There are many misconceptions about the policies on this wiki that are used to the advantage of the staff. I, myself, use these misconceptions, trusting that I'm one of the few that knows that what I'm saying when I cite our policies is nothing but false. And it works. But it'd work even better if our policies actually covered what we say they cover. So herein I'm going to go over the common misconceptions about policies that we use when telling off users so that we can work on actually putting them into the policies and make ourselves just a little more truthful.
If I miss anything, feel free to point it out.
The Image Use Policy[]
The image use policy does not state that a user can only have one image file on the wiki. It states that a user can have one personal image on their user page. That does not cover their talk page. It also does not say that a user cannot use someone else's image or a PCA image on their user page as a personal image.
In fact, all it says on PCA's images is that they have to have a uniform naming convention.
(while I'm on the topic of PCA's images, none of them are protected by any copyright except creative commons, not even the blanks. sorry to have to point that out.)
An aspect of this policy that is there and is ignored is the personal image naming conventions.
- "Images uploaded for the purpose of being on a user’s page should use a uniform naming convention: “UserName.ImageName.extension”. This is to avoid confusion on whether it will be used in the main namespace. "
So, yeah, there's that.
Also, I realize that not uploading copyrighted images is a given, but I believe that mentioning it in this policy would be helpful.
The Essay Policy[]
This policy says nothing on blogs and never has. Only essays, such as this one. There is no policy on blogs. There really ought to be.
The Chatroom Policy[]
This policy states that the chat is PG, which is a very ambiguous statement. PG means something different everywhere. There needs to be specifics on what is and is not acceptable in the chatroom, especially concerning the use of rude language and obscenities, and what counts as abuse of others. It could also expand on what constitutes a spoiler in the chatroom.
These are the biggest problems I've found thus far. If anyone wished to add anything, go right ahead. Shelly For a limited time only 05:49, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with everything said above, as well as add to it. The chatroom policy, although new, needs a lot of things added to it, including the definition as to what PG is. I've had issues with people using profane language, from normal editors and staff alike, myself included.
For now, my main concern is cleaning up the Chatroom policy, since I had a hand in forming that and shaping it into what it is today. There are a lot of loopholes, which some users have found and used to their advantage, and this has got to stop. Things need to be cleared up and doing it now would be better then doing it later. The loopholes are only the start of it. Some of the rules, even when explained on the Policy:Chatroom/Expanded Rules, are still left with misunderstandings, and this is something that users also find confusing.
- The usage of CAPS. Some users, like myself, use it in place of a boldface font in the chat, since you can't bold your font like you can on here. Now, to some, this would be considered spam, and you'd get warned for it. But, is it really spam, or just a user's way of speaking? There are a lot that could argue either point, and I could sit here all night telling you why and why not, but that's not what I'm here for.
- What's considered a personal attack, and what's not? This is one thing that isn't welcome, not only on this wiki, but throughout Wikia in general. Now, if I were to sit here and call other users names, however minor, that would be considered a personal attack and I'd have my rights stripped, and I'd be banned for life. Now, there are some users that say they're joking, and by "assuming good faith" with all users, we're supposed to believe them. There is a majorly fine link as to what an attack is, and what isn't. That line needs to be made bigger, so everyone can see what it really is. Now, I think any form of namecalling, joking or otherwise, should be considered an attack, but the punishment should depend upon the level of which it was used.
- Say I were to sit here and call Kitsu an old fart, and that she needs to stop spending her time with kids who most are half her age (she knows I mean no harm, but this is an example)...now, those who know me know for a fact that I'm joking. But, what about those who do not? Wouldn't they consider this a personal attack, and argue that the rules say I need to be banned? Normally, yes. But, as I said, there's that fine line that I'm walking on.
- Chatspeak. This is another thing that should be common knowledge, but, for some reason, it isn't. This is the thing that annoys me the most, and something I gag on when I see people use it. I often tell users not to use chat speak, which they ask me "Why?" I usually say that it's considered spam, and that it's pointless. Also, isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia-like website? Why should the usage of chat speak even be allowed at all? If the website's got proper grammar and everything throughout the articles, shouldn't the members represent that as well, on the wiki and in the chat? I think it should be clearly written out what is and isn't chat speak (things like lol, brb and g2g are the most commonly fought over, it seems).
