Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments: admin required for oversight and checkuser but forbidden from 'crats |
→Rethinking: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Short description|Page for discussing policies and guidelines}}{{Redirect|WP:VPP|proposals|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} |
|||
<noinclude>{{Villagepumppages|Policy discussion|The '''policy''' section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.<br>If you want to propose something new that is ''not'' a policy or guideline, use the ''[[WP:VPR|proposals]]'' section.<br> If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards]]. |
|||
{{village pump page header|Policy|alpha=yes|The '''policy''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing [[WP:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. |
|||
Please see '''[[WP:PEREN|this FAQ page]]''' for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them. |
|||
* If you want to propose something ''new'' that is ''not'' a policy or guideline, use [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|Village pump (proposals)]]. |
|||
|WP:VPP}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|||
* If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards]]. |
|||
* If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help desk]] or the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]. |
|||
[[ar:ويكيبيديا:الميدان/سياسات]] |
|||
* This is '''not the place to resolve disputes''' over how a policy should be implemented. Please see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] for how to proceed in such cases. |
|||
[[es:Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Políticas/Actual]] |
|||
* If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]]. |
|||
[[eu:Wikipedia:Txokoa/Politikak]] |
|||
Please see '''[[WP:Perennial proposals|this FAQ page]]''' for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks. |
|||
[[ko:위키백과:사랑방 (정책)]] |
|||
|WP:VPP|WP:VPPOL}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|||
[[kk:Уикипедия:Ауыл құдығы/ережелер]] |
|||
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}} |
|||
[[hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (jogi)]] |
|||
__TOC__<div id="below_toc"></div> |
|||
[[si:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] |
|||
[[ |
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]] |
||
[[ru:Википедия:Форум/Правила]] |
|||
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ (โครงการวิกิพีเดีย)]] |
|||
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:城市論壇 (政策)]] |
|||
[[zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/方针]] |
|||
{{cent}} |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
<span id="below_toc"/> |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
||
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for |
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]] |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
</noinclude><!-- |
|||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} |
|archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 400K |
|maxarchivesize = 400K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 193 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(10d) |
||
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}}< |
}}</noinclude> |
||
--> |
|||
== Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) --> |
|||
{{rfctag|econ|policy}} |
|||
Recently a number of Lists of UK Bus Routes have come up for AfD, two closed on Delete and more closed on No Consensus. |
|||
[[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]]'s closing statement on the last of these would seem sum up the problems associated with these debates:<blockquote>The result was NO CONSENSUS. ...to delete outright, at least. The principle Thyduulf supports is unresolved (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough) as to whether such bus route lists should be viewed as in furtherance of Wikipedia's coverage of real places, or should be viewed as a WP:NOTDIR violation. The assertion that "Wikipedia is not a bus directory" doesn't help answer the question, even if "true" (i.e., consensus-supported interpretation), as what makes an article a "directory" or not can be a matter purely of detail and presentation (e.g., including ephemeral info such as timetables, street intersections for bus stops) rather than subject matter. Particularly given the vast number of bus route articles that exist (take a look atCategory:Bus routes in England, for example) it would probably be best to have an RFC or other centralized discussion to resolve the issue, rather than try to delete individual lists here or there when the reasons for deletion target the whole subject rather than being specific to that list. This particular list is unsourced at present, but I do not see an argument that it is unverifiable, nor is there a clear way to apply WP:GNG here.</blockquote>Some of these articles are sourced to Primary sources - Timetables, etc - others remain unsourced. |
|||
The arguments against are that the articles fail [[WP:N]], [[WP:NOTESAL]], [[WP:NOTDIR]], [[WP:NOTTRAVEL]], [[WP:SAL]] amongst others |
|||
The arguments for are that such lists do not form a directory or travel guide (removing [[WP:NOT]] arguments), that the lists are [[WP:V]], and that if the list meets [[WP:5P]] (section #1 - Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized almanacs, and gazetteers.) then notability can be established by the number of sources even if those sources do not meet WP:GNG. |
|||
Whilst I've !voted Delete for these AfD's I think there are some ways the lists can be integrated into Notable Articles - For instance some lists are contained not in a SAL but within the articles on the operating companies within each region (articles on first Bus are good examples like [[First Aberdeen]]) , Also in some cities a SAL may actually meet GNG and could be justified in remaining. |
|||
Finally WikiProject Buses previously considered a set of notability guidelines for Lists of Bus Routes, their now [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/Bus route list guide|inactive guideline]] read:<blockquote>Generally, if the bus routes in an area descended from streetcars, a list is appropriate, and if the system did not exist at all until the 1990s, it is probably not. In between those extremes, use your own judgment.</blockquote> currently I see no evidence that the age of the routes is being taken into account by the editors creating some of these lists. |
|||
So the questions needing discussed. |
|||
#Are lists of Bus routes automatically notable, even if GNG cannot be met? |
|||
#Do Bus route lists establish a directory or Travel guide failing WP:NOT? |
|||
#if not automatically notable, Should a Guideline be established to differentiate lists of routes that are automatically notable due to their longevity, and those that are notable for more recent reasons? |
|||
[[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 14:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I believe they should be treated the same as databases. The information contained is not notable, in fact shouldn't be referred to unless as a primary source relating to information given by a secondary source. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Notability is [[WP:GNG|NOT EVER]] automatic for anything. [[User:JeepdaySock|JeepdaySock]] <small>(AKA, [[User talk:Jeepday|Jeepday]])</small> 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:No special case of notability for any type of schedule that is subject to change - that includes busses, trains, subways, airlines, etc. If the route is notable via the GNG (which I'm sure there are some examples from major cities), an article about it would make sense but even then, the detailed route schedule wouldn't make sense (it's one thing to say "the route is renown for regular hourly punctuality" as a general comment, and a full list of every stop and timetable). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I think our coverage of transportation infrastructure in the U.S. and U.K. is an area where we are producing huge volumes of content that are unlikely to be the sort of thing that benefits our users. There is this idea that individual subway stations and now even bus stops and routes are notable and should be included here. What's next? Taxi stands? Cross walks? A major metropolitan transit authority is notable. The individual routes driven by it's buses are not. The individual stops on a railroad or subway are generally not, although there are some exceptions such as [[London Victoria station|Victoria Station]] which has a fully fleshed out article with 40+ sources. A bus route is extremely unlikely to ever have that depth of coverage. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Per [[WP:STATION]] If it does not meet GNG, include the station or line in a parent article. [[User:JeepdaySock|JeepdaySock]] <small>(AKA, [[User talk:Jeepday|Jeepday]])</small> 15:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::At least one bus route has GA status - [[The Witch Way]], which I wrote based on a whole string of sources I found by accident. Others such as [[London Buses route 73]] are notable but aren't as well written. Lists of bus routes are different in that the general topic doesn't usually receive coverage as a whole, but individual members or smaller groups often do. Perhaps prose articles about the buses in a town or county with written information about individual routes would be a better way forward. [[Buses in Bristol]] is a good example, but even that benefits from not having to cover the information in [[List of bus routes in Bristol]]. [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
A few thoughts: |
|||
* These articles are not schedules. Schedules contain times of arrival and departure, these articles don't (or shouldn't). Anybody who cannot even realise this basic fact before spouting off about how they violate this or that, doesn't deserve an opinion at Afd or in this Rfc. |
|||
* These articles are not directories. An actual directory of bus routes would contain information on all stops and all streets served. These don't (or shouldn't). Again, people who don't realise this should have their views weighted accordingly. |
|||
* These articles are not even decent travel guides. They are most certianly not intended to be travel guides, whatever anyone thinks. No date of last update is given, no tourist information or telephone helpline information is given, nothing you would find on an actual, useful, usable, travel guide is included in the articles, except the route number, operator, and major way points. This would appear in a travel guide, and it would also appear in an encyclopoedic record, if it wished to document bus routes in an area. These are as much travel guides as road maps are tbh. And Wikipedia has no problem with documenting what road goes where as being a 'travel guide'. |
|||
* Merging to company articles is not a satisfactory alternative. Right across the country many routes are operated by multiple operators, often with the same number, or if not, the exact same route. And a good many individual routes have two different operators - a daytime commercial operator and an evening/weeked subsidised one, again with the same route and number. Merging all of this to company articles would simply be a waste of reader's time, and be a pointless potential sources of confusion/obfuscation, if it is accepted that lists of routes is valid content. Infact, several companies don't even have articles, where would their routes get documented, if not in a 'bus routes in place' type article? |
|||
* Primary sources exist in abundance, verifiability of any of this content is never an issue frankly, and while it can get out of date if not updated by editors, that's never been a reason for deletion anywhere on Wikipedia |
|||
* Changes to bus routes, either individually if the change is siginificant enough, and especially if changing whole networks, will always get at a minimum, independent secondary coverage in the local news. Some will even be protested. Improvements or initiatives, especially governemnt funded ones, also always get their fair share of free publicity. There is no way that national coverage would ever happen, but then again, what national coverage ever exists for schools? Or any other local type of infrastructure that Wikipedia documents? |
|||
Having said all that, while I would never in a million years waste the time trying to looking for GNG type coverage of a route directory, I cannot see how anybody can predict what might be found by someone motivated to keep such an article. So, I see no way that the status quo can be improved by a guideline, or by declaring a straight yes/no as to automatic notability. Sending to Afd will have to remain the status quo imho. At best, I would recommend such articles should be kept to county level and above, as these are the level at which bus services are provided/regulated, and that such lists should be incorporated into wider 'bus transport in X' type articles (but per PRESERVE, not deleted until that happens). [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
There's also the issue of whether specialist sources like ''Buses Magazine'' or ''Buses Yearbook'' etc etc are GNG type coverage, as they do contain coverage of whenever major routes/networks are changed. I used to think not, but having seen what sort of aviation-porn type source is routinely held up as the reason for all the 'omfg meets GNG eeeasily' type votes at Afd whenever you dare to suggest to Aviation editors that a small plane crashing in the woods kiliing 10 people but never written about again except in the likes of ''Flight'' Magazine or primary sources (which is what NTSB reports are, whatever some people say), just might not be historically notable. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:1) If the article only cites primary sources, it's a good bet it won't pass notability. 2) The difficulty of AfD-ing something shouldn't deter us from setting a guideline on them. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Yet, at the same time, if articles from a certain realm consistently survive AfDs, then the guideline needs to be revised to account for the consensus that these types of articles ''are'' considered typically notable. It's a classic case where guidelines don't accurately reflect a wider consensus. A potential pitfall, that is. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::We currently have 168 articles with intitle:"Bus Routes" - That suggests 168 lists (there may be a few that aren't lists) Of those 11 have been to AfD (with one 2nd nomination - London) 6 AfDs were No consensus on virtually the same grounds as above - 6 AfDs were keep - yet reviewing them I find them much closer to no consensus - for instance [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombo Bus Routes]] which only had one vote more towards keep. What's worse is that even when these articles are kept they can remain unsourced and unimproved for years after the AfD - even when the closing Admin specifically mentions this needs done. A further 18 not included in the current 168 have actually been deleted. |
|||
:::Above this we have 305 Articles on individual bus Routes - I think 69 have been to AfD with 12 Keep, 8 NC, and a further 22 Deleted. So for both there is currently a balance of keeps and deletes. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::305 sounds too low. [[:Category:Bus routes in England]] and its four subcategories have 362 between them (it used to be over 600, but many have been redirected to lists or deleted). There are plenty more for other countries too (80 for [[:Category:Bus routes in Canada|Canada]], about 60 for [[:Category:Bus routes in the United States|the USA]] and [[:Category:Bus routes in Bucharest|40 in Bucharest]] to name but a few). So anything that comes out of this discussion will have wide-ranging consequences |
|||
::::Speaking only for the UK, there have been two previous attempts to clean up bus route articles: one in May 2009 as a result of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/UK bus route quality drive]], which redirected a lot of poor articles but did little to improve the 400 or so that survived, and one in April 2010 which took in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5|this discussion]], thirty AfDs and two ANI threads, and basically led to a few articles being improved, a few being deleted, and a proposed task force that never got off the ground. Let's hope this one achieves more, or we'll be at arbitration by next year... [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 22:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, a quick look and I can see you're right I was using an intitle search which is fine if the title contains "Bus Route" or "Bus Routes" but would completely miss article titles like "[[Southern Vectis route 10]]" [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 22:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* I'm agreeing with what Beeblebrox wrote above. While I admit to being a staunch inclusionist, I have a hard time imagining why anyone would want to consult Wikipedia for this kind of information. How does having having a separate list of bus routes, without detailed schedule or route information, meet a need that having articles like [[Public transportation in X]] or [[Public transit in X]] fails to address? Even interurban bus routes can be handled with a sentence in the respective articles, e.g. "Weekly bus service from here to there is provided by Acme Coach". I'm open to persuasion that I'm wrong, but I just don't see a need for these kinds of articles. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 22:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* This comment by MickMacNee, caught my attention '''"Infact, several companies don't even have articles, where would their routes get documented, if not in a 'bus routes in place' type article?"'', If the company is not notable enough for an article, how could it's product (a bus route) be notable? The answer to MickMacNee's question is that bus routes get documented in a bus schedule, which [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]]. [[User:JeepdaySock|JeepdaySock]] <small>(AKA, [[User talk:Jeepday|Jeepday]])</small> 10:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**I had the same question and you beat me to it; There was a comment in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simonds_of_Botesdale|one recent AfD]] that suggested that "scheduled public transport are generally considered notable"; if this is a widespread presumption of notability it doesn't seem to be vindicated by available sources. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 11:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**Bus routes aren't 'products', they are part of physical geography. A 'bus routes in X' article is in no way comparable to a 'list of company X's products' article. Not least because they include routes from different operators. To suggest we would only include routes by companies with an article is absurd. And that comment was a rebuttal of the merge argument, it was not an argument that the articles themselves are automatically notable, so you were rebutting a point I never actually made. And as I said above, people who cannot appreciate the difference between a route and a schedule should have their opinions weighted accordingly, they aren't the same. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 11:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
***I'm sorry but Bus Routes are not physical geography in the way that a road or train line are. They are constructs that may have similarities to physical geography but they arbitrarily change at the whims of Drivers, Schedulers, Road Works, Weather conditions; even the time if day. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
****No, not at all. While the actual route taken on any one day may change due to transient effects, the design of the ''route'' is very much a fixed item, which does not infact change, in the UK at least, half as much as some here might want to make out. And how many times has this got to be said? The issue is documenting routes, NOT schedules (timings, frequencies etc). And as someone else said I think, it's surprising how many routes have varied little from the (very fixed) geography of trolleybus systems, which were mostly dismantled in the 1950s. Just because they can change, doesn't mean they have, or even do. In London, the routes are infact fixed for 7 year periods, and most have not actually been altered for decades. In the rest of the UK, the design of the route is fixed for the term of the registration - penalties are imposed for not sticking to it in full, or simply withdrawing it. Active competition aside, which is also very regulated as to what you can and can't change, and why, the design of routes is only really substantially changed due to changes in physical geography, such as new roads/estates. Any large scale changes for simply operational reasons are likely to be covered by secondary sources for their basic impact on the town/city's basic transport system - just search for Firstbus and their large scale 'Overground' network changes made in many cities, and you'll find coverage all over the place in local news, for no other reason than it involves changes to the design of many long standing fixed bus routes. If all of this isn't convincing as to the physical nature of bus routes, one thing's for certain, bus routes in the UK certainly cannot simply be changed at a 'whim' of anybody, and certainly not in any unverifiable and unpredictable way, not at all. And on a side note, while trains tracks don't change, train services do - and Wikipedia devotes massive amounts of coverage to documenting such services in addition to the tracks they run over. In terms of encyclopoedic worth and verifiabiltiy/notabilty, there's really not much difference between train services and bus routes tbh, not in the UK at least. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
***** ''"there's really not much difference between train services and bus routes"''; Per [[WP:STATION]] If it does not meet GNG, include the station or line in a parent article. It is pretty simple either there are independent source the meet GNG or not, if there are add them to the article and it passes [[WP:N]]. Else delete or merge and redirect. [[User:JeepdaySock|JeepdaySock]] <small>(AKA, [[User talk:Jeepday|Jeepday]])</small> 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
******I really don't see the revelance of guidance on what to do for individual station articles has to articles about whole bus route networks. Particularly when there would be no merge or redirect target for several of the routes, as already said. If your'e trying to claim that the millions of train services (not lines) are backed up by GNG type coverage, I think your'e just wrong. If you're trying to simply say list of bus routes must have GNG coverage, I haven't actually disagreed with you there have I? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) |
|||
*******We agree that each article needs to meet GNG, I don't see what the relivance of what "no merge or redirect target" is. If it fails [[WP:N]] it either gets deleted or it merges, if there is no place to merge to then you either create the article (assuming it meets [[WPN]]), or you delete the content without merge. A completely off topic example would be an article on the "left foot of [[Thumper (Bambi)|thumper]]", if his foot does not meet [[WP:N]], then we can merge and redirect to the artilce on [[Thumper (Bambi)]], or up the next stage to [[Bambi]], failing that up the next stage to [[Walt Disney]]. If the only place to merge to is content on "left foot of Thumper" is to [[Walt Disney]], then merge and redirect there, where it may stay (or more likely) be deleted. [[User:JeepdaySock|JeepdaySock]] <small>(AKA, [[User talk:Jeepday|Jeepday]])</small> 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
***** There's an important issue being avoided here: bus routes, unless shown otherwise, are ''transient''. In other words, ignoring the asserted case of the UK, bus routes can be changed, dropped or renamed at any time. While in many cases the transit organization must negotiate some amount of government red tape, a bus route is far more transient than either a road or railway. In those cases, there is the cost & labor required in acquiring right-of-way, & creating the infrastructure. (Admittedly, there are temporary railroads -- they were common in the early 20th century & used in the NW United States to move harvested timber by loggers -- but these individual railroads would not be notable by Wikipedia standards.) This whole issue is, IMHO, just another example of Wikipedia editors confusing the trees for the forest: we have countless articles on specific subjects, some highly developed, yet generalized articles on more generalized subjects lack proper attention. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 19:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm surprised that there hasn't been any discussion yet of municipal/public bus service coverage versus commercial bus service coverage. From [[List of bus routes in Bristol]], it looks like even the "city, suburban, and county services" are run by private companies (in addition to the "coach services") rather than government transit authorities? I can see an argument to some extent for treating municipal transit authority bus routes (the kind you will find in American cities) as infrastructure, even tolerating some primary sourcing for the sake of completeness (and such primary sources would ultimately be produced by municipal transit authorities, and so reliable). Given the vicissitudes of public funding, service coverage to needed areas, etc., you would even expect a good degree of (local) secondary source commentary on individual routes whenever changes are proposed, at least. But is there any reason to treat commercial bus lines the same way rather than impose the standard notability requirements, and the usual summary treatment of stating that "Company X services Towns A, B, and C"? '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:I see no reason to do so. Municipal ownership and operation is only a tiny part of UK bus provision - only in [[Northern Ireland]] and a [[Municipal bus company|few remaining outposts]]. There's no difference in reliability between sources from local authorities and private companies, and local authorities tend to provide information on both anyway - even wholly commercial services have to be registered as regards timing/route details for set periods of validitiy. London aside, where buses are still run by (many) private companies even though the network is municipally designed, on the whole the only role local authorities play elsewhere in GB is to subsidise socially necessary routes not provided commercially - and these in no way can be logically seperated from the commercial networks, not least as they mostly parallel them, just in the evenings/weekends. As such, I don't think comparisons to US authorities/practices is relevant really, and to consider one system notable and the other not, would probably be a case of WP:BIAS. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:Prior to 1986, we had three kinds of bus operator in Great Britain - those owned by one or more of the local authorities (which were generally confined within the boundaries of the local authorities concerned, except where one LA operated services on behalf of another); the state-owned operators, which agreed their areas of operation amongst themselves; and the independent privately-owned operators. Bus operators falling into either the second or third group had to get a license from the local authority, and if a bus route crossed a local authority boundary, it needed licensing by both authorities. |
|||
*:Bristol was a city with no purely municipal bus operator - all the bus services there were provided by the [[Bristol Omnibus Company]], which was jointly owned by the state and by Bristol City Council, and whose area extended many miles from the city boundary - they had depots as far north as [[Cheltenham]], as far east as [[Swindon]], and as far south as [[Warminster]], and operated even further - such as to Oxford, some 70 miles from Bristol. |
|||
*:In 1986 we had [[Bus deregulation in Great Britain]], which had several effects: the larger operators were broken down into smaller units; all the state-owned operators were sold into private hands, as were the majority of the municipal operators (a minority, such as [[Reading Transport]], remain owned by the local authority); all the boundaries and area agreements were dissolved; licensing was relaxed but not entirely eliminated - operators could, technically, run buses wherever and whenever they liked provided that they gave the local authority eight weeks notice. |
|||
*:This is why there are now so many private bus operators in Bristol: the state aren't allowed to, and the city council is discouraged from doing so. Bristol is by no means the worst case; Manchester is utterly crazy. London is now the only part of Great Britain where the local authority has any proper control over the bus routes, and even there, they're all privately-operated. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 13:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* I don't think that modern bus routes are encyclopedic. I wouldn't necessarily object to a {{blue|List of bus routes in Hometown}} that says things like "Route 2: serves northeast end of town, running from downtown to the Foo Hospital and Public School #3", but except for [[WP:SIZE]] issues, I think such a description should would be better off in the article about the agency that operates the routes. I would not include a complete list of stops ''anywhere'': That job should be delegated to the bus agency's own website. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Break=== |
|||
This RFC never closed, as it was archived instead, however it has subsequently received a further comment whilst in the archive which may inspire further comment; and as it is relevant to a current AFD it seems prudent to get it closed formally. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 12:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Another comment from those supporting these articles which might inspire further debate on the subject: |
|||
#If these routes have been mapped interdependently of the operator (By Local authority, or Federal mapping agency) then this map is a reliable secondary source asserting the notability of the route system. |
|||
A few archived threads on both WP:OR and WP:RS suggest that this should not be the case. but it's certainly a claim being made here. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''YMMV''' Buses are much the same as trains, planes and other forms of mass transit. The extent to which they are notable varies and our coverage will vary accordingly. Each case therefore has to be judged on its merits. London buses certainly merit detailed coverage as there are copious sources which detail their history. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 09:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* When in question, notability is pretty easy to show. Add independent reliable secondary references to the articles. If there are severel it is notable if, not... [[User:JeepdaySock|JeepdaySock]] <small>(AKA, [[User talk:Jeepday|Jeepday]])</small> 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:* I agree with both points but several AfDs are closing where the subject does meet what would be considered notability for any other subject and are bending policy and guideline in a manner that takes extreme liberties with the intent/spirit of these guidelines. However closing admin's have little guidance on whether the liberal interpretation is a valid interpretation and have been closing on '''no consensus''' rather than a keep or delete. In general the history of an extremely large city's bus routes are liable to be the subject of reliable secondary analysis so [[List of bus routes in London]] is sourced to the Guardian Newspaper and works specifically about the history of those routes, similarly [[List of bus routes in Manhattan]] is sourced to the New York Times, as well as Histories of the routes. By contrast a small city, large conurbation, county may have sources that discuss bus transport within the area but only give a general overview of any actual routes or network - in this case a prose article similar to [[Buses in London]], or [[Buses in Bristol]] or a history of a specific operator such as [[History of Lothian Buses]] is more appropriate than these list articles and a condensed list of important routes should be discussed in that article. The only exception would be if the size of the Prose article is already large where spinning the list out into another article may be appropriate (and I don't see this as the current case with [[List of bus routes in Bristol]] which I feel should be condensed and merged into [[Buses in Bristol]]. |
|||
::The problem appears to be that lists of Bus routes are Fancruft to some people. On one users talk page, I saw him declare that he didn't care about types of bus or the general bus history of regions but he was a big fan of learning "where buses go" - to me recording "where buses go" is an indiscriminate list of information and essentially a database both of which are things that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]]. Repeatedly I've heard the argument that these lists fulfil our remit to be a gazetteer - hence claiming notability from the existence of a map rather than a source giving an actual discussion of the route system, but even gazetteers have a level of discrimination which varies from gazetteer to gazetteer. Some gazetteers draw the line at towns of a specific size; others document every post box; we have no policy or guideline to set that level of discrimination for our articles other than the GNG, whilst some editors claim that the GNG doesn't apply to our remit to be a gazetteer - only to our remit to be an encyclopaedia. Ideally we need some sort of guideline to establish when articles for individual routes are appropriate, when articles for lists of routes are appropriate, and when articles on the general state of bus transport within a city are appropriate and this would help to guide both those editors churning out these articles particularly in the UK where a lot of the editors creating these articles (at least 3) are extremely young and perhaps need the extra guidance, but also Admins who could use a clear guideline/policy on which to judge the keep/delete arguments. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 12:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:Secondary does not mean independent]]. If someone unrelated to the transit operator creates an entirely new map from scratch, that new map is a ''primary'' source from an [[WP:Independent source]]. |
|||
:What makes something be a "secondary" source is the fact that the author based his work on stuff written by other people. "Secondary" is about ''how'' the source was created. "Independence" is about ''who'' created it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Is representing someone else's data in a different format without adding some sort of analysis of the data even enough to move a source from primary to secondary? I would say no, though if the bus company routelist is assumed to be primary then that is what is being claimed about the map by those defending it as a reliable secondary source. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Should passing [[WP:RFA]] be a prerequisite for being granted CU or OS rights ? == |
|||
:''Related discussion: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient]]'' |
|||
{{rfctag|policy}} |
|||
The question has been raised occasionally, and as of now it's not a requirement, but [[WP:AUSC/2011|recent events]] brought this back on the table, and [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Changes_requested_to_the_checkuser_and_oversight_permissions|subsequent discussion]] indicate that a clarification on the issue would be desirable. The question of this RFC is: '''Should adminship, obtained via [[WP:RFA]], be a requirement for being granted [[WP:CHK|checkuser]] or [[WP:OS|oversight]] rights by the [[wp:arbcom|arbitration committee]] ?''' This excludes CU/OS rights acquired through arbcom elections (this would have to be considered in another RFC). [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 23:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Comments=== |
|||
*Actually, let's make this much simpler: |
|||
1. Is adminship a pre-requisite for appointment to advanced permissions? |
|||
2. If adminship is not a pre-requisite for appointment to advanced permissions, how shall non-admin functionaries be given the ability to view deleted revisions? |
|||
*a) adding the necessary permissions to checkuser and oversight bundles |
|||
*b) creating a new userright that includes the viewdeleted permissions <br> |
|||
[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: I would prefer that we leave question 2. for later as it would be a valid question in either case since 1. should exclude arbs. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I've initiated a separate discussion on the technical aspects at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient]]. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''', election to adminship or the Arbitration Committee should be a requirement for access to CU/OS access and the functionaries list—rather than allowing the ArbCom to appoint anyone it chooses—for two reasons: (1) the fewer eyes are on a candidate, the greater the chance of an error being made; and (2) the tools should be handed out only if needed, and an editor who isn't an active admin working in areas where they're useful, or isn't member of the ArbCom, has no need for them. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*Adminship is not an election, or so we keep being told. More particularly, there is nothing in the RFA process that vets users as potential checkusers or oversighters. Do I take it from your comments that you have no objections to having the toolkit realigned so that there is no barrier to non-admin arbitrators? [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::*Please leave the toolkit for anther RFC, it's not urgent in any case and risks conflating the issues. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Risker, I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. We've never had a non-admin elected to ArbCom. If we do, the community would be saying it had no objections to that person being given CU/OS access too (Foundation rules permitting). <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, according to Cenarium on the [[WT:AC/N|Arbitration Committee noticeboard]], since the community hadn't explicitly been asked if it was okay to change the toolkits, we'd have to go through this then. Better to discuss this once and get it over with. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::See cmt above, it's better to clarify the policy issue first. The technical issue remains in either case. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Just a note about the RfC bot: I believe it posts everything before the first signature, so anything after that won't be part of the RfC. I've therefore moved Risker's comment into the next section. Hope that's okay. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::No it's not okay, and I have reverted you. I agree there is value in having an RFC about this, but it is very disrespectful to the community to force them to have to revisit issues over and over. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::As I said, it's a bot issue. The RfC will be posted elsewhere as the post before the first signature. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've moved Risker's cmt because I don't see how it makes things simpler to have three questions instead of one, not mention what 'advanced permission' means, or 'functionaries', 'view-deleted', etc. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Perhaps because it would be best to discuss it once, rather than two or three times? Could we move this to a separate page? The village pump's purpose should typically be to ''point'' to (or transclude) the relevant discussion, not to house it entirely. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 02:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This is standard practice at VPR, and also very common at VPT. I don't think there's a need for a separate page. I suggest to later make the proposal for the change in permissions at VPR. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 12:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't see a need to draw this out over a period of months. I am drafting a separate page for the technical implementation. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 13:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Not months, just wait that this discussion concludes so that we're fixed on this issue. But seriously, this is a minor technical change, there's no need for a RFC on a separate page, VPR is largely enough. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 13:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I still don't see the two questions as inextricable. As you know, there is now a parallel discussion on the technical change [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient|here]]. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''', there are level headed, thoughtful, experienced users that I'd be more than willing to trust with advanced permissions that simply won't run through RfA. He might kill me for using him as an example, but I think of Chzz in these situations. Chzz is a highly dedicated and competent user, AfC would probably disintegrate into mush without him, he runs several smaller operations which most people will never see but which do a lot of good for the project, and he'll just about help anyone with anything if you ask him too. In short, he's an ideal wikipedian. He, however, is too afraid of the monster that RfA has become to go through it. Wikipedia shouldn't prevent good, talented people from acquiring advanced permissions just because they don't feel a desire to run through hell week. Being a checkuser is more about technical knowledge than it is about being able to protect pages. Serving on a committee to investigate abuse is more about trusting the committee members than it is about blocking. Admin and AUSC or CU are totally different things. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 00:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**Chzz tried and failed at RfA, due to potential socking issues. Your example is a perfect example of issues that might be exposed at RfA that might not have been exposed otherwise. I am not commenting on the validity of the accusations against Chzz. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 19:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' While RfA is certainly one vetting option, ArbCom is entirely capable and willing to vet non-administrator candidates for the advanced tools, provide the vetted candidates for a period of community feedback as long as an RfA, and select only candidates who have a level of community support consistent with the gravity of the permissions being delegated. Likewise, there are plenty of Admin functions which are unnecessary for an AUSC community member, and might even bias their objectivity, leading to the perception that the insiders are policing their own. There is no particular reason why Checkuser, for example, which has nothing to do with edits, should be handed ''exclusively'' to the same people who have been chosen for their willingness to hand out blocks, protect pages, and delete articles. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*And how would arbcom alone be able to vet candidates equally well as all the community plus arbcom ? The more eyes, the better. Moreover, the community participation in the AUSC and CU/OS appointments process is marginal, there's been only a few comments by candidates, see below for statistics. Also, AUSC doesn't 'police' admins, it 'polices' CU/OS, AUSC members themselves have CU/OS, and furthermore every arb has CU/OS rights, so the insiders are in any case choosing their own policers, and policing their own. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::*The community is no less able to vet candidates for advanced priveleges simply because we hold the discussion at a page without the prefix ''Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/''. For the most recent appointment process, we accepted comments from the community of any form, transmitted by any method - editors could have even lined up along '''Support'''/'''Oppose''' lines if they wanted to. If you have suggestions on how to increase community participation with a view to providing additional meaningful feedback about the candidates, do not hesitate to let us know. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::*That's a progress that you make the suggestion. I recognize that there is a social argument for not requiring admin rights. The problem with the appointment is that arbs would still make the final decision. Users aren't inclined to participate because their participation has no clear weight on the final decision. A possibility would be to have a confirmation vote, i.e. users need a majority of support to be confirmed as candidate, but the comparative results between confirmed candidates doesn't bind in any way the final appointments by arbcom. This incitement would provide for more participation, and therefore scrutiny, comments. Regarding AUSC, I think they should be elected during the arbcom elections. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Well that's just it - arbitrators will always be making the final decision on CU/OS, per Foundation-wide policy. I would not be happy to learn that a significant number of people are withholding relevant comments on the candidates because they think their comments will be ignored or not have a meaningful impact on the result: this is simply not the case. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*The WMF policy allows for community selection if desired, but I don't think it's best. I think the community should participate more, the current practice marginalizes the community participation. What do you think of a confirmation vote ? Arbcom would still make the final appointments, but it would entice for more community participation. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 02:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*"Votes" traditionally have not provided meaningful feedback to either the candidate or the committee, but I'd like to explore these ideas separately ahead of the next appointment process - especially if significant numbers of editors feel the current process marginalizes community participation (of this, I am not convinced) –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*Votes in themselves no, but it can be an incitement for users to participate, and in turn leave comments. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 12:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''', because also passing RFA provides greater scrutiny and feedback. RFAs have revealed evidence of sockpuppetry, copyright violation, and other difficultly identifiable inappropriate behavior. Checkusers and oversighers have had their rights stripped by arbcom because of sockpuppetry and other inappropriate behavior, all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that the granting of CU/OS is made with the highest possible standards. CU/OS work is also similar to admin work, just more sensitive, how a user uses admin tools can help in determining if the user would use CU/OS well. You become trusted when you're scrutinized enough and nothing is found that can make you untrustworthy. CU/OS is so highly sensitive that it requires a high level of trust, so we should ensure that candidates are scrutinized enough. RFA is an imperfect process, but it helps in providing scrutiny, the AUSC or CU/OS appointment process alone is not sufficient, as currently practiced it doesn't invite much community participation, RFA has been consulted 4 times more than the AUSC appointments page during the community consultation period [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship][http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/2011_appointments]. Of course plenty of non-admins are trustworthy, but we shouldn't think that the AUSC or CU/OS appointment process are in any way less daunting than RFA, arbs ask you private questions, you need to identify to the WMF which is a significant step, people can ask questions and comment on you in public. There are also practical reasons, in order to perform their work efficiently, oversighters need to be able to delete pages. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Erm, everyone who has had checkuser or oversight permissions removed was an administrator. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Of course, what this shows is that even with all the scrutiny that RFA provides then that Arbcom and other users provide, we still have issues. So we need to use the highest reasonable standards, which includes requiring RFA. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'd suggest it reflects more on the fact that being an administrator and being a good checkuser/oversighter are not related issues. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If someone finds evidence that the user has sockpuppets, then it doesn't matter that he's a CU/OS or admin, he should have all rights removed. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 01:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Cenarium, I believe you are doing a disservice to the few users who have had the checkuser/oversight permissions removed on this project. I've been involved in all of these removals, I think, and I don't recall any that involved sockpuppetry. I believe you are thinking about another project. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That was an example of difficultly identifiable behavioral issue, not implying anything. To clarify, of course the rights are different, but all require common standards. Greater scrutiny can provide for more likelihood to detect difficultly identifiable behavior (such as sockpuppetry, copyvios, etc), and even if the appointment process were improved considerably, the appointment process + RFA would be better. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 02:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::There's so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to start. The economic concepts of [[diminishing returns]] and [[opportunity cost]] are relevant here. More and more hoops to jump through will not necessarily produce better appointments, and could even make them worse by limiting the pool of potential candidates. I would also say that CU and OS, which require users to reveal their real-world identities and provide for easy removal of privileges, already provide a superior process to RFA. Good + bad != better. And I'll stop there because otherwise I'll go all TLDR. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I agree, considering the social argument against requiring RFA, that it is better to enhance the community participation and scrutiny in the AUSC appointment process directly than to use RFA in order to counter-balance. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 12:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. Requiring admin status to get other rights is the exact opposite of the direction we should be going. We already have too many responsibilities bundled into a single status that supposedly is "no big deal". Many voters in ArbCom elections already exercise an implicit requirement of adminship for ArbCom membership (sometimes explicit, as shown in some voter guides), and now we're talking about effectively imposing this as a requirement for Audit Subcommittee appointment. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. A stable long-term governance structure requires ''separation'' of the various responsibilities and authorities involved, so that there are some checks and balances. We should be demanding that ArbCom and AUSC members give up their admin bits (if they possess them when appointed) to eliminate the blatant opportunities for bias and conflict of interest that exist in wearing multiple hats. Now I'm not expecting that anytime soon, but at the very least we can avoid throwing even more weight into the admin role and not make it a mandatory gateway to other rights. If greater community scrutiny is desired for CU and OS permissions, then we should address that directly by altering the processes for those appointments, although frankly I'm not seeing the pressing need for that. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 01:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:Indeed, administrator has never been a requirement for advanced privileges and I don't see why we should start making it one now. I actually tried to give up my administrative rights at one point, but they are currently required for my duties as a bureaucrat due to objections raised to a [[bugzilla:25752|simple technical change]]. I think what some administrators are forgetting is that not everyone wants to be an administrator; and further, that not everyone wants to be an administrator ''forever''. This does not make them untrustworthy people. The fact that it is currently a technical requirement for the proper functioning of other privileges should be remedied. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes'''. Sensitive tools require very trustworthy people. Such 'powers' incentivize faking identities; people have subtle personality issues. We need many eyes to help spot early warnings. I do like the separation of powers idea. I'm primarily concerned with there being a stringent vetting process; if there were a separate process with participation and standards higher than RFA, that might be OK. However, requiring existing adminship is a great way to increase scrutiny, so everyone can see how they act with admin tools. IMO "So-and-so can't pass RFA but should get more-sensitive-than-adminship powers" argument is weak: if the community doesn't trust someone with adminship than why give them greater powers? While ArbCom might have better judgment than the broader community sometimes, going against the community's wishes itself is a bad idea. ArbCom would have to put in an incredible amount of work to equal the number of eyes something like WP:RFA provides. [[User:Quarl|Quarl]] <sup>([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])</sup> 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''No''' This is most definitely a social issue, as has been pointed out by Arbitration Committee members, and just illustrates the division of opinion between administrators and non-administrators. As Risker pointed out in the other discussion, all of the users who have said yes so far are administrators themselves. I remember past discussions of this nature, such as the perennially shot down VandelFighter user right of being able to block users and not having to be an administrator. In those discussions, the majority of the opposition came from admins, because the passing of such would strip down the abilities that admins had to themselves and, thus, would bring them closer to the rest of the editors on Wikipedia. I am in full support of any divestiture of user rights so that they have to be individually applied for and are not a part of the admin package. It makes it so that there aren't so much different levels of users as there are users that work in specific fields and are trusted with the user right(s) that apply to those fields. Such a system would make much more sense and would be more appropriate, since it would make it so users didn't have rights that they never use, they would only have ones that they specifically applied for because they wished to use it in their everyday activities. It would help in the trust category because it's easier to show that a user is trustworthy for this certain right than for a user having to prove they are trustworthy for the smorgasbord of, mostly unused, user rights that admins currently have. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - {{ec}} a consensus view is that RfA is for use of admin tools. Hence is not just about "is this user trustworthy?" Wikipedia should be a level playing field whereever possible. Restricting roles to admins is not conducive to this pathway. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:I would amplify this by saying that RFA does not prove trustworthiness. Never has and never could under anything like the current process. What RFA shows is that a significant portion of the community is already willing to trust the successful candidate, which is entirely different from showing them to be trust''worthy''. Trustworthiness is best proven by giving someone a role, and then closely watching what they do with it, with the option to take the role away if it doesn't work out. In this regard the process for CU and OS is far superior to RFA. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*::Personally, I think the current RfA system has nothing to do with trust and instead has to do with how many users like the applying editor verses how many dislike them. This is why users that are active in contentious areas (and act perfectly well there) are rarely accepted as administrators, because the opposition in those contentious areas oppose their application. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 04:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' Adminship comprises a different set of rights than CU/OS and should be judged independently. As it's quite rare for non-admins to be granted CU/OS rights, this is not a major problem. I think ArbCom is competent enough to decide who should be given CU/OS permissions and who should not. And if we trust someone with CU/OS but not sysop, then there is a serious trust problem going on in the community. I think Risker's question, "If adminship is not a pre-requisite for appointment to advanced permissions, how shall non-admin functionaries be given the ability to view deleted revisions?", is more relevant. We could, of course, simply use the <code>researcher</code> flag for non-admins who will need to see deleted revisions, or just add <code>viewdeleted</code> to OS. Either makes sense to me and should not be a big deal. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:Co-opting "researcher" is not really a viable option as it does not contain 'deletedtext'. Adding the viewdeleted bits to oversight was the most sensible solution, and as such this is what was requested. –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 03:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''No'''. Per longstanding policy, adminship is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|not a big deal]]. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 04:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**If only said longstanding policy were more commonly adopted... [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 06:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. ArbCom is trustworthy enough to hand out and remove tools from people as necessary. No need to turn these permissions into the clusterfuck that RFA has become (for the record I am an administrator). --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' The unasked question is this: Does the Arbcom have the authority to make changes in the way that permissions are granted without any prior discussion with the community. I believe it does not or should not. This RfC should have occurred prior to the request for this change, and the Arbcom should practice transparency whenever confidentiality is not required. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**What changes were made in the way that permissions are granted? –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 12:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Very strenuously '''no''' for reasons laid out at the "subsequent discussion" link. This has little to do w/ Arbcom's trustworthiness and everything to do with preventing further spread of "adminship" as a social super-user rather than a technical position. It does not suit WP:RFA to be turned into a catch all filter for every advanced permission on the wiki. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 07:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. Could not have said it better than [[User:Protonk|Protonk]]. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''', precisely per Protonk. I'll repeat Protonk's last sentence for emphasis: ''It does not suit RFA to be turned into a catch-all filter for every advanced permission on the wiki.''—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No, but...'''' Adminship should not be a prerequisite, though a non-admin functionary seems only marginally more useful than a chocolate teapot to me. What ''should'' be a prerequisite is some form of community scrutiny—be it RfA, an ArbCom election or some other vote or !vote. Inevitably, in an appointments process like the one used for AUSC (while light on drama, which was pleasant), the only people who comment are those who have strong opinions and I think the holders of permissions considered "higher" than adminship should be subject to the kind of scrutiny admins get at RfA. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' as far as prescriptive policy is concerned.<br>I agree that all user groups should generally be self-sufficient. For that reason alone I support changing the user group setup to make this a reality.<br>We can still discuss which usergroups are considered as social prerequisites before (s)elections. In my opinion, Bureaucrats and AUSC members ''do not'' need to be admin, while Arbcom members, CheckUsers, and Oversighters ''should'' be admins. However, I see no reason to actually codify a prescriptive policy: Consensus can change anyhow till the next (s)election, and since we will always get an implicit consensus if a non-admin is (s)elected for any advanced permission we do not need to decide this now. Any editor can still maintain their personal set of requirements and test in the (s)election whether consensus is on their side. In the selection that prompted this RfC, I explicitly considered and approved the non-admin candidate, presuming that the community would welcome the diversity in that auditory role (Boy was I wrong). If consensus in the feedback was with me, well, then there you have it.<br>To give us the freedom and flexibility to actually focus on actual suitability of a candidate, without worrying about technical framework issues or predetermined requirements (this ad-hoc culture used to be a strength of Wikipedia), we need to change our user group setup accordingly. [[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 09:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''', another per Protonk. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 13:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. I think we should be able to split the CU/OS bits from admin bits. Speaking as an admin, CU, and OS, one does '''not''' have to be an admin, IMO, to receive the other bits. If the purpose of receiving the bits is for oversight of other CU/OSs, or even to run a CU check or judge if something is oversight-worthy, one does not have to be an admin. However, in my opinion, to '''follow through''' on said decision, such as blocking a sockpuppteer, I think the bit is necessary. I think it is reasonable to move the viewing deleted page ability into the OS usergroup. What I remain uncertain about is the ability to actually suppress or unsupress a a revision, as this is a "deletion"-type privilege which is in the admin domain. Whilst it is irrelevant for oversight of standard privilege users (as would be the case of an AUSC member), in order to follow through on a decision if something is suppression worthy, I think that the admin bit may still be necessary (although I, as always, reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by sound reasoning and arguments). -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' Not only are the talents used to become an admin ''not relevant'' to those needed to be a valued checkuser etc., I think, in fact, that it makes more sense to require that CUs ''not'' retain or use admin tools otherwise. The primary requirement for becoming an admin seems to be to "avoid angering any substantial group of editors", which primarily means maintaining a low profile. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technical role of a checkuser or oversighter whatsoever. In fact, having the community "vet" a checkuser or oversighter is likely one of the poorer methods for choosing such technical positions. I note, in fact, that those with such rights are fully vetted as to actual identity and character, which is the logical primary real requirement, rather than jumping through the flawed (IMO) RfA process. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''I don't know''' But there'd better be some kind of effective scrutiny before handing over Checkuser rights. Something more than just a vote at Arbcom. CU is among the most sensitive positions here, there needs to be some sort of process above and beyond Arbcom giving thumbs up on an editor. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 15:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:The Arbitration Committee, in vetting and appointing the candidates, most certainly did far more to scrutinize the candidates than a simple show of thumbs. The community was also invited to scrutinize all the candidates, and still no one has explained to me how the fact that the consensus discussion was held at a page that did not begin with ''Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/'' made it any more difficult for the community at large to provide effective scrutiny of the candidates. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*::The name of the page isn't the question. The question is enticing community participation and scrutiny. In the current practice, most users don't see the point of commenting and scrutinizing since they don't consider that their input will be of noticeable weight to the appointments. The election process used before provided for enticement, but I agree it's not that good because arbs should retain discretion in the final appointments. This is why I suggest a method of confirmation, which I think is a good balance and allow to enfranchises the community, so enticing participation. The community would vote on confirming or not a candidacy among the candidates preselected by arbcom, provide comments (private or public), and then arbcom would finally choose the appointees among the confirmed candidates (those who received a majority of support for confirmation, with no regard to comparative results). [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:::You keep saying that ('most users don't see the point of commenting'), but I sure would like some way of determining if your statement is accurate. In any case, improving the community participation in the process is quite peripheral the question being asked here. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*::::There has been much more questions to candidates in the 2009 elections, more than 300 users voted. In the 2011 elections, there's been only a handful of questions and public comments. You will note that the most supported views in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Checkuser and oversighter selection|CU/OS selection RFC]] were for more community participation in the process. We'll likely have a definite answer on that point when the proposal is submitted (not any time soon). The question isn't quite peripheral as if we increase participation in the process, it weakens the argument for requiring RFA. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*::Xeno, as I understand it, Bahamut (the person you're talking about) received a "limited purpose CU-ship" for the purpose of auditing other CU's activity. Unless I'm mistaken, he ''didn't'' receive the authority to conduct CU investigations on his own, which is what we usually think of when giving the CU bit. [[Special:Contributions/69.111.194.167|69.111.194.167]] ([[User talk:69.111.194.167|talk]]) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Whether AUSC members use the tools for matters unrelated to AUSC business is something that is presently left up to the subcommittee member; also, subcommittee members may have to re-run checks or to run additional checks in the course of an investigation. I'm not exactly sure what the thrust of your message is; candidates for AUSC should be scrutinized just as much, if not more, than candidates standing for straight CU or OS. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''No''' - RFA is a disaster, a ''Lord of the Flies''-esque Cool Kids Club. Put the tools in the hands they need to be in, whether or not the editor has run the gauntlet. I, for one, never will and I assume that I'm not alone in my antipathy for the whole bizarroworld RFA culture... [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' per Protonk. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''ummm .. naa''' Protonk puts forth a compelling narrative here. I think that if you can trust someone to do a CU, or OS, then they should be trustworthy enough to have the few extra admin. buttons, but on the other hand ... RfA has sunk some folks that would have actually been a "net positive" with the tools. Usually because of some minor "he said a bad word" or they got 1 or 2 CSD things wrong over a year ago. Don't see a reason they '''need''' to be an admin to use the tools. What WP giveith, WP can takeith away. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 03:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No.''' I agree with Protonk that we need to consciously break the assumption that sysop is a necessary step, and with Carrite that RfA is a disaster — RfA should not be the only way to be deemed 'trustworthy' by the community. Candidates for different roles need to evaluated on their suitability for the role they are seeking. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 07:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - while I find it hard ot believe that anyone who never became an admin should be a CU or OS, but aomeone who gave it up while in good standing should be able to have these rights without getting back adminship. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 08:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' - even if someone went through RfA and failed before - for whatever reason - either they may have grown out of that 'reason' but still not want to run the gauntlet again (please be honest with (y)ourselves here - we're all human, we '''all''' ''occasionally'' do something totally bloody stupid, and it's a bloody inhumane society that doesn't give people another chance to be trusted) - it doesn't mean that they couldn't ''now'' be trusted with CU and / or OS; likewise, there are almost certainly those who would use those tools very effectively and in a totally trustworthy manner who just don't want to 'do the RfA thing'. For whatever reason. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]]) 08:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No.''' I fully agree with Pesky's reasoning above; there are "those who would use those tools very effectively and in a totally trustworthy manner who just don't want to 'do the RfA thing'." <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:Guoguo12|<font color="green">Guoguo12</font>]][[User talk:Guoguo12|<font color="blue" size="1">'''''--Talk--'''''</font> ]]</span> 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::If they won't do the RFA thing, why would they do the "CU election" thing? [[Special:Contributions/69.111.194.167|69.111.194.167]] ([[User talk:69.111.194.167|talk]]) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Much, much less blood loss. RfA is a cesspool of hatred and bad faith where old grudges are rehashed and small mistakes are overblown. It's where good editors go to be told that they're shit. It's like a dominatrix without the intercourse.... you get the idea. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is nearly that bad. People don't want to go through RfA because they don't want to suffer the process more than any other reason I've seen. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''' Only people who have passed RFA should be authorized to do CU investigations, just like (supposedly) only duly appointed judges are authorized to order wiretaps. This discussion has confused receiving the CU bit with the authority to do investigations. We normally think of investigative authority as part of the CU appointment and that authority is what I'm saying should be limited to admins. This discussion arose because of someone getting the bit ''without'' the authority, in order to serve on AUSC. That's like a phone company security officer having the technical capability to wiretap a line by accessing the phone switch, but not the authority independent of a judge's. It's fine if the appointment process for such a person is different than that for a judge. As mentioned on the "technical RFC", I'd prefer to handle this with an "auditor" role, that includes the CU bit if necessary, but the policy difference should still be there regardless of the implementation. [[Special:Contributions/69.111.194.167|69.111.194.167]] ([[User talk:69.111.194.167|talk]]) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**Added: to be clear, I think CU is a social and not just technical role. CU's have to be able to discuss behavioral sock evidence in private with editors, and that means they have to have some knowledge of the personalities and dramas in various parts of the project, without getting sucked into the dramas themselves. This takes good human judgment and not just technical skills. [[Special:Contributions/69.111.194.167|69.111.194.167]] ([[User talk:69.111.194.167|talk]]) 02:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. I don't see any reason why we should tie these together. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* <p>'''Yes (needed) for CheckUser'''. Checkusers routinely get involved in dispute resolution, and routinely make public posts in cases of user dispute. They routinely issue (or endorse) blocks and other actions as part of their role. They act on users and IPs, not just content, and have a far more "general" role than Oversight. This is a different skill, and as we have seen with admins, can be done gracefully or poorly. For that reason I would want to see evidence of how a CU candidate conducts themselves with admin tools before letting them loose on CU.</p><p>'''No (not needed) for oversight/suppression'''. Oversight/suppression is a very much narrower and more straightforward tool and usually non-contentious. Use of the suppression tools follows the format "does text X fall into categories ABC?", and access to suppressed text is trust not interaction based. If Arbcom and the community agree that a non-admin shows required maturity of judgment and trust, then they will probably do oversighting well. As a far more rule-based and off-wiki tool mainly working on edits rather than editors, the manner of tenure of admin tools wouldn't add much evidence.</p><p>[[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 10:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)</p> |
