Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

• Discussions of technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
• Discussions of policy belong at Village pump (policy).
• If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

• This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
• Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.

« Archives, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61

Why is Wikipedia non-profit?

why don't we run ads at the top or bottom of articles?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Two different questions. But the answer is: Because we decided it this way, for a variety of reason. With respect to the second question: Without ads we are not beholden to advertisers. And we do not piss off users. And we waste less bandwidth. And we make the site more performant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought that if we run ads, Wikimedia wouldn't be non-profit. I think if we added ads at the bottom of the article it wouldn't piss off users. Editors can also earn part of the money Wikimedia gets from the ads. That would be very helpful to editors who are editing here for free. Yesterday I watched an interview with an editor here who had made 1/4 or 3/4 (I don't remember) of what is in Wikipedia and when the interviewer asked him how much money he earns from this, he said none!. Isn't that very disappointing?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-profits can earn money, they just cannot make a profit (at least not one that is distributed to its principals, or that goes beyond its non-profit purpose). Adding ads would sure piss me off (and I'm a user). I'm sure others would share that sentiment. I doubt that there is an editor who made 1/4 or 3/4 or indeed any reasonable fraction of what is in Wikipedia, although we do have some very prolific contributors. Many of us who donate time to the project do so because it is a non-profit. Why should I give my work to a commercial entity? Unless they pay my going rate, which would be very hard to recoup with ads...at least when applied to all editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Most likely, the OP refers to the editor who was reported to have touched one-third of the articles on en-wiki. Clearly the OP didn't retain much more than the headline. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

According to CBS, as long as I make an edit to every article, I am responsible for the entire Wikipedia. –xeno^talk 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that piece of journalism, the non-English Wikipedias have "millions of translated article", which would leave very few original ones. Maybe I should tell the people on de: ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It would cease to be a free encyclopedia if it were run for profit and running ads results in the inevitable influence of advertisers on content (and other) policies. Wikipedia has been strict about conflicts of interest since forever, so I am sure there would be consensus against this if it was proposed - perhaps it has been in the past, not sure. Quora is a website which thinks it's a "competitor" of Wikipedia but is run for profit and has most of its modus operandi dictated by its advertising partners. In any case, even if the WMF did make money from advertisements on Wikipedia I doubt they would share any of it with the editors. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not disappointing at all. There are many other reasons to create works than the profit motive. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Allowing advertising on Wikipedia has been debated in the past (see Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements). The community of editors has consistently and strongly opposed advertising on Wikipedia, and I doubt that will change any time in the foreseeable future. - Donald Albury 13:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-profit because it shields from liability .....all because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.--Moxy 🍁 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that this is a for-fun kind of thing, not a money-making scheme. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It isn't the non-profit status of the Wikimedia Foundation that allows it to avail itself of section 230 (Internet service providers and Internet search engine companies, for example, benefit from its protections). It's the lack of editorial control on its part, thereby assuring that the "information content provider" (as described in section 230) remains the Wikipedia users. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Advertising implies tracking. How else would the advertisers be sure their advert has been delivered as many times as they're paying for? That in turn means violating the privacy of your IP address and your off-wiki identity which you were guaranteed when you signed up - Wikipedia:Why create an account? -- Cabayi (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that perhaps Wikipedia should in fact allow some advertising. we are one of the top websites worldwide after all. there's no reason it should be so hard for Wikipedia to obtain enough funding to operate smoothly.--Sm8900 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bible should have advertisements. The Bible is one of the top books in the world. Why not add some advertisements in every copy? No reason not to. Buddhist monks should have ads on their foreheads. Encyclopaedia Britannica should have a page of ads every ten pages. Merriam Webster should have thirty pages of ads at the back. All that wasted ad space on the sides of the Kaaba! Gravestones too! (actually I have seen a discrete ad on a gravestone) Hell, add adverstisements on the dollar bills! That would be awesome. Jails should be sponsored. "Bud Light Correctional Help Center" Your name should be an advertisement man- go change it. If you don't change your name to Dick Microsoft, you have wasted an economic opportunity. That's my opinion~~haha Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Pepsi Cola Mars Organic Molecule Analyser Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, why are Pepsi sponsoring something already sponsored by Mars? Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How about getting sponsors for years?--Shirt58 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The sad thing is that we already accept advertising, we just don't charge for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Large chunks of Wikipedia are already advertising. We have some companies’ entire product lines covered. We have navigation templates for many product lines. For example, we have a better catalogue of Microsoft products than Microsoft.com. – Levivich 06:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Money is the root of all evil. End. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the OP to look at the history of Enciclopedia Libre - when even the slightest hint of ads came, the userbase of ESwiki rebelled and made a fork. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling that discussion on whether Wikipedia should allow adverts. is already covered at Wikipedia: Perennial_proposals. Vorbee (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC) It is - it covered at Section 1.4 of this. Vorbee (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is whether we can be independent of advertisers if we ran ads; while Wikipedia was indeed originally intended to be for-profit, being paid by outside parties would compromise our neutrality. There's also some moral argument that others might raise, although I personally don't care much for it and it is secondary to the above. This was a really big deal back in 2002, but at this point it's probably well established that we don't run ads. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Vital articles, level 6 proposal

