Wikipedia talk:List of policies

Discussions about the 3 new or expanded policy subcats

The ones I know of are at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_69#Wikipedia_administrative_policy and WT:POLICY#Agreed, plus links from those discussions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a quick decision that will reduce the list of legal policy pages from 11 to 7; link is WT:POLICY#Tweak to list of legal policies. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey! It's Four here! You're all weirdos and I don't know why I can edit this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EffinChanos6NM (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

I can't get the shortcut WP:CONPOL to work. Can anyone assist? The previous shortcut (WP:CSP) did not work either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There ya go. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It still does not go to the right section. I can't get the shortcut to work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to work now I changed the shortcut to point to #CONPOL (which was already defined as an anchor). I guess the problem is something to do with the fact that the source HTML already contains a tag with id="content" (in the automatically generated part).--Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Applet

I would like to use an applet to add a bit of interest to the page "Tidal resonance" - see the requests on the discussion page. Most browsers support applets but they are not in the list of supported file types on the wikipedia upload page. Is there a policy of not using them (say because sun owns the java copyright), is it an oversight or am I missing something?

Regards, David Webb (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll get a knowledgeable response at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (WP:VPT), I think. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Use WP prefix to stop hiding redundant redundancy

The "WP:List_of_policies_and_guidelines" needs to be changed to use the "WP:" prefix for each page and stop hiding the true titles of pages in numerous redundant links, over and over, redundantly, again and again. For example, simply list:

• title as "WP:Attack page" not "Attack pages".
• title as "WP:Five pillars" not "Five Pillars".

By removing most renamed link-text, the confidence of the linked titles will be increased and the page will be simplified internally. Although some redirects exist, to handle titles, which are different than page titles, there is just no reason to keep masking the true titles of the pages. The practice of omitting prefix "WP" will obviously be confusing to many new readers, as would any other type of masking of true titles. Instead, lean towards a WYSIWYG presentation, where what appears on the screen is what a user would enter to access a page: most page titles should be shown as a user could enter them for access. The short prefix "WP:" is enough shortening to keep the list from becoming overly expanded by prefixes. Perhaps there has been a feeling that "WP" prefixes should be omitted to remain consistent with highly-masked wikilinks within policy documents; however, a list of pages will be expected to list exact titles of pages, rather than euphemisms or alternate POV-phrases for page-links. Again, the titles will be abbreviated enough just by using auto-expanded prefix "WP:" rather than the full prefix "Wikipedia:" for each page title. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that this is necessary - there are different possible views as to what the "title" of the page is, whether it includes the namespace prefix (and anyway, if it does include the namespace prefix, then we are not being "exact" if we're going to replace it with WP).--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the sentiment: I frequently have to mouseover links, to see if they're linking to mainspace or projectspace – E.g. WP:5P has 5 links to mainspace, and 2 links to other wikis – The idea that describes your concern is Principle of least astonishment.

However, taken to it's logical extreme, it could get very cluttered (in conflict with the KISS principle). I'd be dismayed to see the WP: prefix added to every displayed-link in projectspace; E.g. adding the prefix to every item in {{Policylist}} would not be helpful, imho.

It might be helpful to demonstrate your idea though, in certain cases (such as here). Edit this project page (perhaps in a sandbox, or just self-revert instantly) and link us to the diff of how you envision the ideal format. One option might be to use lowercase wp, because the namespace-software ignores letter-casing (e.g. WiKIPediA:5P, wP:5P), and because "wp:" is less visually intrusive than "WP:", especially in long lists (ie. it helps the capital letter of the actual page title stand-out better: wp:Five pillars).

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Governance and Style Guides too long and complex

Wikipedia editors' bad attitudes and their bots push new contributers away, as does the complexity added by those same editors and bots. This is temporary you are not going to turn me into a permanent editor by berating me as if I know all the complex and long winded guidelines and rules. The Style Guide for Wikipedia is more of a Wikipedia Governance, 100 Book, Encyclopedia for Wikipedia.

1) start with making Governance and Style Guides only editable by Wikipedia Foundation staff.