|||
*'''No''', This will allow us to have non-admin members on the AUSC. The following is copy pased from [[WP:ARBN]] |
|||
*: I had considered putting my name in for consideration of candidacy for AUSC to represent a community (non-admin) position. I observe that adminship, while claimed to be "no-big-deal", is a "big-deal". The recent RfAs have either been gigantic landslides, schadenfreude laced inquisitons, or snowball "not a chance in hell" closes. The landslide approvals see many administrators giving weak reasoning. To me it appears like a "old boys club". Having someone on the "review" board that is not part of the club gives the community at large an opportunity to select someone they trust to review the CU/OS decisions should a objection be raised. I liken the community non-admin representative to the role of the muslim familes controlling the lock and key for the [[Church of the Holy Sepulchre#Status Quo|Church of the Holy Sepulchre]] [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''', because, in my opinion, the sorts of tasks that checkusers and oversighters perform are ''similar enough'' to administrators' tasks in order for them to require community consensus if the admin bit does. The ability to suppress material, and to view previously suppressed material is, after all, something like an enhanced version of the deletion right – hence, in order for a user to be able to petition for permission to view suppressed material, surely they must first have been given community trust to view deleted material? Checkusers have the ability to access non-public information which is of an even more sensitive nature than that which admins can look at (''e''.''g''. a user's deleted contributions). Again, if they are to be trusted not to mess around with the former, then presumably they initially need to be trusted not to mess around with the latter? Thus, re. [[:User:Protonk|Protonk]] and others, I feel that in this instance adminship would not be a bauble/hoop to jump through/''etc''., but rather a relevant indicator of proficiency in relevant fields. '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<font color="#006600">It Is Me Here</font>]]''' <sup>'''[[User_talk:It Is Me Here|<font color="#CC6600">t</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/It Is Me Here|<font color="#CC6600">c</font>]]</sup>''' 11:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' per RL0919. Many admins of olde would not pass RfA today. [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 11:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' though per HJ Mitchell, I think that a review process for CU/OS access should be setup so that the community can have a greater say. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''[[User:Ancient Apparition|James]] <sup>([[User talk:Ancient Apparition|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ancient Apparition|Contribs]])</sup>''' • '''9:35pm''' •</span> 11:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''', but my bias is clear: I was the first and only non-admin functionary on the English Wikipedia. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#2F4F4F;color:#FFF;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> bahamut0013</span>]]'''<span style="background:#DCDCDC"><small>[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds</sub>]]</small></span> 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. Many excellent points are made here, and I'd like to add that in a Chzz-like situation. a non-admin candidate entrusted with such tools will be under an enormous amount of scrutiny, and I'm confident that any problems would be exposed in very short order. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC). |
|||
*'''No''', adminship should not be a prerequisite. Full disclosure is in order, however, as I did not pass my RfA. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 04:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. I don't find the reasons advanced for requiring otherwise compelling. Restricting the pool of candidates artificially doesn't seem like the sensible position. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 22:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No.''' I considered answering the call for CU candidates a couple years ago (but withdrew due to time constraints), before I became an admin. My qualifications then and now are no different; therefore, the fact that I happened to pass RFA should have no bearing on any decision to grant CU rights to me. The same should be true for any other trusted, high-volume editor, sysop or not. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes''' ''or'' they should pass a CU election with the same or tougher standards as an RFA. I do think the ''technological'' limitation should be removed so that each Wiki can make their own decision and so the decision we make isn't constrained by the software. Those who need CU tools by virtue of [[WP:OFFICE]] duties should of course be exempt provided they limit the use of their tools to OFFICE-related uses and give up the tools as soon as they are no longer working for or on behalf of the foundation. '''Also''' anyone currently holding checkuser who hasn't passed an RfA or higher should vacate that role within a year or stand for a confirmation election. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes.''' Same level of trust as being an admin, if not higher. There could be an exception for WMF duties or a steward giving themselves checkuser temporarily for cross-wiki issues. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 09:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Not at all.''' This will make the admins more fraternity-ish. I fear that this will lead to the CU service being more enclosed and more requests being directed outside the public space. [[User:PaoloNapolitano|PaoloNapolitano]] ([[User talk:PaoloNapolitano|talk]]) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' Adminship is certain, defined tools, and very narrowly defined social privilege (closing certain discussions, imposing discretionary sanctions). It should not be a gate through one must pass to stand for other roles- that makes RFA and the admin flag even more significant that they already are- which is too significant already. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''admin required for oversight and checkuser but forbidden from 'crats''' Checkusers and oversight need to be trusted as shown by a successful RFA. I believe 'crats should be required to not be an admin or a bot operator, to remain neutral. [[User:Zginder|Z]][[User Talk:Zginder|gin]][[Special:Contributions/Zginder|der]] 2011-04-28T02:21Z ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines|Scientific citation guidelines]] too liberal? == |
|||
I was recently shown the [[Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines|Scientific citation guidelines]] page by another editor. I believe this policy may be offering too liberal a precedent for attribution and verifiability, as well as the possibility of original research. In particular, the idea that a statement need not be referenced with an inline citation because it is well-known among string theorists, or even undergraduate physics majors, does not ring true to me. Am I totally off base here, or is this article not strict enough with regard to verifiability of scientific and technical content? '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 04:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The guidelines are an attempt to halt rediculous referencing requirements for what should be non-controversial facts. Water is a liquid at room temperature.{{cn}} is a completely silly thing to do. The question is whether or not the material is ''contentious'', rather than whether it is ''well known''. This is actually the standard in most Wikipedia articles, but it becomes a bit problematic in scientific articles where something which is universally accepted, with no real challenge to its truthfulness, is also completely impenetrable to a lay person. For example, just to take a random non-scientific article, [[Emmanuel Servais]] makes a claim that he was the fifth Prime Minister of Luxembourg. This claim is uncited, but it isn't unverifiable; there's any of a dozen highly reliable and easy to find sources where I could look this up, and it isn't a highly contentious fact. I suppose there's nothing stopping me from providing a reference for it, but there's nothing about it that makes a reader say "That's total bullshit!", even one who has never heard of the that politician before. It is an uncontentious fact. In scientific articles, the same standard applies, however the text is often only understandable to people in the relevent field. Take [[Wittig_reaction#Preparation_of_simple_ylides]] as a random example, there is the sentence, uncited "The Wittig reagent is usually prepared from a phosphonium salt, which is in turn made by the reaction of triphenylphosphine with an alkyl halide. To form the Wittig reagent (ylide), the phosphonium salt is suspended in a solvent such as diethyl ether or THF and treated with a strong base such as phenyllithium or n-butyllithium:" Now, unless you've taken an introductory organic chemistry class, most people couldn't understand even every third word from that sentence. However, ''that doesn't mean it needs to be specifically sourced''. The sentence can be verified quite easily since the Wittig reaction is part of literally '''every single organic chemistry textbook written in the past 20 years''', the description of how to produce an Ylide is an unsurprising and unremarkable thing in the field of organic chemistry, and requires no special citation. That is the core of the SCG. It does not override the citation requirements of Wikipedia, it merely clarifies them for scientific articles, and makes special emphasis on the fact that just because something is only understood by a smaller subset of the general population, doesn't mean that it is contentious or likely to be challenged. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I've taken organic chemistry and that still made no sense to me. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 04:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's the whole point. Making sense to a specific reader is ''not'' the standard we use, anywhere at Wikipedia. I just checked the three organic chemistry texts I have at the house, and they all dicuss the Wittig reaction. I also tutor students at several local universities; in the second semester organic class (Organic II usually, or some similar name), the reaction is taught as part of the normal curriculum. I learned it 15 years ago in much the same manner. If nearly every student who makes it through to second semester Organic chemistry is taught the Wittig reaction, and has been for decades, then it is pretty much in the realm of "common knowledge", even if that actually represents a tiny fraction of the total English speaking population of the world. So there is no need to cite a fact that is so common ''in its field''. THAT is the core behind the SCG. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 05:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that "Making sense to a specific reader" is not the standard we use. But, isn't that the standard you are using to claim that we don't need to cite the Wittig reaction? If it's so common in textbooks, why not just cite one? The argument that something is common as a reason not to cite seems backward to me; all the more reason to. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Because then, in scientific articles, every sentence or every other sentence will have to have a reference, even when most of it is obvious information that is not contentious. While the layperson may not understand it, that doesn't change the fact that they won't dispute it (or if they do, they don't have a basis for doing so, since they don't know what it means). Not having to reference common facts is generally done on Wikipedia so as not to make a dense forest of reference numbers in the text that make reading articles more difficult. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 05:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The verifiability policy is very clear that any unsourced statement may be removed if challenged. I agree we don't literally reference every sentence as it would be impractical. But I feel like the scientific citation guideline as written is creating a looser standard, where a challenge to a statement could be refuted with reasoning like, "This is common knowledge to organic chemists." '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 05:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::(ec) I am of the opinion that there is a distinction between "the sky is blue" and "the sky is blue because...". The latter is 'common knowledge', but the reason why it is in text books is that it needs to be taught as opposed to being a property which is known and shared by casual observers. One solution to the "source but don't be crazy" is to use the [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_reference|General Reference method]] . . . but this invites the potential for edit warring over which textbook to use (the one I wrote or the one you wrote, for instance). Just because there are many sources for a fact (set of facts) does not mean that the fact (or set of facts) should remain unsourced; it is a matter of whether to source in-line or as a general reference. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 05:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The point is that, if someone is challenging a sentence for a specific reason beyond the fact that they don't understand it, then that means that it is contentious. Obviously, there are limits if they are trying to push a fringe version of what should be common knowledge, but that is unlikely to happen very often. The standard is written not to be used as an argument, it is just used in general to not oversaturate with references. If someone ends up challenging anything with a valid reason, then that means that the sentence is contentious and requires a source. This guideline is not meant to be used as a defense against that. If you feel there should be a clarification in the guideline that states that it shouldn't be used in that way, then I agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that it documents common practice across Wikipedia in terms of common knowledge. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 05:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I look forward to taking organic chem next year then so i'll be able to understand such articles. :3 <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 05:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC |
|||
:::::I may not have much (read: any) experience in scientific articles, but it sounds questionable to me that certain editors needn't follow the same verifiability guidelines. The cited examples like "Water is a liquid at room temperature.{{cn}}" can be solved just through the use of common sense applied on a case-by-case basis. What is contended is the stuff that a lot of people may not know. No one is knocking any editor's ability to scout out misinformation or original research, but if something ever went under the radar, an uninformed reader could read it and become misinformed on the subject (or at least misinformed from a verifiable theory to original research). Everyone agrees that stuff like "Water is a liquid at room temperature." is something that needn't be referenced. However, no verifiability period seems wrong. - [[User:New Age Retro Hippie|The New Age Retro Hippie]] [[User talk:New Age Retro Hippie|used Ruler!]] [[Special:Contributions/New Age Retro Hippie|Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.]] 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The point is that laypeople who do not understand the topic and what is or is not common knowledge would have no reason to challenge any of the information. And this guideline is not saying to put no references in an article, it's saying that you should have a few general references on the topic for a section and that's it, since there is no need to overspam every sentence. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 05:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There is no actual problem concerning citations within scientific articles because any reasonable request for a citation can be satisfied. The [[WP:V|verification]] policy requires that all assertions are ''verifiable'', so if someone wanted to put {{tl|cn}} after the Wittig reagent text mentioned in Jayron32's excellent post above, it would be fine for an editor to remove the cn and post on the talk page with a brief outline of what Jayron32 said, while mentioning one textbook with the info. If someone wanted to take it further, the matter would have to be argued out, however the Wittig reagent text ''is'' verifiable and so satisfies the V policy. While an editor might have a reason to challenge a particular assertion, if they cannot explain a basis for their challenge on the talk page other than "I didn't know that", their case is unlikely to be supported by other editors. Obviously it would be unhelpful to cite every uncontentious assertion, and an editor needs to articulate a reason before claiming that standard textbook information is contentious. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Copy paste plagiarism from out of copyright materials. == |
|||
:There's nothing that says you are forbidden from citing; its just that it isn't a '''requirement''' to do so. That is, no one should be slapping "insufficient citation" tags at the top of such articles, no one should be littering them with "cn" tags, and no one should be raising objections to them at [[WP:FAN]] because of "insufficent referencing". No one is demanding that we remove sources for statements like the Wittig reaction, or a persons status as the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, nor is anyone forbidding you from adding one. But common knowledge simply doesn't need to be cited; it never has. I could also provide a citation for "Water is a liquid at room temperature". There are hundreds of books I could cite that to; but such a fact is common knowledge and so it doesn't need a citation. Lets make this clear; this isn't about forbidding people from providing citations, its about ''not requiring'' them to provide citations. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, I was just wondering what the correct template is for signalling articles which have copypasted text from an out of copyright source. [[John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes|This article]] is a word for word copy from [[wikisource:Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Leslie,_John_(1630-1681)|this source]], and I'm pretty sure that's not ok, so we must have a template. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It might be worth reading [[WP:MINREF]] and [[WP:LIKELY]]. |
|||
::We do encounter editors who erroneously believe that the policies require every single sentence or every single paragraph to contain an inline citation, or that anything outside their personal (usually highly limited) experience must have been pre-supplied with an inline citation. Editors (vandals?) have tagged some of the most non-contentious sentences as requiring inline citations. (Real example: Someone once tagged a sentence that said "The human hand normally has four fingers and one thumb" as requiring an inline citation.) And I've run across another editor recently who thinks that he builds the encyclopedia by deleting vast swaths of material simply because the editor who added it (possibly years ago, before <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags were in use on the English Wikipedia) didn't happen to supply an [[WP:Inline citation]] before he encountered it. |
|||
::The actual standard is "VerifiABLE", as in "people are ABLE to verify that the information is not made up, using the resources at their disposal, ''including'' their own favorite web search engine, local library, [[WP:General references]], and other sources named in the article". The policy is not "somebody else must have magically known this paragraph would confuse me and have pre-supplied an inline citation before I happened to read the page". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 14:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not saying that literally every sentence need be cited or that I previously understood that to be the case. I'm questioning the idea that scientific articles should be held to a lower standard than other types of articles. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 15:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::They are not held to a lower standard. The same standard applies to all areas. WP:SCG simply clarifies what the standard means in the context of scientific articles. As SCG says, "This page applies the advice in the policies, and in the citing sources guideline, to referencing science and mathematics articles." — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It is ok, since the source is in the public domain and the text is properly attributed. There are many templates used to attribute the sources being copied, and that article uses one of them ([[Template:DNB]]). [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::But they '''are not''' held to a lower standard. The requirements set out at [[WP:MINREF]] applies to all articles, regardless of subject. |
|||
:In the early days, it was considered a good thing to [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics|copy articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica]] to fill in the gaps. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::SCG '''does not''' tell you that you may not provide inline citations. It '''does not''' tell you that scientific articles are exempt form the normal rules. |
|||
:Many people (not the OP) don't seem to understand the difference between copyright violation and plagiarism. Copyright violation is the copying of copyrighted text with or without attribution against the terms of the copyright licence (with an allowance for "fair use" in nearly all jurisdictions). Plagiarism is the passing off of someone else's work as one's own, whether the work is copyrighted or not. This is not copyright violation, because it is out of copyright, and not plagiarism, because it is properly attributed. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::SCG tells you to stop ''assuming'' that trivially verifiable statements are [[WP:LIKELY]] to be challenged—unless and until they are actually challenged. (It also says that [[WP:General references]] are frequently a desirable alternative to [[WP:Citation overkill]] and refspamming in these articles.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::So, let me get this straight, are users saying that it is ok to copypaste text from an out of copyright text as long as that text is attributed? This feels very wrong, which wikipolicies allow this?[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::See the content guideline at [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]]. While at least some editors would prefer that such material be rewritten by an editor, there is no prohibition on copying verbatim from free sources; it is allowed as long as proper attribution to the original source is given. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think it needs to be done with considerable caution if at all, and it just seems like a less ideal option in almost every case, save for particular passages that are just too hard to rewrite to the same effect. But I think the consensus is that it is allowed. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 01:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Copyright has a limited term (though these days, in many countries, a very long one) precisely to allow the work of the past to be built upon to generate new creative works. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nothing new is generated when you copy something verbatim. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Remixing from sampled works is increasingly common. Imitating other people's work is done to learn new styles. Jazz music specifically has a tradition of incorporating past standards into new performances. Critical analysis can be more easily placed in context as annotations. And from an educational standpoint, more people can learn about/read/watch/perform works when the barrier to disseminating them is lessened. What's in copyright today is the source of new widely-spread traditional works in the future. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Aye, every time you read a poem it's a new translation. If this were Wikiversity, I think there'd actually be a lot of room for interesting experiments remixing\ PD material. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You wrote a lot but none of it actually addresses what I've said. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I gave examples of new creative works that have copied past work verbatim. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, comparing the two, and looking at the edit history, it is not at all true that "...This article is a word for word copy from [[wikisource:Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Leslie,_John_(1630-1681)|this source]]." Much has been changed or rewritten (and many of the spicy bits removed). This is fairly typical for this sort of biography, I would say. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I was a bit imprecise there, it is the first three to four paragraphs of the life section that are directly lifted word for word. I'm just a little shocked at this as anywhere other than wikipedia this would be classified as gross plagiarism.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 05:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::If it's clearly noted as an excerpt (and not just a reference) I wouldn't feel able to say that. However like I've said above, the number of cases where this would be the best option editorially is vanishingly few for an excerpt of that length. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 05:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::(As such, I've explicated the attribution in the footnote itself, not just the list of works.) [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Collecting, copying or reproducing high quality, classic writings on a topic is quite common in publishing. See [[anthology]], for example. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please see for example [[Cycle notation]][https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Cycle_notation&diff=425261644&oldid=425240108]. This seems like a misuse of the policy to me. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 07:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::That is true, but publishing big chunks of it unchanged as part of a new book under a new name, without specifically stating that this text was written by someone else is not. If you cite someone else, you have to use different language, unless you make it clear you are making a direct quotation[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think that is even a proper example of what we're discussing here, since the information in that article '''is''' referenced. There's no need to spam that single reference to every line in the article. It is listed as a reference and it is a reference for all of the material (since information on such a notation will cover all of it in a textbook). The tag that asks for further references is appropriate, but there is no current need for inline citations at all. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::But the article does (and did) specifically state that it was written by someone else. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: [Edit conflict] In what way is that example a problem? This seems to be a simply definition of a notation, plus a couple of simple consequences. As such, it doesn't involve much (if any) synthesis between multiple sources (other than adding an example). I would strongly suspect that it comes from a single page or two of the cited book. The only problem I see with this example is that it doesn't give the relevant page from the book in the reference. [[User:Bluap|Bluap]] ([[User talk:Bluap|talk]]) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::It didn't. It cited a source, that is not the same as stating the text was a direct quotation from that source. It now states: "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" which is an improvement but does not differentiate between which parts are direct quotes and which use the source properly.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>Three pages of a cited book. It was three feet away from me, so... there ya go. [[User:Danger|Danger]] ([[User talk:Danger|talk]]) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
: |
:::::That seems very unneeded, as no one is claiming specific authorship of this article, and as the material used for derivation has long been linked to so that one can see what that version said. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::Anywhere but wikipedia, passing off someone else's words as your own is plagiarism. The kind of thing that people are rightly sacked, kicked out of universities or dropped by publishers for. This includes situations where a paper is cited but text is copy-pasted without being attributed as a quote. |
|||
:This is very basic material. You would be able to find the same stuff in virtually any abstract algebra text in at least as much detail as in the article. There are three textbooks listed as references. (To compare perhaps more accessible examples, this is like requesting specific citations to statements like "Animals are composed of cells", "Eukaryotic cells have nuclei" and "George Washington was the first President of the United States".) --[[User:Danger|Danger]] ([[User talk:Danger|talk]]) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm more than a little shocked by this situation, but if so many experienced editors think that it's ok, there's not much I can do about it.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 22:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::That's because we aren't trying to impress the teacher with our sooper riting skilz. We're providing information to the [[WP:READER]], who isn't supposed to care who wrote what. This is fundamentally a collective effort. Note the tagline is "'''From''' Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" not "'''By''' Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". There exist [[WP:FORKS]] of Wikipedia where 99.9% of the content is unchanged. Are they plagiarizing ''us''? |
|||
:::::::An analogy that might help is the [[stone soup]]. If you grew the carrots yourself, great! But if you legally [[gleaned]] them instead, so what? The soup is still tastier. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yeah, wiki-mirrors are clearly plagiarising wikipedia, even though they are breaking no law. Wikipedia is a collective effort of consenting wikipedians, it is not supposed to be a repository of texts stolen from the dead. That's wikisource's job.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant. If copying from a PD source, you certainly ''should'' make it clear where the text is from, but it's not an absolute requirement. Additionally, if a statement of the source wasn't done by the revsion author, it can be done subsequently by anyone else (assuming no blocks or bans forbid this particular person from editing this particular article). [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I don't see why it would be acceptable for it not to be made clear. Once more, there's a distinction between copyvio and plagiarism—the fault with the latter for our purposes broadly being that readers are not adequately made aware of where what they are reading came from. The obvious default assumption of any reader is that they are reading something a Wikipedia editor wrote. Tucked away as it is, there is an edit history that lists each contributing editor. This is not superfluous context to me, it's about maintaining a sane relationship between editors and audience. Even if there's potentially nothing wrong with it divorced from social context, in terms of pure claims and copyright law—we don't live in a media environment divorced from social context, there's no use operating as if we don't meaningfully exist as authors and editors. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 15:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::By the way, plagiarizing Wikipedia ''would'' be a copyright violation, since Wikipedia texts are released under a license that requires attribution. Same can't be said for PD texts. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666||666|]] 18:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::When EB1911 was published, copyright in the United Kingdom expired [[Copyright Act 1842|seven years after the author's death]], so "the dead" would probably just be surprised that it took so long for their work to be reprinted. Wikipedia exists to provide [[free content]], the defining feature of which is that it can be reused by anyone for any purpose (in our case, with attribution). So it shouldn't really be surprising that experienced editors here are generally positive about reusing stuff. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The stuff you are claiming is "plagiarized" is getting far better attribution than most of the writing in Wikipedia. Most of the contributing writers get no credit on the page itself, it is all in the edit history. I'm not sure whose writing you think we're passing this off as. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I think simply being stated at the bottom is pretty much exactly the level of credit editors get—for me to feel comfortable with it it should be stated inline, which is what I added after the issue was raised. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::To be fair I think the only reason these things tend to be noted with a template at the bottom of the article is that the vast majority of public domain content was imported in the project's early days, as a way of seeding content, and back then inline citations were barely used. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Uh, what are we going to do, dock their pay? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Was thinking more along the lines of tagging the text or reverting, a talkpage message and possibly blocks for recidivists. But like I said earlier, it appears that the consensus is that things are fine how they are. World's gone mad, but what am I off to do about it? Nowt. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 08:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The text you're worried about was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Leslie,_1st_Duke_of_Rothes&diff=prev&oldid=519938799 added twelve years ago] by a user who that has been blocked for the last eleven years (for, wait for it... improper use of copyrighted content). I think that ship has sailed. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::There you go, [[Gateway drug effect|gateway drug]].[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 08:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I don't think that hypothesis is replicable. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 09:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*There does appear to be a consensus that such works need to be attributed somehow, and despite whatever disagreement there is, the disagreement in substance appears to be how that is done. What we are doing in these instances is republication (which is a perfectly ordinary thing to do), and yes we should let the reader know that is being done, but I'm not seeing a suggestion for changing how we do that. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It seems to me that the OP asked a question and got an answer, and discussion since has been extracurricular. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Sure, but the OP does have a point that the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism. For example, putting a unique sentence in from another's work, and just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough, in that instance you should likely use quotation marks and even in line attribution. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I think, as with most things, it depends on the situation. Plagiarism is not just the use of words without attribution, but ideas. An idea that has general acceptance might get attributed inline once in an article if it is associated strongly with a specific person or set of persons. But every mention of DNA's double helix doesn't have to be accompanied with an attribution to Watson and Crick. If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution when including that info in an article. If it's something that reporter was known for breaking to the public, then it would be relevant. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::But that was not the situation being discussed, it was word for word, copying the work. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Sure; just underscoring that if the concern is plagiarism, it applies more broadly to the restatement of ideas. Rewording a sentence doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism. Even with a sentence being copied, I feel the importance of an inline attribution depends on the situation, as I described. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Sure, but that is similar a simple phrase alone, like 'He was born.' cannot be copyrighted nor the subject of plagiarism. Now if you use the simple phrase 'He was born.' in a larger poem and someone baldly copies your poem in large part with the phrase, the copyist violated your copyright, if still in force, and they did plagiarize. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Yes, copying a poem likely warrants inline attribution, so... it depends on the situation. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::And that's the issue raised, regarding republication on wiki, is it currently enough to address plagiarism. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::I think the need for inline attribution depends in the same way as for content still under copyright. The original question only discussed the copyright status as a criterion. I don't think this by itself can be used to determine if inline attribution is needed. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::As plagiarism and copyright are two different, if sometimes related, inquiries. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::>If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution |
|||
*::::It absolutely is essential per [[WP:V]]. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Attribution is required. Inline attribution is not (that is, stating the source within the prose). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::It still requires sourcing. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Yes, attribution is sourcing. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::I think, better to distinguish the two. Attribution is explicitly letting the reader know these words, this idea, this structure came from someone else, whereas sourcing is letting the reader know you can find the gist or basis for the information in my words, there. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::My apologies for being unclear. I was responding to the statement that inline attribution absolutely is essential. Providing a reference for the source of content is necessary. Providing this information within the prose, as opposed to a footnote, is not. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 19:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::Certainly, it is possible to put explicit attribution in the footnote parenthetical or in an efn note. (I think your response to this might be , 'it depends' :))[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::I think you might be talking past each other. isaacl is simply stating that [[WP:V]] requires attribution, it does not require any particular method of attribution. What method of attribution is preferable in a given place is not a matter for [[WP:V]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::Should be be providing in-line attribution for every sentence on Wikipedia to let the reader know which editor wrote which part of it? Wikipedia isn't an academic paper, as long as we can verify that there are no copyright issues with the content (such as an attribution-required license), attribution doesn't matter. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</b>]])</span> 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::Surely there's some reasonable position between "attribution doesn't matter" and "attribute every sentence inline". [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::Yah, sorry those two extremes certainly don't follow from each other (Nor does the comment you are responding to discuss inline). The guideline is [[WP:Plagiarism]] and it does not go to those extremes on either end. (Also, Wikipedia does publically attribute each edit to an editor, and it does not need to be in the article, it is appendixed to the article.) -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 10:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Around 2006, I reworked a copy-pasted EB1911 biography about a 16th century person, it took me about a week. It has stood the test of time, and remains to this day a pretty good article despite having the same structure and modified sentences. The lead section is entirely new, and there are new sources and section breaks and pictures etc.. but the bulk of it is still that EB1911 article (reworded). I do not see the problem with this. Disney reworked Grimms tales. Hollywood redoes old stories. Sometimes old things are classics that stand the test of time, with modern updates. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think everybody is fine with articles which are largely based on a single source when they are reworded. It's not the platonic ideal, but it is a good start. The problem we are discussing is when people don't bother to reword. Well, I say problem, I have been told it's not one, so there's nothing left to say really.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you actually just reword a source like 1911, you should still use the 1911 template, and no, the thing you have not explained is why the template is not enough. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. This proposal is [[WP:GREATWRONGS]]. The article [[John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes]] is perfectly fine. It does not violate any policy, guideline or consensus. There is nothing objectionable about that article. The proposal to rewrite the article would not improve the article and would result only in disruption. The proposal to put a template on the article solely to disparage the inclusion of [[public domain]] content in the article would result only in disruption. It would be disruptive to discuss this proposal further, because this proposal is disruptive, because this proposal is [[WP:GREATWRONGS]]. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 18:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Huh? There is no proposal. Also, there has long been a template used on the article. Your attempt to shut down discussion is also way, way off, (and your RGW claim is risible). [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I propose all [[WP:GREATWRONGS]] should be righted immediately.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::[[WP:IAR]]! [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Amongst other things, the OP said that copying public domain text, with the correct attribution, [[Special:Diff/1222787209|"feels very wrong"]]. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::So, [[WP:GREATWRONGS]] is applicable whenever anyone uses the word "wrong"?[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Only when great. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 15:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' any change to the practice of incorporating public domain content. Wikipedia is not an experiment in creative writing. It is an encyclopedia. It's sole and entire purpose is to convey information to readers. If readers can be informed through the conveyance of text that has entered the public domain, then this should not only be permissible, it should be applauded. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Again, there is no proposal to do something different. The OP apparently forgot about things like anthologies and republication of out of copyright (like eg. all of Jane Austin's work, etc), but than when such matter was brought to his attention, retrenched to whether attribution was explicit (which we already do) '''enough''', but has never explained what ''enough'', is proposed. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[Special:Diff/1222736722|The proposal]] was to create a maintenance template that encourages editors to '''delete''' all text copied from public domain sources from all Wikipedia articles, even if that text is correctly attributed, simply because it is copied from a public domain source. He actually tried to [[Special:Diff/1222511484|tag]] the article with [[Template:Copypaste]] (alleging copyright infringement), despite the fact that the content is public domain and was correctly attributed at the time, with the [[Template:DNB]] attribution template. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 23:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::That's not a proposal, he asked what template is appropriate, and he was given the list of templates at [[Template:DNB]]. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''oppose the existence of a proposal:''' I would like to clarify, wherever people think they are seeing a proposal, there isn't one. I asked a question about what tag to use when people plagiarise out of copyright texts. I got an answer I think is stupid and expressed incredulity for a couple of posts. Then, when I realised that people were indeed understanding what I was talking about, said {{tq|if so many experienced editors think that it's ok, there's not much I can do about it}}. [[WP:NOVOTE]] has never been more literally true, there is nothing to vote on here...[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 04:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:<small>'''Support''' not adding any more bold-face votes. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 04:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] says above that {{xt|the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism}}. |
|||
:Could part of the problem be that our deep science articles are generally written at a higher level than the layperson, or at least "skip" that necessary introduction and jump immediately into the deeper material where anyone that understands it is unlikely going to worry about references for it? Take for instance the [[Cycle notation]] article. Why is it important? (I know some modern algebra but this is a rhetorical question) If it is just defining a type of notation used in modern algebra, then why do we have an article about it? We don't have articles that are purely dictionary definitions, and in the same manner we shouldn't have articles that just define a set of symbols or term of art. Why couldn't this just be under [[permutation]] since it seems only to apply to that concept? |
|||
:The reason I ask these questions is that the types of references that usually inline are the ones that answer these questions for the layperson that is not familiar with the topic and giving them more places to go look up details. [[Cycle notation]] does not have anything short of one lead sentence that does this. And thus, I certainly can understand the need to say "these details are all obvious from the references at the bottom and no need to cite", but that's tied to assuming that the article is written in the fashion we want for WP. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Usually "dictionary definition" refers to an article that is nothing more than a definition, and has no reasonable chance of being expanded. Otherwise, "Cat" and "Hydrogen" would also be a dictionary definition articles, since all they do is define a certain animal and a certain element. In this case, the article is a reasonable start-length article, including a couple examples. It may stay relatively short, but that's OK. We haven't traditionally tried to merge these all into a small number of long articles. That sort of long-but-shallow article is what Britannica does, and this is one reason their coverage of math and science is so much worse than ours. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 14:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I grant that the article is not likely fully fleshed out, but it still has problems. "Examples" have no place in an encyclopedia - that's for textbooks - unless assured understanding of that concept is necessary to understand a larger one. So I can understand why one would have to tell the reader what cycle notation is before proceeding into permutation theory, and likely giving the lay reader an example, but this should not be done in standalone. WP has redirects and the like, so it is still possible to make long comprehensive articles but with necessarily short sections on key topics for the reader. Not to get too far off the point above, but the fact that there's little here for the layperson to learn in context even though it is a fundamental basic idea for those in the know means that the main editors are likely rejecting any requests to make changes because they don't feel it necessary, but the article begs for more or otherwise to be put into the scheme of a larger topic. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Perhaps it should be merged with [[Cycle (mathematics)]]. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 16:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] says above that {{xt|A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant.}} |
|||
:::::Examples ''do'' have a place in an encyclopedia. They serve fundamentally the same goal as images: they help readers figure out what we're talking about. |
|||
:::::To give a relevant example ;-) imagine the average parent faced with the sort of awful education-ese that is used in a curriculum writing. A Kindergarten student should "develop geometric vocabulary and skills to describe spatial relationships". The parent may have visions of trying to prove whether triangles are congruent, until you explain that this simply means the teacher is going to have a "math lesson" about the words ''near'' and ''far'', and another about ''above'' and ''below'', and possibly a lesson how to use a simple ruler. The examples make the meaning behind the jargon clear—which is important, if you're trying to reach everyone, rather than the people who are already experts in the subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[WP:MTAA]] recommends examples as well, and featured articles like [[group (mathematics)]] include them. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 11:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I think this is a difference in how people implicitly view it. The first view says "A Wikipedia article is written by people who type the content directly into the editing window. If your username isn't in the article's history page, then your words shouldn't be in the article. Article content should come exclusively from Wikipedia editors. If it doesn't, it's not really a Wikipedia article. This is our implicit promise: Wikipedia is original content, originally from Wikipedia editors. If it's not original content, it should have a notice to the reader on it to say that ''we'' didn't write it ourselves. Otherwise, ''we'' are taking credit for work done by someone who is ''them'' and ''not-us'' in an [[In-group and out-group|us–them dichotomy]]". |
|||
== Modification of [[Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Organizations_and_games_notability]] == |
|||
The second view says "A Wikipedia article is a collection of text from different people and different places. Where it came from is unimportant. We never promised that the contents of any article came from someone who directly edited the articles themselves. It's silly to say that we need to spam an article with statements that bits and pieces were pasted in from public domain sources. We wouldn't countenance 'written by a random person on the internet' in the middle of article text, so why should we countenance a disclaimer that something was 'previously published by a reliable source'? I don't feel like I'm taking credit for any other editor's article contributions, so why would you think that I'm claiming credit for something copied from a public domain source?" |
|||
{{hat|reason=Proposal withdrawn, now trying to sort out another solution. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)}} |
|||
This is an issue that came out of my AfD for [[2010–11 U.S. Lecce season]]. While Lecce is a Serie A team, the top division, the article has not been updated since August. Therefore I propose the following amendment to NSPORTS: |
|||
If you the first resonates strongly with you, then it's shocking to see {{tl|PD-USGov}} and {{tl|EB1911}} content casually and legally inserted into articles without telling the reader that those sentences had previously been published some place else. OTOH, if you hold the opposite view, then the first probably seems quite strange. As this is a matter of people's intuitive feelings about what Wikipedia means, I do not see any likelihood of editors developing a unified stance. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"Coverage of a season must be as up to date as possible, within reason. If a season is still running and the article on that season has not been updated in several months, it is considered obsolete, and can be nominated for deletion." |
|||
:This is a reasonable summary of the issue. I think many of those who hold the first view work in or have close ties to fields where plagiarism is considered a very bad thing indeed. Academic and publishing definitions of plagiarism include using the direct words of another writer, even when attributed, unless it is explicitly made clear that the copied text is a direct quotation. For people who hold that view outside of wikipedia, the existence of large quantities of plagiarised text would detract seriously from its credibility and validity as a project.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I work in publishing, and there is plenty of space there where such specificities are not generally called for. If one is doing an abridged edition, children's edition, or updated version of a book, one credits the work which one is reworking but does not separate out phrase by phrase of what is from that source. Much the same goes, of course, for film adaptations, music sampling, and so on. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think the difference there is that you are giving primary credit to the original author, and your work is voluntarily subsumed into theirs (while of course correctly stating that it is a Children's version or an abridged edition, giving editor credits etc.). In wikipedia, we are taking other people's work and subsuming it into ours.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the dichotomy is useful but I doubt anyone can subscribe to the pure form of either position. If I had to guess, I would assume most editors would agree with most of the sentences in both statements when presented in isolation. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:No. Your characterization is too gross to be useful and your made up dichotomy is just silly. We have those templates precisely because we try to give credit where credit is due, per [[WP:PLAGIARISM]], so there is nothing shocking at all about {{tl|PD-USGov}} and {{tl|EB1911}} content. Sure, there are other ways to do it, than those templates, even so. Plagiarism is not a law, so your reference to the law makes no sense. But what is the law is, Wikipedia has to be written by persons, who can legally licence what they put on our pages, and if you did not write it you can't release it, nor purport to release it nor make it appear you are releasing under your licence, when you can't and you aren't. And Wikipedia does not warrant we offer good information either, in fact Wikipedia disclaims it in our disclaimer, that does not mean Wikipedian's don't care about good information. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 10:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Wikipedia is written by people who freely license their contributions by the act of editing. But, public domain material is already free, does not need to be licensed, and so can be freely added to Wikipedia. Material that has been released under a free license can also be freely added to Wikipedia, subject to the conditions of the license, such as attribution (although we cannot copy material under a license that does not allow commercial use, but that has nothing to do with this discussion). There is no policy, rule, or law that Wikipedia has to be written by persons (although the community currently is rejecting material written by LLMs). Reliable content is reliable whether is written by Wikipedia editors based on reliable sources, or copied from reliable sources that are in the public domain or licensed under terms compatible with usage in Wikipedia. I believe that we should be explicitly citing everything that is in articles, even if I know that will not be happening any time soon. We should, however, be explicitly citing all public domain and freely-licensed content that is copied into Wikipedia, being clear that the content is copied. One of the existing templates or a specific indication in a footnote or in-line citation is sufficient, in my opinion. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, you cannot present it as if you are licencing it (and indeed requiring attribution to you!) which is what you do if just copy the words into an article and don't say, in effect, 'this is not under my licence this is public domain, that other person wrote it.' (Your discussion of LLM's and what not, is just beside the point, you, a person, are copying, not someone else.) And your last point, we are in radical agreement certainly (about letting the reader know its public domain that other person wrote it, and that's what the templates try to do) we are not in a dichotomy, at all. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Alan, I think your response makes me more certain that my two polar ends are real. You're working from the viewpoint that if it's on the page, and does not contain words like "According to EB1911" outside of a little blue clicky number and outside of the history page, then the editor who put that text there is "purporting" that the text was written by that editor. |
|||
::::There's nothing in the license that requires is to let the ''reader'' know that it's public domain or that another person wrote it. You know that a quick edit summary is 100% sufficient for the license requirements, even if nothing in the text or footnotes mentions the source. The story you present sounds like this to me: |
|||
::::* The license doesn't require attribution for public domain content. |
|||
::::* Even if it did, it wouldn't require anything more visible than an edit summary saying "Copied from EB1911". |
|||
::::* So (you assert) there has to be in-text attribution ("According to EB1911, a wedding cake...") or a plain-text statement at the end of the article ("This article incorporates text from EB1911") to the public domain, so the casual, non-reusing reader knows that it wasn't written by whichever editor posted it on the page. |
|||
::::This doesn't logically follow. I suspect that what you've written so far doesn't really explain your view fully. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No. Your false dichotomy has already been shown to be of no value. Now you add to your baseless assumptions about clicky numbers and what not. I think that editors add content to Wikipedia under the license (otherwise we would have no license), yet I also think we need to tell the reader that the matter comes from somewhere else, when it comes from somewhere else. None of that should be hard to understand for anyone. (And besides, article histories are not secrets, they are public and publicly tied to text available to the reader and anyone else.) It's just bizarre that you would imagine an unbridgeable void, when basically everyone is saying that a disclosure should be made, and they are only really discussing degrees and forms of disclosure. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, a disclosure should be made, and it was made. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, indeed, and that is why the discussion is about form. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Alan, I don't agree that the spectrum I describe is a false dichotomy, or that anyone has even attempted to show whether it has value, though I gather that you happen to disagree with it. |
|||
::::::::I don't agree that the CC-BY-SA license requires disclosure of the source of public domain material. I think that's a question for a bunch of lawyers to really settle, but based on my own understanding, it does not. I think that ''Wikipedia should'' have such requirements (e.g, in [[Wikipedia:Public domain]], which notably does not mention the CC-BY-SA license as a reason to do so; instead, it says only that this is important for Wikipedia's reliability), but I don't think we have any reason to believe that the ''license does''. This distinction may seem a little like hairsplitting, but if we propose to change our rules about how to handle these things, we should be accurate about what's required for which reasons. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It should not take a lawyer to tell you that to grant a licence you first have to have a right, and that you should not be misrepresenting that you have right when you don't. A lawyer can't give you the ability to be honest. You're not proposing to change rules, and indeed there is no proposal here, so that proposal talk of yours is irrelevant at best. (As for your false dichotomy, it is just a figment of your imagination, a useless piece of rhetoric, where you pretend you know what others think.) [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I agree that to grant a license, you first have to have a right. |
