopes to achieve by copying a snippet of conversation from Wikipedia talk:Censorship:
:So the images in Sex in advertising would be made a click away and not actually on the article page itself? WAS 4.250 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... Resid Gulerdem 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe there is a consensus for doing that? I don't. WAS 4.250 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I am looking for here. Resid Gulerdem 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was invited to participate in a pro-ethics discussion. You're telling me that it's just a euphemism for "pro-censorship", and you openly admit it? Since that also seems to be the consensus here, I've added it to the introduction of the policy. I'm a little disappointed because the term ethics to me means much more than whether somebody is pro or anti censorship. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MB, there is no consensus on anything here. It is just the same, 3-4 people, they appear everywhere. They are trying to dictate their own agenda to all Wiki. Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with these people, and you personally requested my input. The current consensus on THIS page is that this is a pro-censorship policy proposal. It is completely justifiable to clearly indicate this in the overview of the policy. I'm not saying such text will be there forever. But as long as consensus is that it's a pro-censorship proposal, the text belongs. To remove such text is violating the wiki process in favour of your own opinion. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with WAS 4.250, he even said linking to images in automobile would be a good idea! I'll look for the quote if you want. Gerard Foley 01:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This whole proposal is just a "Remove-all-images-that-offend-somebody" policy wrapped in in the sheepskin name of ethics, and blatantly so. (especially the section "Conflict removal"). And flowery talk of "Collective consciousness" won't change that one bit. I oppose it, obviously Azate 02:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You read it incorrectly. What it says is: if the contributing editors decide, they should be able to take a pic off. That is it. The policy doent dictate any rules, it rather leave the determination of these term to the editors and this decision can be different for each article. Resid Gulerdem 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good start. But I think editors are proposing more needs to be said to encourage users that wikipedia is not censored. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  MB, that is one of the main points to rely on the editorial judgement. We have even a different (and very bad) policy for censorship. It is said everywhere. It can be repeated here as well, if we have a chance to put the policy into a more mature form. Can't you see their attitude? Resid Gulerdem 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I feel that in some cases the "ethics standard" can serve to justify the inclusion of some controversial information, similar to Whistleblower, to uphold public interest to information and disclosure especially in cases about abuse of power. Remember the "Google case" where they self-censor to satisfy PRC government. If Google had an "ethical standard", they probably would have greater internal resistance against this controversial move, which had damaged their reputation quite a bit. Thus, ethical standard can work both ways with regards to inclusion or exclusion of content, but many editors have no experience in journalism or any form of publishing, and they need to be informed that these are the issues to be considered. Note that wikipedia is still a dictatorship, if Jimbo decides to remove certain content for political reasons (unlikely as it may seem, but he may run for political office, etc.) , do the editors have any defense against that? What if there is a scandal involving wikipedia, do we inform or disclose? I would suggest to add a sentence about this issue to the "standards" section, if someone can help. --Vsion 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: About Wiki being a dictatorship? Resid Gulerdem 04:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I used the wrong wordings, but I'm refering to the "fact" that Jimbo or the Board of Trustee have overriding authority over any content in wikepdia, and their decision is not questionable or appealable by other editors. Isn't this the case? Appreciate if someone can clarify or correct me if I'm wrong. --Vsion 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not aware of their excessive power over Wiki. I do not mind if you would like to... But do you think it is appropriate for this policy. Maybe it would be better if you have a draft posted here first. Let us see in what context you would like that be incoorporated into the policy. Resid Gulerdem 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What this proposl hopes to achieve

message: The policy is about ethics and standards. It is needed in this media Wiki. It is growing and ethic considerations are important. It is nothing to do with specific articles nor with policies. I would like ot remind you that the policies WP:C or WP:O are not even accepted policies yet.
The policy says basically that, editors should determine something being 'unacceptable' based on consensus. What is wrong with that? 
It also says that, article-based classifications are important. Otherwise, people like you are saying that (see WP:C) it is not possible to determine what the offensive is, so everything is OK. This approach is no good and not acceptable. 
