Well, the alternative is the wiki either picking sides (which could end up messy) or the dreaded Conversation In The Main Page and Edit Wars on damn near every page on the site.
EDIT: More elaboration on the "it could end up messy" bit; in theory, loosening the ROCEJ to address the controversies behind people and works is all well and good, except that people, being people, have different opinions on things. One person's "good reason for controversy" is another person's overblown drama for the sake of being offended at something, and when the two collide, it doesn't end well, especially since we don't hold our editors to the same standards as Wikipedia does so hearsay and rumors get intermixed just as easily with facts. Best case scenario, there will be a marked uptick in Conversation In The Main Page and Edit Wars as I said before. Worst-case scenario, the site splinters off into several different forks each with their ówn heavily radicalized politics and agenda.
In fact, I'd argue that due to "the increasing polarization of politics and the increasing number of politicized subjects," this rule is even more important than it was before, because it reminds people that this is absolutely not the place for flame wars and kneejerk debates about hot-button topics. There are plenty of sites (coughTwittercough) that cater to that need instead. Leave the drama and controversies to sites that are better suited for this, not a silly website mainly designed to have fun.
Edited by handlere Seen in the profile picture: the Gundam Flauros Rebake Full City, piloted by McGillis Itsuka, captain of the Turbines
Why not you should ban the rule and possibly remove stuff like locked pages and this rule of cautious editing judgement bullshit
@handlere: I mean, I understand this logic, but I feel like we have frankly taken an Olympic long jump off the slippery slope with it. To continue using the example I did, XXX Tentacion's domestic abuse allegations are not really a matter of opinion at all; it is immediately verifiable with a quick google or look at TOW that he beat the mother of his child within an inch of her life and nearly murdered her. It is not a CONTROVERSIAL issue, it is simply a very unpleasant one.
I understand why the Rule exists for issues that are a matter of genuine controversy, where they would, in fact, create a flame war between those on one side and those on another. However, we really should not be using it to simply sweep unpleasant topics under the rug. That is what I take issue with. Also, I sincerely wish someone would fix the punctuation bugs in discussion pages, because I hate not using contractions.
@Wicked Icon: Honestly, that's entirely fair, though I think you are making it way more than an issue than it actually is. Kevin Spacey's sexual harassment accusations are very prominently described in his own Creator page, for example, and that is also a very unpleasant issue that is not swept under the rug, though it is written in a non-accusatory tone and doesn't go into too much in-depth detail on how he's an awful person. Because TV Tropes is not the place for such things; we are not Wikipedia, we don't go in-depth into the various controversies and drama that creators are involved in, and usually saying that "oh, this creator got involved in this major scandal" is usually enough for the purpose of their page.
This is not "avoiding unpleasant topics because TV Tropes are too cowardly to talk about it," like you accuse the site of being, it's "not talking about the topic because it's outside of the scope of the wiki," especially considering the information detailing a person's crimes, alleged or not, is easily found elsewhere online, often on sites that have far more rigorous fact-checking and sourcing requirements than TV Tropes extremely laissez-faire attitude towards such things. The "main body" (the text before the tropes?) of most non-Administrivia tend to be rather laconic anyway, so bogging it down with a detailed breakdown of someone's sins is rather unelegant and just bogs the page down.
And on a more personal note, I feel like the XXX Tentacion issue is very personal to you, considering how you brought it up twice at this point. Maybe see if you can add it on his page as a more specific example to his domestic abuse allegations, or at least bring that up in his Discussions page first if you are not sue?
Edited by handlere Seen in the profile picture: the Gundam Flauros Rebake Full City, piloted by McGillis Itsuka, captain of the Turbines
I think we should ban this rule and we should make this wiki fine without it
Hide / Show Replies
How come? Give proper arguments, please.
Seen in the profile picture: the Gundam Flauros Rebake Full City, piloted by McGillis Itsuka, captain of the Turbines
Where is the boundary between this and Political Correctness Gone Mad?
All tropes ultimately come from Real Life. So Real Life should be troped as well. Hide / Show Replies
This is why that page was permalocked. People were citing anything and everything that even remotely conflicted with their views, to the point where the drama and foot-high flames were making Tumblr (hell, even The Wiki That Shall Not Be Named!) look positively civilized by comparison.
Edited by Theatre_Maven_3695
Why are facts considered to be troublesome? If a statement has proper sources for documentation why should it matter if it hurts the feelings of other users?
So recently, a conflict came up on The Flash over if a Dork Age entry should be deleted because fans of that era might be at-risk of starting a Flame War. Ultimately it was decided by mod-intervention to keep, but given that their was a conflict about the exact meaning and point of this, so I think we need a better explanation of things.
Firstly, how seriously is this to the Wiki? Is it actually a rule, one that should be enforced on any topic potentially fight-starting, or is it more a guideline, advising users not to be too antagonistic in their writings, lest other users change things later?
Secondly, taking it as a serious rule, that users have to edit anything potentially controversial posted, what's the correct procedure? Should it be subsequently deleted completely, or is re-wording to be less controversial and more neutral on the topic?
Thirdly, does YMMV effect this? Should audience reactions be subject to this kind of policing, or should they be left alone since every audience reaction is going to be disagreed on and thus be potential for a flame war?