|||
::::::::::However, AIUI, the point of [[public domain]] content is that everyone already has the right to use it. Adding a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license to public domain material does not add restrictions to the material. The [[Creative Commons]] folks say this: [https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-a-work-in-the-public-domain "Creators may also apply Creative Commons licenses to material they create that are adapted from public domain works, or to remixed material, databases, or collections that include work in the public domain."] |
|||
::::::::::As far as I'm concerned, they might as well write "Yeah, you can put public domain material straight into a Wikipedia article", as our articles are practically the definition of "remixed material". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::How dishonest your statement is, no you don't have a copyright in the public domain, and the first sentence of that article says "CC licenses should not be applied to works in the worldwide public domain." It further advises to "mark public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." Again, no one can give you the ability to be honest. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I never said that you have a copyright in the public domain. I said "everyone already has the right to use it [public domain material]". |
|||
::::::::::::The context of the sentence you quote is that adding restrictions when ''the entire work'' is public domain is legally ineffective. For example: |
|||
::::::::::::* EB1911 is public domain. |
|||
::::::::::::* I put the whole thing on a website with a CC-BY-SA license. |
|||
::::::::::::* Result I can't enforce my claimed rights, because EB1911 is still public domain. |
|||
::::::::::::However: |
|||
::::::::::::* EB1911 is public domain. |
|||
::::::::::::* I put one paragraph in the middle of whole page that is ''not'' public domain but has a CC-BY-SA license. |
|||
::::::::::::* Result: The page is partially remixed work, and it's legal. The non-public domain parts are still CC-BY-SA, and the one paragraph is still public domain. |
|||
::::::::::::You seem to have only a partial quotation of a relevant sentence. The full sentence is "We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." We strongly encourage == not a requirement for the license. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Would you stop the misdirection, that the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction, was my point, which you then totally wigged out about. The point is not to be dishonest with readers, that they are misled when you don't let them know its public domain, even when you used it and asserted your licence, as the license is only needed because of your copyright. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::I disagree with your claim that "people" are misled by having a paragraph from EB1911 in the middle of a Wikipedia article, because almost nobody has any idea how the licenses work or how Wikipedia articles get written. |
|||
::::::::::::::The ones who do know tend to be [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]], and they don't care if there's a public domain paragraph in the middle, because they want the whole thing, not a single paragraph, and they want it automated, which means not looking at the contents line by line. |
|||
::::::::::::::I disagree with your claim that we ''need'' to "let them know its public domain". Also, nothing proposed here, or in any example I've ever seen in discussions on this subject would "let them know its public domain". Spamming "According to the EB1911 entry..." into the middle of an article does not "let them know its public domain". That merely "lets them know that it's a quotation from a different publication". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Stop it. No one has suggested putting anything on the middle of the article. You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so. And your clearly wrong about not telling the reader, Wikipedia does it with templates already. Unless your trying to be dishonest, there is no reason not to tell. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::{{tpq|You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so.}} The quotes from CC posted and linked here clearly prove that WAID is not wrong. In a discussion about honesty it is not a good look to repeatedly accuse someone of being dishonest when they are not being so. Tone down the rhetoric and start reading what other people are writing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::No, the CC people say "mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction" when you use the CC license, and the Wikipedia guidelines agree that you should do so and even refers you to templates for that purpose, so WAID is wrong and yes it's a form of dishonesty not to give disclosure when you copy. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::As has been pointed out to you already, that is only a partial quote and is misleading. The full quote, from [https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-a-work-in-the-public-domain] is {{tpq|Creators may also apply Creative Commons licenses to material they create that are adapted from public domain works, or to remixed material, databases, or collections that include work in the public domain. However, in each of these instances, the license does not affect parts of the work that are unrestricted by copyright or similar rights. We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction.}} |
|||
::::::::::::::::::"We strongly encourage you to mark..." is not a requirement, but a recommendation. |
|||
::::::::::::::::::Further, the CC website states {{tpq|{{tpq|CC licenses have a flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner. Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found.}}[https://creativecommons.org/faq/#attribution] |
|||
::::::::::::::::::The templates you refer to in your 00:09 comment do not identify which content is available in the public domain, merely that some material was incorporated into the article in some way. It may or may not (still) be present in a form that is public domain. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::There is nothing misleading about it, the CC still say "mark the public domain" material when you use the license and it says why, to let the reader know. And the templates still mark it as public domain material. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 02:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::When someone presents evidence of you misleadingly selectively quoting, and you double down on the misleading selective quoting, twice, it is very difficult to continue assuming good faith. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::You presented no such evidence, you proved what I said is true, the CC people are the ones who say when you use the license mark the public domain, indeed you admitted they said it, when you said it's their recommendation. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::"Mark it" sounds like the [[Imperative mood]]. What they actually said is "We strongly encourage you to mark", which is not the imperative mood. "We strongly encourage you to" means "but it's optional, and you don't have to". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::::That's irrelevant. The salient point is the same, marking is still something one should do, indeed they feel strongly about it. And as Wikipedia agrees in its guidance, its what Wikipedia indeed does and tries to do. Doubtful that's just coincidence, it is how responsible actors, act in this regard of good practice with CC licenses, strongly so. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 09:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::But we ''don't'' do what they recommend. They want something like: |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::{{Fix-span|content={{{text|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.}}}|link=Wikipedia:CCBYSA|text=public domain|class=Template-Fact|span-class=citation-needed-content|title={{delink|{{{reason|This text is not copyrighted.}}}}}}} |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::Editors here are saying that they want either "According to EB1911..." at the start of the sentence (which doesn't tell the re-user anything about the material being public domain) or they want {{tl|EB1911}} at the end of the page (which doesn't tell the re-user which material is public domain). Neither of our standard practices actually follow the CC lawyer's optional recommendation. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::No, the CC people don't actually advise on how to mark, and again irrelevant, even if they did say there was another way to mark, we do do then what they recommend at least in spirit, because we are in accord with them that's it is something one should do. (And whomever these other editors are you wish to respond to, you should take up with them). -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::The CC FAQ page says {{xt|We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material}}. It does not say "We strongly encourage you to mark that some unidentified portion of the licensed work contains public domain material". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::The CC FAQ page says there is flexibility in the how of all attribution, and that's not advice on how because they don't know what you are writing. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::CC says marking public domain parts of a work is encouraged but not required. |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::CC says attribution methods can be flexible. |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Alanscottwalker says {{xt|just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough}} |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Alanscottwalker says {{xt|if you did not write it you can't release it, nor purport to release it nor make it appear you are releasing under your licence}} |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Alanscottwalker says {{xt|you cannot present it as if you are licencing it}} |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Alanscottwalker says {{xt|the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction}} |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[[One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others)]]? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}}1) WhatamIdoing takes that out of context, and all of what I said in that full remark is usual and unsurprising, eg., the use of quotation marks for quotes is common, don't you know, that's why quotation marks basically exist. Besides, when we correctly use the PD footnote template that is more than a usual footnote. |
|||
2) WhatamIdoing already agrees you can't release what you do not own, which is a thing that is universally acknowledged by everyone. It naturally follows, in honesty you should tell them it is PD, not your license. |
|||
Thoughts? [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
3 and 4) That's why you mark it PD, per Wikipedia guidelines and CC advice, there are different ways to mark it PD, including in using the footnote template and the endnote template but sure there are other ways (and anodyne exploring various ways was what the conversation could have been until WhatamIdoing derailed it with a false dichotomy of an unbridgeable gap, and got overwrought when one said telling them it is PD is what you should do in CC situations) . -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think this fits under notability. In fact, I can't think of a comparable notability criterion. In effect, your proposed criterion is a description of an article quality standard, below which articles should be deleted. I don't think it's a good fit with notability. If something is deemed notable, it is deemed notable in perpetuity. |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Attribution]] seems very clear that all material that is knowing used from another source should be attributed, though how that attribution is done varies by scenario. That would mean knowing pulling from PD material in whole without providing attribution to the PD source is a violation. This doesn't mean we cannot wholesale use content from PD sources as if it were a whole article but that source should be named somewhere - that could be a talk page header, it could be a statement in an edit summary, it doesn't necessarily need to be a footnote on the mainspace article page. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Furthermore, as we know, the rubric to WP:AFD reads "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." In other words, I don't think there needs to be a rule for this. Articles can still be looked at on a case-by-case basis. - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] <sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Who?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 11:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:That's fair as far as that page goes but the particular guideline is [[WP:FREECOPY]], which is somewhat more emphatic -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I wonder whether [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources]] should be in [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]] at all. Marking the copyright status of a paragraph has nothing to do with plagiarism. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Sure it does, as with not doing plagiarism, its handling material honestly, and handling is telling the reader. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I'm wondering whether the sections about copyright information should be in [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia]] section might fit better in [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text]]; [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text]] could go in [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others]]. |
|||
*::::I don't think that copyright is primarily a matter of honesty; it is a matter of legality. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Fits fine where it is, various ways, and use cases of telling the reader where the words they are reading are coming from, and is about being upfront with the reader, not taking unearned credit, not misleading the reader. So yes, honesty. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 10:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Hate speech == |
|||
::This is not a good solution AFD is [[WP:NOTCLEANUP]], and [[WP:NOEFFORT]] is not an excuse for deleting articles on subjects that Wikipedia ''should'' cover (=notable subjects). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I should already know this, but I don't: where is our policy page on hateful remarks directed at groups (as opposed to [[WP:NPA|individuals]]) – ethnic, national, religious, sexual and so on? And our guidance on how best to deal with them without attracting undue attention? I don't see that this topic is specifically covered in the [[wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct|Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct]]. Thanks, [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Furthermore, per [[WP:NTEMP]], notability is not temporary. It states "''Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.''" <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 04:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I didn't mean ongoing as in 'coverage in 2011 about the 1990-91 season', I meant 'the article on the 1990-91 season gets updated so that by the end of the season, it's current. If it never gets touched again, it will still be ''complete''. An article that covers the first month and only the first month of a season isn't complete. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 01:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:We have a few explanatory essays covering this like [[Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive]]. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 09:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Alright then. Just a note though: If I work on them, which I probably will, I'm going to remove the incomplete fancy stat tables and make it into, essentially, a text only article. The articles will be good enough, and will be in compliance with the prose first component of NSPORTS, but if someone else wants stats sheets in there, they're going to have to do it themselves. I can't do all those tables on my own. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::We don't accept statements like "I hate <named kind of> people". We usually do accept statements like "I hate Bob's Big Business, Inc.". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::“Some people can’t get along with other people… and I hate people like that!” [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: There seems to be varying interpretations of what that essay means or how we should enforce it or if if we should at all. For example, this situation:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=1172544053]. Courtesy ping to {{u|Snow Rise}}. I'm bringing this up because I think how that discussion was handled has broader implications that are relevant here. For the record, I do agree with that explanatory essay. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tq|the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real"}}: I will hope that Snow Rise meant to type "the false belief" that trans people aren't real. Whether sky or sapphire is the finer blue, or whether ''Avengers: Endgame'' is a good movie, are subjective beliefs. Expressing denial of the existence of a category of people—whether people of Black African descent, Jewish folks, First Nations, gay people, Catholics, or those who are transgender (to nonexhaustively give examples)—is [[WP:FRINGE]] at a minimum and more generally is better described as prejudicial and destructive to the cultivation of a civil and collegial editing environment on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the expression's phrasing is hostile or sweet, passionate or anodyne. Reducing such to "abstract belief"—when it's a belief about concrete people who exist in the world and in this community—is, however inadvertently, a language game, an alchemy of words. If it's a true and dispassionate assessment to say that the Wikipedia community generally prefers a site where participants receive no penalty for denying the existence of people groups or for opposing the extension of rights to them (including by denying they exist and therefore can be extended to)—or, perhaps, selectively receive no penalty for doing so for ''certain'' groups—then something is rotten in the state of Denmark, proverbially speaking.{{pb}}Or, to answer OP's question and express myself in another way, as zzuzz points out elsewhere in this thread, the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct Universal Code of Conduct] is unequivocal that [h]{{tq|ate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are}} is {{tq|unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement}}. I'd point out that also considered unacceptable is {{tq|content that are intimidating or harmful to others outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use}}: expressions on talk and user pages often exist outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You have truncated the quote; Snow Rise said {{tq|the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real" men or women}}. [[User:Genericusername57|gnu]][[User talk:Genericusername57|<span style="color:#ff7000">57</span>]] 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My argument at the time was that this ''was'' sanctionable behaviour, despite what others say. You can't exactly make sweeping statements about a group without it also being a personal attack. I don't see much of a difference between going "I don't think you're a real man" and "I don't believe that anyone that's like you is a real man". {{u|Hydrangeans}}, I also argued at the time that this went against the Code of Conduct. My purpose in bringing this up now is that something I thought was obvious apparently is more controversial than it seems within the community. Even if I think things shouldn't be this way. Another example would be when I filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1149026678#Dbachmann this ArbCom case] against someone that argued some people were subhuman. I think it if it was a regular editor, they would've been indeffed and not just [[Wikipedia:Super Mario effect|desysopped]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 13:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Also, in the interest of fairness, this diff was part of a wider discussion that took place [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1138#Did_I_do_the_right_thing_here? here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_186#Language_at_WP:UPNOT here]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 13:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|truncated the quote}}: The whole quote amounts to altogether the same thing. To hold that, for example, transgender men are not "'real' men", is to hold that transgender men are not real—as they are women. Etc. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I would presume this would be covered under general guidance regarding disruptive editing or using WP as a forum. I have no love for the Kardashians, but I don't make it a point to go to relevant articles and voice my opinion. If it isn't disruptive but merely objectionable, then that gets into slippery NOTCENSORED territory very quickly, because what is objectionable but not disruptive is very much in the eye of the beholder. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:[[WP:CIVIL]], while focused on individual interactions can be extended to group incivility. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[WP:HA]] does deal in passing at least with conduct even if the target is not an editor. And you are correct that something like CIVIL can be broadly construed in the sense that if someone says "I hate gypsies" then it can be reasonably assumed that some of our community are Roma and so it discourages collaboration. But it's difficult to tell what the real angle here is without more specifics. For example, many, including myself, may consider parts of the Bible as hateful, although that at some level has to be balanced with historical significance and the fact that hateful views are in-and-of-themselves a topic we cover extensively. Not being doomed to repeat history and all that. Others surely would consider what I just said as a form hatefulness against a religious group for their sincerely held beliefs. |
|||
*::But as I indicated before, there is always going to be a nuanced judgement about the dividing line between what is hateful and what is merely offensive. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] 21:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement ... Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs ..." --[https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct UCOC]. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 21:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Thanks to {{u|zzuuzz}} and all others who replied. It was that line in the You-cock that I was looking for. So do we in fact have no local policy specific to this? Someone asked about context: a couple of days ago a note was left on my talk asking me to revdelete a fairly unpleasant remark; I'd already gone to bed and the matter was quickly dealt with, but I was left wondering the next day how we should best handle these (fortunately rare) occurrences. I'm not talking about incivility but stuff like "[your choice of ethnicity/sexuality/caste/religion/etc here] should be put up against a wall and shot" or whatever other nastiness unpleasant minds may dream up. I looked for our policy page and didn't find it. Should there in fact be such a page? [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'd say those types of situations are covered under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:My go-to would be the blocking policy, which has this covered (even if not explicitly). The revdel policy also allows deletion (mostly RD2). Is there anything else to do? Hate speech is just a subset of disruption, and we have wide latitude to throw it in the trash, because trash goes in the trash. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::In some cases oversight is also a possible action, but revision deletion is going to be more common. Especially when the target of the comment is a specific person, [[WP:NPA]] also allows for the removal of the comment. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:The policy is that you are [[WP:CIVIL|required to be civil]] and [[WP:NPA|not attack other users]]. I don't think there is any civil way for a person to express the opinion of, e.g. "I love being racist and I hate black people". At any rate, the ''de facto'' policy is that somebody will block for this kind of garbage regardless. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 07:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Notifying Wikiprojects and [[WP:CANVASS]] == |
|||
:Why don't you write whatever you want, but leave the table alone, on the chance that someone else might want to complete it at a later date? Articles do not have to look complete at all times. In fact, back in the day, "always leave something undone" was a standard, deliberate practice, because they recognized that obviously incomplete articles attract more new editors than practically perfect articles. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
This issue has disrupted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1225847599 multiple] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_queerphobes&diff=prev&oldid=1221229688 threads] on unrelated issues, so I figure I should raise it at a nice central location where we can hash it out once and for all: |
|||
:If you are going to work on the articles, wouldn't it make more sense to complete the tables rather than remove them? If I'm looking up a sports team, stat tables are exactly what I am expecting to see. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of [[WP:CANVASS]]? |
|||
*On the OP's proposal: Absolutely, positively, not. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress|Wikipedia will never be complete]]. It is never a good idea to delete an article simply because it was started and not finished. There is no impending need to remove articles which could be completed, but have not yet. Also, removing the "stats table" is also a fundementally bad idea. The stats are verifiable and good information; often what people are looking for. Under [[WP:PRESERVE]], there's no need to tear down the work of others. Yes, we do delete work which fundementally violates wikipedia's core policies [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]]. However, insofar as a verifiable table of team statistics is relevent to the article (it is) neutral and not original research, there is absolutely no reason to delete it. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:In his defence, the stat table on the example article is basically empty. Nothing would be lost by its removal, but a lot would be gained simply by filling it out. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*::Articles in a very close class are expected to have a standard format. As such, an empty stats table encourages later users to adhere to the standard format used in other articles of the same type. In otherwords, we'd want the stats table at '''2009-2010 Anytown Eagles season''' to be formatted just like the table at '''2008-2009 Anytown Eagles season''' and indeed just like the table at '''2009-2010 Nowheresville Tigers season'''. If you remove empty stats tables, then sure, someone else may come along and create one from scratch, but then you get the problem of having a hodgepodge of stats tables in every article; they may cover the same information but will do so in such varied ways as to generally detract from the overall coherance of the subject. It makes Wikipedia look worse to have a bunch of different formats for all of the stats tables than it does to have an empty one, waiting for someone to fill it out correctly. So, it '''is''' better to leave the empty one in the article, as it encourages a desirable uniformity of style, while removing it encourages an undesirable mess. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:::That is very true. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**I probably should have made it clearer what I meant. Two factors come into play here. The longer it's been since the season I'm writing about ended, the less available the information becomes. This year's tables include who scored what in what minute, who got cards when, game attendance, and the ref. I doubt I'll be able to track most of that down on my own. I could see finding some of that but not all of it. Rather than leave the table half filled, I feel it better to convert what I can into prose. The second factor is that some articles use older tables that just give win/loss, team, and score, without even giving dates. I might be able to salvage those, but I doubt it. When I said "I can't do all those tables on my own." It had more to do with there not being readily available information. I can fill in tables, but I need the information first. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
***If you are writing about a season where its hard to find the information after the season is done, then you are probably writing about a sport that shouldn't have an individual season page. Any major sports league is going to have information available in papers and on websites etc well after the season is over. No one said doing these pages were easy or that you had to do them on your own. So its a bit of a cop out to think a page should be deleted if its not up to date. I happen to know people creating season pages for seasons that were 100 years ago. So I don't really agree with what you are saying. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
****To tag on to what Djsasso saod, I don't know about association football, because I am not a fan, but for many sports there is '''oodles''' of information out there, just waiting to be used. http://www.sports-reference.com/ is the standard research tool for many sports, including American football (college and pro), hockey, baseball, and Olympics. Its quite comprehensive for the sports it covers. There is quite literally more stats availible on that one website than I could ever use at Wikipedia. In other words, for any stat I could think of needing for any sports article at Wikipedia (in the sports covered by sports-reference) I can find it, including team states, individual player stats, season tables, and its broken down multiple ways, so I can find results from one player in a given year, or year-by-year stats for a given team, or any of a number of other ways. I have no idea if association football has a similar website, but given its popularity, I would be astounded if it didn't. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 22:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*****Regarding the inability to find stats for association football teams, I found http://www.worldfootball.net/ which seems to have match-by-match results for every team and every year in every major and minor league in every major soccer playing country around the world. So, I call "bullshit" on not being able to find stats necessary to fill out the tables, even for older seasons. Sure, some of the data, for say the Armenian National League from 1987, may be a bit incomplete, but for major leagues, like Serie A or EPL, its got literally every stat you could need. So, I don't want to hear about deleting the stat tables just because one couldn't find the stats. Its all there, and it took me, who knows literally nothing about soccer, five minutes to find the refs. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
******Yes, for this year the information is there, however that amount of information only goes so far back. Look at [http://www.worldfootball.net/spielplan/ita-serie-a-2003-2004-spieltag/34/ the 2003-04 season], you see those blue links where the scores are? Those are where I click [http://www.worldfootball.net/spielbericht/serie-a-2003-2004-parma-fc-udinese-calcio/ to get the game information]. Those links disappear if you go back one year [http://www.worldfootball.net/spielplan/ita-serie-a-2002-2003-spieltag/34/ to the 2002-03 season.] That's the issue here, I'm having a real hard time finding the who 'scored/carded when' information for any time before the turn of the millennium. It has to be somewhere, but I can't find that somewhere. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*******Well, then perhaps this is the sort of thing that needs to be worked out in the relevent WikiProject. This is '''exactly''' what the WikiProjects exist for; standardizing articles that fall under their remit. Have you checked with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football]] to see if there are resources others have found that may be helpful, or article formatting standards, or anything like that? It looks like an active project. Maybe collaborating with them will help you. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*******Surely there are sporting almanacs and encyclopedias available. For example, thanks to the team's media guide, I have complete statistics for the [[Calgary Flames]], and consequently have four season articles at GA status, the oldest of which covers the [[1985–86 Calgary Flames season|1985–86 season]]. For the Serie A, I would be certain the information is there, but you might have to dig a bit for it. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 04:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
(My position is no, it's not, but I'll save the argumentation for later.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== How do you deal with IPs that are simply ignoring you? == |
|||
: It can be, if the Wikiproject is unrepresentative of the broader community. There are several ARBCOM principles relevant to this, including: |
|||
:: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Participation|Participation]]: {{tqb|The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.}} |
|||
:: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Canvassing|Canvassing]]: {{tqb|While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.}} |
|||
: No exception is made for if the forum is organized as a Wikiproject; {{tq|an influx of biased or partisan editors}} is an issue regardless of whether they came from a non-representative Wikiproject or another non-representative forum. |
|||
: [[WP:CANVASS]] says the same thing; it forbids notifications to a partisan audience, and makes it clear that [[WP:APPNOTE]] does not create exceptions to these rules; {{tq|Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the [[WP:INAPPNOTE|section directly below]], and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.}} |
|||
: It's important to note that most Wikiprojects are representative and non-partisan; our rules on canvassing only affect a very small number, and even those are only partisan on some topics within their area of interest and can be notified without issue on the rest. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I have only a few short things to say: |
|||
::1. The idea of a "partisan Wikiproject" is ridiculous. If such a thing existed, it would be [[WP:NOTHERE]] and get booted. |
|||
::2. A Wikiproject tending to vote a particular way is not the same thing as a partisan Wikiproject: consider for instance a vote about whether evolution should be treated as true where everyone from [[WP:BIOLOGY]] and half of all other editors voted the same way while half of all other editors did (and assuming these groups are roughly balanced). In this case, the Wikiproject members are clearly in keeping with the global consensus and it's a minority of non-members that aren't. |
|||
::3. The line in [[WP:APPNOTE]] that you're quoting was added only about a year ago with little discussion on the talk page. You are in fact one of the people who advocated adding it. |
|||
::4. Both those lines from ArbCom that you're quoting come from the same case which was about a secret and partisan outside forum. Neither even contemplates the idea of notifications on Wikipedia being canvassing. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We've had a long history of issues with partisan Wikiprojects, recently for example WikiProject Roads which became so hyper-partisan that it ended up forking rather than complying with policy and guideline when all their attempts to destroy those policies and guidelines failed. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:No, it isn't. I have been accused of selective notification for notifying Wikiproject Quebec about an RfC concerning a Quebec premier, while not notifying other provincial wikiprojects, which is ridiculous. Anyway, the correct solution to perceived imbalances in notifications is always to notify more editors through various means of mass notification; it is never to accuse editors using these mandated channels of "canvassing" - the latter is what is disruptive, IMO. |
|||
:And concerning BilledMammal's comment on this, the idea that any WikiProject would be a {{tq|biased or partisan audience}} is set out here without any shred of evidence. Nor is there any evidence that Arbcom or INAPPNOTE had these public, on-wiki fora in mind when cautioning against partisanship. The fact is that Wikiprojects concern topics, not ideologies (whether on-wiki or off-wiki ideologies) so if you want to be informed on a topic where you disagree with the opinions of the most active contributors, the sensible thing has always been to join the wikiproject or at least to follow its page for updates. |
|||
:Just for emphasis: accusing editors of bias because they belong to or notify wikiprojects is itself a violation of [[WP:NPA]] and disruptive. When I was accused of bias and canvassing for notifying Wikiproject Quebec, I felt both hurt and falsely accused - that is, once I was finished laughing at the absurdly false assumptions the accusation implied concerning my views about nationalism. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tqb|the idea that any WikiProject would be a "biased or partisan audience" is set out here without any shred of evidence.}} |
|||
::As I understand it, the intent of this discussion is to determine whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be {{tq|unrepresentative}} or {{tq|mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience}} and thus inappropriate to notify. |
|||
::Whether any specific Wikiproject is {{tq|unrepresentative}} or {{tq|mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience}} is a different question that can be addressed elsewhere. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't see the question posed in this section as whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be biased and notifying it to be canvassing; I think the relevant question is whether this is a practical or relevant concern. What matters isn't the theoretical (how many angels can fit on the head of a pin) but rather the practical (is there an angel on the head of my pin, and if so, does it give me an unfair advantage in discussions to determine consensus of the community on a topic). |
|||
:::What is clearly the case is that these kind of accusations - claims that specific wikiprojects are {{tq|partisan}} (always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern) and that notfiying them is therefore partisan - have had ''real, and unmistakable'' toxic effects on-wiki. These effects have included individual editors feeling attacked and misunderstood, and also community time wasted on dramaboards, and to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that ''any'' wikiproject notification was ''ever'' canvassing, though efforts have been (correctly) made to ensure that editors having differing perspectives on issues are ''also'' notified. |
|||
:::In any event, there is a clear and present cost to the community thanks to toxic discussion when certain editors insist on retaining the accusation of "canvassing by notifying partisan wikiprojects" within their arsenal. Given this evident pain point, it seems clear to me that the onus is on those holding this belief to present evidence that it is a real, not theoretical, possibility. Otherwise we are dragging down the level of civility in the community and wasting the time of editors and administrators just because certain editors believe they ''ought to be able to'' make a certain argument - even though, to the best of my knowledge, the community has never reached consensus that this argument was ever borne out in an actual situation on-wiki. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tqb|always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern}} |
|||
::::That's not accurate; the discussions that Loki linked as provoking this discussion included evidence. However, I won't go into it here, both because I don't want to derail this discussion with talk of specific WikiProjects and because you are topic banned and thus can't engage with the evidence. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Before this is closed, I wanted to clarify that when I said, {{tq|to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that ''any'' wikiproject notification was ''ever'' canvassing}}, I was referring to the act of issuing an appropriately worded, neutral notification to a Wikiproject. Issuing a non-neutral notification, whether to a wikiproject or a dramaboard, can of course be canvassing. The fairly extensive contributions made to this discussion have confirmed my opinion that a neutrally-worded notification to a wikiproject is ''never'' canvassing, and that the solution to selective notifications (e.g., concerning Israel-Palestine issues) is ''always'' to notify more editors, bringing in diverse views from other relevant projects or through centralized boards. I don't think this is applied Neutonian physics, here. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed with @[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]]. While I don't deny there have been legitimate and serious issues with canvassing, canvassing is slowly becoming Wikipedia's [[Stop the Steal]]. By that I mean, it's a accusation freely thrown out by someone when their idea loses at a !vote or is suddenly drowned out by opposing ideas. The obvious intent is to try for an appeal by mass discrediting any opposing opnion, rather than accept their idea might might have been an unpopular one. So any policy changes, IMHO, should be to clarify what is and is not canvassing and not introduce more confusion and open more doors for appeals and lawyering when ones proposal isn't suceeding.[[User:Moabdave|Dave]] ([[User talk:Moabdave|talk]]) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page. I watchlist, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria, Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Any notification to any of those I would see. Now there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel, but notifying WikiProjects that have within their scope whatever is under discussion is not canvassing. |
|||
{{user|75.60.185.238}} keeps adding entries to [[List of Pokémon (1–51)]] with horrible grammar. The main problem is that it is adding information to sections which are about split characters, thus don't need any prose. I have contacted them on their talkpage, but it appears they are ignoring the big flashing "You have new messages" banner. What do I do? Can I get them blocked, or should I keep reverting until they stop? <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 02:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, they stopped adding them, and haven't edited for 10 minutes. They might be gone. <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 18:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: {{tqb|Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page.}} |
|||
::One thing I can tell you is that edit warring with them over the topic is not the thing to do. The edits that the IP was making do not appear to be vandalism and you weren't treating them as vandalism, so your 5 reverts are a technical violation of the [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]]. I do not believe you should be blocked for the violation but if the IP comes back I would advise you to not revert any more edits there for a while. Sometimes it is better to let the IP make all their edits and leave satisified and then revert the whole group at once. [[User:GB fan|GB fan]] ([[User talk:GB fan|talk]]) 19:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: They can, but the possibility that they can doesn't mean the forum isn't unrepresentative if they don't. Consider a hypothetical; lets pretend that 90% of people affiliated (watchlisting, members, etc) with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel]] are pro-Israel <u>in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict</u>. Clearly, it would be unrepresentative, and a [[WP:CANVASS]] violation to notify unless there is an equally unrepresentative forum in the opposite direction that is also notified (perhaps [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine]]). |
|||
:::Well, you could say that they were not reverting me back, so we were not engaged in a war. They kept adding different content, and I was removing the new content. I was just upholding the quality of the article because their entries were horrible and could not be fixed, but only completely rewritten. The problem was that the IP either did not know I was messaging them, or did not care to listen. <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: To be clear, I'm not saying either of these are {{tq|unrepresentative}} or {{tq|mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience}}; I haven't looked into either of them, and am only using them for the sake of example. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) <small>Edited 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) to clarify</small> |
|||
::::It's still a 3RR violation. However looking at the IPs edits, I don't see them as having horrible grammar that could not be fixed. In fact, the grammar was very passable. However, there may be a copyright issue as these exact summaries show up on a number of other websites. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::If something is not relevant to WikiProject Palestine, like say an article on some random company in Tel Aviv, then notifying WikiProject Israel and not WikiProject Palestine would be totally fine. If something is relevant to both, then only notifying one would be an issue. I literally just said, in the comment you are replying to, {{tq|there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel}}. But the idea that a page that any and every registered user can watchlist can be a target for canvassing is silly. I guarantee you "pro-Israel" users watchlist WikiProject Palestine, and "pro-Palestine" users watchlist WikiProject Israel. If the notification itself is neutral, it isnt a CANVASSING violation to post to a WikiProject about a discussion in its scope. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 02:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh, I didn't see that said that. I will try not to do that in the future I guess. <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is similar to how I feel about it too: there are times when notifying only certain Wikiprojects says bad things about the notifier's intent, but I don't think there's ever a time where notifying only certain Wikiprojects ever causes provably skewed results. |
|||
: [[Wikipedia:I feel]] --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
:::(Furthermore, ''not'' notifying the relevant Wikiprojects is often also suspicious in this way. Sometimes it smacks of not wanting a decision to be scrutinized by people who regularly edit in the topic area.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::You previously discussed your point of view regarding partisan WikiProjects at {{section link|Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 49|Modifications to CANVASS}}, and it didn't get much support. As I said then, WikiProjects are just groups of editors sharing a common interest and working together to further the goals of Wikipedia, usually by working on various initiatives. Most of them are oriented around a content area, and thus attract the knowledgeable editors in that area. Notifying the corresponding WikiProjects for related content areas is considered to be a neutral way of reaching the interested editors who are best able to bring greater context to a decision. It's not partisan to be interested in a content area. |
|||
::::::Melodia, you might want to read [[WP:3RR]], it doesn't make any difference that it was different content that was being reverted. You are right though about letting the IP add all the content and revert it all at one time, that is what I recommended above in my initial response to Blake. [[User:GB fan|GB fan]] ([[User talk:GB fan|talk]]) 01:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::There can be groups that, by their nature, have self-selected a set of editors with a specific position on some issue, and thus its members are more prone to make partial arguments for that position. If someone set up WikiProject solely to vote in favour of removing all foreign language names from English Wikipedia articles, for example, then notifying it would result in vote-stacking. However the community has dealt with this by reaching a consensus that the group's purpose is counter to the best interests of the overall project and disbanding the group. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You should definitely not try climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man [[WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.]] [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 19:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* There have been issues relating to very cliquey Wikiprojects/similar pages. Not a huge number but hard to say "ever". The question says "the relevant Wikiprojects", which is plural, while I assume the issue is usually with ''a'' relevant Wikiproject. The common practice of simply notifying all Wikiprojects on the talkpage, with a neutral message the same across all notifications, works fine in the vast majority of cases. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:The question at issue here was originally sparked by someone notifying the relevant Wikiproject and all people on the talk page about an AFD for an essay closely related to LGBT issues. The assertion by some editors for deletion, including the person who started the AFD in the first place, was that [[WP:LGBT]] was biased such that notifying them ''at all'', even in combination with a group of editors including some editors known specifically to oppose the existence of the page, was canvassing. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* No, the only thing that would make a Wikiproject notification a violation of [[WP:CANVASS]] is if the notification itself was done in a POV manner, such as calling for everyone at the Wikiproject to vote a certain way. Or you might get called out if it was, say, an RfC on a religious topic and the only Wikiproject you notified was Wikiproject Atheism. Though the solution to such a case is just to notify the other relevant Wikiprojects, which anyone can do. The only other case I can think of that would get you some side-eye and comments is if you were notifying Wikiprojects that very clearly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, such as if it was a Biology RfC and you went and notified Wikiproject Football. Though that would less be canvassing and more just...confusion. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 03:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:<small>FYI, notifying WikiProject Football about a Biology RfC would violate [[WP:CANVASS]]; see [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting|Spamming and excessive cross-posting]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
* No, notifying relevant Wikiprojects about a discussion does not in itself constitute violate [[WP:CANVASS]]. To be frank, some of the claims that it does have seemed to necessarily—whether the users writing such claims intend it or not—involve prejudicial assessments, such as the presumption that [[WP:LGBT]] is somehow inappropriately 'partisan' in a way contrary to Wikipedia's purpose because—why, honestly? Because of a presumption that the project draws in LGBT editors, and on top of that a presumption that LGBT editors are inappropriately 'partisan' about LGBT-related topics compared to cisgender and heterosexual editors? I really don't see how this claim, either in the abstract or in context, doesn't inevitably hinge on prejudicial presumptions about editors that violate the [[wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct]]'s tenets about collegiality, good citizenship, and creating a {{tq|pleasant and safe space}} for participants. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Notifying a WikiProject cannot ever be a serious canvassing problem, since it's open, widely broadcast message. The issue usually is that some people sitting on a favoured [[WP:LOCALCON]] get upset at the extra attention it brings. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I think I've seen that happen. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* No, the basic assumption is IMO that Wikiprojects can be watched by all kinds of people. Hopefully several of them do so because of a general interest in the topics that can pop up, and not out of a desire to promote whatever every chance they get. Some projects are pretty close to various CTOPS, like Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan and FTN, but that is still my basic assumption. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* In general and in principle, no; but in practice, in the past, certain WikiProjects have been problematic and hard to deal with. For example, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography]] fought a long and historically successful campaign to have their own SNG for pornstars, which allowed sources that weren't independent. The fighting went on for years until the SNG was finally deprecated in 2019 after [[Special:Permalink/889368900#Request for comment regarding PORNBIO|this RfC]]; subsequently most of the pornstar "biographies" that Wikipedia used to host got deleted on the grounds that they didn't contain any biographical information at all. Porn performers' names, dates of birth, nationalities, families and career history outside porn are understandably kept quiet, so all the information we had on these people was pure kayfabe. And for another example, although the Article Rescue Squadron isn't a problematic WikiProject, it's certainly had its share of problematic members leading to various tedious Arbcom cases. I think that what history tells me is that where a WikiProject has started to develop their own groupthink and begun to diverge from mainstream Wikipedian thought, then we're going to have a problem; and people getting unhappy about notifying that WikiProject about discussions can be an early symptom of that problem starting to be noticed. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any WikiProjects at that stage at the moment, but it's worth keeping an eye on.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*The Article Rescue Squadron also came to my mind, but that was because how it partially operated historically - a few users were using it to try and vote-stack AfDs with the goal of keeping articles rather than engaging with the arguments for and against deletion and/or improving the article. It took effort but those users were dealt with and that problem has passed. The groups current focus on improving important articles that would otherwise be at risk of deletion is unproblematic. So yes, partisan WikiProjects is a theoretical problem, but unless the OP or anyone else has any actual evidence of WikiProjects attempting to distort consensus then there is no issue here. Members of a WikiProject sharing an opinion is not itself evidence of anything untoward.<br>An editor selectively notifying only some relevant WikiProjects is correctly dealt with by neutrally notifying the other WikiProjects, and, if necessary, separately engaging in dispute resolution regarding that editor. Similarly an editor notifying unrelated projects and/or making non-neutral notifications is an issue with that editor. These are not evidence of a problem with notifying WikiProjects generally or with notifying specific WikiProjects in particular. '''TL;DR''' neutral notifications to relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I think there are cleaner examples. ARS' purpose was to find promising candidates for a [[WP:HEY]] response, so it's reasonable for them to talk about current AFDs, even if it did have some problems. Similarly, I think it's usually fair to notify [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]] about disputes involving fringe-y subjects, even though the dominant POV there is decidedly anti-fringe. |
|||
*:In other cases, the only possible connection is that you happen to know this group has an opinion. For example, editors should not notify [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers]] about proposals to change [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes]], because that group [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC|has a history]] of disputes over infoboxes in "their" articles, and because if you were interested in infoboxes, you would probably not know that. A page about musicians is not an obvious place to look for information about infoboxes. However, it would be fine to notify [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes]], because it's an obvious page for anyone interested in infoboxes to be watching. Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- or something else, and regardless of whether you were actively participating or silently lurking, if you wanted to be involved in infoboxes, you would expect to get infobox-related messages there. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*No. Notifying Wikiprojects is generally fine, and not prohibited as a purpose of projects is to provide all kinds of notice, neutral wording of the notice is key, though. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Yes. Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:No, we absolutely want editors familiar with a topic to participate in a discussion. You seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic. Assume good faith until proven otherwise. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I didn't say what you claim I "seem" to have said. Try AGF yourself. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::To the question, {{tq|Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of [[WP:CANVASS]]?}}, you responded "yes", and then said, {{tq|Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks.}} How am I supposed to interpret that to mean something other than you are opposed to pinging a project because its participants may have specialized knowledge and would therefore "tilt" (I presume the "wrong" way) the discussion. Can you rephrase your answer to make it clearer to me? - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I will rephrase the words "Try AGF yourself." thus: You said I "seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic" -- which would be an aspersion against my esteemed fellow editors, so you're making a conduct accusation. Then you suggest I try AGF. I'm hopeful that others didn't interpret my remark as aspersion or lack of AGF, perhaps because they can't read any such thing in them, perhaps because they can read [[WP:MOSFAQ]]. I won't engage further with you about this, unless you take it to WP:ANI. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I had a similar interpretation of what your original statement meant. I think this would have been more productive if you'd simply replied "That isn't what I meant; what I meant was..." I still don't know what you meant. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I too thought you meant {{tpq|editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic}} when you said {{tpq|Pinging [people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications] when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks.}}. You have since stated that that is not what you meant, but you haven't stated what you ''did'' mean. Given I misunderstood the first time, I do not think my guessing again is likely to result in my getting the right answer so I will refrain from speculating. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::That's polite of you. Well, I pointed to [[WP:MOSFAQ]] so you know the idea is that {{tq|Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.}} This sort of argument actually did arise in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_23#Previous_discussions series of universe|Universe discussions], and I remember an astronomer participant suggested magazines like Astronomy or Sky and Telescope weren't scientific journals, thinking that mattered. I have a vaguer recollection that the [[WP:CONLEVEL]] words ("... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.") appeared when another project group thought their rules should apply within their project's articles, but that's not what I had in mind, I was only thinking about and mentioning capitalization of Universe, where I believed that specifically addressing those people would not be addressing representatives of the broader community, and subject expertise is not contested but it's about style not subject. And yes ngrams came up too, and I see that you mentioned a case (maybe a WP:MOSCAPS thread about something in French?) where subject expertise was helpful, ngrams were not. But I believe that in the case I brought up the opposite was true. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Thank you, that was very helpful. I agree that it's important to have some sort of feedback to stay connected with the general reader, and I wouldn't want our running text to read like an Auguſtan newſpaper, with Words random'ly Capitaliſed. On the other hand, the improvement to the reader in clarity, meeting "expectations", etc. for MOSCAPS standardizations like the one mentioned, seems to me about epsilon. If these style confrontations significantly deter motivated editors from improving the encyclopedia, it is a net loss to us in terms of how much the general reader is actually able to learn from the encyclopedia in the future. This isn't intended as a declaration that "the WikiProject is always right"; just a reflection that our standing assumption that "the WikiProject is always wrong" may not actually further the goals of the encyclopedia. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 01:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:There was an issue related to this with capitalisation in the rail transport area a while back. In at least instance the MOS-focused editors had not understood that the same 3-4 word term was being used as common noun in one context and as a proper noun in another context meaning things like ngrams were not relevant (as they have no context). This is not something that would be obvious to most non-specialists but is clear to those knowledgeable about the topic area. Subject-specialist knowledge is, in many discussions, important context required to reach the correct decision - whether that decision is to follow specialist conventions or not. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::This touches on something that's puzzled me for years. When a group of editors who are principally interested in interpreting policies & guidelines come into conflict with a group of editors, like a WikiProject, with some subject-matter expertise, we default to treating the latter as parochial fanboys. But it's not clear why this should be so in a broad moral sense: the P&G interpreters are not typically a larger or less hyperfocused group than a WikiProject. I think we tend to assume that because the community at large has ratified P&Gs to embody broadly-agreed upon principles, every statutory interpretation that invokes those P&Gs for a specific case enjoys the same level of broad community support. I'm not convinced that accurately describes the sentiments of the community, though. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 05:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I agree. There is a tendency among some (but not all) p&g interpreters to assume that disagreement of their interpretation is disagreement with the policy/guideline rather than disagreement with their interpretation. In the rail transport area this has on multiple occasions manifested itself with sometimes heated accusations about disliking/objecting to/ignoring community consensus regarding e.g. capitalisation of common nouns when the actual disagreement was whether a given term was a common or proper noun. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*No, neutrally notifying a WikiProject about a discussion clearly within its subject matter is always permissible. It would not be at all helpful, for example, to prohibit notifying [[WP:MED]] on the basis that its members are more diligent about applying [[WP:MEDRS]] than the average Wikipedian, and thus "partisan". WikiProjects fundamentally are places where editors can be notified of discussions and editing opportunities related to a subject area. If a WikiProject can't reliably be notified of discussions within its subject area, it can't meaningfully function. It would be fairer to take any allegedly problematic WikiProjects to MfD rather than to try and place restrictions that would allow them to exist in name but not function.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 13:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* No, the idea that we should view people with an interest in a topic as being a biased set rather than an informed set is to speak against the value of knowledge. An informed person is of more value in a relevant discussion; we want the deletion discussion of the ''Smoking cures broken legs'' AFD to have more interest from those interested in Wikipedia's medical coverage in general and not just those who found themselves part of making such a page. The fact that the medical editors will not come up with the same view as whatever other editors choose to involve themselves in that discussion is a plus, not a problem. The idea that we can contact Wikiprojects only if they will respond in the exact same ratio as other editors would make contacting Wikiprojects pointless as it would have no impact on the results. The idea that Wikiprojects having an informed POV makes them a problem would suggest dismantling the entire Wikiproject system. Selectively notifying Wikiprojects with the intent of skewing results is a problem, but notifying all the obviously related Wikiprojects is not. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*No, I don't believe there's partisan wikiprojects to the extent that notifying the relevant ones is canvassing. In obvious cases (i.e. only notifying [[WP:ISRAEL]] for a dicussion about the [[Second Intifada]]) selective notifications could be a sign of canvassing, but properly performed WP notifications are not canvassing. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Or at least ''attempted'' canvassing. It seems probable all kinds of editors would watch something like WP:ISRAEL. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Agreed. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Another example is if we are discussing whether Foo (film) or Foo (train) is a primary topic or if Foo should be a dab. Notifying Wikiproject Film but not WikiProject Trains might seem unfair. However, I agree that 99% of notifications to projects do not constitute canvassing. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Only if the notification does not meet [[WP:APPNOTE]] or is to a project which attempts to enforce a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]. If it is the former, rephrase; if it is the latter, focus on the local consensus-enforcement bit. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:The contention I'm trying to argue against here is that there are some projects that are biased such that notifying them at all would not meet [[WP:APPNOTE]]. So, could ''you'' please rephrase? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::If there are projects that are so biased that a neutral notification about a topic relevant to their topic area would not meet APPNOTE then the Community needs to have a serious discussion (I guess at AN(I)) about that the problems with it and/or the relevant participants can be resolved. I'm not currently aware of any such groups, but if you are then please present the evidence. If you haven't got any such evidence, then please refrain from casting aspersions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Please read more carefully: {{tq| the contention '''I'm trying to argue against''' here}} [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::My apologies. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::No problem! [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 19:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{tq|Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?}} No. Can the language of such a notification be canvassing? [[WP:APPNOTE|Yes]]. Can there be disagreement about which projects are "relevant"? Sure, but I don't see a way to avoid case-by-case determinations of that. All of this said, it's not impossible that a project could function like a canvassing club, but that would need lots of evidence and again should be handled on a case-by-case basis. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*WikiProjects are an accepted option for dispute resolution per the policy {{section link|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Related talk pages or WikiProjects}}. Some issues would be if the notification is phrased in a non-neutral way, or if only a subset of reasonably relevant projects were notified. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 09:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* No, and saying "yes" is, inadvertently or on purpose, helping along years' worth of reputation laundering of the deletion crusades waged by like 10 editors against topics covered by certain WikiProjects -- cricket players, football players, roads, I'm probably missing a few -- by creating consensus for reasonable, unobjectionable-sounding policies and/or against scary-sounding straw men like "partisan bias." The idea is to make it easier to do this stuff as covertly as possible, without having to deal with the pesky obstacles of the rest of the project. To establish a kind of pre-emptive canvassing where they are the only people who ever find out about deletion requests. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Yeah, I will also say that my immediate reaction to the accusation that started all this was "not giving notification to anyone who might like this essay that you're trying to get it deleted is also unfair for the same reasons as canvassing would be, and it's weird we don't have a policy about it". [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:APPNOTE]] leaves no room for ambiguity on this:<br> |
