Knowledge (XXG) talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment

1675:, and isn't written in a way that can be applied as a guideline anyhow. Asking "the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content" is just public relations spin, not actionable guidance, since no one but an imaginary magic power could know what anyone is "paying particular attention to", and paying attention doesn't imply actually doing anything with a result outside one's own head. A deeper problem is that there is no topic and no content that is not "potentially controversial" to someone, somewhere. There are people who espouse the belief that the world is flat, that being blind or deaf is no form of disability, that babies are born evil and doomed to eternal suffering sould they die without rituals first being performed on them, etc., etc. It is completely impossible to account for and work around all possible prejudices and nonsense, and it isn't an encyclopedia's job to aid and abet disinformation but to dispel it. — 1197:

foundation resolution being accepted as a guideline or not. I think as a community there is a good case for us to be generally accepting of the guidance from the hub of the project, they are the people with a deep understanding of issues restricting growth, and the long term stability of the project. Taking a position of, reject, they will use it to remove a couple of pics here and there is imo a short term tunnel vision view. We are not an activist, free speech, publish and be damned site, we are educationally biased. Not censored as you know does not interpret as you can add anything you can find in a wikipedia reliable source, we are already requested to use responsible editorial control. This is not some fearful statement to support censorship, it's just a clarification of foundation guidance in relation to sensitive and contentious content.

1222:. In general, there are some good arguments here against adopting this as a guideline, and the best argument against is 'lack of clarity' -- it is unclear what exactly parts of the Board's statement mean, and it is unclear that it was intended to apply to the English (or any other) Knowledge (XXG). With regard to the specific elephant in the room (images of Muhammad), while I would prefer that a reasonable spectrum of representations of Muhammad remain in the article and given that this is a non-legal issue, a consensus decision by en-Wikipedians that most or all of the images must go is preferable in the long run to any imposed decision from the WMF board, even one that I would ordinarily agree with. -- 1511:, I recognize that Knowledge (XXG) is probably pushed from all kind of lobbyists to finally do something against the "offensive" images, but that doesn't at all mean we have to accept this WMF guideline here. In fact, this guideline wasn't even developed by the local consensus, but by the Wikimedia Foundation, and in general we shouldn't accept any such guideline. But even if this guideline was, I had to reject it, because adopting this guideline makes us even more open for lobbyism and manipulation from outside, thus going against the core principle of a 1460:(1) Contentious phrase, (2) synonym for "plz avoid offending anyone", a very bad path to head down and one which some will try to push if allowed, (3) sometimes consensus may feel that content and layout which is not "least astonishing" is more appropriate and I rate consensus and NPOV and "being an encyclopedia" over this, and in any case (4) this proposal isn't a proposal or a guideline, it doesn't specify or urge any action, it just summarizes a deliberation. 741:

content so that only content expected by a user will appear on a page. Since users are presumably ignorant about the subject of a page before they read and learn, such a policy is an oxymoron. We cannot accept a policy that essentialy says a page should only contain information which a reader expects. The only way to deal with controversial content is to explain the controversy in detail. It cannot be accepted that such content should be suppressed.

1387:) or not (evidence: all the discussions and requests for clarification about it), nor do people agree about what it means, adopting this as a guideline or similar is clearly not going to help promote agreement at all. While hopefully not as extreme, I am seeing parallels with the userbox wars where the (now repealed) CSD criterion for "divisive and inflammatory templates" caused more divisiveness than the problem it attempted to solve. 1561:? I'm not aware of people using photographs of sex toys to illustrate articles about electricity, nor photos of scantily clad pornstars in the articles about their home town or highschool. My reading of this proposed guideline is that it is intended to censor contentious articles, not to make sure that you only see porn images if you click on a link that one would reasonably expect might lead to a porn image. 1639:- for example if an actress in a children's program subsequently appeared in adult films then it seems sensible to me that her article be organised so that kids would be clear which links went to other kids movies she'd appeared in and which went to "adult" films. Not sure how to word such a guideline, and maybe better to expand gratuitous than amend this proposal. But that's what I interpret POLA as being. 834:

and earlier advises against reading tea-leaves - which we seem to be doing again in parsing exactly what these two have "clarified". So we're left with an unsatisfactory situaton, which I suggest either the Board resolve, or we dismiss pending definitive clarification. I'd be happy to modify policy to comply with a binding resolution of the WMF Board - if I knew what the heck it was.

1470:

Editors must determine whether controversial material has a realistic educational use, and must apply the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement." The less trivial part is finding the exact principle that the board urges us to implement. The question on the binding status of the supporting documents detailing that (WG report, referendum FAQ) remains open.

1515:. Even though the latter isn't even perfectly implemented, we shouldn't make it any worse. As of now, the guideline as proposed has only a minority support locally, and in fact, within due time at least, it will always appear—even if it might not be the case—as if pushed from outside. BTW, I'd just be curious which sort of lobbyists want to see this guideline applied here. -- 793:

It is the "now therefore"s that I have a problem with, I don't read any of those as being a call to action on the part of en:wiki. One of the "therefore"s is also about the image filter (mentioned on this page at present), can't lay my hands on the link, but somewhere on Meta I just read the CEO saying the image filter is stalled because de:wiki sorta threatened to quit

1937: 2335: 1421:. Actually, I support a fair bit of the ideas contained within it, but the image hiding feature is problematic. As I have described in greater detail elsewhere, such a feature will, in my opinion, unavoidability lead to content bias around (to pick an example) sexual orientation, and is as a result is at odds with WP:NPOV. -- 1557:

this site for various terms related to erotica I would be astonished if we had written such articles as if this was intended for an audience of 7 year olds. Perhaps we need a guideline that covered issues such as the wording of links, or are we already following commonsense and if so would this be unnecessary

2421:

Hi, I have been nudged to close this. I was wrong to open it, it was too soon - the whole issue needs discussion and development. To paraphrase AnthonyCole, - Almost every respondent to this RfC expressed confusion and misunderstanding about fundamental aspects of the resolution: whether it applies

1638:

Thanks, hadn't seen that and it does cover part of my point. But there is the issue of links. Most of the time it will be obvious from the name of the link, but it seems sensible to me that if you link from a noncontentious article to a contentious one there should be something in the link that hints

1591:

use common sense in our editorial decisions pretty darn well. Maybe we can agree as a community what practices are commonly accepted, and how some edge cases have been successfully dealt with? That could form an actual guideline, though I'll note from my own experience that developing a new guideline

1556:

