This page is for discussing the contents of Neutral Point of View.

I am tiring of having this conversation over and over again. Is there any way that we can settle this, at least for a little while until someone wants to pick it up again? I.e., can we reach temporary consensus?

Hey guys, how about some closure on this issue?

Like CP, I'm also tired of having this conversation every time someone wants a negative (or positive) opinion removed from a page. I think everyone could save a lot of headache if we have that conversation once, come to some sort of conclusion about how it's going to be handled, and move on from there. People can always revisit the issue here (well, on the root page). It'd just be nice not to have to revisit it at least once a month on various pages around the wiki. To that end, let's hash out whatever needs to be hashed out. —TomGarberson


Every proposal below obviously recognizes that we're talking about norms, not hard-and-fast rules. To future goons who want to rules-lawyer the text of any proposal: please bugger off.

Of course, feel free to add alternatives or help clean up existing options. E.g., since I don't really care about option 2, the write-up for it isn't very compelling. If we can't come to an agreement, at least we'll have some indication of where the issue stands.

Option 1: Opinion belongs anywhere on the page, including both the Comments section and the primary write-up. The proper response to an opinion with which a user disagrees is to add another viewpoint, rather than to remove the existing one or to banish that viewpoint to a "separate but equal" area below the comment bar. That's not to say that specific language written by users adding their opinions is somehow sacrosanct. Lengthy back-and-forths, one-liners, etc. can make a mess of an entry. That sort of thing can and usually should be integrated or cleaned up. The point isn't that comments expressing opinions are sacrosanct and untouchable. Rather, it's that including viewpoints within the information on the page is a good thing and should be embraced alongside the goals of providing good information and usable (i.e. not messy, unreadable) content.

Votes for Option 1

Yes- Marshmallow Sunshine Yes- SD Yes, this is how the wiki always has been and should be. The wiki should aim to be useful, which means giving opinions when it helps folks. Also, I'm a bit confused by this poll - option 3 is so similar to this option that I'm not fully sure which is which. I think the primary opinion of the page should usually be a reflection of most of the community's beliefs, if possible. If it's not cut-and-dry, then obviously integrating a big opinion at the top of the page is a bad idea. Basically, I think the format and norms that folks have been following on the wiki have been the way to go, and that we should strive for usefulness above all. I don't think there's any magic formula for ending discussions about whether or not a particular opinion should be on a page, though — this process necessitates that sometimes we have discussions, but knowing where to steer them would be good. —PhilipNeustrom

I did what I could to integrate Option 3 (which ES added) into the original #1, since it clarified what I had in mind but hadn't expressed well. I didn't delete #3 only because I want to confirm with ES that this is what he had in mind. —tg

  • When I first saw this page I thought it was basically option 1: yes opinions, 2: no opinions. Added three as a compromise of "opinions good, but not _every_ thing saved to a page deserves to stay there." (I've often felt that saying pro-opinion is interpreted as "can't delete my comment! it's an opinion!"). Especially when it's a dumb joke, something random, etc, it used to drive me mad. Tom later extended/clarified option 1, as he just explained. Basically, I want to delete more comments and pages that I think (some of which for yeeeeeaaarrrss) are lame >:D -ES
    • And how! Now, the problem is when we disagree about *which* stuff should be deleted (something which isn't really a problem; it's just the normal back and forth of editing with other people). I'd like to jettison all the "me toos" and anonymous "they suck" or "they rule" with no explanation of what was bad or good. Bet only have of those deletions will earn ire from the self-proclaimed "owners" of the page. -jw

For those that follow RC (or just who know my positions) know this is where I would vote. I was holding off to let others state their positions first, but yeah... this. There's also an assumption of the need for homogeneity which seems silly: the collection of entries that is the wiki should be navigable (thus some level of commonality is needed), but the concept that there is "a way" is unneeded. It is okay if something is different, so long as it works (useful, interesting, well linked, aesthetically pleasant, etc). There's a good base set of tools (the "format and norms" referred to above) that we've built up, one of the most important of which is probably *how* we deal with conflict. It's not a magic formula, but it is a working tool. We have a culture here that — usually, or hopefully eventually — seeks solutions between people who disagree. I think that allows for the management of a plurality of viewpoints better than most codified collaborative efforts, on or off the net. Imperfect, but pretty effective. —JabberWokky

