Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194

Nuvola flags

These nuvole flags are gaining increased usage on wiki, This is quite worring for me as they are more decorative than standard flags. At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Nuvola_flags,i am proposing to strongly limit the usage of these flags, please comment if your interested .

Set edit:autoconfirmed for entire Template namespace

Given the recent spate of IP vandalism to templates which don't qualify for protection as "high-risk" yet still affect high-profile pages, I propose semi-protecting the entire template namespace. It has no real downside - the very few constructive IP edits to templates can be done via {{editprotected}} - and will stop most of this inane template vandalism.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion, at which this idea was rejected. Algebraist 11:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Algebraist means Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 31#Proposal: Semiprotect the entire Template: namespace? (archive 31, not 13) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Wrong copypaste. Algebraist 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A different approach may be to test out flagged/sighted revisions on the template namespace. It would actually let more templates be unprotected and open to editing by anyone, since problematic edits could simply be knocked out by the reviewer. MBisanz ^talk 12:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I remain opposed to semi protecting the whole namespace as I stated in the previous discussion, however I would certainly support any reasonable way of bringing in flagged versions on templates. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We're currently averaging about 30-40 complaints per day on OTRS relating to vandalism to templates, in particular the one with the giant highlight text which covers the article title and the edit tab. I think the previous consensus needs to be reexamined. Daniel (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussion seemed pretty short. I would support this idea, myself. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And it would blow in your face. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-D)

Personally, I am against such blanket protections. I believe we have proven that we are capable of managing the current system, where vandalism-magnets are protected and the rest of the templates are left in peace. Or is there the impression that IP users do not edit templates in good faith? I have advocated the extension of the auto-confirmation period, but I am firmly against further erosion of free editing.

PS: Daniel, I'm not sure I know which template you are referring to. Is it transcluded in the mainspace or is it just a toy for editors to play with? Waltham, The Duke of 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't begin to say how opposed I am to the idea of further eroding the abilities of editors who have not yet reached the heightened autoconfirmation, which I think is already too much; I can't really believe that there isn't another solution to this problem that doesn't involve cutting the tendons of our new and inexperienced users. If you have a list of templates that regularly receive vandalism, it should be posted so it can get watchlisted and examined by more people; software solutions like this are far too much, and will only further reduce the ability of non-autoconfirmed editors to contribute to the encyclopedia. At this rate, it's going to be impossible to reach autoconfirm. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What is with this reluctance to put restrictions on IPs? It's very strange. It may have been desirable or workable in the early stages of Wikipedia, but now it just makes no sense. We already restrict IPs from starting new pages and performing certain other actions. IP vandalism is in general harder to deal with. And it's far more likely that IP-only editors are casual users anyway; why would such a user have any need to edit templates at all? In other words, there is obvious benefit to semi-protecting templates (since they appear on thousands of pages) and no apparent drawbacks to preventing IPs from editing them. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't make sense. People who edit without creating an account (or people who have just recently created an account) have to deal with a lot of problems. If you've had your account for a while, your heightened abilities are probably something that you take for granted. IP vandalism is very easy to deal with, actually; most of the anti-vandalism tools out there filter based on those who haven't reached autoconfirm status yet and those who have not yet elected to make an account. It is much more difficult for the users of Huggle and the like to catch small vandalism (i.e, changing birth dates, accent marks, etc, that don't show up as obvious when compared to the "This guy is awesome" vandalism that we typically get from IP editors) made by 'better' editors who have the autoconfirm bit. We used to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; now we're the encyclopedia that you can only do anything useful on once your account has been alive for about a week and you've made ten edits to the mainspace. Do you really want to make that any worse than it already is, especially when there are better software-based solutions (flagged revisions, abuse filter) that can be used that will achieve the same effect or better without discriminating against a particular caste of users? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally? Yes. I'd rather everyone was required to register a user name before being allowed to edit. It might prevent some people from editing, but it would make vandalism much easier to deal with, because a name is much easier to track than a string of numbers, and it would probably prevent a lot of the casual vandalism we have to deal with all the time. Exploding Boy (talk)

I wish to make this clear: ever since the auto-confirmation threshold was raised, semi-protection has been more meaningful, and its misuse more damaging. The previous four-day delay period was just that—a delay. Now, auto-confirmation requires a minimum level of participation, creating a clearer distinction between unregistered users, new registered users, and auto-confirmed users. Therefore, semi-protection is not something that one simply has to wait out, but something only active (even only to this level) editors can overcome. I still believe that raising auto-confirmation requirements to ten edits was a good idea, but this must be followed by prudent and careful application of semi-protection, which must be treated every bit as seriously as normal protection. The proposal suggests anything but this. Pre-emptive protection must be avoided at all costs; the practice is that even if a big wave of vandalism to a page is imminent, no padlocks are placed until it arrives. This is how things should stay. Waltham, The Duke of 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I've preemptively protected several articles in my nearly two years as an admin. Sometimes it is needed.
For those that are curious, they were all Colbert-isms. One of them saw vandalism as I was protecting it (ie: it was clean when I loaded the page, but was vandalized between then and when I hit "save" on the protection page). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have one namespace which is protected (fully protected, in fact) because of the damage that could be caused by allowing open editing. It is extremely easy to vandalise large numbers of pages using template vandalism - a vandal can put their "work" on several thousand pages for several minutes. I find it very surprising that when something like this is proposed there is strong opposition to it but when the proposal is equivalent to semiprotecting the entire article namespace editors fall over themselves to agree. Hut 8.5 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Semi-protect the entire article namespace"? This is preposterous. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly shouldn't "fall over myself to agree". Waltham, The Duke of 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How is a string of characters easier to track than a string of numbers? Please, tell me; I could revolutionize memory addressing.

