Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

Wikipedia is a work in progress section needs an update

I want to see the section "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" somehow changed. It has been used justify poor articles such as Adamantamine. With the attrition of experienced editors, a backlog that is not bing cleared, and 4,064,486 articles that need protection, it is high time we tighten up on poor articles. One way of doing that is to make the deletion process a little more ruthless.

I will have to leave the change to the policy to others - it is not my forte. I think will have to be an RFC? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The above article AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantamine. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think editors would be willing to listen to your thoughts, but only with specific suggestions, especially if you were to open an RfC. Respectfully, there's not much we can do to policy with what you've said so far. NTox · talk 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add, after the sentence "At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." the sentence "The criteria used is, is the subject notable and deserving of starting an article?" Apteva (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. It would reinforce that deletion is not dependent on the article's status, but on the topic's notability. Diego (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It needs to clarify that notability isn't the only indicator that we should have an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

At the suggested inclusion point and with the format "The criteria used...", I have linked a pointer to the wp:Articles for creation project page that explains all the criteria – to include notability. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 22:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk and edit section

The Signpost recently had an article about civility and I suggest the following changes to the "Talking and editing" section to help improve civility. The overall tone of the current Talking and editing section is fairly aggressive clearly stating that editors should be bold but only consider talking to previous editors if they think an edit may be controversial. I suggest the tone of this section should be changed to reflect more respect for changing recent contributions. I will put my suggested edits in bold and struck-through to make them clear on this talk page. An example of behavior which prompted this suggestion is from my recent experience of having hours of research, even referenced work, promptly deleted; a very discouraging experience. In my experience the Bold, revert, discuss cycle on recently added contributions is uncivil. I think editors who have recently made contributions should usually be contacted before major edits or deletions are carried out. The exception to this is in the Biographies of living persons.

I suggest the first paragraph read as follows: Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes, however it is much more civil to discuss significant changes to contributions which were recently added. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page), or if the previous edit was made within one month. A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate.

Also in the sub-section "Be cautious with major changes: discuss" I suggest the following changes: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing discuss them first if the edits were made recently. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be is best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (e.g. User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page. Jim Derby (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can take a while to learn what sources and information are appropriate for Wikipedia in general and a specific article, so there may be good reasons for a removal. There often also are capricious, "ownership" related reverts that are against policy. It can take a while to figure out which it is, especially if it is in a contentious area. That's what talk pages are for. And study and utilize WP:Dispute to deal with those editors who are just plain recalcitrant. CarolMooreDC 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carol. I only mentioned having edits deleted as to communicate that I am suggesting changes from experience. I am surprised no one had commented directly the main topic of this section: my proposal to change the tone of this section to be less BOLD and more civil. I will wait longer and maybe bring this up in a chat room before making any changes. Jim Derby (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not add the one month time limit... any edit can be BRDed, even one made several months ago. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiny minority viewpoints

I know we've been through this before, and I haven't recently pressed the issue on WP:UNDUE (which keeps reverting to a Jimbo's dubious "Word of God" on the matter), but, yes, "tiny minority views" can deserve their own articles. Zoroastrianism for example, has maybe ~10K non-prominent adherents out of the current world population of 6,000,000,000, but not having an article about such a sourcable and verifiable topic would certainly not be in the spirit of WP:5P. If I had my druthers, what view a certain percentage of living people currently held -- prominent or otherwise -- would have no bearing on our policy, no matter what Jimbo rambled about once, and as such, I hope my recent parenthetical addition will stand. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the correct interpretation. It would be fine to have an article on a group of 100 adherents, if WP:N were met. However, the article would be written from the mainstream point of view, according to WP:RS. The article would not be written from the point of view of the 100 adherents. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not correct either, per WP:YESPOV. The article would be written to include as many RS/V (reliably sourced and verifiable) POV's as editors chose to put in. There's no such thing as a "mainstream" point of view in our arithmetic, last I checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember inclusion isn't a binary thing. Inclusion of viewpoints has three tiers... 1) Viewpoints that deserve their own dedicated article; 2) Viewpoints that deserve to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia (in some related article) but not in article on their own; and 3) Viewpoints that are so fringe that they don't deserve to be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia.

