Ma vision de Wikipedia modifier

(Tiré de http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies > J'ai gardé les éléments avec lesquels je suis d'accord)

NB : Les liens sont vers en:wp et Meta. Pour l'instant, je ne sais pas comment les faire pointer vers les bonnes pages (interwiki ?). Si quelqu'un peut m'y aider...

Eventualism vs. immediatism modifier

Should the focus be on having usefulness and reliability now, or more freedom of editing in order to have better articles later?

Moderate eventualism modifier

It is worth maintaining articles in good condition, but not to the extent it would stymie their organic growth through the Wiki process.

Edits should only be reverted if they are unsalvageable or at least hard to salvage.

Poor and biased writing should be addressed, but unless there is no content should not simply be erased.

Extreme eventualism modifier

The process of free, continuous editing will in the long run make articles better and better.

Only vandalism should be reverted. Anyone who makes an edit has something to say which should be respected.

Poor and biased writing and misinformation will be corrected in due time. Relax.

Statusquoism modifier

Moderate anti-statusquoism modifier

Edits should not be reverted unless they are truly just troublesome.

Poor writing is not a problem; later editors will fix it up.

If an edit is so controversial that it should be reverted, an explanation should be given on Talk so the author can respond.

Communityism vs. Encyclopedyism modifier

Encyclopedism modifier

The sole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia; social interaction is a byproduct which should not compromise this goal.
Treating people respectfully and being nice to newbies is desirable inasmuch as it encourages contributions and diversity of opinions, and avoids w:groupthink.
Personal attacks are no big deal. Indeed, it is hard to say they're bad at all if it makes an editor who is wrong back off.
There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia community". A community is a group of people sharing w:bodily risk - w:social club concerns or annoyances are very petty compared to real-world political problems.

Authorism vs. Communalism modifier

Communalism modifier

There is no author for articles. Although one person may seed an article, each one is a community effort.

Once an article text has been submitted, the submitter has no special privileges vis-a-vis future edits to that text.

There is no "original intent" other than what is in the text and perhaps notes on the discussion page.

Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism modifier

Rehabilism modifier

Every editor, even vandals, is a potential contributor.

Every opportunity should be extended for a former troll to rehabilitate themselves.

Meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. Give the benefit of the doubt.

The cost of fighting a troll is higher than fixing whatever trouble they cause.

Edit warring modifier

WikiWarrior modifier

Wikipedia is a battlefield of ideas; edit wars are part of the editorial process.

The damage from a war now and then is minimal and greatly overstated.

Repeatedly reverting a damaging edit is wholly appropriate.

Adminship modifier

ADMINS ARE JANITORS: adminship is just another job
- The majority of work an Admin needs to do has no reflection on experience or ethical standards. Expecting them to follow any special standards -- except for misuse of their privileges -- demonstrates a misunderstanding of their role.

Neutrality modifier

Unattainable absolute modifier

A neutral point of view requires omniscience and omnipresence. No-one has that.
The comprehensive whole of all Wikipedia can be said to approach a neutral point of view as it becomes more comprehensive and includes more factual information. A single entry can only be said to have a neutral point of view assuming the limitations of the subject (which is not a neutral act).
"NPOV" as used on Wikipedia does not mean "neutral point of view". It's shorthand for a particular style of writing which avoids authoritative statements and is highly contextual, particularly temporally. "NPOV" writing often ages poorly.

Factions, advocacy and suppression modifier

The conflict-driven view of wiki, e.g. battlefield of ideas, emphasizes that most of explicit knowledge arises from a need to deal with multiple point of view and compromise.

The epistemology of this view is quite similar to the Buddhist view of language: words are just indicators of conflicts, since if no conflict existed, there would be no need to speak.

People living in developed nations with representative democracy also expect power structures to be transparent, regularly audited, and (most relevant) composed of people visibly associated in political parties who take collective responsibility for actions, even when no individual responsibility would be possible or meaningful.

All that aside, many people would like to believe that politics has no place in encyclopedia work, and that an editorial process can be so perfect a bureaucracy as not to need factions. This view may be more prevalent in countries that have a Supreme Court and written constitutions, which are also increasingly common in democracies.

Antifactionalism modifier

It is better to view ideas as a spectrum or conceptual space than a rigidly defined set; ideas are 'near' or 'far' rather than 'in' or 'out'.
Factions are prone to groupthink and lead to suppressionism of the 'losing' factions
Conflicts between factions are often unnecessary and counterproductive
A ruling clique's activities can be confined to neutral administration of a process and can deal internally with any systemic bias they might have, by recruiting new rulers

Vandalism modifier

The view that vandalism calls attention to a lack of editorial quality and will therefore eventually improve the overall quality of Wikipedia.

Karibooman

Sommaire