|||
::{{tq|An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:}} |
|||
::* {{tq|The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.}} <br> |
|||
:The policy says explicitly "{{tq|<b>one</b> or more WikiProjects}}" (my emphasis on the word one). Therefore we can conclude from the actual WP Behavioural Guideline that drawing attention of a discussion to only one WikiProject is acceptable per WP Guidelines. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You need to read all of APPNOTE; the third last paragraph makes it clear that it does not create an exception to INAPPNOTE. |
|||
::This makes sense; why would we ever wish to permit biased, partisan, or non-neutral notifications? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* It really depends on the context... Not all wikiprojects are created equal, some are good places where non-partisan experts on a topic can be found and some are toxic slime cultures of fans and die hards. The biggest issue for me isn't really notification or non-notification its selective notification... People seem to want to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict so lets use that as an example: if when soliciting comments to a discussion involving the war in Gaza a user notifies only WikiProject Palestine but not WikiProject Israel or vice-versa thats a problem. From my perspective if WikiProjects are being solicited then all of the relevant WikiProjects should be notified, but again it depends on the context. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 13:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:But in that particular example, is it really a problem? Isn't it likely enough interested editors are watching both? But sure, for a Arab-Israeli conflict thing, if you're doing one, may as well do the other. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::That doesn't seem likely, everything I have ever experienced on wikipedia suggests otherwise. Notifying different wikiprojects brings different people to the discussion, I have never encountered a topic area where multiple wikiprojects are made up of the exact same group of people. Anything that has the effect of skewing the discussion towards a specific POV is a problem and thats true whether or not canvassing is involved. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I infer a couple of different sentiments in play here: |
|||
:A) "It's just as likely for pro- and anti- users to watch the same WikiProject. It's WikiProject Israel, not WikiProject ProIsrael." |
|||
:B) "In practice, participants in WikiProject ''Thing'' are mostly pro-''Thing''." |
|||
:Is there any way of determining which of these is true? [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The difficulty is getting a list of participants. The ideal list would be a list of editors who watch a Wikiproject, but that data is not available. Instead, I've created an approximation based on the editors who are listed as members and the editors who have made at least five edits to the projects talk page. |
|||
::For the purpose of demonstration I have applied to this Wikiproject US Roads in relation to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Using_maps_as_sources|this]] RfC; I have done so because the RfC is long past and Wikiproject US Roads has forked, so I feel using them as an example will produce less drama and be less likely to derail this discussion than more recent examples. |
|||
{{collapse top}} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
! rowspan=2 | Discussion !! rowspan=2 | Group !! colspan=2 | Support !! colspan=2 | Oppose |
|||
|- |
|||
! Count !! Percent !! Count !! Percent |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=3 style=max-width:20em | [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Using_maps_as_sources#Proposal_1:_original_research|Proposal 1: original research]] ||Members || 12 || 100% || 0 || 0% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Non-members || 36 || 67% || 18 || 33% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Both || 48 || 73% || 18 || 27% |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=3 style=max-width:20em | [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Using_maps_as_sources#Proposal_2a:_reliable_sourcing|Proposal 2a: reliable sourcing]] || Members || 10 || 91% || 1 || 9% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Non-members || 3 || 11% || 24 || 89% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Both || 13 || 34% || 25 || 66% |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=3 style=max-width:20em | [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Using_maps_as_sources#Proposal_2b:_image layers|Proposal 2b: image layers]] || Members || 6 || 67% || 3 || 33% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Non-members || 1 || 4% || 27 || 96% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Both || 7 || 19% || 30 || 81% |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=3 style=max-width:20em | [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Using_maps_as_sources#Proposal_3:_history|Proposal 3: history]] || Members || 9 || 100% || 0 || 0% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Non-members || 10 || 34% || 19 || 66% |
|||
|- |
|||
| Both || 19 || 50% || 19 || 50% |
|||
|} |
|||
:"Members" are determined by either being listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants|on the member list]] or having made five or more edits to the talk page |
|||
:I didn't review multi-choice questions to keep the analysis simple, and I didn't review low participation questions as they lack sufficient data. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
::The evidence tells us that for some Wikiprojects there are topics the editors are collectively biased on, but I don't think it is true of the vast majority of Wikiprojects. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::1. Why do you think this approximation is any good? Clearly the list of members is a lot more likely to actually agree with the project of the Wikiproject than the list of watchers, right? |
|||
:::2. Roads is a bad example exactly ''because'' they forked. Your argument would be benefited more by a negative example: if you could show some Wikiprojects where the membership does not seem to share similar opinions on topics relevant to the topic area that would at least prove [[WP:LGBT]] is exceptional. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::1. The result is the unchanged if I only include editors with at least five edits to the talk page. |
|||
::::2. The question is "can a Wikiproject be partisan", to the extent that notifying them {{tq|is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.}} Roads is a good example of this because they demonstrate that it is possible. If you believe all WikiProjects are partisan, then I encourage you to provide the evidence, but I am skeptical. Alternatively, find a WikiProject that editors would not expect to be partisan, link a few well-attended, centrally-held, binary RfC's that the WikiProject was notified of, and I can do the analysis for you. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This is to me a centrally flawed concerned; it basically brings it down to "it's okay to alert a Wikiproject only if they are so in accord with non-members that it makes no difference in the results", which is silly. We want informed people making decisions based on being informed, and information should be something that changes perspective. (It is also impracticable; we cannot be effectively surveying a given Wikiproject for their view in advance of notification, so implementing the idea that notifying a relevant-but-biased Wikiproject is canvassing would in essence shut down notifying Wikiprojects at all.) -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I appreciate this data, but I interpret it quite differently from BM. For one thing, I would not regard the population of "non-members" who participate in a discussion as a kind of target for how the members of an "unbiased" wikiproject should be distributed. We have no way of knowing how well "non-members" represent the rest of the community or why they were motivated to participate in the discussion |
|||
:::Also, I want to point to the actual impact of the participation of project members on the four proposals mentioned. The first proposal was supported by members and non-members alike, so the participation of members was not likely to affect the outcome. The middle proposals were supported by members and opposed by non-members, and therefore did not reach anything approaching consensus even though members disagreed. |
|||
:::The most interesting case, though, is the last proposal. The net preferences of members and non-members pretty much canceled out, leaving the discussion seemingly deadlocked. I would argue that this is actually a ''desirable'' outcome of member participation; if we assume that members are more likely to be contributing to content development in this area, then it is better to have a non-consensus in which their voices are heard (motivating further discussion and new proposals) than a clear consensus against in which their perspectives are seemingly excluded. |
|||
:::And of course what makes this case relevant is also what makes it unusual: that members of a single wikiproject, sharing similar views, make up such a large portion of those !voting on a set of proposals. The much more typical case is that appropriate notifications of projects with different perspectives, or the use of [[WP:CENT]], dilutes the participation from any one group to a small - if sometimes the best-informed - part of the whole. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think both are true depending on which project we're talking about, there is a large diversity of WikiProjects and no generalization is going to apply to all of them. I will also note that some wikiprojects are strongly "anti-thing" like WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Alternative medicine. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*We need to give up the idea that all Wikipedia editors are at the two extremes. Either ideal where the objectives of Wikipedia fully overrule biases, or where where biases are so strong that they overrule the objectives of Wikipedia. In reality most editors are somewhere between those two extremes. Conversely, give up the idea that mere expression of concern of biased-influenced editing is is a severe accusation and violation of wp:AGF. On average, a wiki-project is typically going to be slightly biased. Regarding notifying them on a contentious topic, this should be recognized (and adjusted for by casting a wider net) but IMO it doesn't rise to the level of precluding notifying them or considering it to be a wp:canvas violation. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:First of all, why is this list not complying with [[WP:SPLIT]] and [[WP:SS]]? A summary should be left on the list for any content that was split off onto a sub-article. As is, the article has sections without any content except for a link and an "infobox". These sections should either be expanded with content or removed entirely if they will never contain any content. The IP was attempting to correct this problem. If the summaries where poorly written, then rewrite them. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I strongly disagree with the notion that a WikiProject can be considered {{tqq|partisan}} or {{tqq|problematic}} without the involvement of Arbcom or some other discussion venue; otherwise, those are just an editor's personal opinion. I am also concerned with the conflation of specific canvassing cases which occurred in private or semi-private off-Wiki venues (EEML and Tropical Cyclones) with on-Wiki WikiProjects. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::As far as I can tell, that is how characters are dealt with all across Wikipedia. It is not a problem with simply this list. If a character is split, they don't need to have content on the list, but a link to where they have been move to is appropriate. <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* I think I agree with Thryduulf's point (and Curbon7's too now I guess) here that a claim that an Wikiproject is so partisan that it is inappropriate to notify them of something within their scope of interest is a user conduct issue, an accusation of which should only be made with evidence at an appropriate forum (AN/I, but also AE or ARCA for CTs). [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 04:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It is certainly possible to CANVAS ''via'' a wikiproject notification … by wording the notification in a non-neutral way with the intent of generating desired support/opposition to an issue. However, that is a flaw with the wording of the notification, not the location of the notification. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, I guess when we want the lists to be of that quality, we will add them. For now, they are removed like plenty of other character lists. <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* I think neutral notification of relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Part of the disagreement centers on the word partisan, which has expansive enough of a definition that we can be talking about very different things. BM's analysis of various WikiProjects above has no way of distinguishing between problematically partisan ("we vote differently than the general community because we're non-neutral") and positively partisan ("we vote differently because we know more than the general community"). I think Nat Gertler's thoughts on this are well-stated. A case against a WikiProject needs much more evidence, being essentially a misconduct allegation against a large group of editors. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's not an all or nothing situation, but the fact remains that the article is far from complete without the summaries. So if an editor adds summaries for those characters, it should not be removed out of hand "just because", which seems to be your rational. The cases where a summary should be removed is due to a copyright violation, patten nonsense, or false information. In fact, I may start off the summaries myself by adding in a tweaked version of the sub-articles' leads. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Reply| Firefangledfeathers}} what about the other point raised which is about selective notification of relevant WikiProjects? If someone notifies one relevant wikiproject but not another could that be an issue? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 01:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ok, have fun with that. I will post a message on [[WT:POKE]] stating that you are doing this, and see if anybody agrees and will help. <sub style="color:#00008B;">'''[[User:Blake|Blake]]'''</sub> <sup>([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]])</sup> 02:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think commonly understood best practice is to notify them all if you're going to notify one. I sometimes think it's overkill. For example, I remember at least considering notifying some projects about a dispute related to [[J. K. Rowling]] and being torn about whether or not to notify [[WP:WikiProject Gloucestershire]]. I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone if they did so, and I wouldn't call it canvassing if someone left it off. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::In cases like that it makes sense to consider whether the specific dispute is relevant to that WikiProject. For example, if it was a dispute about whether Yate (where she was born) should be described as being in "Gloucestershire" or "South Gloucestershire" then the Gloucestershire project is definitely relevant. If the dispute was about which articles to include in her bibliography then the relevance is harder to see. |
|||
::::In general I don't think it should ever be regarded as wrong to notify all the WikiProjects that have tagged the article, or all the ones that are not tagged as inactive. If you think there is a relevant project that hasn't been notified, then the best thing to do is notify them and AGF that not doing so was not an attempt at canvassing unless you have a good reason not to. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It isn’t great to selectively notify, but the answer is to then notify the other relevant wikiprojects. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* An issue seems to be that the "is relevant to that WikiProject" test can be surprisingly subjective and unpredictable, as far as I can tell. People employ different (often unstated) heuristics to estimate relevance. Regarding "the best thing to do is notify them and AGF", this is my view too. I wonder about the scope of the AGF policy and its relationship to project notifications and the [[WP:INAPPNOTE]] guideline. AGF applies to individual editors. Wikiprojects are collections of editors. So, the AGF policy presumably extends to Wikiprojects as collections of editors. In that case, bias/canvassing concerns presumably always need to be evidence-based. Given the scope of AGF, assuming it extends to collections of editors with a shared property (like project membership), allowing people to use their own biases (maybe rebranded as 'common sense') to make non-evidence-based guesses about project bias impacting apparent consensus seems a bit inconsistent. Having said that, the AGF policy probably has its limitations in contentious areas where there is polarization and dishonesty (sockpuppetry), but it is policy, nevertheless. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:On this question of selective notification: for a certain RfC about [[René Lévesque]] (former premier of Québec) at article Talk, I notified wikiprojects Canada and Québec, but I was told that ''that'' was somehow canvassing. The editor making the accusation then proceded to notify wikiprojects for the rest of the Canadian provinces that had nothing to do with Lévesque's career. |
|||
*:I didn't formally object at the time - based on the "more eyes" theorem - but the notifications of apparently unrelated wikiprojects did ''feel'' to me like canvassing. What is the evaluation editors here would make that kind of (presumably tit-for-tat) notification? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: There's a big difference between Wikiprojects, though. I can remember some of them listing AfDs for "their" articles on their Wikiproject page and descending ''en masse'' to vote Keep - topics that spring to mind were aircrashes, tornadoes (and US roads before they threw their toys out of the pram) - whereas participants from many other Projects treated the AfDs impartially and were quite willing to get rid of articles that didn't meet policy). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Fair use of non-free content == |
|||
== Super-injunctions and unnecessary censorship on Wikpedia == |
|||
What is the process of using non-free images are? Currently, the [[Lockheed YF-22]] and [[Northrop YF-23]] makes use of non-free images in thumbnail form (with original source attributed in their Wikimedia pages) to help illustrate their design histories. I've seen articles use them (typically cinema articles) and typically they're downscaled thumbnails without any higher resolution, but I'm not familiar with the process for using them. If that's not possible then a lot of images in those articles will have to be removed until I can get express permission from Lockheed/Northrop or if they're uploaded on something like DVIDS. [[User:Steve7c8|Steve7c8]] ([[User talk:Steve7c8|talk]]) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|reason=There is a discussion on this topic, already nearly resolved, at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]]. Let's keep this topic in one place please.}} |
|||
There has been a much-bemoaned trend in the courts of England and Wales recently to grant [[super-injunction]]s, which limit freedom of expression for those under their jurisdiction. Sometimes these block reporting of trivia like the identities of celebrities with embarrassing personal lives, but often they are [[Trafigura#Super-injunction|much more sinister]]. As per "[[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored|Wikipedia is not censored]]", Wikipedia's main servers are based in Florida and are under the jurisdiction of the Floridian and US federal courts (with their admirable [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]). I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the super-injunctions currently attracting attention in the UK bind Wikipedia. There is therefore no valid reason to keep information covered by them, which for the most part is obviously in the public domain judging by a cursory inspection of the web, out of the relevant articles. I have brought this up on the talk pages of [[ETK]] (the redirect, not its target) and [[Imogen Thomas]]. I am mentioning it here because Wikipedia's non-censorship policy is not being adhered to ([[Wikipedia:Oversight|oversight]] is being used), but there is not a great deal those of us under the jurisdiction of the injunction-granting courts can do about it. The help of freedom-loving Wikipedians around the world is therefore required! Thanks and apologies for cross-posting at the administrators' noticeboard: I wasn't sure where was best. [[User:Terminal emulator|Terminal emulator]] ([[User talk:Terminal emulator|talk]]) 18:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
*I hatted the above thread. Full link to parallel conversation is at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Super-injunctions_and_unnecessary_censorship_of_Wikipedia]]. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 20:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Non-free content is used in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]] and [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]] provides and introduction and explanation. However, all there don't appear to be any non-free images at either [[Lockheed YF-22]] or [[Northrop YF-23]], indeed the images in the sections about the design are all either public domain or [[CC0]]. If you believe the licenses on those images are incorrect then you would need to nominate them for deletion at Commons (with evidence). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== MF-bomb on Main Page? == |
|||
::I was the one who uploaded a lot of those images, but I may have incorrectly applied [[CC0]] to many of them, although I deliberately uploaded them as low-resolution thumbnails because I don't think they're free content. They've been nominated for deletion, so I'm wondering how to justify them as fair use of non-free images, at least until I can get express permission from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for their use, in which case I can upload the full resolution version. [[User:Steve7c8|Steve7c8]] ([[User talk:Steve7c8|talk]]) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The immediate issue you're running into is that you uploaded all of those to Wikimedia Commons, a related but separate project that's exclusively for freely usable media. If the images are non-free, they need to be deleted from Commons. Non-free files can be uploaded to English Wikipedia if they meet the criteria Thryduulf linked to. The important boxes to check are including an appropriate [[Wikipedia:File copyright tags|copyright tag]] and a [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|rationale]] explaining how the image meets the criteria. For a topic that probably has a lot of {{tl|PD-USGov}} works available, I'd be surprised if any non-free images managed to meet both [[WP:NFCC#1]] and [[WP:NFCC#8]]. [[User:hinnk|hinnk]] ([[User talk:hinnk|talk]]) 09:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== "Failure to thrive" == |
|||
At the moment, on the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, there is a link to Chris Rock's "The [MF] With the Hat," with the full word spelled out. I know that Wikipedia has to include words like that due to its encyclopedic nature, but shouldn't there be a policy against having that sort of language on the Main Page? That will naturally be the very first page most people, including children, see on Wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.181.197.100|12.181.197.100]] ([[User talk:12.181.197.100|talk]]) 14:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Seeing as how every child I know, before the Internet was made, immediately looked up "fuck" the first time they got their hands on an dictionary and had heard of the word, and then giggled, I'm not sure we're damaging anyone here. The few that have never seen the word won't understand that it's bad. I'm not necessarily saying this as a defense of "omg we can never censor", I'm saying that... I'm not really seeing the harm here. Anyway, there are only two viable options: Keep it, or remove it. Bowdlerizing it to "The [MF]er With the Hat" would be a horrible idea. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Option 3 would be to use ''The Mother With the Hat'' which is what the producers are using to advertise it on television; unlike the MF version, it is a legit alternate title. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::That would need to be added to the article first. As the article stands right now it only discusses two options, the full uncensored name and ''[[The Motherf**ker With the Hat]]''. [[User:GB fan|GB fan]] ([[User talk:GB fan|talk]]) 15:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Given that [[Gropecunt Lane]] was the featured article on the main page in 2009 (I wish I'd seen that), I'm not sure what we're worried about; this isn't too bad. Fucking is even the name of [[Fucking, Austria|a town]]; it's just a word. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I'm thinking it might be useful to have a reason for deletion that covers a swath of articles that never improve, but are technically just over the bar of notability. To come under this category, the article: |
|||
*[[WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]]. End of discussion. Your--the general 'you'--delicate sensibilities are not our concern. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#4B0082;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#4B0082;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
#Must be a barely notable subject, or be reasonably well-covered in other articles. A one-off event, a small subset of a main topic, or fancruft, say. |
|||
**I guess I didn't get the memo that [[User:Roux]] was empowered to end discussions. There's no need to be either peremptory or insulting; it's a perfectly valid point to raise, for political and PR reasons if nothing else. I'd suggest a deal: you don't refer to our "delicate sensibilities", and we won't refer to your "jejune drivel". [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
#Must have severe deficiencies in citation or bias |
|||
***That's not how I read Roux's statement. I think he was just pointing out that policy is pretty clear on this point. Whatever the case, no need to make it personal. [[User:Wickedjacob|Wickedjacob]] ([[User talk:Wickedjacob|talk]]) 08:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
#No substantial edits in six months. |
|||
****I don't think the IP user was suggesting any censorship - he specifically says these words <u>should</u> exist on Wikipedia (which is all [[WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]] concerns it's self with.) However he asks for Prudence in what content is selected for the front page (or how it is displayed on the front page) this seems a reasonable editorial decision that in no way affects our being considered censored. I would be likely to display word on the Front page that has an educational purpose such as [[Vulva]], [[Gropecunt Lane|Grope Cunt]], or even [[Fucking, Austria|Fucking]] but would consider whether a word like [[Motherfucker|Mofo]] which exists only to offend should be on the front page? [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 08:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
#Has had at least one nomination for deletion a minimum of six months ago. |
|||
*****It's not intended to offend. It is the name of a play. Are we really going to exclude certain articles from the front page because they use certain language? I am distraught by the notion of wikipedia deciding front page content based on social norms rather than content excellence or relevancy. It might not technically be censorship of the entire encyclopedia, but it certainly censorship of the main page. [[User:Wickedjacob|Wickedjacob]] ([[User talk:Wickedjacob|talk]]) 09:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
#Will get three months to improve before a final deletion decision. |
|||
******The word is intended to offend and that fact is recognised in numerous sources about the play that go on to discuss the fact that the plot does not mirror the offence of the title or that discuss the difficulties in promoting the play because that word causes offense. Equally it is commonly titled with asterisks in reliable sources so we're not censoring to use the same title that the majority of sources do . Not all articles are suitable for the main page and editorial judgement is already used to decide which ones are suitable - just because something isn't suitable for the front page doesn't mean it's censored. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 09:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
******** I think pointing to [[wp:NOTCENSORED]] is a perfectly acceptable response. [[eskimo]], [[indian]], [[666 (number)]] or [[Mohammed]] without the [[Peace be upon him (Islam)|S.A.W.]] title are considered offensive as well, should we ban those from the main page? If not, how would you draw a line between what is and what isn't offensive, keeping in mind we get visitors from all over the world? '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
********* Two replies up, I justified the use of Fucking, Cunt, and Vulva and you're questioning whether I would censor eskimo, indian, 666 or Mohammed? That sounds like the beginnings of a Straw man - There is a difference between a term whose use (or misuse) can offend some people and a term whose use is purely pejorative and that is a bright line not a fine one. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 11:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
********** If motherfucker is purely pejorative somebody should change [[Motherfucker#Variants|our article on the word]] (and probably inform [[Samuel L. Jackson]] as well). Or you could accept that what is offensive to you might not be to somebody else and there no such thing as a "bright line". '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*********** What? None of what you just said makes sense; you link to the [[Motherfucker#Variants|variants]] section which lists variants which are used exactly because the original is generally considered pejorative and you somehow think that Samuel L. Jackson (and Chris Rock) don't know the word is Pejorative? People who are fans may not be offended by their use of it, but that doesn't mean the word has any non-offensive meaning - the meaning is still exactly the same; it hasn't gone through amelioration unlike some other pejoratives . [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 13:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**{{od}} Would you be offended if I called you "one badass motherfucker"? I do not consider that pejorative, so it seems to me it has undergone amelioration in some contexts (been a while since I had to look up a word, thanks for that beautiful term). '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 13:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
***It depends on the context if you were my peer and called me it, I'd be fine because friends talk junk about each other and let each other away. If you walked up to me in the street as a stranger and shouted "Hey you; the badass motherfucker!" yes I'd be offended. So I don't think it has genuinely undergone amelioration, I think we just choose to ignore the offensiveness in some specific circumstances. [[User:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] ([[User talk:Stuart.Jamieson|talk]]) 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*The German Wikipedia had [[Vulva]] (with photo) as main page FA on March 23, 2010. See [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Artikel_des_Tages/Sonntag&oldid=72150642 here] for the excerpt. Some people were not happy, but nothing bad happened. Certainly nothing as bad as self-censorship, which we have to avoid. If people want censored encyclopedias, they shouldn't use a free one. —'''[[User:Kusma|Кузьма]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Kusma|討論]]</sup> 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Thing is, DYK refreshes a few times a day, so it's not as huge of a deal as TFA, for example. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 09:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::*It's no longer April 25, but the IP's concept deserves an honest discussion: the phrase in the title is one that intends to offend. There are any number of playwrights who have happened to use such a phrase in the dialog of a play, but to suggest that a play doesn't intend to offend is naïve and to suggest that a play with a word like this ''in its title'' doesn't intend to offend is a bit beyond that. One may as well say that a song or a film or a joke doesn't intend to offend. I would not argue that the intention to offend should justify exclusion from the encyclopedia. But I would argue that there is a difference in presenting an article about something that intends to offend and promoting that article on the front page. And I would argue that a discussion like this about that difference is not served when everybody on the pro-promotion side cannot even admit that intentional offense. There are inherently offensive things in the world, and other things that are not inherently offensive but are given a skewed presentation as such. Vulva is not inherently offensive, it is a body part. Cunt ''is'' inherently offensive, because it isn't the body part to which it refers, it is a vulgar term of extreme misogynistic contempt. (Frankly, I wonder about the preponderance of images at vulva, and think perhaps that is where the article courts offensiveness. We present ''seven'' photographs, one ultrasound, five diagrams, and five artworks. Two particularly striking, large images appear as primary photo, one with and one sans hair, while technical diagrams are relegated to further down. [[Uvula]], for example, leads with a diagram and presents two photos; [[Arm]] leads with its only photo; [[Human leg]] leads with a drawing, has a dozen diagrams, and ends with two small photographs of legs, none of which have hair; [[Chest]] has no photo, and Pectoral leads to a disambig page where one finds [[Pectoralis major muscle]] which also has no photo. Why Arm goes straight to an article about a human arm, but leg does not, and the first image one sees at [[Penis]] are several animal members disembodied together in jars, is another editorial question bordering on offense that we might discuss.) |
|||
::::*:<small>I must interject . . . the above is an excellent passage describing the use of illustrations in articles. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::MF is inherently offensive on both counts, the literal meaning and the usage. (That cannot be said about any of the terms/articles mentioned by Yoenit.) I remember the day that Gropecunt Lane appeared on the front page; I read it and found it mildly interesting, but I didn't kid myself that it was not intended to offend when it was promoted for front-page status. Of course it was. I'd like to point out that if people are going to stand on the grounds of "not censored" and "but it's verifiable" or notable or what-have-you, then people who do intend to be offensive or provocative (or are just snickering children, literally or figuratively) will ''always'' get to have their way. Beyond Gropecunt Lane, I have no idea how many [[Tickle Cock Bridge]]s and Fucking, Austrias have been promoted for the front page and denied on the basis of that it was not really that notable ''but for the fact'' that it had a profane name. But I certainly hope that that could happen, and would happen, despite the weak arguments presented by most respondents here. |
|||
What do you think? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 14:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I will accept that the Broadway debut of other notable celebrities with high Q ratings would rate an appearance on DYK even when they do not have a gimmicky profane name, and I will accept that this Broadway debut of this celebrity in this gimmicky profanely named show rates an appearance, but I will not accept that people would argue gimmicky profane names are not intended to be offensive. Embrace that we're promoting offensively titled articles if that's something you like, embrace that the snapshots of several anonymous females of various ages decorate [[Vulva]] but only one anonymous person decorates [[Arm]], but don't act like people who want to discuss the question of promoting offensively titled articles have no basis to characterize them as such. Censorship is so far from the editorial decision being discussed here as to be its polar opposite, so we have room to concede a point and get somewhere with discussing the editorial decision (particularly in the context of the editorial decisions regarding the other titles noted) while still erring far on the opposite side of censorship. Anyone who only sees two options isn't actually taking their editorial responsibility seriously, and "Wikipedia is not censored" is not the end of a discussion, it's the beginning. Have it or don't, but as long as we're taking a default position on prudish sensibilities, we might as well be cognizant of where that puts us relative to prurient sensibilities and then let those who are both capable and interested in doing so discuss all these territories and others sensibly and objectively. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 11:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Huh? So this is for "articles", that have already survived AfD - then what exactly do you want to happen? Do you want AFD's to be able to close with a result of [[Up or out|'''Up or out''']]? Or do you want to make a new policy rationale that can only be argued on second AFDs? Do you even want this to do through a second AFD, or is this some sort of speedy criteria request? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] Wikipedia currently has no method to control content other than [[Help:Options to not see an image|manually blocking individual images]] for logged-in users. There is an ongoing discussion on adding content control features; see [[meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Two]], especially the section User-Controlled Viewing Options. See also [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], [[WP:CHILDPROTECT]] and [[Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors]]. <!--- TemplateHD/filter ---> ---'''''— [[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</span>]]<span style="color:darkblue"> '''''</span><sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup> 12:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Looks like he wants those rationales, as a group to be acceptable at AfD? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::And it wouldn't matter. So what if, somehow, we could block every dirty image on Wikipedia from being displayed to kids? These kids have Google. No one is remotely "protected" by such censorship, as anyone who has been "protected" can then do a simple web search and promptly unprotect themselves. I can't imagine anyone saying, "Darn, no pictures of boobs on [[breast]]? Oh well, that ends my efforts!" --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Only at a second AfD. AfD currently normally acts as a check for potential. This is for articles unlikely ever to improve, after substantial notice - ones that will never reach the theoretical potential, with terrible quality. The kind of articles where the keep rationales are ''solely'' down to sources existing, nothing about the article as it stands being sufficient to keep it. It's also meant to be a very slow series of checks, to give it every chance. Also, preliminary suggestion; workshop at will. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The fact that other sources are available is unimportant. Any person who does not want to see such images should not be forced to view them. "Not censored" does not mean "''I'' have an absolute, unfettered right to fill ''your'' computer screen with images that ''you'' find offensive" (however ''you'' define offensive, whether that means seizure-inducing flashing images, naked bodies, or pictures of religious figures, not however ''I'' define offensive). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:if something is notable, why delete it? '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::If you intentionally choose to read the article titled [[penis]], I think you might expect to see a penis. It's not like there's pictures of a penis in the article [[Mickey Mouse]]... --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It is not clear to me whether you are seeking to delete these pages so that they never have Wikipedia pages, or you are seeking to delete them with the hope that a healthier and more fertile page will grow in its place. If the latter, I should note that the argument [[WP:TNT]] usually is given accepted weight in deletion discussions, even if it's not exactly matched in policy and guidelines. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Indeed, Jayron32, if I intentionally choose to read the article titled [[penis]], I should expect to see a human penis, yet there is not a single depiction of a human penis at that article, and in fact there is not a single image of a penis attached to a body at that article, as I already stated, the primary image features several animal penises in jars (as if something sliced off and put in a jar is what anybody expects to be the first thing they see when they visit a page ostensibly about the human body, or even about the bodies of other creatures) and a meal made of a goat penis (ditto). That is not what one should reasonably expect to see at [[penis]]. Or is it what you expected? Or did you just link that without visiting the page because you presume both that you're dealing with some prude and that some prude couldn't possibly have a valid point? |
|||
:So we want to delete ''barely'' notable articles now? Why? Who decides what is "barely" notable? Notable means notable, if we start deleting articles that are notable but that we don't like, there'll be no point in having [[WP:N]]. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''' - I am on purpose not going to answer this question, because "what I think" is that it demonstrates what is wrong with a lot of deletion processes (especially AfD) at present, all of which assume the key question to be, "should X topic have an article?" I think this is almost always the wrong question. |
|||
::::::::::How about I flip it on its head since Golbez and yourself aren't actually able to grasp the issue: shall I plunge into [[Vulva]] and make the primary image several sliced off and put in a jar? How about leading with a bucket of KFC at [[Breast]]? This was a (large) parenthetical in a post otherwise about a broader issue, but if this is the tangent people want to pick up on, then give it a real shot, don't just jump to conclusions and dispense stock responses. You're proving my point about the MF, which is that the ''attitude'' that "Wikipedia is not censored" as a defensive posture does a disservice to the editorial responsibility of an encyclopedia, when the response is to strike a stance, make a joke, and remain oblivious to what is actually being discussed. Because why should I expect to see ''more'' breasts or vulvas or what-have-you than arms or legs, unless the ''point'' is to present "uncensored" material, as in nudie shots, and not to present encyclopedic material. I'm not arguing for fewer penises, I'm arguing for human penises (and the other sort at a secondary article). I'm not arguing against vulvas, I'm pointing out that people are more inclined to post so-and-so's twat than they are to take a photo of their arm or their leg, and we might, just ''might'', actually be cognizant that we're seeking to present a work of some consistency and not merely the bleakest and least profitable amateur porn site on the net. |
|||
I think the right question, almost always, is "does this [[WP:V|verifiable]] information belong in an encyclopaedia?" (content that fails WP:V never belongs). There can be various reasons, set out rather inconsistently in [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:FRINGE]] and even [[WP:N]] - which isn't supposed to be a content guideline - why certain content doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. |
|||
::::::::::But I support WhatamIdoing's point, that even if anybody made any attempt to bring balance to these articles, some people might want to access some information without seeing images they find offensive. I think (yes, think) that the article [[Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed]] is something that people should read, whether or not they are likely to be upset at the graphic image of his battered corpse, because the story about it is the relevant thing, and the image of it is secondary. But that image is enough to turn people off to learning more about the topic because they can't reasonably be expected to read the article without it and they can't reasonably be expected to make the image go away. I don't think that the [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] was conceived with battered corpses in mind. I also read the rather involved technical steps someone has to take to disable the images for their own viewing, which seems untenable: Junior or Granny or just Average Joe- or Jane-who-doesn't-want-corpses-and-porn-in-their-encyclopedia has already seen the thing, now they've got to click on it to get the file name in order ''not'' to see it? I think there should be some way for people to click on a file name to opt-in to view a photograph like that. It's not censorship, it's akin to turning the page to read or view more, and indicating what sort of more that is. In addition to the fact that some people enjoy seeing photos of nude people (or some sort of person in particular), there are some people who enjoy seeing photos of dead people (or some sort of person...). And just as there are various motivations for wanting to ''show'' a particular person or sort of person nude, there may be various motivations for wanting to show a particular person or sort of person dead. I want to make sure that we are not indulging these sorts of people, and offending the other sort, under the guise of "not censored" when, as I said, that is supposed to be the start of the conversation and not the end of it. For example, post mortem photos of Michael Jackson are about to be shown in some sort of trial. Someone has claimed these photos prove some allegation or other, so then what, one or two go in an article here? Is that really what we're about? And if it is, is it that important that we present it unhidden in article space, rather than, again, in some sort of pop-up window or gallery page or something. |
|||
For content that belongs in an encylopaedia, the question then is, where should it be placed? [[WP:PRESERVE]] and [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] are among the few places that address this question clearly, but unfortunately WP:N has been the tool perhaps most frequently used by editors to <s>argue about</s> decide whether to remove or retain content. I think this is an unfortunate situation - there are very few circumstances in which the encyclopaedia benefits from ''not having'' articles on "marginally notable" topics, except when the content of those articles is not encyclopaedic to begin with ([[WP:POVFORKS]], for example). |
|||
::::::::::I've had the same blind, knee-jerk policy arguments ''disallow'' the image of a defunct band's logo, or a musician's album art, when obviously that was an intentional public presentation of the subject as they were and wished to be seen, and are what one would expect to see when visiting ''those'' articles. I know fair use, I also know these images appeared in magazine and newspaper ads and are available elsewhere on the web. The argument, therefore, ''isn't'', "we may as well present all the vulvas that fit on the page, because Junior will only surf elsewhere without them," because Junior can surf to the logos and album art at AllMusic or Rolling Stone or a fansite. And that was actually cited to me as a good reason for why we ''needn't'' present them here. The image policies are flawed, and what's more, the policies aren't even applied consistently within a class of articles. We've all got two arms. Only half of us have a vulva. So why are there a dozen shots of vulvas and only one of an arm? The answer to that is the problem with the way "Not censored" is being enforced at the expense of encyclopedic relevancy. I thank Gadget850, I clicked on the link and see there is a huge amount to read both in the three pages of the text and the longer discussions, which I will try and get to in the coming days, but as my points were being mischaracterized here by some, and picked up on by others, I wanted to expound. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 08:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::tl;dr. None of this has to do with the fact that "Motherfucker" will harm no one, and we can't predict who will be offended by what words, and if we are going to omit words because they might offend someone, we'll have to omit a lot of things other than the words sancitified by George Carlin. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
If we had a way to talk about encyclpaedic inclusion directly, away from Notability, we might be able to defuse some misguided "zero-sum" conflicts and design an encyclopaedia more the way actual ''editors'' would design it, rather than allowing the shape of Wikipedia's content to emerge from a series of bar brawls between editors with particular presuppositions about what topic does or doesn't "merit an article". I know that wasn't the question lol, but that is my answer. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== WikiGuide RfCs == |
|||
:I'd say marginal articles are fine if they're of reasonable quality, but if articles are going to languish in a permanently bad state, that's a problem. There are cases where a very bad article is worse than no article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Would an admin (or admins) close the following RfCs: [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts|CSD criteria for new articles]], [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates|being templated]], and [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing|socialising on WP]]? Crossposted to [[WP:VPP]]. Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I absolutely know the type of article you are talking about, I recentlty nominated an article for deletion that has been a one-sentence stub for fourteen years. However, I don't think "this survived AFD but we're still going to delete it" has much of a chance of ever becoming policy. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not convinced that the latter two of these should be "closed", reasons given at [[WP:ANI#WikiGuide RfCs]]. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I just want to give articles every chance to thrive before we do delete them. There's other ways - WikiProject notifications, etc - but AfD usually forces a check of the article's potential: is there sources, etc - that I don't think any other current process does. If it has no potential, it gets deleted at the first AfD. If it's already of reasonable quality, this process shouldn't apply: it has thrived. This needs to be a slow process to have any effect. As I see it, though, this would be an argument to raise ''in a second AfD'' that would trigger the countdown to the final review. The review would be one admin comparing it to the state at the time of the failure to thrive AfD (which I think is sufficient given the number of steps before this) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::By "closed", I mean using archive templates and summarizing the RfCs. See my reply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=426103102 here]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
A way I think this could work: we make a template for something along the lines of "this article doesn't have enough quality sources in it to establish notability (regardless of whether those sources exist out there somewhere)". Then if X amount of time passes and the situation hasn't changed, that's taken as strong evidence in an AfD that, regardless of whether the sources exist somewhere, they can't actually be used to write an article. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 19:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Bot procedure that changes sourcing methods relates to policy == |
|||
:But the proposal here isn't for articles that aren't notable, rather ones that are borderline. I think everything here is in violation of [[WP:NO DEADLINE]]. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Duplicate references in articles are routinely merged by automated and semi-automated procedures (such as [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]]). Some editors feel their editing efforts have been adversely impacted, when the citation method has been changed before an article reaches some stage of completion. There is a question whether the current automated and semi-automated practices of merging references in articles Wikipedia-wide are ''supported by'', or ''violate'' existing policy. |
|||
::And not voting for it is in violation of [[WP:Delete the junk]]. Essays aren't policy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Could you give an example or two of the sort of article this proposal is envisaged to apply to? – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Note that this is just some things I've found by looking through the articles without sources categories, and some fad categories. These haven't passed through AfD, some of them might be handleable with a merge, and some might be salvagable - but the point of this proposal is to try and save the articles first. |
|||
*:* [[Naked butler]]: It's possible this could be saved, but it's a lot of text, very little of it cited, so the accuracy and verifiability is very questionable. It's probably a thing, but such a weak article on a marginal subject is more likely to put inaccuracies into Wikipedia than to be genuinely helpful. |
|||
*:* [[Campaign desk]]: Again, subject probably exists, but there's some oddities that make me concerned. The phrase "at popular retailers" makes me wonder about copyright of the text a little bit: it's a weirdly advert-y phrase. Uncited. |
|||
*:* [[List of Fantastic Beasts characters]] - fancrufty article. Maybe it'll be saved, maybe not, but there's nothing in here that isn't redundant to the films' articles. |
|||
*:Should these be deleted right now? No, the ''whole point'' of this proposal is to encourage attempts to salvage articles in this kind of state. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Funny that the only citations in "Naked butler" are in the "Popular culture" section. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::There were more citations (four) in the article as originally posted (I have made no effort to see if their removal was appropriate.) However, there is more sourcing to be found, such as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-standard-nakerd-butler-article/148434316/ this ''Evening Standard'' article.] I'm not sure how the procedure here would help this article (if it were even eligible, which it is not) any more than standard tagging. With articles this old, we cannot assume that the original editors are still involved enough to be aware if the article was threatened by deletion. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::And, in fact, finally looking at the talk page of the article, there is (and has been since 2013) a long list of news sources which could be used. Any attempt to delete this article could be quickly laughed away by that list. If there are any good examples to which this proposed procedure should apply, this is not among them; someone who had concern with the quality of the article could improve it much more quickly than creating a deletion argument with the hope that someone else will do so. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[Campaign desk]] appears to have text that is an exact copy of text at [http://www.achome.co.uk/antiques/vintage_office.htm this site], but the text has been in WP since 2004, and the web site was first archived at the Internet Archive in 2006. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::For the record, I'd say that the key type of article this would be good for dealing with is minor fads, advertising, or one-off events long past in similar states to those articles. But I'm not sure it's worth trying to find the perfect exemplar. While I ''do'' think articles on such things can be encyclopedic, there is a certain point where you have to say that if an article with only minor notability, especially one where the interest peak is long past, is still terrible, that we need to consider if it's ever going to get better, whatever the theoretical potential. If this results in people actively working on these articles instead, that's all the better. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Well, were I pressed I would say, yes, as a matter of practice having marginal subject articles is a detriment to the encyclopedia because they are often abandoned junk in practice, at best filled with templates for years upon years, at least telling the reader, "if you have not figured it out yourself, which you may well have, this has been bad since 2010, and Wikipedia does not care about bad articles and bad information" (that's a real detriment to Wikipedia). -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Improving existing articles slightly is a much lower hurdle than creating a brand new article. If an article is full of irrelevant unsourced text but has a notable core then it should be reduced down to that state, not deleted. There's [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|no deadline]] for when Wikipedia needs to be perfect, and an article existing in the first place is conducive to improvement. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, Wikipedia does not care about bad articles and bad information is what you just articulated in practice. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you find an utterly terrible article on a notable subject, be bold and [[WP:STUBIFY|stubify]] it. I don't see why we need a process specifically for deleting bad articles on notable subjects. If there's no consensus to [[WP:TNT|TNT]] then there isn't. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Let me relate a Wiki tale, although not directly on point to these marginal articles, not too long ago an architect's article was eligible to be featured on the main page for winning an award, kind of like a Nobel Prize, and the article was in poor shape under wiki policies, so seven days it stayed at the news desk while some harried pedians made some effort to improve, and it was not improved sufficient to feature. (and it may still not be good enough). Now, if there were no article and it was written up with the sources that came with the prize and which surfaced in a few days, that would have been easier for the crew, instead trying to source prose and facts when one does not know where it came from. Nor would coverage of the subject have been improved by stubification, certainly not good enough to be in decent shape and probably not good at all (especially when a good number of the world was looking for the topic). So, hope for the more marginal is likely misplaced. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If the prose is unsourced it can be deleted. There's nothing preventing someone from being bold and with good reason tearing out unsourced and bad prose and possibly replacing it with entirely new text. If the article really is entirely beyond saving, [[WP:TNT]] is a recognised option at AfD. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 13:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Its not about "preventing someone", its about the doing the work by anyone, which we know through decades of practice is not something anyone apparently wants, coupled with the common sense of past is prologue. You say just delete a bunch in the article or just do other work, but cleaning up, if you care, is about significant work. In comparison, it's easier to create a decent article from the bottom up without having to do the cleanup first. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 10:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Once again, whether it is easier to create an article from the bottom up or easier to create an article based on someone else's work is a matter of opinion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It remains, not having to do cleanup first is less work. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 05:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Apparently, it's a matter of taste; I find cleanup and reclamation to be much easier. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 05:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::What do you find easier? To write a decent article you have to research and write, to cleanup you have to delete, try to understand what someone else was thinking, rework, test for cvio, etc. as well as research and write. The first is less work. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::If the existing article lists some sources, then I don't need to spend as much time looking for sources. |
|||
:::::::::::If the existing article has some solid sections, I can ignore those and focus my effort elsewhere. |
|||
:::::::::::If the existing article has information that wouldn't have occurred to me, then I get a better result. |
|||
:::::::::::I usually find it very easy to "understand what someone else was thinking". |
|||
:::::::::::On the flip side, if the existing article is really lousy, then a quick little ⌘A to select all and hitting the backspace button solves that problem. Even in such cases, the article 'infrastructure' (e.g., infobox, images, and categories) is usually sound, and keeping the existing ones usually saves time and effort. |
|||
:::::::::::I don't pretend that what's easiest for me is what's easiest for everyone, but I personally don't mind working with existing articles. Perhaps you are the opposite. That's okay. My experience doesn't invalidate yours, and yours doesn't invalidate mine (or the experiences of the multiple other people who have disagreed with you). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::You are mostly off-topic as the premise of the proposal is only dealing in really lousy articles, and indeed ones that no-one is even doing your process of deletion or the rest. You think deleting large swaths is easy but it seems from your telling that is not something you spend much time thinking about it. As for your presumption about infobox and images and categories, your basis is for that is just assumption not evaluation. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::WhatamIdoing's point is simply that other people have a different opinion to you. Your assumptions about why that be are irrelevant. What constitutes a "really lousy article" is also a matter of opinion, and yours is no more or less valid than WhatamIdoing's or anyone else's. Do you ''understand'' that people can have a different opinion to you about subjective matters and contribute in good faith or are you being deliberately disruptive? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::It is you who are being deliberately disruptive and you who are trying to prevent the presenting of opposing views. Somehow others can present opinions (who introduced "easiest" or "lousy") but just because you disagree with my view, you label it disputive. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::I am not labelling your view disruptive because I disagree with it (see other people whose views I have disagreed with without labelling disruptive), I am labelling your view disruptive because you appear to be either unwilling or unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::That makes little sense and I see now how why you disrupt things, I am using words as others use them, and your inability to not read my comments as statements of view is your fault, not mine. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::WhatamIdoing, If you care to reply to my 13:38 comment perhaps best to do so down here. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|that's more than enough, take it outside. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
::::No, because Wikipedia does not care. And you are wrong in substance too, it's easier to create a decent article than it is to reform one (and much more enjoyable) . [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Whether it is easier, and especially whether it is more enjoyable, is inherently subjective and so it is incorrect to say someone with a different opinion to you is "wrong in substance". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No. And your useless tangent is not adding anything here. Thanks word police. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::This is not the first discussion in which you have replied using ad hominems and borderline personal attacks to someone who simply has a different opinion to you. I really would like to believe you are capable of listening and collaborating, but nearly every comment you leave makes that harder. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You came in disruptive, to opine on the finer points of how you believe a phrase on "substance" has to be used. Which is far off-topic. So no, its not me who has shown poor collaboration here, it is you. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::You are objectively wrong on just about everything it is possible to be objectively wrong about in that sentence. Please engage with the topic rather than with ad hominems. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Just look, see how you are derailing anything having to do with anything with the proposal. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I refuse to waste more of my time on your ''continued'' ad hominems. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Looking at your comments is not <nowiki>''ad hominem.''</nowiki> [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
