Policy:Core Editing Rules
SearchForTruth has very different rules and purposes than Wikipedia, the most well known and used wiki.
Most importantly, while editors are encouraged to use these rules to develop articles which include appropriate room for critique and sidebar links to counterpoints, the failure to follow these rules is subject to official appeal to the website staff who will make and enforce a final decision.
Appeals will involve a small financial charge and violations of rules may involve small financial penalties.
Core Editing Rules (CER) In Brief
1. Know and respect the TYPE of page you are editing.
2. If your material does not strengthen the thesis presented by originators of the page, then it must be inserted as a sidebar comment.
3. Everything you want to contribute has a proper place--unless it is spam, libelous, or indecent.
3. Respect that everything others want to contribute has a proper place--unless it is spam, libelous, or indecent.
4. Any edit that does not improve the presentation or the thesis presented by originators of the page, must be inserted as a sidebar comment or in the appropriate section for related pages.
5. Learn and respect the rules and guidelines for editing pages. And help other editors to learn and respect them, too.
CER-1. Know and respect the TYPE of page you are editing.
SearchForTruth exists to provide a site to discover, document and even create a summary and index of all human knowledge. Recognizing that much of humanity's knowledge involves facts, arguments, conclusions and beliefs that are subject to debate, the guiding goal of SearchForTruth is to provide tools and policies for contributors that foster healthy debates which contribute to the testing, refinement, or at least improved presentation of contested human knowledge.
These goals are achieved by having different types of pages which are governed by different rules for editing and commenting on material. There are five general types of pages:
- Collaborative thesis (jointly developed by like-minded authors; commented on by others)
- Personal thesis (developed by one or few authors, commented on by many)
- Encyclopedic (definitions and non-controversial comprehensive summaries which point to thesis pages related to any associated controversy)
- Policy:Lists and Categories (collaborative or individual lists of links to articles or other lists to organize the discovery of content.
- Administrative (Policy and help pages)
Collaborative thesis pages exist for anyone to contribute to articles that argue in favor of a specific thesis, proposition, hypothesis, theory, or view point. Preferably, the title of the page is the precisely worded thesis statement being advanced by that page, for example: "Global warming is mostly due to human activity." But the software does not support titles exceeding 256 characters and will not accommodate some special characters.
Personal thesis pages allow single authors (or a small group of authors) to present copyright protected articles (with favored a viewpoint, a speculation, or even a mathematical proof) that they want to have read, tested, and challenged by others in a fashion that will allow them to continually refine and improve their article . . . while retaining copyrights to their original content. These pages may be owned by a small group of co-authors who are collaborating on the development of the article while collectively fielding the comments and suggestions of readers. These pages must be marked with a Personal Thesis Template, which should be inserted at the time the page is created, along with a by-line identifying the true name of the author(s) to whom the copyright belongs. While the copyright belongs to the authors, SearchForTruth is guaranteed, non-exclusive, non-transferable perpetual license to publish all materials created or displayed on this website for which the contributing authors have any copyrights. (In short, you can publish your material elsewhere for sale or royalties, to which we have no claim. But once you publish on our site, you cannot restrict us from using your material for our own purposes. Nor can we give our right to publish to others.)
Encyclopedic pages provide core content that is either (a) denuded of controversial claims but also a starting point with links thesis articles by proponents of every viewpoint legitimately related to the encyclopedic article, or (b) covers all viewpoints in such a way as the proponents of each viewpoint agree that it presents a properly balanced summary of each viewpoint, along with links to more comprehensive articles defending the various viewpoints. Encyclopedic pages are specifically intended to serve as presentations of key terms and facts which are referenced by the authors of the collaborative or personal thesis pages.
Administrative pages, including Help:Content, help pages and policy pages like this one that explain policy, are also part of this website. Caution should be used when editing these pages, if editing is allowed.
All pages, thesis, encyclopedic, and administrative have a tab for a "discussion" page. When in doubt, make your edits on the discussion page to solicit input from those who have contributed to the main page as to if and how your contribution should be made to the page in question.
CER-2. If your material does not strengthen the thesis presented by originators of the page, then it must be inserted elsewhere, such as in a sidebar comment.
