Policy related

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
William One Sac,

Hi. I noticed that a revert I did was reset by you in the ATS article's discussion, because I had made a mistake about policy. I wasn't sure why the delete I reverted wasn't vandalism, and so need to ask about that.

Optimist




posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I realize that the person(s) who deleted the entry did not give a reason for the deletion, however the material in question was just trashing some of the members, including stating where one of our members work!
In my opinion that is not discussing the topic of "Above Top Secret.com".



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
William One Sac,

Thank you for the reply. I agree that personally identifying information about other people should be removed. Libelous type posts are also not what the article discussions are for, obviously.

In this case I hadn't read that poster's rant so much as those types of things, but more saw it as ciriticism as such. The person surely seemed to not have tried to seem very diplomatic and so on, but whatever was the motivation, I, like I say, mostly read the post as criticism against the ATS forums as such.

As an encyclopedia, I think tinWiki needs to take special considerations in maintaining neutrality, which also means giving special attention to anyone who would challenge the notion of tinWiki's neutrality. Otherwise it's like that poster I think I saw in a photo somewhere that read something like, "Behead those who say muslims are violent!" lol You know?

A special policy could maybe be good to have that relates specifically to criticism of tinWiki and ATS. It's a given that there'll be conspiracy theories about a conspiracy theory website, I would think, and those accusations should be afforded light of day just out of self interest. This seems to be of particular importance, and will only become a bigger and more important issue as tinWiki grows, as it seems to me.

Instead of removing the whole post, I suggest considering removing the offending portions, so to say, and replace them with an explanation of why they were removed. That would be similar to how deleted posts in ATS are replaced with a message as to why the deletion happened.

Optimist



 
0

log in

join