As for your example: A religion with 10K adherents is a minority... but I would not call it a tiny minority. Certainly Zoroastrianism can not be classified as "Fringe". On the other hand, if there were a religion with only 5 adherents (world wide) that religion would not rate an article. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How many people still think Roman Emperors are living gods? Perhaps only a few more than 5, and yet we have an article on that. Who still votes for the Whig Party? Basically no one, but that link was blue last I checked. I simply find it silly, per WP:BURO, that we have a policy which no one actually follows in practice. Views held by currently living people shouldn't be a consideration at all, even if you think 10K/7B (1.4x10^-6!!) isn't "tiny" (?!). -- Kendrick7^talk 02:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The distinction is that our articles on Imperial cult (ancient Rome) and Whig Party both discuss their topics in a historical context. It is not UNDUE to discuss them in that context. The Imperial cult was practiced by thousands in Ancient Rome, and the Whigs had thousands of voters in the 1800s. More importantly, there are multiple very reliable sources that discuss both topics in depth. So, in a historical context there is no Fringe issue. In a modern context, however, things would be a quite different. Having an article devoted to explaining the beliefs of five modern adherents to the cult (Imperial cult (modern adherents)) or ten people trying to form a revived version of the party (Whig Party (modern re-establishment)) probably would be UNDUE. At most, they might rate a passing mention in some other article (but probably not). It is highly likely that the only sources that would discuss these topics (ie the modern version of the cult or the party) are unreliable websites and promotional materials directly connected to adherents/party members. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML

Some of the opinions there may be of interest, re this policy and whether it should / has been replaced with a policy of "only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time" instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved in that discussion, but I've glanced through it (without looking at the article in question) and except maybe for one opinion by Uncle Milty (and even there I'm not sure he was trying to make a general point about notability vs. merely about something that userspace is good for), I'm not seeing any substantial support for the idea that a page which clearly meets notability guidelines ought to be kept out of mainspace only because it's otherwise flawed. The "prime time" comment that you're quoting is a stress-reducing suggestion following a clear acknowledgement that pages can be in mainspace so long as they have clearly met notability requirements: Randykitty said in this edit, "As a general remark, if you want to avoid people tagging your new articles for notability/deletion/whatnot, then you should either make sure that already your first version establishes notability very clearly or (more relaxed) first work on it in your sandbox and only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time." (Emphasis rearranged.) Maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy contradiction between WP:Preserve and WP:BAN's WP:BMB

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.

---

So it's been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try to fix problems currently contradict each other. My opinion is that the older policy should trump the newer one, which just seems petty, but I'm happy to hear other views. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Unnecessary rule creep. There are many policies which say that editors should or may do things. See, e.g., in the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." If we're going to go around qualifying everything that says something like that with a, "but not if you're banned or blocked," we'll never see the end of it. Banned is banned, you can't do anything here legitimately. That's just common sense and this isn't needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, the discussion that resulted in this proposal is at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Repeated reference removal on Citizen Koch. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose premise. I see no contradiction. IMO, WP:PRESERVE seems to say that if there is something that could or should be there, but is not complete, it should be fixed rather than deleted. WP:BAN says that it shouldn't be there. In the case of this particular banned editor, he was "blocked" (as a floating IP, blocks are meaningless) for having most of his edits being wrong, misleading, or a violation of one of the guidelines to the point that there is nothing there to fix. In the rare case that there is something there to fix, a non-banned editor can take credit for the edit, and restore it. Of the last 5 edits that the poster restored, 3 were additions of misleading Wikilinks or clear violations of WP:OVERLINK, and 2 were possibly helpful.

  As a legal analogy, an edit by a banned editor would be considered voidable, while WP:PRESERVE would be analogous to the principle that, in case of ambiguity, anything that is unambiguous should be considered agreed to. There's no conflict there, and I don't see one here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