2) reduce the number of pages.

3) create a basic "getting started guide" for new contributers.

4) All Discussion Entries should be auto signed by the server.

5) throttle down Bot use. Yes, they allow for a lot more to be accomplished. A negative is how they fill history and change logs with lots of bot edits. For example the bot "SineBot" creates lots of history in the change logs, for very little value added.

6) For Bot to operate directly on Wikipedia.org they should need approval from Wikipedia Foundation staff, to reduce overhead created when humans need to fix errors caused by unvetted/untested automated routines. I guarantee I could create and run a bot without wikipedia approval even though there is a limited bot policy Wikipedia:BOTPOL. Or get a bot approved and then change it, without notice. The current bot governance has many flaws.

6.1) Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group is currently not made up of only Wikipedia Foundation staff.

6.2) "Authors of bot processes are encouraged, but not required, to publish the source code of their bot." Wikipedia:BOTPOL Where is the code review?? How do you truly know it will not due harm, or when the code changes and should go though another approval process but does not.

6.3) Read history for Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard there are plenty of problems with currently approved bots and the bots owners.

7) All Bot Edits must have BOTEDIT in the beginning of the comment.

8) All Bot discussion pages need to be continually monitored.

9) Create Wiki Check feature (which happens to be feature a lot of the bots are doing) which checks updates as the user is submitting updates.

10) Create a method for multiple users to vote privately to temporary ban rogue or overbearing senior editors.

Response

Your critiques are common and noted. Part of the issue is that many of your objections have already been handled or determined by the community to be manageable risks.

1) Governance and Style guides have always been constructed by the community to reflect its actual practices. They are also being improved by the community, and believe it or not, have been getting gradually more streamlined.

2) Happening. See WP:WikiProject_Policy_and_Guidelines, or check out the talk page of any major policy.

3) There are tens of guidelines for new users. Some of the best are: WP:5P, WP:The Missing Manual, WP:Introduction, Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines, and there are many others (I've collected a list of a bunch here)

4) SignBot?

5) On the recent changes or watchlist page, select 'hide bot edits'. There's now way to do this I know of on article histories, but you can check over at WP:Tools#history for some ideas.

6) Bots are pretty closely watched many (if not all?) can be turned off by other editors if they are malfunctioning. Them bot folks ain't no dummies either. They keep a pretty close eye on things.

6.1) Some of the smartest editors and coders are not on Wikipedia Foundation's staff (no offense guys!)

6.2) Bot operators are trusted users of the community who have to go through an approval process which shows their Bots work properly. Our systems are not designed to eliminate the risk of harm, merely to encourage people to avoid the dark side, and to keep a close eye on everything, especially if it looks unusual. Not to entertain the idea, but if bots we going to run amok, it seems like they already would have.

6.3) Systems get better. Bots do great work that humans wouldn't want to. What issues do you see that you'd like fixed?

7) Bots are identifiably named with BOT (i.e. SmackBot, SignBot, etc. and only legitimate Bot accounts can do this).

8) Bot discussion pages can be monitored with a simple click of the watchlist star. More importantly, Bot owners are expected to get approval for any significant changes to their code or function. Otherwise, Bot edits show up in page histories for scrutiny like any other edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies&action=submit 9) 'Checks updates as the user is updating them', I'm not sure what this refers to. What data source would you have the update bots query?

10) Admins who overreach are accountable to other admins or to ArbCom. Is there a particular admin you see misusing their tools? You don't have to name them here, but there are already procedures in place to handle those situations. WP:ANI the Admin Incident noticeboard is one place to raise issues. These forums not always as swift or vengeful as community de-adminship, but it has been discussed regularly, and generally dismissed as a bit too much of a hassle relative to the problem, especially for the volunteers who mop-up this place.

