WellyhighEA
Wellington High School page
editWelcome and hello! Thanks for editing Wikipedia. I'd just like to talk about your recent edits to the Wellington High School page. Would you mind leaving a message on the Wellington High School talk page, explaining why you think the material about drinking etc should be deleted? Thanks very much Ballofstring (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good afternoon. The edits have been made in alignment with our restorative policy. As part of restoration, any behaviour that has been through the process to completion (as these have been), is considered to be dealt with entirely. At some point those people involved in the incidents, 18 months and nearly 8 years ago, need to have a clean slate. WellyhighEA (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for your reply and rationale. I think there are two issues at play here: 1) what the protocols are for the WHS restorative justice process, and issues are put to rest after a certain period of time, and 2) what are the protocols of Wikipedia for including information about WHS's history. I don't see why WHS's restorative justice policy should trump Wikipedia's content and policies. In other words, while this issue might be done and dusted from the WHS perspective - does that mean it should be erased from Wikipedia? Seeing as the names of students involved in those incidents are not mentioned in that news coverage, I don't really see how including information about the incidents gets in the way of individuals having a clean slate. Where there might be a problem is if the coverage of controversy on the Wikipedia article is so disproportionate that the whole article comes across as quite negative. That's a question which is up for debate, but personally I don't think that including a few lines on these controveries is slanting the whole article. Ballofstring (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the students aren't named however, the clean slate is for all those involved directly and indirectly; staff, students and whanau. These events are not part of our history. They are the by-product of working with developing human beings, who make mistakes and whose mistakes have been dealt with. Every single school in NZ would be dealing with their version of it. It's simply not relevant. So my argument is, yes, it is disproportionately negative.WellyhighEA (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for your reply and rationale. I think there are two issues at play here: 1) what the protocols are for the WHS restorative justice process, and issues are put to rest after a certain period of time, and 2) what are the protocols of Wikipedia for including information about WHS's history. I don't see why WHS's restorative justice policy should trump Wikipedia's content and policies. In other words, while this issue might be done and dusted from the WHS perspective - does that mean it should be erased from Wikipedia? Seeing as the names of students involved in those incidents are not mentioned in that news coverage, I don't really see how including information about the incidents gets in the way of individuals having a clean slate. Where there might be a problem is if the coverage of controversy on the Wikipedia article is so disproportionate that the whole article comes across as quite negative. That's a question which is up for debate, but personally I don't think that including a few lines on these controveries is slanting the whole article. Ballofstring (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits to Wellington High School (New Zealand)
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Wellington High School (New Zealand), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! — kikichugirl speak up! 05:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)