For those wanting to see arguements of both sides before casting a vote,

See here.

It's a non-issue as long as the content contains only factual information. It should be written as is any legitimate, objective biographical work and entirely free of each author's personal sentiments.

The fact that the option of "by anyone on any page" is not only considered, but even favored by some, is equally unsurprising and frustrating to me.

Any information about me should be written by me. End of. IMHO.

Not even sure it's relevant in a wiki. Why would you bother with user info? Everyone's got a profile on the main site, use that.
Isn't the wiki an extended help/reference site?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The argument is that part of the Wiki is about documenting the culture and history of VideoSift.

Many of the changes, events and controversies that happen on the Sift are initiated by - or related to Sifters. If the rule is no reference to our members- we'll need to sanitise the content to keep it fairly anonymous - which IMO is not very well aligned with the spirit of the community - being very "people focused".


>> ^Deano:

Not even sure it's relevant in a wiki. Why would you bother with user info? Everyone's got a profile on the main site, use that.
Isn't the wiki an extended help/reference site?

Ah I see. I was assuming we were talking about the user profile pages specifically.

I have no problem with my username being used in stories/documentation, if it's basically just my username. What I don't really want is people being able to click my username from that story, to bring up a whole page about me that other people have written. If the link went to my user profile that only *I* could edit then that would be fine.

For example, I say things in the lounge about me because I know it's not being recorded and it will disappear from the window in less than a day. If I want to divulge information about me on the wiki I will, but generally, I don't want to. It's the same way my user profile on the main VS site has minimal information. It's basically a username and an avatar.

My 2 cents.

>> ^dag:

The argument is that part of the Wiki is about documenting the culture and history of VideoSift.
Many of the changes, events and controversies that happen on the Sift are initiated by - or related to Sifters. If the rule is no reference to our members- we'll need to sanitise the content to keep it fairly anonymous - which IMO is not very well aligned with the spirit of the community - being very "people focused".

>> ^Deano:
Not even sure it's relevant in a wiki. Why would you bother with user info? Everyone's got a profile on the main site, use that.
Isn't the wiki an extended help/reference site?



That seems a bit wooly and meta to me. Why not, as has been the case, allow the culture to grow out of what the site does on a daily basis? And let the ethnographers worry about that kind of crap.

Maybe the question is this; what actual purpose would this serve and to whom would it be actually useful?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ Well, that's a good question that gets down to the meat of it - Sometimes people drop a reference in a comment - that makes people go "what?" Here's some example VideoSift trivia that is kind of interesting and involves people:

Editing user pages should probably be restricted to the user in question. But just so every one is clear on this, there is a difference between a user page (http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:jonny), and a page about a user (http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/jonny). The former is very much like a personal profile page here, complete with it it's own Talk page (wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User_talk:jonny) where others can leave messages. The latter is a topic page about a particular user written by the community at large.

I understand the concerns about topic pages on users, but I honestly think it's a very small issue. There are probably no more than 10-15 people in the history of VideoSift that have ever been prominent enough to warrant such a page. Of those, I can think of only one or two that might be bound for an edit war.

Just like VideoSift itself, the entire content of the wiki will be community driven, and one butt hurt user can use that freedom to personally attack others. The answer isn't to restrict editing freedom for the sake of rare cases, but to treat the rase cases as they arise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy), just as they are on VideoSift itself. Concerns about hurtful content on Wiki.videosift.com being more "permanent" are misguided. It's not like the wiki is going to draw large amounts of traffic.

[redacted]

I still don't see any value in having user pages on our wiki in the first place, even if user pages can be edited solely by the user. Members can post as much or as little as they want on their profile page. To have a separate entry on the wiki is useless duplication, IMHO.