I am relatively new to Wikipedia as an editor, so please feel free to redirect me if this is the wrong place to start.

I am a regular consumer of the Vital Articles project and have been following the development of both the level 4 and level 5. I realize it is premature to start a level 6, as level 5 is only at 33,666 articles of the proposed 50,000, however, I would like to propose to the community that they consider starting level 6, mainly to help with some of what I observe in the talk page discussion. (I'm also aware I might be missing entirely a discussion forum where more in-depth collaboration is happening, so if what I'm proposing is already in the works, please let me know; and, if someone can point me to those places, I would be a happy fly on the wall there.)

At level 5, what I notice is that major topics are developing into vast categories. For example, at level 5, mathematics has 1100 (targeted) articles, literature 1000, and language 590. However, these areas easily have well over 1000 important topics. Consider, for example, the more than 7,000 languages known of around the world. As someone who enjoys consuming knowledge in the encyclopedic format Wikipedia offers, I like knowing after level 5, for example, what next order of topics would be important.

My proposal has a more practical motivation, however. Having a level 6 right now, rather than when level 5 is complete, would allow authors/editors a larger dumping ground to lay out many of the proposed articles that might make it into level 5 but are still being debated. Having a preliminary level 6 would allow Wikipedians to make some estimates on how many possible articles might be in a given category at level 6 (for example, the language category might have a target of 2,000 articles at level 6). Additionally, this might inspire some Wikipedians to develop many less-visited articles that are brought to light by this method of prioritizing further topics.

Using the same scaling factor as from level 4 to 5 (being 10,000 articles, to 50,000 articles) one could envision a level 6 focusing on the most important 250,000 articles on Wikipedia. This then could be tackled and refined once level 5 is finished. But having it laid in place would allow the authors/editors of level 5 to lay down many of the competing candidates for level 5 in the level 6 area, then work backwards by refining that through ongoing discussion. It would also allow contributors to suggest topics that might go in level 5 or level 6, giving them more option than simply being allowed, or rejected (and then forgotten about).

Because it is impractical to start dumping 250,000 articles in this possible level 6, I'd propose that if this idea were started, it would be limited to categories, i.e. the language, mathematics, and literature example I gave. One would not need to worry about whether the estimated total is too accurate. It is enough to say, for instance, that we could imagine if language has a target of 590 articles in level 5, then a level 6 target could be 2,000. It might be practical to make sub-categories for each of these level 6 topics, rather than just a level 6 (i.e. "Vital Articles level 6 (language)", "Vital Articles Level 6 (mathematics)"), so that each major category in level 5 could be developed separately as level 6, while level 5 is being put together. This is just a thought.