If you feel it is necessary to alert readers to what you believe is a wrong claim, conclusion or to alternative points of view, you have the option of inserting a sidebar counterpoint. A sample is attached to this paragraph.
Sidebar comments should not be overused. As a rule of thumb, there should not be more than three visible at any time in a standard desktop screen.
For this reason, it is quite appropriate for the proponents of the thesis to:
- edit the article to fix the concern raised,
- abbreviate the sidebar, retaining a link to a representative article covering the point raised, or
- consolidate sidebar comments and links to alternative points of view into a subsection providing links to alternative points of view.
All the above options must be undertaken with respecting CORE EDITING RULES 3 & 4 which requires both proponents and opponents of every thesis to cooperate in providing appropriate opportunities for readers to be alerted to alternate points of view, both in the context of reading the main article and in indexes to alternative views.
Alternative views regarding heavily debated topics should mostly be indexed in a section provided at the end of the article, and in the related category topics. Sidebar Counterpoints are not the primary place fully debate any issue. But they are intended to provide an "immediate heads up" alert regarding a handful of key points of divergence in order to notify readers that a matter raised is disputed.
CER-3. Everything you want to contribute has a proper place--unless it is spam, libelous, or indecent.
If your contribution is legitimately related to, but does not properly belong in the core content of a specific page (Page A), then create a new page (Page B) with your content. Once this is done, you may then create link in Page A, in the section reserved for "related pages," to Page B.
Especially if your material disputes claims or conclusions in Page A, then it is appropriate to include a very brief comment with a link to Page B in a sidebar comment inserted in the paragraph which is most appropriate for noting your disagreement. It is not appropriate to litter Page A with numerous, and especially repetitive, sidebar comments.
Inappropriate language is not allowed...anywhere. If the language would not be acceptable in a high school freshman term paper, or in a letter to your religious aunt, it's not acceptable here. The tone of all articles should be academic or conversational, not street talk.
You may not post material that is intended, or appears to be, personally insulting or libelous. Any criticisms should, again, be civilly voiced in a manner that would be acceptable in a academic journal.
CER-4. Respect that everything others want to contribute has a proper place.
If someone introduces material on a page where you are a main editor, help them to find a proper place on the page, or in a sidebar comment, or in a related article linked to the main page in question.
If you are the person raising a fact, argument, or alternative point of view that is not "wanted" in the main article by the originator and/or primary proponents of the thesis . . . accept that your view is an alternative view that should chiefly be defended on a page that is closer to your thesis or a new thesis page that you may create. You do have a right to insist that the editors who have asked you to develop your content elsewhere should provide links to your page. But please be cooperative and respectful of everyone's right to contribute content in a proper place that reflects their thesis in the best possible light while also providing links to competing viewpoints.
CER-5. Learn and respect the rules and guidelines for editing pages. And help other editors to learn and respect them, too.
We believe these rules are fairly straight forward, but we also expect people will make edits either in ignorance or defiance of these rules.
We have the right to permanently block accounts from disruptive editors who refuse to follow these guidelines. But we hope we won't have to. And we hope every editor will respectfully work with others to find a proper place for everyone's facts, opinions, theses, and trial balloons!
Guidelines for Civility
After some interesting observations from Alberto Giubilini regarding uncivil conflict in his paper "Bigotry and the Academic Abortion Debate", Giubilini proposes some practical suggestions that may also be useful here:
- "Here are some principles or rules that I believe everyone, regardless of the ethical or political views they hold, could and should agree to in an academic setting:
- When something someone says causes offense, whether foreseeably or not, we should ask whether the offense is intentional
- There is no right not to be unintentionally offended
- There is no duty not to unintentionally offend others (whether there is a duty not to intentionally offend others is a more controversial issue, which I am here happy to leave open)
- Free exchange of ideas should be equally enjoyed by everyone, even if some find the ideas offensive (unless offense is intentional)
- The more committed one is to traditionally liberal or progressive ethical approaches, the more stringent the requirement to ensure a free exchange of ideas."
Perhaps these principles can be fleshed out further.