I'm strongly in favour of the Principle Of Least Astonishment (POLA), but this isn't what I think of as POLA. As far as I'm concerned POLA already applies. If I click on someone's userpage I don't expect to see a porn collection, especially if they ever edit outside of that topic. Equally if I search

990:

Ultimately - no, it doesn't. The Foundation actually controls resources etc. You can argue about whether this is moral, legitimate etc or not, but that is the way it is. Somewhere or other (can't be bothered to find it) there is an essay describing your 'rights' on wikipedia: you have two - the right

2732:

The Wikimedia Foundation has urged us to take into account the "Principle of Least Astonishment". They have used this term in a fashion unrelated to the traditional definitions of the phrase. Further, they have articulated this principle in such a way as to contradict long-standing English Knowledge

2356:

The text right below the subsection name shows complete lack of understanding of the matter discussed. While Wikipedians have to abide the resolutions of WMF, the text of guidelines is a matter of discussion. Right now this guideline is so completely improper worded, that supporting it constitutes a

2205:

Disagree strongly. Unless and until it is mandatory on community websites (as NPOV is) it has no weight here beyond that which the community wishes to give it. Either the community here endorses it (in which case "WMF guideline" is secondary) or the community here doesn't. In the latter case if this

792:

of the Resolution as well. Note too that I intend no disrespect to the two board members who commented later, though I suppose I am dissing the entire board for bad/unclear writing. I'm fine with the general principles, what I would call the "whereas"es of the resolution (the stuff in the top half).

558:

If this RFC fails there WILL be appropriate mention made of the fact on that page, I presume. This "policy resolution" is a fraudulent and undemocratic backdoor attempt to subvert Knowledge (XXG)'s decision-making process and I'll be god damned if I'm gonna watch a fanatic minority subvert democracy

2146:

I don't know. It depends how adamantly the WMF intends to enforce their ToU and Resolution(s). Good faith criticism of their decisions is explicitly excluded as grounds for blocking/banning (see point 10 in the proposed ToU), however refusal to go along isn't. So, I guess we shall live and see what

1063:

in principle, though Anthony and others are right that there is still work to be done. However, that work may progress more swiftly if it is clear that it will be a guideline. "Least surprise" should be defined through reliable sources – our presentation of a topic should be broadly consistent with

762:

We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the

740:

I am unclear whether the proposal relates to style of pages or content. As explained in the page link about POLA, examples given there are about practical page behaviour. I do not oppose a principle that wiki pages should behave in a 'natural' way. However, we seem to be talking about censorship of

704:

the principle of least astonishment. Yeah fine, so do we. The way it's being used (distorted?) on en:wiki though, will inevitably lead to every religious group in the world, or their proxies, getting a shot at limiting our content by simply being astonished, astonished!, that we don't present their

518:

I think it was more that the person who added it to the other page without prior discussion, and potential or actual involvement in an Arbcom case. We should take the board's resolution, and craft policy/guideline wording through discussion and consensus and add it to the appropriate page. We don't

239:

doesn't go against WP:Not censored at all, not unless you misinterpret "not censored" - not censored is not an allowance to publish anything at all on en wikipedia. Wiki en is a responsible educational website and not the cutting edge of vocal on line freedom. This is a guideline clarification from

2652:

To that end, categorization, images (including sexual images) and claims which disparage groups, religions or any other category of persons should be extremely carefully weighed and avoided if any dispute exists, unless the educational value of the article as a whole is 'significantly' improved by

1586:

Although it could be seen as somewhat wp:creepy, one thing that occurred to me would be to start over with a ground-up proposed guideline that just seeks to describe the current practice on the English Knowledge (XXG) project, with zero reference to what the Foundation may or may not be saying. To

1435:

in this form. I agree with most of the resolution, including the principle of least astonishment and the need for rigorous active curation of content, but I do not think that an image hiding feature is a good answer to the problem of content disagreements. We forbid content forks because we expect

1163:

I think thats the point. The foundation only "urges" the community to implement. What support anything they "urge" has amongst the community is what is being questioned in this RFC. Ask yourself, if the foundation wants the project to move in a certain direction, or to consider certain issues with

833:

And I certainly respect the individual opinions of those editors, and they should have no trouble at all in convincing the Board to issue a clarification, speaking as a whole. After all, that's the entire purpose of a board. Note how Jimbo takes care to be "speaking for myself" in your link above,

2761:

First of all, ArbCom essentially has endorsed some sense of POLA as applying in the current proposed decisionon a case. The first version was rjected, but that does not mean the principle per the WMF ceases to exist - thus an attempt to find wording which covers their primary concerns, but which

2455:

I'm not really of the opinion that the RFC was premature. In this form, the content was rejected as a guideline. If someone wants to work on new content and try to get a consensus to build a guideline around it, they should feel free to go ahead. There's nothing about closing this RFC as "oppose"

1492:

Yes, it can be rewritten that way but it hasn't. It's hard to comment on a proposal that's not yet a proposal. However even if written as a proposal my other concerns stand. Fundamentally I'm not okay with the core of it, "must apply..." I just don't agree with "must", or that it's clear-cut, for

695:

board members claiming retroactively that it applies to all "projects", when Projects has a whole different meaning in the resolution. Those opinions have no force or effect, for all we know they were the hotheads in the room and the rest of the Board specifically worded it the way they did for a

1759:

Can you explain to us what are the universally shared religious values? And how would we apply this principle for instance to the images of Muhammad given that the same source says "such studies have serious limitations when it comes to the identification of universal principles because codes of

1469:

Rewriting it in the imperative is the trivial part, e.g. "In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on controversial content, editors must pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature.

935:

appears from Wikimedia Foundation implementing new "policy" without discussion. That's what's going on here. It is undemocratic and it must be fought tooth and nail. We don't need "benevolent sovereigns" ad-libbing policy to address the concerns of factions, we need constitutional and democratic

595:

A very general idea of POLA is fine, and if it specifically applied to Commons, that would be perfectly fine. But the way it is worded here and the way it is abused shows that it should not be policy, especially since it is so poorly defined, even by the Foundation. Specifically, worrying about

1033:

be able to arrange some kind of Knowledge (XXG) substitute spread out among mirror sites and free Wikis, but the WMF can't do much without us. Of course, the reality is, if we fight each other that hard, we all lose pretty badly. But the WMF 'urging' people is not exactly a war to the knife.