As far as topic pages about users, you may believe that only 10-15 members warrant them, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a lot more than that to show up. If Wikipedia includes shit like an entry about a song that hit #39 on the Billboard adult contemporary chart in 1974, then a wiki page here about a bronze star member who wrote two funny comments will show up sooner or later. Then the wiki becomes a massive repository for trivia and gossip. And maybe that's what some members want, but not me. >> ^jonny:

Editing user pages should probably be restricted to the user in question. But just so every one is clear on this, there is a difference between a user page (http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:jonny), and a page about a user (http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/jonny). The former is very much like a personal profile page here, complete with it it's own Talk page (wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User_talk:jonny) where others can leave messages. The latter is a topic page about a particular user written by the community at large.
I understand the concerns about topic pages on users, but I honestly think it's a very small issue. There are probably no more than 10-15 people in the history of VideoSift that have ever been prominent enough to warrant such a page. Of those, I can think of only one or two that might be bound for an edit war.
Just like VideoSift itself, the entire content of the wiki will be community driven, and one butt hurt user can use that freedom to personally attack others. The answer isn't to restrict editing freedom for the sake of rare cases, but to treat the rase cases as they arise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy), just as they are on VideoSift itself. Concerns about hurtful content on Wiki.videosift.com being more "permanent" are misguided. It's not like the wiki is going to draw large amounts of traffic.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I still don't see any value in having user pages on our wiki in the first place, even if user pages can be edited solely by the user. Members can post as much or as little as they want on their profile page. To have a separate entry on the wiki is useless duplication, IMHO.
As far as topic pages about users, you may believe that only 10-15 members warrant them, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a lot more than that to show up. If Wikipedia includes shit like an entry about a song that hit #39 on the Billboard adult contemporary chart in 1974, then a wiki page here about a bronze star member who wrote two funny comments will show up sooner or later. Then the wiki becomes a massive repository for trivia and gossip. And maybe that's what some members want, but not me.

I agree that user pages on the wiki are (mostly) redundant. If it's some very simple config setting that won't disrupt any other function on the wiki, sure, turn off user pages. But if it's not, I don't see how it's worth Lucky's time and energy just to make things tidy, especially when there are so many other things to fix and improve.

I just don't believe that there is going to be some rash of topic pages about users suddenly springing up. Who's going to waste their time writing them? And what other pages are going to link to them if they're not particularly relevant? Even then, it can be policed just as wikipedia does - if the community doesn't think a particular page has relevance, then take it down. If a page is getting vandalized, block the vandals.

Trying to come up with a priori rules about editing the wiki that are essentially unenforceable seems like a waste of time. Why aren't the community guidelines that apply at VideoSift good enough for the wiki as well? Read the quote at the top of this Wikipedia adminstrator's page, and consider that in the context of VideoSift's wiki. The VideoSift wiki is never going to be a heavy traffic site, and does not need the kind of editing rules for pages about people that Wikipedia does.

>> ^Shepppard:

And on KP's side, although Choggie has technically forfeit his right to have any input (lets overlook that fact for the sake of the example) what would happen if he didn't want a page written about him at all?

Tough titties. He and everyone else here voluntarily joined and participated in a community. Communities have collective memories and often document them. That's not to say that anything goes. Vandalism and slander are obviously not allowed, just as they aren't allowed on VideoSift itself.

A topic page about choggie is a good example of a page that should exist. Considering that he comes back from time to time, it would be informative for users unaware of the history why certain probie members are suddenly instabanned with otherwise cryptic messages left on the profile page. That page would contain wildly conflicting views of him and be heavily edited. It may even contain content from choggie himself, added by sympathetic members. And that would honestly reflect choggie's time at VideoSift.

@jonny

You ask "Why aren't the community guidelines that apply at VideoSift good enough for the wiki as well?" That's a fair question, so here's my answer:

Guidelines are almost never followed here. Sift polls are meant to be for Sift business, but most of the time they've been used for other purposes. Sift talk posts on the main page are also supposed to be Sift-related, but they're often not. Ad hominem atttacks are supposed to be avoided, but they happen every day. So calling them 'guidelines' isn't enough. If there are clearly defined rules, that can easily be enforced by members, then the damage should be kept to a minimum. No discussion needs to take place about the neutrality of an article about a member if that type of article is forbidden in the first place. Just delete them immediately

Though I don't think the wiki will have the same traffic as the site proper, I believe it will get more traffic than you think, but who knows what will happen. At least if we have a priori rules, we can immediately delete articles that don't belong, without the need for discussion. Laws won't stop vandalism ahead of time in the real world, but once it's happened at least the law can be enforced, so I say the rules here are enforceable as long as the rules exist in the first place.