In any case, you should probably review the five pillars and your understanding of Wikipedia; the idea is (or was, at any rate), that someone could pick up their computer after going to their 300-level CS class and help improve the article on computational complexity theory. It doesn't work this way anymore if its semiprotected, which pages frequently are (you have to wait five days if you want to do that, and make 10 edits to some other page); I don't think its enough of a problem that we need to make that situation any worse. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have thought it was obvious that it's easier to remember the unique username User:Foo than User:123.xxx.xxx.xxx. When IP talk pages you've left messages on appear in your Watchlist, can you identify them without going to their talk page? I know I can't.

Second, I'm familiar with the 5 pillars and with Wikipedia, thanks. This proposal is about the ability to edit templates, not articles. What possible need is there for an anon user to directly edit a template (they could still edit the template talk page) and how would the inability to do so be detrimental? Wikipedia is much, much bigger than it was when it began, and it's run entirely by volunteers. Anything that lessens the amount of work that needs to be done by volunteers is a good thing. The benefits of preventing anons from making simple edits that can result in major vandalism across thousands of pages far outweigh the potential drawback that some anon IP user, frustrated by being unable to edit a template, might decide not to bother editing Wikipedia at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism takes a few seconds to revert. Responding to a request for edit takes minutes (and the IP user also has to take more time to write the request than make the edit themselves—or, worse, they might simply not bother). What is more work for the volunteers? Waltham, The Duke of 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Except it may take several minutes to find the affected template, then it may take several minutes after the revert for all the affected pages to re-render a new cached version, and several more minutes to respond to clueless readers on OTRS and the help desk. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That I did not know. But surely this is not always the case?

Anyway, the level of the problem (both the possibility of vandalism and its visibility when it happens) is directly proportional to the transclusions of the template. In the previous discussion, it was proposed to set a number of transclusions above which a template would be semi-protected. (500 was suggested, to be specific.) If the number is reasonable, why not? Much better than ending up pre-emptively semi-protecting templates transcluded in ten articles. Waltham, The Duke of 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be very easy to make an admin bot that would go around and semi-protect all templates not full protected with above 500 transclusions. I wouldn't know how to do it, but I know that it would be easier to code than a good many of our existing bots. There are two hurdles though. 1. You'd need to find an admin willing to run it on their primary account or get it through RFA. 2. The moral hazard of people making dummy transclusions to userpages to get from say 450 to 500 transclusion. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions doesn't have any problems with doing it; why you'd be examining that by hand is beyond me... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability RfC

There is an ongoing request for comments regarding the notability of spin-out articles and the relationship between the main notability guideline and the subject specific notability guidelines at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. In order for the eventual results to be viable, a broad consensus will be required to move forward on any of the proposed compromises. As such, additional input from more editors would be greatly valued and appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would note in passing that it was remarked a guideline after a group of editors being bold downgraded it to an essay. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words#Demotion to essay and prior and following. If anyone has links to where the demotion was discussed here, I'd appreciate it. LaughingVulcan 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Di-missing article links}}

Please see this. I was asked to post this somewhere, so here I am.--Rockfang (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with it? The only thing I see is it's uncategorized. It tends to be a rarely used template. Undead Warrior (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a couple problems with it. I've noted them on the template's talkpage. Also, it is more highly used than one would think.--Rockfang (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about Range Blocks

Something that I have read about on blogs and the television is that if someone really wants to edit wikipedia there is nothing the administration can do to keep them out. For instance, your even the hard-blocking of IPs and IP ranges has no effect on crafy Brazilians and their cohorts. I look forward to editing Wikipedia much today and in the future. Thank you for your time. W.B. Wiki Brizhans (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How so? Unless they have access to a number of open proxies that are unbeknownest to the ret of the world, I don't quite see how that really works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where editors may indicate level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a "raw date"? Thanks, Halli B (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can enter a date as follows: "September 10, 2008" without using any special media wiki tools; that is considered a raw date. Alternatively, and up until recently, a feature of the mediawiki software allowed one to enter [[September 10]], [[2008]] which, for logged in editors that had set a date preference, would have autofortmatted the date to their liking; all others would see "September 10, 2008" (with both day and year linked. --21:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact this software feature remains active, but the community has decided (at WP:MOSNUM) to phase out the links on which it relies. While autoformatting is felt by many to be at best useless, it is actually the associated links that are felt to be positively undesirable (se WP:OVERLINK).--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But I see the wikipedia date/time stamps on our signatures uses the DD/MM/YY format preferred in the English-speaking world. Why not just use that style all the time? Halli B (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the format preferred in the American-speaking world. Corvus cornix_talk 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, i beg to differ. And since when is "American" a language? If it is, I'm moving to Chelsea. Halli B (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide proof that 11/09/2008 is the preferred format in the US. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If your contention were true, today would be 11/9, not 9/11. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Required Reading 2 -- MOS

I thought about the objections to my "required reading" proposal (supra) and have this addendum to my proposal. Before you laugh my original idea out of hand, please consider this rejoinder to your objections that there would be no way to know if the user had indeed read the manual of style even if he checked "I agree." I propose that a new user would be required to take (and of course pass) a small "test" of his MOS knowledge before his account be activated. The test would be ten to twenty questions drawn from the MOS with multiple choice answers. The correct answer would be the "best answer" out of the four options given and the prospective user would have to score a 80% (this is subject to debate of course) passing score on the MOS test before his account would be activated. I think a multiple choice objective test would be easier to grade than an essay test, although I agonized over this issue for a while before coming to my conclusion.