1196:

I personally have never posted a single comment about the pictures of Muhammad and I have no personal position about that issue. I have read a couple of the discussions and imo a good intellectual case has been made to reduce the number of pictures in that article. That is with or without any

1314:

As per the German wikipedia's rejection of the WMF proposal. That is to say that I don't agree that what has been proposed by WMF on this isn't, in fact, a form of censorship, and one that stands contrary to many of the older principles and policies that make this project work. I think the

2293:

articles with pictures of topless women holding the tools (and looking at the walls of any automotive shop, it's clear that only topless women actually use these tools), I already know I'm going to get banned, resolution or not. What are you going to do, double ban me?

991:

to fork (and set up your own alternative), and the right to leave. A little less hyperbole about 'democracy', and a little more attention to the fact that we are writing an online encyclopaedia rather than constructing a new-model utopia might actually help here...

1741:. Current psychological research results "confirms that there are universal ethical principles based on shared human values across cultures". (IAAP Handbook of Applied Psychology 2011) It is easy, therefore, to imagine that the principle of least astonishment is 541:

The POLA shortcut is not my major focus here. My primary issue is that this and other foundation resolutions resolves as a minimum at a level of WP:Guideline - if the community objects to the foundations resolutions then that will need resolving moving forward,

323:

as written. A guideline can't contradict a policy and there isn't enough detail here for this statement to supplement that policy. In the end, this is a statement of WMF opinion, not a guideline for implementing that opinion by the Knowledge (XXG) Community.

2737:. As a result, the English Knowledge (XXG) community has rejected this urging. This rejection does not in any way lessen existing English Knowledge (XXG) policies that require us to examine relevance of content and imagery and to avoid attacking any groups. 2026:

Is this resolution mandatory? I would really appreciate an explicit statement from the Board on that point, too. Timidity on that point will just drag out this discussion into next year. Does anybody think we should put these two questions to the board now?

705:

own world-view. This was an ill-thought resolution if it was intended as some sort of blanket vaguely-worded imprecation for everyone to scurry around and DO SOMETHING. We should just kick it back upstairs, and we can get on with the encyclopedia-building.

2422:

to this project, whether it's optional, the meaning of terms, etc, etc. It is much too early for this RfC. Running it now, with this level of ignorance and uncertainty surrounding it is poisoning any possibility of a thoughtful and informed result.

758:

Too early. The background to the resolution is scattered over disparate pages; the meaning of "least astonishment" is still being debated; though I trust Jimbo and Ting Chen to honestly represent their understanding of the meaning of the ambiguous

2147:

happens after the new ToU is in place. ¶ However, WhatamIdoing has argued that this whole discussion is going to be null and void because anyone continuing to edit under the new ToU is implicitly giving legal assent to follow all WMF resolutions.

931:- In my opinion this is a Muhammed-images-related proposal, an attempt to subvert Knowledge (XXG)'s normal decision-making process with executive edict: (1) Aggrieved minority screams for redress on Talk:Jimbo Wales; (2) Jimbo Wales concurs; (3) 763:

community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

385:

If it continues to exist, it shouldn't be located at WP:POLA. The shortcut should be freed up by moving this page to a full title. Foundation resolutions, not supported by the Knowledge (XXG) Community, should be over on meta, not here anyway.

722:

per Franamax. Who is it we are trying not to astonish? Experts in the field? Believers in a given faith? North Americans? English speakers? It's too vague to be guideline or policy and I worry it will be used to censor our coverage.

773:

Franamax is questioning the intentions of the entire board. There's no rush to insert this into policy; the resolution's been out there since May and clarification of its meaning and discussion about its policy implications are ongoing.

2254:

We did have one example in the WP:NOT discussion when someone tried to prevent a fact (not image) from being included in the lead of an article arguing that it violated the principle of least astonishment. Search for "mass murder" in

696:

good reason. If the Board really meant to "urge" everyone everywhere, they can bloody well get back together and write that out plainly, or resign and let us elect other people to do it. They can also discuss why Jimbo is saying that

39: 2020:

Some are still questioning whether the May 2011 resolution applies to this project. I have no doubt, given that two signatories have said as much. But it would be helpful to hear it from the Board as a whole, to put that doubt to

2776:"...essentially has endorsed some sense ..." has enough disclaimers to illustrate my point. We have explicit policies in this area that work well enough, and the WMF resolution doesn't have enough meat or force to add any value.— 667:

If they were trying to pass something in relation to editors and such, that would be fine. But we cannot idly stand by and allow the Foundation to make policy about content, policy which is detrimental to the encyclopedia.

1724:

has done a reasonable job of keeping "controversy" reasonably confined, specifically because it does not provide for mechanisms under which the makers of "controversy" can demand new categories or technical features. -

1091:

in reliable sources. How to map that to social controversies where various groups have different expectations is not something that can be easily inferred. Perhaps you know of more research or care to propose a wording?

426:

already that would be a contender for the four-letter abbreviation. Now, I've moved this page to what I assume you meant for a full title for this proposed guideline. Now, why do we need a page that restates the WMF's

2308:

This seems like a rather poor attempt at trolling the issue. The resolution was to encourage the community to apply the principle of least astonishment, not to require editors to follow any particular policy.

1857:

this document has to explain the relation of the principle of least astonishment to the editing practices on Knowledge (XXG). And only then it can actually be discussed as guideline to be accepted or rejected.

1357:

was solved via discussion there at the talk page, the Mihammad kerfuffle is winding down. We don't need yet another dumb wiki-acronym to throw at each other when deciding content usage in the project.

1782:

Respondents clearly display confusion about the resolution's meaning, whether it addresses this project and whether we're obliged to follow it. Many note that it appears to contradict existing policy.

2573:

Knee jerk opposition a bit addressed then. "Taking a position of, reject, they will use it to remove a couple of pics here and there is imo a short term tunnel vision view." 1 Jan 2011, Youreallycan

976:

Ummm, Knowledge (XXG) works on consensus decision-making among the community, not arbitrary fiat received from San Francisco or London because somebody in the office has an inkling to change things.

2206:

concept doesn't have mandatory force or community support here, then tagging a page on it as a "WMF guideline" is irrelevant or confusing, and could imply an authoritative standing it doesn't have.

1029:, WMF owns servers, collects donations, and many other things; nonetheless, the main asset of the site is the content, which by design is free, and the editors produce that. In theory, the editors 151:

is a reflection of the foundations position. This RFC is in regard to the simple question of, shall we accept the foundations recommendation in regards to this resolution and include it as having

1336:, which actually has served us pretty well. Besides, "astonishment" is subjective. And bullet point 6 in the WMF resolution contains wording—"when first viewing the image"—that's pretty scary. 889:. There's nothing here to implement. "Follow the principle of least astonishment" is the only thing that can be picked out of the statement as potentially implementable, but the problem is, 408:

It exists - there is no competition for this shortcut - (if there is then post it) - also - the foundations resolutions can be posted here - full "community support" is not a requirement.