How can you not see a contradiction between preserving good, encyclopedic content and removing good, encyclopedic content? Other editors shouldn't have to follow the banhammer patrol around with a mop and bucket when the easy solution is not to create a mess by violating WP:PRESERVE in the first place. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose premise. Arthur Rubin sums it up nicely. I am also in agreement with the responses to the thread that was posted here User talk:Vsmith#Block evasion is not a valid reason to undo constructive edits. As Vsmith states "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." As EatsShootsAndLeaves states "the policy is certainly VERY clear - block evasion IS a valid reason to undo any edit." BTW blocked editors and IPs always have the WP:STANDARDOFFER if they want to return and make useful edits. MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose premise A bit late to the party (invited by the bot) so I don't think I have anything new to add, Arthur Rubin and MarnetteD are correct. As of course is TransporterMan. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Fix the appearance of a problem  Perhaps the problem is that WP:EP#Problems that may justify removal is missing a mention of WP:BAN.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, in concurrence with the editors above, the new language added at WP:BAN. Constructive edits added to Wikipedia shouldn't be removed just because some set of editors have a vendetta against some other set of editors. For the vast majority of editors, that's just a bunch of monkey business. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, per WP:5P. Deciding encyclopedic content shouldn't belong because it was added by a "bad person" doesn't support that goal in the least. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose premise - the fact that the edit was done by a banned user makes it default to being considered bad. It probably shouldn't be there, so there's no need to preserve it. However, edits by other users are not automatically considered bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• In point of fact, WP:BMB explicitly says it's OK to remove good, encyclopedic content. WP:PRESERVE says that such behavior is impermissible. I don't see how people sticking their heads in the sand helps move this discussion along. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not everything in life or at Wikipedia is easy—there is no set of rules anywhere that covers all possible situations in an entirely predictable and desirable manner. While PRESERVE has many merits, it is also the case that WP:DENY is the only way to handle long-term abusers. Any editor who loudly proclaims the right of banned editors to make good contributions—contributions which must be kept—is encouraging those banned editors to suck up more community time because there is always a good reason someone was banned. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In point of fact PRESERVE makes no comment whatsoever about the edits of banned users. Nor does it say that removal of any edit is "impermissible" - indeed that word is not in PRESERVE at all. It does gives suggestions as to how an edit might be improved rather than removed and there is still the option that "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." BTW a) bans are decided by the community b) an editor has to go above and beyond "bad" behavior to receive a ban. The only way to edit after banning is by socking which is another violation. Why, after someone has treated the community like dirt, should they be welcome to edit? What does it matter if the edit is good, bad or indifferent? Actions have consequences. This proposal seems to me to be an attempt to remove those consequences. If an editor wants to edit productively they can go through the process of the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD|Talk 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Preserve appropriate content" are you unclear about? It's exactly my point that the editing policy does not make any "comment whatsoever about the edits of banned users." We're here to build an encyclopedia. Spitefully removing encyclopedic content just because there is a consensus that the editor who added it is a "bad person" is simply contrary to our project's fundamental goal. Please see WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What part of WP:Banned means banned are you unclear about? As with your hyperbolic use of the term "impermissible" you continue to misrepresent policy. For example BATTLEGROUND has nothing to do with this situation. Nowhere in BMB or BAN is the term "spiteful" used. Your insistence that any editor who removes edits by a banned user is being "spiteful" shows a lack of WP:AGF. Yet again "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." I am not sure why you continue to ignore this fact but it certainly fulfills your stated goal. One last thing, as stated by TransporterMan WP:BURDEN also removes content and editors who do that aren't being "spiteful" either. MarnetteD|Talk 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes... we should try to preserve appropriate content. The problem is that an edit made by a banned user is by definition inappropriate. ie, PRESERVE does not apply to edits made by banned users. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Since when does content become unencyclopedic just because the editor who added it isn't otherwise popular? Human knowledge is not a popularity contest -- Kendrick7^talk 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK... The distinction here is between "content" and "edit"... It may help you to think of it this way: Since the vast majority of banned editors are banned for adding inappropriate content, it is important to review their edits to determine whether the content they added was or was not appropriate. Undoing a banned user's edits highlights the content for review. When we undo a banned user's edits, what we are really doing is a temporary removal of content... pending review. If other editors think the content is appropriate, they can return it. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I liked your reply enough that I've added two of the sentences to the policy:

“ WP:Banning policy allows the removal of content for ad hominem reasons. When we undo a banned user's edits, what we are really doing is a temporary removal of content...pending review. If other editors think the content is appropriate, they can return it. ”

Unscintillating (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Per the tradition of WP:AGF, ad hominem issues should never be a part of our process. As such I've reverted your change. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

