Forum:CT:Streamlining old Wookieepedia policies

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Streamlining old Wookieepedia policies
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was support proposal. OOM 224 19:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Carried over from Forum:SH:Deleting site feature policy

So this proposal affects three policy pages, but it needs to be done this way since they overlap with each other. Simply put, I propose that we 1) delete [[Wookieepedia:Site feature policy|Site feature policy]], 2) revamp Wookieepedia:What Wookieepedia is not (WP:NOT) (diff), and 3) add the "Wookieepedia is not a dictionary" clause that's currently on WP:NOT to the Notability policy.

Overall, the current iteration of WP:NOT has valid points, but many of them simply don't need to be there because it's either extraneous information to common sense, outdated, or simply repeats existing policies. The tone has also be revised for formality. This is the proposed WP:NOT update. I have attached a list of the major changes:

  • Updated and condensed licensing and copyright information ("does not belong to anyone," "not the official site") for concision, and because the relevant info can be found on the linked Wook policy and Fandom pages
  • Removed "unofficial sites" section, which is more to do with plagiarism, which falls under licensing and copyright
  • Trimmed fan fiction section as the issue is very straightforward, so it's superfluous to ramble on about it here. Fan-made elements of roleplaying games are by definition fan fiction. Fan films like TROOPS are now soft redirects to the Star Wars Fanpedia, and folks looking for exceptions should see the Notability of fan projects policy instead.
  • Removed the trivia section, which goes on vaguely about needing to be "encyclopedic and helpful." There isn't really a point to say the obvious. Plus, Wookieepedia:Trivia exists.
  • Removed dictionary section, which belongs to the Notability policy
  • Combined and trimmed "free host or webpage provider" and user page sections, again for redundant examples and wording when the crux of the matter can be expressed in a couple sentences.
  • Replaced "Wookieepedia is not Fandom" with "Wookieepedia is not an independent entity" to clarify that Wookieepedia is a wiki that follows Fandom policies but also has its own policies. The parts relevant to the site feature policy are removed since the newer features have been good (e.g. Interactive Maps) and we don't need such an antagonistic tone. The underlying principles of everyone needing to follow all policies remains the same.
  • Streamlined "Wookieepedia is not a battleground" to highlight goodies like the do not disrupt Wookieepedia to prove a point and civility policies.
  • Removed "Wookieepedia is not a general-purpose message board" because on talk pages, we've got {{Talkheader}}, and we now have the Discussions forums, which have their own rules that need not be repeated here.

Also, if we want to amend the writing of the dictionary clause or restore some bit of info to WP:NOT, discussion is of course welcome, though we can have additional amendments afterwards, given how complex this already is compared to your usual CT.

Support

  1. OOM 224 19:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 19:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 20:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Vergence, but I also don't want to oppose the entire CT only because of one part of it. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. Well worded! Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 21:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 23:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  7. Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 00:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  8. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  9. Change is good. Anti-Fandom mentality is unhealthy and toxic imo. Please, change these things. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 02:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  10. Fan26 (Talk) 02:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  11. Less antagonism, more cooperation and conciseness. I love it. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  12. Guess who didn't know "concision" is a real word? Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 07:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  13. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 07:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  14. Imperators II(Talk) 08:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  15. Antagonism toward Fandom earns us nothing. That's not to say we can't disagree on things, but stuff like this is just a bad look. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  16. Being rude and closed to any feedback from Fandom, does nothing good for us as a community. The amount of help that Fandom gives us almost every single day is really appreciated, it's better to cooperate and express our differences when the times come, rather than being toxic and aggresive towards them. In summary, Cooperation = good and Antagonism = bad. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  17. Better to work with Fandom than to swim against them. Andykatib 10:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  18. Rsand 30 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  19. Rakhsh (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  20. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  21. Per DarthRuiz30. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 15:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  22. —spookywillowwtalk 16:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  23. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they) RainbowRebellion2 (talk!) 22:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. The majority of this is quite good. However, Wookieepedia is not fandom and in light of their recent flagrant disregard for this community's policies, this should be made more clear, not less. VergenceScatter (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