519:

need a separate page full of vague wording that duplicates the purposes and aims of another guideline page. (You did ask me what else could use the POLA shortcut, and I gave you one.)

108: 24: 2256: 1790:

and the Foundation's resolution needs a community discussion in its own right; preceded by discussion amongst ourselves and with the Board, to clarify the meanings of terms.

2245:, it's so vague and subjective as to become completely bereft of meaning, and at worst it's just a vague catch-all designed to blanket anything someone doesn't like. — 262:

with regard to editorial mental focus. If I want to think about pizza and beer or the plight of homeless Haitians while I'm editing, that's my business, not WMF's. —

74: 852:

seems to have special powers on Knowledge (XXG), so he might not need the full board. However, whether his powers still include policy making by fiat or not

1111:, mainly per Franamax -- it's not a coherent idea, it hasn't been adopted via a legitimate process, and it is inconsistent with more important principles. 481: 423: 1008:. However, don't ignore that the WMF backed down before when confronted with overwhelming community consensus, like with the image filter on the de.wiki: 2647:

The Principle of Least Astonishment, simply stated, is that material used in articles should be chosen to maximize the educational value of the article.

1610:. However it doesn't go as far the WMF resolution, e.g. it does not talk about "potentially controversial material", particularly religious material. 901:

not to have one or more images of a genital getting "tortured". "Astonishment" is a code word for "implement your own prejudices", perhaps with the

1854:

this guideline wasn't even developed by the local consensus, but by the Wikimedia Foundation, and in general we shouldn't accept any such guideline.

80: 1005: 2350: 1897: 922:(to be fair, it has more meaning in the context of Commons categorization; this whole missive seems largely if not entirely addressed at Commons) 2658:

To "astonish" any such group by any use of such categorization, image, or claim, without such strong basis and consensus therefor, is improper.

1404:. I have no problem with the resolution, but this proposed guideline as currently worded is simply too vague and incoherent to be of any use. -- 1291: 1532:: this document doesn't instruct, it informs of the decision. In order to become a guideline this document has to explain the relation of the 500:. Such as that is the reason for this RFC. Let the community reply to the foundation - if the community rejects the foundations good faith 2215:

NPOV is not a mandatory policy: an emphatic statement by the god-king is not the same as a formal resolution by the Board of Trustees.

2110:

I was thinking of emailing Sue Gardner and asking her to pass it up to the Board for consideration at their next scheduled meeting. --

1786:

of these points need to be made very clear before this can be profitably put before an RfC. Probably, the perceived conflict between

1689: 1064:

how the most reputable mainstream, authoritative sources (including significant minority viewpoints) present the same topic, etc. --

691:

The specific "urge the community" wording copied here is from a paragraph which addresses the Commons community. Then there are two

276: 219:, which is an actual policy, not a guideline. No guideline should ever be written that would go against a Knowledge (XXG) policy.-- 140: 20: 1993: 811:

The point in question was clarified by both Jimbo and Ting Chen, in the former case at Anthonyhcole's request a few days ago. See

428: 1536:

to the editing practices on Knowledge (XXG). And only then it can actually be discussed as guideline to be accepted or rejected.

69: 1533: 485: 2557:

that they interpret POLA as the inclusion of images too. A bit different than how it's currently worded, but I like the idea.

489: 432: 2002: 1968: 1076: 789: 117: 1720:. "Controversy" is in the eye of the beholder. "Controversy" can be generated by small groups of determined noisemakers. 870:- Ambiguous, vague, poorly worded, potentially in conflict with existing policy, this is in no respect ready for primetime. 60: 1440:

consensus version. Image hiding would implement content forking (a version with or without images) at the technical level.

1353:- It just boils down to "hey, it looks like we accomplished something" jargon by the WMF. The issue with nekkid chicks at 134:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2809: 2785: 2771: 2755: 2739: 2711: 2695: 2680: 2620: 2603: 2589: 2568: 2548: 2531: 2511:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2501: 2483: 2465: 2446: 2408: 2394: 2373: 2346: 2327: 2318: 2303: 2282: 2268: 2249: 2228: 2210: 2200: 2174: 2158: 2141: 2119: 2101: 2050: 2036: 2007: 1988: 1949: 1920: 1868: 1769: 1754: 1733: 1712: 1695: 1655: 1619: 1601: 1577: 1548: 1524: 1520: 1497: 1479: 1464: 1452: 1427: 1413: 1396: 1367: 1345: 1324: 1304: 1285: 1266: 1248: 1231: 1206: 1191: 1173: 1154: 1137: 1120: 1101: 1082: 1043: 1020: 1000: 985: 971: 945: 918: 879: 843: 828: 806: 783: 750: 732: 714: 679: 658: 626: 607: 551: 536: 513: 452: 417: 403: 380: 363: 341: 315: 282: 249: 227: 205: 186: 164: 122: 2728: 1881: 371:

remains here as a foundation resolution whether or not this en wikipedia rfc supports its inclusion as a WP:Guideline.

2385: 1646: 1568: 258:

It's not a "guideline" for anything, it's simply a "p.-c." request to "pay particular attention to" something, i.e. a

1383:. As it's really not clear whether this contradicts either or both of these (or indeed whether it is compatible with 306:- now it is report from a WMF meeting "The Wikimedia Foundation something something something". General idea is good 2691: 1116: 1745:

vague or imprecise as the editors above are claiming, but is in fact easily defined and measured across cultures.

2798: 1009: 1812:

The specific "urge the community" wording copied here is from a paragraph which addresses the Commons community.

216: 2342: 1516: 1787: 1721: 1376: 959: 797:

if the proposed implementation went through. This is one of those things where it all needs to be done right.

596:"least astonishment" and "offense" constrains editors' abilities to write a quality educational encyclopedia. 1876:

If you reject the Resolution, you are in violation of WMF's (future) Terms of Use, and thus you may be banned

1606:

WereSpielChequers & Franamax, we already have a guideline for what you describe since October 2011, see

1227: 905:, unspecified, that some people's prejudices will be ascendant over others. But that still doesn't explain 875: 1607: 2579: 2563: 2543: 2436: 2380: 2224: 2169: 2136: 2115: 2032: 1864: 1641: 1563: 1202: 1169: 996: 967: 779: 674: 649:

do is word it as simply as possible, and trust the WMF does not impose something else on us in its stead.

