Proposed Principles edit
Conduct edit
- Proposed principle 1 — Proposed by User:Jim Butler -:
Incivility is not a part of WP:DR, and is not an acceptable response to, or remedy for, civil POV pushing.
- Proposed principle 2 — Proposed by User:Jim Butler -:
If everyone persisently violated Wikiquette, Wikipedia would collapse. Therefore, there are no exceptions to Wikiquette, no matter how noble an editor's agenda may be.
- Proposed principle 3 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Proposed principle 4 — Proposed by User:Coppertwig -:
Death threats are unacceptable. Even if a threat is couched in humourous or ambiguous terms, the recipient may still feel threatened, and even if a death threat is not a credible threat of actual death, it may still be intimidating and may be seen as indicating a degree of anger or determinatino that might later be expressed in aggressive on-wiki behaviour. It would be counterproductive to allow users to use death threats as a means of influencing or controlling others' on-wiki behaviour.
- Proposed principle 5 — Proposed by User:Coppertwig -:
Users do not own their user talk pages. While users sometimes request that others refrain from editing their talk page, and users often choose to comply with such requests, there is no requirement to do so. Since user talk pages are used for notifying users of breaches of policy and of steps in dispute resolution, user talk page messages are often productive and acceptable even when they may be unwelcome to the recipient.
Editorial decorum edit
- Proposed principle 1 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing.
- Proposed principle 2 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or propaganda.
Proposed principle 3 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
Debunking is a form of advocacy that seeks to dismiss and damage the reputation of a subject through the use of rhetoric or argumentation.
Sourcing edit
- Proposed principle 1 — Proposed by User:Peter Damian -:
The process of identifying reliable sources should be assisted by establishing a committee or board to deal with the appropriate use of sources. The members of the committee do not have to be subject-matter experts, but they will have to be expert in the methods and procedures and principles used in the academic world to ensure that sourcing is reliable.
- Proposed principle 2 — Proposed by User:Pcarbonn -:
To determine proper weight, we look at the preponderence of opinion in published, reliable sources on the subject, not at the preponderence of the view among "most scientists" or in news articles. If available, secondary reviews of the topic, as published in the most reliable sources available, should be used to determine such preponderence of opinion.
- Proposed principle 3 — Proposed by User:Pcarbonn -:
The preponderence of opinion in published reliable sources need to take into account the varying reliability of sources. Sources of lower reliability must be given lower or no weight when determining preponderence.
- Proposed principle 4 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
In articles about science or fringe science academic works and mainstream peer reviewed journals are preferred as sources. Sources that engage in advocacy should be avoided, except when used as primary sources to establish their own views.
- Proposed principle 5 — Proposed by User:Peter Damian -:
There should be much stricter enforcement of policies on use of reliable sources. Editors who persistently cherry-pick primary sources against WP:DUE, or who cite unreliable sources, should be indefinitely blocked.
NPOV edit
- Proposed principle 1 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.
- Proposed principle 2 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.
- Proposed principle 3 — Proposed by User:Jehochman -:
Wikipedia is non-judgmental. Wikipedia articles may report the opinions of reliable sources, but Wikipedia itself does not attempt to sway readers with rhetorical or emotional language.
- Proposed principle 4 — Proposed by User:Tony Sidaway -:
Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that reflect the current consensus of scientific thought with due consideration for significant minority views within the scientific community, and regard for the historical debates which have formed the current consensus.
Editors edit
- Proposed principle — Proposed by User:B -:
Few, if any, editors are "anti-science".