And lastly, what is your pannic for? What is your fear for? Eventually, when it gets mature, we will ask people to vote for it. If they disagree, than it will be rejected. That is it. 
It is not acceptible that some people with no ethic concerns impose and dictate what to do to all editors. Resid Gulerdem 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversly it is not acceptable for those who want Wikipedia to be censored so everyone feels warm and fuzzy and nobody has any hurt feelings at the expense of factual information to impose their will on the community as a whole. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which expression makes you think that way. Resid Gulerdem 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any admin around here to remind 3 revert rule and that vandalism is not acceptible to Pegasus1138 Resid Gulerdem 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the history, I have reverted twice, you have reverted three times so neither of us have violated the three revert rule.  Also it is solely your POV that my changes were vandalism just because you don't agree with them so stop calling them vandalism and be civil.  Just because you aren't getting your way doesn't give you an excuse to be incivil to other editors who are working on a page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  In my sight you are a true vandal. Why you are not discussing your ideas if you are so comfortable with them, instead reverting the article. Be civil was my invitation to you. Check the titles. Resid Gulerdem 03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sight is fogged by your own POV then, just because people disagree with you doesn't make them vandals.  Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Me saying vandal doesn't make anybody vandal, but their attitude and behaviour... They can make them vandal for sure. Resid Gulerdem 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well luckily for those of us who don't toe the line with your views, nobody else really agrees that I'm a vandal... and there's some support for my trimming down the censorship sections of this proposal. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I do know the editors opposing me here. And I wouldn't get shocked if they award you with a star. When you go to a barbershop, do not say 'trim it a little'. If s/he understand trimming as you do, you may have your head off. Resid Gulerdem 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Pegasus, could you kindly lend some courtesy, to allow the proposal to take its shape over the next few days, instead of shooting down any content that you feel is threatening free speech (ironically as it may be). On hindsight, it was probably better to first prepare a proposal draft in a user sandbox before putting this up in the wikipedia space. I wonder if we can do that now, perhaps this will save time for everyone. --Vsion 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this policy is for 

message: Introducing moral values and value judgements isn't a good starting point for this policy. The first point of call should be to acknowledge the diversity of ethical values that we all have.
A good starting point is to write ethics that only concerns relevant actual policies on wikipedia. The most relevant policies to ethics are:
* WP:NOT WP:OFFICE WP:NPOV Wikipedia:Harassment WP:IUP Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions WP:OWN Wikipedia:Libel
The most relevant guidelines are:
* Wikipedia:Profanity WP:ATK Wikipedia:Divisiveness Wikipedia:Don't_panic Wikipedia:Accountability WP:POINT
The approach of trying to upscale the importance of WP:ATK and Wikipedia:Profanity to policy status is unhelpful. The process we undertake in building this ethics policy should begin by:
* firstly, reflecting actual policies (as listed above)
* secondly, (maybe a few weeks from now) taking into account actual guidelines
* thirdly, (maybe a month from now) soliciting new ideas about where to head with ethics and standards
Currently we have this backwards, and the policy is already trying to push ideas that have been voted down many times before over many years. This is inflaming the censorship issue. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MB, yes good idea. Most of these policies and guidelines already in the current text. A coherent and good explanation would become just wonderful. Which ideas you think are voted down before? I am not aware of that... Resid Gulerdem 04:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If people do not have any problem, I would like to keep the organization of the policy as is... Resid Gulerdem 04:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the feedback and the new section. Though, I think it's clear people do have a problem with the structure of the proposal. Perhaps solicit new ideas for structure here without insisting upon vsion's version. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Way Forward 

message: Can anybody have a look at the censorship section if it is clear enough that this policy no way supports censorship?
: It's a start. However why does it get a proviso?
* On the other hand 'no censorship' policy can not be interpreted as 'no editorial standards' 
: None of the other sections have a proviso... i.e.