These are my personal, and not tremendously experienced opinions, but I think they are generally accurate. Criticisms are good and especially welcome over at the WP:Village Pump. You're best discussing individual ideas with the group that engages most closely with them. Ocaasi (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You just brought light to more complexity. How would a new or temporary contributer or viewer know where to post suggestions, problems, bugs, report vandalism or bias non-neutral pages and editors? Bot discussion pages often have comments on the top of them stating "this is not a person and responses on this discussion page are not read". Look at User talk:SineBot discussion page, he encourages you to contact the developer and not leave comments on the "bot" page; the problem with this is the loss of logs containing to the "Bot" for accountability. My argument against bots is that wiki system can be update to reduce the need for bots to perform after edit fixes; thus also greatly reducing the amount of edits being performed which fill the logs. If the wiki system was updated to add spelling and format checking as well as auto signing discussions, then bot use would be reduced. Also any user can create an account which has "bot" in its name, for testing I just created one; try it yourself. Yes, its not privileged as a bot but it would confuse users reading history of edits.

Great questions. Your easiest bet is the the WP:HELPDESK, where they can field any query (and probably already have). No dumb questions around here though, at least not for new editors ;-). Most specific areas have their own place to ask, typically a noticeboard. For example, vandalism could be corrected, and then you would report the user to WP:AIV which is Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. If you have one of the Counter-Vandalism tools like Huggle, STiki, or Igloo, they let you revert the changes and automatically make a report to AIV. Non neutral pages are under WP:NPOV policy and there's an WP:NPOVN noticeboard for that. Issues with WP:Reliable sources are discussed at WP:RSN noticeboard... There's a full list of noticeboards at Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Problems with specific editors should follow processes for WP:Dispute resolution, typically beginning with a polite notice that something seems unconstructive (or is unconstructive), then another warning or involvement from a third party, then in content disputes, possibly a WP:Mediation or WP:RFC request for comment. If someone's just being a dick, (WP:DICK,a must read), the place to go is WP:ANI, the administrator noticeboard.

On the other points, it's very unlikely that a bot discussion page has not been watchlisted by the bot author. What's s/he is really just saying is, 'don't inconvenience my by posting here, since I'd rather use my own talk page and keep everything in one place'. Your concern about a loss of accountability is not unreasonable, but it is pretty unlikely. Many experienced users have hundreds if not thousands of pages on their watchlists and keep a regular eye on all of the pages in their reach. Log bloat is a bit of a problem, but almost every bot edit is actually an improvement, so the alternative is human tedium. I do think you have a nice suggestion, however, and would personally like to see an option to 'hide bot edits' on Page Histories. The Village Pump/Technical section would be the place to take this. It's probably already been suggested, but mediawiki code is slow on the uptake (despite the great coders, they are tremendously understaffed). I'm glad you're concerned about the bot issue, but do be careful about creating account names--I wouldn't use it, even as a test--however I think you're correct that at least all new usernames which have 'BOT' in them should be screened. In general, you're doing the kind of thinking that benefits a variety of protect-the-wiki projects, particularly, WikiProject:Long term abuse, WikiProject:Spam, and WikiProject:Vandalism. If you get an account you can partake in a variety of pretty nifty monitoring tools which track suspicious edits of just the kind you have described. One of the best tools by far is Lupin's Popups, which lets you see snapshots of pages just by rolling over links. This makes Wikipedia much more efficient. You need an account to use it, however.

So, lots of places to check out. Don't be overwhelmed, I think in 1-2 years you can master a lot of most of it. And any editor can help you. Also, you might want to sign up for an account... There are benefits, particularly regarding the ability to use tools, as well as generally better treatment from other editors. I think you should follow through on the idea to have [hide bot edits] on page histories, and to make sure that all usernames including BOT are screened. Those would make great first projects to figure out how to navigate this place, even if they've already been asked. I highly recommend the links on my talk page, which I put together for just this kind of situation (except I was the asker). Good luck, and let me know if you have any other questions, like how to tweak your preferences or tools once you are up and running. Ocaasi (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no SEARCH feature covering pages listed here?

I just spent about 15 minutes looking for the page that says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. That's a pretty standard and core sub-statement of policy, as I recall. But no dice; not even a custom Google search of WP.org reveals it. This shouldn't be difficult. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase you're looking for is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". It's part of WP:V and has a specific link using WP:REDFLAG.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)