A sample question would be like:

Q. Which of the following article titles conforms to Manual of Style guidelines? (select the best answer):

A. JOSIAH A. HARPER (MOVIE)

B. Josiah a. Harper (film)

C. Josiah A. Harper (Film)

D. Josiah A. Harper (film)

Correct answer: D

And so on... Or we could divide the test into different sections, one dealing with MOS, and one dealing with WP:NOT, and whatever other guidelines and texts we wish a new user to be familiar with.

So that's how we know the user has indeed read the texts. Now that this objection has been answered I think its time to implement this policy. The next step is writing the questions -- and I am up to thirty-five different MOS questions and answers so far. Please help. Halli B (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Unless you haven't bothered to read the responses to your proposal above, you must know that nobody supports this idea at all, and it is never going to happen.. And in case you have any doubt, let me caution you now that "disruptive editing" (per your unblock) also refers to disrupting the Village pump (policy) and other pages with nonsense like this. Perhaps you are the one who needs to do some reading, to learn a little more about Wikipedia. Or better yet, why not turn your attention to doing something useful like editing some articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Please stop with these nonsense proposals so that real proposals dont get lost in the flow. Resolute 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no use for the test, but if you put together a short (that is, terse) condensation of the MOS (on the lines above, "This is how an article title ...") that would be very handy for reference. A cheat sheet. (I wonder if anybody has actually found all the suggestions for the MOS, let alone read them.) Saintrain (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm.....................no. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board, then. :-)

I must say, though, the fact that MoS is discussed a lot these days is, on its own, a good sign.

(Saintrain, either you follow the Manual or you do not; there can be no cheatsheet. What we can do is make it easier for people to find what they are looking for. We are working on it.) Waltham, The Duke of 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. I want a "terse condensation", you want to "make it easier for people to find what they are looking for". The difference is ??? Saintrain (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the distinction, either. I've only used the MOS as a reference work, I've never actually read it from one end to the other; however, I do think that a highly condensed version would be useful for someone looking to familiarize themselves with some of the basic concepts or looking for a starting point for their understanding of the MOS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the proposer has been indefblocked for sockpuppetry. I think we can safely assume that his or her proposals were more attempts at disruption than improvement. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki brah? I wonder if that means Wiki brah was also Ouijaouija? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

GFDL, 4A section

GFDL [1] states under 4A: "Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission."

All articles in MediaWiki based platforms have the same title in each version. Doesn't this conflict with the above section? or do the users of Wikipedia specificly give their permission in a local policy (Which, I might add, does not exist in the Hebrew Wikipedia; Should this be added to our policy?)?

Thanks, Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 08:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer; that being said, it is my understanding that our specific GFDL excludes those issues: Wikipedia:Copyrights says that "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." By specifying that there are to be no Invariant Sections or Front or Back-Cover Texts, I imagine we escape the problem. I'd have to ask someone more qualified, however, to be sure. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The term 'title page' is defined thusly in the GFDL: ... For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text. We seem to be in violation here. Algebraist 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the real answer is that we basically ignore parts of the GFDL we don't like. More than a few of the GFDL's formal requirements don't reflect the actual practice on Wikipedia. To date, no one has really tried to enforce those provisions. Dragons flight (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is of course to write a new license designed for Wikipedia and use that (perhaps dual licensed with the GFDL or something). I'm not sure how we could work this with revisions prior to the changeover, though. The most direct method would be to get the Free Software Foundation to approve our Wikipedia license as a version of the GFDL (since everything's currently licensed as GFDL 1.2 or later). Algebraist 13:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really wanted to...but there's really no reason to do that, since we already say "... with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover texts" ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As defined in the license, the "Title Page" is a different concept from the "Cover Texts". Dragons flight (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that the HTML of the page up to and including the title thereof constitutes our title page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no unique name there, either. Algebraist 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of you seem to be a bit confused about what's going on here. Firstly, the GFDL doesn't require a distinct title page; the text most prominently near the title of the work (re: the index page) is fine for that purpose per 1.8, as long as the title page is distinct from the documents therein. Second, we don't want or need cover-texts, since we...don't have covers. Nothing new is required. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image sourcing

I have recently ran into a problem regarding a source for images. In my opinion, an Http:// source must be present on non-free media, including album covers, to provide valid proof that it is indeed a copy of the album art and not some kid's photoshop experiment. Image:Thescore.jpg is the image that started it. A lot of images claim that the source is the record label, but this one does not. On my talk page, the uploader lists her rationale for not including a valid source but I don't think that it's a good enough reason. (I'm half tempted to take it to IfD) So my question is this: If you upload an album cover, is it required to add that the image can be obtained from the label and/or provide the http:// source? Basically, if an image is uploaded and has no http:// source or no label present, I don't think it has a valid source. (unless it was scanned by the uploader) Undead Warrior (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So... I think you just negated your argument with that last sentence. A source is required, yes. Sometimes that source is a web link, sometimes it's "scanned by the user". What's the issue? I'm kinda confused... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that some users are claiming a source is just saying it's the cover of the album. The image I just listed above states that it's the album cover for (insert name here). The uploader is claiming that it is sourced being like that. I disagree. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That an image is the cover of an album is no more difficult to verify than the claim that a bit of information came from a certain book. Anyone can independently look at the album or the book if you doubt it. So I think simply identifying the album should be sufficient. If you disagree, it's a very simple matter to get a link to an online entry for that album at Amazon, Allmusic, etc. (or in this case, the band's official online discography linked to from the band's WP article) which would illustrate the cover and confirm that the image is what it purports to be. I don't know why you'd need to argue with the uploader about whether you could add that URL as a source; was he deleting it? Postdlf (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