On the policy page, you cited WP:CREEP in your revert.  In the edit summary above, you cited a Wikipedia article.  Here you talk about the WP:AGF of a banned editor.  Also, the policy-page edit resolved your concern.  But maybe you can answer this, why should ad hominem considerations never be a part of our process?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That edit hardly resolved my concern! This is the editing policy! And I won't have Wikipedia poisoned at the root. If we change this policy, then we must change dozens that flow from it. Is a WP:Reliable source not reliable when added by someone we don't like? Yes, says WP:BMB. Is information not verifiable when added by someone we don't like? Yes, says WP:BMB. Is a point of view, otherwise verifiable via reliable sources, suddenly invalid because it's added by someone we don't care for? Yes, says WP:BMB. Even the WP:LINK policy -- the violation of which largely kicked off this discussion on my end -- would have to be changed. Sure, build the web, but, not if it's done by someone we don't like. It's completely absurd. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and I'll take all the help I can get. Projecting your own personal ego complexes (to the point that many of you deny how out of whack WP:BMB is with the rest of the project's goals) onto a bunch of random IP addresses whom you've decided are sinister foes (We must deny their ego gratification?? Really???) is, in contrast, profoundly unhelpful. Perhaps meta puts it better than I can: meta:Don't be a dick. Focusing in on the editor rather that the edit is the ultimate dick move. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Poison, an appeal to absurdity, egocentrism, and genitalia arguments do not demonstrate that ad hominem considerations should never be a part of our process.  What I see instead is that you are not requesting community resolution of a perceived conflict.  We had a recent RfC, in which the closing of this RfC concludes that consensus denial for WP:BAN is inherently unreasonable.  Do you agree that, "WP:Banning policy documents an English Wikipedia policy"?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose premise and oppose any change. It would be nice if a simple set of rules covered every situation, but that's not going to happen. Long-term abusers are a fact of life, and particular cases may need significant application of "banned means banned"—I have seen a couple of such applications be quite successful. Of course we want to preserve good edits, but life is more complex than suggested by this proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

One last thing to note WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD etc etc also remove encyclopedic content. I have had articles (or sections of articles) that I put hours of work into vanish and I am not a banned editor. Though I regretted there disappearance I also know that it is part and parcel of editing at Wikipedia. I see no reason to change any of the policies or guidelines or essays which caused the removal of those edits anymore than I can see the need to coddle banned users. MarnetteD|Talk 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support explicit wording in the Banning policy making the deletion discretionary That is in fact the situation--although some admins delete as a matter of course, others first check the article. Whether or not the article can be presumed to be bad depends on the reason for banning, because many of them have no reference to the quality or nature of the contribution: Some do of course, such as persistently submitting copyvios. If the problems are behavioral, this not not necessarily imply that the article will be unsatisfactory.

the only real reason for maintaining a strict policy is that there is otherwise no way to enforce the ban, except by removing the temptation to contribute. Experience seems to show this does not work well. There is in fact almost no way of accurately detecting and enforcing a ban, and there never will be as long and we continue to permit anonymous contribution. In practice, removing the article seems rather to encourage ingenious attempts at circumventing the ban, making the situation all the more difficult. It is of course necessary that some editor in good standing take responsibility for verifying the material, but the deletion should be slow enough to give the editors who want to do that an opportunity to do so. I am aware that my position here is likely to remain a minority, but the more I work here and see the decent articles we are needlessly discarding, the more I am convinced that we do need to change it. Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and accurate content is what is needed. The identity of the contributor does not fundamentally matter. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Banning policy already says, "...no editor is personally obligated to help enforce any ban."  How much more explicit do you want it?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think User:DGG has basically the right idea, but he is confused about the scope. WP:PRESERVE is about preserving the encyclopedic content within an article, not about deleting an article (for which there is an entirely separate process). But yes: "Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and accurate content is what is needed. The identity of the contributor does not fundamentally matter." On that we agree! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, there are two problems: one is edits to articles made by banned editors, where we need to be careful not to reject necessary improvements or corrections (perhaps one solution is to encourage them to suggest them anonymously on the article talk p., analogous with the COI policy). The other is what to do with articles they submitted. Obviously no individual admin has to delete them, the way all admins do have the obligation to delete copyvio etc. --the problem is that those admins who think it necessary to delete them all make it much harder for anyone to endorse them (which is at present usually best done by making a substantial edit) DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (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.