* On the other hand moral responsibility cannot be used as an excuse for using personal editorial standards over consensus decision.
: Seems like a slight bias, but you made a good start. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think it would be better if I take that statement off? Resid Gulerdem 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason for it maybe because of the current form of the Censorship policy. They start with a crude generalization. Please see my note on the Wikipedia:Censorship with the title, Generalization do not help. And with respect to that policy there is no value or standards at all in Wiki. They imply: since we cannot determine what is offensive, everything is fine. Do not even try to classify something being offensive. etc.. What I believe is having editorial or ethical concerns is not censorship. If an editor take a pic off just because it is not ensyclopedic, WP:C gives a reoson for others say 'it is a censorsihp'. Censorship also should have some standards and I am trying to address that issue here. Resid Gulerdem 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant: No-Censorship also should have some standards and I am trying to address that issue here. Resid Gulerdem 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship section 

message: * We must uphold a moral responsibility for and exercise special sensitivity towards more vulnerable group of people, such as children, juveniles, or other individuals who are victims of crimes, damaging ridicules or discrimination, and people who are suffering grief and tragedy.
Reasons To Object:
* This wording above, violates Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions, in that it says we must uphold. I find this strict. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
* special sensitivity can be loosely interpreted to become ammunition for pro-censorship groups. It is unclear whether this assertion is refering to the WP:OFFICE policy or trying to imply some stricter behaviour by wikipedians. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
* vulnerable groups of people can be loosely interpreted to become ammunition for pro-censorship groups. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
Reasons To Support:
* Most people can be assumed to feel some responsibility for the effects their edits will have on readers. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
* WP:OFFICE is accepted policy and refers to being sensitive to our readers pains. ॐ Metta Bubble puff
Comments:
I invite editors to contribute opinions about this section of the article, by adding your opinions above. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an overall comment on this tread: I believe the reasons you listed for objection is valid but the section can easily be put into an 'acceptible' form. I do support this section and I believe it should stay there. Depending on the reasons you raised, User:Vsion might choose to make some modification. Resid Gulerdem 06:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for inviting, how about this modification: "When making editorial decision, editors should strive to exercise special sensitivity towards vulnerable groups of people, namely children and juveniles who are victims of crimes and damaging ridicules, and people who are currently suffering grief and tragedy."  --Vsion 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It works well for me. Just a simple point: By saying 'people who are currently suffering grief and tragedy' what you have exactly in mind and what kind of Wiki articles you think might not appropriate for them. Resid Gulerdem 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It usually refers to not publishing gruesome picture of someone who just died, eg. by suicide and accident, especially those showing the face of the deceased. On the Internet, these pictures can be found; and sometimes the tabloid publishes them for shock effect. --Vsion 00:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Updated accordingly. Resid Gulerdem 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This really needs more input from other editors. We addressed one objection. What about the problem of this becoming too loosely interpreted?ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  MB, how would you restate it, if you want to try? Can you think a new version that reduce possible concerns further? Resid Gulerdem 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral Responsibility Section 

message: Disregarding the context, do people have any concern about the structure and organization of the policy? First part is about guidelines which includes the guidelines when it comes to writing an article. Second part is about standards which are some general regulations for better articles. The last part is for existing policies and guidlines. I think we should have an explanatory paragraph for each of them. I know there are some concerns regarding the context, but disregard it for a moment. We will come to that slowly but surely. Resid Gulerdem 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the structure should have existing policies and guidelines high on the page. Maybe once the policy evolves we could deprecate their importance. