Grants talk:IdeaLab/Simplify ways to expose overly-subjective arguments violating WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL, using "POV-.." and "UW-.." templates designed for discussion pages.
It is worth noting that WP:NPOV on the English wikipedia does not apply to talk page discussions per se, but to article content. However, of course if someone proposed inserting some non-neutral text in a talk page discussion, and knew that it was against Wikipedia policy and therefore could not be accepted, that would be nonconstructive. But that does not seem like harassment, just time-wasting.--Greenrd (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:NPOV in a context of discussion page was mentioned as a target rather than a policy. Participants should make an effort to increase overall NPOV-ness (by bringing new facts, contesting false facts, making useful proposals etc), not decrease it. We cannot prevent people from making subjective claims, but if they are clearly directed to increase the article quality rather than raise participants' social status or solve their personal issues, they are very much welcomed. Discussion pages are made to discuss articles; anything else -- being it harassment, trolling, personal chats, spam, ads etc -- is just plain off-topic and a waste of resources, so it should be removed. That's why the proposal was intentionally made broader than just fighting harassment. Harassment is just one in a line of abusive activities in wiki pages. Wikipedia has many article-cleanup mechanisms, there should be similar discussion-cleanup mechanisms too, based on the familiar wiki-technology and familiar principles. Andrew Bronx (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The concept sounds reasonable, but I wonder who would handle the workload generated as both harassers and those being harassed produce large numbers of tags requiring investigation. If the proposal will simply flag battlegrounds, appropriate tag use documentation may be either too ambiguous to be effective, or too complex to help inexperienced editors. Do we have sufficient numbers of impartial volunteers with the time and interest to locate, and the endurance to resolve, these battlegrounds; or should we anticipate the volunteers will come from the ranks of the original combatants? Thewellman (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Small-scale nonconstructive/abusive behavior may be stopped just by the fact it didn't went unnoticed and has been reported. If such behavior was caused by ignorance or negligence, a simple automated educational letter sent to the user's page may be enough to stop repeating it. It is only multiple occurrences or large-scale conflicts gone wild that might require administrators' intervention. Statistically, they should be much less frequent, and administrators should be able to prioritize them dynamically by severity, according to flags count and current workload. Andrew Bronx (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Grants to improve your projectEdit
Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.
- Submit a grant request
- Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants
The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)