Guild Wars Wiki talk:Welcome

I strongly object to this being treated as policy. Let it be a nice refreshing essay, liberally read by new and old users alike, but policy should talk about content and conduct, not abstract qualities such as value. S 19:37, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I agree. I have no problem creating a category for guidelines, and this could belong in that. But policies should focus on conduct and content. --Barek 19:41, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Agreed. Since our policy stuff is taken from Wikipedia, would somebody more familiar with that place make a similar guideline structure here?

I mildly disagree with this becoming policy. It declares some opinions and promises forgiveness which are really up to the individual, and does not prescribe any specific actions for the user. Doesn't do any major harm as policy, but I don't care for the precedent it sets there either. The ideals here might also fit better if folded into some sort of be bold guideline. --Rezyk 15:49, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Blech, this is like NBC's take on "You are valubale." --Karlos 15:55, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I don't especially like the wording on this, however I do think that an official policy stating exactly what "rights" and "responsibilities" users have is needed. Coming from a completely non-wiki background it took me a long time to work out what sys-ops and suchlike were on the Guild Wiki. --NieA7 16:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I strongly disagree with this being a policy. This is not a "policy" in any meaningful way. Also, it's much better to fold this kind of stuff into one big general statement of the wiki's ideals than to have all these little marbits of random encouragement floating around. — 130.58 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2007 (PST)

This was, back in the day, part of my "Guiding Principles" articles, which spread out into the policy movement on GuildWiki today. Edit the hell out of it and make it policy-worthy if you don't like it, because regardless of its current form, the meaning behind it is important and needs to be officially evident on the wiki in some form. —Tanaric 17:53, 9 February 2007 (PST)

This document is a sort of cultural statement about wiki denizens. You can't will culture into existence with official statements. The politic essence of this document is present in NPA and 1RV. I openly don't consider all users to be valuable. I think some users of guildwiki are and were downright harmful to the project. I would say the same of the users of this wiki were it not for the fact this wiki barely exists to be harmed. Should I be cited for policy violations? S 18:21, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I think it's the way this policy is worded that makes it sound like it's more of a guidelines. The article doesn't feel like it's expressing the meaning behind the YAV principle. A short paragraph is all that's needed to express that, something like "all contributors are considered equal and neither administrative powers or the number of contributions carry more weight" Not too sure, but something that explains that contributions will be examined without bias and allowed if the contributor defends it with sound reasoning or supports it with proof. --ab.er.rant (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2007 (PST)

It seems like this would be fine for a welcome to GW Wiki page. The one way that I could see it as policy would be that it smacks "pity ploy" people in the face. ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 10:10, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Fair enough; shall I delete or does somebody wish to work with it? —Tanaric 16:01, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Is a welcome new user type of page going to be made? Or does one already exist? I haven't seen one yet. If one isn't, maybe it could be renamed to something related to the guiding principles page that 130.58 mentions below. ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 22:14, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Agree with 130.58 and S, this cannot be a policy as you cannot legislate how people feel. No personal attacks can be a policy as you can legislate that people not make personal attacks against others (the interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack is a different thing), but you cannot legislate "love your fellow man." --Rainith 19:02, 10 February 2007 (PST)

"You will love him dammit!" *shakes fist* LordBiro 07:31, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I'd much rather see you (or someone else) write one nice big article on guiding principles than have these little pieces of encouragement floating around. "YAV" is a lot more meaningful in the context of other related stuff than it is on its own stubby not-even-a-policy policy page. — 130.58 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2007 (PST)

As Wikipedia so aptly puts it, "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors." I think this applies here, and something of the sort could be used to categorise a large number of these so called 'policies' that really aren't, or even categorise a large page containing lots of them. Either way, it shouldn't be a policy. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:04, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Having this as a policy is a bad idea, it shouldn't even exist. All people and all contributers are not equal. Either your information is right or wrong. I've seen this used all the time to justify mediocrity in guildwiki. Everyone can contribute, but your contributions survival depends on its relevance and quality. In addition everyone mistakes this as the only method of running a wiki. The essence of a wiki is just a document many people can edit. There are a few nice things here to encourage new people. Saying "keep trying, everyone makes mistakes" to new people is fine. However forcing this into a policy is not the best idea. -Warskull 16:16, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I totally agree with Warskull. No consesus on this policy from me.--Drekmonger 17:03, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I reworded and removed the sentences that sounded too casual. How does it look? Or are you guys still disagreeing with such a policy? Be aware that the point of this policy is to guarantee that all contributions are considered valuable and there shall be no bias towards veteran users. --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Section on all contributors evaluated equally is senseless, imho. Only serves to justify mediocrity, as Warskull stated. If an actual known expert on the game (say Izzy) posts that such and such a thing is true, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the known expert (although the edit should still be checked for errors). If a known scrub (say Drekmonger) posts that such and such a thing is true, then the statement must be more carefully evaluated. That "Drek isn't as important as Izzy" doesn't need to be a policy, but certainly "Drek is as Important as Izzy" is incorrect.--Drekmonger 18:18, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I still strongly disagree with this being made a policy. This could be incorporated into a guideline, or better yet parts of it could go into an introductory article/essay that helps introduce new users to wiki concepts, or an essay on guiding principles; but it shouldn't be made policy. Policies should be about content and conduct at the site - the concepts here should be kept in mind in the policies we formulate, but it should not be policy itself. --Barek 18:29, 12 February 2007 (PST)