She kept deleting the no source tag and would never add a proper source. Sources are required. I tag many images that don't have the source and notify the uploader. It is the uploaders duty to make sure all their non-free media is properly sourced. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that it is the album's cover art is a proper source. Dragons flight (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To be more explicit, the question of whether it came from some website, or was scanned by the uploader, or something else, is nearly always irrelevant to the question of who owns the copyright. In this case, all that really is relevant is that it is a copy of the album's cover art. Dragons flight (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But even if one needs another source, apart from the album itself, to verify that it is in fact the cover of that album, it took me all of 15 seconds to find the URL I linked to above. How long was spent posting and reposting the no source tag? Please don't get so hung up on browbeating an uploader into fixing something anyone could easily fix. Uploaders don't own images, and have no more privileged knowledge regarding non-free mass media images than anyone else. We're all volunteers here. If an image is useful to an article, then it's everyone's duty as WP contributors to ensure that it was properly uploaded and is appropriately used. Postdlf (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said that I think they own the picture. I just stated that if you upload a picture, especially a non-free picture, you are required to post a source. Saying that the cover of the album is the source for the album art is not enough. How did you find the album? What source. Do you own it and scan the picture? Or did you find it from a website. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of sourcing and image tagging in general is to provide protection and respect for copyrights. The details you are focusing on are irrelevant to that process because they don't affect the copyright ownership. It doesn't matter who scanned an album's cover art. The source is the album. Beyond that we don't need to care. Dragons flight (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The bad editor

Ok so you come across a bad edit and do a revert which elicits a counter revert and then leads to the talk page. There, through discussion, you quicky come to understand that what you have on your hands is the proverbial, dreaded bad editor. (We all know him. He's not difficult to recognize.) Not a vandal (that would be too easy) but someone who doesn't have policy knowledge, doesn't care to learn it, yet is entirely sincere in their viewpoint. One might say a crusader even. He is passionate, has good writing skills, but... he simply, consistently makes bad edits. He removes good content, questions unquestionable material, assumes bad faith in discussion and, in general, seems to have dedicated himself to a program of steady deterioration of article quality.

Wikipedia policy says: Do not bite the newbies and assume good faith, good policies both in the majority of cases. But unless you are willing to spend a considerable amount of your time not, as you'd like, in article space, but in seemingly endless talk page discussion and arbitration, you (I) more often than not just give up and move on. Admirable? No. Practical? Very much so.

Inner Voice: "I just don't have the time man. I came here to write and edit articles."

Alter-ego: "This is a community project. Understand what that means?"

Inner Voice: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, but why should we have to waste so much time in drumming out of the project someone we know from the git-go is simply a bad editor. I'm telling you I just don't have the energy. Let someone else do it. I've got more important things to do."

Alter-ego: "Selfish b@$!@rd. You really shouldn't be editing in a public encyclopedia. Go back to writing your damn book."

I think we've all probably had the harrowing experience of coming across a bad edit, doing a history check of the editor responsible, and to our horror see that this guy has been doing this, not just in this article but all over the damn encyclopedia! He is involving many, many editors in the process described above. Not maliciously, mind you, in good faith, but just laying a path of destruction wherever he goes.

Perhaps sometimes it would be better to just recognize these people up front and to expeditiously get rid of them. Not everybody is cut out to edit an encyclopedia. We are not all Diderots.

Sorry. Just a bad case of schpilkus and I needed to heave. (red face) And here I am standing with it all over my shoes. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like dispruptive or tendentious editing? Remember, AGF and BITE are only guidelines, not suicide pacts. Once someone has been here a while and has been informed of the way we do things, they shouldn't be treated as a newbie. And if someone repeatedly fails to assume good faith of others, that's a perfectly valid reason to stop assuming good faith of them, nor does AGF mean they can't be sanctioned for doing something wrong. In general I agree with you though, we put up with far too much crap from users who just straddle the line between decent editor and blatant disruption. Mr.Z-man 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And far too often we find we've wasted hours of our precious time stretching our credulity assuming good faith on the part of users who are clearly never going to be able to contribute usefully and who, more often than not, turn out to be trolls anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the ones that just don't get it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You needed something? More seriously, are these folks educate-able? Because if not, it's certainly better for our mission (encyclopedia) to get rid of them. Assuming good faith assumes that they can be pointed in the right direction by pointing them towards the relevant policy-pages, no? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, but our hands are slightly tied. Even with obvious vandals we usually warn 4 times before blocking. But when we're dealing with people like User:Andy Bjornovich (as many of us had the misfortune to do) who seemed like he might be trying to contribute usefully it becomes even more difficult. His situation led to hours of wasted time and pages of discussion over what should be done with him, at least 7 different blocks of at least 3 accounts, input from who knows how many admins, attempts to engage him in discussion, and of course the additional work of reversing his problematic edits. And he's not even the worst example. Yet if an admin is at all stern with an apparently new user who seems to be problematic, s/he's sure to get a WP:BITE reminder. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot depends on the tone in which any guidance is presented. Wikiproject Chess had an over-enthusiastic editor. A gentle request to add citations for each new point did the trick. He's now very useful, and got a Barnstar for his chess work a couple of months ago. Those who get WP:BITE reminders generally deserve them, and have probably bitten hundreds of newbies per WP:BITE reminder. -- Philcha (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about well-meaning users who are ignorant of the rules/policies/guidelines and community standards. WP:BITE and WP:AGF sometimes restrain us from quickly dealing with people who are either simply casual vandals or determined and experienced trolls. AGF and BITE can constrain us in these situations, and lead to time wasting. Using Andy Bjornovich as an example again, look how many editors gave so much of their time trying to gently guide him and giving him the benefit of the doubt, and ultimately for nothing: he was deliberately trolling from the get-go. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the possibility of real pests. I'm also aware that some editors & admins are trigger-happy. -- Philcha (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The template: Overuse, Inappropriate Use and Drive by Tagging

I see the [citation needed] template used in every manner of situation even ones that are highly inappropriate where the statements made are entirely uncontroversial and purely factual or descriptive in nature. These tend to be along the lines of: "The allies won the second world war[citation needed]" and are just annoyances to the editors of wikipedia who actually do the useful work of adding new material.

