Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

Possible restructuring

Some ideas are being floated at WT:Be bold about restructuring pages in this area, including possibly moving some information to this one. Please comment (preferably there, since that's where the discussion already is). --Kotniski (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should move that discussion over to here? One suggestion I've made is for a change to the title of this page, to make it clearer what its scope is intended to be ("Editing policy" could include practically anything). Unfortunately I don't have a good title to suggest - does anyone?--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time a renaming has been suggested... see WT:Editing policy/Archive 2#Policy Title... we couldn't come up with an answer then either. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Try to fix problems: preserve information"

Does this sentence accurately reflect our approach to articles with massive amount of unsourced information? Interested in hearing from not the usual suspects - which is why this will be my only comment here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you think I am a "ususal suspect" or not... but I'll comment anyway. The answer (as is often the case) is "Yes... but". There is a balance that must be struck between WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE. It all comes down to asing: "Do I, in good faith, think the unsourced information is likely to be accurate?" If you do think the information is probably accurate, then work to fix the problem... source what you can, and then tag what you can not with a {{cn}} tag... so that others know what still needs sourcing. If, on the other hand, you question the accuracy of the information... either tag it with a {{fact}} tag or remove it (depending on the material and article in question). Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just had this quoted at me as supposed proof that Wikipedia does not allow editors to flag problems (images with busted FURs, in this instance) if the flagging editor is capable of fixing the problem. I think a re-write might be warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's very good form to, for instance, do at least a minimal search for sources before removing something that is dubious but not implausible. (And if you find those sources, add a quick ref.) That said, you're not obliged to expend effort to improve the encyclopedia.

How much time would fixing the FURs in question have taken?--Father Goose (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good form, yes... required, no. If this is being misquoted then we should clarify. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How to handle a "massive amount of unsourced information" is a good question. Adding a lot of unsourced content and putting the burden on others isn't very fair. It's not such a big issue when it's a more manageable amount of things. However, if the material is not controversial and seems plausible an overall cleanup tag and additional steps to draw editors to the article might be the appropriate tactic. If it's more questionable, maybe move it to the talk page. If it's especially questionable, just deleting it with an explanatory edit summary and adding a new talk page section also explaining along with a WP:DIFF might be a good thing to do. Шизомби (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to fix problems rather than flagging them, but "fix problems if you can" is in the imperative tense, and the section is scattered with "should" and is being understood by some editors as a requirement -- as in, if you can fix the problems, then you must.

Fundamentally, I think this needs to be re-written to change the tone. We want to name alternatives to removal (because this sort of education is important) while still respecting the fact that we're volunteers, which means that no volunteer has the right to demand that some other volunteer provide their sources, fix their FURs, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... in essence you are correct. Although WP:BURDEN does imply the right to demand a source for the return of unsourced material that is removed. Any suggestions on how to word it better? Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nobody has the right to demand that others fix their work... but the other extreme is deleting stuff in place of fixing it. Some people use "tagged for months" as a justification for deleting stuff, when finding sources might be a minute's worth of work. An inadequate FUR leads to deletion of an image... how many minutes to just fix the FUR, if possible? I happen to feel that snap deletions without even the slightest attempt to fix a problem are a form of bad faith that are harmful to the encyclopedia and the community.

Constructive behaviors should be urged. Not compelled -- but certainly urged, and this page is just about the only place that such behaviors are urged. Most other policies outline "content prohibitions", and lately, those policies have become the [slap in the] face of the encyclopedia to most new contributors. If it's a question of a tremendous amount of work to fix a glaring problem, then no one can be expected to do that work, but simple fixes instead of snap deletions is the "best practice" that is really worth emphasizing.

Hopefully we can strike the right balance.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No one needs to fix anything. The purpose of this policy is to convey that a Wiki only works if it is allowed to be imperfect. If we gut this policy then we have turned this from a Wiki into something else entirely, something that I am afraid is already in the process of happening. Sure a few editors will still drop perfect featured articles into mainspace now and then when they want to pass their RfA or something, but that's not the way that 99% of our content gets written. Gigs (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that people look at policies as being equivalent to "The Law"... I know this is not correct, but it is how many editors view them. By emphasizing "best practice" in a policy, we run the risk of people misconstruing it. They view the policy statement as saying: "This is in a policy, so you must do this", instead of the intended "Consider doing this, as this is a really good thing to do". Without all sorts of caveats and explanations, we end up inadvertantly "legislating" best practice to the point where it becomes must practice.