602: 547: 509: 413: 376: 245: 201: 182: 160: 2358: 2072:

be mandatory" and there is no information that this thing is mandatory - I think that we may tag it with

955: 493: 174: 152: 50: 2687: 2097: 1916: 1683: 1375:. Everything relevant to what everybody here states/implies/assumes this is about is already covered by 1244: 1112: 898: 622: 311: 270: 1333: 65: 2805: 2616: 2527: 2479: 2264: 2154: 2046: 1984: 1945: 1893: 1765: 1615: 1475: 1425: 1341: 1300: 1262: 1097: 1016: 909:

that is so. It's a useless guideline; we would each interpret it to mean whatever we think already.

824: 527: 443: 394: 354: 332: 2664: 1750: 1392: 1281: 746: 225: 144: 2241:

The primary problem is that "least astonishment" is so ill-defined as to be entirely vacuous. At

346:

As a second point, this proposal should be moved to a different location to free up the shortcut.

2554: 2497: 2404: 2368: 2299: 2278: 2059: 2000: 1976: 1966: 1597: 1543: 1223: 1150: 1071: 871: 839: 802: 710: 115: 1760:

ethics from the West are more prevalent and hence tend to be overrepresented in these studies"?

1558: 849: 818: 613: 196:

POLA seems common sense to me - but can we actually turn down the foundations 'urging' anyway?

2767: 2707: 2676: 2599: 2584: 2574: 2558: 2538: 2441: 2431: 2314: 2220: 2196: 2164: 2131: 2111: 2086: 2028: 1885: 1860: 1239:

I think this needs a rewrite. If its given one I'll support, but not in its current state. --

1198: 1187: 1165: 992: 981: 963: 941: 775: 669: 654: 597: 564: 543: 505: 409: 372: 241: 197: 178: 156: 46: 1809:

It is clear that this is dictum from the WMF, and it is not up to us to be ostriches about it

1703:

I'm not opposed to something like this in principle, but the wording as-is is far too vague.

1512: 1384: 1290:

There's an interesting background to that. The Harries report recommended such an exclusion.

1254: 368: 236: 148: 2093: 1912: 1730: 1708: 1678: 1409: 1293:

But the WMF Controversial Content Working Group specifically dismissed that recommendation.

1240: 618: 307: 265: 2734: 2163:

Well, clearly then, the answer is that we have to go on strike to get the ToU repealed. :)

1959: 1672: 1380: 2801: 2612: 2523: 2475: 2260: 2150: 2042: 1980: 1941: 1889: 1761: 1611: 1471: 1422: 1337: 1320: 1296: 1258: 1093: 1012: 820: 728: 522: 438: 389: 349: 327: 240:

the foundation that adds clarity to WP:Not censored, rather than overrides that WP:Policy

1955: 2076: 1746: 1443: 1388: 1363: 1277: 1145:

If this is being imposed by the WMF, I question whether this RFC is even valid at all.

1088: 742: 298: 220: 2426:

As I opened it I will wait for any objections to my closing it. I want to close it as

1164:

greater sensitivity, how much weight do you, or the community apply to that guidance?

893:

is least astonishing? I'm an inclusionist and I say that it would be astonishing for

698:"the other projects already generally do a very good job of dealing with these issues" 2781: 2751: 2493: 2461: 2456:

that precludes attempting to gain consensus for a different guideline in the future.—

2430:- right now it's basically an essay, so no objection to anyone marking it as such. 2400: 2364: 2295: 2290: 2274: 1997: 1963: 1593: 1539: 1146: 1133: 1066: 1039: 914: 835: 798: 706: 112: 2361:, so I'm not really sure whether there is an excuse for not banning its supporters. 2763: 2703: 2672: 2595: 2310: 2192: 1183: 977: 937: 788:

Thanks for posting the full paragraph, though I'd encourage readers to examine the

650: 560: 1842:

contrary to many of the older principles and policies that make this project work.

1294: 1726: 1704: 1405: 2041:

What is the official venue for such requests for clarification to be filed in?

700:

and explain why we suddenly have to go into contortions. That Board resolution

2537:

Thanks for the info. I'm gonna see what I can do to get that section removed.

2246: 1845:

this proposed guideline as currently worded is simply too vague and incoherent

1316: 766:(Does the second sentence refer to the community as a whole, or only Commons?) 724: 497: 1962:, this isn't an official policy, because it's not listed on neither of them. 1359: 1354: 2219:

lists many Wikimedia projects that have rejected NPOV, including Commons.

1884:

and the sections above and below that for possible consequences. Thanks to

103:

There is a clear consensus to reject this resolution as a guideline in its

1827:

it's not a coherent idea, it hasn't been adopted via a legitimate process,

2777: 2747: 2457: 2324: 2207: 1851:

it doesn't specify or urge any action, it just summarizes a deliberation.

1494: 1461: 1129: 1035: 910: 894: 2746:

I think this language sums up our correct position with regard to POLA.—

2667:

which may at some point be used to supplement this (proposed principle).

1276:

I'd be OK if it specifically excluded religious content from its scope--

1996:

in no way contain any resolution to create new guidelines or policies.

1818:

I am unclear whether the proposal relates to style of pages or content.

2334: 2216: 932: 2686:"avoided if any dispute exists" -- an obstructionists' charter. 1875: 1824:"Astonishment" is a code word for "implement your own prejudices" 1128:. Too many avenues for censorship enabled by a vague principle.— 1087:

My understanding is that POLA is only defined in the context of

2399:

You might want to move Your comment to the previous section. —

2725: 2092:, close discussions on this page and and do something useful. 1025:

The idea of WMF "ownership" of Knowledge (XXG) is overrated.

431:

instead of adding a wikilink in an appropriate location, like

15: 2289:

If I decide to repeatedly replace all the lede images in our

2130:

Is this some sort of threat, in regards to this discussion?

111:

has been revised and rewritten, another RfC should be held.

2257:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:What Knowledge (XXG) is not/Archive 38

1794:

can we actually turn down the foundations 'urging' anyway?

1182:"Certain issues" being Muhammad Pictures, by any chance? 2609: 2520: 2474:

I've asked an uninvolved admin (at WP:AN) to close it.

