Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Sections

FOR NEWCOMERS - HOW DO WE DISCUSS HERE - PLEASE READ

Please review the arguments on the related pages (maybe quickly) to see if any questions you have, answered before. For the efficiency of the discussion, we modify the project as outlines below:

• copy the part from the proposal onto the discussion page or subpages: Sections or Arguments
• express your ideas why you think it is not appropriate
• give your suggestion to fix the problem, propose your version

If your suggestions get approval from the editors then it can be updated accordingly.

There are two subpages: Arguments and Sections. On the Sections page, we discuss the sections starting from the beginning. Please do not start a new section discussion if the current one did not get a consensus. If you want to start an argument discussion, please do so on the Arguments page. An approval poll can only be opened based on a consensus after completion of the policy.

Introduction

Wikipedia editorial standards and ethics (Wikiethics) include principles of ethics and of good practice to address the specific challenges faced by Wikipedians. Wikipedia has some editorial standards that reflects the common heritage of human literacy. This proposal aims to outline these standards and create a policy that summarizes them. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently, their place in the whole picture and their relations to the Wiki ethics and standards are also important issues to be addressed.

Let us start with the introduction. Do you think if the introduction is good enough? Do you have any suggestion? Resid Gulerdem 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial guidelines

The following sections provide important guidelines for editing an article. It is also helpful on how to have a productive editorial discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes arise.

Article-based classifications

In some cases it seems to be hard to define some particular terms like 'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', etc. That is why article-based classifications is the most appropriate way in doing so. Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible to agree on the definitions of particular terms based on cultures, religions, and such. The terms used in this policy such as 'minority', 'acceptability', etc. are also article-based classifications based on the judgement of the contributing editors in that particular article. By 'majority' more than %50 of the editors is meant and the term 'consensus' refer to %75 or more of the editors voted.

Let us discuss about this section. Any suggestions to improve this part? Resid Gulerdem 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It semms to be that there is no objection to the previous parts. I would like to open the following parts for discussion. Resid Gulerdem 00:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Collective consciousness

Collective consciousness can be expressed as a common sense and common understanding of the contributing editors which does not strictly exclude ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With Wiki policies in mind, consensus among the contributing editors should determine what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular discussion.

The culture of compromise

Empathy for 'the other' in a particular discussion is a valuable practice for editors. It is together with sincerity the most powerful tool leads to a compromise.

Conflict resolution

It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by taking all possible options available into the consideration. 'Unacceptable' descriptions or expressions should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. As an example to solve a dispute; if a picture is causing concerns in an article, having a civil discussion about other options or using what more editors consider to be a more encyclopedic picture may lead to a compromise. Choosing visual or verbal description based on the judgement of the contributing editors might also be helpful.

Discussion

Discussion pages are the place to improve the articles. They are generally be used for for informal talks. Nevertheless, the language used in the discussion pages are important. Apparently, rudeness, slang words, sarcasm do not help for an improvement of the article in question. For efficiency of the discussions on an article one might chose to copy the part from the article onto the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get more input from the other editors and consequently may lead to a better article.

Anonymity

Being responsible is a natural result of the principles given in this policy. Anonymity does not exempt any editor from these responsibilities.

It seems to be there is no objections to the sections above. We can start to Editorial Standards. Recently there was some concerns about four sections. We can start discussing those. If we can get agreement that is fine. Otherwise we may have straw polls for each section to seek the community approval. Resid Gulerdem 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Standards

Offense

Insulting or offensive expressions should generally be avoided in Wiki. It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or people who are using Wiki as a source of information. It is generally possible to find a different way of the same description which might be found less offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. In doing so, keeping the informative materials stated objectively in the article is also necessary. No offense policy restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values or people, cultures, life styles, etc. It is always good to be considerate for the concerns raised by the 'minorities' of particular discussions or articles.

Pornography

Pornography which can be described as visual or verbal descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause sexual excitement should generally be avoided in Wiki articles. The determination of a material being 'unacceptable' or 'pornographic' should be done by the contributing editors in a particular article.

Violence

Editors should be sensitive in portraying violence in the articles. Violence can be defined as an act of aggression or rough unwarranted force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on another being. Editors should also be sensitive about the rights of victims who are subject to violence and also the possibility, if any, that these portrayals may incite someone to harm others.

Racism

Racism can be defined as the theory or idea that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and certain traits of personality, intellect, or culture and, combined with it, the notion that some races are inherently superior to others. In the Wikipedia articles, the expressions that portray the prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of people of some races are not acceptable. The descriptions that are intended to be divisive over nationality, race, colour or creed should be avoided. The expressions that glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife, and violence cannot be considered as encyclopedic.