The presence of a fact template suggests that there is something wrong with a statement or that it is doubtful or controversial.

I think that fact templates should only be added when the factuality of a statement is seriously in doubt or of controversial nature. In order to deal with incidences of drive by tagging I think there should be a reqiurement of anyone who makes a [citation needed] tag must write in the talk section exactly what they think is wrong with a statement.

There is also the issue of things which may not be documented, though they might be generally held as being true. If I wrote that "Alice Springs in Australia is not inhabited by four legged martians[citation needed]" I doubt I'd be able to find a source anywhere on earth that will specifically agree with that fact. In a more practical sense, if in a mathematical context one were to write 2 + 2 = 4[citation needed], there is no mathematical proof for the truth of such a statement (a point made by Roger Penrose) but the statement is almost universally held as true and certainly not controversial or doubtful in any way. Some statements are really difficult or impossible to find references for, not because they are wrong or 'original research' but because of their nature. Although there are statements where references can be found (sometimes only in print) wiki editors are not paid and many useful contributors don't want to waste their own time looking up references and writing them in when the statements themselves are completely sound.

I don't understand the motivations of people who add fact tags in inappropriate places (although I sometimes question their intelligence or character in my own mind) but anyone who adds a fact tag should be required to make a note on the discussion page of the article saying why they thought it was necessary to have the tag in the first place. I think it's important to use common sense when tagging the fact tag because it can do more harm than good in some cases. The potential harm includes: discouraging editors, wasting editor's time and fostering unfounded doubts in the minds of readers. Sometimes the [citation needed] tag seems to be the wikipedia analog of vexatious litigation.

I hope that the policies can be changed to retain the advantages of this tag without all the downsides which I have just outlined. --I (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the sciences there are some essential points for which it's extremely difficult to find refs, because they're uncontroversial and scientists don't write articles about them. For example it took me two hours to find a decent explanation of protostome and deuterostome. I think the minimum standard should be that people who apply [citation needed] tags should be required to provide an adequate explanation on the article's Talk page, and [citation needed] tags without convincing explanations should be treated as vandalism. -- Philcha (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)This is almost a perrenial proposal. If someone puts a {{fact}} tag on an obviously true statement, that's just being a dick (though you might want to use WP:DE if you bring it up with them). There's no reason to make editors who are truly concerned with the factual accuracy of articles do tons of extra work summarizing their thoughts simply because of some morons tagging everything that doesn't have a ref immediately adjacent to it. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't pass up the opportunity to point out this tagging again. – iridescent 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How does one tell the difference between a dick and "editors who are truly concerned with the factual accuracy of articles"? And what should be done about dicks? My proposal about requiring an adequate explanation on the article's Talk page may be a workable criterion. Can anyone propose alternatives? -- Philcha (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If common sense is sufficient (i.e, the above example where someone put a fact tag on "Normally, there are five fingers on a human hand"), then it might as well be vandalism; just revert it and go about your business; however, fact tagging is very important, and doesn't really require an explanation when it is properly used; I can't support the idea of forcing editors to go through more work just to point out that something is uncited. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)No, all it will do is discourage people who are actually trying to help, while people just trying to inflate their edit count will just say they tagged a bunch of stuff because they didn't think it was true. Say I find an article which is entirely unsourced. I have a few options, I can: leave it as is, tag it with a generic {{unref}}, or tag individual statements that seem dubious with {{fact}}. Which is the most helpful, and which is the most unlikely if I'm required to explain why I think something is wrong? Also remember, not everything that's obvious to you is obvious to everyone else. "The Allies won WWII" - that would be obvious, but protostome? I haven't taken a biology class in about 5 years, I have no idea what that is. Because of that, I wouldn't go around tagging individual statements with {{fact}}, but dismissing concerns about accuracy by saying "its obvious" isn't much better than the people going around tagging things that really are obvious. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to answer your point about dismissing concerns about accuracy - the case that drove me to make my post in the first place was some person putting a cite tag on part of a synopsis I posted on a short documentary. The whole doc is only a few minutes long and freely available on the net and all I did was outline the content in a neutral descriptive manner. At some stage I feel the need to question people who can't be bothered to just check things out themselves should at least explain why they are tagging cite - it may seem like a easy fire and forget solution when you think something's fishy but seeing cite tags on their work can be exasperating to editors who are trying to add good information. It's the wiki equilvilent of being visited by the tax authority and having to dig up and sort through mountains of receipts. --I (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "drive by tagging" is quite appropriate. I sometimes dispair at the times it is used, mostly by IP editors. I am not sure that the "common knowledge" argument is helpful, but if there are ways to remove [citation] tags without being flamed for it, please suggest ideas! By way of showing what happens when editors are determined to cite sources for everything, see Glenrothes by-election, 2008, where the usually blank results box is now full of sources for all to wonder at. doktorb _words^deeds 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it if they had to say why they needed a citation for something then the "common knowledge" argument wouldn't even have to be made - bad cite tags are ones that cannot be justified in discussion. This is not to say that there may not be other types of bad cite tags, but ones that challenge common knowledge (or common sense) would have no leg to stand on if they had to be posted in discussion pages. --I (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh. There is nothing wrong with "drive-by tagging". If something is unsourced and needs a source, then tagging it is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Frivolous tagging is already covered by our rules for disruption. No work is needed here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Echo this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Extrapolating from what I've seen here and at WT:V over the last year, there may have been >100,000 relevant posts on this, so I wouldn't mind adding the relevant information from WP:V and WT:V to WP:PEREN. If something is at PEREN, it means that a clever argument and a little handwaving is almost certainly not going to accomplish anything, but sometimes very detailed, community-driven processes such as WP:RfA Review can clarify details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review - Recommendation Phase

As you are aware, a detailed review of the Requests for Adminship Process has been ongoing for some time. In June, 209 editors provided their impressions and thoughts on the current state of the process; these responses were reviewed and analyzed. The results, including a statistical analysis of responses, are now available for review at Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect. Based on the results of this analysis, we have prepared a new set of questions for editor input.