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure about that. The projest propose some new ideas and maybe a new approach or look at the existing policies as well. I would prefer the order as is. But it is also reasonable to see how it will evolve... Resid Gulerdem 05:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying to copy the list but rather to acknowledge that ethics in a wikipedia context can only be founded upon existing policy, and to briefly mention the kind of policies we currently we have and how they assume certain ethics already exist, without rigidly defining what those ethics might be. Hope that makes some sense. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes complete sense to me. I have also the same in mind and actually I remember we talked about it before too. Besides the existing Wiki policies, the culture in the mainstream media should also be refered in that section, I believe. 05:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No!!! What is your obsession with introducing new values? It's like you don't really want your policy to go anywhere. If you stick to what is policy here on wikipedia you might make some progress. To include stuff from the culture of mainstream media is to introduce a POV that is undiscussed. Why can't you see that one way of doing things is inflammatory and the other is passive? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Did I mention about introducing new values? I meant that some additional standards need to be mentioned in this policy like the editorial standards already given in the current text (moral resp, privacy etc). There are no policies for those, explicitely, as far as I concerned. If there is, the current policies should definitely be used, they have priority. I would like to mention from others for the sake of completeness as needed. I think if we can set the tone, it wont raise further concerns. We can all together determine here if some additional terms are needed or not. At this point, I do not see that the current policies are complete, and that is one reason I started to write this policy. Resid Gulerdem 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand now that you are choosing to ignore that additional standards is exactly the same as new values. I won't be a part of this agenda. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't understand what you mean, what agenda? Additional standards to Wiki does not mean they are new. There is a real world out there and a media tradition for centuries. Is it bad to lend some terms practised for long from them? And as I said, we should incoorporate them as necesssary and if we agree on. Just like you are doing for section about responsibility. Do I miss something? Resid Gulerdem 06:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is, why don't you start with basic standards before you start on additional standards. As soon as you introduce values from outside sources you need to ask for input from hundreds of editors in order to achieve consensus. If you started by simply basing the discussion around existing policy there would be no need to achieve consensus on what is and isn't a worthwhile standard. I think you are underestimating how much resistence you will encounter. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK let us go with basic ones first. So, will you able to start writing about how should we understand current policies in a harmony and what do they imply in terms of ethics and standards? Resid Gulerdem 08:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your compromise. Thank you. Okay, I'll give it a go. I've listed the policy above that might be taken into account. Can you find any others that we should be considering when writing this? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel like the list (Current Policies and Guidelines) in the current version of the proposal are all related and need to be mentioned. Don't you think so? You have some others below too. It would be great if all of them are nicely incorporated. Resid Gulerdem 18:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the ones you mentioned above, and a few others to the current list. Resid Gulerdem 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Hello editors. This is fast turning into a how to get your policy rejected page. Please read Wikipedia:How to create policy and you will see there's only ever been 7 policies introduced by consensus on wikipedia.
# Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy - December 2005
# Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - September 2005
# Expanding criteria for speedy deletion - July 2005
# Enforcement of the three-revert rule (3RR) - November 2004
# Creation of the arbitration committee and adoption of its initial rules - January 2004
# Widening of the speedy deletion criteria - January 2004
# Creation of the process for gaining adminship by vote - April 2003
And there's been over 70 rejections of policy requests, including (but not limited to):
Wikipedia:Image_censorship Wikipedia:Content_labeling_proposal Wikipedia:Descriptive_image_tagging Wikipedia:Rating_system Wikipedia:Toby Wikipedia:Use_of_pics_of_genitals_in_articles Wikipedia:Censorship and Wikipedia:Offensive
So, I implore you to be more open-minded in this discussion on Wikiethics. If you want to stand a any chance whatsoever of having this proposal taken seriously please try and learn from history.