2148: 815: 812: 697: 615: 104: 2608:

And the WMF does too, overriding the community. See

215:

Poorly worded for Knowledge (XXG). Is overridden by

1882:

m:Terms of use#11. Resolutions and Project Policies

177:as per the Wikimedia Foundation's recommendation.- 559:through backdoor machinations agains consensus. 504:then the foundation needs to understand that. 2594:ArbCom doesn't set policy, the community does. 94:To accept as a Knowledge (XXG) guideline or not 1836:the best argument against is 'lack of clarity' 2516:Some Arbitrators consider this policy already 8: 2762:would also pass muster with the community. 2635:Suggestion: To replace the failed proposal 1315:wikipedians at de.wiki had the right idea.-- 644:up to us to be ostriches about it <g: --> 147:"urging" the community to take it on board. 2800:. They forgot to sue the WMF, apparently. 1806:so poorly defined, even by the Foundation. 25:Follow the principle of least astonishment 2492:-pretty easy call on the consensus here. 1975:Sure it is. It's the first one listed at 1954:It's also interesting, that according to 2663:The Wikimedia Foundation is designing a 1815:It's too vague to be guideline or policy 2189:Mark as Wikimedia Foundation guideline 1587:me, it's pretty clear that we already 634:Mark as Wikimedia Foundation guideline 143:has released resolutions in regard to 2332:"We have an offer you can't refuse." 1933:) be banned. Don't you love lawyers? 7: 2639:with a draft to be determined here. 1994:wmf:Resolution:Controversial content 1934: 1731:killing the human spirit since 2003! 956:"Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy" 897:not to have pictures of syphilis or 130:The following discussion is closed. 1833:If this is being imposed by the WMF 1592:is at minimum a year-long project. 429:Resolution on controversial content 23:for discussing improvements to the 1797:Poorly worded for Knowledge (XXG). 490:Knowledge (XXG):Offensive material 482:WP:Principle of least astonishment 424:WP:Principle of least astonishment 14: 2702:then what wording would you use? 45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2507:The discussion above is closed. 2428:no consensus- RFC was premature. 2333: 1935: 1006:WP:You don't own Knowledge (XXG) 40:Click here to start a new topic. 1821:Ambiguous, vague, poorly worded 1534:principle of least astonishment 640:dictum from the WMF, and it is 1: 1839:I think this needs a rewrite. 1232:23:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1174:23:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1155:22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1138:16:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1121:11:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1083:08:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1044:17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1021:05:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 1001:05:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 986:05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 972:05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 946:05:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 919:05:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 880:04:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 844:03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 829:02:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 807:02:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 784:01:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 751:23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 733:23:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 715:23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 680:23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 659:22:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 608:20:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 552:22:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 537:22:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 514:22:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 453:22:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 418:21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 404:21:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 381:21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 364:21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 342:20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 316:19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 250:19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 228:19:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 206:18:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 187:18:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 165:18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 37:Put new text under old text. 2786:14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2772:13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2756:13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2712:13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2696:13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2681:12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2621:04:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 2604:02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 2590:18:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 2569:18:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 2549:07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 2532:07:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 2502:21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 2484:20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 2466:20:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 2447:19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 2409:17:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 2395:17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 2283:04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 2229:21:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 2211:17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 1869:02:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 1770:21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 1755:09:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 1734:21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1713:16:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1696:01:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 1656:21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 1620:10:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 1602:03:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 1578:17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 1498:02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 496:was removed and rejected by 304:, rewrite and start next RfC 283:01:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 217:Knowledge (XXG):Not censored 123:22:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 2374:17:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 2351:09:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) 2328:15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC) 2319:06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2304:21:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2269:16:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2250:16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2201:12:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2175:20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2159:13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2142:11:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2120:09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2102:08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2051:08:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2037:07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2008:19:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1989:16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1950:07:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1921:07:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1898:07:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1671:: Conflicts