I think we can mention best practice, and even urge it... we must clearly label it as being such. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Preserve information" is not a mere "best practice", it's a fundamental tenet of successful wiki-style collaboration. The whole point of a wiki is to improve on what's here, little by little. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we want to improve our articles... but sometimes the best way to improve them is to remove something... to not preserve it. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Blueboar that the problem is that many people look to policies as being "The Law", and this isnt just a small number of disruptive users, it is a sizable MINORITY of users who are VERY vocal about it, making up for the fact that they are outnumbered. This leads to arguments where policy=law believers dont care about anything not spelled out in policy and "we" lose arguments to them because we voluntarily take out important things that spell out common sensical ideas and uses, like preserve; because we think its common sense and not needed; it IS needed because policy=law believers need to be hit over the head with things in order that they listen to it. Preserve information is, as Gigs states, a fundamental tenet (and one in my world outweighs the "holy" (and wholly useless) 5P that policy/law believers love to quote). How many places and in different wording styles do our policies state "Wikipedia is a work in progress", "Wikipedia doesnt have to be perfect right now", "good faith contributions that arent done per accepted process or style are still valid", and so on that all taken together mean "we arent perfect, but we fix what we can". If the information isnt hurtful, there's no reason not to take time to cite it, fix grammar, whatever instead of just deleting the information; if its deleted then newbies and editors new to the article wont know that there's this piece of information out there that is valid and just needs a citation. Alot of times I've seen info removed because its dubious, I Google it and find a source and I put it back in, takes two seconds. Why cant everyone do that from the beginning? I have yet to see anyone state WHY they should be allowed to remove information without first trying to find a source for it. Being lazy isnt an excuse.Camelbinky (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... I don't think anyone has suggested we "take out" preserve... I certainly haven't. I do think it needs to be reworded to make it clearer that what it is discussing is "best practice" and not a mandate, but I would oppose getting rid of it all together. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am worried that this is often how it starts, watering down the language. As What has stated regarding the current language and the fact we are volunteers "which means that no volunteer has the right to demand that some other volunteer provide their sources, fix their FURs, etc" instead of deleting the non-sourced information; conversely shouldnt it also mean that as volunteers no other volunteer should take away another volunteers contributions based solely on failure to live up to our standards? Tagging I'm fine with, its the actual removing of information I have a problem with. There should be equal burdens on removing and returning information, not lopsided. If someone is too busy to look up a source and just removes it, then what makes them think my time is less important in finding a source for it, just because the original IP or newbie didnt know our way of doing things? So my precious time is used on finding sources for information that already is here instead of finding new information and creating new articles; because we cant agree to combine WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN in a way that makes things equitable to both sides? Meanwhile that other editor moves on to 100 other articles and strips more information out that may get lost for years before someone else finds the info and puts it back in, when instead a source couldve been found right away by the deleter and the info saved. Cant we combine the two relevant sections of policy?Camelbinky (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

...shouldnt it also mean that as volunteers no other volunteer should take away another volunteers contributions based solely on failure to live up to our standards?' Nope... well... sometimes.... it depends on the contribution, what standard it fails and the degree of the failure. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

OK... I have a concrete suggestion that I think will help... Simply swap WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE. I think this would slightly change the emphasis that is placed on PRESERVE without deminishing the substance ... Swapping would mean we first tell editors that removing material is allowed (and in some cases necessary)... but then tell them that doing so is often not the best solution. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer the emphasis the current way: "Fix"..."except when you can't."