I appreciate any help / input you might give on this matter. Meanwhile, I will continue to read my way through the vital articles. It is a great endeavor and a good system to organize information, and my hope is over time this approach will allow Wikipedia to curate and refine articles through a method of rigor, in order of priority using the vital articles priority as a guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrobinrt (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Already at the level 5, many of the topics are not very vital, and I suspect that many topics yet to be written should be at this level. Projects probably need to explore possible topics that could be written even at the level 5. A deeper level certainly would not be vital, as it would be beyond most encyclopedias. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Like Graeme, I find most of the vital-5s not at all vital, and so I'd be firmly against yet another layer Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd already support deleting level 5 with how broad it is. I do not want another level, as I believe that would be waaaaaay too broad. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts, but I have to concur that we're not ready for Level 6. There are barely enough efforts to build out Level 5, and I anticipate that a level 6 would be sloppy and incomplete, damaging the integrity of the VA label. Sdkb (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the point of this Vital articles anyway? I haven't noticed the articles at the top levels improved significantly because of the project. Wouldn't it be better, if instead of adding new levels and sorting articles, steps would be taken in the direction of actually improving those at the levels 1,2,3 and finally giving project some sense. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions#Why does the list exist?. It's hard to pinpoint exactly the impact that a VA designation has, but the fact that VA is widely known outside of the project itself indicates that there's at the least a baseline level of awareness. Sdkb (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I know why it was established. Maybe I wasn't clear. I know that it gives a direction in which to work, but do editors really follow this direction? I know that it provides a measurement of the quality, but are areas which are lacking it really being improved? That is what I'm talking about. It seems to me that there are no results from those lists. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ludost Mlačani, I think that list makes almost no difference here, at the English Wikipedia. A very small number of editors has been inspired by it in the past, but that's all. However, it is used by people who want to start a new Wikipedia (i.e., in a different language). WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, then the description at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_does_the_list_exist? is false and misleading and should be changed. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Contact people

For articles about people, the person(s) which the article is about, could have a "messenger" function. Like a "hotmail" functionlty, private messages to the user. Just like Per in Sweden contact page, but private, non-public too. Entirely voluntary for the people concerned, of course.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per in Sweden (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This was just a quick useful idea that I had. I realize the problems with fake identities, people who want to have fun reading and writing in some famous peoples name. Any solutions, that do not require enormous amount of work by wikipedia?

(1) Threat of suing for ID hijacking. The problem is that in third world countries with access to Internet might not be possible to sue them. And especially if they are very poor, not much gained either.

(2) Email verification with proper unique resource locator (URL) that are recognized.

(3) Credit card verification.

(4) Snail mail verification with printed code.

Advantage to wikipedia is that wikipedia could charge people who want this service (to cover administration e.g. snail mail handling, and a profit)~ Corporations could have their sales boosted by a contact feature on their wikipedia article, since it is so accessible, which means wikipedia can charge premium rates, and reduce their reliance on user money contributions, that you ask for.Per in Sweden (talk)

Probably most wanted feature of famous people, BAN abusive people, i.e. log IP-number and if user presses BAN, then that IP-address is banned from future contact with that person.

Another useful feature would be CAPTCHA feature, that prevents bots sending spam.

Another useful feature would be to people can talk privately with their identity on wikipedia, so that people do not have to reveal their e-mail.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per in Sweden (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No. If I understand this proposal correctly I can see no benefit whatsoever to it. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site or a marketing resource. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Social networking, means not private messaging function, email was never called "Social networking"; further me and you messaging here for others to read in the Community portal, is already a kind of social networking. Therefore it is already in place making your point mute, unless you want to remove the Community portal.