with policy at 1549:17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 1525:09:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC) 1480:11:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 1465:15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC) 1453:08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC) 1428:07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 1414:22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1397:17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1368:13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1346:09:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1325:04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 1305:05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1286:19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 1267:05:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1249:11:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 1207:11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 1192:09:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 1102:17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 627:12:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 2825: 2191:as I said above. Cheers. 1800:rewrite and start next RfC 486:Knowledge (XXG) essay only 2810:18:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 1888:for pointing this to me. 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 2733:(XXG) policies, such as 2665:mw:personal image filter 2553:Arbitrator Jclemens has 2509:Please do not modify it. 1977:wmf:Resolutions#May_2011 814:which contains links to 612:Except that it doesn't. 132:Please do not modify it. 2488:This proposal has been 141:WP:Wikimedia Foundation 107:. After the content of 2611:for some elaboration. 768: 636:It is clear that this 70:avoid personal attacks 2323:Duh. May, not shall. 1960:wmf:Policies#Policies 1848:Disagree in this form 1778:RfC responses summary 1513:neutral point of view 958:? (also policy, like 899:cock and ball torture 760: 433:WP:Offensive material 145:controversial content 2357:severe violation of 2187:Which returns me to 2401:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2365:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2343:The Evil IP address 1540:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1517:The Evil IP address 502:"urged resolutions" 2642:First suggestion: 2273:Well said, Coren. 2068:of these policies 1907:of these policies 1436:people to work on 133: 81:dispute resolution 42: 2744: 2743: 2722:Better suggestion 2063: 1886:User:WhatamIdoing 1830:a vague principle 1803:Reject as written 1693: 1451: 1332:. Conflicts with 962:). Just sayin... 936:decision-making. 923: 488:. Association to 280: 155:status or not? - 131: 91: 90: 61:Assume good faith 38: 2816: 2726: 2688:Nomoskedasticity 2587: 2582: 2577: 2566: 2561: 2546: 2541: 2444: 2439: 2434: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2372: 2337: 2172: 2167: 2139: 2134: 2091: 2085: 2081: 2075: 2057: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1694: 1688: 1687: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1575: 1571: 1566: 1547: 1493:reasons stated. 1450: 1448: 1441: 1113:Nomoskedasticity 1079: 1074: 1069: 921: 854: 853: 677: 672: 605: 600: 535: 532: 525: 451: 448: 441: 402: 399: 392: 362: 359: 352: 340: 337: 330: 303: 297: 281: 275: 274: 223: 16: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2796: 2735:WP:NOT#CENSORED 2724: 2633: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2564: 2559: 2544: 2539: 2518: 2513: 2512: 2442: 2437: 2432: 2419: 2417:Motion to close 2390: 2386: 2381: 2362: 2353: 2170: 2165: 2137: 2132: 2089: 2083: 2079: 2073: 2005: 2004:about my edits? 1998:Armbrust, B.Ed. 1971: 1970:about my edits? 1964:Armbrust, B.Ed. 1956:wmf:Resolutions 1936: 1878: 1780: 1727:Smerdis of Tlön 1682: 1676: 1673:WP:NOT#CENSORED 1651: 1647: 1642: 1573: 1569: 1564: 1537: 1444: 1442: 1334:existing policy 1323: 1089:user interfaces 1077: 1072: 1067: 675: 670: 603: 598: 531: 528: 523: 520: 447: 444: 439: 436: 422:Well, there is 398: 395: 390: 387: 358: 355: 350: 347: 336: 333: 328: 325: 301: 295: 294:Reject, tag as 269: 263: 221: 136: 127: 126: 125: 120: 119:about my edits? 113:Armbrust, B.Ed. 96: 87: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 2822: 2820: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2742: 2741: 2738: 2730: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2670: 2669: 2660: 2655: 2649: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2592: 2551: 2517: 2514: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2486: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2450: 2449: 2418: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2378:<moved: --> 2376: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2330: 2321: 2306: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2271: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2105: 2104: 2054: 2053: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2003: 1969: 1911:be mandatory" 1877: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1855: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1788:WP:NOTCENSORED 1779: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1736: 1722:WP:NOTCENSORED 1715: 1698: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1581: 1580: 1551: 1527: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1455: 1430: 1416: 1399: 1377:WP:NOTCENSORED 1370: 1348: 1327: 1319: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1234: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1177: 1176: 1158: 1157: 1140: 1123: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 960:WP:NOTCENSORED 949: 948: 925: 924: 883: 882: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 770: 769: 753: 735: 717: 685: 684: 683: 682: 662: 661: 631: 630: 629: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 529: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 445: 396: 356: 334: 318: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 253: 252: 231: 230: 209: 208: 190: 189: 137: 128: 118: 102: 101: 100: 99: 95: 92: 89: 88: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2821: 2812: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2793: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2736: 2731: 2727: 2721: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2668: 2666: 2661: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2650: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2630: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2591: 2588: 2583: 2578: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2562: 2556: 2552: 2550: 2547: 2542: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2515: 2510: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2445: 2440: 2435: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2416: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2377: 2375: 2370: 2366: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2336: 2331: 2329: 2326: 2322: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2176: 2173: 2168: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2135: 2129: 2128: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2088: 2078: 2071: 2067: 2061: 2060:edit conflict 2056: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2009: 2006: 2001: 1999: 1995: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1967: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1789: 1785: 1777: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1691: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1645: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1608:WP:GRATUITOUS 