I don't see the need for articles like dag listed anyway. If articles like those belong, then these should belong too:

- When have wrongful *dupeof invocations turned into flame wars?
- Who is Aaron McDonald?
- How many choggie sockpuppets have shown up over the years?
- What siftquisitions have turned into shameful public spectacles?
- Who has the most downvoted comments?

And if those types of articles are deemed admissible, then everything belongs. In the military they call this "mission creep." You start off with clearly defined objectives, but then you start adding more and more to the mission, until it gets to the point where the mission itself has become so broadly defined that anything goes. I don't want to see that happen to this wiki.

I still maintain that there is no need for articles about members, neither user nor topic pages. And if traffic is going to be low, as you suggest, then why even post them anyway? Leaving the wiki as a VS user manual is good enough for me.

Gotta agree with KP, much of the suggested content could surely be covered by a good FAQ and Help pages.

Also getting interesting statistical info leads us back to the main site. Give people the tools to search the site and yield the answers to questions that are bugging them.

Maybe if this thing is going to take life and walk upright it should confine itself purely to the elucidation of facts. Opinion, commentary and ad hom stuff can be on the main site.

I thought the wiki would be more of a how to guide for VideoSift.

If people feel it's interesting enough, they'll make it. The "Who attended X siftup" is something that could be fun to look up at some point, but I fear it could quickly devolve into mudslinging and edits back and forth. There are certainly controversies I could do without a retelling of.

I thought that the main focus of the wiki was to clarify rules and quirks of the site, not to be a videosiftpedia.

Making pages about each other also seems terribly self-involved to me, it might be nice to have something like it, but only really for us. I mean, who gives a shit who gwiz665 is outside of videosift anyway (or on videosift for that matter.. *sniff*)

>> ^lucky760:

It's a non-issue as long as the content contains only factual information. It should be written as is any legitimate, objective biographical work and entirely free of each author's personal sentiments.


I vote yes only if it's the opposite of this.

I do not want anything I've shared about myself, on VideoSift, in the wiki. I did not think this is what a wiki would be used for.

What if there aren't any user pages on wikisift but if users are mentioned in a history of the sift there is simply a link to their current profiles on videosift.com? That way you can still mention them in stories but not have a page about them.

Who's doing @choggie's wiki page? I think KP should.

Using a member's name in a character assassination is NOT OK
Using a member's name in connection to personal information is NOT recommended.

Using a member's name in conjunction with an event sounds OK to me.
A user-name is just a user-name, they are publicly used on the site. The users are a huge part of what makes this site what it is. I really don't think it's possible to have a Wiki without usine member names.

I agree with use of a member's user-name as long as it is for historical reasons. The Wiki absolutely should not be a place to air one's dirty laundry or continue into a soap opera. We also don't want people to use the Wiki to gather personal info so profiles don't belong in the Wiki - We have profiles for that already.

-Yes, keep a list of Sift-ups, locations and joining members
-Yes, Let us know who had a hand in the milestones of the site
-Yes, Keep a list of the channels and who manages them

Choggie has played a large part in Videosift, it would be a shame to let his legend of infamy die. We need his story told but it has to be kept to pertaining to the sift. It should detail him as a historical entity of the Sift.

It should start: "The Legend of Choggie"

>> ^blankfist:

Who's doing @choggie's wiki page? I think KP should.

Not sure I love the idea of users having pages with any detail of information on it. It is one thing to answer specific questions like "Who designed the orignal VideoSift 2.0 Sifter logo?" and give credit where credit is due, but how far do we go before "The Legend of Choggie" becomes the most detailed and/or policed page as people add their opinions or edit existing content?

