Wikipedia talk:Historic debates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Precedents of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy case
Despite being incomparable in media attention, there were precedents in Wikipedia, whether to honour religious taboos or "secrets":
- Inclusion of the photograph at Bahá'u'lláh#Photograph
- Secrecy of Mormon temple rites at Endowment (Mormonism)
- and of course, in the wider sense of "religion", our famous series on Scientology teachings
Pjacobi 13:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Debates around individuals?
What about all the many debates that surrounded particular individuals, some of whom got involved personally to oppose Wikipedia for [ keeping | deleting | editing | refusing to change ] the article about [ them | their company | their organization | their project ], because they believe it to be [ libelous | slanderous | harrassment | an invasion of privacy | rude to call them 'non-notable' ]? *Dan T.* 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that we avoid any such summaries. It would inevitably lead to conflict as people object to being so 'defamed'. If absolutely neccessary then the issues around the conflict surrounding the individual can be discussed without making it a seeming indictment of them personally. --CBDunkerson 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is there any such particularly notable disputes? We are not trying to list every ArbCom case here, only those that received widespread attention among the community. If there is such an incident, I think we should include it in a neutral manner. Loom91 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think that the whole situation that led up to Ed Poor being desysopped would probably count as particularly notable. If nothing else, it solidified the consensus that administrators shouldn't use their powers to fight disputes with other editors. It also showed that Wikipedia can be resilient and successfully and sanely recover from extended rogue admin actions. --FOo 08:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Please by all means add content that you feel worthy of inclusion. Loom91 10:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Larry Sanger should certainly be mentioned. --bainer (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] vague recollections
Two examples spring to mind, though I was a newbie at the time and would like an old hand to tell me if they were really as big as I thought they were when I was still blundering about.
- Wikipedia:Nofollow - to decide if we would allow our external links to count in Google rankings in February 2005. The vote was 86 to 39 to allow at a time when landslide RFAs maxed out at about 45 support votes. I remember thinking at the time that was by far the largest number of Wikipedians in one place I had seen. ;)
- Post-2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, a link to the Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake page was placed at the top of every page to encourage charitable giving and there was promptly an uproar. It was eventually removed, though quite a few users put a link on their user page and it became the precedent for adding charity links in MediaWiki:Sitenotice after Hurricane Katrina. I thought this was in Sitenotice as well, but can't find it in the history. Anyone have an idea of what other MediaWiki notice is on top that it could be in? - BanyanTree 03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oldest debates
Some of the original debates were WP:Not a dictionary, date format, Polish/German city names, first user ban, de-sysopping, Rmhermen 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- This has caused me to remember the pages Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people and meta:History of Wikipedia, probably redundant, which probably has a lot of the relevant background. - BanyanTree 17:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