Yes - with addendum — if this receives majority support, I'd like us to create a new page, tentatively titled MPOV (Multiple Points of View), with some version of what TG wrote below on it (i.e., relatively short and sweet, as we did with the WTTW/BO page). We could then refer people who asserted that opinions "do not belong" in the main body to that short page, titled with what the wiki does rather than what the wiki doesn't do (we do MPOV, not NPOV). It is very unproductive to have the same conversation over and over. And it is frustrating for old and new editors alike, because there is no clear policy. Of course this issue can be revisited at some future time, especially if it seems to the editors of the future as though the policy is being abused. This is not cast in stone. But I would like to see us formally-ish encode what is, as PN says above, the way the wiki was always intended to be and what it has been, for the most part. —cp

Yes - ES

Yes- ScottMeehleib

Yes. -WilliamLewis

Yes —gcoville

Yes —PB

Yes with the addition that it probably doesn't go far enough. I've seen the encroachment of political correctness dilute the vibrancy of daviswiki and I'd like to see a return to the basic standards of acceptable posts. —JS

Option 2: Opinion does not belong in the primary write-up on a page and should only appear in the Comments section—preferably with a user's name attached. The main write-up should be objective.

Votes for Option 2

Probably not much point in putting my vote in, but I agree with the general principle that opinions should usually be in the comments and that the primary write-up should primarily not include opinions. I believe that opinions that are very adverse or negative should be signed and should not be in the primary writeup. —DonShor

Option 3: Do nothing.

Votes for Option 3

I'm somewhat recluctant about estabishing a "norm" from this vote. The NPOV page has a lot of differnet opinions on the matter, and establishing a "norm" form a vote today will only represent opinions from a couple of days in March of 2013. It disenfranchises past and future editors who have already made, and will continue to make, significant contributions to the discussion. I think its worth dealing with different edits on a case by case basis, so everybody invested in the edit at the time gets a fair say in the matter. Incidentally, I'm more in favor of the NPOV approach with more segregated commentary. I don't want to pin ourselves down to setting a "norm" though, because there are many differnet cases and too many views to have a well represented solution. —JT

  • Oooo... I wrote my other reply before this existed. Since there are no absolute rules here, I'm voting twice. I'm all about the "the wiki changes when the people change". —JabberWokky
    • I agree with JW; change happens. -ES
  • That's a fair point, JT. My main thought is that it'd be nice not to have every single editor who wants something removed from a page in which they have a financial interest waste hours of everyone's time by rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. It causes a lot of burnout. Any thoughts on how to address that problem?—tg
    • I'm totally in favor of the norm you are proposing/solidifying, Tom. It will reduce stress. If the majority of editors in the future hate our norm, they should simply be able to appeal the decision by this same voting process, IMO. -SM

Unfortunately, I don't have a solution for you Tom. Maybe just stay vigilent and find other things in the wiki that keeps you enthusiastic about it. I've actually gotten a little burned out myself trying to make a few pages more neutral. It would be cool if we find a solution that addresses everyone's needs. —JT


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2013-03-20 14:44:17   I agree with Trung. While I normally believe it should be in the comments, respecting Davis norms I modified it to be in the upper part but not the primary descriptor. Trung liked it and I thought it was a fair compromise. Edit: I retracted my change. —PeteB

2013-03-20 15:45:43   I'm in favor of plural points of view. For 99% of pages, it's better than trying to separate stuff out. I want more character in the page, not less. If there are disagreements, reflect both opinions. There's no reason you can't do that right there on the page. I'll point to the argument over on Chicken Wings - if you remove all of the opinion from the page, you're left with a dry, crappy page. If you banish the opinion to some separate but equal (i.e. inferior) portion of the page, below the break, you're left with half of the readers not consuming that content. It's just an overall loss to the page. By contrast, if you reflect both/all opinions (MEAT IS MURDER and zomg wings are nommy), you've got more information to which more categories of people can (and will want to) relate.