Kind of a conflicting concept for myself. Not that I think anyone would want to write anything at all about me because I have never really been involved in any particular scandal on the site, but I would be very irritated if articles were written about members that involved personal information. Such as locations, real world names, and facebook profiles etcetera. That kind of information should be left up to the member itself. Although I feel anything that is already documented on the site is up for grabs because all it takes is a little detective work to find out who someone was or what a member did not to mention if you ask people they usually give the answer.

On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

I AM GOING TO POST BAD RUMORS ABOUT YOU!

I mentioned in another thread that indeed there is nothing to prevent someone from creating a separate site or blog about VideoSift. However that doesn't mean we have to do it here. We don't have to be a part of that. And even if we did post Sift history and member bios in our Wiki, that still doesn't mean that someone else won't do it on blogspot, wordpress, typepad, or wherever.

The cat's always been out of the bag. Someone could have been posting Sift history and member info elsewhere a long time ago. There's also nothing stopping someone from creating another video voting site. We can't control that either. But at least we can control what we do here, and I don't think we need to kick the hornet's nest in our own backyard.

Posting history and biographies here will not prevent it from happening somewhere else. Let's just not do it here in the first place. >> ^ctrlaltbleach:


On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

IF YOUR WIKI INCLUDES MEMBER INFORMATION THAT CAUSES PROBLEMS DON'T BLAME ME. I'M JUST A CARICATURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

HEY!

Do any of you guys remember when that one guy with the crazy avatar did that thing and it was totally hilarious? But then the other guy responded by saying that he didn't think it was hilarious and none of us knew what to do until you-know-who came in like he always does and explained to us that it was in fact a moral dilemma that humans had been experiencing since the beginning of time?

I never would've read that book by the European philosopher who spent his life explaining that dilemma unless that guy recommended it. Now I am one of some-unnamed-planet's foremost historians regarding you-know who. And to think, it never would've happened if so-and-so hadn't explained the thing that I won't mention because it would give away that person's identity.

Come to think of it, none of it EVER even would've been possible if somebody (wink) hadn't come up with ------SECTION REMOVED------ in the first place! Ha! Imagine if that thing had never happened! Can you?!? I know!

PS: If you choose to respond to this, please do not quote me or refer to me by my original or on-line identity or any other distinguishing character feature that might give away who initially wrote this in the first place. In fact, if you do NEED to refer to me, please direct your response to "you".

Note: All person's above referred to as "he/him/his,etc..." where applicable so that gender will remain undefined. If I've offended anyone, you know who you are.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

HEY!
Do any of you guys remember when that one guy with the crazy avatar did that thing and it was totally hilarious? But then the other guy responded by saying that he didn't think it was hilarious and none of us knew what to do until you-know-who came in like he always does and explained to us that it was in fact a moral dilemma that humans had been experiencing since the beginning of time?
I never would've read that book by the European philosopher who spent his life explaining that dilemma unless that guy recommended it. Now I am one of some-unnamed-planet's foremost historians regarding you-know who. And to think, it never would've happened if so-and-so hadn't explained the thing that I won't mention because it would give away that person's identity.
Come to think of it, none of it EVER even would've been possible if somebody (wink) hadn't come up with ------SECTION REMOVED------ in the first place! Ha! Imagine if that thing had never happened! Can you?!? I know!
PS: If you choose to respond to this, please do not quote me or refer to me by my original or on-line identity or any other distinguishing character feature that might give away who initially wrote this in the first place. In fact, if you do NEED to refer to me, please direct your response to "you".
Note: All person's above referred to as "he/him/his,etc..." where applicable so that gender will remain undefined. If I've offended anyone, you know who you are.

Why are we voting on this? Whatever happened to Siftler?

wiki wiki wiki

*votes*

*results*

No..?? Psh.

I say we let the wiki include information on our members/memes/history. Otherwise it seems like a waste of a wiki.

If it starts being overrun with vandalism/abuse, then we can revisit, but I say let's try it and see what develops.

Of course, I may just be saying that because my first idea for a page for a videosift wiki was to make "pigfucker" point to blankfist's bio page.

If we're to allow "biographical" content, can we at least limit it to noteworthy videosift events?

