Archive:Dispute Watch: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Dispute watch rules and procedures == | == Dispute watch rules and procedures == | ||
If a page is under dispute watch, you can argue--but only about the text of the article, and only about specific propositions to change (or retain) the text. | If a page is under dispute watch, you can argue--but only about the text of the article, and only about specific propositions to change (or retain) the text. And you just can't get off-topic. | ||
* '''All argumentation goes under | * '''All argumentation goes under headings as described below.''' That means that you should put your disputation under headings and propositions, as described below, or make a new one if you're raising a new issue. | ||
* '''Start with a neutral section heading.''' All disputation must be placed under a | * '''Start with a neutral section heading.''' All disputation must be placed under a section heading everyone can agree to, using == on either side of the heading phrase, flush left. | ||
* '''State a clear proposition suing the {{tl|prop}} template.''' Next, immediately below the section heading, state a clear proposition. This ''must'' concern the wording of the text, or it will be deemed off-topic and will be subject to deletion. It should be hard to mistake your meaning. | * '''State a clear proposition suing the {{tl|prop}} template.''' Next, immediately below the section heading, state a clear proposition. This ''must'' concern the wording of the text, or it will be deemed off-topic and will be subject to deletion. It should be hard to mistake your meaning. | ||
:For example, if you type: | :<font color="darkgreen">For example, if you type: | ||
::<code><nowiki>{{prop|A sentence reading, "But not everyone agrees with this," should be added to the end of the second paragraph.}}</nowiki></code> | ::<code><nowiki>{{prop|A sentence reading, "But not everyone agrees with this," should be added to the end of the second paragraph.}}</nowiki></code> | ||
:This produces: | :This produces: | ||
::{{prop|A sentence reading, "But not everyone agrees with this," should be added to the end of the second paragraph.}} | ::{{prop|A sentence reading, "But not everyone agrees with this," should be added to the end of the second paragraph.}}</font> | ||
* '''All | * '''All disputation in a section must directly concern the proposition.''' Any discussion of matters that do not directly explain, support, or undermine the proposition in question is considered off-topic. Note: this means that all argumentation on the talk page must concern specific propositions about the wording of the article. | ||
* '''If the proposition concerns a topic controversial in itself, it is off-topic to argue in favor of one side of the controversy.''' This is just a consequence of the foregoing rule, but it is worth spelling out: | * '''If the proposition concerns a topic controversial in itself, it is off-topic to argue in favor of one side of the controversy.''' This is just a consequence of the foregoing rule, but it is worth spelling out: if you are arguing about how the article should answer a very controversial question, then you simply may not argue for one particular answer to the question. You can argue that some people say such-and-such; you can argue about what the details are of what people actually do say; but you can't ''say those things yourselves.'' | ||
* '''You must start a new section and proposition for anything not directly relevant.''' If you want to discuss a related issuue that is not ''directly relevant'' to the proposition in discussion, you must start a new one, in a new section. That's all right; go ahead. | |||
These rules apply only to talk page remarks that involve, or turn on, some contentious claim or argument. Explanations of edits, questions, and praise--if not argumentative--do not require this treatment. | These rules apply only to talk page remarks that involve, or turn on, some contentious claim or argument. Explanations of edits, questions, and praise--if not argumentative--do not require this treatment. | ||
== The role of the Constabulary == | == The role of the Constabulary == | ||
Revision as of 05:34, 3 August 2007
What is "dispute watch"?
If an article is under "dispute watch," special rules apply. Generally speaking, on the article's talk page, arguments and contentious claims must be addressed to specific propositions that concern the wording of the article. All other manner of explanations, questions, and praise can continue on as normal.
This is an experimental new initiative--not yet formally adopted--initially proposed here. If this proposal works well, the Constabulary will adopt it and implement it on all Citizendium articles subject to "edit warring."
Why dispute watch?
We're committed to professionalism, but we're not perfect. Especially when it comes to articles on controversial issues, many people plug a little too strongly for their own views. Discussions tend to divert from the relevant, narrow, and tractable to the irrelevant, broad, and irresolvable.
Our dispute watch framework gives contributors motivation to work together constructively and focus on the article, not on underlying disputes.
Dispute watch rules and procedures
If a page is under dispute watch, you can argue--but only about the text of the article, and only about specific propositions to change (or retain) the text. And you just can't get off-topic.
- All argumentation goes under headings as described below. That means that you should put your disputation under headings and propositions, as described below, or make a new one if you're raising a new issue.
- Start with a neutral section heading. All disputation must be placed under a section heading everyone can agree to, using == on either side of the heading phrase, flush left.
- State a clear proposition suing the {{prop}} template. Next, immediately below the section heading, state a clear proposition. This must concern the wording of the text, or it will be deemed off-topic and will be subject to deletion. It should be hard to mistake your meaning.
- For example, if you type:
{{prop|A sentence reading, "But not everyone agrees with this," should be added to the end of the second paragraph.}}
- This produces:
- Proposition: A sentence reading, "But not everyone agrees with this," should be added to the end of the second paragraph.
- This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.
- All disputation in a section must directly concern the proposition. Any discussion of matters that do not directly explain, support, or undermine the proposition in question is considered off-topic. Note: this means that all argumentation on the talk page must concern specific propositions about the wording of the article.
- If the proposition concerns a topic controversial in itself, it is off-topic to argue in favor of one side of the controversy. This is just a consequence of the foregoing rule, but it is worth spelling out: if you are arguing about how the article should answer a very controversial question, then you simply may not argue for one particular answer to the question. You can argue that some people say such-and-such; you can argue about what the details are of what people actually do say; but you can't say those things yourselves.
- You must start a new section and proposition for anything not directly relevant. If you want to discuss a related issuue that is not directly relevant to the proposition in discussion, you must start a new one, in a new section. That's all right; go ahead.
These rules apply only to talk page remarks that involve, or turn on, some contentious claim or argument. Explanations of edits, questions, and praise--if not argumentative--do not require this treatment.
The role of the Constabulary
How to put an article under dispute watch
Articles under dispute watch
- A complete list: Category:Dispute Watch
- Recent changes: Dispute Watch related changes