In a nutshell my advice is, FIND A COMMON GROUND OF ETHICS BASED ON CURRENT WIKIPEDIA POLICY, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
That's about enough input from me overall. I really have nothing more to add than this advice at this stage. If you can follow the advice perhaps this page will survive long enough to warrant further advice. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you feel like it's a "how to get your policy rejected" page or not, it stll has a right to be written. Furthermore, if only 7 policies have been put into consensus, then this proposal is HARDLY the prototype as to how to get a policy rejected. Jennifer 06:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I want this policy get approval. I want also this policy get approval by a consensus. I want to do something meaningful for all wiki editors. I want to provide the editors with the options they have or might want to practise. I do not want to propose a statement that puts any unnecessary restrictions on them and onto the community. In doing so, I do not care much about the fact that a few people I know will resist to this policy for no reason. I have enogh energy and ideas to discuss them that their way of imposing restriction to the community is not a way to proceed. All these in mind, I am for consensus and agreement as well. I am open to any positive suggestions. MB, you are an experienced editor and I value your comments. I hope you can see what I am doing here and what I am trying to do as well. Resid Gulerdem 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if you want to get this policy approved stop acting like you own this proposal since the history proves pretty well that you are acting like this is your policy and nobody else has a right to modify it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To Get Your Policy Rejected 

message: Does anyone has a suggestion regarding a picture or a photo that might be approprite, or maybe partially represent, this policy page? Something like a picture of a writer while writing an article or just his/her hand, etc... Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a ton. Resid Gulerdem 05:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: * We have an obligation towards our donors who are also our readers. Their financial contributions signify their trust placed upon us. As these donations are tax-exempted, they are considered as public fund. It is not in our interest to act irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is contrary to public interest and violates the trust of our donors and the public. Keep in mind that once we lose the public's trust, it is difficult to gain it back.
Reasons to object:
* This sounds a lot like we are trying to promote the idea that pay for comment is possible if you donate enough to wikipedia and kick up enough stink about something. This is unaaceptable to me. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe this section may be salvageable. Perhaps wait for someone to provide some more input. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence basically means : "Don't screw up". This is also a practical concern. Our donation drive depends entirely on goodwill, we can't afford bad publicity and mainstream media aren't always kind to wikipedia and seems ready to jump on our mistakes. I also notice that many donors are parents, and they commented that wikipedia is good for their children, that's why they donated. --Vsion 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Accountability Section 

message: If and when you have a poll on any version of this that is less than "no censorship. period", please go to Wikipedia talk:Censorship and copy the votes over to here of all the people that voted for "no censorship. period"; so we don't have to reregister again here against censorship. Thanks. WAS 4.250 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you are suggesting we won't accept voters who may have change their minds? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, it is worth to try, huh? Resid Gulerdem 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. I was feeling rather than thinking. Go for it. I applaud the attempt. At the worst, it will be a great addition to the wikipedia culture category and stimulate thought. At the best it will stimulate productive behavior whether it is called a policy or not. Please forgive my negativity. I remain against censorship but on the fence about any specifics with regard to implementing such a thing. WAS 4.250 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to apologize. Best... Resid Gulerdem 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I've added sections on violence, sexism, and racism. I believe these all ethically belong directly beside clauses about pornography. I also intended to add a section on religious division. According to the rules laid down by the creator of this policy, this policy:
"Is open to modification but again not destruction. The way to modify it should be:
copy the part from it here onto the discussion page
express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate
give your suggestion to fix the problem"
Please follow the rules in good faith if you want to make changes. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made some modifications on religions part. I think no article should aim to encourage animosity between the religions. Resid Gulerdem 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They're way too constricting.  Many of the articles deal frankly with these things and Wikipedia can't be dumbed down just to make people feel all warm and fuzzy, these types of sections are one of the many reasons why I am strongly against this policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with you. I would cast a strong object vote against this proposal and I imagine so would most of wikipedia. I said these ethical clauses all belong together and I believe they do. They belong together on the cutting room floor! That said, I won't let these ethical freedoms be fought out one at a time (or worn away slowly). If we must try to have a pornography clause, we should have the whole kit of extremism. