Wikinews talk:Citing Wikipedia policy

Absolutely opposed

Wikipedia has developed useful policy to deal with issues that project has faced. However, that policy has no binding on Wikinews. It may be suggested as a useful guideline for Wikinews habits and traditions (which are policy on Wikinews (see WN:PG: "Most Wikinews policies are developed through consensus. Consensus might be developed through discussion and polls, but more often it develops through established practice. In most cases the policy is not even written formally, but is simply the community norms which have developed over time.")

Do not attempt to enforce policies which do not exist on Wikinews. Do not attempt to give decision making power over this community to another community. Wikinews is not Wikipedia. WN:NOT. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You do know I created this so people wouldn't inappropriately cite Wikipedia. I've seen it happen all the time and I wanted an end to it. However, Wikipedia and Wikinews are fundamentally linked so I figured that it'd be okay if it were limited but I don't like how Wikipedia policy is cited as if everyone on Wikinews agrees to it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this a bit of instruction creep. However, there's nothing wrong with what the policy page says. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think people can cite the constitution of Liechtenstein if they consider it appropiate. Of course, only Wikinews policy can form the basis for an action. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page is unnecessary. We can move policy here from Wikipedia and adapt it to our purposes, of course. But that should be obvious -- we can move it from Wikibooks, Wikisource or Wikiquote, too, if it is useful.--Eloquence 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I cite meatball some too, I suppose that's bad. Of course, courts all over the world cite decisions from other countries as precendent, even if they're not binding. A good idea is just a good idea sometimes. I agree with Eloquence. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If we accept this page, all Wikipedia policy becomes in force on Wikinews. It needs to be refuted by Wikinews if we don't want to have arguments from people coming from Wikipedia saying "Delete per CSD T1" or freaking out because we actually archive pages which is against Wikipedia policy. Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Wikinews has not created, within its community, the thousands of lines of "policy" and "guidelines" which are a part of Wikipedia.

Even continuing this discussion is clearly setting a bad precedence: we're *debating* whether or not to let another project create policy which we will then have to enforce/abide by. This is extremely shortsighted. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 02:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So couldn't we keep this page, but change it such that it says what you have just said? Also, does anyone think there is a place for {{essay}} type pages? - Borofkin 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This page went through a DR and the concensus was to keep. Jason Safoutin 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW i am not opposed to this... Jason Safoutin 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, to clarify: I oppose this article ever becoming policy. However, I think there is a place on Wikinews for essays as used on Wikipedia. Essays are not policies or even guidelines.... I see them as more a summary of discussion so far, a place to refer new users so they can get some background on a contentious issue. - Borofkin 02:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it survived a dr doesn't neccesarily mean that it should be policy. We have a lot of defunct policys lieing around. (I don't mean to say that this is/or is not defunct, just wanted to mention that a non-delete doesn't make it policy in my humble opinion)

Interesting idea

This is an interesting idea and the way it is laid out in the rationale of the 2 different subsections makes some sense. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)