wikiHow:Policy Proposals/nfd pol

New NFD Category - Political Opinion

  • Reason: Political Opinion
  • NFD Code: pol
  • Explanation: Opinion promoting or criticizing a particular political party, candidate, or official.
  • Example Deletes: How to Criticize Barack Obama
  • Example Keeps: How to Criticize a Public Official

Approved Mel 17:36, 24 March 2009 (GMT)

Forum thread discussion

How to Vote

You can place your vote by editing the section of your choice and adding the following entry at the end of the section:

# ~~~~

The four ~'s will automatically generate your signature.

I support this proposal

  1. Eric W 17:54, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  2. Caidoz 18:00, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  3. D rae 18:02, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  4. Maluniu 18:51, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  5. Loiswade42 19:30, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  6. Mel 20:00, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  7. TakeTheTime 23:59, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  8. Elyne 21:55, 18 March 2009 (GMT)
  9. Laptop123 05:24, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
  10. Luv_sarah 13:53, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
  11. Omniomi 14:54, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
  12. Tracy de Moines 16:23, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
  13. Alatos 7:47, 20 March 2009
  14. Puddy 17:59, 20 March 2009 (GMT)
  15. Lheckaman 20:49, 20 March 2009 (GMT)
  16. RMunsonNJ 20:54, 20 March 2009 (GMT)
  17. Shanet 10:45, 23 March 2009 (GMT)
  18. Lewis Collard 01:00, 24 March 2009 (GMT)
  19. Username152 01:02, 24 March 2009 (GMT)
  20. 19:15, 26 March 2009 (GMT)

I don't completely support this Proposal, but I can live with it.

  1. I can live with this but I do have a few concerns. First like all NFD policies, we will lose good topics along with bad. What will unintentionally get lost here is hard to predict yet. Second, I think an entirely new NFD reason is a bit too much here. I think the same goals can be more easily met by simply expanding the current NFD reason of "not a how to" to cover this info. But I can live with this policy proposal as is. -- Jack H 18:57, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
  2. I second most of what Jack writes here. I prefer NFD|not expansion over an entirely new NFD, because there's always the potential for overly broad application of the new reason. On balance, I do think that this NFD change may help to cull some of the political articles that do not serve our mission especially well and keep ones that are a better fit for wikiHow. I'm OK with it. Chris H 20:38, 18 March 2009 (GMT)
  • Lois' thoughts in response to Jack and Chris:
    • The "new" designation is not actually new... only a separating it out from it's "parent" designation.
    • The "not" designation does not seem to have been sufficient, historically speaking, in the prevention of articles which consisted primarily of partisan trolling.
    • wikiHow is/was losing good editors because of the rancorous partisanship that erupted over politically charged articles. People are the lifeblood of a wiki... any policy that drives people away needs to be dispensed with. Our policy of allowing the personal attacks, partisan trolling, rancorous crap... is/was detrimental to our goal of creating a how to manual. Let's send the political pointlessness elsewhere for it's public viewing. Note: copying this to the discussion page as well.
      • These are very good and persuasive points. -- Jack H 15:55, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
      • Thanks, Lois. Well said. It also seems to me that the partisan nature of the discussion surrounding some of these articles has cost us good contributors. Appreciate the reminder. Chris H 16:21, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
      • The reason why I'm going for the NFD above is because the third reason. Being a victim, I want the ability to be where I can help, not avoid or dodge specific people or articles thinking if I say something, it's going to come back to me in a trolling way. -- Maluniu 14:17, 20 March 2009 (GMT)
  1. Agreeing with the loosing good and bad articles. If you look at some of the NFD categories, such as character, there are also good articles that are character articles but they have been worked enough to be valuable. I think there should be a message on the NFD tag for politics if it becomes an NFD category that says "If you can edit this article to make it become less(whatever the problem with the article is), please do so." But I do not think every political article out there should be tagged. --Drew 13:57, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
      • Political discussions and topics are a more touchy subject and very opinionated than "character articles". It's hard to explain, but no matter how hard someone attempts to save a political article, there's always going to be opinions, rebuttals, remarks, and controversial discussions about it. -- Maluniu 14:17, 20 March 2009 (GMT)

I oppose this proposal

  1. OhioMike 03:34, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
  2. The articles themselves should be covered by existing policy if there is a problem with them. As this is about Discussion Page issues and not articles I vote no. Davecrosby 20:30, 19 March 2009 (GMT)
  3. Toothis Oppose, for reasons OhioMike states. Also, when this new NFD is passed, can we discuss ex-politicians, like Jerry Springer? Or deceased ones, like Churchill? Or ones never elected, like Rush Limbaugh?. Or, if Paris is elected, does Be Like Paris Hilton get deleted? To wikiHowians: Don't be afraid of controversy. The ones on abortion, global warming, video games (linked to ADD in kids), how to smoke (salvia!), are just that.
  4. Include a disclaimer, fine, write both opposing and supporting articles for a candidate, fine, but keep political articles. Critically and enthusiastically observing politics is a public duty in a democracy. It is also a science that requires skill but can be taught by breaking it down into simple steps. Banning political articles might jeopardize historical and economics articles too. Darrelljon 17:52, 22 March 2009 (GMT)

Article Info

Categories: Policy Proposals That Did Pass | Policy

Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 431 times.