:Perhaps what we need is a second review process … one that is focused on '''Non-Improvability''', rather than Notability. It would consider ''articles'' that are in such poor shape that they (arguably) can not be improved… regardless of whether the ''topic'' is notable. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I can't see many cases where a topic is notable without being possible to improve. If the article is irrevocably badly written then it can just be [[WP:STUBIFY|stubified]]. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's strong [[WP:OWN]] issues sometimes there, especially in walled gardens. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
While there may be articles covered by this that should be deleted, I don't think that editing inactivity is of any use in identifying them. And some of the other subjective criteria would be practically impossible to define or implement. Thanks for the idea and bringing it up here but IMO this is not workable and also not a very useful way to find articles that should be deleted. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I have started a sub-discussion about the practice of routinely merging duplicate references [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Request_for_guidance_on_policy|here]] (Village Pump Proposals). |
|||
I was initially torn between liking the idea of having a way to constructively reassess borderline articles that have not been improved in a long while, but also between being a firm believer in eventualism and the importance of recognising that Wikipedia is a work in progress. However, the more this discussion has gone on, the less I'm liking this. Merging, stubbifying, improving articles yourself (including using TNT), and similar activities that are not deletion are going to be preferable in nearly all cases. If you lack the subject or foreign-language knowledge to improve the article yourself use resources like WikiProjects to find people who do have that knowledge, sharing lists of the sources you've found but not understood to help them get started. If you don't have access to the sources (e.g. they're offline) then there are resources like the Wikipedia Library and at least some chapters offer grants to help you get them. Only when all of these options are unavailable or have failed, which is a small percentage of a small percentage, is deletion going to help and I'm not sure we need something other than AfD for that - especially as in a good proportion of these few cases notability is going to be questionable. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This is a part of a larger discussion on the same page, about a bot proposal, which is [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_to_reduce_duplicate_references|here]] (Village Pump Proposals). |
|||
: What if we have a process for quickly moving such articles to draftspace, and requiring AFC review/approval for them to be returned to mainspace? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think that would basically be a backdoor deletion in many cases, a lot of the bad articles I come across are sometimes over a decade old and the original author is long gone. A PROD or AfD will let me and others interested in the subject area see them in article alerts, draftifying won't. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{re|AlexandraAVX}} An AfD can lead to draftification, which can lead to deletion for abandonment (or, rarely, revitalization), but at least this resolution avoids keep rationales based on possible improvements that will never actually be made. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not sure how to ask my question without it sounding weird, but here goes: Who cares if the improvements are never made? |
|||
::::At the moment, the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-along article if the real world has enough sources that someone could improve it past the doomed [[WP:PERMASTUB]] stage (plus it doesn't violate NOT, plus editors don't want to merge it away). The rules do not require the article to be "improved", and never have. |
|||
::::So imagine that we have an article like [[User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy]]. It's two sentences and 100% uncited. Imagine that we all agreed that Wikipedia would almost certainly die before that article ever got improved. Why should that be considered a deletion-worthy problem? Why can't it just be left like it is? Who's it hurting? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Anyone who reads the article and comes away believing something false or likely to be false? |
|||
:::::Like, I don't see why this is hard to understand. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Do you see anything false or likely to be false in that article? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If there's something false in the article you can delete that. If the subject is a hoax then that's already a speedy deletion criteria. If it isn't a hoax you can remove any information that can't be verified. If the subject is notable then there inherently must be coverage that makes ''something'' about it verifiable. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. This seems like an ornate process for which the problem it would address has not been actually identified; the OP came up with no examples that would qualify for this treatment. The standard processes allow for re-AfDing if the material is not notable under current guidelines, or stubbifying if it is. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
One structural note. Since the suitability of the ''article'' to exist in main space technically relates only to the ''subject'' of the article, technically, the ''subject'' of the article should be the only reason to remove it from mainspace. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 20:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
There is also a side discussion, [[Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Concerns.2Fcomplaints_about_bot_tasks_and_practices|here]] (Bot Owners' Noticeboard). I invite discussion at the Village Pump Proposals article (rather than here). [[User:Richard Myers|Richard Myers]] ([[User talk:Richard Myers|talk]]) 09:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:That's not quite true, as there other things that are relevant in some circumstances - copyvios are the most obvious, but also articles not written in English or written by socks of banned editors. However, other than newly discovered copyvios I can't think of any that are likely to be relevant to articles being discussed here (and with old articles the chance of suspected copyvios turning out to be plagiarism ''of'' Wikipedia are of course greater). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move formatting - indents or bullets? == |
|||
::{{Ping|Thryduulf}} Well copyvio is a problem with ''content'', though if you have an article that is 100% copyvio there's really nothing to save. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I can understand this frustration. All the time I see articles that were poor quality get sent to AFD, the commenters there say that the existing article is crap but (minimal) sources exist, so the article should be improved rather than being deleted. It gets kept, then...nothing happens. 10-15 years later, the article is still very poor quality and essentially unchanged. Whatever original sources existed might not even be online anymore, but a second AFD probably won't get a different result. Sometimes I can stubbify/redirect, if there's gross BLP violations I can sometimes just delete it, but most just exist in this limbo indefinitely. If nobody cares to make a halfway decent article, then maybe we shouldn't have one. I would like it if there was a shift at AFD, especially for long-term poor quality articles, from "should this topic have an article" to "is this particular article worth showing to readers". In 2005, the best way to help Wikipedia was with a pen (writing new articles). In 2024, the best way is with [[pruning shears]] (removing bad articles, or trimming irrelevant bloat within articles). I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this, but some sort of draftification for these articles might be a good idea. 6 months is probably too soon, but setting it at 5 or 10 years would cut out a lot of crud. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* The OP ignores fundamental principals like no time limits, deletion is not cleanup, preserve, before etc.. it would be political and contentious. And I'm not sure it would do much to improve Wikipedia, plus alienate and piss off editors. The whole idea of keeping a crappy article on a notable topic is that someone will find it and work on it, "hey look at this crappy article I can make it better". -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Lately I have been participating in quite a few [[WP:requested moves|requested moves]], and I have always wondered about the formatting. On the one hand, they occur on article talk pages, which generally use indents (per [[Help:Using talk pages#Indentation]] and [[WP:INDENT]]), and on the other hand, the Support/Oppose discussion format is similar to [[WP:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] which uses bullets (per [[WP:AFDFORMAT]]). The tension between these two often leads to discussions like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toponymy_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=426052376#Requested_move this one], where indents and bullets are used interchangeably and it all looks very messy. I have tried to find advice at the requested moves page, but it seems there is none to be offered. I think it would be a good idea to decide which formatting to use and add this to the requested moves page as policy. What do others think? <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — [[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<font color="#194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|<font color="#0F0073">♫</font>]]</sup></font> 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*:He's not ignoring those ideas, he's trying to gain support for changing them. Sure, it would be contentious but that's not a reason to not discuss it. And yes, ideally someone will find a crappy article and work on it. But for many thousands of articles, it's been years and that hasn't happened. It probably never will. So the few people who stumble upon them are left with an unvetted, unsourced, incomplete or even misleading article about a topic. Jimbo had the right idea in this post[https://archive.is/20180622205129/https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html], which became the foundation of our BLP policy but can apply elsewhere too. It's better to have no information about a topic than bad information. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 00:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Sounds a bit [[WP:CREEP]]y. And AfDs do not rigorously adhere to the recommended format in practice either. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b><font color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 01:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*::What if [[Nupedia]], but without the experts? I think [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046530.html] from that same thread presents far more useful ground for reflection. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That's true, indeed. In that case, how about a guideline just to stick to the same formatting in each discussion? That way we are not restricting editors more than is already the case. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — [[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<font color="#194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|<font color="#0F0073">♫</font>]]</sup></font> 06:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam]], I started a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Ready for the mainspace]] the other day, on what it means for an article to be "ready for the mainspace". This seems to be an idea that some editors have adopted. Back when we were new, the general idea seemed to be that you determined whether something's ready for the mainspace (and almost all of us created everything directly in the mainspace back then) with a two-part checklist: |
|||
:I don't know what problem you are trying to fix. Personnaly I don't have any problem understanding the flow of the conversation on the move request you linked. Are you trying to make things easier to follow? If the problem is that it looks messy, I don't think that is a reason to add policy or guidelines. [[User:GB fan|GB fan]] ([[User talk:GB fan|talk]]) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*# Is the subject itself notable (e.g., if you spent time looking for [[Wikipedia:Independent sources]], then you could find enough to write several sentences, even though nobody's bothered to do that yet)? |
|||
::Yes, the problem is that it looks messy, not that it's necessarily hard to understand. The only reason I bring it up is that it's an incentive to edit war over formatting. Some editors prefer indents and some prefer bullets, and if one editor is convinced another is using the "wrong" formatting then they will want to change it. I'm not proposing a radical change - it could just be something as simple as adding the following text to [[WP:RM]]: "Generally requested moves use indents, but try and use the formatting other editors have used; don't re-format the discussion just for the sake of it". I think a guideline that looks something like this would be better than no guideline at all. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — [[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<font color="#194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|<font color="#0F0073">♫</font>]]</sup></font> 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*# Is the current article exempt from [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] (e.g., not a copyvio, not [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense]], not an obvious test edit)? |
|||
* This could, and did, and was meant to, result in articles that said little more than "A '''campaign desk''' is an antique [[desk]] of normal size which was used by officers and their staffs in rear areas during a [[military campaign]]". <small>(BTW, {{ProQuest|374234967}} might be a useful source for examples that article, as will [https://www.proquest.com/magazines/antiques-better-value-than-ikea/docview/201200000/se-2 this one], if you'd like to add them, and https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/15/archives/now-on-the-home-front.html will be particularly useful if you'd like to generalize from the desk to any sort of purpose-built furniture for mobile military officers.)</small> However, I think that a minority of editors want to expand this checklist to look a bit more like this: |
|||
*# Is the subject itself notable? |
|||
*# Does the current version qualify for speedy deletion? |
|||
*# Would I be embarrassed if someone I respected said "Hey, I was looking at this short Wikipedia article the other day..."? (e.g., the article has fewer than ''x'' sentences, fewer than ''y'' cited sources, fewer than ''z'' links...) |
|||
* If requiring a certain volume sounds nice, what I think would be more practical is if we talked about what percentage of articles we were really willing to sacrifice to the spirit of "immediatism because I'm embarrassed that someone hasn't already [[WP:FINISHED]] this old article". If you're willing to delete, say, 1% or 10% or 50% of all articles to artificially raise the average quality of Wikipedia articles, then we can calculate what x, y, and z would be. <br/>NB that I don't think that deleting articles for problems that could be solved by ordinary editing would be a good idea, because I've found some of those old, neglected, even uncited substubs to be of immediate value to me recently, when often what I wanted was an easy way to figure out what the official website was, or a quick definition of an obscure term (19th-century furniture and clothing has ranked high in my searches recently, so [[Campaign desk]] is exactly the kind of article that I have been finding helpful). But if you're bothered enough to want to [[WP:DEMOLISH]] articles because they're not being developed to your standards, then let's talk about how much is the most you could imagine destroying, and see if we could figure out what we'd be losing as a result. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Read: |
|||
== Why is the Village Pump (idea lab) NOT primarily for Consensus Polling as well? == |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:FIXTHEPROBLEM]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Don't panic]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Rome wasn't built in a day]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Delete_the_junk#Alternatives_to_deletion]] |
|||
*# [[Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates#Blanking/Removal_of_content]] |
|||
Case [[Time sink|closed]]. <small>IMO the time people spend here would be put into better use to improve our articles.</small> --[[User:Dustfreeworld|<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It seems to me it would be great to be able to both get positive, constructive feedback and to do some sample polling to see if there is any substantial population that is in favor or not in favor of any one idea. |
|||
Of the three example articles given early in this discussion, viewing them outside of this discussion: #1 Would fail wp:notability #2 is good enough as is, and #3 is in Wikipedia's Twilight Zone: there is no system / mechanism that really vetts list articles. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 13:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The concept for me is as simple as the Facebook "like," the Slashdot news story, Digg, or Reddit. Maybe even Youtube is the best example. If I can say "thumbs up" it can be a big motivator to really follow through on an idea and get more feedback. |
|||
:For [[Naked butler]], I can find a few sources: |
|||
This seems to make more sense to me than going out of our way to say "WAIT, don't do the natural, helpful thing you want to and give some simple feedback! Only the TRULY COMMITTED commentors are welcome." That is exactly what the following graphic and first sentence say to me: |
|||
:* Paul Majendie. “Butlers Buff Up Party Scene Forget the Quintessential Image of the British Butler as the Epitome of Discreet Decorum -- the Latest Fad on the British Party Scene Is Half-Naked Waiters.” ''Townsville Bulletin''. |
|||
:* {{Cite journal |last=Sagar |first=Tracey |last2=Jones |first2=Debbie |last3=Symons |first3=Katrien |last4=Tyrie |first4=Jacky |last5=Roberts |first5=Ron |date=December 2016 |title=Student involvement in the UK sex industry: motivations and experiences |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-4446.12216 |journal=The British Journal of Sociology |language=en |volume=67 |issue=4 |pages=697–718 |doi=10.1111/1468-4446.12216 |issn=0007-1315}} |
|||
:These are both available through [[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library]]. Perhaps someone would like to put them in the article. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I based my comments #1 based on a quick guess. The question is coverage of sources ''on the specific topic''. Which in turn needs the article to be about a specific topic. My first guess is that that isn't there. But the overall point is evaluating articles based on things other than lack of development activity, and that the latter is not much of an indicator. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, that's one of the problems with the proposal: it encourages people to seek deletion not on the basis of what sources might be available, such as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-standard-naked-butler-article-pa/148562281/ this article] in the ''Evening Standard'' (page 2 [https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-standard-naked-butler-page-2/148562658/ here]) or [https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2011/03/30/working-guys-by-day-naked-butlers-by-night/29006834007/ ''this Herald-Tribune'' piece], but rather on their guesses of how the page will develop in the future. I see nothing in the OP's proposal that indicates that the goal is to try to save the article first, it makes no call for the implementer to try to save the article, just allows for the possibility that someone else may do so. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Huh? When something goes to 2nd AfD it could be "saved" like any other time, indeed that's when people often work on such (yes, yes, 'not cleanup', but that does not mean cleanup by hook or by crook is not good) the 2nd delete participants basically have to agree 'yeah, no one cares' for it to go. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, it ''could'' be saved then, but it would take an odd interpretation that the goal of an AfD filing is to save an article, when the very point of an AfD filing is to request its destruction. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Indeed starting an AfD with the aim of doing something other than deleting the article could (arguably should) get the nomination speedily kept ([[WP:SK]] point 1). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I did not say goal, I said it is regularly the outcome (including everytime there is no consensus or keep), the conversation is still about the suitability of having this article, nonetheless. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You appeared to be saying "Huh?" to a statement about the goal; if you were not "Huh?"ing that statement, I don't know what you were saying. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 21:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I did not think you were speaking about the goal of AfD, the proposal is for a new multi-factored rationale (like is this adequately covered elsewhere, etc.) that the AfD participants can either agree in or not. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The goal of creating an additional excuse to delete things is to have things deleted. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 00:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Well, I would call it additional rational but yes, when the alternatives given are delete large swaths of the article or just let it continue to sit there in bad shape for more decades. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I strongly suspect that #2, Campaign desk, is a copyvio, and has been so since it was created 20+ years ago, but I cannot yet prove so beyond any doubt. If it is determined that the original text, which is 95% of the current article, was a copyvio, then the article will have to be deleted. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It was written by an admin, [[User:AlainV|AlainV]]. While it's not a perfect indicator, generally speaking, if I were looking for a copyvio, I wouldn't start by suspecting something written by an admin who wrote ~150 articles. It's at least as likely that the article was original here, and got copied over there. We have a copy from 2004; the Internet Archive has a copy of the Wikipedia article [https://web.archive.org/web/20050131155131/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_desk from 2005]; the Internet Archive has a copy on a different website [http://www.achome.co.uk/antiques/vintage_office.htm from 2006]. I would not assume from this information that our article is the copyvio. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The wording's weird, though. That one phrase at the end... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 20:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Campaign desks were something of a trend back around the time this was written, so it doesn't seem as odd to me. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::One reason that I haven't acted on my suspicions is the possibility that the website copied from AlainV's articles (all 48 or them, with only three or four desks listed on the website that AlainV did not create an article for). I left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't edited in two years. |
|||
:::Looking more closely at [[Cylinder desk]], I see that AlainV and others modified that article after he created it, and the website matches the state of the article in April 2006 rather than the original state when AlainV created it in November 2003. Given that, I withdraw any suggestion that AlainV copied from the Arts and Crafts Home website. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That was a good piece of detective work, Donald. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::As for the viability of "campaign desk" as a topic, why, [https://www.amazon.com/British-Campaign-Furniture-Elegance-1740-1914/dp/0810957116/ here's just one of several books that I find on the topic of campaign furniture], so it appears that content on the topic can be sourced. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' There is no such thing as an article on a ''notable'' topic that will never improve. They always improve eventually if they are left for long enough. We have many articles that were massively expanded after more than a decade of inactivity. If a topic satisfies GNG, there will be people able and willing to improve it. The proposal is incompatible with the policy [[WP:ATD]]. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 04:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''General Comment''' I think that the advice at [[WP:NOPAGE]] is far too often neglected, and in many cases we would be better off upmerging content. By the same token there are definitely some encyclopedic topics that would be undue detail for a parent article, but will never expand beyond a few paragraphs because there isn't anything else to say about them, and that really isn't a problem either, those type of articles exist in traditional encyclopedias; people who are interested in the niche information can still find it, and it doesn't get in the way of everyone else.{{pb}}At some deeper level of course this is a request to rethink [[WP:N]], especially [[WP:ARTN]], and maybe shift the current consensus a bit as to when no article is better than the existing content. Much more specific criteria than {{tq|failure to thrive}} will be needed for that to happen, and in the end we have to confront the fact that most articles simply do not meet the theoretical baseline standard (the small percentage that do become [[WP:GA]]s after being checked), and if history is any guide, changes will considerably increase the disruption associated with deletion, at least for a time.{{pb}}That isn't to say the underlying concern is without merit, and we all want better written articles, I'm just skeptical this is the best approach to get there. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 04:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Rethinking=== |
|||
I think we should refocus the discussion away from AFD… we DO have a problem with articles that are about notable topics, but are seriously problematic in ''other'' ways. I am thinking that we might need to create a NEW process to deal with such articles. Perhaps (for lack of a better name) we can call it “GAR” (for “Gut And Rebuild”)? Please discuss. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I would be for a policy making it clearer that stubifying and similar are acceptable for badly sourced and very poorly written articles. But we already have several projects for rebuilding and restoring bad articles: [[WP:CLEANUP]], [[WP:REFCHECK]] and [[WP:GOCE]]. I don't think creating a new process for it would help. We already have the [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] for that. [[User:AlexandraAVX|AlexandraAVX]] ([[User talk:AlexandraAVX|talk]]) 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The "problem" is no one is doing it, whether it is because it is relatively harder or just not interested, someone still has to do the research and write, I suppose this GAR could draw attention to what no one is doing and it could help but doubtful it will make the article itself decent, what it could do is produce a list of sources which would certainly be better. It is better to direct readers to RS than whatever so-called "lousy" article we have. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::So, here’s the crux as I see it… ''when'' the issue is notability, we have a fairly clear threat (deletion) we can dangle in front of editors to ''force'' them to address the problem (or at least make the attempt). We also have a clear solution (supply sources). |
|||
::But for ''other issues'' we don’t have a threat to dangle in front of editors to ''force'' (or at least strongly encourage) them to address the problem. We simply ''hope'' that, some day, someone might get around to it. |
|||
::The question is… IS there some sort of threat (other than deletion) that would achieve the goal? The closest I can think of is: “Gut it back to a stub”. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not sure "threat" is the right word, but it seems to me that criteria for compulsory draftification - and a dedicated noticeboard for that - could serve the intended purpose. Heck, it could even be accompanied by a proposed or a speedy draftification process as well. The trick is to come up with a word that starts with a letter other than D (or B). Articles for Transformation (AfT)? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The problem with non-notable articles is that they are, well, not notable, and shouldn't be included in the encyclopaedia. |
|||
:::What is the problem with notable articles that are short that we are trying to solve? We can already remove unreferenced information (after looking for sources and either adding the sources you find or remove it as unverifiable if you can't find any). Why do we want to force people to expand this notable article under threat of deletion after a week (AfD) or six months (draftifying)? What does the encyclopaedia gain from this? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Again, I’m trying to take deletion '''off the table''' here, and yet still convey a similar sense of ''urgency'' to editors (fix this “or else”). The only “or else” I can think of is: “We will pare this article down to a stub”. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm trying to understand why the urgency? ''Why'' do we suddenly need a deadline? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Which editors? If we're dealing with old rot articles like discussed above, they are likely not editing Wikipedia any more. If we're dealing with newer problem articles, we're asking the editors to suddenly become competent? If you get into a war over paring something down, yes there are live editors and you can ask for a third opinion or somesuch., but in general, problem articles are better addressed by improving or paring them than in creating another system that relies on others. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think that threatening editors is probably the wrong way to build a healthy community or encyclopedia. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@[[User:NatGertler|NatGertler]], what if I don't want to do the work? What if my goal is to make other people do the work? I'm a [[WP:VOLUNTEER]]. I don't have to do anything I don't want to. But maybe I'd like to force "you" to do the work that I don't want to do. Threatening to take away basically accurate, appropriate information works on a timescale that humans can recognize. Either nobody cares, and the ugly article goes away, or a volunteer drops everything to save the article. I get to congratulate myself on prompting improvements without lifting a finger to do the work myself. |
|||
::::::Waiting for someone to notice the problem and feel like fixing it doesn't ''feel like'' it works. Sure, some of them might get improved, but I can't see the connection. AFD forces people to do something about the specific article that I don't like. [[m:Eventualism]] just says – well, maybe some articles will get improved and maybe they won't, but I'll never know which ones, and it probably won't be the ones that I care about. I feel helpless and like there's nothing I can do, especially if I don't want to (or am not competent to) improve the articles myself. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]], "gut it back to a stub" won't work, because for the most part, the articles that are disliked are already stubs. |
|||
:::Also, nobody's stopping anyone from doing that now. [[Wikipedia:Stub#Stubbing existing articles]] (guideline) officially endorses it. [[Wikipedia:Editing policy#Problems that may justify removal]] (policy) provides a list of reasons for removing bad content without deleting the article. |
|||
:::I think the desire is to force other people to do this work. "My" job is just to complain that your work is sub-par (sending it to AFD requires three clicks and typing a sentence); "your" job is to put in whatever work is necessary to satisfy me (could be a couple of hours of work, especially if I dislike the subject and so demand an even higher level of activity). |
|||
:::Consider [[Campaign desk]], given as an example above. It's a long stub (10 sentences, 232 words according to ProseSize). Two editors easily found sources for it. It's at AFD now. Why? I don't know, but I will tell you that it's quicker and easier to send something to AFD than to copy and paste sources out of this discussion. I also notice on the same day's AFDs that someone has re-nominated an article because the sources that were listed in the first AFD haven't been copied and pasted into the article yet. Why not copy and paste the sources over yourself? I don't know. Maybe adding sources to articles is work that should be done by lesser beings, not by people who are trying to "improve Wikipedia's quality" by removing anything that hasn't been improve to my satisfaction by the [[WP:DEADLINE]] – the deadline apparently being "whenever I notice the article's existence". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Part of an ''editor’s'' job is to highlight problems that the ''author'' needs to fix. I do get that we ideally wear both hats at the same time, but… sometimes we can only wear one. It is quite possible for editors to identify problems with an article that they can not fix themselves because they don’t know the subject matter well enough to do so. We need something that tells those who DO know the subject matter: “hey, this urgently needs your attention”. |
|||
::::As for why there is urgency… we simply have too many articles flagged as having with serious problems that have ''never'' been addressed. We need ''something'' that will push those who can be authors into actually authoring. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That model of "editors" and "authors" is based on a hierarchical professional structure that does not exist on Wikipedia. Everyone is an "editor" on Wikipedia; that word doesn't hypothetically grant you power over me. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 17:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]], a while ago, I dropped everything to save articles such as [[White cake]]. <small>(Please do not blame the innocent AFD nom; he, like 99.9% of people, didn't know the modern white cake is a technological wonder, and finding high-quality and scholarly sources about everyday subjects requires more than an ordinary search.)</small> I had fun doing it, and those articles are much better now. (I'll deal with the complication that is [[fudge cake]] later). |
|||
::::::But: Do you know what I could have been working on instead of those articles? [[Cancer survivor]]. [[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education in the United States]]. [[Epilepsy and pregnancy]]. [[Suicide]]. [[Multiple chemical sensitivity]]. The targeted articles are much better now. But is Wikipedia as a whole better off, when you consider the [[opportunity cost]]? I doubt it. |
|||
::::::I think @[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] is on the right track when he asks why we have such urgency. There was no urgency whatsoever about [[White cake]]. There were no errors in it. It had sources. It was, admittedly, much less awesome than it is now, but there is nothing seriously wrong. Ditto for [[Campaign desk]], and almost all of the other "ugly" articles. So: Why should fixing that have been urgent? Did we really need something to push me into improving the article? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Thanks, but you did not need the article to do the research and write on white cake, and why it matters, is we are not showing our research, after sometimes decades, and thus adding value, rather we are suggesting that someone shared their thoughts on white cake on Wikipedia, when you can look at the rest of the internet and google for people's thoughts on white cake. The reader would have been better off, in the reliable information department, by finding reliable information on their own, then reading the unsourced, unexamined decidedly unreliable by Wikipedia's own disclaimer article. Anything that said in effect go, read this stuff, it is a good source, would have been better. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::@[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]], why do you say that an article that cited seven (7) sources, including one from [[Oxford University Press]], and that contained no errors is {{xt|unsourced, unexamined decidedly unreliable}}? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Oh, sorry, I thought your story was about it being AfD'd for lack of sourcing, was it that the sources cited were unreliable or irrelevant meaning with no evidence in them of notability? (so yeah, the rest, of my comment would apply to the unsoured parts). [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_cake&oldid=1217206570 the article on the day] it was nominated for deletion. It was one paragraph/six sentences long. That one paragraph had seven inline citations. Here's [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White cake|the AFD page]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Yeah, such AfD nominations are always hard to understand, as the inner logic of the nom is 'this is part of a notable topic' (here, cake). That's similar to the campaign desk example, the salient issue is whether to redirect to campaign furniture. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 10:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ec|2}} That doesn't explain why there is urgency. It identifies that you (and some other editors) dislike there being lots of articles that haven't been improved to your satisfaction yet. It does not explain why that many articles needing improvement is a problem, why nominated articles need fixing more urgently than the other articles, why you can't or won't fix it yourself, nor why you get to decide what articles other people need to prioritise. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::(Friendly reminder: If you don't like edit conflicts, try that Reply button. [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion]] and "Enable quick replying" if you don't see one at the end of every sig.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Honestly, just the fact that you're considering "threatening" people in order to "force" them to do what you want suggests that this may be more about you than it is about the articles. The AfD process isn't about "threats" and "force", it's about identifying and deleting articles on non-notable subjects. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I’m just being realistic. “Force” may not be the intent of the AFD process, but it is certainly a product of that process… ''because'' we “threaten” to delete articles on non-notable topics, lazy article authors are “forced” to provide sources to properly establish that the topic is indeed notable. |
|||
::::In any case, what I am fumbling around trying to envision is a process that would be “about” identifying and fixing seriously flawed articles on notable topics - a process perhaps similar to AFD, but not AFD. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The only things such a process could bring that existing policies, processes, task forces, collaborations, etc don't are a deadline and consequences for failure and nobody has yet identified why we need either of those. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*OK… let’s break it down into more bite sized chunks… first: let’s consider articles with serious [[WP:NOT]] issues (That might be a clearer example of where the ''topic'' might be notable, but the ''article'', as it currently stands, is problematic). Do we have any sort of process that would help us better identify and therefore fix such articles? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 11:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Yes - the various cleanup templates and categories. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::What is the '''process''' behind those templates and categories? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::1. an editor identifies the that an article is in need of cleanup and applies the template. |
|||
*:::2. optionally, it gets added to a list (e.g. a backlog drive) |
|||
*:::3. an editor who can improve the article finds it through one of several methods (see below) and does so |
|||
*:::Methods of finding an article include: |
|||
*:::*seeing the banner template on an article they are reading |
|||
*:::*seeing the article in the category (directly or via some category intersection tool) |
|||
*:::*seeing the article in a list |
|||
*:::*seeing the edit applying the template on their watchlist |
|||
*:::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::In other words… eventually, someday, maybe, someone ''might'' get around to fixing the article. But until that eventual day comes (perhaps ''years'' after it is identified) we are apparently OK with Wikipedia continuing to contain content that a (somewhat core) policy ''explicitly'' says Wikipedia should NOT contain? |
|||
*::::I’m sorry, but if that is our “process”, I don’t think it is effective (or at least not effective ''enough''). I think we need a ''better'' process. A process that will incentivize our authors to fix WP:NOT issues sooner rather than later. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::As I stated the only things our processes lack is a deadline and consequences for failing to meet that deadline and you ''still'' haven't identified how having either of them will benefit the encyclopaedia. Policies and guidelines already allow you to remove policy violations when you see them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Looks to me, Blueboar has done so, 1) effectively disincentivizing long term-policy violations; 2) effectively. reducing long-term policy violations. 3) Wikipedia taking effective responsibility for long-term policy violations concerning the central reason Wikipedia exists, its content, because we can't/don't insist on individual accountability (no one can make an editor source that article they wrote 10 years ago) we need to make process for entire-project accountability, when individualist work has over the long-term failed, concerning its central mission. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::I thought the whole point of this proposal is to deal with articles that ''aren't'' policy violations? Articles that are policy violations should have the policy violating parts fixed or removed, or (if that would leave nothing viable), nominated for deletion as soon as someone sees them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::What you're suggesting is a "double AfD" -- if an article has been at AfD and it's been demonstrated that the subject is notable, but you personally still don't like the current state of the article, then you want an extra do-over that gets you the result that you want. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 15:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::And that someone else has to do the work, because if the only point was to fix the article, you could do that yourself. There is nobody in this discussion who is incapable of remedying serious policy violations in any article, including subjects we're unfamiliar with. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::With English Wikipedia's current consensus being that stub creation is encouraged, and with Wikipedia editors being volunteers, I think the only scalable way to continually improve articles is to build up groups of editors interested in various topic areas—which in the context of English Wikipedia, are WikiProjects—who can work through the queues of stubs. I realize that with most WikiProject talk pages being dormant, this isn't easy. Now that new editors each have their own personal [[Wikipedia:Growth Team features#Newcomer homepage|newcomer homepage]] with an assigned mentor (though at present on English Wikipedia, due to a shortage of volunteers, only 50% of newcomers are shown a mentor on their homepage), perhaps mentors can help point new users to active WikiProjects. (Building a new consensus to manage the quality of new articles is an alternative, but personally I don't foresee a change being feasible in the intermediate term, given the most recent discussions amongst the editors who like to weigh in on this matter.) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Should expanding stubs be prioritized over other tasks? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::You know the answer to that already: it's up to each person to decide what they want to work on. A group of interested persons can discuss situations, of course, and that may influence individual decisions. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::Our choices about which backlogs to "advertise" affect the choices people make. If we say "Stubs are bad, so please prioritize expand stubs", then we'll get more stub expansion. If we were instead to say "Improving popular articles is more important than ignored ones, even though they're less likely to be stubs", then we would expect to get more focus on popular articles. Each person will make their own decisions about what to work on, but people will also take official recommendations and [[Nudge theory|nudges]] into account when making their individual choices. |
|||
*::::::::Some years back, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine]] set an official goal of getting all Top-importance articles past the stub stage. (These tend to be rather generic subjects, like [[Burn]] and [[Infection]].) I think that was valuable, but I'm not sure that there is similar value in encouraging the expansion of the least-read 50% of Wikipedia's articles. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::Sure, that's up to the interested editors to decide upon. For better or worse, I can't keep other editors from discussing queues of interest to them. I can raise my concerns about their relative priority, and thus try to influence whatever decisions are made (whether that's tasks undertaken or text on a WikiProject page). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]], could you give me an example (preferably hypothetical) of an article about a notable subject that has serious NOT violations? None of the examples above (e.g, [[Campaign desk]]) seem to be NOT violations. |
|||
*:I feel like the common objections behind these discussions (which have been going on with some intensity for a couple of years now) don't involve serious policy violations at all. Instead, the objections appear to be: |
|||
*:* [[WP:ITSUNREFERENCED]], and I want ''someone else'' to add sources ''right now''. We couldn't get a rule adopted to require sources in non-BLP articles earlier this year, but I want this non-BLP article treated as if we did adopt that rule. |
|||
*:* It's an [[WP:UGLY]] little article. Personally, I prefer that articles be Start-class, or at least long stubs. |
|||
*:* There has been [[WP:NOIMPROVEMENT]] for a long time and other editors are making [[WP:NOEFFORT]] to expand it. |
|||
*:* This subject feels unimportant to me, so [[WP:WEDONTNEEDIT]] (e.g., species articles) even if it is accurate, verifiable, and cited. |
|||
*:All of those shortcuts point to [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**Sure… Suppose an article about a relatively obscure regional restaurant chain that does nothing but list every franchise outlet and its address, thus violating [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]]. The chain might well be notable and thus worth an article… but the ''article we currently have'' is problematic. It probably needs a complete rewrite, not deletion… So… let’s say someone stumbles upon this article. They can identify the problem, but they don’t know the topic well enough to write about it (and perhaps they don’t really care enough to do so)… so they simply tag it and move on… '''And then'''… nothing happens… nothing changes… the article just sits there, tagged as violating policy, potentially for years. I don’t think that is in the best interest of WP. Surely there is some way to better incentivize fixing the article. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:The person who needs incentivizing is ''you''. You are the one who's bothered by the article's existence. You can be the one who fixes it. Take out the addresses, look for reliable sources (probably in newspapers, for a restaurant chain). If you don't find any, then put it up for deletion. If you do, add them to the article. The problem is solved. You solved it! [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::Hmm… Nope… I’m not in a position to fix the problem myself. I don’t live in the area served by my hypothetical restaurant chain, I have never eaten there, I know nothing about it, I don’t even know what sources would help me to write a proper article. All I know is that the article (as it currently stands) is a directory of franchises (a WP:NOT violation). I DO care enough about WP to alert others to the problem, but I am not qualified to fix it myself. The best I can do is tag and move on. |
|||
**::So, I ask again… THEN what? Do we (as a community) continue to just ignore the problems with the article I have identified?… because that is what is currently happening! Surely we can do better. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::Then you nominate it for deletion. We already have a process for this. If the article is kept, then at least a couple of sources have come up, and glaring problems like the addresses have been fixed. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 20:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::Nah… If I nominate for deletion, I get told that the topic is notable (apparently there ''are'' reliable sources, even though I personally don’t know ''which'' are reliable). I get told that AFD isn’t for article clean up (so the WP:NOT violation persists), and I am scolded for wasting people’s time. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::::So... you don't want to use AfD because you'll be told that you're wrong. Instead, you want a separate AfD process that will tell you that you're right? [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 21:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::::Not at all… I want a new process that will ''better'' draw attention to problems and do more to incentivize editors who CAN fix the problems to actually DO so. That new process might (or might not) be modeled on AFD… I’m still very open to suggestions and inspiration on that. I simply know that our current “tag it and hope that someone ''eventually'' fixes it” system isn’t working. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::::::Is fixing that the right goal for Wikipedia? |
|||
**:::::::I think this point needs to get some direct attention. I agree that the hypothetical article described above is a WP:NOT violation as written. |
|||
**:::::::But: Is this really a "Oh my goodness, that actually ''violates'' a policy! Please, somebody ''do'' something, quick!" situation? Or could this be more of a "That's unfortunate, but not actually harmful, and frankly an article that only lists the locations is not as important as other problems I could be fixing" problem? |
|||
**:::::::Most of what we do is being done by about 10K experienced editors each month. The available volunteer hours do not expand to accommodate someone's desire to have this fixed on the [[m:immediatism]] time line. Incentivizing the editors who can clean up that article "to actually DO so" means incentivizing those editors to leave ''other'' problems unaddressed. So – is this really worth the cost? Are you glad that I expanded [[Cottage Inn Pizza]] when it was prodded a few months ago? Can that question be fully answered, if you don't consider what else I didn't do, because I spent an hour or so on that "relatively obscure regional restaurant chain"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::::::If there isn’t any urgency, perhaps we should downgrade WP:NOT to an essay?… or rename it to: “What Wikipedia arguably shouldn’t be.” Ok, snark there… but yeah, I do think dealing with violations of major policies should out weigh a lot of the other, pettier things we obsess about as editors. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::::::::Blueboar, you asked, "Do we (as a community) continue to just ignore the problems with the article I have identified?" And for me, the answer is that I would rather have lots of imperfect articles than give you and X other people the power to mass-delete articles that would pass AfD but you still think are kind of "meh". |
|||
**:::::::::(Note that you have already said that the articles would pass AfD and that you would be accused of wasting editors' time if you nominated them.) |
|||
**:::::::::If your proposal is (paraphrased), "Let's have a system that 'forces' people to improve random articles on notable subjects at my personal instruction or they get deleted whenever I want," then I vote for the system that we currently have. Yes, that hypothetical chain restaurant article is absolutely hypothetically fine with me. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::::::::Well, I don't think I'd describe the hypothetical article as "fine", but I also don't think that fixing it is urgent. If it gets done sometime before the heat death of the universe, then that would be great. But if we have more important content to work on, then I'm okay with it still being in its harmless but [[WP:UGLY]] and nominally policy-violating state [[User:WhatamIdoing/I am going to die|when I die]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::::::::Toughpigs… I’m not sure why you keep bringing up deletion… I opened this section by removing deletion as an option. But just to be clear - I am envisioning a new process to '''fix''' problematic articles… and NOT delete them. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 10:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::::::::::So this new process highlights that it is vital that someone drops what they are doing and fixes this article to your satisfaction right now. What happens if nobody does? It's already a stub, so gutting the article isn't an option, and deletion is apparently off the table, so we can't do that. What else is there? Do we pick an editor and stop them doing anything else until they've fixed this article? How do we choose which editor? What happens if they walk away from the project instead? Or do we just leave the article with a different banner on it to let people know that not only is this article is in a bad state but we disapprove of it being in bad state and we were unable to force anybody to fix it in time? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::::::::::Thryduulf, part of the problem in my hypothetical is that the article (as it currently stands) ISN’T “already a stub”… it’s a directory of franchises and addresses. I could definitely see “stubify” being a ''step'' in the process (the “Gut” part of my suggested “Gut and Rebuild” name for the process) but what we really need is the next step… something that will incentivize editors to rebuild. ''That’s'' what I am searching for… and I don’t have the answer yet. I am hoping that I will become inspired as we continue to discuss. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 11:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::::::::::::Other editors have identified articles that they see as being part of this process which are stubs. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**:::::::::@[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]], what if it's not so petty? The next major edit I made after that pizza chain was to expand [[Mastitis]]. I don't think we have an official policy that says "Improve health-related articles by providing accurate, well-sourced facts about common medical conditions, particularly if misinformation is spreading about that subject on social media", but I do consider that more important and more urgent than nominal compliance with a policy about whether Wikipedia should or shouldn't contain a list of locations for a restaurant chain. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**::::::::::Sure, there are things that are more important… but there are a lot of things we (as a community) obsess about that are less important. Perhaps we should adjust our priorities? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Why are there so many featured articles about Great Britain? == |
|||
:[[File:Cancelled_process_mini.svg|left|75px]] '''This Village Pump''' is for developing ideas</b>, not for consensus polling. Rather than merely stating support or opposition to an idea, try to be creative and positive. If possible, suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified. |
|||
{{NOTHERE}} |
|||
{{collapse top|Not a policy discussion. Not a useful discussion. Take it up at the talk pages of the various sections of the main page if you must [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 00:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Like literally, everytime I come on the Front Page of wikipedia theres always a featured article of euther a British or english person. Is wikipedia owned by limeys or something? ENOUGH…HAVE SOME DIVERSITY FOR ONCE!! [[User:Fact.up.world|Fact.up.world]] ([[User talk:Fact.up.world|talk]]) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:On the contrary, almost all main page FAs are about America! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== Bot-like usernames == |
|||
The [[WP:MISLEADNAME|username policy]] disallows users to have a username that has "bot", "script" or other related words in them because they could potentially mislead other editors. In my on-and-off time on wikipedia, I never understood why these sorts of usernames should be prohibited. |
|||
My main issue is that I feel that it's too [[WP:BITEY|BITEY]]. |
|||
Feedback, +1's, -1's, "likes," or thumbs-up/down are welcome! |
|||
Imagine being a new editor, clicking on the edit button just to see a big ugly edit notice saying that you're indefinitely blocked from editing just because you put "bot" on your username. Wouldn't it demotivate, discourage, and dissuade you from ever editing Wikipedia, or going through the process of appealing a block? |
|||
[[User:Mattsenate|Mattsenate]] ([[User talk:Mattsenate|talk]]) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Because otherwise it would be exactly the same as [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]]. <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 01:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I understand that admins should attempt to communicate to the user before taking any action, but I rarely see that happen. |
|||
::No, because that's for ''definite'' ideas, while Matt's suggesting encouraging straw polls to see whether people are vaguely in favour of or opposed to vague suggestions. If most people are vaguely opposed it probably isn't worth anyone's while working out the details for a definite proposal. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The thing is, having a bot-like username is not disruptive to the encyclopedia. It's not trolling any users, or going to tackle the issue with [[WP:BOTLIKE|bot-like]] editing. |
|||
:A vague proposal is worse than no proposal at all. Leaving it open to polling/voting is just asking for arguments, it's not going to help provide solutions. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
So I ask you, what is the purpose of prohibiting bot-like usernames? [[User:OzzyOlly|OzzyOlly]] ([[User talk:OzzyOlly|talk]]) 01:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal with policy implications: Major edit user right == |
|||
:If I see a user account called CitationBot, I assume it's a bot that in some way edits citations. Prohibiting bot-like usernames is intended to prevent that assumption from being misleading. If admins are not explaining the block reasoning, that is a distinct issue from the policy itself. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
A proposal for a new user right is detailed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anti-vandalism_user_right_for_enabling_major_edits:_24hrs_.2F_5_edits here]. It would be automatically triggered when the account had been in existence at least 24 hours and at least 5 edits had been made in mainspace. This Major edit user right is an anti-vandalism measure, intended to block edits algorithm-determined to be likely disruptive in nature. [[User:RedactionalOne|RedactionalOne]] ([[User talk:RedactionalOne|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I could how some users might ignore edits because of their username, but first, the vast majority of times it's someone who stuck robot in their because they like robots or are otherwise entirely in good faith, and also users can check the account and its contributions. [[User:OzzyOlly|OzzyOlly]] ([[User talk:OzzyOlly|talk]]) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Many usernames could be made in good faith that fall afoul of the username policy, the policy was not created to deal with bad faith usernames but to provide guidance for selecting usernames that do not impede communication and collaboration (or create potential legal issues). [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::My issue is that bot-like usernames don't impede communication or are disruptive. I think we're risking shutting out perfectly good editors over minor "what-ifs" [[User:OzzyOlly|OzzyOlly]] ([[User talk:OzzyOlly|talk]]) 03:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Bot-like usernames do both, because we editors do not communicate with bots, and expect edits by bots to be very constrained along particular lines. The username policy does not shut out any editors. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I know it's not really a total blanket ban on editors, but the issue is that I don't believe there's a net gain in doing this. I mean, recent changes automatically doesn't show you bot edits, and it's pretty easy to distinguish a human from a bot editor (especially the ones who added bot not as an attempt to communicate anything) even without having to check if it has the bot flag. |
|||
::::::I've checked around to see how many people are blocked because of this, I've only found two instances of bot-like behavior, both of which are simply people not realizing they need to seek approval from [[WP:BAG|BAG]] if they want to bring a bot from another project. Some are blocked for vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other stuff but the vast majority are of just regular newcomers, acting in good faith. [[User:OzzyOlly|OzzyOlly]] ([[User talk:OzzyOlly|talk]]) 15:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If an editor is so fragile that a username policy is something that causes them to leave this site forever, then don't let them know about all other policies and guidelines we have. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If we're not (at least) issuing warnings about potentially unwanted but not automatically rejected usernames at the time of account creation, maybe we should be. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It could be editors create a login on another language Wikipedia that does not have this rule. They can edit there where "bot" means something different, but editting here is a problem if it sounds like you are a robot. Some other names are a problem, eg "administrator" or "official" which could mislead. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 07:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::What if the person happens to be called LongBOTtom or likes the Bibles and uses TheSCRIPTures etc? There must be reasonable grounds? —<span style="background-color: #EAE6FF">[[User:Iadmc|<span style="color: #0247FE"> Iadmc</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Iadmc|<span style="color: black">♫</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iadmc|<span style="color: #0247FE">talk </span>]]</sup></span> 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The [[WP:MISLEADNAME|policy]] doesn't disallow those. It only disallows names that suggest the user's a bot.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh OK. Thanks —<span style="background-color: #EAE6FF">[[User:Iadmc|<span style="color: #0247FE"> Iadmc</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Iadmc|<span style="color: black">♫</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iadmc|<span style="color: #0247FE">talk </span>]]</sup></span> 08:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What about [[User:Notbot]]? Looks like a bot to me even though you can say he's claiming not to be a bot —<span style="background-color: #EAE6FF">[[User:Iadmc|<span style="color: #0247FE"> Iadmc</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Iadmc|<span style="color: black">♫</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iadmc|<span style="color: #0247FE">talk </span>]]</sup></span> 08:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I really think we should offer to do the name change on their behalf rather than make them go through all this crap and then request one and then sit around and twiddle their thumbs while they wait for us to get around to it. At the very least, give them a week to come up with a new one or something, and ''then'' block them. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::We really shouldn't be indefing editors because of their username, unless it's obviously offensive. I know that's kind of what we do already, but we really should just look at their edits, and see if they're [[WP:HTBAE]] or not. If they are, drop a note on their talk page, ask them what username they want, instead of mass blocks and biting. [[User:OzzyOlly|OzzyOlly]] ([[User talk:OzzyOlly|talk]]) 15:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Theoretically, this is the rule, but in practice, the few admins who deal with this say it's too much trouble to check back to see if a request has been made. They block when it's not required because it's easier for them. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Unification of include-info and reject-info principles in the content policies == |
|||
== Using colorized images == |
|||
There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=1228103069&oldid=1228101775 a suggestion] to remove "not taking sides" from the NPOV policy, which is the essential point in its nutshell. The argument is that the terminology could be preventing that we reject fringe theories, etc., because that would be taking sides. Of course, this has never been the meaning of "not taking sides" in the policy. The language and the terminology are the superficial side of this. The concepts are the important side. Therefore, I suggested that before we consider the superficial terminological issue, we do a RfC about a better unification of include-info and reject-info principles in the content policies in general. I am concerned that I will be prevented from doing that RfC, because some would say that it disrupts the discussion. So, I am asking opinions about this here. [[User:Dominic Mayers|Dominic Mayers]] ([[User talk:Dominic Mayers|talk]]) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Is there anything in either policies or guidelines concerning the use of colorized images? Is there a preference? I don't see anything in [[MOS:IMAGES]] or [[WP:IUP]] that addresses it. This question arises out of a discussion on [[Talk:Jefferson Davis#Jefferson Davis Photograph]] and community input is welcome.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]])</span> 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 11:44, 10 June 2024
| Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.
