Talk:Wikipedia

Other notices

States

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#States

Hidden text for BRD discussion December 2011

I have just hidden this as it appears to be a little POV? The preceding text is discussing the history of the encyclopaedia and this paragraph deals with the number of articles and article creations peak in 2006/7:

"New or occasional editors have significantly higher rates of their edits reverted (removed) than an elite group of regular editors, colloquially known as the "cabal". This could make it more difficult for the project to recruit and retain new contributors over the long term, resulting in stagnation in article creation"

I have a couple of issues with it:

• It appears POV
• New or occasional editors will always have a higher rate of deletions; something which is not mentioned here - this is because problematic editors, vandals and repeat advertising spammers cannot establish accounts which last more than a week or two. There is also the missing mention of the issue that experienced editors, especially on particular topics or pages, often have more idea of what has already been removed or counted as below notability and can quickly remove offending items/topics again.
• the cabal does not exist, or at least it would need some seriously good refs, or proof should be given for it's existence.
• This sounds more like a bad piece of POV written by some disgruntled ex-wikipedian who only hangs around now to stick the spear in the imaginary cabals head before mounting it and waving their St George's Cross flag about.

The second sentence is equally OR and POVish - claiming that this elite group of editors could result in 0 article creation due to walling in. Unfortunately this is OR and both sentences appear to be unrefd - I have hidden them until discussion here is completed.

I suggest leaving them both out. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Slight Issue.

According to Alexa, wikipedia is the world 6th most visited website. source: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

please update the many letters/this article, which claim otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.236.47 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-consensus conduct (study on arbitration committee)

The paragraph on the arbitration committee says the following about its remedies:

When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or violating editing policies, warnings tend to be issued.

The study about the arbitration committee defines the anti-consensus category this way:

Anti-consensus: Achieving consensus is an important organizing principal in the Wikipedia community. It is about “how editors work with others” and is the “fundamental model for editorial decision-making” on Wikipedia. 154 Wikipedians undermine the goal of consensus when they engage in “editwars” and “revertwars,” which involve continually editing articles rather than listening to others’ suggestions. For example, Wikipedians are expressly prohibited from violating the three-revert rule (3RR), which generally forbids “more than three revert actions . . . on any one page within a 24 hour period . . . . [A] revert is any action . . . that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.”155 administrators, too, can violate the policy by engaging in “wheelwars,” which occur “when an administrator’s action is reversed by another admin[istrator], but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action.” 156 Our analysis identified anti-consensus behavior in 125 cases (47% of the sample).

Why should "editwars" and "revertwars" be considered as anti-consensual? I would be interested to know exactly which disruptive ways this category includes, but the study doesn't specify. The study mentions in footnotes on page 177 that " The case sample is available with the authors. ". --Chealer (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of editions in Lead and Infobox

The opening paragraph of the Lead section says, "As of January 2012, there are editions of Wikipedia in 283 languages", but the Infobox says there are 282 in total. Can someone investigate and fix this? Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Formal organization

Currently there's a hat note "For Wikipedia's formal organizational structure, see Wikipedia:Formal organization." ..Why? It's an essay (and should be tagged as such). It's already linked through Wikipedia:About which should be sufficient. Why is an essay being given such prominence in the encyclopaedia article, without consensus? Яehevkor ✉ 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New York Times resource

Wikipedia to Go Dark on Wednesday to Protest Bills on Web Piracy by Jenna Wortham January 16, 2012, 5:00 pm; "The wave of online protests against the Congressional efforts to curtail copyright violations on the Internet is gathering momentum. Wikipedia is the latest Web site to decide to shut on Wednesday in protest against the two Congressional bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and the Protect IP Act, or PIPA. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia.org. 99.181.142.231 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiblackout

Hi, I think this article should include the prospective blackout of the english version occurring this wednesday (19-Jan-2012). As far as I can remember, this would be the first time the english page is going down, regardless of the reason. I think its pretty important for the wikipedia with the most articles out there. Cheers. Danielfc.mx (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that they are going against their longstanding point of view of neutrality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.141.133 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated)

The presentation Wikipedia:Formal organization has undergone extensive review and editing. It appears to contain useful information for readers and contributors that would be more likely to be found if placed in Wikipedia than in its present form as a project page.

Please evaluate whether it is now suitable for inclusion in the article Wikipedia as a subsection, or what changes might bring it into that form. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment:
• Oppose. Oppose due to lack of secondary sources as I have mentioned in the past. If these sources do no exist, it simply should not be placed into the main name space and should remain as an essay in the Wikipedia space. Яehevkor ✉ 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comments on its talk page it's fine where it is as an essay. It's not reliably sourced, instead is sourced almost entirely from Wikipedia itself, which is among the sources that are usually not reliable. Apart from that it has style issues, (many inline external links), is unencyclopaedically written, has a number of POV issues and would be imbalanced if added here. A lot of that stems though from the lack of proper sourcing: if it only included what reliable sources write about Wikipedia it would be much more suitable for inclusion in an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rehevkor & Blackburne: Your opposition is based upon next to no use of secondary sources. That position seems not to pay any attention to the article preamble that points out that what is reported is what WP says about itself, and also the limitation of this material to reporting only the formal administrative structure without commentary upon its efficacy or suitability for its purpose. In other words, there is no "point of view" or commentary or evaluation presented that might require a secondary source to achieve objectivity. As noted in the introduction, WP allows itself to be used as a source under these circumstances.