As I understand it, the problem being discussed at this moment is that some people are trying to misrepresent the policy. If so, the problem lies with those people, not with the policy. Does the policy itself state anything wrongful? If not, we shouldn't change it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can somehow make it clear in WP:V that a challenge of material must have some good faith basis in policy or guidelines, then I'd be more inclined to change the emphasis in this policy. As long as WP:V is written in a way that implies it can be used as a blunt instrument for removing text for no particular reason other than the lack of citation, then we should not de-emphasize WP:PRESERVE in this policy. Gigs (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation happens with all kinds of rules: my latest AfD had multiple one-line "delete, non-notable" !votes that did not address the fact that they were in conflict with what WP:N actually says. It seems that some people can't navigate our Kafkaesque jungle of rules and regulations. Some people make honest mistakes. Some people jump to conclusions or don't realize they haven't thought things through. Some people take wikilawyering too far. Some people are being dolts. Unfortunately, none of these problems are addressed by a rewrite. :-)

Anyway, my thanks to Blueboar for being polite and constructive. I'll take a look at the pages and get distracted by something shiny halfway through. --Kizor 10:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"...removing text for no particular reason other than the lack of citation"... You see I don't view "lack of citation" as being "no particular reason"... I see it as a very specific reason. More over it is a legitimate reason to remove text. Granted, removing uncited text is not the only option, but sometimes it is the best option... and even in situations where it might not be best option, it is still a valid option. In short, it isn't wrong to remove unsourced text.

We also need to remember that there are a lot of other reasons to remove material besides being unsourced... It might be OR, or give Undue Weight to a particular view. It may duplicative, irrelevant, or redundant content. It may be a copyright violation. It may contain a prohibited or inappropriate external link. These are very valid reasons not to preserve information.

With the stress on PRESERVE, however, we give the impression that it is in some way wrong to remove material that should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give that impression at all. It says what it should say, that editors should attempt to preserve text first and foremost, but sometimes it's best to remove it if it's unsalvageable. What you have the ability to do and what you should do are often two different things. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may not give you that impression... but it certainly gives me that impression.

"...editors should attempt to preserve text first and foremost..." I disagree... yes it is nice if editors attempt to preserve text when warrented, but first and formost editors need to determine whether the text warrents preserving. Preserving text isn't an automatic default. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside... Hope you all have a Happy Christmas... even if you don't celebrate the holiday! Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

• PRESERVE, contrary to comments made above, says nothing about preserving text (words). It is entirely about preserving information, for which most editors should mentally substitute the word facts in most situations. Words do not need to be "preserved" simply because someone typed them, but information (e.g., this event happened on this date, these people were involved, these things were done) should generally not be deleted unless there is some actual (policy-based or common-sense) reason to remove the facts. Wikipedia is (eventually) the sum of human knowledge, not a collection of whatever words individuals wanted to say.
• "Don't actively delete facts (without some good reason, like you think these 'facts' are wrong)" is different from "Not only are you required to keep those badly written sentences, you personally are obligated to clean up the mess in the article." Both WP:NOT and common sense says that volunteers can't be forced to fix other people's mistakes -- but this sentence, in its current form, is being misinterpreted: "It is already policy that you should fix things if you can and flag them if you can't (verbatim from WP:EDIT), they are already under obligation to do so."
  We need to clarify that this section represents a recommendation for what (usually) produces the most overall benefit for the encyclopedia when the information is believed to be valid. PRESERVE is not a requirement that you can use to badger editors into leaving {{dubious}} "facts" in articles, or to stop flagging images with bad FURs, and so forth. (Furthermore, there are occasionally times when a tag is better than simply fixing the problem, since most of them direct editors to the resources they need to learn how to fix it themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these two basic points. But all our policies coexist with all our other polices, and there are many times when they will be need to be balanced against one another. At those times, if someone claims that one policy "trumps" others, without trying to bring other editors around to their reasoning, they're just stonewalling.

It's always good to refine the wording of policy if it's producing confusion, and even more important if it expresses a position that is not essentially a consensual one. But changes to an otherwise sound policy to counteract a specific wikilawyer just ends up being a form of wikilawyering itself.

I still don't see anything in WP:PRESERVE that suggests that fixing is mandatory... just strongly encouraged -- which is as it should be.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you support a few small changes, along these lines?

Preserve information: please consider fixing problems if you can, or flagging them if you can't. Try to preserve accurate, encyclopedic information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should normally be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts.

This doesn't begin to address the primary problem (that a paragraph written about the need for copyediting is being misused in other contexts), or even the secondary problem (that a good deal of copyediting needs to be done in this paragraph), but at least it takes a baby step in the right direction.

