Hello Angry Guy, Tackle one issue at a time. When you throw out a metric fuck-bunch of semi-related issues that you have with wikiHow all at once, it’s going to look like you are trolling for replies and just *love* the attention that an angry forum thread will give you. Troll somewhere else.
According to the deletion policy, joke articles are articles that aren’t serious, and are un-achievable. While pet rocks may not be real, the articles on the subject are, in fact, achievable (and are taken seriously, which is what keeps them from being deleted as joke articles). Pet rocks can be comparable to stuffed animals: while stuffed animals aren’t real either, the articles on them are achievable and serious. We really shouldn’t be deleting a large amount of a category of perfectly good articles.
Ahem. Let’s keep it civil in here. Please no vulgarities or name calling in any posts. We’re all nice wikiHowians here. If this topic picks up steam it could get heated even among nice people, so let’s be sure to take extra efforts keep it civil.
I don’t think @WritingEnthusiast14
is trolling us. The ethics issue an issue that many old timers here know has been discussed many times previously. There are several old forum threads on this topic which might be good reads before we dive headlong into a another discussion about it though.
1 Like
system
7
_Since people will probably ask for examples, article types that are questionable include:_Then you’re basically talking a great amount of articles on wikiHow: Sibling interactions The entire hacking category The entire prank category Online games, that references to getting a BF/GF or family About 90%+ of the youth category Cheating on your S/O Cheating on tests Smoking, bongs, etc Making smoke bombs and other chemically based items Then, if you want to define ethics to the extremes: Recipes that contain taboo, such as beef against Hinduism Hunting, gaming, skinning animals for hobby sake Creating toy weaponry, especially toy guns when they draw media attention Graffiti If existing articles such as pet rocks illustrate the fact they are real (in the value of allowing them to have feelings or the five senses), then fix it yourself or encourage others to join you to make them more accurate. As a parent of a kid, imagination is basically the biggest and strongest value a kid can have, starting from their baby years. To choke down on the entire topic just because “they’re just rocks and they have no place on wikiHow”, isn’t quite logic in itself and thus shunning wikiHow’s mission in the imagination category. I’m actually more concerned about how this sprung up than the actual issue itself. It feels like existing editors, whom have been editing on the site for quite some time are just now arising with the topic. If one feels strongly about an issue, then discuss it. But don’t bottle it up inside and then wait for an outsider’s lead on a more specific problem. It’s kind of striking to me and it feels awkward knowing that there are fellow editors whom decides to shun the entire aspect of wikiHow after so long, when no action was taken earlier… that’s all.
@Lewis-Collard
Your concern is very much appreciated as always. However, I respectfully disagree with you in that I don’t feel that @WritingEnthusiast14
is trolling. He/she is just raising a valid concern about the quality of articles. So thanks WE14And thanks so much for the concern about trolling, Lewis! @JackHerrick
Very good point; those discussions might be worth reading.
system
11
Sure, you can search for them using the search bar at the top right of the page. I found this relevant discussion by simply searching for “ethics.” http://forums.wikihow.com/discussion/comment/6033/
Correct me if I’m wrong but, I think that admins and other people on a higher status should be able to delete an article without question, but still be able to have the deletion notice. Also, if an article is truly a “joke” article, perhaps they could delete it on the spot, since the article is not an effective piece that will help others.
Um… no. That is… no. I was bare bottomed spanked when I was growing up as punishment. It is still done today. A person’s right to privacy can be exercised in lots of ways, but bare bottom spankings? That has NOTHING to do with this “privacy” that you’re imposing.
This is precisely what the discussion page is for. For discussion, not for complaining. We have had several articles that have been NFD’d, the discussion pages flooded with “delete this” messages, and probably would have succumbed to deletion, but they were saved and are now or were FAs or even just articles with thousands of views. Anons have every right to voice their opinion on the discussion page of the articles, just like everyone else.
Lojjik
15
Community consensus is a core value of this wiki, admins and the like are merely implementers of this value. No one person has the ability to decide the policy, only to use good judgment to interpret it. Anything that’s in a grey area really does need to be considered by multiple people.
system
16
Wow. History really DOES repeat itself. On the good side? it’s great to see the newer editors tackling the same issues the older editors have. On the irritating side? It can get wearisome to be dragged back through the same discussions repeatedly. Brainwave… could we summarize the most common discussions somewhere? Maybe in Date/subject/conclusion format? Give the newer editors a sense of history and why or why not specific editing behaviors happen? Your thoughts?
system
18
On one hand, sure, ethics should be considered. But on the other? Hardly anyone’s ethics agree with another’s. Which is to say, people would never agree. I mean, my ethics wouldn’t even agree with wearing a two-piece, yet others would disagree. Ethics are kinda like religion in that you can’t scientifically denote what’s right vs. what’s wrong.
system
19
As a huge article creator of alcoholic drinks on wikiHow, and having a share of drinks IRL as well, these are two different things. To put it in another way, this is like comparing apples to potatoes. “Recreational drugs” consist of many universally illegal substances (whether it’s national or country), such as meth, inhaling solvents (sniffing glue, nail polish, etc), Ex, hallucinogenic mushrooms, cocaine, etc. A glass of wine, a shot of tequila, or even a pint of beer is legal, as long as it’s consumed under the legal limit. Yes, drinking is harmful for you, but you’re not going die if you make a rum and coke that you read off wikiHow. To be quite honest, creating articles as such actually inspired me to go out and get a bottle of green creme de menthe and white creme de cacao to make grasshopper alcoholic articles - and by far, it’s now one of my favorite liqueur recipes.
@WritingEnthusiast14
Maybe you get the same answer because the dynamics of the argument and the reasoning behind it hasn’t changed. Ethics is a difficult issue, and one’s own sensibilities should in no way be held above another’s. Since you seem so interested in ethics and in free education through MOOCs, maybe you could enroll in an course such as Moralities of Everyday Life
to gain insight into some of the concepts that you are having a hard time integrating with your viewpoint. *edit the end of the last sentence (to reduce ambiguity)