Fourthly, and lastly, what warrants intervention? Does the entry have to be related to specific hot-button topics (IE, politics, feminism, religion, etc), or is anything remotely controversial subject?
Hide / Show Replies
It is not about being controversial, it is about the tone. Bitter, negatively couched, sniping entries are just annoying to read, more than anything else. It seems pretty clear, really.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. Mencken
Something random with weasels and birds
(Can't find out how to delete this post)
Edited by SneaselSawashiro A crazy guy who's researched voice actor resumes on the Japanese anime side :P Hide / Show Replies
This isn't the place for this. Take it to the Edit banned/Suspended thread.
Muramasa got.
Pittsburghmuggle
I used this to change a "the above point is stupid" to "the above point doesn't make sense", on The Purge, citing this. I know it was some other troper long ago who said it, but leaving the usage there can lead to tropers reading it and thinking it's okay.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
"Ninety-nine percent of the wiki are not looking for a fight." - Ironically, a good portion of that use the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment to pick fights on this very wiki. Can someone explain this to me?
Moreover, is it really necessary to sinkhole it in a good portion of these pages on this wiki? Is there any purpose on this besides getting editors to bite the bait and causing more problems?
Hide / Show Replies
I think it's become a bit of a meme here.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Is it me, or are some people only using this tag to excuse deleting things that conflict with their own views?
Hide / Show Replies
Possibly yes. Bring it up in Ask The Tropers if it happens.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I think some people sink hole this into articles if it even remotely conflicts with their views, yes.
[[VideoGame/PuyoPuyo Cosine!]]
Would it be accurate to say that this is not a wiki policy ("Do not post flame bait") as much as it is an observation ("If you post flame bait, someone will delete it")?
she her hers hOI!!! i'm tempe Hide / Show Replies
More accurately, if you post something that offends someone prone to pro-actively defending their own beliefs, irrespective of intent, it will be deleted. Then lower down it discourages actually doing this... as though things should just vanish on their own.
In short... it seems to be trying to discourage posting anything remotely unusual or off-the-beaten-track on the grounds that it will just get deleted anyway.
"Do what thou wilst shalt be the whole of the law." ~ Aleister Crowley
Why is considered over the line of ROCEJ to call Real Life people Jerkass Woobies?
Edited by Craver357 Hide / Show Replies
Because it would just lead to flame wars and natter talking about which jerkass is sympathetic and which one is not.
The Demon Slayer
This should not be cutlisted. Move it to Administrivia if you must, but outright cutting it is out of the question.
Hide / Show Replies
This probably should be in Administrivia.
Edited by ArcadesSabboth Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
Yeah, this isn't going to get cut. If someone wants to move it to Administrivia, I don't object, but the existing page needs to remain a redirect.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
If someone incorrectly pot holes or sink holes this page into an article, should it be removed? The reason why I'm asking is because it's already linked on the left sidebar, causing a bit of redundancy.
Hide / Show Replies
Seeing as there's still some potholing/sinkholing problems with this page, what should be done? Should it be moved to Administrivia?
The page should probably be in Administrivia/, with this as a redirect. However, I wouldn't remove the notices from articles — the sidebar link is easy to miss, and some pages require the extra reminder.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
As a GrammarNazi, I think it should be pointed out that the opening line should be "99% of the wiki IS not looking for a fight," not ARE. I'd fix this, but the page is locked, so...
Hide / Show Replies
You can ask it here.
I'd say the problem lies in the words "the wiki", rather than the "is"/"are" divide. The sentence refers to the users of this site, so rewording it to imply the site itself operates as a single, independent unit doesn't strike me as a great plan.
"Do what thou wilst shalt be the whole of the law." ~ Aleister Crowley
It's actually different in American and British English. In American English, you can say IS in cases where in British English, you would say ARE. Since both are used on the Wiki, either can do, as long as the rest of the article is written in the same grammar. I see no problem with "99% of the wiki are not looking for a fight." Please don't correct British English to American English or vice versa, unless the article has two types of grammar and/or spelling in it.
Edited by TheOneWhoTropes Keeper of The Celestial Flame
42
'Ninety-nine percent of the wiki are not looking for a fight.'
What's the one percent?
Hide / Show Replies
I think we should be able to put any example we consider good or fitting, after all this page is not a forum or a discuss page(except this specific one of course), so it won't be any trouble about a example.
So, as a cursory look at this discussion page might tell you, something is fucky here, and I really don't think the current approach is gonna hold out.
Essentially, the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, in theory, means "do not talk about anything controversial, regardless of direction." However, in practice, it means we have pages for people and works who are absolutely, utterly controversial, and often for good reason, where we just sort of leave the controversial thing as an Elephant in the Room. For example: the page for XXXTentacion mentions his domestic abuse allegations a grand total of once, on the YMMV subheader, and only to specifically say that we're not touching them. If you go anywhere else on the Internet, however, including The Other Wiki, it's a pretty goddamn major topic without a whole lot of available nuance; by all appearances, we're using the Rule there just because the subject matter is unpleasant and it would be easier to pretend he was a good person.
I feel like something's gotta give here, especially with the increasing polarization of politics and the increasing number of politicized subjects (I don't think anyone would have figured a Ghostbusters movie to be a political event a decade ago, and yet).
Edited by WickedIcon Hide / Show Replies