If it were entirely up to me, I'd See also: WP:HANDLE (yes, the very next section) and re-draft it to something like this:

Preserve encyclopedic information: Some knowledgeable editors are not adept at writing or formatting. Avoid removing accurate, encyclopedic facts and concepts solely because they are poorly presented, are ungrammatically expressed, or are improperly formatted. Instead, if the facts or ideas would belong in a "finished" article, please improve the writing style, repair the formatting, or tag the problem for the attention of other editors. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts.

The bit about moving information to the talk page would be added as another option to the "what to do" list. However, while having a paragraph with neither any run-on sentences nor any comma splices is appealing to me, I'll settle for just adding the underlined words in the first blockquote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So I better understand what you're proposing, can you edit and revert the policy, so I can see a diff?--Father Goose (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support a small change to the section lede: "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." (emphasis on added words). I don't like the changes proposed by WhatamIdoing, words like "please consider" gut the policy. Attempting to preserve information is a requirement, but removal is an option. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that attempting to preserve information is a requirement.... certainly we are not required to preserve information we know to be inaccurate or outdated. There are clearly times when not preserving the information is the right path to take. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Being required to attempt preservation is different from being required to preserve. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No... if I know something is inaccurate or outdated, I am not and should not be required attempt preservation. I should remove it or (if warrented) replace it with accurate modern information. The problem with saying something is required is that requirements are thought of in "always/never" terms ... but the question of whether to preserve or remove information is more of a "sometimes/sometimes not" determination. Yes, sometimes the best thing to do is to try to preserve the information (if I think it is correct or likely to be correct)... but at other times trying to preserve the information is not the best thing to do. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 5 19:59, 5 January 2010 January 2010 (UTC)

No one here is saying that, except you. Your constant straw men are tiring. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Does this help clarify things? Gigs (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my concerns are at all "strawman" arguments... I think they go to the very heart of why WP:PRESERVE is in conflict with so many other policies. For another example... it conflicts with WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE we don't preserve information if it gives Undue Weight to a fringe viewpoint. In fact, removal does not even have to be Policy based... an editor may simply feel that the information is irrelevant to the article's topic. The simple fact is, there are a lot of situations where we don't try to preserve information, and are not required to even try. Yes, there are also situations where we should try... but none where we are required to try. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"...editors should attempt to preserve text first and foremost...", absolutely not. Editors should try to improve the article first and foremost. If the text seems to improve the article, keep it. If it does not, remove it. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saying "preserve text" is imprecise. What's implied here in my discussion is preservation of factual content. For the record, I'm OK with all of your (Tim's) recent edits as of the 19:59, 5 January 2010 version. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, this policy isn't in conflict with any other policy. What is in conflict with the other policies is indeed the strawman I'm talking about: the idea that you continue to put forth that this policy somehow restrains people from improving articles by removing bogus and unsalvageable parts. That is not what it says, and if anyone is reading it that way then they should be trouted, and if you point me to them I'll go trout them personally, because they are failing at reading comprehension. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've come across people misusing this policy, see here for one editor who seems to wave the WP:PRESERVE link around as if it were a magic wand. However, as you say, you can only write text that will be understood by 99.9% of the people who read it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the policy text has changed greatly since January 2009, and the particular language quoted in that case no longer exists (and was probably too absolute sounding back then anyway). Gigs (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