- If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
- If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
- If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
- This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
- If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.
Copy paste plagiarism from out of copyright materials.[edit]
Hi, I was just wondering what the correct template is for signalling articles which have copypasted text from an out of copyright source. This article is a word for word copy from this source, and I'm pretty sure that's not ok, so we must have a template. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is ok, since the source is in the public domain and the text is properly attributed. There are many templates used to attribute the sources being copied, and that article uses one of them (Template:DNB). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the early days, it was considered a good thing to copy articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica to fill in the gaps. Donald Albury 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Many people (not the OP) don't seem to understand the difference between copyright violation and plagiarism. Copyright violation is the copying of copyrighted text with or without attribution against the terms of the copyright licence (with an allowance for "fair use" in nearly all jurisdictions). Plagiarism is the passing off of someone else's work as one's own, whether the work is copyrighted or not. This is not copyright violation, because it is out of copyright, and not plagiarism, because it is properly attributed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, let me get this straight, are users saying that it is ok to copypaste text from an out of copyright text as long as that text is attributed? This feels very wrong, which wikipolicies allow this?Boynamedsue (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- See the content guideline at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. While at least some editors would prefer that such material be rewritten by an editor, there is no prohibition on copying verbatim from free sources; it is allowed as long as proper attribution to the original source is given. Donald Albury 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it needs to be done with considerable caution if at all, and it just seems like a less ideal option in almost every case, save for particular passages that are just too hard to rewrite to the same effect. But I think the consensus is that it is allowed. Remsense诉 01:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Copyright has a limited term (though these days, in many countries, a very long one) precisely to allow the work of the past to be built upon to generate new creative works. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing new is generated when you copy something verbatim. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Remixing from sampled works is increasingly common. Imitating other people's work is done to learn new styles. Jazz music specifically has a tradition of incorporating past standards into new performances. Critical analysis can be more easily placed in context as annotations. And from an educational standpoint, more people can learn about/read/watch/perform works when the barrier to disseminating them is lessened. What's in copyright today is the source of new widely-spread traditional works in the future. isaacl (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, every time you read a poem it's a new translation. If this were Wikiversity, I think there'd actually be a lot of room for interesting experiments remixing\ PD material. Remsense诉 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- You wrote a lot but none of it actually addresses what I've said. Traumnovelle (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Remixing from sampled works is increasingly common. Imitating other people's work is done to learn new styles. Jazz music specifically has a tradition of incorporating past standards into new performances. Critical analysis can be more easily placed in context as annotations. And from an educational standpoint, more people can learn about/read/watch/perform works when the barrier to disseminating them is lessened. What's in copyright today is the source of new widely-spread traditional works in the future. isaacl (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing new is generated when you copy something verbatim. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, comparing the two, and looking at the edit history, it is not at all true that "...This article is a word for word copy from this source." Much has been changed or rewritten (and many of the spicy bits removed). This is fairly typical for this sort of biography, I would say. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was a bit imprecise there, it is the first three to four paragraphs of the life section that are directly lifted word for word. I'm just a little shocked at this as anywhere other than wikipedia this would be classified as gross plagiarism.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, let me get this straight, are users saying that it is ok to copypaste text from an out of copyright text as long as that text is attributed? This feels very wrong, which wikipolicies allow this?Boynamedsue (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Collecting, copying or reproducing high quality, classic writings on a topic is quite common in publishing. See anthology, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is true, but publishing big chunks of it unchanged as part of a new book under a new name, without specifically stating that this text was written by someone else is not. If you cite someone else, you have to use different language, unless you make it clear you are making a direct quotationBoynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- But the article does (and did) specifically state that it was written by someone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- It didn't. It cited a source, that is not the same as stating the text was a direct quotation from that source. It now states: "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" which is an improvement but does not differentiate between which parts are direct quotes and which use the source properly.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- That seems very unneeded, as no one is claiming specific authorship of this article, and as the material used for derivation has long been linked to so that one can see what that version said. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Anywhere but wikipedia, passing off someone else's words as your own is plagiarism. The kind of thing that people are rightly sacked, kicked out of universities or dropped by publishers for. This includes situations where a paper is cited but text is copy-pasted without being attributed as a quote.
- I'm more than a little shocked by this situation, but if so many experienced editors think that it's ok, there's not much I can do about it.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's because we aren't trying to impress the teacher with our sooper riting skilz. We're providing information to the WP:READER, who isn't supposed to care who wrote what. This is fundamentally a collective effort. Note the tagline is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" not "By Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". There exist WP:FORKS of Wikipedia where 99.9% of the content is unchanged. Are they plagiarizing us?
- An analogy that might help is the stone soup. If you grew the carrots yourself, great! But if you legally gleaned them instead, so what? The soup is still tastier. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, wiki-mirrors are clearly plagiarising wikipedia, even though they are breaking no law. Wikipedia is a collective effort of consenting wikipedians, it is not supposed to be a repository of texts stolen from the dead. That's wikisource's job.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant. If copying from a PD source, you certainly should make it clear where the text is from, but it's not an absolute requirement. Additionally, if a statement of the source wasn't done by the revsion author, it can be done subsequently by anyone else (assuming no blocks or bans forbid this particular person from editing this particular article). Animal lover |666| 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be acceptable for it not to be made clear. Once more, there's a distinction between copyvio and plagiarism—the fault with the latter for our purposes broadly being that readers are not adequately made aware of where what they are reading came from. The obvious default assumption of any reader is that they are reading something a Wikipedia editor wrote. Tucked away as it is, there is an edit history that lists each contributing editor. This is not superfluous context to me, it's about maintaining a sane relationship between editors and audience. Even if there's potentially nothing wrong with it divorced from social context, in terms of pure claims and copyright law—we don't live in a media environment divorced from social context, there's no use operating as if we don't meaningfully exist as authors and editors. Remsense诉 15:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, plagiarizing Wikipedia would be a copyright violation, since Wikipedia texts are released under a license that requires attribution. Same can't be said for PD texts. Animal lover |666| 18:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be acceptable for it not to be made clear. Once more, there's a distinction between copyvio and plagiarism—the fault with the latter for our purposes broadly being that readers are not adequately made aware of where what they are reading came from. The obvious default assumption of any reader is that they are reading something a Wikipedia editor wrote. Tucked away as it is, there is an edit history that lists each contributing editor. This is not superfluous context to me, it's about maintaining a sane relationship between editors and audience. Even if there's potentially nothing wrong with it divorced from social context, in terms of pure claims and copyright law—we don't live in a media environment divorced from social context, there's no use operating as if we don't meaningfully exist as authors and editors. Remsense诉 15:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- When EB1911 was published, copyright in the United Kingdom expired seven years after the author's death, so "the dead" would probably just be surprised that it took so long for their work to be reprinted. Wikipedia exists to provide free content, the defining feature of which is that it can be reused by anyone for any purpose (in our case, with attribution). So it shouldn't really be surprising that experienced editors here are generally positive about reusing stuff. – Joe (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant. If copying from a PD source, you certainly should make it clear where the text is from, but it's not an absolute requirement. Additionally, if a statement of the source wasn't done by the revsion author, it can be done subsequently by anyone else (assuming no blocks or bans forbid this particular person from editing this particular article). Animal lover |666| 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, wiki-mirrors are clearly plagiarising wikipedia, even though they are breaking no law. Wikipedia is a collective effort of consenting wikipedians, it is not supposed to be a repository of texts stolen from the dead. That's wikisource's job.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The stuff you are claiming is "plagiarized" is getting far better attribution than most of the writing in Wikipedia. Most of the contributing writers get no credit on the page itself, it is all in the edit history. I'm not sure whose writing you think we're passing this off as. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think simply being stated at the bottom is pretty much exactly the level of credit editors get—for me to feel comfortable with it it should be stated inline, which is what I added after the issue was raised. Remsense诉 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair I think the only reason these things tend to be noted with a template at the bottom of the article is that the vast majority of public domain content was imported in the project's early days, as a way of seeding content, and back then inline citations were barely used. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think simply being stated at the bottom is pretty much exactly the level of credit editors get—for me to feel comfortable with it it should be stated inline, which is what I added after the issue was raised. Remsense诉 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uh, what are we going to do, dock their pay? jp×g🗯️ 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Was thinking more along the lines of tagging the text or reverting, a talkpage message and possibly blocks for recidivists. But like I said earlier, it appears that the consensus is that things are fine how they are. World's gone mad, but what am I off to do about it? Nowt. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The text you're worried about was added twelve years ago by a user who that has been blocked for the last eleven years (for, wait for it... improper use of copyrighted content). I think that ship has sailed. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- There you go, gateway drug.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The text you're worried about was added twelve years ago by a user who that has been blocked for the last eleven years (for, wait for it... improper use of copyrighted content). I think that ship has sailed. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Was thinking more along the lines of tagging the text or reverting, a talkpage message and possibly blocks for recidivists. But like I said earlier, it appears that the consensus is that things are fine how they are. World's gone mad, but what am I off to do about it? Nowt. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- That seems very unneeded, as no one is claiming specific authorship of this article, and as the material used for derivation has long been linked to so that one can see what that version said. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- It didn't. It cited a source, that is not the same as stating the text was a direct quotation from that source. It now states: "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" which is an improvement but does not differentiate between which parts are direct quotes and which use the source properly.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- But the article does (and did) specifically state that it was written by someone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is true, but publishing big chunks of it unchanged as part of a new book under a new name, without specifically stating that this text was written by someone else is not. If you cite someone else, you have to use different language, unless you make it clear you are making a direct quotationBoynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- There does appear to be a consensus that such works need to be attributed somehow, and despite whatever disagreement there is, the disagreement in substance appears to be how that is done. What we are doing in these instances is republication (which is a perfectly ordinary thing to do), and yes we should let the reader know that is being done, but I'm not seeing a suggestion for changing how we do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the OP asked a question and got an answer, and discussion since has been extracurricular. Remsense诉 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP does have a point that the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism. For example, putting a unique sentence in from another's work, and just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough, in that instance you should likely use quotation marks and even in line attribution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think, as with most things, it depends on the situation. Plagiarism is not just the use of words without attribution, but ideas. An idea that has general acceptance might get attributed inline once in an article if it is associated strongly with a specific person or set of persons. But every mention of DNA's double helix doesn't have to be accompanied with an attribution to Watson and Crick. If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution when including that info in an article. If it's something that reporter was known for breaking to the public, then it would be relevant. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- But that was not the situation being discussed, it was word for word, copying the work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure; just underscoring that if the concern is plagiarism, it applies more broadly to the restatement of ideas. Rewording a sentence doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism. Even with a sentence being copied, I feel the importance of an inline attribution depends on the situation, as I described. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that is similar a simple phrase alone, like 'He was born.' cannot be copyrighted nor the subject of plagiarism. Now if you use the simple phrase 'He was born.' in a larger poem and someone baldly copies your poem in large part with the phrase, the copyist violated your copyright, if still in force, and they did plagiarize. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, copying a poem likely warrants inline attribution, so... it depends on the situation. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- And that's the issue raised, regarding republication on wiki, is it currently enough to address plagiarism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the need for inline attribution depends in the same way as for content still under copyright. The original question only discussed the copyright status as a criterion. I don't think this by itself can be used to determine if inline attribution is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- As plagiarism and copyright are two different, if sometimes related, inquiries. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the need for inline attribution depends in the same way as for content still under copyright. The original question only discussed the copyright status as a criterion. I don't think this by itself can be used to determine if inline attribution is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- And that's the issue raised, regarding republication on wiki, is it currently enough to address plagiarism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, copying a poem likely warrants inline attribution, so... it depends on the situation. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that is similar a simple phrase alone, like 'He was born.' cannot be copyrighted nor the subject of plagiarism. Now if you use the simple phrase 'He was born.' in a larger poem and someone baldly copies your poem in large part with the phrase, the copyist violated your copyright, if still in force, and they did plagiarize. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure; just underscoring that if the concern is plagiarism, it applies more broadly to the restatement of ideas. Rewording a sentence doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism. Even with a sentence being copied, I feel the importance of an inline attribution depends on the situation, as I described. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- >If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution
- It absolutely is essential per WP:V. Traumnovelle (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution is required. Inline attribution is not (that is, stating the source within the prose). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It still requires sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, attribution is sourcing. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think, better to distinguish the two. Attribution is explicitly letting the reader know these words, this idea, this structure came from someone else, whereas sourcing is letting the reader know you can find the gist or basis for the information in my words, there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for being unclear. I was responding to the statement that inline attribution absolutely is essential. Providing a reference for the source of content is necessary. Providing this information within the prose, as opposed to a footnote, is not. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly, it is possible to put explicit attribution in the footnote parenthetical or in an efn note. (I think your response to this might be , 'it depends' :))Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Should be be providing in-line attribution for every sentence on Wikipedia to let the reader know which editor wrote which part of it? Wikipedia isn't an academic paper, as long as we can verify that there are no copyright issues with the content (such as an attribution-required license), attribution doesn't matter. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- Surely there's some reasonable position between "attribution doesn't matter" and "attribute every sentence inline". Remsense诉 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yah, sorry those two extremes certainly don't follow from each other (Nor does the comment you are responding to discuss inline). The guideline is WP:Plagiarism and it does not go to those extremes on either end. (Also, Wikipedia does publically attribute each edit to an editor, and it does not need to be in the article, it is appendixed to the article.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for being unclear. I was responding to the statement that inline attribution absolutely is essential. Providing a reference for the source of content is necessary. Providing this information within the prose, as opposed to a footnote, is not. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think, better to distinguish the two. Attribution is explicitly letting the reader know these words, this idea, this structure came from someone else, whereas sourcing is letting the reader know you can find the gist or basis for the information in my words, there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, attribution is sourcing. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It still requires sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Attribution is required. Inline attribution is not (that is, stating the source within the prose). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- But that was not the situation being discussed, it was word for word, copying the work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think, as with most things, it depends on the situation. Plagiarism is not just the use of words without attribution, but ideas. An idea that has general acceptance might get attributed inline once in an article if it is associated strongly with a specific person or set of persons. But every mention of DNA's double helix doesn't have to be accompanied with an attribution to Watson and Crick. If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution when including that info in an article. If it's something that reporter was known for breaking to the public, then it would be relevant. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP does have a point that the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism. For example, putting a unique sentence in from another's work, and just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough, in that instance you should likely use quotation marks and even in line attribution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the OP asked a question and got an answer, and discussion since has been extracurricular. Remsense诉 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Around 2006, I reworked a copy-pasted EB1911 biography about a 16th century person, it took me about a week. It has stood the test of time, and remains to this day a pretty good article despite having the same structure and modified sentences. The lead section is entirely new, and there are new sources and section breaks and pictures etc.. but the bulk of it is still that EB1911 article (reworded). I do not see the problem with this. Disney reworked Grimms tales. Hollywood redoes old stories. Sometimes old things are classics that stand the test of time, with modern updates. -- GreenC 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think everybody is fine with articles which are largely based on a single source when they are reworded. It's not the platonic ideal, but it is a good start. The problem we are discussing is when people don't bother to reword. Well, I say problem, I have been told it's not one, so there's nothing left to say really.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you actually just reword a source like 1911, you should still use the 1911 template, and no, the thing you have not explained is why the template is not enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think everybody is fine with articles which are largely based on a single source when they are reworded. It's not the platonic ideal, but it is a good start. The problem we are discussing is when people don't bother to reword. Well, I say problem, I have been told it's not one, so there's nothing left to say really.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This proposal is WP:GREATWRONGS. The article John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes is perfectly fine. It does not violate any policy, guideline or consensus. There is nothing objectionable about that article. The proposal to rewrite the article would not improve the article and would result only in disruption. The proposal to put a template on the article solely to disparage the inclusion of public domain content in the article would result only in disruption. It would be disruptive to discuss this proposal further, because this proposal is disruptive, because this proposal is WP:GREATWRONGS. James500 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? There is no proposal. Also, there has long been a template used on the article. Your attempt to shut down discussion is also way, way off, (and your RGW claim is risible). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I propose all WP:GREATWRONGS should be righted immediately.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:IAR! Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Amongst other things, the OP said that copying public domain text, with the correct attribution, "feels very wrong". James500 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:IAR! Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I propose all WP:GREATWRONGS should be righted immediately.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? There is no proposal. Also, there has long been a template used on the article. Your attempt to shut down discussion is also way, way off, (and your RGW claim is risible). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, WP:GREATWRONGS is applicable whenever anyone uses the word "wrong"?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose any change to the practice of incorporating public domain content. Wikipedia is not an experiment in creative writing. It is an encyclopedia. It's sole and entire purpose is to convey information to readers. If readers can be informed through the conveyance of text that has entered the public domain, then this should not only be permissible, it should be applauded. BD2412 T 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, there is no proposal to do something different. The OP apparently forgot about things like anthologies and republication of out of copyright (like eg. all of Jane Austin's work, etc), but than when such matter was brought to his attention, retrenched to whether attribution was explicit (which we already do) enough, but has never explained what enough, is proposed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- The proposal was to create a maintenance template that encourages editors to delete all text copied from public domain sources from all Wikipedia articles, even if that text is correctly attributed, simply because it is copied from a public domain source. He actually tried to tag the article with Template:Copypaste (alleging copyright infringement), despite the fact that the content is public domain and was correctly attributed at the time, with the Template:DNB attribution template. James500 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a proposal, he asked what template is appropriate, and he was given the list of templates at Template:DNB. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The proposal was to create a maintenance template that encourages editors to delete all text copied from public domain sources from all Wikipedia articles, even if that text is correctly attributed, simply because it is copied from a public domain source. He actually tried to tag the article with Template:Copypaste (alleging copyright infringement), despite the fact that the content is public domain and was correctly attributed at the time, with the Template:DNB attribution template. James500 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, there is no proposal to do something different. The OP apparently forgot about things like anthologies and republication of out of copyright (like eg. all of Jane Austin's work, etc), but than when such matter was brought to his attention, retrenched to whether attribution was explicit (which we already do) enough, but has never explained what enough, is proposed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- oppose the existence of a proposal: I would like to clarify, wherever people think they are seeing a proposal, there isn't one. I asked a question about what tag to use when people plagiarise out of copyright texts. I got an answer I think is stupid and expressed incredulity for a couple of posts. Then, when I realised that people were indeed understanding what I was talking about, said
if so many experienced editors think that it's ok, there's not much I can do about it
. WP:NOVOTE has never been more literally true, there is nothing to vote on here...Boynamedsue (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- Support not adding any more bold-face votes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker says above that the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism.
Animal lover says above that A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant.
I think this is a difference in how people implicitly view it. The first view says "A Wikipedia article is written by people who type the content directly into the editing window. If your username isn't in the article's history page, then your words shouldn't be in the article. Article content should come exclusively from Wikipedia editors. If it doesn't, it's not really a Wikipedia article. This is our implicit promise: Wikipedia is original content, originally from Wikipedia editors. If it's not original content, it should have a notice to the reader on it to say that we didn't write it ourselves. Otherwise, we are taking credit for work done by someone who is them and not-us in an us–them dichotomy".
The second view says "A Wikipedia article is a collection of text from different people and different places. Where it came from is unimportant. We never promised that the contents of any article came from someone who directly edited the articles themselves. It's silly to say that we need to spam an article with statements that bits and pieces were pasted in from public domain sources. We wouldn't countenance 'written by a random person on the internet' in the middle of article text, so why should we countenance a disclaimer that something was 'previously published by a reliable source'? I don't feel like I'm taking credit for any other editor's article contributions, so why would you think that I'm claiming credit for something copied from a public domain source?"
If you the first resonates strongly with you, then it's shocking to see {{PD-USGov}} and {{EB1911}} content casually and legally inserted into articles without telling the reader that those sentences had previously been published some place else. OTOH, if you hold the opposite view, then the first probably seems quite strange. As this is a matter of people's intuitive feelings about what Wikipedia means, I do not see any likelihood of editors developing a unified stance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a reasonable summary of the issue. I think many of those who hold the first view work in or have close ties to fields where plagiarism is considered a very bad thing indeed. Academic and publishing definitions of plagiarism include using the direct words of another writer, even when attributed, unless it is explicitly made clear that the copied text is a direct quotation. For people who hold that view outside of wikipedia, the existence of large quantities of plagiarised text would detract seriously from its credibility and validity as a project.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I work in publishing, and there is plenty of space there where such specificities are not generally called for. If one is doing an abridged edition, children's edition, or updated version of a book, one credits the work which one is reworking but does not separate out phrase by phrase of what is from that source. Much the same goes, of course, for film adaptations, music sampling, and so on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the difference there is that you are giving primary credit to the original author, and your work is voluntarily subsumed into theirs (while of course correctly stating that it is a Children's version or an abridged edition, giving editor credits etc.). In wikipedia, we are taking other people's work and subsuming it into ours.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I work in publishing, and there is plenty of space there where such specificities are not generally called for. If one is doing an abridged edition, children's edition, or updated version of a book, one credits the work which one is reworking but does not separate out phrase by phrase of what is from that source. Much the same goes, of course, for film adaptations, music sampling, and so on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the dichotomy is useful but I doubt anyone can subscribe to the pure form of either position. If I had to guess, I would assume most editors would agree with most of the sentences in both statements when presented in isolation. Remsense诉 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- No. Your characterization is too gross to be useful and your made up dichotomy is just silly. We have those templates precisely because we try to give credit where credit is due, per WP:PLAGIARISM, so there is nothing shocking at all about {{PD-USGov}} and {{EB1911}} content. Sure, there are other ways to do it, than those templates, even so. Plagiarism is not a law, so your reference to the law makes no sense. But what is the law is, Wikipedia has to be written by persons, who can legally licence what they put on our pages, and if you did not write it you can't release it, nor purport to release it nor make it appear you are releasing under your licence, when you can't and you aren't. And Wikipedia does not warrant we offer good information either, in fact Wikipedia disclaims it in our disclaimer, that does not mean Wikipedian's don't care about good information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is written by people who freely license their contributions by the act of editing. But, public domain material is already free, does not need to be licensed, and so can be freely added to Wikipedia. Material that has been released under a free license can also be freely added to Wikipedia, subject to the conditions of the license, such as attribution (although we cannot copy material under a license that does not allow commercial use, but that has nothing to do with this discussion). There is no policy, rule, or law that Wikipedia has to be written by persons (although the community currently is rejecting material written by LLMs). Reliable content is reliable whether is written by Wikipedia editors based on reliable sources, or copied from reliable sources that are in the public domain or licensed under terms compatible with usage in Wikipedia. I believe that we should be explicitly citing everything that is in articles, even if I know that will not be happening any time soon. We should, however, be explicitly citing all public domain and freely-licensed content that is copied into Wikipedia, being clear that the content is copied. One of the existing templates or a specific indication in a footnote or in-line citation is sufficient, in my opinion. Donald Albury 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you cannot present it as if you are licencing it (and indeed requiring attribution to you!) which is what you do if just copy the words into an article and don't say, in effect, 'this is not under my licence this is public domain, that other person wrote it.' (Your discussion of LLM's and what not, is just beside the point, you, a person, are copying, not someone else.) And your last point, we are in radical agreement certainly (about letting the reader know its public domain that other person wrote it, and that's what the templates try to do) we are not in a dichotomy, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alan, I think your response makes me more certain that my two polar ends are real. You're working from the viewpoint that if it's on the page, and does not contain words like "According to EB1911" outside of a little blue clicky number and outside of the history page, then the editor who put that text there is "purporting" that the text was written by that editor.
- There's nothing in the license that requires is to let the reader know that it's public domain or that another person wrote it. You know that a quick edit summary is 100% sufficient for the license requirements, even if nothing in the text or footnotes mentions the source. The story you present sounds like this to me:
- The license doesn't require attribution for public domain content.
- Even if it did, it wouldn't require anything more visible than an edit summary saying "Copied from EB1911".
- So (you assert) there has to be in-text attribution ("According to EB1911, a wedding cake...") or a plain-text statement at the end of the article ("This article incorporates text from EB1911") to the public domain, so the casual, non-reusing reader knows that it wasn't written by whichever editor posted it on the page.
- This doesn't logically follow. I suspect that what you've written so far doesn't really explain your view fully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- No. Your false dichotomy has already been shown to be of no value. Now you add to your baseless assumptions about clicky numbers and what not. I think that editors add content to Wikipedia under the license (otherwise we would have no license), yet I also think we need to tell the reader that the matter comes from somewhere else, when it comes from somewhere else. None of that should be hard to understand for anyone. (And besides, article histories are not secrets, they are public and publicly tied to text available to the reader and anyone else.) It's just bizarre that you would imagine an unbridgeable void, when basically everyone is saying that a disclosure should be made, and they are only really discussing degrees and forms of disclosure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, a disclosure should be made, and it was made. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, and that is why the discussion is about form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alan, I don't agree that the spectrum I describe is a false dichotomy, or that anyone has even attempted to show whether it has value, though I gather that you happen to disagree with it.
- I don't agree that the CC-BY-SA license requires disclosure of the source of public domain material. I think that's a question for a bunch of lawyers to really settle, but based on my own understanding, it does not. I think that Wikipedia should have such requirements (e.g, in Wikipedia:Public domain, which notably does not mention the CC-BY-SA license as a reason to do so; instead, it says only that this is important for Wikipedia's reliability), but I don't think we have any reason to believe that the license does. This distinction may seem a little like hairsplitting, but if we propose to change our rules about how to handle these things, we should be accurate about what's required for which reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should not take a lawyer to tell you that to grant a licence you first have to have a right, and that you should not be misrepresenting that you have right when you don't. A lawyer can't give you the ability to be honest. You're not proposing to change rules, and indeed there is no proposal here, so that proposal talk of yours is irrelevant at best. (As for your false dichotomy, it is just a figment of your imagination, a useless piece of rhetoric, where you pretend you know what others think.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that to grant a license, you first have to have a right.
- However, AIUI, the point of public domain content is that everyone already has the right to use it. Adding a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license to public domain material does not add restrictions to the material. The Creative Commons folks say this: "Creators may also apply Creative Commons licenses to material they create that are adapted from public domain works, or to remixed material, databases, or collections that include work in the public domain."
- As far as I'm concerned, they might as well write "Yeah, you can put public domain material straight into a Wikipedia article", as our articles are practically the definition of "remixed material". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- How dishonest your statement is, no you don't have a copyright in the public domain, and the first sentence of that article says "CC licenses should not be applied to works in the worldwide public domain." It further advises to "mark public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." Again, no one can give you the ability to be honest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I never said that you have a copyright in the public domain. I said "everyone already has the right to use it [public domain material]".
- The context of the sentence you quote is that adding restrictions when the entire work is public domain is legally ineffective. For example:
- EB1911 is public domain.
- I put the whole thing on a website with a CC-BY-SA license.
- Result I can't enforce my claimed rights, because EB1911 is still public domain.
- However:
- EB1911 is public domain.
- I put one paragraph in the middle of whole page that is not public domain but has a CC-BY-SA license.
- Result: The page is partially remixed work, and it's legal. The non-public domain parts are still CC-BY-SA, and the one paragraph is still public domain.
- You seem to have only a partial quotation of a relevant sentence. The full sentence is "We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." We strongly encourage == not a requirement for the license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would you stop the misdirection, that the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction, was my point, which you then totally wigged out about. The point is not to be dishonest with readers, that they are misled when you don't let them know its public domain, even when you used it and asserted your licence, as the license is only needed because of your copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claim that "people" are misled by having a paragraph from EB1911 in the middle of a Wikipedia article, because almost nobody has any idea how the licenses work or how Wikipedia articles get written.
- The ones who do know tend to be Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, and they don't care if there's a public domain paragraph in the middle, because they want the whole thing, not a single paragraph, and they want it automated, which means not looking at the contents line by line.
- I disagree with your claim that we need to "let them know its public domain". Also, nothing proposed here, or in any example I've ever seen in discussions on this subject would "let them know its public domain". Spamming "According to the EB1911 entry..." into the middle of an article does not "let them know its public domain". That merely "lets them know that it's a quotation from a different publication". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Stop it. No one has suggested putting anything on the middle of the article. You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so. And your clearly wrong about not telling the reader, Wikipedia does it with templates already. Unless your trying to be dishonest, there is no reason not to tell. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so.
The quotes from CC posted and linked here clearly prove that WAID is not wrong. In a discussion about honesty it is not a good look to repeatedly accuse someone of being dishonest when they are not being so. Tone down the rhetoric and start reading what other people are writing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- No, the CC people say "mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction" when you use the CC license, and the Wikipedia guidelines agree that you should do so and even refers you to templates for that purpose, so WAID is wrong and yes it's a form of dishonesty not to give disclosure when you copy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out to you already, that is only a partial quote and is misleading. The full quote, from [1] is
Creators may also apply Creative Commons licenses to material they create that are adapted from public domain works, or to remixed material, databases, or collections that include work in the public domain. However, in each of these instances, the license does not affect parts of the work that are unrestricted by copyright or similar rights. We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction.
- "We strongly encourage you to mark..." is not a requirement, but a recommendation.
- Further, the CC website states {{tpq|
CC licenses have a flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner. Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found.
[2] - The templates you refer to in your 00:09 comment do not identify which content is available in the public domain, merely that some material was incorporated into the article in some way. It may or may not (still) be present in a form that is public domain. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing misleading about it, the CC still say "mark the public domain" material when you use the license and it says why, to let the reader know. And the templates still mark it as public domain material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- When someone presents evidence of you misleadingly selectively quoting, and you double down on the misleading selective quoting, twice, it is very difficult to continue assuming good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- You presented no such evidence, you proved what I said is true, the CC people are the ones who say when you use the license mark the public domain, indeed you admitted they said it, when you said it's their recommendation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Mark it" sounds like the Imperative mood. What they actually said is "We strongly encourage you to mark", which is not the imperative mood. "We strongly encourage you to" means "but it's optional, and you don't have to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The salient point is the same, marking is still something one should do, indeed they feel strongly about it. And as Wikipedia agrees in its guidance, its what Wikipedia indeed does and tries to do. Doubtful that's just coincidence, it is how responsible actors, act in this regard of good practice with CC licenses, strongly so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- But we don't do what they recommend. They want something like:
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.[public domain]
- Editors here are saying that they want either "According to EB1911..." at the start of the sentence (which doesn't tell the re-user anything about the material being public domain) or they want {{EB1911}} at the end of the page (which doesn't tell the re-user which material is public domain). Neither of our standard practices actually follow the CC lawyer's optional recommendation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, the CC people don't actually advise on how to mark, and again irrelevant, even if they did say there was another way to mark, we do do then what they recommend at least in spirit, because we are in accord with them that's it is something one should do. (And whomever these other editors are you wish to respond to, you should take up with them). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The CC FAQ page says We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material. It does not say "We strongly encourage you to mark that some unidentified portion of the licensed work contains public domain material". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The CC FAQ page says there is flexibility in the how of all attribution, and that's not advice on how because they don't know what you are writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- CC says marking public domain parts of a work is encouraged but not required.
- CC says attribution methods can be flexible.
- Alanscottwalker says just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough
- Alanscottwalker says if you did not write it you can't release it, nor purport to release it nor make it appear you are releasing under your licence
- Alanscottwalker says you cannot present it as if you are licencing it
- Alanscottwalker says the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction
- One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- The CC FAQ page says there is flexibility in the how of all attribution, and that's not advice on how because they don't know what you are writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The CC FAQ page says We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material. It does not say "We strongly encourage you to mark that some unidentified portion of the licensed work contains public domain material". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, the CC people don't actually advise on how to mark, and again irrelevant, even if they did say there was another way to mark, we do do then what they recommend at least in spirit, because we are in accord with them that's it is something one should do. (And whomever these other editors are you wish to respond to, you should take up with them). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The salient point is the same, marking is still something one should do, indeed they feel strongly about it. And as Wikipedia agrees in its guidance, its what Wikipedia indeed does and tries to do. Doubtful that's just coincidence, it is how responsible actors, act in this regard of good practice with CC licenses, strongly so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Mark it" sounds like the Imperative mood. What they actually said is "We strongly encourage you to mark", which is not the imperative mood. "We strongly encourage you to" means "but it's optional, and you don't have to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- You presented no such evidence, you proved what I said is true, the CC people are the ones who say when you use the license mark the public domain, indeed you admitted they said it, when you said it's their recommendation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- When someone presents evidence of you misleadingly selectively quoting, and you double down on the misleading selective quoting, twice, it is very difficult to continue assuming good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing misleading about it, the CC still say "mark the public domain" material when you use the license and it says why, to let the reader know. And the templates still mark it as public domain material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out to you already, that is only a partial quote and is misleading. The full quote, from [1] is
- No, the CC people say "mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction" when you use the CC license, and the Wikipedia guidelines agree that you should do so and even refers you to templates for that purpose, so WAID is wrong and yes it's a form of dishonesty not to give disclosure when you copy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Stop it. No one has suggested putting anything on the middle of the article. You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so. And your clearly wrong about not telling the reader, Wikipedia does it with templates already. Unless your trying to be dishonest, there is no reason not to tell. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would you stop the misdirection, that the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction, was my point, which you then totally wigged out about. The point is not to be dishonest with readers, that they are misled when you don't let them know its public domain, even when you used it and asserted your licence, as the license is only needed because of your copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- How dishonest your statement is, no you don't have a copyright in the public domain, and the first sentence of that article says "CC licenses should not be applied to works in the worldwide public domain." It further advises to "mark public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." Again, no one can give you the ability to be honest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- It should not take a lawyer to tell you that to grant a licence you first have to have a right, and that you should not be misrepresenting that you have right when you don't. A lawyer can't give you the ability to be honest. You're not proposing to change rules, and indeed there is no proposal here, so that proposal talk of yours is irrelevant at best. (As for your false dichotomy, it is just a figment of your imagination, a useless piece of rhetoric, where you pretend you know what others think.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, and that is why the discussion is about form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, a disclosure should be made, and it was made. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- No. Your false dichotomy has already been shown to be of no value. Now you add to your baseless assumptions about clicky numbers and what not. I think that editors add content to Wikipedia under the license (otherwise we would have no license), yet I also think we need to tell the reader that the matter comes from somewhere else, when it comes from somewhere else. None of that should be hard to understand for anyone. (And besides, article histories are not secrets, they are public and publicly tied to text available to the reader and anyone else.) It's just bizarre that you would imagine an unbridgeable void, when basically everyone is saying that a disclosure should be made, and they are only really discussing degrees and forms of disclosure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you cannot present it as if you are licencing it (and indeed requiring attribution to you!) which is what you do if just copy the words into an article and don't say, in effect, 'this is not under my licence this is public domain, that other person wrote it.' (Your discussion of LLM's and what not, is just beside the point, you, a person, are copying, not someone else.) And your last point, we are in radical agreement certainly (about letting the reader know its public domain that other person wrote it, and that's what the templates try to do) we are not in a dichotomy, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is written by people who freely license their contributions by the act of editing. But, public domain material is already free, does not need to be licensed, and so can be freely added to Wikipedia. Material that has been released under a free license can also be freely added to Wikipedia, subject to the conditions of the license, such as attribution (although we cannot copy material under a license that does not allow commercial use, but that has nothing to do with this discussion). There is no policy, rule, or law that Wikipedia has to be written by persons (although the community currently is rejecting material written by LLMs). Reliable content is reliable whether is written by Wikipedia editors based on reliable sources, or copied from reliable sources that are in the public domain or licensed under terms compatible with usage in Wikipedia. I believe that we should be explicitly citing everything that is in articles, even if I know that will not be happening any time soon. We should, however, be explicitly citing all public domain and freely-licensed content that is copied into Wikipedia, being clear that the content is copied. One of the existing templates or a specific indication in a footnote or in-line citation is sufficient, in my opinion. Donald Albury 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
1) WhatamIdoing takes that out of context, and all of what I said in that full remark is usual and unsurprising, eg., the use of quotation marks for quotes is common, don't you know, that's why quotation marks basically exist. Besides, when we correctly use the PD footnote template that is more than a usual footnote.
2) WhatamIdoing already agrees you can't release what you do not own, which is a thing that is universally acknowledged by everyone. It naturally follows, in honesty you should tell them it is PD, not your license.
3 and 4) That's why you mark it PD, per Wikipedia guidelines and CC advice, there are different ways to mark it PD, including in using the footnote template and the endnote template but sure there are other ways (and anodyne exploring various ways was what the conversation could have been until WhatamIdoing derailed it with a false dichotomy of an unbridgeable gap, and got overwrought when one said telling them it is PD is what you should do in CC situations) . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Attribution seems very clear that all material that is knowing used from another source should be attributed, though how that attribution is done varies by scenario. That would mean knowing pulling from PD material in whole without providing attribution to the PD source is a violation. This doesn't mean we cannot wholesale use content from PD sources as if it were a whole article but that source should be named somewhere - that could be a talk page header, it could be a statement in an edit summary, it doesn't necessarily need to be a footnote on the mainspace article page. --Masem (t) 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair as far as that page goes but the particular guideline is WP:FREECOPY, which is somewhat more emphatic -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder whether Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources should be in Wikipedia:Plagiarism at all. Marking the copyright status of a paragraph has nothing to do with plagiarism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure it does, as with not doing plagiarism, its handling material honestly, and handling is telling the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm wondering whether the sections about copyright information should be in Wikipedia:Copyrights. For example, the Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia section might fit better in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text; Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text could go in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others.
- I don't think that copyright is primarily a matter of honesty; it is a matter of legality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fits fine where it is, various ways, and use cases of telling the reader where the words they are reading are coming from, and is about being upfront with the reader, not taking unearned credit, not misleading the reader. So yes, honesty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure it does, as with not doing plagiarism, its handling material honestly, and handling is telling the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder whether Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources should be in Wikipedia:Plagiarism at all. Marking the copyright status of a paragraph has nothing to do with plagiarism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair as far as that page goes but the particular guideline is WP:FREECOPY, which is somewhat more emphatic -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hate speech[edit]
I should already know this, but I don't: where is our policy page on hateful remarks directed at groups (as opposed to individuals) – ethnic, national, religious, sexual and so on? And our guidance on how best to deal with them without attracting undue attention? I don't see that this topic is specifically covered in the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- We have a few explanatory essays covering this like Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- We don't accept statements like "I hate <named kind of> people". We usually do accept statements like "I hate Bob's Big Business, Inc.". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be varying interpretations of what that essay means or how we should enforce it or if if we should at all. For example, this situation:[3]. Courtesy ping to Snow Rise. I'm bringing this up because I think how that discussion was handled has broader implications that are relevant here. For the record, I do agree with that explanatory essay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real"
: I will hope that Snow Rise meant to type "the false belief" that trans people aren't real. Whether sky or sapphire is the finer blue, or whether Avengers: Endgame is a good movie, are subjective beliefs. Expressing denial of the existence of a category of people—whether people of Black African descent, Jewish folks, First Nations, gay people, Catholics, or those who are transgender (to nonexhaustively give examples)—is WP:FRINGE at a minimum and more generally is better described as prejudicial and destructive to the cultivation of a civil and collegial editing environment on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the expression's phrasing is hostile or sweet, passionate or anodyne. Reducing such to "abstract belief"—when it's a belief about concrete people who exist in the world and in this community—is, however inadvertently, a language game, an alchemy of words. If it's a true and dispassionate assessment to say that the Wikipedia community generally prefers a site where participants receive no penalty for denying the existence of people groups or for opposing the extension of rights to them (including by denying they exist and therefore can be extended to)—or, perhaps, selectively receive no penalty for doing so for certain groups—then something is rotten in the state of Denmark, proverbially speaking.Or, to answer OP's question and express myself in another way, as zzuzz points out elsewhere in this thread, the Universal Code of Conduct is unequivocal that [h]ate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are
isunacceptable within the Wikimedia movement
. I'd point out that also considered unacceptable iscontent that are intimidating or harmful to others outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use
: expressions on talk and user pages often exist outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)- You have truncated the quote; Snow Rise said
the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real" men or women
. gnu57 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)- My argument at the time was that this was sanctionable behaviour, despite what others say. You can't exactly make sweeping statements about a group without it also being a personal attack. I don't see much of a difference between going "I don't think you're a real man" and "I don't believe that anyone that's like you is a real man". Hydrangeans, I also argued at the time that this went against the Code of Conduct. My purpose in bringing this up now is that something I thought was obvious apparently is more controversial than it seems within the community. Even if I think things shouldn't be this way. Another example would be when I filed this ArbCom case against someone that argued some people were subhuman. I think it if it was a regular editor, they would've been indeffed and not just desysopped. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, in the interest of fairness, this diff was part of a wider discussion that took place here and here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
truncated the quote
: The whole quote amounts to altogether the same thing. To hold that, for example, transgender men are not "'real' men", is to hold that transgender men are not real—as they are women. Etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have truncated the quote; Snow Rise said
- I would presume this would be covered under general guidance regarding disruptive editing or using WP as a forum. I have no love for the Kardashians, but I don't make it a point to go to relevant articles and voice my opinion. If it isn't disruptive but merely objectionable, then that gets into slippery NOTCENSORED territory very quickly, because what is objectionable but not disruptive is very much in the eye of the beholder. GMGtalk 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL, while focused on individual interactions can be extended to group incivility. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:HA does deal in passing at least with conduct even if the target is not an editor. And you are correct that something like CIVIL can be broadly construed in the sense that if someone says "I hate gypsies" then it can be reasonably assumed that some of our community are Roma and so it discourages collaboration. But it's difficult to tell what the real angle here is without more specifics. For example, many, including myself, may consider parts of the Bible as hateful, although that at some level has to be balanced with historical significance and the fact that hateful views are in-and-of-themselves a topic we cover extensively. Not being doomed to repeat history and all that. Others surely would consider what I just said as a form hatefulness against a religious group for their sincerely held beliefs.
- But as I indicated before, there is always going to be a nuanced judgement about the dividing line between what is hateful and what is merely offensive. GMGtalk 21:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL, while focused on individual interactions can be extended to group incivility. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- "The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement ... Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs ..." --UCOC. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to zzuuzz and all others who replied. It was that line in the You-cock that I was looking for. So do we in fact have no local policy specific to this? Someone asked about context: a couple of days ago a note was left on my talk asking me to revdelete a fairly unpleasant remark; I'd already gone to bed and the matter was quickly dealt with, but I was left wondering the next day how we should best handle these (fortunately rare) occurrences. I'm not talking about incivility but stuff like "[your choice of ethnicity/sexuality/caste/religion/etc here] should be put up against a wall and shot" or whatever other nastiness unpleasant minds may dream up. I looked for our policy page and didn't find it. Should there in fact be such a page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say those types of situations are covered under WP:NOTHERE. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- My go-to would be the blocking policy, which has this covered (even if not explicitly). The revdel policy also allows deletion (mostly RD2). Is there anything else to do? Hate speech is just a subset of disruption, and we have wide latitude to throw it in the trash, because trash goes in the trash. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The policy is that you are required to be civil and not attack other users. I don't think there is any civil way for a person to express the opinion of, e.g. "I love being racist and I hate black people". At any rate, the de facto policy is that somebody will block for this kind of garbage regardless. jp×g🗯️ 07:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Notifying Wikiprojects and WP:CANVASS[edit]
This issue has disrupted multiple threads on unrelated issues, so I figure I should raise it at a nice central location where we can hash it out once and for all:
Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?
(My position is no, it's not, but I'll save the argumentation for later.) Loki (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It can be, if the Wikiproject is unrepresentative of the broader community. There are several ARBCOM principles relevant to this, including:
- Participation:
The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
- Canvassing:
While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.
- Participation:
- No exception is made for if the forum is organized as a Wikiproject;
an influx of biased or partisan editors
is an issue regardless of whether they came from a non-representative Wikiproject or another non-representative forum. - WP:CANVASS says the same thing; it forbids notifications to a partisan audience, and makes it clear that WP:APPNOTE does not create exceptions to these rules;
Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
- It's important to note that most Wikiprojects are representative and non-partisan; our rules on canvassing only affect a very small number, and even those are only partisan on some topics within their area of interest and can be notified without issue on the rest. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have only a few short things to say:
- 1. The idea of a "partisan Wikiproject" is ridiculous. If such a thing existed, it would be WP:NOTHERE and get booted.
- 2. A Wikiproject tending to vote a particular way is not the same thing as a partisan Wikiproject: consider for instance a vote about whether evolution should be treated as true where everyone from WP:BIOLOGY and half of all other editors voted the same way while half of all other editors did (and assuming these groups are roughly balanced). In this case, the Wikiproject members are clearly in keeping with the global consensus and it's a minority of non-members that aren't.
- 3. The line in WP:APPNOTE that you're quoting was added only about a year ago with little discussion on the talk page. You are in fact one of the people who advocated adding it.
- 4. Both those lines from ArbCom that you're quoting come from the same case which was about a secret and partisan outside forum. Neither even contemplates the idea of notifications on Wikipedia being canvassing. Loki (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- We've had a long history of issues with partisan Wikiprojects, recently for example WikiProject Roads which became so hyper-partisan that it ended up forking rather than complying with policy and guideline when all their attempts to destroy those policies and guidelines failed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. I have been accused of selective notification for notifying Wikiproject Quebec about an RfC concerning a Quebec premier, while not notifying other provincial wikiprojects, which is ridiculous. Anyway, the correct solution to perceived imbalances in notifications is always to notify more editors through various means of mass notification; it is never to accuse editors using these mandated channels of "canvassing" - the latter is what is disruptive, IMO.