There are certain rare exceptions, where an issue really is polarized, and you need some sort of more formal structure in order to prevent a chaotic opinionsplosion that swallows all semblance of value on the page, replacing it with a barren wasteland of angry bloviation. For that kind of thing, you might need to formalize the structure a bit. See, e.g., the discussion on banning leaf blowers. There, we wound up with separate portions for, essentially, 1) what it is, 2) why, and 3) why not (with some responses and whatnot mixed in). I don't love that kind of setup, but it works fairly well when things get messy.

But that's the exception, not the rule. I love that the wiki has more than just information; it has character. It doesn't just document Davis, it reflects Davis. If you constrain the bulk of the wiki to objectivity, only allowing subjectivity to dabble around the fringes, you take away most of that character.

Neutral POV can help reconcile differences in points of view, but it doesn't have to exclude those points of view. When NPOV would be helpful, present it with POV A and POV B, not instead of.

And a final point: if we exile opinion to the comments section, the terrorists win.

I now cede the floor. —TomGarberson

  • I have a quick question with the mechanics of implementing the inclusion POV A and POV B noted above. Often times one view will get put at the top of a page, and opposing views end up somewhere lower on the page. While the page wouldn't explicitly take one side or another, the viewpoint at the top gets the advantage of immediate attention from readers as the page loads, where as opposing points may require scrolling before they are viewed. Is there a way we can equalize this? —JT
    • I can think of at least two things that could be done (and both could be done simultaneously). First, we could use clearly described headers and a TOC; see, e.g., the March 2013 Election/Measure I page. Second, we could write short preambles before either view was presented in detail — something along the lines of "Opinions are very split on issue X. Many have POV A, but many have POV B. A discussion of each POV follows below." —cp
      • So a more structured opinion section then, at least when more contentious issues come up? Would this mean opinions in the primary section could be moved into an opinion section? It sounded like everyone, or at least those going for option 1, wanted opinions to to have a place anywhere on the page, including the primary section. —JT
        • That's pretty much the situation I addressed re the ban leaf blowers page. That's a fairly good example. If you wind up with pure back-and-forth, whether in the "main entry" or in the comments, you wind up with an unreadable load of crap. Sooner or later, you're going to need to clean it up. For something that's pretty contentious, it's hard to do that without moving it into a reasonably structured format. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it's better than nothing, and it doesn't seem like we've come across anything better to date. Re which POV appears first... hell if I know. Any reasonable stylistic presentation will probably resolve that issue through integration when presenting both. Compare and contrast. If there's a genuine dispute, the problem can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But in reality, there's only a genuine dispute a tiny fraction of the times the issue comes up (vs. business owners complaining about a POV they don't want on the page). —tg
          • If that means having the primary section be more intended for information purposes, without much opinion, then this is a model I support. I'm actually fine with opinions and character on a page, I just like an easy section at the top for people to get general information that doesn't try to sway a bias one way or another. I makes sense to me to have opinions to be structured out so its easy to see that someones expressing a viewpoint. —JT

I don't think we're quite on the same page here, Jeff. What are you actually envisioning? It sounds like you're expecting opinion to be presented in a way that readers are incapable of distinguishing it from objective fact. Absent abnormally stupid readers, I don't really see that being a problem. Let's take a look at some examples: Black Bear Diner - there's opinion in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Any problems there? Should it all be removed, and either set below the comment bar or in a separate section for OPINIONS to avoid deceiving readers? Ali Baba - opinion in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 8 (skipping the daily specials). Again, is there anything that's going to ruin the page or deceive readers? Maybe I'm making assumptions, but it seems like you're imagining some deceptive or over-the-top set of opinions that utterly overwhelms a page, leaving it devoid of information content. No one wants that sort of thing.