well-meaning mistakes identify text that can be misread

"Even well-meaning mistakes identify text that can be misread/misunderstood" is an excellent point worth some prominence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think being able to infer what the "mistake" was intending is a rare skill, so I'm not sure it's useful to advise people to do it. Separately, it's very awkwardly worded in its present form, and I can't figure out what the mistake was intending how to broaden it into a principle that would resonate with most editors.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One case is where somebody "clarifies" the text to clearly state a meaning you did not intend with the original. This shows you that the original text was ambiguous. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but not that often. Isn't there a more general way we can state this? Maybe "Even well-meaning but poor edits can draw attention to an area of an article that needs improvement"? Though I still wouldn't put that text in the lede -- somewhere in PRESERVE, perhaps.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can think of a better way and better place to say this, then by all means please do so. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still neutral on it, so you'd have to be the one to suggest what should be added where.--Father Goose (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Kendrick7 has made some substantial change over the last few days (difs here). Some of these changes may be fine, but since WP:PRESERVE has has recently generated a lot of heated debate and discussion, we should at least ensure that there is consensus for them. That said... some of the changes are definitely not fine. I particularly object to merging WP:HANDLE into WP:PRESERVE... the two sections counter-ballance each other and should be seperated. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this heated debate and discussion. I prefer Kendrick's version. When I provide a shortcut to WP:PRESERVE I expect it to emphasise the importance of retaining information for future work, not stating the opposite of this long-standing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look on this talk page and in the archives. Also look at recent discussions at WT:V. I definitely do not prefer Kendrick's version (although I do not object to all of his wording tweeks). When I provide a shortcut to WP:HANDLE, I expect it to emphasis the importance of adhearing to long standing core policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV ... and I expect it to point out the fact that (in accordance with these policies) sometimes information can and should be removed (ie not be preserved). Both WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE are needed for this policy to be complete and accurate. They ballance each other. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• When people want to refer to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, they refer to them directly; they do not use the strangely-named WP:HANDLE which is redundant to those policies and so is not needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to toss this to an RFC... and I request that you leave WP:HANDLE (as is) in the policy until this RFC has had some time to run (so that any editors wishing to comment can see both sections and comment appropriately.) Please do not remove it again. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the version which you prefer is unacceptable as it seems to subvert the long-standing sense of WP:PRESERVE. Kendrick has sensibly restored this and, as I support him, you seem to be at a 2:1 disadvantage. We shall see what the RfC brings us in the way of further opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. WP:Handle has (under several names) been part of this "long standing policy" for over a year! It was first placed into its own section with this edit made last April. It has been fully discussed several times since then, has been cited in page discussions on WT:V and other policy pages. To remove it you will need to demonstrate a clear consensus that it no longer has the support of the community. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Boldly reverting to Jan 15 edits

I just reverted back to Jan 15, this is a policy after all, and needs some consistency. lets try to make a community decision on this first, then we can change it. I hate seeing any page protected. Ikip 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why not revert to last May[1] before the changes we are discussing? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL how about to 06:53, 18 October 2001? when the page began. Not to make light of your question :) I just thought that was a good place to stop, Fram had just reverted a anon, and at a glance (I maybe 100% wrong) it seemed stable. Anyone is welcome to revert me to any date they want, but lets talk this through please? The edit history is not going anywhere. Ikip 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC should this policy include both WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE

We seem to be in an edit war over WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE. So to resovle this: Should this policy a) stress WP:PRESERVE, b) stress WP:HANDLE or c) stess both sub-sections equally?

If the last... should the two sections be merged or should they be left as seperate sections?

• I feel that both sections are equally important and need to be given equal stress. You can not tell people to preserve information without also explaining when not to do so. They should be left as seperate sections to highlight this. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• WP:HANDLE is redundant and should be removed. The good point of WP:PRESERVE is that we should not be careless with contributions as, even if they are not yet perfect, they may usually be put to some good use by editing, merger, incubation or whatever. We need no special advice here on deletion which is covered extensively elsewhere and has no shortage of uptake. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge of these redundent sections. While Blueboar is correct in that the information in both sections needs to be stressed so as to encourage editors to actually try to fix problems before arbitrarily deciding not to do so, there is no need for this instruction to to be repeated twice. In that regard, Colonel Warden is correct in that the two sections both offer the same advice toward seeking soulutions to perceived problems. Tieing these redundent together is sensible clarification of policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge of these redundent sections. Per Michael and Colonel. Thanks. Ikip 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Blueboar. The changes put too much emphasis on preserving material. Sometimes it's important to get rid of it. It's important to explain when preserving seems sensible and when it doesn't, in separate sections. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• It seems to make far more sense to have both sections on the same page, as they refer to different sides of the same coin. (And where did the shortcut WP:HANDLE come from - can't we use something a bit less opaque?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski... are you saying you think they should be seperate sections on the same page (as existed before the recent edits that are the subject of this RFC) or merged together as was done in Kendrick's recent edits (as seen [2]).