2. Everything is commercial, since one needs to eat (buy food). Donations is commerical, what metters is not to be governed by those who provides economical resources. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per in Sweden (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Securing economical muscles, usually is an advantage. Competitors to wikipedia could happen in the future. Then the donations strem could reduce until it is too little. Survival usually means planning for the future, in many ways. Denying yourself economical security, usually is dumb. Pride before fall, as it is called. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per in Sweden (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What could be useful is a link to an official communications or contact site for the person. I don't think that Wikipedia is a service for providing contact. But if the subject is also a Wikipedian then there are the standard ways of talk pages and perhaps emailuser. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be based entirely on reliable sources. If a person or an institution has concerns about the contents of an article about them, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with those concerns. I see no reason to provide a method for editors or readers of Wikipedia to contact subjects of articles in Wikipedia. We are not a fan site, or a social networking site, or an on-line shopping service. - Donald Albury 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to a private message system to replace email. There are several problems, though:

1. If it becomes fashionable to use PMs instead of talk pages, discussions will be closed from other users. This means that other editors would not be able to see the discussion for reference, and they would not be able to participate.
2. E-mail creates an atmosphere of caution. You're revealing your e-mail; it better be important, and you'd better trust the user you're e-mailing a lot. Whereas with PMs, you can use them for almost anything, meaning that the problems with the privacy of e-mail are particularly increased.
3. Only users with high user permissions would be able to see PMs. Probably not even admins. This means that abuse of PMs is less detect-able. Trolls and vandals could easily use PMs to harass editors while it takes hours for a bureaucrat or someone to block them.

A few other points. First, ID hijacking isn't really a big deal. Impersonation of famous people is easily spotted and can be dealt with. If a country is trying to heavily influence Wikipedia, we can always fight them back. I'm glad that there isn't a recent Fram-scale scandal (yet) involving government interference in Wikipedia that would shake Wikipedia to its core.

Second, 2, 3, and 4 are likely to stop many contributors from editing. They wouldn't apply to IPs, so I guess we'd have to ban IPs. Also, many users would be scared away by privacy violations. My last objection is that we have many wonderful editors who are minors and therefore don't have credit cards.

Wikipedia isn't a guide, handbook, or advertisement. It's nonprofit, and one of our core policies is neutral point of view. This is related to conflict of interest, which means people related to topics on Wikipedia are especially scrutinized. There are numerous examples of companies trying to influence their own Wikipedia pages, and we stop them. A "contact me" feature on Wikipedia contradicts Wikipedia's state as an encyclopedia. In addition, Wikipedia's mission statement says that it aims to be free of charge.

A block feature wouldn't work so well. Imagine two contributors to an article in an edit war. They both decide to block each other. What happens now? They can't see each other's edits, so the edit war gets nastier. We need to be able to see (nearly) everyone's contributions (see WP:OVERSIGHT). We have interaction bans that can be handed out by community consensus or the Arbitration Committee (I believe) that prevent problematic users from interacting with each other.

For the CAPTCHA, there's currently a discussion of it, I believe in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Require registration. We've had IPs editing for over a decade, and Wikipedia isn't doomed.

The last point about securing economic status isn't valid. Wikipedia is nonprofit. There aren't any profits threatened by competition. Wikipedia being forced to compete would ruin its integrity. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cross-reference multiple categories

It would be great to see which articles appear across every one of a selection of categories. i.e. selecting Category:Portsmouth F.C. players and Category:Aston Villa F.C. players would display all people to have played at both clubs. Grunners (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Category intersection for a detailed explanation of why this is more difficult than it sounds. In the meantime, you can use the Wikipedia:PetScan software to generate a list of articles which fall into multiple categories. ‑ Iridescent 13:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Victims' names proposal workshop

Refactored from: Talk:Saugus High School shooting. El_C 16:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If you followed a link here and are confused, scroll to the top of this page for information on the idea lab, its purpose and how to participate. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

