From SFWiki

Editorial Policy

• We should probably add a section here on our editorial guidelines...we just have to decide what they are first. NPOV doesn't really seem necessary or even what one wants with a site like this, and neither do the entries need to be encyclopedic...ie. we are not Wikipedia. However, at the same time, we do want to avoid fanboism and the flame wars that come with that. Maybe we should shoot for SLNPOV - Slightly Less Neutral Point of View.

Also, we need to decide our criteria for inclusion. So far, it has just been, "Do I think that someone might find this information useful?" Of course, as seen on wikipedia with pokemon, this could lead to a lot of cruft that most people don't find useful.

In any case, what are your thoughts?

• I would say that the articles themselves should remain fairly neutral, perhaps with an area below for comments and opinions? Check out Davis Wiki (http://www.daviswiki.org) for a good example.
  • To some extent, I agree. However, the comments at the bottom convention can lead to a huge list of comments that one doesn't really feel like reading through. My thoughts are that we should use the talk pages that mediawiki provides. All comments for any article/review should be stored on the talk page, and the article page should try to be the consensus of the comments. That way, if you just want a quick sense of what everybody thinks for a particular article, you can read the article, but if you want in depth comments, you can dig deeper on the talk page. Sometimes there will be no agreement among the commenters. In that case, the article page can just revert to a NPOV and refer people to the talk page for opinions. --Zach (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2006 (PDT)