The shortcut name came from the title of the section when it was seperate ... "Handling problematic material". I agree it was not the best name for the shortcut and have no objection to changing it. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I hadn't properly understood the question. I don't have any strong opinion on whether there should be two sections. Preserving information should probably be the principle that we stress (though the exceptions should be stated clearly too).--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Preserve is all that matters The reason this policy exists is WP:PRESERVE. There are other policies that talk about the removal of information in far more detail. The policy on policies states that "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders". Since WP:HANDLE is largely a reminder and list of other policies that allow the removal of content, it should not be emphasized. All that said, I don't feel too strongly about the current edit war... I don't think either version changes the meaning or spirit of this policy in any serious way. Lets just not forget the reason this policy exists. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And that is the underlying problem here... The underlying concept of WP:PRESERVE was flawed from the biginning because there are multiple situations when it is better not to preserve information. WP:HANDLE was added in an attempt to resolve this flaw. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of our oldest policies; I wouldn't call the overarching idea flawed. For example, there are plenty of POV warriors who think it's ok to "improve" an article by deleting content with which they happen to disagree. While they can attempt to wiki-lawyer over the exceptions, this policy is the sole bulkhead against their attempts to torpedo WP:ENC. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support We clearly need balance and clarity. It's no good talking about what should be preserved and what should be removed on different pages, it is vital that both aspects of editing be on the same page, whether or not more detail is elsewhere. I think that separate sections is much clearer than merging them. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support restoration to one section (The splitting of these is fairly recent, imo.) These are just two sides of the same coin. We should preserve content; but not every jot of text is content. Nonsense isn't content. Un-sourced libel is verboten per WP:BLP. Just on an informational basis -- linking a n00b to WP:HANDLE as things stood for a while might really confuse them, because it would be hard for them to get the full picture of our commitment to preserving content unless they happened to scroll up. Thus I don't see the wisdom of completely divorcing WP:PRESERVE and its exceptions. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is 10 months ago: "recent"? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. Frankly, I don't see a problem with either version. However, if people want the direct link to WP:HANDLE, I've created a variation on Kendrick's merge that presents the two sides of the coin more clearly (while still containing them both in the same section): [3].--Father Goose (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• That looks OK to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Two comments on Kendrick's variation... 1) it lacks a clear statement that sometimes you shouldn't preserve material. I really think we need the opening line of WP:HANDLE in the text:

• "Though some problems can be fixed without removal, in other cases you may need to remove problematic material. For example, material that contradicts our core content policies of verifiability and no original research, or gives undue weight to a particular view may be removed."

2) If we do present both of these concepts in the same section, we need to edit the section title so it balances the two concepts (so it does not give more weight to the concept of Preservation over the concept of Removal. Perhaps just the unadorned: Fixing problems?) Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, as someone said, that giving weight to the concept of Preservation is the whole point of this page. We have lots of other policies that imply that certain things need to be removed; surely we can afford one that stresses the very basic concept that we generally prefer to keep stuff rather than throw it out?--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not if doing so ignores or conflicts with what is stated at all those other policies. The entire point of WP:HANDLE is to resolve that conflict. The simple fact is, when it comes to material that violates one of our core policies, we don't "prefer to keep stuff rather than throw it out"... as those policies note, we actually prefer that it be removed. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite - we actually prefer that it be kept but brought into line with those policies (sources found, language made neutral, different viewpoints added, etc.) Of course there are cases where that's impossible and where removal is the right answer, but the point of all this is that removal should tend to be a last resort rather than a first.--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and No... what we really prefer that it be brought into line with those policies... period. Sometimes we can do in a way that preserves the information, sometimes we can't... and sometimes we shouldn't. It really depends on the specifics of the material in question. To give a few examples of when you shouldn't preserve... 1) if an editor is certain that a bit of unsourced information is inaccurate, then removal is appropriate (Yes, there is the possibility that the editor could be wrong, and the information actually correct, but the burden for demonstrating that this is the case by providing a source falls to those who wish the information to remain in the article, and not on the editor who removes it.) 2) Some times mentioning something at all gives it Undue Weight, in which case it can and should be removed, period. 3) If the material constitues Original research, then removal is appropriate right from the start.