Unlike the last round of questions, this questionnaire is drawn specifically from the responses we received from editors, and is intended to generate recommendations for addressing the most common concerns about the RfA process. All editors are invited to participate by following the instructions at Wikipedia:RfA Review/Recommend. Editors who did not participate in the first questionnaire are welcome to participate in this phase - and all editors should feel free to answer as many or as few of the questions as you wish. Any input is valuable. Responses will be reviewed, and the most common responses will form the basis for possible changes to the RfA process itself.

On behalf of the editors who have helped with the project so far, thank you for your participation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting user to mainspace

I'm currently I'm in a small dispute with Everyme over his redirecting his User:Everyme/user page into User. I removed it without notifying him; today he reverted back, citing that the cross-name redirect strictly applies from the mainspace to the user. I based my action on Angry Aspie's user page, in which the user tried redirecting to Asperger syndrome but was redirected. That train of thought follows that it makes people confused and access contributions if they're being led to another page. I maintain that the rule is designed to prevent the mixing of the two namespaces, regardless of whether main to user or user to main. Is my action in the spirit of the rule? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My counter-argument is that the redirect is harmless because I am not redirecting my main userpage into article space, but a specific subpage. Wherever someone clicks on my username or a link to my main userpage, they will be redirected to my talk page, not out of my userspace. user:Everyme 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme's action seems harmless. I would allow it, unless there is a policy or guideline to the contrary. SMP0328. (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't, otherwise I wouldn't have done it, or alternatively would have removed the redirect myself if presented with such a rule. Admittedly, the fact that Hbdragon edited in my userspace without letting me know pisses me a bit off. The fact that he didn't say sorry after I told him it would have been polite doesn't really improve that. As a result, I'm quite determined to keep the redirect in place. Had he simply contacted me about it and shared his concerns with me, I would probably still argue that it's harmless, but might have considered changing it just to alleviate any concerns. But not like that. I've been active on Wikipedia for two years now, too long to let some admin act as if he knew more about policies and their spirit than me. I won't be treated like some stupid child. user:Everyme 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lolz, tone it down, man. I'm a user. I didn't use my administrator tools to delete or protect or revert to my preferred version, so don't try to make this as a great BIG ADMIN vs. LOWLY USER debate, because it isn't. This is like any other disupte: make the edit, revert, discuss. If the communtiy decides I'm wrong about it, then I'm wrong. I'm not going to hold a grudge against you. "Spirit" isn't meant to mock you, it's my interpretation, which isn't a fact, but one view, which can be wrong. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit in another user's userspace on a hunch, and certainly not without informing them. Like it or not, that's a typical admin "prerogative". You wouldn't have done that before you became an admin, now would you? Maybe you just don't notice how being an admin affects your judgment and behaviour towards others. user:Everyme 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You think it's an admin preogative? I don't think so. I can't provide any concrete examples before of doing this before. I have removed fair use images, categories, etc. from user subpages before. i'm racking my mind for actual examples, because this kind of thing rarely happens. But I considered this to be a very routine thing, like typos or corrections (since I beileved at the time that it was R2-like) and would have done it. I didn't think I was affecting actual content. Look at my logs, I haven't used the tool in over a month. I'm not very enamored with the sysop tools, to be honest. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Or else, it may be just be a matter of basic politeness, a distinct possibility. Whatever you think applies more. user:Everyme 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just have your signature link to user instead? Or can you not do that? If that's the case, then I don't see a problem with it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to link directly to the article from my sig, but then thought that people may find a link convenient to "return" to my userspace if they so wish. So I created that subpage and redirected it. user:Everyme 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking...more research over at WP:SIG...it's required that a signature links to at least the user or user talk page, which Everyme does. Further, the guideline prohibits "disruptive links," like an autograph page. The only reason why I even did this to begin with was because I was pretty confused on why I got hit to User when clicking the apparent user page. That can be constructed as some disruption, though in practical reality I knew exactly how to get to the right page since I've been here for so long. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"constructed"? Do you mean construed ? Also, I replaced the direct link to user with that link precisely so as to provide users with a link back to my userspace. Also, it's a weird reaction to your own confusion to just edit in my userspace instead of letting me know. user:Everyme 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain that, to me, again...you expect people to click on the redir, then click the top link to bring them to User:Everyme? Is that it? And...you don't even have a userpage either, that page just redirect to your user talk. So click user in signature > base redirect > User:Everyme > User talk:Everyme. A three-step process to get to the same page. Also, you think it's weird? I see a problem, I believed I was "fixing" it. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixing it by turning the redirect into a link to an empty subpage? I could have done better than that had you informed me of your concerns. Also, the Asperger situation you cited was truly problematic mainly because any raw link to the userpage (i.e. in article history etcpp) would be redirected out of that userspace. The alternative would be to link directly to user again, like I used to do. user:Everyme 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Trolls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, does anyone think there are any pages on Wikipedia that would exist were it not for the threat of trolls vandalising them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.164.115 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Algebraist 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adjustment to image tags

