Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : *Coverage of user pages (and user talk pages) and maintenance of articles needed.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • Virginia Heffernan (5 November 2010). "Prize Descriptions". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 September 2011. With authorship disputes, Wikipedia advises, “stay calm, assume good faith and remain civil.” The revolutionary policy outlined on “Wikipedia: Ownership of Articles” — search Wikipedia or Google for it — is stunningly thorough.  (details)

Review[edit]

I've come across a user who appears to have a long term pattern of ownership with several articles, including satellite television, URL shortening, pirate decryption, world wide web, Northern Ireland, and topics related to these articles. I've probably missed some, too. They constantly revert constructive edits without using any WP policies/guidelines to support their reverts. Some of them have resulted in disruptive editing, too, including removal of cited content, because some reason they had a problem with the sources, when they should have found better sources. Some revert claims in the edit summaries and simple claims that sources contain incorrect information suggest they may have a wp:COI with these subjects. I'm considering reporting to WP:AN, but I'd like some feedback before I do. Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"A positive side to ownership"[edit]

Could Pigsonthewing explain why this comment of mine is "not really helpful". Because discussions on my talk page (such as User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 18#Songs from the Black Hole FA) suggest otherwise. I have a seriously held opinion that WP:OWN means you can walk away and attend to family, children, paid work and other activities and get a good balance of things. If it isn't acceptable here, I'll probably create my own essay about it anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to discuss if your opinion should enter this essay, and if, marked how as a opinion? A contradicting essay might also be a good idea, see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sometime when I put things on talk pages nobody answers, so being bold gets a result. An essay sounds like the way to go, if I've got spare time tonight I'll cobble something together. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, an essay would be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
And lo, the essay was started. In the words of Dennis Brown, though it's in my userspace, feel free to add to the stone soup if you can, then it might be a candidate for main essay space. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, WP:OWN isn't an essay; it's a policy. Because it's a policy, people are more protective of it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I am so used to articles being owned by people that I am certainly surprised that it is a policy, because if I understand it right it rather means NOT to own articles. Did you know that I recently came across "Live editing to a featured article is not such a good idea."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Today there is a zillion of essays in wikipedia, so you may want to make it searchable. It may be a good idea to put your essay in categories, check the Category:Wikipedia essays, as well as link from other essays on very close topics. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundant?[edit]

In Section "Actions": An editor puts his or her name into the article as the author.

May be this issue was a matter of conflict in the early days, but today it is simply a newbie's error. Therefore I suggest to remove it or rephrase this item as a style guideline and move it into the lede, e.g., like this:

"No one <....> the owner of a particular page, therefore wikipedia articles are not signed by authors' names.

Optionally a reminder may be added (or wikilinked somewhere) that contribution authorship is stored in the article history. Also may be it makes sense to draw distinction between the concepts of "ownership" and "authorship". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Other actions of ownership[edit]

I think "continuously removing AfD or speedy deletion template tags by page author" should be added as behavior of ownership of articles, as it indicates the article author insists in not deleting the article without explanation. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. Most often this is done by newbies (I cannot imagine an experienced editor removing AfD tags), and we don't accuse newbies of various wikipedia sicknesses. Besides, continuous insisting on something without explanation is called "edit warring". And any kind edit warring is, yes, may come from the ownerhip feeling. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained deletion discussion[edit]

A discussion about a template mentioned in this policy is underway at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained. – S. Rich (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)