  • While I agree that the separation of Wook and Fandom's policies should remain clear, the existing clause regarding Wook not being Fandom outright states that we can disregard Fandom's policy if put through a vote, which is obviously not at all true per their ToU. It needs to at least be revised in that manner. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree that it should be revised, but that revision needs to make it clear that the reason that we can't be independent is that fandom insists on controlling communities rather than letting them thrive on their own or practice democracy. VergenceScatter (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Im not sure what policies you're talking about because, afaik, they've acted upon their own ToU policies which we all agree to and which our own policies build upon, barely taking any action in the many years we've been around. Regardless though, the language and tone was antagonistic and disrespectful, and wasn't followed anyway (there's a line about us having to vote before updates get implemented which never happens and... how do we even do that?) The updated wording removes that and is much clearer on exactly the situation, so what part of the updated wording don't you like, since it is all correct? Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 21:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
        • First, I never said that we should vote before updates are implemented. Second, "barely taking any action in the many years we've been around" is still more than they should be doing. Third, the policy is only disrespectful because fandom is being disrespectful to our community. Finally, we should be antagonistic to fandom because otherwise we have no chance of changing their behavior.VergenceScatter (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
          • The voting is already part of current policy which will be removed with the update, I wasn't implying you were suggesting that but it goes to the us vs them mentality which is antagonist and wrong when we should be working together. Have you ever tried to work with someone you don't agree with, because being antagonistic rarely works and generally gets the other person defensive and antagonistic in return, and no progress gets made. That "barely any action" was where their ToU had been breached, and there is no point having rules or policies if they are not enforced. Could it have been handled better? Sure but Wookieepedia as a collective is hardly free of blame or innocent in how things were handled, the fact Fandom had to step in is a massive part because of that. ***IF*** we had our sh!t together, and enforced our policies properly, their action would not have been needed or warranted. I see no signs of disrespect, and from what I've seen there is MASSIVE respect, we don't get nearly the micromanaging other wikis seem to get and we ARE largely autonomous. If we want to keep it that way we need to ensure we can police our own community without that oversight needed, and only then can we enact change together, not by fighting against each other but by working together for mutual benefit.
            The relationship between us and Fandom can be likened to the relationship between industries and government. We must abide by the overarching law of the land, but have our own specific standards. We may get autonomy, like some industries, but when that fails, Fandom steps in, similar to governments creating inquiries. In industry, this is often followed by much closer oversight, regulatory bodies being created and laws passed restricts and enforcing good behaviour. That Fandom hasn't stepped in closer and harder shows how much they value us, and we shouldn't abuse that. Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
            • "it goes to the us vs them mentality which is antagonist and wrong when we should be working together" We can't work together if fandom insists on telling us what to do. They shouldn't be trying to force us to do what they want, and we can't work with them until they agree to actually resepct us. " we don't get nearly the micromanaging other wikis seem to get and we ARE largely autonomous" So your argument is that they do fewer bad things with us than with others? That's hardly a good thing. Fandom shouldn't get invovled with us unless we ask them too. "The relationship between us and Fandom can be likened to the relationship between industries and government" It shouldn't be. "That Fandom hasn't stepped in closer and harder shows how much they value us" Arguing that "they could be worse" isn't a good argument. Also, we have reeastedly shown that we do have our shit together and are able to make good decisions. It's fandom that insists that we can't. "because being antagonistic rarely works and generally gets the other person defensive and antagonistic in return" Fandom is the one that started the antagoinism by not resecting our community. "the fact Fandom had to step in" They didn't have to, they chose to, because they don't resect our policies. "we need to ensure we can police our own community without that oversight needed." Agreed. And we've shown that we can police ourselves, and will ask fandom for help if we need it. They should not be getting involved without our permission. They have repeatedly refused to allow our community to make decisions, and the statement that they could be circumventing our community more is just irrelevant. VergenceScatter (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
              • Your arguments seem predicated on the factually incorrect concept that we operate with complete autonomy and independence. You don't agree to wookieepedia's terms of use when you sign up, you agree to Fandom's. The servers hosting Wookieepedia's data sit on Fandom's servers (afaik), not yours or mine or anyone from Wookieepedia. Nobody from Wookieepedia does technical support when something goes wrong, that's Fandom staff. We don't exist in a bubble (either in relation to Fandom or in relation to the wider Star Wars community) and many of the old policies pretended we did, thanks in no small part to the banned admin snd others from the dark times. I'll leave it there because we're just going in circles at this stage :) Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 23:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
            • Im aware we don't act with autonomy or independence. That's...what I'm upset about. I'm also quite aware that we are hosted by fandom. What I am saying is that fandom should exist to support their communities, not control them. They should host wikis and provide support because they want fandoms to thrive. They should do no more than that. Saying that we should just do what fandom wants is completely missing my point. Instead of giving a space for communities to exist, they're trying to run a business. Therefore, our goals will not be aligned. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
            • Wookieepedia is and has always been under Fandom's wing, not some independent site. The community has just been ignoring that fact for many years thanks to several figures who were in charge. That fact most certainly needs to be accepted more. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 23:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
              • The fact that Wookieepedia is "under Fandom's wing" does not mean that we should be. I'm not disputing the way that things are, I'm saying that they should be different. The repeated statements that "this is how things work" are kind of frustrating because I'm saying that they should work differently. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
                • We are though. There's a lot of talk here about Fandom not caring, and throwing us under the bus. This is beyond false. Every recent major incident has also involved internal talks with our admin team, including feedback and thoughts from us. The vibe I'm getting from you here is that we should just be outwardly hostile to them, which is quite contrary to assume good faith. Staff are people, just as we are. I'll be the first to say openly that they've only ever had the best intentions with anything they do. First and foremost they want a safe platform for everyone, the same as we do, and the best way to achieve that is by working together. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 07:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
                • Gonna have to hard disagree, Verg. For it's entire existence, the Wook's livelihood has rested on Fandom for SEO and just being able to be run. On top of that, their staffs' jobs are to moderate a community, and given the direction the Wook community had been going before, we 100% needed our parent company to come in and lay down some actual law (I say this colloquially, not literally). Whether you agree with Fandom's individual decisions or not, this insinuation that we should abandon Fandom is a horrendous idea in my opinion. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 09:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
            • "Also, we have reeastedly shown that we do have our shit together and are able to make good decisions." what good decisions are you referring to here? I am curious. Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 00:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
              • So far, every time (during my time on the site) a major issue has come up, the community has made the right decision, even when people like Tope tried to sabotage it. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
                • What good decisions do you mean? Is it immi's election? Because you opposed that, and it almost failed. Is it reiterating the anti-discrimination policy, which you opposed? Is it every decision about the Breasts/Legends main image until 2021? Or is it responding to my SH with hostility, as you did? Tope was a feature of Wook, not a bug -- he couldn't exist in a vacuum, and you can't pretend that he was the sole reason for the horrors of Wook's past. Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 04:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
                • If you are so passionate about being antogonistic toward Fandom or leaving the platform, start a vote to leave. If you truly care about democracy and the will of the community, put it to the test and start a vote to go independent. Otherwise, stop harping on this and sowing division. If we are hosted by Fandom, we will have to work with them. The only alternative is to leave the platform. Make your choice. Regardless, petulant, childish antagonism, which is all any anti-Fandom verbiage would be, doesn't belong in policy. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)