Based on this comment from Mike Godwin, the WMF's legal counsel, foundation-l, I'd like to open a discussion on our definition of free-images. Currently we define images with non-commercial {{Non-free with NC}} and non-derivative {{Non-free with ND}} as non-free images that should be deleted {{Db-i3}}. Given that Mike indicates that Wikiquote can consider non-commercial vs. commercial use in deciding what text it may use, that suggests to me that we may be able to accept a non-commercial image license as "free" and possibly even a non-derivative license, since what is expected of a charity is different than what is expected of a non-charitable enduser. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It has always been the case that Wikipedia could freely use images with non-commercial and non-derivative licenses. The decision to count these as non-free was based on Wikipedia's goal of being free-content, which was taken to include freely copyable and modifiable for any purpose. The decision was not made to comply with copyright law. Algebraist 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think any content that we say is free should actually be free. Mr.Z-man 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That we are legally allowed to use images does not make them free. We are "free" to use them, but the goal of this project is to build an encyclopaedia that is "free" in the fullest Stallman-GNU-Debian sense. We shouldn't consider Wikipedia to be the end product -- allowing non-free content makes our work harder to reuse. There's no point in licensing all our contributions with the GFDL if we then go on to make it impossible to use it.

For similar reasons, I wholly advocate a prohibition on using fair-use images except where the photograph is directly discussed in the article. I am also very uncertain about the existence of the Wikiquote project -- I don't believe a project that relies entirely on fair-use claims for anything less than 85 years old can be called "free". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Content in the User page

Hi everyone. I wanted to know if Wikipedia has any policy regarding to the removal of hate links and comments from user pages? --Kaaveh (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Would WP:USER be of any significance? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you give the exact situation? Such things have to be carefully decided case-by-case. Many different considerations come into play there, among them WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. Everyme 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. In the Persian Wikipedia, a user who has a long history of anti Jews/Israel/Zionism edits. has put an external link to a hate website, and to encourage other users to visit the hate webpage, he describes the link as (یک نمونه دیگر از وحشی گری اشغالگران صهیونیست) [2] which means "An example of savagery of zionist occupiers". I removed the hate link + the comment, but some other user reverted my edit in just a few seconds. [3] So I wanted to see if there is a genral policy with regard to this type of misusing the user page. Many thanks --Kaaveh (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be a hate-free Wikipedia, regardless of what language, but nobody here can do anything about the Persian Wikipedia, you should probably discuss it with somebody in the Foundation. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-Yugoslavia

Hi, can someone please comment on the {{PD-Yugoslavia}}? Does this Agreement on succession issues really make the images owned by »SFRY State archives« public domain? Does it really apply to images like Image:Jakob Aljaž.jpg? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no SFRY before 1920. Doesn't this image qualify for PD-old since the author is unknown? --Tone 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As the author is unknown it's impossible to know if more than 100 years have passed since his death. What about this PD and Agreement issue? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format requirement?

A poll is underway to require almost all articles to use the date format 13 September 2008. Please comment in this section.

The precise language would impose this on all articles not strongly linked to to the United States, except existing articles on Canada. (New ones would have to use 13 September 2008.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. The above by Septentrionalis is misleading and uses charged, hot-button language like “impose” and “have to use”. A poll is being conducted to see if editors would like to replace the current guideline on fixed-text date formats with revised wording. If the editing community likes it better, then so be it. If not, the current guideline stays. It’s just that simple. This is all being discussed on a talk page, where ideas are exchanged. Greg L (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  The exact wording proposed is:

  • For articles on, or strongly associated with, the U.S. or its territories (or countries listed in this guideline that use U.S.-style dates: Micronesia and Palau), editors should use the U.S.-style date format (“February 2, 2008”), otherwise, editors should use the international date format (“2 February 2008”) in articles.
  • New articles on or strongly associated with Canada should use the international format but, for existing articles related to Canada, whichever format was used by the first major contributor shall be retained.

That sounds like requirement and imposition to me; those who disagree and wish to support on those grounds are welcome to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The longstanding wording included this line: Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format. That use of "should" didn't mean that all articles on (say) France immediately dumped U.S. format. There was no "requirement and imposition", no jackbooted edit-warriors, no ArbCom thunder. Most editors didn't even notice, and kept on happily contributing material in whichever format they felt most comfortable with. Two polls now, and both times it's come out as resembling the same convention we use for units of measurement: In general, Wikipedia uses international date format (1 February 2003); however, US format (February 1, 2003) is used in US-related topics. You can't say fairer than that. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another poll on this issue? Is the goal here to have poll after poll after poll until all normal editors decide getting involved with this mess just isn't worth it anymore, making way for the die-hard MOS warriors to claim consensus for whatever they feel like? Anomie⚔ 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there have been more than five or six, counting this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, what is with all this hulabaloo over date formatting lately? Sheesh! Pierre DuPaix III (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of "Free"

A few weeks ago i wrote the essay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. It tries to explain the meaning of "free" in "The Free Encyclopedia". Its main point is that "free" refers to the licensing of Wikipedia and it cites Jimbo to prove it.

I propose to promote it to be a policy. I found no other document that clearly presents Wikimedia Foundation's policy mission statement on the matter. The documents that would come the closest are Wikipedia:Copyright, which is too legalese and the third of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which is too short.

Here is a previous discussion about it:

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 125#The meaning of Free

Opinions are welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

wikimedia:Mission statement? Mr.Z-man 19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant part of Jimbo's word-by-word explanation of our deliberately-ambiguous mission statement (intended for those translating it into foreign languages) is "is given free access" - here we probably run into the problem of the word 'free' in English, which means both "gratis" (free of charge) and "libre" (liberty). We mean primarily the 2nd meaning, but it will depend on the particular language as to whether "libre access" is a concept which can be smoothly expressed. Since we also mean "gratis" as a secondary meaning, that can be used. I'm not sure we need a whole essay to cover what Jimbo's summarised in three sentences. Incidentally, "Free Encyclopedia" does mean "zero price encyclopedia" forever. – iridescent 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, User:Amire80, I can't really see the point of this, or how/why this is needed to be a policy. - fchd (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be written in three sentences. I do think that we need a policy on it, because people often misunderstood the meaning of free as "the freedom to write crap". There is WP:FREE, and while i agree with its content, it is written in a very negative tone.