- And concerning BilledMammal's comment on this, the idea that any WikiProject would be a
biased or partisan audience
is set out here without any shred of evidence. Nor is there any evidence that Arbcom or INAPPNOTE had these public, on-wiki fora in mind when cautioning against partisanship. The fact is that Wikiprojects concern topics, not ideologies (whether on-wiki or off-wiki ideologies) so if you want to be informed on a topic where you disagree with the opinions of the most active contributors, the sensible thing has always been to join the wikiproject or at least to follow its page for updates. - Just for emphasis: accusing editors of bias because they belong to or notify wikiprojects is itself a violation of WP:NPA and disruptive. When I was accused of bias and canvassing for notifying Wikiproject Quebec, I felt both hurt and falsely accused - that is, once I was finished laughing at the absurdly false assumptions the accusation implied concerning my views about nationalism. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
the idea that any WikiProject would be a "biased or partisan audience" is set out here without any shred of evidence.
- As I understand it, the intent of this discussion is to determine whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be
unrepresentative
ormostly populated by a biased or partisan audience
and thus inappropriate to notify. - Whether any specific Wikiproject is
unrepresentative
ormostly populated by a biased or partisan audience
is a different question that can be addressed elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- I don't see the question posed in this section as whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be biased and notifying it to be canvassing; I think the relevant question is whether this is a practical or relevant concern. What matters isn't the theoretical (how many angels can fit on the head of a pin) but rather the practical (is there an angel on the head of my pin, and if so, does it give me an unfair advantage in discussions to determine consensus of the community on a topic).
- What is clearly the case is that these kind of accusations - claims that specific wikiprojects are
partisan
(always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern) and that notfiying them is therefore partisan - have had real, and unmistakable toxic effects on-wiki. These effects have included individual editors feeling attacked and misunderstood, and also community time wasted on dramaboards, and to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that any wikiproject notification was ever canvassing, though efforts have been (correctly) made to ensure that editors having differing perspectives on issues are also notified. - In any event, there is a clear and present cost to the community thanks to toxic discussion when certain editors insist on retaining the accusation of "canvassing by notifying partisan wikiprojects" within their arsenal. Given this evident pain point, it seems clear to me that the onus is on those holding this belief to present evidence that it is a real, not theoretical, possibility. Otherwise we are dragging down the level of civility in the community and wasting the time of editors and administrators just because certain editors believe they ought to be able to make a certain argument - even though, to the best of my knowledge, the community has never reached consensus that this argument was ever borne out in an actual situation on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern
- That's not accurate; the discussions that Loki linked as provoking this discussion included evidence. However, I won't go into it here, both because I don't want to derail this discussion with talk of specific WikiProjects and because you are topic banned and thus can't engage with the evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Before this is closed, I wanted to clarify that when I said,
to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that any wikiproject notification was ever canvassing
, I was referring to the act of issuing an appropriately worded, neutral notification to a Wikiproject. Issuing a non-neutral notification, whether to a wikiproject or a dramaboard, can of course be canvassing. The fairly extensive contributions made to this discussion have confirmed my opinion that a neutrally-worded notification to a wikiproject is never canvassing, and that the solution to selective notifications (e.g., concerning Israel-Palestine issues) is always to notify more editors, bringing in diverse views from other relevant projects or through centralized boards. I don't think this is applied Neutonian physics, here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with @Gnomingstuff. While I don't deny there have been legitimate and serious issues with canvassing, canvassing is slowly becoming Wikipedia's Stop the Steal. By that I mean, it's a accusation freely thrown out by someone when their idea loses at a !vote or is suddenly drowned out by opposing ideas. The obvious intent is to try for an appeal by mass discrediting any opposing opnion, rather than accept their idea might might have been an unpopular one. So any policy changes, IMHO, should be to clarify what is and is not canvassing and not introduce more confusion and open more doors for appeals and lawyering when ones proposal isn't suceeding.Dave (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page. I watchlist, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria, Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Any notification to any of those I would see. Now there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel, but notifying WikiProjects that have within their scope whatever is under discussion is not canvassing. nableezy - 02:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page.
- They can, but the possibility that they can doesn't mean the forum isn't unrepresentative if they don't. Consider a hypothetical; lets pretend that 90% of people affiliated (watchlisting, members, etc) with Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel are pro-Israel in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clearly, it would be unrepresentative, and a WP:CANVASS violation to notify unless there is an equally unrepresentative forum in the opposite direction that is also notified (perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine).
- To be clear, I'm not saying either of these are
unrepresentative
ormostly populated by a biased or partisan audience
; I haven't looked into either of them, and am only using them for the sake of example. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Edited 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) to clarify- If something is not relevant to WikiProject Palestine, like say an article on some random company in Tel Aviv, then notifying WikiProject Israel and not WikiProject Palestine would be totally fine. If something is relevant to both, then only notifying one would be an issue. I literally just said, in the comment you are replying to,
there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel
. But the idea that a page that any and every registered user can watchlist can be a target for canvassing is silly. I guarantee you "pro-Israel" users watchlist WikiProject Palestine, and "pro-Palestine" users watchlist WikiProject Israel. If the notification itself is neutral, it isnt a CANVASSING violation to post to a WikiProject about a discussion in its scope. nableezy - 02:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- This is similar to how I feel about it too: there are times when notifying only certain Wikiprojects says bad things about the notifier's intent, but I don't think there's ever a time where notifying only certain Wikiprojects ever causes provably skewed results.
- (Furthermore, not notifying the relevant Wikiprojects is often also suspicious in this way. Sometimes it smacks of not wanting a decision to be scrutinized by people who regularly edit in the topic area.) Loki (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- You previously discussed your point of view regarding partisan WikiProjects at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 49 § Modifications to CANVASS, and it didn't get much support. As I said then, WikiProjects are just groups of editors sharing a common interest and working together to further the goals of Wikipedia, usually by working on various initiatives. Most of them are oriented around a content area, and thus attract the knowledgeable editors in that area. Notifying the corresponding WikiProjects for related content areas is considered to be a neutral way of reaching the interested editors who are best able to bring greater context to a decision. It's not partisan to be interested in a content area.
- There can be groups that, by their nature, have self-selected a set of editors with a specific position on some issue, and thus its members are more prone to make partial arguments for that position. If someone set up WikiProject solely to vote in favour of removing all foreign language names from English Wikipedia articles, for example, then notifying it would result in vote-stacking. However the community has dealt with this by reaching a consensus that the group's purpose is counter to the best interests of the overall project and disbanding the group. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- If something is not relevant to WikiProject Palestine, like say an article on some random company in Tel Aviv, then notifying WikiProject Israel and not WikiProject Palestine would be totally fine. If something is relevant to both, then only notifying one would be an issue. I literally just said, in the comment you are replying to,
- There have been issues relating to very cliquey Wikiprojects/similar pages. Not a huge number but hard to say "ever". The question says "the relevant Wikiprojects", which is plural, while I assume the issue is usually with a relevant Wikiproject. The common practice of simply notifying all Wikiprojects on the talkpage, with a neutral message the same across all notifications, works fine in the vast majority of cases. CMD (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The question at issue here was originally sparked by someone notifying the relevant Wikiproject and all people on the talk page about an AFD for an essay closely related to LGBT issues. The assertion by some editors for deletion, including the person who started the AFD in the first place, was that WP:LGBT was biased such that notifying them at all, even in combination with a group of editors including some editors known specifically to oppose the existence of the page, was canvassing. Loki (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, the only thing that would make a Wikiproject notification a violation of WP:CANVASS is if the notification itself was done in a POV manner, such as calling for everyone at the Wikiproject to vote a certain way. Or you might get called out if it was, say, an RfC on a religious topic and the only Wikiproject you notified was Wikiproject Atheism. Though the solution to such a case is just to notify the other relevant Wikiprojects, which anyone can do. The only other case I can think of that would get you some side-eye and comments is if you were notifying Wikiprojects that very clearly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, such as if it was a Biology RfC and you went and notified Wikiproject Football. Though that would less be canvassing and more just...confusion. SilverserenC 03:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, notifying WikiProject Football about a Biology RfC would violate WP:CANVASS; see Spamming and excessive cross-posting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, notifying relevant Wikiprojects about a discussion does not in itself constitute violate WP:CANVASS. To be frank, some of the claims that it does have seemed to necessarily—whether the users writing such claims intend it or not—involve prejudicial assessments, such as the presumption that WP:LGBT is somehow inappropriately 'partisan' in a way contrary to Wikipedia's purpose because—why, honestly? Because of a presumption that the project draws in LGBT editors, and on top of that a presumption that LGBT editors are inappropriately 'partisan' about LGBT-related topics compared to cisgender and heterosexual editors? I really don't see how this claim, either in the abstract or in context, doesn't inevitably hinge on prejudicial presumptions about editors that violate the wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct's tenets about collegiality, good citizenship, and creating a
pleasant and safe space
for participants. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) - Notifying a WikiProject cannot ever be a serious canvassing problem, since it's open, widely broadcast message. The issue usually is that some people sitting on a favoured WP:LOCALCON get upset at the extra attention it brings. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I've seen that happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, the basic assumption is IMO that Wikiprojects can be watched by all kinds of people. Hopefully several of them do so because of a general interest in the topics that can pop up, and not out of a desire to promote whatever every chance they get. Some projects are pretty close to various CTOPS, like Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan and FTN, but that is still my basic assumption. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- In general and in principle, no; but in practice, in the past, certain WikiProjects have been problematic and hard to deal with. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography fought a long and historically successful campaign to have their own SNG for pornstars, which allowed sources that weren't independent. The fighting went on for years until the SNG was finally deprecated in 2019 after this RfC; subsequently most of the pornstar "biographies" that Wikipedia used to host got deleted on the grounds that they didn't contain any biographical information at all. Porn performers' names, dates of birth, nationalities, families and career history outside porn are understandably kept quiet, so all the information we had on these people was pure kayfabe. And for another example, although the Article Rescue Squadron isn't a problematic WikiProject, it's certainly had its share of problematic members leading to various tedious Arbcom cases. I think that what history tells me is that where a WikiProject has started to develop their own groupthink and begun to diverge from mainstream Wikipedian thought, then we're going to have a problem; and people getting unhappy about notifying that WikiProject about discussions can be an early symptom of that problem starting to be noticed. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any WikiProjects at that stage at the moment, but it's worth keeping an eye on.—S Marshall T/C 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Article Rescue Squadron also came to my mind, but that was because how it partially operated historically - a few users were using it to try and vote-stack AfDs with the goal of keeping articles rather than engaging with the arguments for and against deletion and/or improving the article. It took effort but those users were dealt with and that problem has passed. The groups current focus on improving important articles that would otherwise be at risk of deletion is unproblematic. So yes, partisan WikiProjects is a theoretical problem, but unless the OP or anyone else has any actual evidence of WikiProjects attempting to distort consensus then there is no issue here. Members of a WikiProject sharing an opinion is not itself evidence of anything untoward.
An editor selectively notifying only some relevant WikiProjects is correctly dealt with by neutrally notifying the other WikiProjects, and, if necessary, separately engaging in dispute resolution regarding that editor. Similarly an editor notifying unrelated projects and/or making non-neutral notifications is an issue with that editor. These are not evidence of a problem with notifying WikiProjects generally or with notifying specific WikiProjects in particular. TL;DR neutral notifications to relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- I think there are cleaner examples. ARS' purpose was to find promising candidates for a WP:HEY response, so it's reasonable for them to talk about current AFDs, even if it did have some problems. Similarly, I think it's usually fair to notify Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard about disputes involving fringe-y subjects, even though the dominant POV there is decidedly anti-fringe.
- In other cases, the only possible connection is that you happen to know this group has an opinion. For example, editors should not notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers about proposals to change Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, because that group has a history of disputes over infoboxes in "their" articles, and because if you were interested in infoboxes, you would probably not know that. A page about musicians is not an obvious place to look for information about infoboxes. However, it would be fine to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, because it's an obvious page for anyone interested in infoboxes to be watching. Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- or something else, and regardless of whether you were actively participating or silently lurking, if you wanted to be involved in infoboxes, you would expect to get infobox-related messages there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No. Notifying Wikiprojects is generally fine, and not prohibited as a purpose of projects is to provide all kinds of notice, neutral wording of the notice is key, though. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, we absolutely want editors familiar with a topic to participate in a discussion. You seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic. Assume good faith until proven otherwise. Donald Albury 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say what you claim I "seem" to have said. Try AGF yourself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- To the question,
Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?
, you responded "yes", and then said,Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks.
How am I supposed to interpret that to mean something other than you are opposed to pinging a project because its participants may have specialized knowledge and would therefore "tilt" (I presume the "wrong" way) the discussion. Can you rephrase your answer to make it clearer to me? - Donald Albury 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- I will rephrase the words "Try AGF yourself." thus: You said I "seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic" -- which would be an aspersion against my esteemed fellow editors, so you're making a conduct accusation. Then you suggest I try AGF. I'm hopeful that others didn't interpret my remark as aspersion or lack of AGF, perhaps because they can't read any such thing in them, perhaps because they can read WP:MOSFAQ. I won't engage further with you about this, unless you take it to WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I had a similar interpretation of what your original statement meant. I think this would have been more productive if you'd simply replied "That isn't what I meant; what I meant was..." I still don't know what you meant. Schazjmd (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I too thought you meant
editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic
when you saidPinging [people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications] when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks.
. You have since stated that that is not what you meant, but you haven't stated what you did mean. Given I misunderstood the first time, I do not think my guessing again is likely to result in my getting the right answer so I will refrain from speculating. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- That's polite of you. Well, I pointed to WP:MOSFAQ so you know the idea is that
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
This sort of argument actually did arise in the series of universe|Universe discussions, and I remember an astronomer participant suggested magazines like Astronomy or Sky and Telescope weren't scientific journals, thinking that mattered. I have a vaguer recollection that the WP:CONLEVEL words ("... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.") appeared when another project group thought their rules should apply within their project's articles, but that's not what I had in mind, I was only thinking about and mentioning capitalization of Universe, where I believed that specifically addressing those people would not be addressing representatives of the broader community, and subject expertise is not contested but it's about style not subject. And yes ngrams came up too, and I see that you mentioned a case (maybe a WP:MOSCAPS thread about something in French?) where subject expertise was helpful, ngrams were not. But I believe that in the case I brought up the opposite was true. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's polite of you. Well, I pointed to WP:MOSFAQ so you know the idea is that
- Thank you, that was very helpful. I agree that it's important to have some sort of feedback to stay connected with the general reader, and I wouldn't want our running text to read like an Auguſtan newſpaper, with Words random'ly Capitaliſed. On the other hand, the improvement to the reader in clarity, meeting "expectations", etc. for MOSCAPS standardizations like the one mentioned, seems to me about epsilon. If these style confrontations significantly deter motivated editors from improving the encyclopedia, it is a net loss to us in terms of how much the general reader is actually able to learn from the encyclopedia in the future. This isn't intended as a declaration that "the WikiProject is always right"; just a reflection that our standing assumption that "the WikiProject is always wrong" may not actually further the goals of the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I will rephrase the words "Try AGF yourself." thus: You said I "seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic" -- which would be an aspersion against my esteemed fellow editors, so you're making a conduct accusation. Then you suggest I try AGF. I'm hopeful that others didn't interpret my remark as aspersion or lack of AGF, perhaps because they can't read any such thing in them, perhaps because they can read WP:MOSFAQ. I won't engage further with you about this, unless you take it to WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- To the question,
- There was an issue related to this with capitalisation in the rail transport area a while back. In at least instance the MOS-focused editors had not understood that the same 3-4 word term was being used as common noun in one context and as a proper noun in another context meaning things like ngrams were not relevant (as they have no context). This is not something that would be obvious to most non-specialists but is clear to those knowledgeable about the topic area. Subject-specialist knowledge is, in many discussions, important context required to reach the correct decision - whether that decision is to follow specialist conventions or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- This touches on something that's puzzled me for years. When a group of editors who are principally interested in interpreting policies & guidelines come into conflict with a group of editors, like a WikiProject, with some subject-matter expertise, we default to treating the latter as parochial fanboys. But it's not clear why this should be so in a broad moral sense: the P&G interpreters are not typically a larger or less hyperfocused group than a WikiProject. I think we tend to assume that because the community at large has ratified P&Gs to embody broadly-agreed upon principles, every statutory interpretation that invokes those P&Gs for a specific case enjoys the same level of broad community support. I'm not convinced that accurately describes the sentiments of the community, though. Choess (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. There is a tendency among some (but not all) p&g interpreters to assume that disagreement of their interpretation is disagreement with the policy/guideline rather than disagreement with their interpretation. In the rail transport area this has on multiple occasions manifested itself with sometimes heated accusations about disliking/objecting to/ignoring community consensus regarding e.g. capitalisation of common nouns when the actual disagreement was whether a given term was a common or proper noun. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This touches on something that's puzzled me for years. When a group of editors who are principally interested in interpreting policies & guidelines come into conflict with a group of editors, like a WikiProject, with some subject-matter expertise, we default to treating the latter as parochial fanboys. But it's not clear why this should be so in a broad moral sense: the P&G interpreters are not typically a larger or less hyperfocused group than a WikiProject. I think we tend to assume that because the community at large has ratified P&Gs to embody broadly-agreed upon principles, every statutory interpretation that invokes those P&Gs for a specific case enjoys the same level of broad community support. I'm not convinced that accurately describes the sentiments of the community, though. Choess (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, neutrally notifying a WikiProject about a discussion clearly within its subject matter is always permissible. It would not be at all helpful, for example, to prohibit notifying WP:MED on the basis that its members are more diligent about applying WP:MEDRS than the average Wikipedian, and thus "partisan". WikiProjects fundamentally are places where editors can be notified of discussions and editing opportunities related to a subject area. If a WikiProject can't reliably be notified of discussions within its subject area, it can't meaningfully function. It would be fairer to take any allegedly problematic WikiProjects to MfD rather than to try and place restrictions that would allow them to exist in name but not function.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, the idea that we should view people with an interest in a topic as being a biased set rather than an informed set is to speak against the value of knowledge. An informed person is of more value in a relevant discussion; we want the deletion discussion of the Smoking cures broken legs AFD to have more interest from those interested in Wikipedia's medical coverage in general and not just those who found themselves part of making such a page. The fact that the medical editors will not come up with the same view as whatever other editors choose to involve themselves in that discussion is a plus, not a problem. The idea that we can contact Wikiprojects only if they will respond in the exact same ratio as other editors would make contacting Wikiprojects pointless as it would have no impact on the results. The idea that Wikiprojects having an informed POV makes them a problem would suggest dismantling the entire Wikiproject system. Selectively notifying Wikiprojects with the intent of skewing results is a problem, but notifying all the obviously related Wikiprojects is not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe there's partisan wikiprojects to the extent that notifying the relevant ones is canvassing. In obvious cases (i.e. only notifying WP:ISRAEL for a dicussion about the Second Intifada) selective notifications could be a sign of canvassing, but properly performed WP notifications are not canvassing. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or at least attempted canvassing. It seems probable all kinds of editors would watch something like WP:ISRAEL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another example is if we are discussing whether Foo (film) or Foo (train) is a primary topic or if Foo should be a dab. Notifying Wikiproject Film but not WikiProject Trains might seem unfair. However, I agree that 99% of notifications to projects do not constitute canvassing. Certes (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or at least attempted canvassing. It seems probable all kinds of editors would watch something like WP:ISRAEL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Only if the notification does not meet WP:APPNOTE or is to a project which attempts to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If it is the former, rephrase; if it is the latter, focus on the local consensus-enforcement bit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The contention I'm trying to argue against here is that there are some projects that are biased such that notifying them at all would not meet WP:APPNOTE. So, could you please rephrase? Loki (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- If there are projects that are so biased that a neutral notification about a topic relevant to their topic area would not meet APPNOTE then the Community needs to have a serious discussion (I guess at AN(I)) about that the problems with it and/or the relevant participants can be resolved. I'm not currently aware of any such groups, but if you are then please present the evidence. If you haven't got any such evidence, then please refrain from casting aspersions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The contention I'm trying to argue against here is that there are some projects that are biased such that notifying them at all would not meet WP:APPNOTE. So, could you please rephrase? Loki (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?
No. Can the language of such a notification be canvassing? Yes. Can there be disagreement about which projects are "relevant"? Sure, but I don't see a way to avoid case-by-case determinations of that. All of this said, it's not impossible that a project could function like a canvassing club, but that would need lots of evidence and again should be handled on a case-by-case basis. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- WikiProjects are an accepted option for dispute resolution per the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Related talk pages or WikiProjects. Some issues would be if the notification is phrased in a non-neutral way, or if only a subset of reasonably relevant projects were notified. —Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, and saying "yes" is, inadvertently or on purpose, helping along years' worth of reputation laundering of the deletion crusades waged by like 10 editors against topics covered by certain WikiProjects -- cricket players, football players, roads, I'm probably missing a few -- by creating consensus for reasonable, unobjectionable-sounding policies and/or against scary-sounding straw men like "partisan bias." The idea is to make it easier to do this stuff as covertly as possible, without having to deal with the pesky obstacles of the rest of the project. To establish a kind of pre-emptive canvassing where they are the only people who ever find out about deletion requests. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I will also say that my immediate reaction to the accusation that started all this was "not giving notification to anyone who might like this essay that you're trying to get it deleted is also unfair for the same reasons as canvassing would be, and it's weird we don't have a policy about it". Loki (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:APPNOTE leaves no room for ambiguity on this:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
- The policy says explicitly "
one or more WikiProjects
" (my emphasis on the word one). Therefore we can conclude from the actual WP Behavioural Guideline that drawing attention of a discussion to only one WikiProject is acceptable per WP Guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)- You need to read all of APPNOTE; the third last paragraph makes it clear that it does not create an exception to INAPPNOTE.
- This makes sense; why would we ever wish to permit biased, partisan, or non-neutral notifications? BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- It really depends on the context... Not all wikiprojects are created equal, some are good places where non-partisan experts on a topic can be found and some are toxic slime cultures of fans and die hards. The biggest issue for me isn't really notification or non-notification its selective notification... People seem to want to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict so lets use that as an example: if when soliciting comments to a discussion involving the war in Gaza a user notifies only WikiProject Palestine but not WikiProject Israel or vice-versa thats a problem. From my perspective if WikiProjects are being solicited then all of the relevant WikiProjects should be notified, but again it depends on the context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- But in that particular example, is it really a problem? Isn't it likely enough interested editors are watching both? But sure, for a Arab-Israeli conflict thing, if you're doing one, may as well do the other. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem likely, everything I have ever experienced on wikipedia suggests otherwise. Notifying different wikiprojects brings different people to the discussion, I have never encountered a topic area where multiple wikiprojects are made up of the exact same group of people. Anything that has the effect of skewing the discussion towards a specific POV is a problem and thats true whether or not canvassing is involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- But in that particular example, is it really a problem? Isn't it likely enough interested editors are watching both? But sure, for a Arab-Israeli conflict thing, if you're doing one, may as well do the other. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I infer a couple of different sentiments in play here:
- A) "It's just as likely for pro- and anti- users to watch the same WikiProject. It's WikiProject Israel, not WikiProject ProIsrael."
- B) "In practice, participants in WikiProject Thing are mostly pro-Thing."
- Is there any way of determining which of these is true? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The difficulty is getting a list of participants. The ideal list would be a list of editors who watch a Wikiproject, but that data is not available. Instead, I've created an approximation based on the editors who are listed as members and the editors who have made at least five edits to the projects talk page.
- For the purpose of demonstration I have applied to this Wikiproject US Roads in relation to this RfC; I have done so because the RfC is long past and Wikiproject US Roads has forked, so I feel using them as an example will produce less drama and be less likely to derail this discussion than more recent examples.
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- The evidence tells us that for some Wikiprojects there are topics the editors are collectively biased on, but I don't think it is true of the vast majority of Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Why do you think this approximation is any good? Clearly the list of members is a lot more likely to actually agree with the project of the Wikiproject than the list of watchers, right?
- 2. Roads is a bad example exactly because they forked. Your argument would be benefited more by a negative example: if you could show some Wikiprojects where the membership does not seem to share similar opinions on topics relevant to the topic area that would at least prove WP:LGBT is exceptional. Loki (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1. The result is the unchanged if I only include editors with at least five edits to the talk page.
- 2. The question is "can a Wikiproject be partisan", to the extent that notifying them
is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
Roads is a good example of this because they demonstrate that it is possible. If you believe all WikiProjects are partisan, then I encourage you to provide the evidence, but I am skeptical. Alternatively, find a WikiProject that editors would not expect to be partisan, link a few well-attended, centrally-held, binary RfC's that the WikiProject was notified of, and I can do the analysis for you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)- This is to me a centrally flawed concerned; it basically brings it down to "it's okay to alert a Wikiproject only if they are so in accord with non-members that it makes no difference in the results", which is silly. We want informed people making decisions based on being informed, and information should be something that changes perspective. (It is also impracticable; we cannot be effectively surveying a given Wikiproject for their view in advance of notification, so implementing the idea that notifying a relevant-but-biased Wikiproject is canvassing would in essence shut down notifying Wikiprojects at all.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate this data, but I interpret it quite differently from BM. For one thing, I would not regard the population of "non-members" who participate in a discussion as a kind of target for how the members of an "unbiased" wikiproject should be distributed. We have no way of knowing how well "non-members" represent the rest of the community or why they were motivated to participate in the discussion
- Also, I want to point to the actual impact of the participation of project members on the four proposals mentioned. The first proposal was supported by members and non-members alike, so the participation of members was not likely to affect the outcome. The middle proposals were supported by members and opposed by non-members, and therefore did not reach anything approaching consensus even though members disagreed.
- The most interesting case, though, is the last proposal. The net preferences of members and non-members pretty much canceled out, leaving the discussion seemingly deadlocked. I would argue that this is actually a desirable outcome of member participation; if we assume that members are more likely to be contributing to content development in this area, then it is better to have a non-consensus in which their voices are heard (motivating further discussion and new proposals) than a clear consensus against in which their perspectives are seemingly excluded.
- And of course what makes this case relevant is also what makes it unusual: that members of a single wikiproject, sharing similar views, make up such a large portion of those !voting on a set of proposals. The much more typical case is that appropriate notifications of projects with different perspectives, or the use of WP:CENT, dilutes the participation from any one group to a small - if sometimes the best-informed - part of the whole. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think both are true depending on which project we're talking about, there is a large diversity of WikiProjects and no generalization is going to apply to all of them. I will also note that some wikiprojects are strongly "anti-thing" like WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Alternative medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- The evidence tells us that for some Wikiprojects there are topics the editors are collectively biased on, but I don't think it is true of the vast majority of Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- We need to give up the idea that all Wikipedia editors are at the two extremes. Either ideal where the objectives of Wikipedia fully overrule biases, or where where biases are so strong that they overrule the objectives of Wikipedia. In reality most editors are somewhere between those two extremes. Conversely, give up the idea that mere expression of concern of biased-influenced editing is is a severe accusation and violation of wp:AGF. On average, a wiki-project is typically going to be slightly biased. Regarding notifying them on a contentious topic, this should be recognized (and adjusted for by casting a wider net) but IMO it doesn't rise to the level of precluding notifying them or considering it to be a wp:canvas violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the notion that a WikiProject can be considered
partisan
orproblematic
without the involvement of Arbcom or some other discussion venue; otherwise, those are just an editor's personal opinion. I am also concerned with the conflation of specific canvassing cases which occurred in private or semi-private off-Wiki venues (EEML and Tropical Cyclones) with on-Wiki WikiProjects. Curbon7 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) - I think I agree with Thryduulf's point (and Curbon7's too now I guess) here that a claim that an Wikiproject is so partisan that it is inappropriate to notify them of something within their scope of interest is a user conduct issue, an accusation of which should only be made with evidence at an appropriate forum (AN/I, but also AE or ARCA for CTs). Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is certainly possible to CANVAS via a wikiproject notification … by wording the notification in a non-neutral way with the intent of generating desired support/opposition to an issue. However, that is a flaw with the wording of the notification, not the location of the notification. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think neutral notification of relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Part of the disagreement centers on the word partisan, which has expansive enough of a definition that we can be talking about very different things. BM's analysis of various WikiProjects above has no way of distinguishing between problematically partisan ("we vote differently than the general community because we're non-neutral") and positively partisan ("we vote differently because we know more than the general community"). I think Nat Gertler's thoughts on this are well-stated. A case against a WikiProject needs much more evidence, being essentially a misconduct allegation against a large group of editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: what about the other point raised which is about selective notification of relevant WikiProjects? If someone notifies one relevant wikiproject but not another could that be an issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think commonly understood best practice is to notify them all if you're going to notify one. I sometimes think it's overkill. For example, I remember at least considering notifying some projects about a dispute related to J. K. Rowling and being torn about whether or not to notify WP:WikiProject Gloucestershire. I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone if they did so, and I wouldn't call it canvassing if someone left it off. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- In cases like that it makes sense to consider whether the specific dispute is relevant to that WikiProject. For example, if it was a dispute about whether Yate (where she was born) should be described as being in "Gloucestershire" or "South Gloucestershire" then the Gloucestershire project is definitely relevant. If the dispute was about which articles to include in her bibliography then the relevance is harder to see.
- In general I don't think it should ever be regarded as wrong to notify all the WikiProjects that have tagged the article, or all the ones that are not tagged as inactive. If you think there is a relevant project that hasn't been notified, then the best thing to do is notify them and AGF that not doing so was not an attempt at canvassing unless you have a good reason not to. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- It isn’t great to selectively notify, but the answer is to then notify the other relevant wikiprojects. nableezy - 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think commonly understood best practice is to notify them all if you're going to notify one. I sometimes think it's overkill. For example, I remember at least considering notifying some projects about a dispute related to J. K. Rowling and being torn about whether or not to notify WP:WikiProject Gloucestershire. I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone if they did so, and I wouldn't call it canvassing if someone left it off. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: what about the other point raised which is about selective notification of relevant WikiProjects? If someone notifies one relevant wikiproject but not another could that be an issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- An issue seems to be that the "is relevant to that WikiProject" test can be surprisingly subjective and unpredictable, as far as I can tell. People employ different (often unstated) heuristics to estimate relevance. Regarding "the best thing to do is notify them and AGF", this is my view too. I wonder about the scope of the AGF policy and its relationship to project notifications and the WP:INAPPNOTE guideline. AGF applies to individual editors. Wikiprojects are collections of editors. So, the AGF policy presumably extends to Wikiprojects as collections of editors. In that case, bias/canvassing concerns presumably always need to be evidence-based. Given the scope of AGF, assuming it extends to collections of editors with a shared property (like project membership), allowing people to use their own biases (maybe rebranded as 'common sense') to make non-evidence-based guesses about project bias impacting apparent consensus seems a bit inconsistent. Having said that, the AGF policy probably has its limitations in contentious areas where there is polarization and dishonesty (sockpuppetry), but it is policy, nevertheless. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- On this question of selective notification: for a certain RfC about René Lévesque (former premier of Québec) at article Talk, I notified wikiprojects Canada and Québec, but I was told that that was somehow canvassing. The editor making the accusation then proceded to notify wikiprojects for the rest of the Canadian provinces that had nothing to do with Lévesque's career.
- I didn't formally object at the time - based on the "more eyes" theorem - but the notifications of apparently unrelated wikiprojects did feel to me like canvassing. What is the evaluation editors here would make that kind of (presumably tit-for-tat) notification? Newimpartial (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between Wikiprojects, though. I can remember some of them listing AfDs for "their" articles on their Wikiproject page and descending en masse to vote Keep - topics that spring to mind were aircrashes, tornadoes (and US roads before they threw their toys out of the pram) - whereas participants from many other Projects treated the AfDs impartially and were quite willing to get rid of articles that didn't meet policy). Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair use of non-free content[edit]
What is the process of using non-free images are? Currently, the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 makes use of non-free images in thumbnail form (with original source attributed in their Wikimedia pages) to help illustrate their design histories. I've seen articles use them (typically cinema articles) and typically they're downscaled thumbnails without any higher resolution, but I'm not familiar with the process for using them. If that's not possible then a lot of images in those articles will have to be removed until I can get express permission from Lockheed/Northrop or if they're uploaded on something like DVIDS. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Non-free content is used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content provides and introduction and explanation. However, all there don't appear to be any non-free images at either Lockheed YF-22 or Northrop YF-23, indeed the images in the sections about the design are all either public domain or CC0. If you believe the licenses on those images are incorrect then you would need to nominate them for deletion at Commons (with evidence). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one who uploaded a lot of those images, but I may have incorrectly applied CC0 to many of them, although I deliberately uploaded them as low-resolution thumbnails because I don't think they're free content. They've been nominated for deletion, so I'm wondering how to justify them as fair use of non-free images, at least until I can get express permission from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for their use, in which case I can upload the full resolution version. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The immediate issue you're running into is that you uploaded all of those to Wikimedia Commons, a related but separate project that's exclusively for freely usable media. If the images are non-free, they need to be deleted from Commons. Non-free files can be uploaded to English Wikipedia if they meet the criteria Thryduulf linked to. The important boxes to check are including an appropriate copyright tag and a rationale explaining how the image meets the criteria. For a topic that probably has a lot of {{PD-USGov}} works available, I'd be surprised if any non-free images managed to meet both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one who uploaded a lot of those images, but I may have incorrectly applied CC0 to many of them, although I deliberately uploaded them as low-resolution thumbnails because I don't think they're free content. They've been nominated for deletion, so I'm wondering how to justify them as fair use of non-free images, at least until I can get express permission from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for their use, in which case I can upload the full resolution version. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
"Failure to thrive"[edit]
I'm thinking it might be useful to have a reason for deletion that covers a swath of articles that never improve, but are technically just over the bar of notability. To come under this category, the article:
- Must be a barely notable subject, or be reasonably well-covered in other articles. A one-off event, a small subset of a main topic, or fancruft, say.
- Must have severe deficiencies in citation or bias
- No substantial edits in six months.
- Has had at least one nomination for deletion a minimum of six months ago.
- Will get three months to improve before a final deletion decision.
What do you think? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? So this is for "articles", that have already survived AfD - then what exactly do you want to happen? Do you want AFD's to be able to close with a result of Up or out? Or do you want to make a new policy rationale that can only be argued on second AFDs? Do you even want this to do through a second AFD, or is this some sort of speedy criteria request? — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like he wants those rationales, as a group to be acceptable at AfD? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Only at a second AfD. AfD currently normally acts as a check for potential. This is for articles unlikely ever to improve, after substantial notice - ones that will never reach the theoretical potential, with terrible quality. The kind of articles where the keep rationales are solely down to sources existing, nothing about the article as it stands being sufficient to keep it. It's also meant to be a very slow series of checks, to give it every chance. Also, preliminary suggestion; workshop at will. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like he wants those rationales, as a group to be acceptable at AfD? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- if something is notable, why delete it? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me whether you are seeking to delete these pages so that they never have Wikipedia pages, or you are seeking to delete them with the hope that a healthier and more fertile page will grow in its place. If the latter, I should note that the argument WP:TNT usually is given accepted weight in deletion discussions, even if it's not exactly matched in policy and guidelines. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- So we want to delete barely notable articles now? Why? Who decides what is "barely" notable? Notable means notable, if we start deleting articles that are notable but that we don't like, there'll be no point in having WP:N. Cremastra (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I am on purpose not going to answer this question, because "what I think" is that it demonstrates what is wrong with a lot of deletion processes (especially AfD) at present, all of which assume the key question to be, "should X topic have an article?" I think this is almost always the wrong question.
I think the right question, almost always, is "does this verifiable information belong in an encyclopaedia?" (content that fails WP:V never belongs). There can be various reasons, set out rather inconsistently in WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and even WP:N - which isn't supposed to be a content guideline - why certain content doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia.
For content that belongs in an encylopaedia, the question then is, where should it be placed? WP:PRESERVE and WP:PAGEDECIDE are among the few places that address this question clearly, but unfortunately WP:N has been the tool perhaps most frequently used by editors to argue about decide whether to remove or retain content. I think this is an unfortunate situation - there are very few circumstances in which the encyclopaedia benefits from not having articles on "marginally notable" topics, except when the content of those articles is not encyclopaedic to begin with (WP:POVFORKS, for example).
If we had a way to talk about encyclpaedic inclusion directly, away from Notability, we might be able to defuse some misguided "zero-sum" conflicts and design an encyclopaedia more the way actual editors would design it, rather than allowing the shape of Wikipedia's content to emerge from a series of bar brawls between editors with particular presuppositions about what topic does or doesn't "merit an article". I know that wasn't the question lol, but that is my answer. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say marginal articles are fine if they're of reasonable quality, but if articles are going to languish in a permanently bad state, that's a problem. There are cases where a very bad article is worse than no article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I absolutely know the type of article you are talking about, I recentlty nominated an article for deletion that has been a one-sentence stub for fourteen years. However, I don't think "this survived AFD but we're still going to delete it" has much of a chance of ever becoming policy. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I just want to give articles every chance to thrive before we do delete them. There's other ways - WikiProject notifications, etc - but AfD usually forces a check of the article's potential: is there sources, etc - that I don't think any other current process does. If it has no potential, it gets deleted at the first AfD. If it's already of reasonable quality, this process shouldn't apply: it has thrived. This needs to be a slow process to have any effect. As I see it, though, this would be an argument to raise in a second AfD that would trigger the countdown to the final review. The review would be one admin comparing it to the state at the time of the failure to thrive AfD (which I think is sufficient given the number of steps before this) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I absolutely know the type of article you are talking about, I recentlty nominated an article for deletion that has been a one-sentence stub for fourteen years. However, I don't think "this survived AFD but we're still going to delete it" has much of a chance of ever becoming policy. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
A way I think this could work: we make a template for something along the lines of "this article doesn't have enough quality sources in it to establish notability (regardless of whether those sources exist out there somewhere)". Then if X amount of time passes and the situation hasn't changed, that's taken as strong evidence in an AfD that, regardless of whether the sources exist somewhere, they can't actually be used to write an article. Loki (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- But the proposal here isn't for articles that aren't notable, rather ones that are borderline. I think everything here is in violation of WP:NO DEADLINE. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- And not voting for it is in violation of WP:Delete the junk. Essays aren't policy. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Could you give an example or two of the sort of article this proposal is envisaged to apply to? – Teratix ₵ 11:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note that this is just some things I've found by looking through the articles without sources categories, and some fad categories. These haven't passed through AfD, some of them might be handleable with a merge, and some might be salvagable - but the point of this proposal is to try and save the articles first.
- Naked butler: It's possible this could be saved, but it's a lot of text, very little of it cited, so the accuracy and verifiability is very questionable. It's probably a thing, but such a weak article on a marginal subject is more likely to put inaccuracies into Wikipedia than to be genuinely helpful.
- Campaign desk: Again, subject probably exists, but there's some oddities that make me concerned. The phrase "at popular retailers" makes me wonder about copyright of the text a little bit: it's a weirdly advert-y phrase. Uncited.
- List of Fantastic Beasts characters - fancrufty article. Maybe it'll be saved, maybe not, but there's nothing in here that isn't redundant to the films' articles.
- Should these be deleted right now? No, the whole point of this proposal is to encourage attempts to salvage articles in this kind of state. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Funny that the only citations in "Naked butler" are in the "Popular culture" section. Donald Albury 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There were more citations (four) in the article as originally posted (I have made no effort to see if their removal was appropriate.) However, there is more sourcing to be found, such as this Evening Standard article. I'm not sure how the procedure here would help this article (if it were even eligible, which it is not) any more than standard tagging. With articles this old, we cannot assume that the original editors are still involved enough to be aware if the article was threatened by deletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- And, in fact, finally looking at the talk page of the article, there is (and has been since 2013) a long list of news sources which could be used. Any attempt to delete this article could be quickly laughed away by that list. If there are any good examples to which this proposed procedure should apply, this is not among them; someone who had concern with the quality of the article could improve it much more quickly than creating a deletion argument with the hope that someone else will do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There were more citations (four) in the article as originally posted (I have made no effort to see if their removal was appropriate.) However, there is more sourcing to be found, such as this Evening Standard article. I'm not sure how the procedure here would help this article (if it were even eligible, which it is not) any more than standard tagging. With articles this old, we cannot assume that the original editors are still involved enough to be aware if the article was threatened by deletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Campaign desk appears to have text that is an exact copy of text at this site, but the text has been in WP since 2004, and the web site was first archived at the Internet Archive in 2006. Donald Albury 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I'd say that the key type of article this would be good for dealing with is minor fads, advertising, or one-off events long past in similar states to those articles. But I'm not sure it's worth trying to find the perfect exemplar. While I do think articles on such things can be encyclopedic, there is a certain point where you have to say that if an article with only minor notability, especially one where the interest peak is long past, is still terrible, that we need to consider if it's ever going to get better, whatever the theoretical potential. If this results in people actively working on these articles instead, that's all the better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Funny that the only citations in "Naked butler" are in the "Popular culture" section. Donald Albury 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note that this is just some things I've found by looking through the articles without sources categories, and some fad categories. These haven't passed through AfD, some of them might be handleable with a merge, and some might be salvagable - but the point of this proposal is to try and save the articles first.
Well, were I pressed I would say, yes, as a matter of practice having marginal subject articles is a detriment to the encyclopedia because they are often abandoned junk in practice, at best filled with templates for years upon years, at least telling the reader, "if you have not figured it out yourself, which you may well have, this has been bad since 2010, and Wikipedia does not care about bad articles and bad information" (that's a real detriment to Wikipedia). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Improving existing articles slightly is a much lower hurdle than creating a brand new article. If an article is full of irrelevant unsourced text but has a notable core then it should be reduced down to that state, not deleted. There's no deadline for when Wikipedia needs to be perfect, and an article existing in the first place is conducive to improvement. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia does not care about bad articles and bad information is what you just articulated in practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you find an utterly terrible article on a notable subject, be bold and stubify it. I don't see why we need a process specifically for deleting bad articles on notable subjects. If there's no consensus to TNT then there isn't. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let me relate a Wiki tale, although not directly on point to these marginal articles, not too long ago an architect's article was eligible to be featured on the main page for winning an award, kind of like a Nobel Prize, and the article was in poor shape under wiki policies, so seven days it stayed at the news desk while some harried pedians made some effort to improve, and it was not improved sufficient to feature. (and it may still not be good enough). Now, if there were no article and it was written up with the sources that came with the prize and which surfaced in a few days, that would have been easier for the crew, instead trying to source prose and facts when one does not know where it came from. Nor would coverage of the subject have been improved by stubification, certainly not good enough to be in decent shape and probably not good at all (especially when a good number of the world was looking for the topic). So, hope for the more marginal is likely misplaced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the prose is unsourced it can be deleted. There's nothing preventing someone from being bold and with good reason tearing out unsourced and bad prose and possibly replacing it with entirely new text. If the article really is entirely beyond saving, WP:TNT is a recognised option at AfD. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Its not about "preventing someone", its about the doing the work by anyone, which we know through decades of practice is not something anyone apparently wants, coupled with the common sense of past is prologue. You say just delete a bunch in the article or just do other work, but cleaning up, if you care, is about significant work. In comparison, it's easier to create a decent article from the bottom up without having to do the cleanup first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, whether it is easier to create an article from the bottom up or easier to create an article based on someone else's work is a matter of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It remains, not having to do cleanup first is less work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, it's a matter of taste; I find cleanup and reclamation to be much easier. Toughpigs (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- What do you find easier? To write a decent article you have to research and write, to cleanup you have to delete, try to understand what someone else was thinking, rework, test for cvio, etc. as well as research and write. The first is less work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- If the existing article lists some sources, then I don't need to spend as much time looking for sources.
- If the existing article has some solid sections, I can ignore those and focus my effort elsewhere.
- If the existing article has information that wouldn't have occurred to me, then I get a better result.
- I usually find it very easy to "understand what someone else was thinking".
- On the flip side, if the existing article is really lousy, then a quick little ⌘A to select all and hitting the backspace button solves that problem. Even in such cases, the article 'infrastructure' (e.g., infobox, images, and categories) is usually sound, and keeping the existing ones usually saves time and effort.