I do understand the point of WP:PRESERVE... but the statement to preserve is incomplete... what we should be telling people is: "Try to preserve information that does not violate a Wikipedia policy." Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But even that's an incomplete statement, as lots of information that violates a policy can still be preserved through modifying, not removing. I agree that we don't want editors quoting "preserve" as though that could simply slap away all other policy concerns. But WP:PRESERVE doesn't need to be balanced against WP:REMOVE, it just needs to be phrased in a way that does not imply "preserve no matter what". Honestly, I think it already manages that.--Father Goose (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, Blueboar, make changes to the proposed variation that would help to satisfy your concerns. Maybe we can BRD our way out of this disagreement.--Father Goose (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will think about it... but my problem is that I actually think the version as it currently is (ie with two seperate sections) is best. The current WP:PRESERVE, makes the case for when to preserve information very well... and the current WP:HANDLE explains when not to preserve very well. I don't mean to be obstructionist, but that is where I would start. Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still pointlessly duplicative. BLP is mentioned twice, for example, so I'd still rather see this streamlined. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not against streamlining... I would be against streamlining in a way that upsets the ballance between the two concepts. Blueboar (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I only see one concept here. Sort of like the old Simpson's line from Reverend Lovejoy: short answer "yes" with an if, long answer "no", with a but. Should we preserve information? For years, the answer has been: Yes, if it isn't A, B, or C. Splitting the sections starts us down the road of: No, but don't just vandalize to your heart's content (pun intended?). I just don't like where this split is taking us. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And that is the problem... you do only see one concept, when you need to see two... The two concepts are Preservation of information and Handling problematic material. They must work in balance with each other. Should we remove problematic material? For years the answer on our other policy pages has been: Yes, if it is A, B or C, and perhaps when it is D, or E (whether to do so depends on the situation)... and occasionally even when it is F and G. You can't discuss Preservation without discussing situations when it might be best not to preserve. Both are needed. I am very flexible on how we describe this balance, but I insist on maintaining the balance. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

regardless of all the rules the decisions made are not going to be much better than the knowledge of the subject by the admins .Wdl1961 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins are just janitors, Wd, try to keep that in mind. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Blueboar. First off, "handling" seems to be an attempt at a euphemism for "removing", and I don't like euphemisms in our policies to begin with. Given that, our other policies have never encouraged immediately removing material from the encyclopedia except for WP:BLP violations, but that's the only exception that I'm aware of. WP:V and WP:NOR say (last I checked) that we can eventually remove material that can't be substantiated by a WP:RS -- there's a whole system of tags which support that slow and deliberate process. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I take that back -- WP:VAND would be the other policy which permits removing nonsense, etc. I still don't see a need to carve out anything more here than the exceptions which have long already been a part of WP:PRESERVE. (Arguably, WP:BLP violations are merely a special type of WP:VAND, so it's really the same issue.) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget material that is clearly POV or gives WP:Undue weight to a particular viewpoint. The point is, multiple policies and guidelines tell us that there are times when you should not preserve problematic material... you can not stress preservation without taking these other policy and guideline statements into account. There has to be a balance. I am very flexible on how we achieve this balance... as long as we do achieve it. Blueboar (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view." And, no, we don't need to summarize every other policy in this policy. Our policy on policies specifically discourages it. This policy is about preservation and improvement of imperfect material. That's its only reason for existing. We don't summarize this policy in other policies, and we shouldn't summarize every other policy in this policy just because you disagree with it and want to weaken its message. Gigs (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gigs. As for NPOV, Blueboar, let me track down the guy who created the WP:YESPOV shortcut.[4] (Comes back in wearing a fake mustache and a sombrero) ¡Hola amigos, I am Kendrico-Siete! Am a here to address the vaquero known as Azul-Cerdo: I do not t'ink NPOV sez what you t'ink eet sez. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (with sincere apologies to the third episode of I Love Lucy, Speedy Gonzales fans, Conando fans, and politically-correct Mexicans everywhere.)

From WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. The point is, sometimes it is the correct thing to do to remove material for POV reasons. Yes there often other options... but that does not negate the point. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is really just that that language needs work, imo. What should matter is whether a POV is independently notable, not an ambiguous head count of how many living people (??) actually hold that view, and if so there's plenty of room to have an article. I've stubbed out enough articles on various medieval heresies (e.g. here and here) to know the current language is flawed. You'd probably have to delete half the history of religion article the way WP:UNDUE is current written! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but I don't want to leave my little heresy stubs, which were difficult to barely source to begin with, out on a raft in the sea. There are bigger fish which have a slim minority of living adherents: Branch Davidianism, perhaps Zoroastrianism, even the Whig Party all wouldn't "belong in Wikipedia" per the current wording of this policy, since they describe merely "a viewpoint [that] is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." When was the last time you met a member of the Whigs? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Duplicated or redundant content"

After splitting out "irrelevance" into a paragraph of its own, we were left with the above bullet point in WP:HANDLE. Even if we remove its redundancy (hah), I think it's still important to explain that a) the lead can duplicate content in the rest of the article (it's meant to be a summary of the most important points), and b) various amounts of redundancy between articles is also permissible, and even necessary.