Besides, why should anyone look for something that Jimbo said on some talk page once?

And you can be sure that i am not doing to promote the essay i wrote. Feel free to write anything else - something positive about the freedom of Wikipedia. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" isn't "something Jimbo said on some talkpage somewhere", it's the very first sentence on our homepage. Seriously, you're reading way too much into something that's deliberately ambiguously worded. If you insist on chapter-and-verse sourcing, this is the definition of "free" we work to. – iridescent 18:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process

Just a note of change, comments are welcome. link. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but it looks like your change (removing the caution for non-Admins not to close anything but clear cases) was reverted and the proposal you reference was withdrawn. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to limit the creation of new articles

I've written down some thoughts about a proposal to limit the creation of new articles, while allowing anonymous users to create articles (which is not the case now). (Should I post the entire text here or just link to it? For now, I'll do the latter.) Your thoughts and comments will be highly valued, see User:Plrk/On the creation of articles. Plrk (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I symphatise with your idea, I think your suggestion would only make things worse (rather than better). (I am overstating, not to make a mockery of your commendable idea, but to illustrate my point). Your current idea would support the creation of yet more Pokemon character articles; while it would block (or at least slow down) articles on topics in non-western pre-historical cultures, which are less likely to be red-linked. Thus it would only increase the focus on current US-youth-culture-contemporary-topics of English wikipedia. So no, I don't think this would be a good way forward (althoug I agree with the problem you have flagged up, article creation over GA/FA article level has become a pest). Arnoutf (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it could be worse than it is already is. If there are links to Pokémon characters around, they should immediately be redirected to a list of Pokémon characters. The same goes for the rest of the US-youth-culture-contemporary-topics - if it is not notable, it should be unlinked. While the growth of articles on topics in areas that are unfavored due to our systematic bias may be hindered in a few cases, I think that article topics grow from the general to the specified: a general article regarding, say, the Inca civilization, link to other more specialized Incan articles, which when they are created will link to even more specialized Incan articles. And as said, if you were not able to create an article, an instruction would be shown that explained that you could introduce a link in relevant, existing articles. Plrk (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion we need fewer, not more Pokemon articles (notwithstanding redlinks around). We should support, not limit (by adding effort of linking) expanding into yet unexplored areas such as pre-historian civilizations which are less known than the Inca.

I recognise it is pretty bad as it is at the moment, I think some limit on article that can never become FA level should be imposed. I am afraid, however, that your proposal would put more stress on including new articles that might become FA (but are not in Wikipedia because of the bias) than on articles that will never become FA, and are only borderline interesting (ok not only Pokemon, but also communities of 3 people established 5 years ago).

So yes, I underwrite your concern, but no I don't think your suggestion is an improvement (Mind you, I have no ideas myself, so I appreciate your effort and thinking on this topic, I just don't think it will work). Arnoutf (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, we agree that we are in disagreement then. Plrk (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's wait for some other comments. Arnoutf (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With your thoughts in consideration, I have added a more liberal variant that I think still would be a significant improvement. What do you say? Plrk (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The condition "only if there is a red link" will simply encourage POV-pushers, advertisers, etc. to disfigure existing article with semi-relevant red links. Who knows which articles will become FA? Last year I found myself defending the notability of an article against a deletionist. This year the article made FA. -- Philcha (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(I de-indented your post. I hope you don't mind.) POV-pushers, advertisers, etc already disfigure existing articles with semi-relevant red links. I doubt this would make it much worse. Considering your FA-article, I'm pretty sure it is not an orphan? (Was it an orphan at the time of it's creation, even?) Plrk (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember whether the article that reached FA was an orphan when someone slapped a "notability" tag on it. I know I went round a few related articles and inserted links before taking on the deletionist :-)

I don't think orphan status should be made the basis of a rule. Any article on a completely new topic starts as an orphan, including WP's first ever article. -- Philcha (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You see, even in your own experience the presence of redlinks is an argument to keep an article! As you point out, applying this concept to a new-born wiki would be ridiculous; but newly created articles now are nowhere near WP's first ever article. We have over 2,5 million articles - are there really any completely new topics? I'd say no. The creation of Wikipedia:Walled gardens has been discouraged a very long time. Plrk (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While I like the idea of giving back to the lower caste of users the ability to create articles again, I don't think this is really the idea to go about it. This would inhibit a lot of articles related to current events (the article on Nomophobia comes to mind; to create it, one would first have to find a list of psychiatric conditions or something, then add a redlink to it, then create it the article, rather than focus on the article itself. Realistically, I think it would pretty difficult to enforce; one could simply make redlinks in their userspace or something, then create the article; at that point, keeping the article or deleting it would depend on the quality, relevance and notability of the article's subject anyway, which makes this a rather pointless idea to begin with. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll continue with your usage of Nomophobia as an example. It has plenty of links to it - instead of writing the article first and adding the links later, the process would simply be reversed (in the cases it isn't already). Considering enforcability, my intent is of course to have this written into the software. I also specificially suggest that redlinks in the main namespace are required (in the phobia case and many others, links from the template namespace count as main namespace links as templates are included in main namespace articles (at least according to Special:Whatlinkshere)). Plrk (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we move this discussion to the talk page? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)