Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Arguments

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

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.

The policy covers a lot
I think one of the main purpose of this proposal is to coherently explain current policies, as well as fill in some blanks, if there is, with consensus. It can be a good source of information for the newcommers as it provides an overall introduction regarding editing in Wiki. It can be a useful source for all editors of course. Intruction creep can be dealt with this way. Resid Gulerdem 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What if it contradicts the current policies
It does not because, it is explicitly stated in the policy that editors decide depending on the current policies. I quote: ''.. with Wiki policies in mind, an editorial consensus ...''. Resid Gulerdem 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename this subpage
IMO this subpage title completely misunderstands the nature of Wikipedia. Confrontation and adversarial conduct are not welcome here. We don't reject people just because they argue, we welcome them. But we don't welcome the arguments. Rather, we like cool, rational discussion, in which people are eager to learn, and therefore to be corrected if they are wrong. Andrewa 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean that. By arguments, I meant some ideas like exapmlified above (what if there is a contradiction with the current policies?) etc. I cannot think any better title at this point. Any suggestions? Resid Gulerdem 01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I checked some dictionaries, argument = (Babylon: claim; rationale; cause, WordNet: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; 'it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true' ) I think I used the word in this meaning. But if it sounds differently, we can change it of course, no problem... Resid Gulerdem 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's just the point... the Wikipedia community (at its best) deplores use of claim; rationale; cause. Andrewa 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It can be thought as claims about the policy, not claims used in a policy or an article. Anyways, the word is the best I could come up with. We can change with anything else... Please meke some suggestions for it. --Rgulerdem


 * So what exactly is the function of this page? How does its function differ from an ordinary talk page? Andrewa 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither Sections, nor this page is so different from regular discussion pages. I have heard from a few people that they are asking about how if this proposal contradicts with other policies, etc. I think it might be good to discuss these kind of arguments which might be shared by some editors, here on this page. So we can direct new editors with similar questions to the page to review previous discussions on the issue. -- Resid


 * Andrewa, if you could come up with a different name for this page, let us change it to that if you want to do so. Resid Gulerdem 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I now think it would be better to abandon it altogether. There seems no clear reason for it to exist. Andrewa 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We can do that too. How about Sections subpage? Resid Gulerdem 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)