- Assuming Good Faith and Respect. These are the two most important parts of the rules, I'd think, and the two that are most abused. Now, respect does not only count for the staff of this wiki, but each and every member. I've seen users who come into the chat, and the first thing they do is violate a rule. Now, say a member of the wiki who is not staff tells them to follow the rules and links them to said rules. Would that count as an official warning, especially if that user isn't staff? I'd say yes, since they were told not to. After said warning is given, I've seen users say "well, you're not staff, so why do I have to listen to you?" This is basically saying that because you're not staff, you can't tell people to follow the rules. I grouped this an assuming good faith in the same category for a reason. Those who disrespect members are usually placed within the same category as vandals like the infamous Darkheart, or lesser known users like Demontail. Should that be done? Is there a lesser punishment that's suitable? Every user, from the newest account, to the oldest member (not only in age, but in seniority) should be treated with the same amount of respect, regardless of if they're given special rights.
Okay, I'm done for now, because I'm dead tired. I'll probably continue to rant when I wake back up, because this is far from over. —Jayce () 06:44, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired now, and I can't think of anything to add now. All I say is I agree that there needs to be a major revision of the policies. ~DJCandyFun~ I do enjoy fun...8D 06:24, 26, 02, 2012
Okay lets see what we can add, as far as I can see:
Signature Policy
It states nothing about claiming a signature as your own without permission from the rightful owner. It also states nothing that I can see about creating a new/different signature for someone else without their permission/when it isn't a request.
Spoiler Policy
It should say something about spoiling things in public, such as on the chat. Some users are sensitive to things like that, and don't like to be given spoilers.
Unreleased Books Policy
It should state that no theories, false cites and speculations should not be added by any user, regardless of their status or posistion on the wiki.
Book Cover Policy
It should say that no speculations for the cat(s) on the front cover should be added, as we all know, we are going through them.
Those were just some few things I noticed. ~DJCandyFun~ I do enjoy fun...8D 02:12, 04, 03, 2012
I agree to adding more specific details to the policies. The points I see and agree/disagree on are as followed:
Image Policy:
- Mention that users should not upload copyright images.
- The policy specifically says, "Only one uploaded image can be on each user's page" and should be clarified to mean that it's one image per user.
- Authority should be tightened concerning the naming conventions, and possibly even go as far as clarifying that piece of the policy
Essay Policy:
- This policy should be expanded to include blogs, dictating blogs should follow by. If the Essay Policy is to be expanded to include blogs, we would also need to hammer out what else would be included in this.
Spoiler Policy:
- Should include giving spoiler warnings in public
Unreleased Books Policy:
- Should state no theories
- I don't believe it's necessary to mention the status/position on the wiki. All users should be following the policies regardless of if they are staff or not.
Book Covers Policy:
- No Speculations as to who/what is on the front cover of books
- I'm not sure whether this should or shouldn't be added in. While it's a good thing to mention, this policy is mainly directed towards the galleries, also I believe this is mentioned in the guidelines of PB.
Signature Policy:
- Proper aknowledgements should be given for a borrowed signature.
- I don't think this is really needed as this happened not all that often. Of course, I may not be understanding it the way you do.
- Permission must be given for someone else to create a different signature for that user.
- This could be included...but again, it isn't all that often that someone does this. I'd approve of this one if the community does.
Chatroom Policy:
- I must notify that we can only specify to a certain point and a profuse amount of interpretation is done on the side of chatmods. However, I have seen a handful of new users interpret the rules in a different way and bring up several good points the policy does not cover or specify.
- The definition of excessive caps.
- This most definitely should be specified and should be agreed on by the community.
- Chatspeak
- I think the policy already points out why chatspeak should not be used, "This makes the person doing it, and all those associated with that person, look less intelligent than they really are. We're an encyclopedia and the chatroom is the face of that encyclopedia. Everyone should make an effort to make us look good."
- Personal Attacks
- These should be specified to a point as well. In the link to the article given in the policy, the article lists several topics that are always personal attacks, however the article also warns that, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion..."
Overall I believe that the policies could use refining in some of the content they go over. Atelda insert vague subtext here 18:22, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm...I would agree with this. As a new user, I think I wouldn't be fully filled up with the knowledge of these rules. So, if the guidelines/policies were more clear and detailed, it could cause less missunderstandment between users. Stoneclaw 23:09, April 23, 2012 (UTC)