It's one thing to have an entry about TAYTV or about how ant's participation in Out of the Blue lured a lot of people here. It's another thing to have a page about how [random unpopular user] is a racist, homophobic, bigoted troll.

On the other hand, if you think this sort of thing should be acceptable, please let us know. We can start by writing insult-laced articles about you.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No - keep Member information out of the Wiki.

It's be neat to be able to read some history of the bigger-name sifters, I guess crowned members? Should be self-authored though IMHO

So, the two yeses got 12 votes each and the no got 24. That's a tie. I never voted. Can I be the tiebreaker.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK, so, here's the way I think we should interpret this:

>> ^dag:

OK, so, here's the way I think we should interpret this:

^quoting broke!!!

The third choice in the poll, as you wrote it, was "No - keep Member information out of the Wiki." That was the winning choice. That should mean that member information should be included in NO entries - historical, cultural, or otherwise. Once you include member names in any entries you are including member information in the wiki, which we voted overwhelmingly against. And because you can't tell a story without including the names of the characters, then you really can't tell the story. Basically it means that, outside of its original intended purpose of being a VideoSift user manual, the wiki should be devoid of all but the most cursory historical information.

I don't see how you're coming up with your interpretation. "Historical or culturally significant Sift events" is so broad that it could mean hundreds of events, which then would involve mentioning hundreds of sifters, many mentioned more than once. I didn't vote 'no' just to have member information slipped in through the back door.

No - keep Member information out of the Wiki.>> ^dag:

OK, so, here's the way I think we should interpret this:

Who says you can combine two choices into one so you can declare a tie or a victory over a third choice? The 'no' voters have the plurality, so we won. If a plurality was good enough to get Slick Willie elected in 1992 then it's good enough for our little pack of nerd/degenerates. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dag:


OK, so, here's the way I think we should interpret this:

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As BF mentions, the yes vote is split. I'm seeking consensus. If you're absolutely set on no member names ever being mentioned or referenced in the Wiki - happy for you to start a new poll, with just two categories to clarify.

Also, feel free to take your rhetoric down a notch. I'm not your own personal Hosni Mubarak looking to keep the Sift people down.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Also should mention that Sifter's names are going to be on the Wiki whether we like it or not - as the usernames are used for signing edits and history.

Well I obviously don't like it, but I'll still meet you half way. It's been a divisive issue, so I won't post another poll. However I still see this being problematic. Asking people to be 'free of opinion' is like asking shit to be free of stink. We'll see what happens.

The first article of historical significance I propose: Upvote Everything Day>> ^dag:

As BF mentions, the yes vote is split. I'm seeking consensus. If you're absolutely set on no member names ever being mentioned or referenced in the Wiki - happy for you to start a new poll, with just two categories to clarify.

Roger that, boss.

How about we both work on notchin' down the rhetoric, m'kay?

>> ^dag:

Also should mention that Sifter's names are going to be on the Wiki whether we like it or not - as the usernames are used for signing edits and history.

He split the yes vote. I mean, that's what he did. It's like me writing a poll:

Should KP be stripped of his clothing?
-Yes (10 votes)
-No, he probably shouldn't. (7 votes)
-No, but that would be hilarious. (4 votes)
-No, why is this even a poll?! (8 votes)
-No, because I don't want to see that. (7 votes)

I second the Upvote Everything Day!

There's a lot of sexual tension in this place. It's almost unbearable.

(_|_)
  :O-noms

Is that considered sexual?

I think "information" needs a bit of clarification.

"gwiz665 has a crown and has been on videosift for x years. He was at euro siftup and is often found in the lounge." <-- I have no problem with that at all.
"gwiz665's name is Nicki [...] his address is [...] his phone number is [...] yadda yadda" <- I have a problem with.
And even though I voted no, I also have no problem with self-made user pages, like http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Gwiz665

If I want to use it then fine, if I don't then fine. That's the user's own personal space, like the videosift member page.

Mine's done edited. If you strip the feature, you must keep mine up as a tribute for when I pass...

...gas

oh and by the way, I'm proof of why this is a bad idea. I totally f*cked it up on accident. EGG ON MY FACE!