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)

A needless footnote[edit]

It struck me, reading this page, that it made no sense at all to have a definition of what is actually covered by the policy taken outside the text and put into a footnote, instead of being right there in the text. Inexplicably, though, it seems that people prefer to have vital information in a format that means fewer people will see it. Why is this? (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No response to my question, just continuing reverts without anyone bothering to attempt any explanation. Why is that? (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How spectacularly rude that people ignore my questions and prefer to just talk amongst themselves about my edit. (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"Spectacularly rude..." Now THAT is funny. "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." You wish to make a change to this page. The burden is on you to establish a consensus for the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, fucking hilarious. So, to clarify what you're saying - I made a change to the formatting of a sentence and therefore it's ok for people to ignore me while talking about that change amongst themselves? (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
If you would like to make a change to this page, you need to find a consensus to make that change. Instead, you went ahead and made the change. It was reverted. (It would have been a bit better if the reverting editor had explained why, but we do get a lot of drive-bys from IPs.) Having failed to seek consensus, you now missed a second chance to discuss the reverted change, which would have put things back on track toward finding a consensus for or against the change. Instead, you reverted to your preferred version with a non-reason reason. This was reverted with the edit summary "Don't change policies without consensus" (as the page header explains). You reverted this with a condescending edit summary making it clear that you didn't particularly care why you were reverted. You were reverted for insisting that your change without consensus is "right". You were reverted again, with a suggestion that your insisting on changing without the required consensus was a WP:OWN issue. You reverted this (still no consensus...) stating "reverting without giving a reason is tantamount to vandalism - don't do it again" (most of the edit summaries gave reasons). You cannot ask a question, forge ahead without waiting for an answer and demand to know why no one is talking with you.
If you return from your new block and still wish to pursue this issue, you will want to build a consensus BEFORE you make the change again. A helpful hint: A battleground mentality will not help. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnote in lead[edit] wants to change the first sentence (diff) from the first of the following to the second (this uses em dashes rather than the IP's double hyphens):

All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively.
All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and others—is edited collaboratively.

I'm thinking the edit is useful—why use a somewhat pompous footnote when the alternative is short?

  1. ^ Wikipedia content includes articles, categories, templates, and others.

Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP's edit doesn't change the meaning and is stylistically preferable. See no valid reason for reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This page is an "internal document" intended for Wikipedia editors, simplicity is not only preferred, but usually appreciated. Let the "dashes" remain. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 04:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


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#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)