Rather than explain all that, which would expand a short bullet into a paragraph, I decided to just remove it. I have to hope that no one's going to seriously edit-war over including the same info twice in a single article. I'd rather just call this one a no-brainer and leave it out of a list that's not meant to be comprehensive anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't edit war... but I might revert after some discussion. I do have a problem not mentioning dealing with redundant or irrelevant material at all. Removing irrelevant material is simply good editing. I agree that redundancy is perhaps too complex a topic for a bullet pointed list, but there are times when redundant material should be removed.

That said... I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. If a concept is too complext to discuss in a bullet pointed list, I would suggest it is better to abandon the list format rather than to abandon discussion of the concept. It seems "bass-akwards". Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I have reworked WP:HANDLE to do away with the bullet point format. This will allow us to expand on things if needed.

I don't know about the suggestion to move material from article to article. Cut and paste merging of text is tricky to do in a way that preserves attribution. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either Father Goose or I are talking about simple cut and paste merging of text. I think we are both talking about a more thoughtful and appropriate set of edits. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's sufficient attribution to mention what article the information is being imported from in your edit summary. If the original article gets deleted, that breaks the chain of attribution, but the tension between attribution and deletion is an unresolved question on Wikipedia in general. The consequences of it seem to be almost nonexistent anyway -- who's going to sue Wikipedia for containing information in one of its articles that was typed into a different Wikipedia article, for which the contribution history is no longer visible?

Removing the bulleted list works for me; I've touched up your changes a bit.--Father Goose (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with your "touches". Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On attribution, the concern isn't so much that someone could sue WMF, but rather preserving the ability for people to reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL and comply with those licenses. Our free content mission is sabotaged if it's impossible to comply with our free licenses because we broke attribution requirements all over the place. You are right, the primary risk is if the source history gets deleted through article deletion, which probably becomes more likely if someone just gutted the article to move parts of it elsewhere. :) Gigs (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Must be removed vs may (and sometimes should)

I'm OK with all the recent changes, except this one. Specifically, material should never be removed simply because it has WP:NPOV problems ("material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is POV"), should only sometimes be removed because of WP:V problems (contentious, or negative unsourced BLP claims), and WP:UNDUE issues might be better addressed though addition rather than deletion, though sometimes deletion is appropriate there as well. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I added the language "if it cannot be otherwise fixed". "May (and sometimes should)", on the other hand, is very confused language. If it's really unverifiable, or just flat-out badmouthing of the subject, there's nothing to fix. In those cases, it's not "may", or "should", it's "must". We should clarify what it is we mean to say here instead of using ambivalent language.--Father Goose (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Our policies describe best practices, they don't dictate that people "must" do anything. Even our most extremely prescriptive policy over at WP:BLP only says that people "should" remove contentious unsourced BLP information. You may see it as ambivalent, but it will be read as a very prescriptive mandate if we make it say "must". Gigs (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Should", then, but not "may or should" -- that's the particular ambivalence I'm speaking of.--Father Goose (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Should" isn't really accurate in that particular sentence, because it mentions WP:UNDUE, which is part of NPOV, and NPOV says specifically not to remove material on its behalf. Maybe if we added a qualifier earlier like "blatantly contradicts core policies". Gigs (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I think we are facing here is that we are trying to apply firm "rules" for something that doesn't have firm "rules" (and to my mind, shouldn't have firm "rules"). The determination of removal vs non-removal is very dependant on the individual situtation. Sometimes problematic material should be removed... and sometimes problematic material shouldn't be removed. Whether statement X should be removed or not depends on the nature of statement X, the nature of the article/section in which statement X appears, how serious the policy violation is deemed to be, whether the editor who comes across statement X thinks he can fix the problem by editing or not, and a host of other questions. There isn't really a clear line where we can say: "remove this... don't remove that." We need to find language that gives flexibility to our editors on this... allowing them to deal with problematic material as the specific situation calls for and they think best. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)