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think there is no harm if everybody feel warm. There is no room for fuzziness, if you do not define fuzziness as: consensus among the contributing editors... Resid Gulerdem 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest some changes in wordings of 2nd sentence in the "No racism" section, the bolded are the new additions:  "Where there exists material the possibility that such descriptions may that glorify or incite ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife, and violence, someone to racist beliefs or behaviour, an effort should be made to minimise this impact." . --Vsion 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest merging the two sections on "No racism" and "No religious division", the two are often strongly intricated. --Vsion 01:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with last to statements made by Vsion. After all I am aving hard time to understand what this religion section is really for: For the articles that there is a possibly of causing animosity between spiritual beliefs, it should be either edited to note the harm this may cause earlier in the article, or edited to minimise this impact. I think these points can be mentioned in the previous sections. Resid Gulerdem 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, religious animosity is so important that deserves a seperate section too. Resid Gulerdem 14:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed 'no religious ...' section to 'no bias' and modified. Resid Gulerdem 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sections (violence, racism, sexism) 

message: I am not sure if such regulation exists... Since it is refered in the text quite often, a quantitative measure of the 'consensus' and 'majority' might be necessary. How about this, if it is not given elsewhere:
* Consensus: %75 or more of the editors
* Majority: more than %50 of the editors Resid Gulerdem 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'contributing editors' is a problematic term for me. I'd almost want consensus from non-contributing editors. Sometimes those who aren't involved directly have a clearer view. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted that term above. Resid Gulerdem 14:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus, majority 

message: I think that this page has no change of surviving a vote. The reason is that it contains so many new things and aspects where people have different opinions about, that it will be impossible to find language that is strong and acceptable by all. Anything that smells like facilitating censorship will likely be voted down (see all attempts to that previously). Same for anything that is ambigious, or fluffy language. Another thing, stick to accepted definitions for words. KimvdLinde 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, one day this page will serve as a nice piece of evidence for what happens when people try to force their personal ethical standards on wikipedia. I am looking forward to the vote. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  KL, all definitions are from reputed sources. Yes there are quite a few new things but the point here also summerize all those stuff coherently. With your contributions it might be even stronger. By the way there is no part for facilitating censorship in it. Resid Gulerdem 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To many subjects in a single page 

message: I am tired of the fact that Pagarus is continuously vandalizing either the policy page or the discussion page. We, the contributing editors to this article are already decided that we need two more months to improve the policy. Then we will put it into a vote. Now this user (maybe admin) Pagarus is without contributing to the article starting an edit war. Besides, he threatening me that I am violating  3 revert rule. Apperantly he has admin privillidges and planning to block me from the editing. He is setting a good example of misusing the admin priviliges... He is starting an edit war and violating 3 revert rule. He definitely do not prefer contribution but instead violation and vandalizing the work. Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin but there are plenty of nice admins who watch WP:AN/3RR who would be more than willing to take it up, furthermore I attempted to constructively make the proposal into something good that would have a chance in hell of passing and you rved it every time (see page history) as well as every other edit you don't personally agree with in blatant violation of WP:OWN. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We here decided to have a poll later when it is mature. Why can't you see this. We are planning to put it into a vote 2 months later. You raised some concerns here and me and someone else responded back. Why do not try to answer those responses but instead insisting on your agenda in contrast to the public desire here? Resid Gulerdem 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've given up trying to help this since my help to make this a better proposal is clearly not welcome so I'll stop.  I'll wait for two months until someone puts up the poll to vote and I apologize for edit warring. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Making good-faith edits to a developing proposal page is not vandalism.  I agree with him that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.  You say "we, the contributing editors" agreed to a vote in two months and .  However, I see only you and one other editor agreeing, and only today.  Pegasus1138 and I are also contributing editors, and did not agree.  It appears by "contributing editors" you actually mean just you and those who closely agree with you.  The "public desire" is not only what you desire. Superm401 - Talk 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By we he thought he was also refering to me. He was mistaken and is not empowered to speak on my behalf, ever! I have explained my restoring of the poll in the poll section above. