WikiLib talk:编辑守则

维库，知识与思想的自由文库

跳转到: 导航, 搜索

1个分类: Wikipedia official policy

如何讨论?

[编辑] 我把我们争论的过程写上了

我把我们争论的过程写上了，关于这次争议的结论部分，大家一起写吧。我希望能够讨论的深入一些。--Mountain(Talk)

[编辑] 围绕一塌糊涂BBS条目内容的争论要点

管理员Shizhao 12:24 2004年9月14日(UTC)发言：

我重写了一下。尽量从一个第三者的角度，把大事记中一部分内容与糊塗服務器年表部分重复，故此删除。
一部分内容重新改写入了简史部分，还有一些内容完全是流水账一样的纪录，
从中看不出于其他BBS有什么不同，因此删除。至于新增加的图像，我提到了删除列表中，
因为文章完全不需要这么多的图像来说明，图像只是一个点睛的作用，放太多的图像，
加上流水账一样的历史，更像是一个纪念馆，而不是百科全书的条目。

我觉得现在的文章还可以增加一些一塌糊涂BBS与其他BBS不同特色的叙述，以及其上的特色传统和文化。
还有影响力。这才是百科全书需要纪录的东西。

管理员Lorenzarius 13:01 2004年9月14日(UTC)发言：

所謂“大事記”，當中所記不少都並不是大事。
在1999年10月21日21時38分25秒收到了一位網友捐獻的32M内存，對這BBS本身可能很重要，
但我聽到後會說“那又怎樣？”。某年某月某日BBS的IP轉了，那對人類文明有什麼影响？
服務器換成AMD64，那有什麼特別？這些事對局中人也許有點意思，但局外人看來則是太不重要及瑣碎了。

管理员百无一用是书生 13:08 2004年9月14日 (UTC)发言：

作者应该以第三者的身份来书写，会比较客观。正如维基百科的守则，不要为自己写传记，哪怕你是一位名人。
而应该由其他人来写。我们应该以局外人的角度来写一塌糊涂BBS，只当自己从不知道一塌糊涂BBS，
甚至只当自己不是一个中国人。这也是NPOV的精神。

管理员Mountain 15:48 2004年9月14日(UTC)发言：

我在整理西学东渐和煎饼这些条目的时候，都作过很琐碎的工作。 琐碎资料如果你能归并起来那就有价值。
虽然可能对大多数人没有用，但这些琐碎的资料并没有违背事实，也没有违背中性原则。
只要有人愿意下功夫写，我就不会反对它的存在。

Shizhao所谓“我们应该以局外人的角度来写一塌糊涂BBS，只当自己从不知道一塌糊涂BBS，
甚至只当自己不是一个中国人。这也是NPOV的精神。”根本就不成立。条目当然要写的通俗易懂，
但关键还在于条目自身的知识性，不能以易懂来损害知识性本身。
比如有人写歌德尔不完备定理，你没有基础知识根本就看不懂。
我们写百科全书，难道还要给三岁小孩看不成，咋不说这也违背中性原则呢？

我和Shizhao意见的分歧根本和中性原则无关，只是Shizhao认为太琐碎要删，我认为保留也无碍。
我还认为大事记不是所有的内容都是琐碎的，最后一个月的纪事应当给予保留的。

今天有些失态，向大家道歉。因为本来自己心爱的BBS被关就憋了一股火，到这里来还被Shizhao改来改去，
就觉得莫名其妙的恼火。

泅水大象 05:49 2004年9月17日(UTC)发言：

其實我並不反對在維基這裡列出一條對某BBS的介紹，只是有兩點想法想要提出：

- 如果列出一個條目，寫了一堆什麼硬體如何改、IP如何設等無關痛癢的內容，
只是為了讓大家知道「有些話我們不能明說」，那麼對於一個一點都不認識這BBS站的百科全書讀者，
看到這條目後有什麼作用？如果所有的「局外人」都無法理解這條目要表達的意義，
只有所謂局內人的BBS站參與者才看得懂其意思的話，那就失去百科全書條目的意義，
而成為搞個人崇拜或悼念用的Fan Club，這對於維基百科來說是很無意義的。

- 「我还是不认为那些电脑资料会有损我们百科全书」這句話，我認為有待商量。
請問，在一個BBS站的條目介紹裡面，寫些網站幾月幾日換硬碟，幾月幾日改封面的資訊，
跟在一個偶像歌手的介紹條目裡面，寫一些這歌手最喜歡哪些食物，平常愛上哪裡逛街等資訊有什麼不同？
別跟我說什麼「一塌糊塗有很不一樣的意義，有14萬人知道它」之類冠冕堂皇的話，
因為第一點各位並沒有在條目裡面真的寫出它為什麼跟一般BBS站不一樣的地方，
而且這些硬體設定也不是這BBS與眾不同或值得注意的理由，
第二點知道偶像歌手如許慧欣等是何許人物的小歌迷們可能還不只14萬人，
所以如果要以一樣的標準看待這些事物的話，
那麼以後維基可能會變質成一個充斥著偶像崇拜、條目內容參差不齊的垃圾場。

所以，我擔心的問題是，一但開了惡例以後，未來我們會越來越沒立場要求別人對條目內容的涵蓋範圍作取捨，
而不是這條例本身的存在會不會造成維基什麼負擔。這點是非常值得大家深思一下，尤其是身為管理員的人，
更應以嚴格的標準看待自己，以免落個寬以律己、嚴以待人的口實，那就不好做事了！

其实争论的关键在于怎样的内容可以收入维基百科。

[编辑] 这个页面是干什么用的

这个页面是干什么用的

下面是英文的内容

[编辑] Perfection not required, or the joy of editing

It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged.

However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.

One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include.

As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text will be added; then, more refactoring, and the article will gradually evolve ever closer to the ultimate final draft.

During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize really substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending article to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The latter action should not be taken lightly, however.

[编辑] On editing styles

Generally, different people here have different editing "styles". Some people edit lightly and focus on contributing new content. Others prefer to improve and greatly expand existing "stubs" and articles. Some like to make relatively small copyediting (such as grammar, spelling, clarification, and syntax) changes, as well as adding new links and moving pages (so as to rename them without losing history and talk).

There's room for all of this on Wikipedia.

There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be:

Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages.
Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress.
Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort.
An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough.
There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia.

With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author is discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without warning.

So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include:

duplication
irrelevancy
patent nonsense
copyright violations
inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the information cannot be established

Alternatives include:

rephrasing while keeping the content
moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced

If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain wrong, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment that it is in fact wrong to inform later editors.

In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. Some consideration of Etiquette wouldn't hurt.