GuildWiki talk:Differences between GuildWiki and Wikipedia

What about our sandbox Sandbox? =D Skuld &Dagger; 18:23, 31 October 2005 (EST)


 * Ahhh, there it is! I was looking all over for that sucker! --Rezyk 18:30, 31 October 2005 (EST)

I guess I'll get to work updating this page again, including redoing the stuff lost in the December rollback. Ugh, the server died right when this page started getting participation..!! --Rezyk 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
If you put something in here Rezyk, it means it has been approved as policy, not that it is suggested by you as policy. I am not sure where we said Gravewit is the ultimate authority on all things wiki, in fact, that is being debated in the Mission Statement talk page as we speak. Also, admins do not have the right to ban and threaten to ban as they wish. We should actually guard against abuse of power there by at least setting some guidelines.

My main point however is, whether you think Admins should have all powers or not, this is not GuildWiki policy, this is your perceived GuildWiki policy. Keep it here until approved. --Karlos 21:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I reject the notion that putting something in here means that it has been approved as policy, given the note at the top of the article. My edits were, in fact, exactly what is suggested by me to be currently existing policy/guidelines. --Rezyk 04:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not reinsert the deleted content without someone's approval, as mandated by GuildWiki tradition. I agree that it is best to wait on the debate before naming an ultimate authority.  For the content on banning, thank you for voicing your opinion about my perception, but explain your perception of what existing banning policy and powers are. --Rezyk 04:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How this would work
Here is my original vision for how this page could progress to a stable policy document: --Rezyk 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Everyone who is up to it would edit this page with the goal of getting a fair documentation of all our current policies/guidelines, keeping a disclaimer at the top saying that this is all just a working draft and is not yet considered approved policy.
 * 2) When we get a decent consensus that it has reached a stage of being fairly complete and accurate, we replace the disclaimer with some statement that these policies and guidelines are official and have reached wide acceptance.
 * 3) After that point, only changes that reflect consensus are allowed.


 * I disagree. I think this page should only be for approved/established/accepted policies. We can define the criteria for that here even. As for proposals, simply creat a "/Draft" page and place the suggested drafts there. Just like Guildwiki:Ledger is the Ledger, not a proposed ledger and Style and Formatting is for Style and formatting.. This should be for approved Policies, not "possible" or "suggested" ones. --Karlos 06:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Article/Policy Status?
Is this policy still being developed? It seems to have languished in a stub state for quite some time. Although, even if it were completed, I would recommend it be merged into We are not Wikipedia, which seems to grab the same concepts, but does not attempt to spell out the differences like this one attempts. Plus GW:NOT has a catchier name, easier to remember for links. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:03, 9 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd prefer to see this Merged with GW:NOT, it makes much more sense... firstly we need this article to be completed then it can be merged --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|Here me ROOOARRR!!! (Talk Page)]] 04:43, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought this article is NOT a policy article, but merely an article explaining the difference. GW:NOT is a policy, this is an essay. - 18:30, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sooo... tell me why this in the policies section, when it is not an policy? --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 08:57, 6 July 2006 (CDT)