GuildWiki talk:You are valuable

I seriously question the merit of this "policy", which appears to have been enacted without discussion. Policy should govern user conduct, not user importance. It is also redundant with AGF. It is silly of me to point out something so obvious, but users are only as valuable as the value of their edits. There is no reason to value vandals and trolls, for example. gr3g 00:14, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Pfft. At least a Troll miniature can get me an easy 20k! ^^
 * But back on the point, I'm pretty much in agreement with the point you've made, but I think this policy was enacted for newly joined contributors to look at and think "Ah, I'm welcome here" instead of "Damn, I don't have a chance with those wiki-Gnomes here!". &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:23, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * We (both normal users and sysops) place great importance in recognising that we're all important. We're pretty non hieratical here and I think this policy is designed to reflect that. Everybody's comments are important and everybody can suggest and enact change here. We have very few protected pages and admins normally only exercise their "power" for maintenance duties. This isn't a heavily moderated community, we simply try to respect all other contributors and expect them to do the same, even when we have disagreements. That might seem overly idealistic but it basically seems to work, it's the reason why I've spent so much time here, I find it's an enjoyable community to be a part of, I hope you do to! ;) --Xasxas256 00:25, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * While that is fine as an essay, it is very questionable as a policy. The same sort of situation exists in most open content wikis. Wikipedia is perhaps the biggest exception, but it did start out this way. It can be policy to require contributors to assume good faith whenever there is a dispute, as that is a matter of conduct. It cannot be policy to make all contributors valuable, as this value emerges over a history of contributions. Don't you see the epistemological impossibility in declaring "thou shalt be important"? At the very least rename it to "Your contributions are welcome" or "Thanks for participating in the wiki" or something like that. It is essentially what the article says anyway. Cf. Wikipedia:Don't be shy gr3g 01:36, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't understand the problem. Users are valuable. That's what "your contribs are welcome" and "thanks for helping the wiki" mean, only it has a much more authoritative tone and less conversation-like. No, I don't see the problem with "Thou shalt be important". If a new user comes in, has no history of edits, creates a massive page of key information, all of which is an exact and precise presentation of the actual game, why should his/her history matter? Just because I've made 100+, 200+, or 500+ edits doesn't grant me anything special than if I made 1 edit so far. This wiki is growing and keeps growing. One small edit or one massive crusade, it's all helpful to us and the crusading user is just as important as the little guy who just checks sp&grammar. It is policy to treat all users equally, meaning that no one's voice here is bigger than anyone else's, even if they've used their voice 5000x more. That's what the policy is about; equality, fairness, and respect to all opinions, to judge them on an objective scale of usefulness and exactness. It is about user conduct; their conduct to each other. And yes vandals come around and trolls are annoying but should any of them turn on a new leaf and actually begin to contribute, we will not say "you were bad, we won't value your contributions". --Vortexsam 01:58, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, users are valuable, but not as a result of policy. I am not questioning the content of this page: merely its worth as a policy. gr3g 02:12, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be policy? --Vortexsam 13:27, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * He's got two points. First, you can't really have a policy saying "you are" something.  You are or you aren't.  A policy doesn't change it.  As he said, you can have a policy outlining rules of conduct.  Second, this article isn't even a policy (considering the definition of "policy") but instead is just encouragement to get people to contribute.  --Fyren 14:04, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I fail to see what the desired outcome of this discussion is. Do you want it renamed? Reworked? Un-policied? Removed entirely? I really don't see what the issue is. I always thought of this as a reminder to users that they are indeed as valuable as the next. I do not mind the fact it's a policy. It actually is a policy if you think about it. The fact all users here are to be seen just as valuable as sysops, admins, and regular users. In other words, users shouldn't assume greater power or trust from others compared to an anon just cause he/she's signed up. In the same way admins shouldn't be all "holier than thou" against regular users. It's a good policy and I think we should keep it as it is. &mdash; Galil  14:38, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * In a practical sense new users probably don't read policy pages anyway but I think this is an important concept for us. Essays are a Wikipedia thing, we don't have any here, the closest