Editorialism is a wonderful thing and serves as a foundation of virtually every piece of written or visual information we consume, outside of encyclopedias and academic publications. The notion that we should remove that in the name of neutrality strikes me as dehumanizing. Part of what I love about the wiki is how human it is. When looked at in a practical sense, in terms of the situations where this comes up in day-to-day editing, I think my point is illustrated well. No one has any objections to opinions they agree with in page content. It's only when there's something they disagree with that they want opinion removed from a page. And 98% of the time, that's a business owner who's unhappy about how their business is reflected in an opinion appearing on their page. Moreover, that reaction is the same regardless of whether the opinion appears as a comment or within the ostensibly neutral "main text" of the page. Appearing above the break just gives them one more thing to object to, but there's no material difference. The problem isn't with non-neutral points of view, it's with the specifics of certain points of view. And that's why I don't think we should limit it to NPOV.

To my mind, it's like speech. The proper response to speech with which we don't agree is more speech, not less. Censorship out in society is the tool of those who are incapable of defending their view. It's anathema to thoughtfulness, expression, and interpersonal relations. Here on the wiki, things are obviously a bit different. We try to make it a welcoming place for people in the community to come, and in that interest we place reasonable constraints on what's acceptable. But that doesn't alter the basic principle: opinion and expression are good things. Presenting, engaging, and embracing multiple viewpoints helps us learn and develop. Whether we agree or disagree with those viewpoints, actually engaging with them helps us think, reason, and respond. It shapes our own viewpoints, whether in agreement or otherwise.

Viewpoints are a good thing because they do at least as much to inform and engage us as any objective, neutral presentation of fact can hope to do. My apologies for the essay. —TomGarberson

I guess I was just trying to sort out how we implement both POV A and POV B in an equal way. The idea of a structured opinion section came up, and I'm asking if that warrants a more neutral primary section. This really pertains to the more contentious issues, btw. Formal opinion section would be useful, (like on the leaf blower pages) and retaining a bit more neutrality on the main sections is a little more equitable to all parties. I think we're on the same page here, no? I'm actually not so concerned about the small stuff (like the use of the word "friendly"on the more recent incident). I still prefer more neutral stuff, but I've been known to add some goofy edit on pages myself. —JT

As long as this approach is strictly limited to certain contentious issues, where people on different sides have a lot to say that would make a mess. Yes, in those cases, it be unfair to skew introduction to the topic in favor of POV A, B, or C. However, that would not mean that the top section had to be opinion free. For example, concerning Measure I, I could opine that Measure I has become a hot-button issue that has both sides frothing at the mouth, pulling out all the stops, and slinging mud in all directions. That's a bit of an exaggeration of what really happened (not to mention an appalling mix of metaphors), but hopefully you get my point. The point is that we don't just recreate a new main body section where all the opinions must live, and no opinions can stray outside of that segregated section. However, I think there are some pages where the controversy is the whole point. Banning leaf blowers is a good example of this. In those cases, it makes sense to start with the group who is raising the issue, followed by other points of view. It would be strange to start that page with, for example, an explanation of what a leaf blower is. And I think that trying to start with some sort of "objective" analysis of the effects of leaf blowers would likewise be a mistake. First, you would have to read a very long way before you knew why it was that people were trying to ban leaf blowers. Second, there is disagreement over the effects of leaf blowers, so the attempt to be objective is likely going to backfire anyway. Better to just say why it is that some people are trying to ban leaf blowers right from the outset, and then incorporate other points of view in some other fashion that seems to make sense and represents the diversity of opinions. —cp

Can you point to a few examples of the problem you're concerned about, JT? I think I understand what you generally want to avoid, but I'm not sure it's a phenomenon that actually sticks around on the wiki. Sure, it might pop up on contentious pages, but over the course of a few days of editing, it pretty much always gets sorted out. We have that Overwhelmed include for pages that overwhelmingly reflect a single, minority point of view. It's a problem that's both easily recognized and regularly addressed when it pops up. That's just a part of keeping page content decent. I think it's also fair to say that what we could call "issue pages" are distinct from most other pages on the wiki, in that by the very nature of what they contain, they're likely to need some structure. They pretty much exist to inform readers on the debate about an issue, and allow editors to engage in that debate. That's pretty different from the vast majority of pages about people, businesses, places, etc. —tg

