In VeryVerily's continuum of conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, Leah is:
- a centrist activist, being neither predominantly eventualist nor immediatist:
- Reverting poor writing and unbalanced coverage is appropriate. Edits should only be reverted if they are unsalvageable or difficult to salvage.
- Articles should be kept in as good a condition as possible, but not to the extent of stymying their organic growth.
- The process of free, continuous editing will in the long run make articles better and better.
- a centrist educist, being opposed to both stasis and unreliability:
- Edits which add controversial material should be justified with discussion.
- Edits should not be reverted unless they are truly just troublesome.
- The burden of proof is on the Wikipedia community.
- a socialist, enjoying thoughtful discussions:
- Wikipedia should be made a welcoming place for newcomers who wish to participate.
- Actions should not be interpreted as rude unless disrespect is overt.
- Personal attacks should never be made and are to be deleted on sight.
- a communist, rejecting ownership without scarcity:
- There is no author for articles. Although one person may seed an article, each one is a community effort.
- Once an article text has been submitted, the submitter has no special privileges vis-a-vis future edits to that text.
- There is no "original intent" other than what is in the text and perhaps notes on the discussion page.
- a centrist correctionist, siding neither with those who propose extreme actions nor their targets:
- Malicious users should not be tolerated.
- Assume good faith.
- Every attempt should be made to reason with a disruptive editor.
- Factionalism is never constructive.
- All users, especially admins, should be most critical of their own actions.
- a diplomacist, seeking resolution to controversy without conflict:
- Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.
- Reverts are appropriate only for demonstrably bad-faith editing, such as making controversial changes without regard for objections.
- A responsible user should bring controversial issues to the attention of the community.
- an extreme neutralist, uninterested in promoting any point of view outside of discussions:
- The ability to write from a neutral point of view is a skill that is not difficult to acquire.
- NPOV editing does not conflict with other editing goals, and should never be compromised except for personal essays, fiction, and humor.
- Provided all the relevant facts are available, it is not difficult to tell whether writing is POV.
- a moderate inclusionist, feeling that most articles have some value:
- Articles may be deleted if they are of no value to anyone.
- Deficient pages can usually be improved with editing.
- With the exceptions of simple deductive reasoning or eduction to expand existing articles, original research has no place outside the user namespace.
- an moderate individualist, believing that each person has propriety over their beliefs and means of expression:
- A user page belongs solely to its user and is sacrosanct regardless of its content.
- Everyone is entitled to their own points of view and freedom from persecution for their views.
- When the Wikipedia community objects to a user's contributions, the ideal compromise is for the user to copy their editing to personal subpages, allowing each side to do what they wish with the content.
- Every user has a moral obligation to improve Wikipedia however they are able.
.png)
.png)
.png)