thing we have is rants on user pages. You're obviously a Wikipedia (or similar wiki) editor which is cool, but it's different here, a line like "as this value emerges over a history of contributions" is not what I believe. Everybody here, new users included, is considered valuable. I value a persons edit's on their merit, not how long they've been here, what other things they've edited. To Fyren, I don't have a problem with this policy being phrased "you are valuable". I'm trying to think of an analogy...Maybe it's like the leader of a political party handed out pamphlets to her members underlining that "you serve the people". This policy is a reminder that everyone has a voice and we'll listen, everyone is important. This is easily the most non-elitist online community I've been a part of and while I don't think that it would all fall by the wayside if we removed this policy, I do think this policy is an important celebration of this. --Xasxas256 19:09, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Is this a real policy that is followed? Beacuse quite honestly, I don't think it is. Admins seem to be excused regardless of how many rules they broke or how big of jerks they've been and new users are abused. An example of this is in wich Skuld and a fe other users humilated, confused and hurt a new user. In the end, they were all only slapped on the wrist beacuse Skuld was the main perpatrator, and he had has influence. I think this polivy is not really followed, and it wither should be followed or this article should be deleted.--TheDrifter 20:57, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Dum dum dum. Gr3g has a point, but I don't think it's necessary. You can always merge it with "don't be shy"? It can be an introductory article (on the main page)? For new editors and people without accounts? It's not quite a "policy". A policy would be "equality of importance" among voters, non dependant on experience/status, which is actually too democratic to be effective by whatever
 * As for the build, it wasn't the best of ideas, and there were 400 some untested builds... I suppose we should be less mean...? That what you're saying? I don't think it's an abuse of status. I was pretty agressive on my first day ^^, despite being a noob somewhat.--Silk Weaker
 * To answer "Is this policy for real?" I'd heartily say yes. For me the central point of this policy is the first sentences of the second paragraph -- basically that all of your contributions/suggestions/etc. are considered equally and given as much merit as any other person, regardless of time spent here. Reviewers of Special:Recent Changes should be considering this with every edit they review. Doesn't mean that your edit history won't be considered, but it does mean your day 1 edits and your day 501 edits will not be weighed due to your time spent here and should be weighed objectively.
 * On the other hand, that means a new user may need to accept extremely constructive criticism, seemingly harsh at times. They'll have to get over it. This policy does NOT specify anything else. While there are no policies here that I know of that state criticisms shouldn't be rude, it's been generally accepted that users shouldn't abuse other users. If you feel you're being abused, contact an admin for assistance; don't seek retaliation (two wrongs don't make a right). Lastly, the admins assign punishments for breaking rules (even the unstated kind) as they see fit. There's no policy for it so if they don't "teach a lesson" to an offending user, you can always talk to them about it (they all seem like reasonable people) and they'll have to deal with it again later.  --Zampani 12:51, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Bottom link
Anyone know where the link on the bottom is supposed to go to? I'm kinda clueless here. --Armond Warblade (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Policy... Or Guideline?
I've just realised that this isn't a guideline, its a policy. I've always thought that its just a guideline. You Are Valuable isn't really IMO somthing that needs to be a policy- In quite a lot of occasions, somone who actually knows what their talking abouts opinion will override that of somone who doesn't. &mdash;♥May♥ Wick♥ 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This policy is so cute. Zulu Inuoe 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This policy is in place exactly so people like you can't go stomping on others' opinions under the guise of "knowing what they're talking about." To be blunt. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually kinda figured that out about oh say an hour after I added that. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 10:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still adorable Zulu Inuoe 08:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a policy, not a puppy! :D RT | Talk  08:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting YAV
Originally, YAV was an attempt to ensure that each user did not feel deprecated on the basis of their status, time spent on the Wiki, or number of edits and that no one's contributions were disregarded on the basis of those criteria. Nowadays (from what I've observed) YAV citations get thrown around a lot, but not in a manner that reflects the spirit of the policy. As such, I've proposed a revised version which attempts to clarify the meaning of YAV. It can be found here. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)