So I've been trying to think of a way we can meet both needs here. I understand the desire to retain editorial freedom across the larger expanses of DW, and I'm willing to accept that as a more generalized "norm", but maybe you guys would be willing to support a version whose effect would be inversely proportional to the level of contention on a page, i.e. there would be a certain understanding that we as a community would try and tend toward more structured opinion sections and neutral primary sections if a page becomes more polarized, in effort to promote more fairness among conflicting parties? I agree that "issue" pages are not a widespread phenomenon, so the "editorial freedom norm" would prevail in most cases, it would just give way to the "structured opinions/neutral primary norm" when contentious pages come up. This wouldn't have to be cut and dry, just a rule of thumb, like the other options proposed above.—JT

That seems reasonable to me, and in the spirit of Tom's original suggestion. —cp

2013-03-20 16:08:17   TG, you said that really well. I concur wholeheartedly.

And I don't want to let the terrorists win. —CovertProfessor

Wholehearted concurment eh? I'm on to you Daubert

Hahaha. Guilty as charged. I was channeling you a bit. —cp

I think everybody needs a dab of Daub now and then. -jw

2013-03-21 10:41:27   ES, I'd consider that a good clarification of my opinion. Very good point about avoiding mess and whatnot. The whole idea of the wiki is collaborative editing, and no individual piece of content is sacrosanct. It's fine to move or integrate discussions where they detract from the quality of the page. It's just the actual viewpoints that shouldn't be relegated to some inferior space. Unless anyone (mainly Scott, since he already voted) has any objections, I'd like to clarify #1 based on what you wrote. —TomGarberson

  • That's fine with me. I agree with ES's general points, although I do like the occasional one-liners so long as they are italicized and integrated in a way that's not too awkward. - SM

2013-03-21 13:34:36   Just to make it clear, another issue I had with Option 3 is that it seems like it might be suggesting that we should hold back opinion from the main entry until a certain amount of comments have been generated that show a clear consensus of opinion. I prefer the more admittedly chaotic but individualistic approach that we've been taking i.e. just post whatever on a new entry and see what happens. —ScottMeehleib

2013-03-21 23:06:30   For whatever it's worth, my read of the discussion on the root page (the current "vote" is above):

People in favor of NPOV: CF WesHardaker JT

People Opposed to strict NPOV: JW CP PN SM TG

Unclear whether pro- or anti-NPOV: ES JesseSingh

Comments express no opinion on issue: JamesSchwab JoseBleckman IDNE HanKim

Compared to the present page, it seems like ES moved to opposed to strict NPOV, CF and WH aren't present for the pro-NPOV, and PB has joined the unclear. Draw what conclusions you will. —TomGarberson

  • I completely have forgotten the context of the 'root page,' but I do laugh at how I mentioned I wanted to delete what I considered crap (and clearly still do). My first comment on the root page was Personally, I'm for CPOV as well, but there's a balance between cumulative opinion, and weasel words being added to balance everything. So I'd say overall, I'm anti NPOV. I think I still have that position: I've always like opinion and integration, I think. The last few years I've really grown to dislike random "This place is the best!" being in the top of the entry, which I mentioned on this current page. At the time of the root page, my focus was on weasel wording, which was big at the time. ie, anytime someone added an opinion or summarized comments by integrating into the entry, someone felt they had to balance it out by adding a negative, especially if there was a single negative comment (even if the other 20 were all positive). The discussion that would often pop up would then be "balanced opinion" vs "no opinion". We couldn't say "This place does great delivery, and typically take five to ten minutes less than their estimate." Someone would edit, "The delivery is usually pretty quick, but sometimes it takes a while" because one guy got his food five minutes after the time stated and felt we had to show both sides. "blah blah, this place might make some of the best burgers in town." Nope. "Many people think that this is the best burger place, while some others think it's not so great." Ugh. Anyway, I think the weasel wording is less of an issue now than it was a few years ago. -ES