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I answered this at the beginning. There are three editors here continuously contributing: Me, Vsion, MB. Pegasus partially contributed to the discussion and decide himself to have a poll individually. As an expert on twisting, MB contradicts his/her statements above. There are more than one statements actually. I am kinda shocked how a person can contradicts himself/herself in such a short period of time. I know it wont help if I copy them down here, as it didn't help for porn section. Resid Gulerdem 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already explained this. I went from let's wait to let's get this over with. I think it's obvious why. There's no reason to be nasty just because I disagree with you. And please stop deleting other peoples comments! ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  What are you talking about? I did not delete anything but you did. I copied two comments, including mine to Comments section for a better organization of the poll. You deleted a comment from me about you. You are really a very strange person. It is not enough to say Peace for peace. Try to be a person of peace. It requires some honesty and sincerity of course... Resid Gulerdem 08:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apperantly you can read, maybe you shoul look at it a little more carefull. I just reorganized for efficiency of the poll. The part I deleted is the first comment on the comment section. Metta did delete my comment. Would you like to see the link. I am sure you can figure it out... Resid Gulerdem 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure you did not delete another user's comment? - * The poll is already underway. Get over yourself. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am not aware of that comment. Probably it happened because I was trying to organize the page on an earlier version. COuld you figure it out which comment of mine is deleted too? Or you are just interested in my edits? Resid Gulerdem 08:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm assuming you referring to here? Your comments deletion were caused by revert on the grounds of 'reorganizing' the posts.  In any case, I don't think it was intentional, nor do I think you gutted Metta's comment on purpose, anymore.    --24.184.24.134 08:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I do not believe it was intentional.  I see it as collateral damage when Meta reverted for the same reason stated in the previous post.  I would let this matter go.   --24.184.24.134 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not believe so, simply because of his/her 'edit summary' and also the version s/he revered to did not fix any of his/her concern, in terms of poll organization. But anyways, we can forget it of course. Resid Gulerdem 10:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thank you. Rgulerdem, please stop your ad hominem attacks. I apologise for calling you obsessive. Please just chill out a little and stop moving everyone's edits about everywhere. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the problem with reorganizing the poll for a better efficiency? Stop giving me advise. I do accept you apology for once, I hope you do not vandalize my comments anymore. Please lend some courtesy. Resid Gulerdem 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Reorganising for efficiency" is a euphemism for "moving someone's comments around so my POV would come first." That's tantamount to deleting their comments. When in fact you move the actual opening comment of a thread. That's vandalism. I hope you understand. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Did you quote this from 'Assume good faith' section?  Resid Gulerdem 08:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and Violation 

message: This page has been unprotected.  Do not refactor the comments of others unnecessarily.  The polls currently on the page should not be modified (obviously except for voting in them).  If you have disputes, feel free to comment and start an alternate poll if you so choose. The page may be re-protected if anyone ignores this advice. Superm401 - Talk 19:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that Resid had been blocked.  However, there is still no need for protection here.  I have blocked the IP he is using until his account block expires. Superm401 - Talk 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I was given the suggestion that we extend the APPROVAL POLL so it goes for two weeks. That would seem to deal with RG's main objection and it might also support those that think the proposal needs a decent burial. It's a win win situation. So to be precise, my suggestion is that we add exactly seven days to the end date written in the approval poll. Your thoughts? Does this mess with the voting process too much? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this compromise as per Meta.  It will give Resid the extra time needed to raise additional objections, if he feels it is required.  It would be quite unfair otherwise, when the main proposer of the policy does not have adequate time (six days instead of seven due to ban) to address to his concerns, in addition to the points above.  Extending the ending date will make the poll results stronger.  Pegasus, please consider this.  --24.184.24.134 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Comprimise On Voting Procedure 

message: DO NOT delete anybody else's comments.  If you want to archive them, then do so properly, but removal of other comments is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, speaking of not deleting comments. I think you grabbed a very early edit there. There's a much much much more recent version of the text you restored that includes a bunch more votes. Anyway, I request someone archives that poll, per your request. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 18:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind. It's done. Message me if there's any problems. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I just restored the comments at the time of my last posting.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting comments from this page