1605: 1604: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1590: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1560: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1545: 1541: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1499: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1454: 1449: 1447: 1439: 1434: 1431: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1400: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224:ArglebargleIV 1221: 1218: 1217: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1075: 1070: 1062: 1059: 1058: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 989: 988: 987: 983: 979: 975: 974: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 952: 951: 950: 947: 943: 939: 934: 930: 927: 926: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 885: 884: 881: 877: 873: 872:Beyond My Ken 869: 866: 865: 851: 847: 846: 845: 841: 837: 832: 831: 830: 826: 822: 819: 816: 813: 810: 809: 808: 804: 800: 796: 791: 787: 786: 785: 781: 777: 772: 771: 767: 764: 757: 754: 752: 748: 744: 739: 736: 734: 730: 726: 721: 718: 716: 712: 708: 703: 699: 694: 690: 687: 686: 681: 678: 673: 666: 665: 664: 663: 660: 656: 652: 648: 643: 639: 635: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 614: 611: 610: 609: 606: 601: 594: 591: 590: 566: 562: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 549: 545: 540: 539: 538: 534: 533: 526: 517: 516: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 454: 450: 449: 442: 434: 430: 425: 421: 420: 419: 415: 411: 407: 406: 405: 401: 400: 393: 384: 383: 382: 378: 374: 370: 367: 366: 365: 361: 360: 353: 345: 344: 343: 339: 338: 331: 322: 319: 317: 313: 309: 305: 300: 292: 291: 284: 278: 272: 268: 267: 261: 257: 256: 255: 254: 251: 247: 243: 238: 235: 234: 233: 232: 229: 226: 224: 218: 214: 211: 210: 207: 203: 199: 195: 192: 191: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 169: 168: 167: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 135: 124: 121: 116: 114: 110: 106: 98: 93: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2797: 2745: 2671: 2662: 2657: 2651: 2646: 2641: 2636: 2634: 2631:POLA Express 2519: 2508: 2489: 2427: 2420: 2379: 2359:WP:GUIDELINE 2259:to find it. 2242: 2221:WhatamIdoing 2188: 2112:Anthonyhcole 2069: 2065: 2029:Anthonyhcole 1930: 1926: 1908: 1904: 1879: 1861:Anthonyhcole 1858: 1783: 1781: 1742: 1738: 1717: 1700: 1677: 1668: 1640: 1628: 1588: 1562: 1553: 1529: 1508: 1457: 1445: 1437: 1432: 1418: 1401: 1372: 1350: 1329: 1311: 1273: 1236: 1219: 1199:Youreallycan 1166:Youreallycan 1142: 1125: 1108: 1065: 1060: 1030: 1026: 993:AndyTheGrump 964:AndyTheGrump 928: 906: 902: 890: 886: 867: 794: 776:Anthonyhcole 765: 761: 755: 737: 719: 701: 692: 688: 646: 641: 637: 633: 592: 544:Youreallycan 521: 506:Youreallycan 501: 494:WP:Guideline 437: 410:Youreallycan 388: 373:Youreallycan 348: 326: 320: 293: 264: 259: 242:Youreallycan 212: 198:AndyTheGrump 193: 179:Youreallycan 175:WP:Guideline 170: 157:Youreallycan 153:WP:Guideline 138: 129: 105:current form 97: 19:This is the 2094:Bulwersator 1913:Bulwersator 1679:SMcCandlish 1241:Eraserhead1 903:implication 645:. What we 619:Eraserhead1 524:Imzadi 1979 440:Imzadi 1979 391:Imzadi 1979 351:Imzadi 1979 329:Imzadi 1979 308:Bulwersator 266:SMcCandlish 2802:ASCIIn2Bme 2613:ASCIIn2Bme 2524:ASCIIn2Bme 2476:ASCIIn2Bme 2291:power tool 2261:ASCIIn2Bme 2151:ASCIIn2Bme 2043:ASCIIn2Bme 1981:ASCIIn2Bme 1942:ASCIIn2Bme 1890:ASCIIn2Bme 1762:ASCIIn2Bme 1612:ASCIIn2Bme 1472:ASCIIn2Bme 1446:Sandstein 1423:joe decker 1338:Rivertorch 1297:ASCIIn2Bme 1259:ASCIIn2Bme 1094:ASCIIn2Bme 1013:ASCIIn2Bme 821:ASCIIn2Bme 693:individual 498:User:Hobit 492:that is a 2555:clarified 2217:meta:NPOV 1747:Viriditas 1701:Confused: 1389:Thryduulf 1355:pregnancy 1278:GrapedApe 759:paragraph 743:Sandpiper 83:if needed 66:Be polite 21:talk page 2794:megaPOLA 2494:R. Baley 2490:rejected 2391:Chequers 2296:Franamax 2275:Jclemens 2087:rejected 1925:And you 1690:Contribs 1652:Chequers 1594:Franamax 1574:Chequers 1559:wp:creep 1433:Disagree 1147:Jtrainor 895:syphilis 850:WP:JIMBO 836:Franamax 799:Franamax 795:en masse 790:entirety 707:Franamax 702:supports 277:Contribs 237:WP:POLA 109:the page 51:get help 2764:Collect 2704:Collect 2673:Collect 2637:in toto 2596:JoshuaZ 2311:Kaldari 2193:Collect 2082:and/or 1739:Support 1385:WP:NPOV 1255:WP:BOLD 1237:Comment 1184:Carrite 1143:Comment 1061:Support 978:Carrite 938:Carrite 756:Oppose. 651:Collect 561:Carrite 369:WP:POLA 149:WP:POLA 2581:really 2560:Silver 2540:Silver 2438:really 2166:Silver 2133:Silver 1718:Oppose 1705:Selery 1669:Oppose 1554:Oppose 1530:Oppose 1509:Oppose 1458:Oppose 1419:Reject 1406:Michig 1402:Reject 1381:WP:DUE 1373:Oppose 1351:Oppose 1330:Oppose 1312:Oppose 1274:Oppose 1220:Reject 1126:Reject 1109:Reject 929:Reject 887:Oppose 868:Oppose 848:Well, 738:Oppose 720:reject 689:Reject 671:Silver 599:Silver 593:Oppose 321:Reject 260:dictat 213:Oppose 194:Accept 171:Accept 2653:such. 2565:seren 2545:seren 2387:Spiel 2247:Coren 2171:seren 2138:seren 2077:essay 2021:rest. 1931:shall 1929:(not 1686:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1684:Talk⇒ 1648:Spiel 1570:Spiel 1317:Xomic 1247:: --> 1031:might 933:Ukaze 725:Hobit 676:seren 625:: --> 604:seren 484:is a 299:essay 273:ʕ(ل)ˀ 271:Talk⇒ 173:as a 79:Seek 27:page. 2806:talk 2782:talk 2768:talk 2752:talk 2708:talk 2692:talk 2677:talk 2617:talk 2600:talk 2528:talk 2498:talk 2480:talk 2462:talk 2405:talk 2382:Ϣere 2369:talk 2347:talk 2315:talk 2300:talk 2279:talk 2265:talk 2243:best 2225:talk 2197:talk 2155:talk 2116:talk 2098:talk 2066:Some 2064:As " 2047:talk 2033:talk 1985:talk 1958:and 1946:talk 1917:talk 1905:Some 1894:talk 1880:See 1865:talk 1766:talk 1751:talk 1709:talk 1643:Ϣere 1616:talk 1598:talk 1565:Ϣere 1544:talk 1521:talk 1476:talk 1410:talk 1393:talk 1379:and 1364:talk 1360:Tarc 1342:talk 1321:Talk 1301:talk 1282:talk 1263:talk 1245:talk 1243:< 1228:talk 1203:talk 1188:talk 1170:talk 1151:talk 1134:talk 1117:talk 1098:talk 1040:talk 1017:talk 997:talk 982:talk 968:talk 954:Um, 942:talk 915:talk 907:when 891:what 876:talk 840:talk 825:talk 817:and 803:talk 780:talk 747:talk 729:talk 711:talk 655:talk 623:talk 621:< 565:talk 548:talk 510:talk 414:talk 377:talk 312:talk 246:talk 202:talk 183:talk 161:talk 139:The 68:and 2778:Kww 2748:Kww 2586:can 2576:You 2458:Kww 2443:can 2433:You 2325:FT2 2208:FT2 2070:may 1927:may 1909:may 1784:All 1743:not 1495:FT2 1462:FT2 1438:one 1253:Be 1130:Kww 1078:466 1036:Wnt 1027:Yes 911:Wnt 647:can 642:not 617:-- 222:JOJ 2808:) 2784:) 2770:) 2754:) 2740:” 2729:“ 2710:) 2694:) 2679:) 2619:) 2602:) 2530:) 2522:. 2500:) 2482:) 2464:) 2407:) 2363:— 2349:) 2341:-- 2317:) 2302:) 2281:) 2267:) 2227:) 2199:) 2157:) 2118:) 2100:) 2090:}} 2084:{{ 2080:}} 2074:{{ 2049:) 2035:) 2027:-- 1987:) 1979:. 1948:) 1919:) 1896:) 1867:) 1859:-- 1768:) 1753:) 1729:- 1711:) 1618:) 1600:) 1589:do 1538:— 1523:) 1478:) 1412:) 1395:) 1366:) 1344:) 1303:) 1284:) 1265:) 1257:! 1230:) 1205:) 1190:) 1172:) 1153:) 1136:) 1119:) 1100:) 1042:) 1019:) 1011:. 999:) 984:) 970:) 944:) 917:) 878:) 842:) 827:) 805:) 782:) 774:-- 749:) 731:) 713:) 657:) 638:is 550:) 512:) 435:? 416:) 379:) 314:) 302:}} 296:{{ 248:) 204:) 185:) 163:) 49:; 2804:( 2780:( 2766:( 2750:( 2706:( 2690:( 2675:( 2615:( 2598:( 2526:( 2496:( 2478:( 2460:( 2403:( 2371:) 2367:( 2345:( 2313:( 2298:( 2277:( 2263:( 2223:( 2195:( 2153:( 2114:( 2096:( 2062:) 2058:( 2045:( 2031:( 1983:( 1944:( 1915:( 1903:" 1892:( 1863:( 1764:( 1749:( 1707:( 1692:. 1614:( 1596:( 1546:) 1542:( 1519:( 1474:( 1408:( 1391:( 1362:( 1340:( 1299:( 1280:( 1261:( 1226:( 1201:( 1186:( 1168:( 1149:( 1132:( 1115:( 1096:( 1073:N 1068:J 1038:( 1015:( 995:( 980:( 966:( 940:( 913:( 874:( 838:( 823:( 801:( 778:( 745:( 727:( 709:( 653:( 567:) 563:( 546:( 530:→ 508:( 446:→ 412:( 397:→ 375:( 357:→ 335:→ 310:( 279:. 244:( 200:( 181:( 159:( 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment - Knowledge (XXG)

Index