I don't understand the options. In general, I believe opinions should be in the comments and should be signed by the person who has the opinion. —DonShor

2013-03-23 13:24:14   It might be worth discussing how we want to handle edits that come off as too "ad-like" as well, (taxi companies and apartment complexes both come to mind here). We've done a fair amount of modifying content like this in the past. The editorial freedom justification hasn't come up a whole lot on this issue, but it could feasibly be argued that promotional material is a fair form of opinion and should be respected. An editorial freedom "norm" would diminish the ability to change or remove this type of content. Do we want to advocate more neutral language in these cases as well? Likewise, would we want to provide for a similar approach for the reverse case where negative promotional material is added to a page? —jefftolentino

  • This is where the "cumulative" part of POV came from the root page. Guess it'll be a case by case. -ES
  • I don't think we can allow promotional material; I think it would run afoul of the Wiki Community/For Profit Restrictions. I realize that it can be hard to discriminate between the community saying "Restaurant X is the best food of type Y in Davis!" and the owner saying it, but I think we have to make those judgments as best as we can. One is a reflection of community opinion — and to say something that strong, we'd need lots of evidence, e.g., from comments or from winning surveys or some such — and the other really is just promotional. —cp
  • Not embracing NPOV doesn't mean we ignore promotional language. It doesn't mean we ignore bad content. It doesn't mean some scumbag editor can run roughshod over the wiki with impunity. It only means we don't restrict the above-the-fold text to strictly objective information. It means we keep doing what we already do, what we've always done. The only distinction between what's discussed above and what has happened on here for the past few years is that when we stop a business owner from removing an opinion (s)he doesn't like from a page, we don't have to say "wellllll... it might be OK on there, but it's not really settled." —tg
  • Unfortunately, the practical effect of this is that others can say adverse things about a business — as if they are content about that business — but owners can't say good things about the business. Which is why I think opinions belong in the comments, signed by the people who have the opinions. I'm not an absolutist on any of this, but it is looking like another instance where business owners are handicapped in a way others aren't. Example: JW wrote the original entry for OfficeMax with "the local OfficeMax is kind of ratty." If the manager comes along and changes that to "the local OfficeMax is nice and clean, with a pleasant ambience," would that change stand?—DonShor
    • I think there is a difference between business owners saying good things about their businesses and a business owner being promotional. I can think of at least two types of cases where the former occurs regularly. One is where the business has been criticized, and the owner says as part of the response something like, "I strive to give my customers the best customer service I can, and to make things right if they are unhappy." The second is that many promotional edits left by business owners have been modified by other editors to make it clear that these positive things are the business's goals or mission or things that they strive for or some such. As for your example, if I were that manager, I would take a picture to prove my point. :-) —cp
      • Overall I agree, and I would probably have to look to find examples that are problematic in any case. But it is certainly easier and more effective to respond to a posted comment about a specific instance (as I did once) than to try to change or respond to content in the main body of the description. For example, on the page about our nursery someone complained about a special order problem. I was easily able to reply to his particular concern in a manner that retained the comment and, IMO, explained my side of it. If he decided to go in and edit the main text to say 'Redwood Barn doesn't fulfill special orders' I would have a problem effectively dealing with that. Given the way the Davis Wiki works, my expectation is that things would be dealt with on a case by case basis. But the problem we've had in the past is that business owners don't have a clear understanding of how the wiki works. —ds
        • Agreed, and I think that's part of the problem. They delete the remarks in the main body rather than responding to them. But if we had a clearer policy we could simply point them to it, and encourage them to respond in the main part of the article. Signed comments can be in the main body, too. —cp

