Talk:RationalWiki's Community Standards

From RationalWikiWiki

Trying to live up to our mission and challenge RW to take a look at itself. Also trying to criticise the RW guidelines in the same way RW would criticize such things if they appeared at CP. Unfortunately I have some other work to do now, and this may need a bit of copy-editing by somebody as I wrote it in a hurry.--False Flag 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And if RW improved to take these criticism into account, would you be happy? After all, it should be able to take the crit and act on it. I'm happy to leave CP to the "holier-than-thou-never-gonna-change-cause-we're-right" attitude. Armondikov 11:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume your question is asked in good faith and I shall reply the same way. Yes, I would be most happy if they were to update the community standards to reflect the reality of the site - or alternatively (and perhaps more logically) change their actions to reflect the community standards.

To be honest though I have some doubt that they will. Basically because re-addressing any of these will result in the usual endless RationalWiki naval-gazing. Debates, votes (though those have been out of fashion lately) more inconclusive debates, votes on votes etc. It's the fault of the mobocracy really.

It seems to me that, at one time, Human (unofficially) took a more hands-on management role which at least made thing happen. He's been more soft-touch since his battles with RA. I think few people would be happy to see RA take the role over, and TM doesn't seem to want to do it. Nobody else would carry the weight to make things change so I suspect that things will just drift along without change.--False Flag 15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being unduly harsh with comments about these standards being "systematically ignored". In my experience, most users follow most of these guidelines most of the time (except for the Fibonacci sequence, which was probably only ever of interest to a handful of people). If somebody does go significantly against these standards (e.g. publishing personal info about CP users, repeated vandalism against another RW user, vindictive personal attacks) then they usually meet with opposition from other RW editors, & after some kind of discussion or argument, the matter gets settled one way or the other. That's the way the mobocracy works.

But then it sounds like your beef is with mobocracy itself, and you'd like to see more rules (instead of guidelines) and more management at work at RW. That's probably not going to happen. I don't think there has to be a benevolent dictatorship by Human, RA, TMT or anybody else: there will always be enough influential individuals (including those) and others sharing their opinion to be able to sort things out (give or take a few passing dramas). Again, that's just how mobocracy works.

The problems RW has at the moment are mostly because it's having to deal with things it probably hasn't dealt with on this scale before (I'm kindof inferring because I've only been there a few months) - persistent vandalism, persistent edit warring, trolls & parodists. Block policies & community standards are fairly vague on things like this, & will probably need to be updated. The main problem here is that discussions about doing so tend to peter out due to RationalWikians' short attention spans. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 17:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I'm being very harsh, though I admit I was trying to be provocative. I also suspect that many of the new RW sysops don't even know these standards exist. And I really do think they don't get used a lot. Look at all the stuff on Andrew Schlafly - is that a personal attack? Is it personal information? The Fibonacci sequence is never used and nobody blocks vandals for mere minutes. So no, my main beef isn't the mobocracy. I do doubt the mobocracy's ability to fix it though.

You last point - where you speak about discussions petering out is the same as the one I made above. There is no real decision making apparatus so decisions no longer get made.

Consequently either nothing happens, or somebody acts unilaterally and waits to see if it is challenged. It sort of works but it's not the best - and as the site grows it will get worse.--False Flag 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The stuff about Andrew Schlafly really is irrelevant, since these are community standards and he's not a commmunity member. Given who he is and what his views are, it wouldn't be in the nature of RW not to be critical, hostile and sarcastic about him. But those CP editors who do contribute at RW too are usually treated civilly onsite. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 12:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was at least one account that claimed to be him. Also there is the possibility that he could sign up. What would RW do then? Remove the personal stuff? And what about TK? I'm pretty sure that he never volunteered his name to RW, but there it is on the site. And he certainly has an account on RW. At the very least it needs to be clarified to cover these points.--False Flag 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalwiki Debate

I see that RW is debating these issues now. They could have given us some credit for pointing these issues out!--False Flag 17:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the debate & who started it? weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Right hea Started by RA.--False Flag 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Come on RW

We go to the trouble of pointing out your problems, you talk about it endlessly and, in typical RW manner, never bring it to a conclusion. I think you've really got to fix this. It's farcical.--False Flag 19:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You actually expected it to have a semblance of order? Phantom Hoover 22:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's farcical." All going according to plan, then. Fat Tuesday 23:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So RW finally managed to update its standards. Will we be treated to an RWW analysis and verdict on the process and results? 78.105.198.239 19:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)