/agree. It's silly trying to force this into a policy. "Zomfg I'm valuable... what now?" -Auron 18:34, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Hmm... I'm not sure if we're all on the same page regarding the meaning of this. It's basically just saying that you can't use "you're a noob, my contributions are better" as a reason for rejecting contributions from new users or anonymous users. You can say "that is plain silly" or "that is downright stupid". You evaluate it based on the contribution, not based on the contributor. Barek, you said policies are about conduct. This is conduct. You prevent people from rejecting anon edits based on the sole fact that they're from anon users. Put it as a guideline? I can choose to ignore guidelines.

Mediocre content Drek? Rewrite it. Reword it. You're valuable Auron, so people listen to you and don't just brush you off. This prevents you from saying "I registered here months ago, don't object to my suggestions." But you can still say "That's a crazy stupid suggestion". You just can't use your age in this wiki as a weight behind what you say, unless it comes down to wikicode and info organization and your knowledge of conventions (the technical stuff). You can still use your experience in GW to directly say that something is wrong or something doesn't work. If this non-elitism is what's actually being rejected, then I having nothing more to say. --ab.er.rant (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2007 (PST)

So, would don't be a moronic ego booster sum it up? :P I think that putting a bit of your reply into it would help make it's purpose even more clear, though. ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 19:40, 12 February 2007 (PST)

• I can't see the value in this policy. If So-and-so says, "I've been editing guild wars wiki articles back when we had to do it in chalk, and walk uphill both ways to get there." I'll probably laugh. That's not credential for guild wars knowledge.
• I can't see the value in this policy, part 2. If So-and-so says, "My wacky theory on how this skill works is superior to this Ensign guy's take. Who's Ensign?" I'll probably laugh. Being Ensign is a credential for guild wars knowledge.
• I don't see anything like it over on wikipedia policies. Maybe it's there. I can't find it.
• I doubt anyone follows it to the letter on guild wiki, or that they will here. The policy doesn't work when it needs to work. I've recently learned of at least one example of failure to follow this policy that cost guild wiki the services of one of the more knowledgeable PvP players. (although his own lack of knowledge on how wikis work contributed greatly to the misunderstanding.)
• I believe it's ammo for sockpuppets (and large social cliques). --Drekmonger 20:29, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Ok then. I support the move. --ab.er.rant (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I fully support moving this to either a welcome page/essay/article or into a charter. It's not about conduct as written, although the rewrite gets it considerably closer. But again, those are guidelines, not rules that need to be followed in order to be part of the community. If anyone violated this themselves - well, that's their choice to not participate - and if someone attacked someone else's contribution in defiance of this, I would likely bring up GWW:1RV or GWW:NPA to address the person who attacked the newer user. This article is just feel-good content, and should be available where new users can see it to get oriented - but it's pretty much meaningless as a policy for anywhere that conduct on the site is an issue. --Barek 07:36, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I support Stabber's recent changes, and the proposal for a move. LordBiro 08:57, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I also support the moving of this to a welcome page. A page such as that would be useful in more ways than one, as well. More information should be added with relevant links to the most important policies, style guidelines and so on. A bot (or people if we wanted) could go round posting a template on new user account talk pages basically saying 'Hi! Here's a welcome page - go and read it!'. Such a template could also provide information and so on.

As it is written, it reads as a welcome page more than a policy/essay anyway. I strongly support the move. Ale_Jrb^talk 08:58, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Uh, yeah I also support the move. Also: what does prose mean ? Can't find it my 'dictiomenary', heh. --Erszebet 13:24, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I'm also in favor of the move. And to Erszebet prose in this case is a fancy way of saying text, though it really means something more along the lines of language. Lojiin 13:28, 13 February 2007 (PST)

the meaning of prose --ab.er.rant 18:21, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Support move.--Drekmonger 14:23, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Support. —Tanaric 00:21, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Moved. --Rezyk 11:16, 15 February 2007 (PST)

New article

An article has been created at Guild Wars Wiki:Welcome to the wiki that replaces the function of this article. I'm redirecting this article to the new one. LordBiro 19:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)