There have been various comments calling – begging – for a guideline to avoid these repetitive discussions. I feel your pain. There are always those comments, but this time they include support for such a guideline from a couple of admins, which is something new. User:El C has suggested that we work up a proposal here for submission at the Village Pump. I don't know how to get that started except to just start talking about it and hope something useful comes out of that. So here I am with my brain dump, and I will end each point with my signature so comments can be inserted without interleaving. Others may have ideas about how to organize this. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The last Village Pump proposal for a guideline was opened November 2018. Eight weeks, 60 !votes, and 17,000 words later, it was closed with "no consensus". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The first question is how another proposal after only one year will be received. That's a relatively short gap in the history of these proposals, I think. WP:CCC says proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive, and bringing another eight-week discussion after only a year may be seen as disruptive as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If we decide to proceed, we need to see what we can learn from past failures. In my view that last one failed partly because it was framed with too wide a scope. Instead of being just about mass killing events, it sought a guideline governing "tragic events" including plane crashes and natural disasters. That complicated the question – many of the relevant factors differ between a mass shooting and a plane crash, for example – and it sent the discussion in too many different directions for any consensus to emerge. I didn't follow that discussion closely at the time, and I haven't read the whole thing now, but I think that's a safe assumption knowing how these discussions play out. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"One size can't fit all" makes more sense when the "all" includes all those different types of events. While one could argue the merits of the wider scope, that doesn't mean much if it prevents any solution to our narrower problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That last proposal was framed as a binary yes-or-no on the "deprecation" of "bare lists of victims, which only compile names and basic information (age, birthplace, occupation, etc.)". I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to frame it as three options: default to omit, default to include, and no change. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Further, I think it should be explicitly stated that the guideline is only a "default". "Default" means that it should apply to roughly 95% of cases, and to deviate from the default editors should seek a consensus that there is something exceptional about the case that justifies said deviation. I believe this would help alleviate concerns that a guideline would be too inflexible. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe any guideline should explicitly allow for the inclusion, in prose, of the names of dead individuals who had a "significant active role" in the event. As tragic as it is, simply dying at the hands of another is a passive role, not an active one. An example of an active role would be a person who died trying to take down the shooter. Obviously, the prose should speak about the individual's role. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, the guideline could be worded to apply only to inclusion of the names of all dead (regardless of format, list or prose), and allow anything else to be handled on a case-by-case basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is promising. For the record, I've been calling for a guideline on mass shootings' victim lists for months now. Glad to see it may actually come to pass. El_C 16:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

More precisely, group killings or something similar. This would apply to killing any group of people with any weapon, including your knife, your car, etc. And "mass" doesn't really work considering that this originates from an article about the deaths of two individuals. Defining a clear boundary with any kind of coherence could be one of the tougher problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

For these types of articles, the default should be to include the basic information [name, age, and (if relevant) occupation (i.e. student, teacher, coach)], so as long as the list doesn't become so long as to distract the reader away from the article (i.e. taking half the article). TheHoax (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC) This discussion is about how to formulate a proposal, if any. It is not the proposal itself. If there were a three-way proposal as I suggested (which would be at WP:VPP or WP:VPR, not here), your comment would be a Support for "default to include", with further qualification. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) You're putting the cart before the horse — that's something to be argued at the proposal stage. We are just workshopping here about how the question ought to be framed. I think Omit, Include, or No change (the case-by-case repetition in place as default presently) are reasonable options to ask participants to choose from to serve as a default. El_C 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree the RfC options should be Default to omit, default to include, and no change. The guideline should be clear that this is a default that can be overridden on any given article by local consensus (but we stick with the default unless/until a discussion is closed as consensus to override default). Couple questions:
  • New guideline? Is this a new guideline, or an addition/revision to an existing guideline, and if so, which one? I propose this be an addition/revision to WP:BLP.
  • Scope? I don't think "all mass casualty events" is a good scope. I would suggest test-flying this out on mass shootings in the United States. Why? Because sadly they happen often and get lots of attention. – Levivich 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I proposed that it would be a supplementary to BLP. El_C 17:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a critical point: to deviate from the default editors should seek a consensus that there is something exceptional about the case that justifies said deviation. If you just say can be overridden on any given article by local consensus, you accomplish nothing. Editors whose preference is the inverse of the default would simply seek a consensus to override it at every article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Levivich that this discussion should be limited to "Mass shootings in the United States", and I would like to add the additional qualification that we are talking about shootings where the victims were chosen at random. In cases where the victims were targeted, such as January 2019 Louisiana shootings where the shooter killed family members, or 2019 Río Piedras shooting where the shootings apparently involved a drug gang war, the identity of the victims may be relevant in determining the shooter's motivation, and thus more important to include compared to victims targeted at random. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but it changes the proposal from one for a new guideline to one for a narrow-scope trial run. PAGs would not change (yet) and editors would link to the consensus discussion from article talk as needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with narrowing the scope, unless it is clear that it is only mass shooting in the US that have problems within the consensus to include/exclude victim lists (which I am 99% sure is not the case.) It should be for all types of disasters - man-made and nature - where innocent, generally non-notable people before the incident died. A trial run in a specific area is fine, but the RFC discussion should cover the concern broadly with a note that what results would be test-run on US mass shootings. --Masem (t) 21:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree with narrowing the scope to US shootings. Exactly the same considerations apply to articles like January 2017 Melbourne car attack, where there was a minor editorial skirmish to include victim names. Our deliberations should cover all such fatal attacks, regardless of the location or the weaponry. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I for one am curious on what all of the articles with kept victim names have in common? If we do make a new guideline it will then be driven by something in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

