WikiLurvdiskussion:Sidor om personer
Söker konsensus - konsekvenser[redigera]
Det verkar som om vi har ett problem vad gäller den här policyn: antingen läses den inte eller så ignoreras den - jag vet inte vilket som är fallet men oavsett vilket så är jag djupt besviken. Därför ställer jag frågan: vad bör vi i fortsättningen göra för att upprätthålla den? Tills nu har jag helt enkelt kontaktat användare som skapar personliga sidor via deras diskussionssidor och uppmuntrat dem att även skapa andra sidor inom sina intresseområden, men detta har fått ytterst lite respons.
Jag vill verkligen inte börja ta bort sidor, för det känns som ett steg i fel riktning att reducera mängden tillgänglig information, men samtidigt så är uppenbarligen det sätt som jag nu försöker få användare att efterleva den tandlöst, vilket är frustrerande. Vad säger ni användare? Vilka konsekvenser ska det ha att bryta mot personsidepolicyn?
- I think the policy against creating articles about yourself and topics you are involved with is fundamentally flawed, and that the discussion should not be on how to enforce it - let alone deleting pages already created(!) - but how best to reverse it and encourage people to provide information about themselves and their works. Here's why:
- The policy states as one goal the encouragement of diversity of article creation. Yet, the only articles fans are guaranteed to be able to start are the ones about themselves and their projects. In addition, these are likely to be topics which few others have an inherent interest in (though they can check them for errors once written). We should be encouraging people to contribute material on topics which they know and are passionate about, not turning them away.
- Such editors are also likely to return to check such articles, and perhaps at that time see other topics which can be added or updated. If there is no article, they may have little reason to come here at all. Do not underestimate the value of people searching for their names or their projects, and dropping by.
- Creating an article about yourself or your projects is a great way to learn how to edit a wiki and start contributing; again, these are the only articles they can be guaranteed to be able to contribute to. Even if the choice is zero articles or one, I would take one.
- There is no evidence that articles started by closely-related editors are significantly worse than the average article created by a new editor. In fact, my own experience is that friends (the other most-likely creators of such articles) are worse - either they are overly positive, or they make a joke out of it.
- It is trivial for skilled editors to improve such articles with current levels of creation - assuming the spam problem is fixed, which is a far more serious issue. But you cannot improve an article which does not exist.
- If there are articles about non-notable people and works, so what? They take trivial space in the database. Either they will get visits (and thus edits), or they will not (and it won't matter). [Some editions do fold stubs about works into the article about their creators.]
- Anyone who wants to create an article about themselves or their works can simply log in as another user - or not at all - and create it anyway. Site policy should not encourage people to start by hiding their true identity. It helps other editors to know that people are editing articles on topics they are closely related to.
- In summary, I feel the policy is misguided and unenforcable. Furry wikis in every other language manage just fine without it; English has over 9000 articles about people, and from a quick survey, over a third appear to have been initially created by the subject. I am not saying these articles have no cost - they take time to maintain, including exclusions - but the benefit in increased traffic, editor base and awareness of the wiki in the community vastly outweighs this. GreenReaper 8 april 2013 kl. 16.47 (UTC)