Can you address these points that do not support your stance? Brews ohare (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V does not say that Wikipedia is a reliable source. It only says it can be used as a primary source. Reliable sources are still needed for an article. As for POV that arises when an editor does not use secondary sources but instead assembles an article from primary sources or other non-reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy you link, WP:V, lists five circumstances to be satisfied in order that a "questionable source" be used as a source of information about itself. Every one of these five conditions is satisfied by Wikipedia:Formal organization. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You also can refer to this policy statement: Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself. If attention is paid to WP policy on primary sources in this regard, it says very sensibly that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. "

Can you point out anything in Wikipedia:Formal organization that constitutes a misuse to advance "interpretive claims" or "novel interpretations"? Frankly, I find your use of the primary source limitations to be a superficial invocation of a policy in a manner contravening its stated purpose, and without any actual instance where the policy has been violated in the sense the policy itself describes as a violation.

If you can identify any specific objectionable statements in Wikipedia:Formal organization, they will be removed or rephrased. Brews ohare (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Failing the presentation of any specific instance of a statement violating the conditions put forth in WP policies, I'd say the objections of both of you, Rehevkor & Blackburne, have no basis. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You have my reply above. It needs sourcing in reliable sources. Please identify the reliable sources it is based on. See e.g. WP:OR: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackburne: It doesn't constitute a "reply" to reiterate claims with no attempt to meet objections. In particular, there is no example statement provided that violates any of the policies you incorrectly claim to limit movement of Wikipedia:Formal organization to become part of the article Wikipedia. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide an example of correct application of policy. The leading sentence following the Introduction in Wikipedia:Formal organization says

The contributors or editors of Wikipedia participate subject to a number of policies and guidelines governing behavior and content.

Now, as you quote WP:OR "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Obviously the link provided in Wikipedia:Formal organization is to WP, not a "reliable" source. So this statement, according to you, is in violation of the policy WP:OR.

To counter this view, WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source..."

Clearly the provided sentence from Wikipedia:Formal organization does not attempt any "novel interpretation", "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". Consequently, there is no violation of WP:OR. Likewise, you have claimed earlier a violation of WP:V. Here again, this policy states:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Evidently the provided sentence from Wikipedia:Formal organization satisfies all these conditions that permit the use of WP as a source of information, with the exception of the last one. Its applicability could be discussed further by looking into this policy in more detail.

Your reduction of very extensive policies, like WP:OR and WP:V that occupy pages on WP, to sound bites that ignore all nuance about their application, is not proper use.

If you have identified some statements in Wikipedia:Formal organization that are objectionable when the entire policy description is entertained, please present them here for correction. And please avoid the sound-bite approach to policy application. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. High quality and relevant information, adequately and abundantly sourced with reliable primary sources where no secondary sources are available, in full compliance with wp:CIRCULAR: "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself."

  Note. If the quoted policy statement is not applicable, then it should be unambiguously rephrased or even removed from the wp:V policy. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not bothered by citing Wikipedia itself that much, but it bothers me that it's rather long. It only covers the EN Wikipedia, while this is supposed to be the article about the whole project. The English Wikipedia subsection is already unique - this would make it even longer. It's fine as a standalone, but I think unless radically shortened it would be undue weight in this article. --GRuban (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GRuban: The question of how much space should be devoted to any chosen topic in the article Wikipedia is worthy of discussion. It could be argued that the material in Wikipedia:Formal organization is of greater importance to the article Wikipedia than, for instance, the extensive section Rules and laws, which also is devoted mainly to the English WP, and which could easily be split off as a separate project page. As a general observation, the content of Wikipedia appears to be a result of accretion and not of editorial planning. Do you agree? Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. (1) I agree with GRuban that adding the section to this article would create undue weight problems. (2) The article is already very long. It has a readable prose size of 56K, while WP:Article Size says that articles above 50K may need to be split. (3) The section is based on primary sources, while WP:PRIMARY says, "Do not base ... material entirely on primary sources" -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

JTSchreiber: GRuban has brought up the length issue, which has nothing to do with the policy undue weight, which discusses whether one side of a subject has been overemphasized compared to alternative views, a topic hardly relevant here. The length question has merit, though it could be argued that there are many other topics in the article Wikipedia that are better candidates go elsewhere or be summarized to shorten the article.

The WP:PRIMARY argument does not have merit. It has been thoroughly disposed of above in the reply to Blackburne. To summarize, WP:PRIMARY is a very extensive policy, and contains exceptions that apply here, and that are not addressed by a sound-bite summary of this policy. Brews ohare (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the WP:PRIMARY argument has not been 'disposed' of. It is part of WP:NOR, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, and cannot simply be ignored when inconvenient. There is no exception for Wikipedia; it is a primary source which cannot be used as the main source for material.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

John Blackburne: Once again, you have refused to reply to the obvious points raised above in response to your earlier identical unsupported assertion that WP:Primary rejects the proposed transfer of WP:Formal organization to the article Wikipedia. Your assertion is based upon summarizing WP:Primary in a sound bite, and failing to address the detailed exceptions that apply to this case. Although iteration of fallacies can sell toothpaste, it shouldn't work here. Brews ohare (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Brews ohare, you made two incorrect statements in your discussion of undue weight. First you wrote that "GRuban has brought up the length issue, which has nothing to do with the policy undue weight". No, GRuban brought up undue weight. Look at the last sentence of GRuban's posting: "I think unless radically shortened it would be undue weight in this article." Second, you wrote that undue weight "discusses whether one side of a subject has been overemphasized compared to alternative views". You implied that this is all that undue weight includes, but actually it is broader than that. Here is what the policy states:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

This is the type of undue weight which GRuban refered to.

On the subject of WP:PRIMARY, my response was not a sound bite argument. I pointed out a sentence in WP:PRIMARY which was was missing from your somewhat thorough response to Blackburne above. The sentence I quoted is a key principle for this debate and must not be ignored. It is not overridden by the sentence about avoiding interpretation of primary sources. To comply with the policy, material must not interpret primary sources and material must not be based entirely on primary sources. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)