2013-03-24 09:18:18   So what I'm getting from this page now is that we're developing a "norm" that would generally promote editorial freedom as the preferred mode on DW, with some limits. In the case of a page becoming increasingly contentious, we can develop more organized opinion sections and provide some level of NPOV in other sections to preserve fairness. Editorial freedom can also be limited when edits become too promotional. No limits are necessarily provided for negative edits however, ie negative business reviews, etc. Negative edits are typically retained until the original poster decides to remove them. Other community members, including business owners, or persons who are opposed to the negative edit, are encouraged to post responding remarks only, and refrain from removal (except in the cases of promotional material). Yes? Still, kinda reluctant about setting rules, especially if we're setting up an environment where negative edits are difficult to remove, but this is what I'm seeing. —jefftolentino

  • Negative edits that are personal attacks will be removed — we've been doing that for awhile now. And those that accuse of something illegal or seem otherwise suspicious usually prompt a talk page for discussion, sometimes leading to removal. Old comments tend to be archived. —cp

Ok, here's an example of an edit that I consider inappropriate from MeggoWaffle: As a comment, appropriate. In the body of the text, based on a single instance, not appropriate. As a fellow editor, I would be inclined to take it out. She addresses the problem in her comment. So how does this instance fit in the policy description above? —DonShor

  • I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this, but here are some thoughts. Something similar happened on the Trader Joe's page. I may be misremembering the exact sequence of events (and I am too lazy to check), but it was something like this: someone posted about moldy bread at TJ's. Then a second person did. Then a comment was added to the main body of the entry. Then I posted that my experience was different. Then a third person said they'd seen moldy products, too. The comment in the main entry kept bugging me, so eventually I added to it to point out that not everyone had had this experience. Here's the thing: I buy at least two different types of TJ's bread, plus tortillas and sometimes pita. The stuff sits in my refrigerator for far longer than it should. I have only seen mold after it's been there for many weeks. And I buy their bread all the time. I have several loaves in my refrigerator right now. Yet I cannot discount the claims that others have made (one of whom was TG). So, what's my point? My point is that this is supposed to be collaborative editing, not editing where things that are written are cast in stone. So, when someone comments as TG or MW did, others can either chime in to say "me too," which reinforces the complaint, or "not me" to counter it. Over time it should be sorted out which is accurate. If we were clearer that everyone can edit the main entry, even with opinions, perhaps these things would sort out in the way that they should. In the meantime, we could perhaps edit MW's comment in the main entry to say, "One person had ..." and that would still allow for future chiming in to confirm or disconfirm. Also, opinions in the main entry can be signed. —cp

2013-03-24 23:00:41   Wondering if it might be possible to try out an archive system for content that people might want moved off a main page, but still retains the content in some form on an archive page. We could still maintain the spirit of editorial freedom by allowing any content to stay on the main page for up to a certain period of time, say a year. After that the content would become eligible for archiving. Archive content could also be reinstated freely, whereupon it would be retained on the main page for another set period of time (maybe three months) before becoming re-eligible for archiving. This would still allow for editorial freedom and wouldn't completely remove content from the wiki at all, yet it would allow a means for reducing problematic content for people after a wait-period. Could also have the benefit of cleaning up cluttered pages. The whole thing would also be intended as a rule of thumb, and exceptions could of course be put to appeal by the community. —jefftolentino

2013-03-26 20:56:21   My personal preference is that the wiki be something of a journaling database of what's going on in Davis. Everyone has the privilege of stating their opinion or rebutting someone else's opinion and every reader is assumed to have the common sense and ability to read through the journal and make their own decisions. Once again, are we going towards a Blade Runner future or a Star Trek future? —JimStewart

  • That sounds like Option 1 to me. Yes? —cp
    • Close enough. Yes with the addition that it probably doesn't go far enough. I've seen the encroachment of political correctness dilute the vibrancy of daviswiki and I'd like to see a return to the basic standards of acceptable posts. -js
      • Ok, fair enough. Still having trouble figuring out if that's BR or ST. I am guessing BR because ST is pretty regimented. Still, things are pretty bleak in the BR world. —cp