So, let's say that we have "Default to Include" and "Default to Exclude". That implicitly means "default to include (or exclude), subject to consensus to change that default on this specific article". No? So, how is that different than what we have now ... which is, seeking consensus over and over again on each article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

See comment beginning "This is a critical point", above. The essential point is that discussions of overriding the default would have to be limited to what makes that case exceptional compared to most of the rest. That would have to be explicitly stated somewhere and supported by the community consensus. If an editor violated that rule by making arguments not related to what makes the case exceptional, other editors would point to the rule. Persistent or repeated violations would be treated as disruption and subject to sanction. When there is a closer, the closer would need to be aware of the rule, and they would simply ignore any arguments that are in violation of it. That's really the only workable alternative to doing things the same way, include or omit, in 100% of the cases within the scope of the guideline. In my view such a system would prevent most of the discussions we have today, without being completely inflexible. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to say that the RFC should definitively close as "default to exclude" and "default to include" with either case have allowance for consensus-based local discussions override. But to that last point, we should make sure to provide bullet points of what are reasonable cases where to override this proposed PAG can be used. For example, if we "default to exclude" an exception may be made for cases of killings targetting specific individuals (as suggested by MelanieN above), which should be spelled out in this PAG. What we want at the end is a PAG that helps avoid "I like it/I don't like it" arguments for inclusion/omission of victim lists. And the more definition we can give based on past practices of the line, the better. --Masem (t) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Masem, I'm not sure that a one-size-fits-all approach is as likely to get consensus as a more nuanced approach. Consider, e.g., alternatives like these:

• Default to exclude complete lists when the list of injured, missing, and dead people exceeds n.
• Default to exclude, unless all of the following conditions are met...
• Default to include all notable and non-random targets, and to normally exclude non-notable 'random' targets.

Also, I think we'll get more support if the proposal says what to do when the victims' names are excluded. Reminding people that they can link to an external list of victims can be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Some editors have said that victims' names should be included when the number killed is in single or low double figures, but to exclude them if the number killed is above a particular figure. I disagree with this, but does that suggestion have enough support for it to be an option? Jim Michael (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with it, too, since my reasons for opposing the lists apply whether it's three or thirty. I don't see much value in a compromise that says, "Ok, you can violate these principles just a little bit." If there's a counter-argument, some reason why three should be more acceptable to me given my stated arguments for opposition, I don't recall seeing it.