- I don't pretend that what's easiest for me is what's easiest for everyone, but I personally don't mind working with existing articles. Perhaps you are the opposite. That's okay. My experience doesn't invalidate yours, and yours doesn't invalidate mine (or the experiences of the multiple other people who have disagreed with you). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are mostly off-topic as the premise of the proposal is only dealing in really lousy articles, and indeed ones that no-one is even doing your process of deletion or the rest. You think deleting large swaths is easy but it seems from your telling that is not something you spend much time thinking about it. As for your presumption about infobox and images and categories, your basis is for that is just assumption not evaluation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing's point is simply that other people have a different opinion to you. Your assumptions about why that be are irrelevant. What constitutes a "really lousy article" is also a matter of opinion, and yours is no more or less valid than WhatamIdoing's or anyone else's. Do you understand that people can have a different opinion to you about subjective matters and contribute in good faith or are you being deliberately disruptive? Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is you who are being deliberately disruptive and you who are trying to prevent the presenting of opposing views. Somehow others can present opinions (who introduced "easiest" or "lousy") but just because you disagree with my view, you label it disputive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not labelling your view disruptive because I disagree with it (see other people whose views I have disagreed with without labelling disruptive), I am labelling your view disruptive because you appear to be either unwilling or unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That makes little sense and I see now how why you disrupt things, I am using words as others use them, and your inability to not read my comments as statements of view is your fault, not mine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not labelling your view disruptive because I disagree with it (see other people whose views I have disagreed with without labelling disruptive), I am labelling your view disruptive because you appear to be either unwilling or unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is you who are being deliberately disruptive and you who are trying to prevent the presenting of opposing views. Somehow others can present opinions (who introduced "easiest" or "lousy") but just because you disagree with my view, you label it disputive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing's point is simply that other people have a different opinion to you. Your assumptions about why that be are irrelevant. What constitutes a "really lousy article" is also a matter of opinion, and yours is no more or less valid than WhatamIdoing's or anyone else's. Do you understand that people can have a different opinion to you about subjective matters and contribute in good faith or are you being deliberately disruptive? Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, If you care to reply to my 13:38 comment perhaps best to do so down here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are mostly off-topic as the premise of the proposal is only dealing in really lousy articles, and indeed ones that no-one is even doing your process of deletion or the rest. You think deleting large swaths is easy but it seems from your telling that is not something you spend much time thinking about it. As for your presumption about infobox and images and categories, your basis is for that is just assumption not evaluation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- What do you find easier? To write a decent article you have to research and write, to cleanup you have to delete, try to understand what someone else was thinking, rework, test for cvio, etc. as well as research and write. The first is less work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, it's a matter of taste; I find cleanup and reclamation to be much easier. Toughpigs (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- It remains, not having to do cleanup first is less work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, whether it is easier to create an article from the bottom up or easier to create an article based on someone else's work is a matter of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Its not about "preventing someone", its about the doing the work by anyone, which we know through decades of practice is not something anyone apparently wants, coupled with the common sense of past is prologue. You say just delete a bunch in the article or just do other work, but cleaning up, if you care, is about significant work. In comparison, it's easier to create a decent article from the bottom up without having to do the cleanup first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- If the prose is unsourced it can be deleted. There's nothing preventing someone from being bold and with good reason tearing out unsourced and bad prose and possibly replacing it with entirely new text. If the article really is entirely beyond saving, WP:TNT is a recognised option at AfD. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Let me relate a Wiki tale, although not directly on point to these marginal articles, not too long ago an architect's article was eligible to be featured on the main page for winning an award, kind of like a Nobel Prize, and the article was in poor shape under wiki policies, so seven days it stayed at the news desk while some harried pedians made some effort to improve, and it was not improved sufficient to feature. (and it may still not be good enough). Now, if there were no article and it was written up with the sources that came with the prize and which surfaced in a few days, that would have been easier for the crew, instead trying to source prose and facts when one does not know where it came from. Nor would coverage of the subject have been improved by stubification, certainly not good enough to be in decent shape and probably not good at all (especially when a good number of the world was looking for the topic). So, hope for the more marginal is likely misplaced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you find an utterly terrible article on a notable subject, be bold and stubify it. I don't see why we need a process specifically for deleting bad articles on notable subjects. If there's no consensus to TNT then there isn't. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia does not care about bad articles and bad information is what you just articulated in practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
that's more than enough, take it outside. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
- Perhaps what we need is a second review process … one that is focused on Non-Improvability, rather than Notability. It would consider articles that are in such poor shape that they (arguably) can not be improved… regardless of whether the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see many cases where a topic is notable without being possible to improve. If the article is irrevocably badly written then it can just be stubified. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's strong WP:OWN issues sometimes there, especially in walled gardens. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see many cases where a topic is notable without being possible to improve. If the article is irrevocably badly written then it can just be stubified. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
While there may be articles covered by this that should be deleted, I don't think that editing inactivity is of any use in identifying them. And some of the other subjective criteria would be practically impossible to define or implement. Thanks for the idea and bringing it up here but IMO this is not workable and also not a very useful way to find articles that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I was initially torn between liking the idea of having a way to constructively reassess borderline articles that have not been improved in a long while, but also between being a firm believer in eventualism and the importance of recognising that Wikipedia is a work in progress. However, the more this discussion has gone on, the less I'm liking this. Merging, stubbifying, improving articles yourself (including using TNT), and similar activities that are not deletion are going to be preferable in nearly all cases. If you lack the subject or foreign-language knowledge to improve the article yourself use resources like WikiProjects to find people who do have that knowledge, sharing lists of the sources you've found but not understood to help them get started. If you don't have access to the sources (e.g. they're offline) then there are resources like the Wikipedia Library and at least some chapters offer grants to help you get them. Only when all of these options are unavailable or have failed, which is a small percentage of a small percentage, is deletion going to help and I'm not sure we need something other than AfD for that - especially as in a good proportion of these few cases notability is going to be questionable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- What if we have a process for quickly moving such articles to draftspace, and requiring AFC review/approval for them to be returned to mainspace? BD2412 T 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would basically be a backdoor deletion in many cases, a lot of the bad articles I come across are sometimes over a decade old and the original author is long gone. A PROD or AfD will let me and others interested in the subject area see them in article alerts, draftifying won't. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AlexandraAVX: An AfD can lead to draftification, which can lead to deletion for abandonment (or, rarely, revitalization), but at least this resolution avoids keep rationales based on possible improvements that will never actually be made. BD2412 T 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to ask my question without it sounding weird, but here goes: Who cares if the improvements are never made?
- At the moment, the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-along article if the real world has enough sources that someone could improve it past the doomed WP:PERMASTUB stage (plus it doesn't violate NOT, plus editors don't want to merge it away). The rules do not require the article to be "improved", and never have.
- So imagine that we have an article like User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy. It's two sentences and 100% uncited. Imagine that we all agreed that Wikipedia would almost certainly die before that article ever got improved. Why should that be considered a deletion-worthy problem? Why can't it just be left like it is? Who's it hurting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone who reads the article and comes away believing something false or likely to be false?
- Like, I don't see why this is hard to understand. Loki (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you see anything false or likely to be false in that article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there's something false in the article you can delete that. If the subject is a hoax then that's already a speedy deletion criteria. If it isn't a hoax you can remove any information that can't be verified. If the subject is notable then there inherently must be coverage that makes something about it verifiable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @AlexandraAVX: An AfD can lead to draftification, which can lead to deletion for abandonment (or, rarely, revitalization), but at least this resolution avoids keep rationales based on possible improvements that will never actually be made. BD2412 T 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would basically be a backdoor deletion in many cases, a lot of the bad articles I come across are sometimes over a decade old and the original author is long gone. A PROD or AfD will let me and others interested in the subject area see them in article alerts, draftifying won't. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. This seems like an ornate process for which the problem it would address has not been actually identified; the OP came up with no examples that would qualify for this treatment. The standard processes allow for re-AfDing if the material is not notable under current guidelines, or stubbifying if it is. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
One structural note. Since the suitability of the article to exist in main space technically relates only to the subject of the article, technically, the subject of the article should be the only reason to remove it from mainspace. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not quite true, as there other things that are relevant in some circumstances - copyvios are the most obvious, but also articles not written in English or written by socks of banned editors. However, other than newly discovered copyvios I can't think of any that are likely to be relevant to articles being discussed here (and with old articles the chance of suspected copyvios turning out to be plagiarism of Wikipedia are of course greater). Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I can understand this frustration. All the time I see articles that were poor quality get sent to AFD, the commenters there say that the existing article is crap but (minimal) sources exist, so the article should be improved rather than being deleted. It gets kept, then...nothing happens. 10-15 years later, the article is still very poor quality and essentially unchanged. Whatever original sources existed might not even be online anymore, but a second AFD probably won't get a different result. Sometimes I can stubbify/redirect, if there's gross BLP violations I can sometimes just delete it, but most just exist in this limbo indefinitely. If nobody cares to make a halfway decent article, then maybe we shouldn't have one. I would like it if there was a shift at AFD, especially for long-term poor quality articles, from "should this topic have an article" to "is this particular article worth showing to readers". In 2005, the best way to help Wikipedia was with a pen (writing new articles). In 2024, the best way is with pruning shears (removing bad articles, or trimming irrelevant bloat within articles). I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this, but some sort of draftification for these articles might be a good idea. 6 months is probably too soon, but setting it at 5 or 10 years would cut out a lot of crud. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The OP ignores fundamental principals like no time limits, deletion is not cleanup, preserve, before etc.. it would be political and contentious. And I'm not sure it would do much to improve Wikipedia, plus alienate and piss off editors. The whole idea of keeping a crappy article on a notable topic is that someone will find it and work on it, "hey look at this crappy article I can make it better". -- GreenC 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- He's not ignoring those ideas, he's trying to gain support for changing them. Sure, it would be contentious but that's not a reason to not discuss it. And yes, ideally someone will find a crappy article and work on it. But for many thousands of articles, it's been years and that hasn't happened. It probably never will. So the few people who stumble upon them are left with an unvetted, unsourced, incomplete or even misleading article about a topic. Jimbo had the right idea in this post[4], which became the foundation of our BLP policy but can apply elsewhere too. It's better to have no information about a topic than bad information. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Adam, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Ready for the mainspace the other day, on what it means for an article to be "ready for the mainspace". This seems to be an idea that some editors have adopted. Back when we were new, the general idea seemed to be that you determined whether something's ready for the mainspace (and almost all of us created everything directly in the mainspace back then) with a two-part checklist:
- Is the subject itself notable (e.g., if you spent time looking for Wikipedia:Independent sources, then you could find enough to write several sentences, even though nobody's bothered to do that yet)?
- Is the current article exempt from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (e.g., not a copyvio, not Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, not an obvious test edit)?
- This could, and did, and was meant to, result in articles that said little more than "A campaign desk is an antique desk of normal size which was used by officers and their staffs in rear areas during a military campaign". (BTW, ProQuest 374234967 might be a useful source for examples that article, as will this one, if you'd like to add them, and https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/15/archives/now-on-the-home-front.html will be particularly useful if you'd like to generalize from the desk to any sort of purpose-built furniture for mobile military officers.) However, I think that a minority of editors want to expand this checklist to look a bit more like this:
- Is the subject itself notable?
- Does the current version qualify for speedy deletion?
- Would I be embarrassed if someone I respected said "Hey, I was looking at this short Wikipedia article the other day..."? (e.g., the article has fewer than x sentences, fewer than y cited sources, fewer than z links...)
- If requiring a certain volume sounds nice, what I think would be more practical is if we talked about what percentage of articles we were really willing to sacrifice to the spirit of "immediatism because I'm embarrassed that someone hasn't already WP:FINISHED this old article". If you're willing to delete, say, 1% or 10% or 50% of all articles to artificially raise the average quality of Wikipedia articles, then we can calculate what x, y, and z would be.
NB that I don't think that deleting articles for problems that could be solved by ordinary editing would be a good idea, because I've found some of those old, neglected, even uncited substubs to be of immediate value to me recently, when often what I wanted was an easy way to figure out what the official website was, or a quick definition of an obscure term (19th-century furniture and clothing has ranked high in my searches recently, so Campaign desk is exactly the kind of article that I have been finding helpful). But if you're bothered enough to want to WP:DEMOLISH articles because they're not being developed to your standards, then let's talk about how much is the most you could imagine destroying, and see if we could figure out what we'd be losing as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Read:
- Wikipedia:FIXTHEPROBLEM
- Wikipedia:There is no deadline
- Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision
- Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
- Wikipedia:Don't panic
- Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself
- Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state
- Wikipedia:Rome wasn't built in a day
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service
- Wikipedia:Delete_the_junk#Alternatives_to_deletion
- Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates#Blanking/Removal_of_content
Case closed. IMO the time people spend here would be put into better use to improve our articles. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Of the three example articles given early in this discussion, viewing them outside of this discussion: #1 Would fail wp:notability #2 is good enough as is, and #3 is in Wikipedia's Twilight Zone: there is no system / mechanism that really vetts list articles. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- For Naked butler, I can find a few sources:
- Paul Majendie. “Butlers Buff Up Party Scene Forget the Quintessential Image of the British Butler as the Epitome of Discreet Decorum -- the Latest Fad on the British Party Scene Is Half-Naked Waiters.” Townsville Bulletin.
- Sagar, Tracey; Jones, Debbie; Symons, Katrien; Tyrie, Jacky; Roberts, Ron (December 2016). "Student involvement in the UK sex industry: motivations and experiences". The British Journal of Sociology. 67 (4): 697–718. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12216. ISSN 0007-1315.
- These are both available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Perhaps someone would like to put them in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I based my comments #1 based on a quick guess. The question is coverage of sources on the specific topic. Which in turn needs the article to be about a specific topic. My first guess is that that isn't there. But the overall point is evaluating articles based on things other than lack of development activity, and that the latter is not much of an indicator. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's one of the problems with the proposal: it encourages people to seek deletion not on the basis of what sources might be available, such as this article in the Evening Standard (page 2 here) or this Herald-Tribune piece, but rather on their guesses of how the page will develop in the future. I see nothing in the OP's proposal that indicates that the goal is to try to save the article first, it makes no call for the implementer to try to save the article, just allows for the possibility that someone else may do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? When something goes to 2nd AfD it could be "saved" like any other time, indeed that's when people often work on such (yes, yes, 'not cleanup', but that does not mean cleanup by hook or by crook is not good) the 2nd delete participants basically have to agree 'yeah, no one cares' for it to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it could be saved then, but it would take an odd interpretation that the goal of an AfD filing is to save an article, when the very point of an AfD filing is to request its destruction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed starting an AfD with the aim of doing something other than deleting the article could (arguably should) get the nomination speedily kept (WP:SK point 1). Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say goal, I said it is regularly the outcome (including everytime there is no consensus or keep), the conversation is still about the suitability of having this article, nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You appeared to be saying "Huh?" to a statement about the goal; if you were not "Huh?"ing that statement, I don't know what you were saying. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did not think you were speaking about the goal of AfD, the proposal is for a new multi-factored rationale (like is this adequately covered elsewhere, etc.) that the AfD participants can either agree in or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The goal of creating an additional excuse to delete things is to have things deleted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I would call it additional rational but yes, when the alternatives given are delete large swaths of the article or just let it continue to sit there in bad shape for more decades. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The goal of creating an additional excuse to delete things is to have things deleted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did not think you were speaking about the goal of AfD, the proposal is for a new multi-factored rationale (like is this adequately covered elsewhere, etc.) that the AfD participants can either agree in or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You appeared to be saying "Huh?" to a statement about the goal; if you were not "Huh?"ing that statement, I don't know what you were saying. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it could be saved then, but it would take an odd interpretation that the goal of an AfD filing is to save an article, when the very point of an AfD filing is to request its destruction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? When something goes to 2nd AfD it could be "saved" like any other time, indeed that's when people often work on such (yes, yes, 'not cleanup', but that does not mean cleanup by hook or by crook is not good) the 2nd delete participants basically have to agree 'yeah, no one cares' for it to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's one of the problems with the proposal: it encourages people to seek deletion not on the basis of what sources might be available, such as this article in the Evening Standard (page 2 here) or this Herald-Tribune piece, but rather on their guesses of how the page will develop in the future. I see nothing in the OP's proposal that indicates that the goal is to try to save the article first, it makes no call for the implementer to try to save the article, just allows for the possibility that someone else may do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I based my comments #1 based on a quick guess. The question is coverage of sources on the specific topic. Which in turn needs the article to be about a specific topic. My first guess is that that isn't there. But the overall point is evaluating articles based on things other than lack of development activity, and that the latter is not much of an indicator. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect that #2, Campaign desk, is a copyvio, and has been so since it was created 20+ years ago, but I cannot yet prove so beyond any doubt. If it is determined that the original text, which is 95% of the current article, was a copyvio, then the article will have to be deleted. Donald Albury 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It was written by an admin, AlainV. While it's not a perfect indicator, generally speaking, if I were looking for a copyvio, I wouldn't start by suspecting something written by an admin who wrote ~150 articles. It's at least as likely that the article was original here, and got copied over there. We have a copy from 2004; the Internet Archive has a copy of the Wikipedia article from 2005; the Internet Archive has a copy on a different website from 2006. I would not assume from this information that our article is the copyvio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The wording's weird, though. That one phrase at the end... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Campaign desks were something of a trend back around the time this was written, so it doesn't seem as odd to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- One reason that I haven't acted on my suspicions is the possibility that the website copied from AlainV's articles (all 48 or them, with only three or four desks listed on the website that AlainV did not create an article for). I left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't edited in two years.
- Looking more closely at Cylinder desk, I see that AlainV and others modified that article after he created it, and the website matches the state of the article in April 2006 rather than the original state when AlainV created it in November 2003. Given that, I withdraw any suggestion that AlainV copied from the Arts and Crafts Home website. Donald Albury 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- That was a good piece of detective work, Donald. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The wording's weird, though. That one phrase at the end... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- As for the viability of "campaign desk" as a topic, why, here's just one of several books that I find on the topic of campaign furniture, so it appears that content on the topic can be sourced. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It was written by an admin, AlainV. While it's not a perfect indicator, generally speaking, if I were looking for a copyvio, I wouldn't start by suspecting something written by an admin who wrote ~150 articles. It's at least as likely that the article was original here, and got copied over there. We have a copy from 2004; the Internet Archive has a copy of the Wikipedia article from 2005; the Internet Archive has a copy on a different website from 2006. I would not assume from this information that our article is the copyvio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no such thing as an article on a notable topic that will never improve. They always improve eventually if they are left for long enough. We have many articles that were massively expanded after more than a decade of inactivity. If a topic satisfies GNG, there will be people able and willing to improve it. The proposal is incompatible with the policy WP:ATD. James500 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- General Comment I think that the advice at WP:NOPAGE is far too often neglected, and in many cases we would be better off upmerging content. By the same token there are definitely some encyclopedic topics that would be undue detail for a parent article, but will never expand beyond a few paragraphs because there isn't anything else to say about them, and that really isn't a problem either, those type of articles exist in traditional encyclopedias; people who are interested in the niche information can still find it, and it doesn't get in the way of everyone else.At some deeper level of course this is a request to rethink WP:N, especially WP:ARTN, and maybe shift the current consensus a bit as to when no article is better than the existing content. Much more specific criteria than
failure to thrive
will be needed for that to happen, and in the end we have to confront the fact that most articles simply do not meet the theoretical baseline standard (the small percentage that do become WP:GAs after being checked), and if history is any guide, changes will considerably increase the disruption associated with deletion, at least for a time.That isn't to say the underlying concern is without merit, and we all want better written articles, I'm just skeptical this is the best approach to get there. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Rethinking[edit]
I think we should refocus the discussion away from AFD… we DO have a problem with articles that are about notable topics, but are seriously problematic in other ways. I am thinking that we might need to create a NEW process to deal with such articles. Perhaps (for lack of a better name) we can call it “GAR” (for “Gut And Rebuild”)? Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would be for a policy making it clearer that stubifying and similar are acceptable for badly sourced and very poorly written articles. But we already have several projects for rebuilding and restoring bad articles: WP:CLEANUP, WP:REFCHECK and WP:GOCE. I don't think creating a new process for it would help. We already have the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for that. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The "problem" is no one is doing it, whether it is because it is relatively harder or just not interested, someone still has to do the research and write, I suppose this GAR could draw attention to what no one is doing and it could help but doubtful it will make the article itself decent, what it could do is produce a list of sources which would certainly be better. It is better to direct readers to RS than whatever so-called "lousy" article we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- So, here’s the crux as I see it… when the issue is notability, we have a fairly clear threat (deletion) we can dangle in front of editors to force them to address the problem (or at least make the attempt). We also have a clear solution (supply sources).
- But for other issues we don’t have a threat to dangle in front of editors to force (or at least strongly encourage) them to address the problem. We simply hope that, some day, someone might get around to it.
- The question is… IS there some sort of threat (other than deletion) that would achieve the goal? The closest I can think of is: “Gut it back to a stub”. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "threat" is the right word, but it seems to me that criteria for compulsory draftification - and a dedicated noticeboard for that - could serve the intended purpose. Heck, it could even be accompanied by a proposed or a speedy draftification process as well. The trick is to come up with a word that starts with a letter other than D (or B). Articles for Transformation (AfT)? Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with non-notable articles is that they are, well, not notable, and shouldn't be included in the encyclopaedia.
- What is the problem with notable articles that are short that we are trying to solve? We can already remove unreferenced information (after looking for sources and either adding the sources you find or remove it as unverifiable if you can't find any). Why do we want to force people to expand this notable article under threat of deletion after a week (AfD) or six months (draftifying)? What does the encyclopaedia gain from this? Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I’m trying to take deletion off the table here, and yet still convey a similar sense of urgency to editors (fix this “or else”). The only “or else” I can think of is: “We will pare this article down to a stub”. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand why the urgency? Why do we suddenly need a deadline? Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which editors? If we're dealing with old rot articles like discussed above, they are likely not editing Wikipedia any more. If we're dealing with newer problem articles, we're asking the editors to suddenly become competent? If you get into a war over paring something down, yes there are live editors and you can ask for a third opinion or somesuch., but in general, problem articles are better addressed by improving or paring them than in creating another system that relies on others. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that threatening editors is probably the wrong way to build a healthy community or encyclopedia. Toughpigs (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @NatGertler, what if I don't want to do the work? What if my goal is to make other people do the work? I'm a WP:VOLUNTEER. I don't have to do anything I don't want to. But maybe I'd like to force "you" to do the work that I don't want to do. Threatening to take away basically accurate, appropriate information works on a timescale that humans can recognize. Either nobody cares, and the ugly article goes away, or a volunteer drops everything to save the article. I get to congratulate myself on prompting improvements without lifting a finger to do the work myself.
- Waiting for someone to notice the problem and feel like fixing it doesn't feel like it works. Sure, some of them might get improved, but I can't see the connection. AFD forces people to do something about the specific article that I don't like. m:Eventualism just says – well, maybe some articles will get improved and maybe they won't, but I'll never know which ones, and it probably won't be the ones that I care about. I feel helpless and like there's nothing I can do, especially if I don't want to (or am not competent to) improve the articles myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I’m trying to take deletion off the table here, and yet still convey a similar sense of urgency to editors (fix this “or else”). The only “or else” I can think of is: “We will pare this article down to a stub”. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Blueboar, "gut it back to a stub" won't work, because for the most part, the articles that are disliked are already stubs.
- Also, nobody's stopping anyone from doing that now. Wikipedia:Stub#Stubbing existing articles (guideline) officially endorses it. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Problems that may justify removal (policy) provides a list of reasons for removing bad content without deleting the article.
- I think the desire is to force other people to do this work. "My" job is just to complain that your work is sub-par (sending it to AFD requires three clicks and typing a sentence); "your" job is to put in whatever work is necessary to satisfy me (could be a couple of hours of work, especially if I dislike the subject and so demand an even higher level of activity).
- Consider Campaign desk, given as an example above. It's a long stub (10 sentences, 232 words according to ProseSize). Two editors easily found sources for it. It's at AFD now. Why? I don't know, but I will tell you that it's quicker and easier to send something to AFD than to copy and paste sources out of this discussion. I also notice on the same day's AFDs that someone has re-nominated an article because the sources that were listed in the first AFD haven't been copied and pasted into the article yet. Why not copy and paste the sources over yourself? I don't know. Maybe adding sources to articles is work that should be done by lesser beings, not by people who are trying to "improve Wikipedia's quality" by removing anything that hasn't been improve to my satisfaction by the WP:DEADLINE – the deadline apparently being "whenever I notice the article's existence". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Part of an editor’s job is to highlight problems that the author needs to fix. I do get that we ideally wear both hats at the same time, but… sometimes we can only wear one. It is quite possible for editors to identify problems with an article that they can not fix themselves because they don’t know the subject matter well enough to do so. We need something that tells those who DO know the subject matter: “hey, this urgently needs your attention”.
- As for why there is urgency… we simply have too many articles flagged as having with serious problems that have never been addressed. We need something that will push those who can be authors into actually authoring. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That model of "editors" and "authors" is based on a hierarchical professional structure that does not exist on Wikipedia. Everyone is an "editor" on Wikipedia; that word doesn't hypothetically grant you power over me. Toughpigs (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Blueboar, a while ago, I dropped everything to save articles such as White cake. (Please do not blame the innocent AFD nom; he, like 99.9% of people, didn't know the modern white cake is a technological wonder, and finding high-quality and scholarly sources about everyday subjects requires more than an ordinary search.) I had fun doing it, and those articles are much better now. (I'll deal with the complication that is fudge cake later).
- But: Do you know what I could have been working on instead of those articles? Cancer survivor. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education in the United States. Epilepsy and pregnancy. Suicide. Multiple chemical sensitivity. The targeted articles are much better now. But is Wikipedia as a whole better off, when you consider the opportunity cost? I doubt it.
- I think @Thryduulf is on the right track when he asks why we have such urgency. There was no urgency whatsoever about White cake. There were no errors in it. It had sources. It was, admittedly, much less awesome than it is now, but there is nothing seriously wrong. Ditto for Campaign desk, and almost all of the other "ugly" articles. So: Why should fixing that have been urgent? Did we really need something to push me into improving the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you did not need the article to do the research and write on white cake, and why it matters, is we are not showing our research, after sometimes decades, and thus adding value, rather we are suggesting that someone shared their thoughts on white cake on Wikipedia, when you can look at the rest of the internet and google for people's thoughts on white cake. The reader would have been better off, in the reliable information department, by finding reliable information on their own, then reading the unsourced, unexamined decidedly unreliable by Wikipedia's own disclaimer article. Anything that said in effect go, read this stuff, it is a good source, would have been better. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker, why do you say that an article that cited seven (7) sources, including one from Oxford University Press, and that contained no errors is unsourced, unexamined decidedly unreliable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I thought your story was about it being AfD'd for lack of sourcing, was it that the sources cited were unreliable or irrelevant meaning with no evidence in them of notability? (so yeah, the rest, of my comment would apply to the unsoured parts). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the article on the day it was nominated for deletion. It was one paragraph/six sentences long. That one paragraph had seven inline citations. Here's the AFD page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, such AfD nominations are always hard to understand, as the inner logic of the nom is 'this is part of a notable topic' (here, cake). That's similar to the campaign desk example, the salient issue is whether to redirect to campaign furniture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the article on the day it was nominated for deletion. It was one paragraph/six sentences long. That one paragraph had seven inline citations. Here's the AFD page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I thought your story was about it being AfD'd for lack of sourcing, was it that the sources cited were unreliable or irrelevant meaning with no evidence in them of notability? (so yeah, the rest, of my comment would apply to the unsoured parts). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker, why do you say that an article that cited seven (7) sources, including one from Oxford University Press, and that contained no errors is unsourced, unexamined decidedly unreliable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you did not need the article to do the research and write on white cake, and why it matters, is we are not showing our research, after sometimes decades, and thus adding value, rather we are suggesting that someone shared their thoughts on white cake on Wikipedia, when you can look at the rest of the internet and google for people's thoughts on white cake. The reader would have been better off, in the reliable information department, by finding reliable information on their own, then reading the unsourced, unexamined decidedly unreliable by Wikipedia's own disclaimer article. Anything that said in effect go, read this stuff, it is a good source, would have been better. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) That doesn't explain why there is urgency. It identifies that you (and some other editors) dislike there being lots of articles that haven't been improved to your satisfaction yet. It does not explain why that many articles needing improvement is a problem, why nominated articles need fixing more urgently than the other articles, why you can't or won't fix it yourself, nor why you get to decide what articles other people need to prioritise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- (Friendly reminder: If you don't like edit conflicts, try that Reply button. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion and "Enable quick replying" if you don't see one at the end of every sig.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That model of "editors" and "authors" is based on a hierarchical professional structure that does not exist on Wikipedia. Everyone is an "editor" on Wikipedia; that word doesn't hypothetically grant you power over me. Toughpigs (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, just the fact that you're considering "threatening" people in order to "force" them to do what you want suggests that this may be more about you than it is about the articles. The AfD process isn't about "threats" and "force", it's about identifying and deleting articles on non-notable subjects. Toughpigs (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m just being realistic. “Force” may not be the intent of the AFD process, but it is certainly a product of that process… because we “threaten” to delete articles on non-notable topics, lazy article authors are “forced” to provide sources to properly establish that the topic is indeed notable.
- In any case, what I am fumbling around trying to envision is a process that would be “about” identifying and fixing seriously flawed articles on notable topics - a process perhaps similar to AFD, but not AFD. Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK… let’s break it down into more bite sized chunks… first: let’s consider articles with serious WP:NOT issues (That might be a clearer example of where the topic might be notable, but the article, as it currently stands, is problematic). Do we have any sort of process that would help us better identify and therefore fix such articles? Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - the various cleanup templates and categories. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What is the process behind those templates and categories? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1. an editor identifies the that an article is in need of cleanup and applies the template.
- 2. optionally, it gets added to a list (e.g. a backlog drive)
- 3. an editor who can improve the article finds it through one of several methods (see below) and does so
- Methods of finding an article include:
- seeing the banner template on an article they are reading
- seeing the article in the category (directly or via some category intersection tool)
- seeing the article in a list
- seeing the edit applying the template on their watchlist
- Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- In other words… eventually, someday, maybe, someone might get around to fixing the article. But until that eventual day comes (perhaps years after it is identified) we are apparently OK with Wikipedia continuing to contain content that a (somewhat core) policy explicitly says Wikipedia should NOT contain?
- I’m sorry, but if that is our “process”, I don’t think it is effective (or at least not effective enough). I think we need a better process. A process that will incentivize our authors to fix WP:NOT issues sooner rather than later. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I stated the only things our processes lack is a deadline and consequences for failing to meet that deadline and you still haven't identified how having either of them will benefit the encyclopaedia. Policies and guidelines already allow you to remove policy violations when you see them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looks to me, Blueboar has done so, 1) effectively disincentivizing long term-policy violations; 2) effectively. reducing long-term policy violations. 3) Wikipedia taking effective responsibility for long-term policy violations concerning the central reason Wikipedia exists, its content, because we can't/don't insist on individual accountability (no one can make an editor source that article they wrote 10 years ago) we need to make process for entire-project accountability, when individualist work has over the long-term failed, concerning its central mission. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the whole point of this proposal is to deal with articles that aren't policy violations? Articles that are policy violations should have the policy violating parts fixed or removed, or (if that would leave nothing viable), nominated for deletion as soon as someone sees them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting is a "double AfD" -- if an article has been at AfD and it's been demonstrated that the subject is notable, but you personally still don't like the current state of the article, then you want an extra do-over that gets you the result that you want. Toughpigs (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- And that someone else has to do the work, because if the only point was to fix the article, you could do that yourself. There is nobody in this discussion who is incapable of remedying serious policy violations in any article, including subjects we're unfamiliar with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting is a "double AfD" -- if an article has been at AfD and it's been demonstrated that the subject is notable, but you personally still don't like the current state of the article, then you want an extra do-over that gets you the result that you want. Toughpigs (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the whole point of this proposal is to deal with articles that aren't policy violations? Articles that are policy violations should have the policy violating parts fixed or removed, or (if that would leave nothing viable), nominated for deletion as soon as someone sees them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looks to me, Blueboar has done so, 1) effectively disincentivizing long term-policy violations; 2) effectively. reducing long-term policy violations. 3) Wikipedia taking effective responsibility for long-term policy violations concerning the central reason Wikipedia exists, its content, because we can't/don't insist on individual accountability (no one can make an editor source that article they wrote 10 years ago) we need to make process for entire-project accountability, when individualist work has over the long-term failed, concerning its central mission. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- With English Wikipedia's current consensus being that stub creation is encouraged, and with Wikipedia editors being volunteers, I think the only scalable way to continually improve articles is to build up groups of editors interested in various topic areas—which in the context of English Wikipedia, are WikiProjects—who can work through the queues of stubs. I realize that with most WikiProject talk pages being dormant, this isn't easy. Now that new editors each have their own personal newcomer homepage with an assigned mentor (though at present on English Wikipedia, due to a shortage of volunteers, only 50% of newcomers are shown a mentor on their homepage), perhaps mentors can help point new users to active WikiProjects. (Building a new consensus to manage the quality of new articles is an alternative, but personally I don't foresee a change being feasible in the intermediate term, given the most recent discussions amongst the editors who like to weigh in on this matter.) isaacl (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Should expanding stubs be prioritized over other tasks? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You know the answer to that already: it's up to each person to decide what they want to work on. A group of interested persons can discuss situations, of course, and that may influence individual decisions. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Our choices about which backlogs to "advertise" affect the choices people make. If we say "Stubs are bad, so please prioritize expand stubs", then we'll get more stub expansion. If we were instead to say "Improving popular articles is more important than ignored ones, even though they're less likely to be stubs", then we would expect to get more focus on popular articles. Each person will make their own decisions about what to work on, but people will also take official recommendations and nudges into account when making their individual choices.
- Some years back, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine set an official goal of getting all Top-importance articles past the stub stage. (These tend to be rather generic subjects, like Burn and Infection.) I think that was valuable, but I'm not sure that there is similar value in encouraging the expansion of the least-read 50% of Wikipedia's articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, that's up to the interested editors to decide upon. For better or worse, I can't keep other editors from discussing queues of interest to them. I can raise my concerns about their relative priority, and thus try to influence whatever decisions are made (whether that's tasks undertaken or text on a WikiProject page). isaacl (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You know the answer to that already: it's up to each person to decide what they want to work on. A group of interested persons can discuss situations, of course, and that may influence individual decisions. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Should expanding stubs be prioritized over other tasks? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I stated the only things our processes lack is a deadline and consequences for failing to meet that deadline and you still haven't identified how having either of them will benefit the encyclopaedia. Policies and guidelines already allow you to remove policy violations when you see them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What is the process behind those templates and categories? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Blueboar, could you give me an example (preferably hypothetical) of an article about a notable subject that has serious NOT violations? None of the examples above (e.g, Campaign desk) seem to be NOT violations.
- I feel like the common objections behind these discussions (which have been going on with some intensity for a couple of years now) don't involve serious policy violations at all. Instead, the objections appear to be:
- WP:ITSUNREFERENCED, and I want someone else to add sources right now. We couldn't get a rule adopted to require sources in non-BLP articles earlier this year, but I want this non-BLP article treated as if we did adopt that rule.
- It's an WP:UGLY little article. Personally, I prefer that articles be Start-class, or at least long stubs.
- There has been WP:NOIMPROVEMENT for a long time and other editors are making WP:NOEFFORT to expand it.
- This subject feels unimportant to me, so WP:WEDONTNEEDIT (e.g., species articles) even if it is accurate, verifiable, and cited.
- All of those shortcuts point to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure… Suppose an article about a relatively obscure regional restaurant chain that does nothing but list every franchise outlet and its address, thus violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The chain might well be notable and thus worth an article… but the article we currently have is problematic. It probably needs a complete rewrite, not deletion… So… let’s say someone stumbles upon this article. They can identify the problem, but they don’t know the topic well enough to write about it (and perhaps they don’t really care enough to do so)… so they simply tag it and move on… And then… nothing happens… nothing changes… the article just sits there, tagged as violating policy, potentially for years. I don’t think that is in the best interest of WP. Surely there is some way to better incentivize fixing the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- The person who needs incentivizing is you. You are the one who's bothered by the article's existence. You can be the one who fixes it. Take out the addresses, look for reliable sources (probably in newspapers, for a restaurant chain). If you don't find any, then put it up for deletion. If you do, add them to the article. The problem is solved. You solved it! Toughpigs (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm… Nope… I’m not in a position to fix the problem myself. I don’t live in the area served by my hypothetical restaurant chain, I have never eaten there, I know nothing about it, I don’t even know what sources would help me to write a proper article. All I know is that the article (as it currently stands) is a directory of franchises (a WP:NOT violation). I DO care enough about WP to alert others to the problem, but I am not qualified to fix it myself. The best I can do is tag and move on.
- So, I ask again… THEN what? Do we (as a community) continue to just ignore the problems with the article I have identified?… because that is what is currently happening! Surely we can do better. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then you nominate it for deletion. We already have a process for this. If the article is kept, then at least a couple of sources have come up, and glaring problems like the addresses have been fixed. Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nah… If I nominate for deletion, I get told that the topic is notable (apparently there are reliable sources, even though I personally don’t know which are reliable). I get told that AFD isn’t for article clean up (so the WP:NOT violation persists), and I am scolded for wasting people’s time. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- So... you don't want to use AfD because you'll be told that you're wrong. Instead, you want a separate AfD process that will tell you that you're right? Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all… I want a new process that will better draw attention to problems and do more to incentivize editors who CAN fix the problems to actually DO so. That new process might (or might not) be modeled on AFD… I’m still very open to suggestions and inspiration on that. I simply know that our current “tag it and hope that someone eventually fixes it” system isn’t working. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is fixing that the right goal for Wikipedia?
- I think this point needs to get some direct attention. I agree that the hypothetical article described above is a WP:NOT violation as written.
- But: Is this really a "Oh my goodness, that actually violates a policy! Please, somebody do something, quick!" situation? Or could this be more of a "That's unfortunate, but not actually harmful, and frankly an article that only lists the locations is not as important as other problems I could be fixing" problem?
- Most of what we do is being done by about 10K experienced editors each month. The available volunteer hours do not expand to accommodate someone's desire to have this fixed on the m:immediatism time line. Incentivizing the editors who can clean up that article "to actually DO so" means incentivizing those editors to leave other problems unaddressed. So – is this really worth the cost? Are you glad that I expanded Cottage Inn Pizza when it was prodded a few months ago? Can that question be fully answered, if you don't consider what else I didn't do, because I spent an hour or so on that "relatively obscure regional restaurant chain"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there isn’t any urgency, perhaps we should downgrade WP:NOT to an essay?… or rename it to: “What Wikipedia arguably shouldn’t be.” Ok, snark there… but yeah, I do think dealing with violations of major policies should out weigh a lot of the other, pettier things we obsess about as editors. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blueboar, you asked, "Do we (as a community) continue to just ignore the problems with the article I have identified?" And for me, the answer is that I would rather have lots of imperfect articles than give you and X other people the power to mass-delete articles that would pass AfD but you still think are kind of "meh".
- (Note that you have already said that the articles would pass AfD and that you would be accused of wasting editors' time if you nominated them.)
- If your proposal is (paraphrased), "Let's have a system that 'forces' people to improve random articles on notable subjects at my personal instruction or they get deleted whenever I want," then I vote for the system that we currently have. Yes, that hypothetical chain restaurant article is absolutely hypothetically fine with me. Toughpigs (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think I'd describe the hypothetical article as "fine", but I also don't think that fixing it is urgent. If it gets done sometime before the heat death of the universe, then that would be great. But if we have more important content to work on, then I'm okay with it still being in its harmless but WP:UGLY and nominally policy-violating state when I die. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Toughpigs… I’m not sure why you keep bringing up deletion… I opened this section by removing deletion as an option. But just to be clear - I am envisioning a new process to fix problematic articles… and NOT delete them. Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- So this new process highlights that it is vital that someone drops what they are doing and fixes this article to your satisfaction right now. What happens if nobody does? It's already a stub, so gutting the article isn't an option, and deletion is apparently off the table, so we can't do that. What else is there? Do we pick an editor and stop them doing anything else until they've fixed this article? How do we choose which editor? What happens if they walk away from the project instead? Or do we just leave the article with a different banner on it to let people know that not only is this article is in a bad state but we disapprove of it being in bad state and we were unable to force anybody to fix it in time? Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, part of the problem in my hypothetical is that the article (as it currently stands) ISN’T “already a stub”… it’s a directory of franchises and addresses. I could definitely see “stubify” being a step in the process (the “Gut” part of my suggested “Gut and Rebuild” name for the process) but what we really need is the next step… something that will incentivize editors to rebuild. That’s what I am searching for… and I don’t have the answer yet. I am hoping that I will become inspired as we continue to discuss. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- So this new process highlights that it is vital that someone drops what they are doing and fixes this article to your satisfaction right now. What happens if nobody does? It's already a stub, so gutting the article isn't an option, and deletion is apparently off the table, so we can't do that. What else is there? Do we pick an editor and stop them doing anything else until they've fixed this article? How do we choose which editor? What happens if they walk away from the project instead? Or do we just leave the article with a different banner on it to let people know that not only is this article is in a bad state but we disapprove of it being in bad state and we were unable to force anybody to fix it in time? Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Blueboar, what if it's not so petty? The next major edit I made after that pizza chain was to expand Mastitis. I don't think we have an official policy that says "Improve health-related articles by providing accurate, well-sourced facts about common medical conditions, particularly if misinformation is spreading about that subject on social media", but I do consider that more important and more urgent than nominal compliance with a policy about whether Wikipedia should or shouldn't contain a list of locations for a restaurant chain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there isn’t any urgency, perhaps we should downgrade WP:NOT to an essay?… or rename it to: “What Wikipedia arguably shouldn’t be.” Ok, snark there… but yeah, I do think dealing with violations of major policies should out weigh a lot of the other, pettier things we obsess about as editors. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all… I want a new process that will better draw attention to problems and do more to incentivize editors who CAN fix the problems to actually DO so. That new process might (or might not) be modeled on AFD… I’m still very open to suggestions and inspiration on that. I simply know that our current “tag it and hope that someone eventually fixes it” system isn’t working. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- So... you don't want to use AfD because you'll be told that you're wrong. Instead, you want a separate AfD process that will tell you that you're right? Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nah… If I nominate for deletion, I get told that the topic is notable (apparently there are reliable sources, even though I personally don’t know which are reliable). I get told that AFD isn’t for article clean up (so the WP:NOT violation persists), and I am scolded for wasting people’s time. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then you nominate it for deletion. We already have a process for this. If the article is kept, then at least a couple of sources have come up, and glaring problems like the addresses have been fixed. Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- The person who needs incentivizing is you. You are the one who's bothered by the article's existence. You can be the one who fixes it. Take out the addresses, look for reliable sources (probably in newspapers, for a restaurant chain). If you don't find any, then put it up for deletion. If you do, add them to the article. The problem is solved. You solved it! Toughpigs (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes - the various cleanup templates and categories. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Why are there so many featured articles about Great Britain?[edit]
Not an issue for Village pump (policy). Referred elsewhere.Not a policy discussion. Not a useful discussion. Take it up at the talk pages of the various sections of the main page if you must Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Like literally, everytime I come on the Front Page of wikipedia theres always a featured article of euther a British or english person. Is wikipedia owned by limeys or something? ENOUGH…HAVE SOME DIVERSITY FOR ONCE!! Fact.up.world (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Bot-like usernames[edit]
The username policy disallows users to have a username that has "bot", "script" or other related words in them because they could potentially mislead other editors. In my on-and-off time on wikipedia, I never understood why these sorts of usernames should be prohibited.
My main issue is that I feel that it's too BITEY.
Imagine being a new editor, clicking on the edit button just to see a big ugly edit notice saying that you're indefinitely blocked from editing just because you put "bot" on your username. Wouldn't it demotivate, discourage, and dissuade you from ever editing Wikipedia, or going through the process of appealing a block?
I understand that admins should attempt to communicate to the user before taking any action, but I rarely see that happen.
The thing is, having a bot-like username is not disruptive to the encyclopedia. It's not trolling any users, or going to tackle the issue with bot-like editing.
So I ask you, what is the purpose of prohibiting bot-like usernames? OzzyOlly (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- If I see a user account called CitationBot, I assume it's a bot that in some way edits citations. Prohibiting bot-like usernames is intended to prevent that assumption from being misleading. If admins are not explaining the block reasoning, that is a distinct issue from the policy itself. CMD (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I could how some users might ignore edits because of their username, but first, the vast majority of times it's someone who stuck robot in their because they like robots or are otherwise entirely in good faith, and also users can check the account and its contributions. OzzyOlly (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Many usernames could be made in good faith that fall afoul of the username policy, the policy was not created to deal with bad faith usernames but to provide guidance for selecting usernames that do not impede communication and collaboration (or create potential legal issues). CMD (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- My issue is that bot-like usernames don't impede communication or are disruptive. I think we're risking shutting out perfectly good editors over minor "what-ifs" OzzyOlly (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bot-like usernames do both, because we editors do not communicate with bots, and expect edits by bots to be very constrained along particular lines. The username policy does not shut out any editors. CMD (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know it's not really a total blanket ban on editors, but the issue is that I don't believe there's a net gain in doing this. I mean, recent changes automatically doesn't show you bot edits, and it's pretty easy to distinguish a human from a bot editor (especially the ones who added bot not as an attempt to communicate anything) even without having to check if it has the bot flag.
- I've checked around to see how many people are blocked because of this, I've only found two instances of bot-like behavior, both of which are simply people not realizing they need to seek approval from BAG if they want to bring a bot from another project. Some are blocked for vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other stuff but the vast majority are of just regular newcomers, acting in good faith. OzzyOlly (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- If an editor is so fragile that a username policy is something that causes them to leave this site forever, then don't let them know about all other policies and guidelines we have. Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bot-like usernames do both, because we editors do not communicate with bots, and expect edits by bots to be very constrained along particular lines. The username policy does not shut out any editors. CMD (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- My issue is that bot-like usernames don't impede communication or are disruptive. I think we're risking shutting out perfectly good editors over minor "what-ifs" OzzyOlly (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Many usernames could be made in good faith that fall afoul of the username policy, the policy was not created to deal with bad faith usernames but to provide guidance for selecting usernames that do not impede communication and collaboration (or create potential legal issues). CMD (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I could how some users might ignore edits because of their username, but first, the vast majority of times it's someone who stuck robot in their because they like robots or are otherwise entirely in good faith, and also users can check the account and its contributions. OzzyOlly (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- If we're not (at least) issuing warnings about potentially unwanted but not automatically rejected usernames at the time of account creation, maybe we should be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It could be editors create a login on another language Wikipedia that does not have this rule. They can edit there where "bot" means something different, but editting here is a problem if it sounds like you are a robot. Some other names are a problem, eg "administrator" or "official" which could mislead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- What if the person happens to be called LongBOTtom or likes the Bibles and uses TheSCRIPTures etc? There must be reasonable grounds? — Iadmc♫talk 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The policy doesn't disallow those. It only disallows names that suggest the user's a bot.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- What if the person happens to be called LongBOTtom or likes the Bibles and uses TheSCRIPTures etc? There must be reasonable grounds? — Iadmc♫talk 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It could be editors create a login on another language Wikipedia that does not have this rule. They can edit there where "bot" means something different, but editting here is a problem if it sounds like you are a robot. Some other names are a problem, eg "administrator" or "official" which could mislead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I really think we should offer to do the name change on their behalf rather than make them go through all this crap and then request one and then sit around and twiddle their thumbs while they wait for us to get around to it. At the very least, give them a week to come up with a new one or something, and then block them. jp×g🗯️ 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- We really shouldn't be indefing editors because of their username, unless it's obviously offensive. I know that's kind of what we do already, but we really should just look at their edits, and see if they're WP:HTBAE or not. If they are, drop a note on their talk page, ask them what username they want, instead of mass blocks and biting. OzzyOlly (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Theoretically, this is the rule, but in practice, the few admins who deal with this say it's too much trouble to check back to see if a request has been made. They block when it's not required because it's easier for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- We really shouldn't be indefing editors because of their username, unless it's obviously offensive. I know that's kind of what we do already, but we really should just look at their edits, and see if they're WP:HTBAE or not. If they are, drop a note on their talk page, ask them what username they want, instead of mass blocks and biting. OzzyOlly (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Unification of include-info and reject-info principles in the content policies[edit]
There is a suggestion to remove "not taking sides" from the NPOV policy, which is the essential point in its nutshell. The argument is that the terminology could be preventing that we reject fringe theories, etc., because that would be taking sides. Of course, this has never been the meaning of "not taking sides" in the policy. The language and the terminology are the superficial side of this. The concepts are the important side. Therefore, I suggested that before we consider the superficial terminological issue, we do a RfC about a better unification of include-info and reject-info principles in the content policies in general. I am concerned that I will be prevented from doing that RfC, because some would say that it disrupts the discussion. So, I am asking opinions about this here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)