Muppet Wiki

Kermiteye Welcome to Muppet Wiki!


Please visit Special:Community to learn how you can collaborate with the editing community.

READ MORE

Muppet Wiki
Register
(new)
 
No edit summary
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
Finally, whatever is written and agreed on, I propose that all significant changes to that section of this article (pretty much anything other than grammar, punctuation, or other cosmetic alterations) be brought up on this talk page first. This would include both new additions as well as amending or removing anything which had previously been agreed upon. Of course we know not everyone, especially new users, will do this or know to do this. But by reaching a consensus, or as close as we can to one, and setting guidelines, we'll be better able to say "Hi, we decided to handle it in such and such way, but if you disagree or have a new source to cite, please mention it here." I also think that, unless it's obvious vandalism, that should be how we as admins handle any good faith edits from that point.
 
Finally, whatever is written and agreed on, I propose that all significant changes to that section of this article (pretty much anything other than grammar, punctuation, or other cosmetic alterations) be brought up on this talk page first. This would include both new additions as well as amending or removing anything which had previously been agreed upon. Of course we know not everyone, especially new users, will do this or know to do this. But by reaching a consensus, or as close as we can to one, and setting guidelines, we'll be better able to say "Hi, we decided to handle it in such and such way, but if you disagree or have a new source to cite, please mention it here." I also think that, unless it's obvious vandalism, that should be how we as admins handle any good faith edits from that point.
   
I know I typed a lot of text, so does that make sense? This is a sensitive issue, but we can avoid a lot of confusion and edit conflicts if we figure out exactly how much info we feel we as a Wiki need to provide within our text. I personally think in many cases, we could just say "See cited article for fuller details" but right now it's all based on how each user thinks it should be handled, and most of us, I know myself anyway, are probably afraid or reluctant to get into it at all and have left it alone. So it's definitely something we need to tackle as a community project.
+
I know I typed a lot of text, so does that make sense? This is a sensitive issue, but we can avoid a lot of confusion and edit conflicts if we figure out exactly how much info we feel we as a Wiki need to provide within our text (and by now, many of the questions and speculation brought up earlier in this thread have been answered; of course we cannot and should not at any time make any judgement or opinion as to the claims themselves, but by now there's enough on record for us to see exactly what claims were made, how many, and how three of them have been concluded to date). I personally think in many cases, we could just say "See cited article for fuller details" but right now it's all based on how each user thinks it should be handled, and most of us, I know myself anyway, are probably afraid or reluctant to get into it at all and have left it alone. So it's definitely something we need to tackle as a community project.

Latest revision as of 06:31, 11 July 2013

Sorry I didn't weigh in sooner (awkward day). I agree with the concern, and the problem arises from two reasons, one of which is precisely that we never *did* really decide how much detail to include. Our consensus was that it should be covered and, to avoid the tabloid-style text which kept being added, we did so by tactfully mentioning the fact that the accusations existed and that Kevin Clash had resigned as a result, and included a relevant quote or two. That was it.

The second problem was that some of us as admins have become especially wary of changes to that page, which is understandable since it was becoming a target for awhile, but the latest change was a good faith edit by an established user, not someone who signed up just to paste every single claim and rumor or to engage in speculation. And the dismissal of three of the four cases does count as new facts (that particular link is a little more slanted, in a "Kevin Clash wins" sense, than another I read, which pointed out that the case arising from the first accusation, the one which was briefly retracted, is still pending; I'll try to dig that up).

So basically, I think it's reached the point where we as a community need to decide how much detail to cover and where and how to integrate it into the article. How much should be fronted, how much goes at the bottom, how do we avoid this essentially coming off as equivalent to the paragraphs we have about a puppeteer's death if it comes at the end (like the conclusion of the narrative), or do we even care about that? I think we need to work out a draft, either here or on the talk page or even if we have to do a sandbox and encourage everyone to work on it, *but* unlike many of our sandboxes, make sure we keep an eye on and finish it. When enough people have weighed in or made changes, and agree to it, we'll amend the article. We'll also need to decide how to handle new developments such as this one (would we just mention that three of the cases were dismissed without going into why, but with an appropriate link?) Did we want to go into any specifics at all as to the claims or who was claiming. We have and should acknowledge that they were sexual, but should we bother with the bits about when it supposedly happened or where they met? That was a problem with many of the early changes, plus that was also a point when it was still news and we weren't really sure ourselves what was going on. I think one reason for the reversion of that edition was the fact that it mentioned names, ages, and so on, and so at first glance might strike (and evidently did) another editor as too much detail. But since we never really settled that issue, we need to get together as a community on that.

Finally, whatever is written and agreed on, I propose that all significant changes to that section of this article (pretty much anything other than grammar, punctuation, or other cosmetic alterations) be brought up on this talk page first. This would include both new additions as well as amending or removing anything which had previously been agreed upon. Of course we know not everyone, especially new users, will do this or know to do this. But by reaching a consensus, or as close as we can to one, and setting guidelines, we'll be better able to say "Hi, we decided to handle it in such and such way, but if you disagree or have a new source to cite, please mention it here." I also think that, unless it's obvious vandalism, that should be how we as admins handle any good faith edits from that point.

I know I typed a lot of text, so does that make sense? This is a sensitive issue, but we can avoid a lot of confusion and edit conflicts if we figure out exactly how much info we feel we as a Wiki need to provide within our text (and by now, many of the questions and speculation brought up earlier in this thread have been answered; of course we cannot and should not at any time make any judgement or opinion as to the claims themselves, but by now there's enough on record for us to see exactly what claims were made, how many, and how three of them have been concluded to date). I personally think in many cases, we could just say "See cited article for fuller details" but right now it's all based on how each user thinks it should be handled, and most of us, I know myself anyway, are probably afraid or reluctant to get into it at all and have left it alone. So it's definitely something we need to tackle as a community project.