the policy is to exclude any controversial information that is not backed up by a good source
If my knowledge of id Games is accurate, a -lot- of information is by that definition "controversial", since a lot of it is dervived from in-fighting and inter-personal splitering. On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi folks. I fear this is not my first legalistic post to wikia-l; sorry > > about > > that. > > > > The Doom Wiki (doom.wikia.com) is an encyclopedia about the video game > > Doom and > > related games. It is intended as a scholarly project, rather than a > > community > > portal. Due to the great age of the game, however, a comprehensive > > treatment > > necessarily includes a discussion of Doom's influence on the gaming > > populace, > > and the (still ongoing) activities of Doom's fandom. > > > > This eventually results in wiki articles about living persons who have > > contributed notably to Doom's history (e.g. by publishing add-on levels, > > doing > > programming work, or winning competitions), but who are otherwise private > > citizens. The subjects of these articles often know about, and > > contribute to, > > said articles, but because we have an NPOV policy similar to Wikipedia's, > > they > > occasionally object to what is written there. > > > > I myself have argued for a courtesy deletion policy, on the grounds that > > we > > really have no legal standing to write biographies of private citizens > > without > > their permission; others insist that that is overkill and we should > > simply > > tighten our bibliographic standards (no unsourced statements from forum > > posts > > or IRC logs, for example). > > > > I am posting here because I know there are other wikis where this is an > > issue > > (fanfic exchanges, alternative lifestyle communities), and despite the > > presence > > of one or two irate users looking over our shoulders, the Doom Wiki by > > itself > > seems unable to reach consensus on a new policy. The full debate, if you > > want > > it, is here: > > > > > > > doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_Wiki:Central_Processing#Uh-oh_.28NPOV_biographies.29 > > > > Any advice would be enormously appreciated, even if it's just a link to > > another > > Wikia site where this has been discussed extensively (there are so many > > now > > that I don't know where to start looking). Thank you for reading this > > far, at > > any rate. > > > > --- "Ryan W" > > Generally your biographies and mentions are of living people, who can be > both hurt and offended, and have standing to sue in some cases. Wikipedia > developed the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons > > in response to this problem. Essentially, the policy is to exclude any > controversial information that is not backed up by a good source and to > attribute even that to the source. There is much more to it than that. > But in my experience, the biggest problem is an editor who is angry about > another person for one reason or another and engages in finding and > posting negative information. If they have backing in the media, watch > out, because then nasty stuff is easy to find and has a presumption of > reliability. I suppose Doom has a somewhat specialized press, but there > are probably some critical articles which resulted from controversies. > > Wikipedia would not accept comments on mailing lists or blogs as a > reliable source. Those sources are quite likely to contain snippy stuff > that may not be particularly objective. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikia-l mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikia-l > -- "I had a handle on life, but then it broke"
_______________________________________________ Wikia-l mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikia-l