More important to me at this stage: How can we find a good answer to the question does that suggestion have enough support for it to be an option? and the many others like it? This thread is less than a day old, and it's already becoming unmanageable. This is what I anticipated in my opening comment: Others may have ideas about how to organize this. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just seen this, and my $0.02 is to repeat the long standing view that articles about mass shootings (and also disasters as a whole) should not list all of the victims' names by default; WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc, it has all been said many times before. However, it seems that it is never possible to obtain a consensus in favour of this proposal, so I am not sure how far it will get this time round.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: I am not sure how far it will get this time round. Nor am I. But, while it may be wishful thinking, my perception is that sentiments are changing as experience shows how useless and unnecessary "case-by-case" is for mass killings. While outcomes have varied in recent years, it wasn't because of significant differences in the cases; it was a random result of who (and how many) happened to show up. We know this because the arguments never varied much between cases, and any variances had nothing to do with the unique characteristics of the cases. Some discussions cited NOTMEMORIAL, others didn't; some cited NOTNEWS, others didn't; and so on. There's nothing like actual experience to replace crystal-balling. Secondly we can learn from mistakes made in the formulation of previous proposals. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest claim against me by InedibleHulk. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Why did The Hoax get hatted for voting too soon, while Ian got a ping, repost, show of solidarity, echoes of policies exclusionists would echo and a wall of text about your perception of sentiments and personal experience of useless and unnecessary campaigning? Topic ban and hat me, fine, but I move you be disqualified from overtly leading this supposed ultimate plan on account of your obvious conflict of interest. Pick someone from an untainted pool of powerusers with dispute resolution experience, if you want this to be impartial. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, November 20, 2019 (UTC) One difference: Part of Ian's comment was relevant here, its last sentence. Note that that's the part I responded to. And yes, status/experience and reputation mean something at Wikipedia, just as everywhere else in the world since the dawn of personkind. BTW, TheHoax has been topic banned. Also BTW, I'm "overtly leading" nothing. All threads are started by a single editor, I happened to be the one to step up and start this one, and I started it with things that have been in my head for some time about the prospects of a new proposal and how it might be framed (which is distinct from the names issue itself, a point that some have found it difficult to grasp). It's not evil, really. Mandruss's first priority, his #1 agenda, is to eliminate wasted time in repetitive discussions. A default to include would be far preferable to him than the status quo, as he has clearly stated several times throughout this saga. So stop with the accusations, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Stepping up and starting something in plain sight is overtly leading it. You certainly aren't evil for preferring to abolish the current system rather than waste time continuing to fight for exclusion in every case. But this preference means you have a vested interest in achieving that result, so might (in theory) tilt this formulation so the actual result suits you, not everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, November 20, 2019 (UTC) Hmmm, I'm not sure how one would start a public discussion not in plain sight, but whatever. Some people would thank me for helping move things along, but I don't need that. Regardless, my comments weigh no more than anybody else's just because they occurred first. This one was not about formulation, I digressed there and you're free to collapse it as off topic if you like. Otherwise if you see me actually tilting any formulation, feel free to speak up. Barring that, your concerns appear to be unfounded. And I expect someone will be along soon to collapse this whole line of discussion as off topic personalizing. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) One would start a private discussion not in plain sight, which would make one the covert leader, which you clearly are not. Not sure why you denied moving things along publicly then, and seem to want thanks for it now. If you're outright hoping this is hushed up so you can continue on leading us forward instead of someone more suitable, you're still leading (as in directing, suggesting and maintaning your vision of order). Thank you for your assistance, now please pass the controller to a new player. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:11, November 20, 2019 (UTC) I hereby cede my nonexistent leadership to anyone who wants it. I will continue to comment in this discussion, as I believe I have something to contribute, so ceding my nonexistent leadership will have no effect on anything. How that be? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC) If you can comment without steering, governing, dictating, ruling, overruling, coercing, shaping, ensuring, motivating, demoralizing or pointing to where you want us to go, you can stop leading. Just stop being the prominent figurehead and driving force for a day. They call it "being relieved" for a reason, commander. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, November 20, 2019 (UTC) I'm not unreasonable and I consider myself a team player. So if I hear a second on your motion but no opposition to it, I'll retire from this discussion for a full 24 hours. Otherwise I'm afraid you don't have the authority to relieve me; that would make you the commander, right? I protest this coup against my nonexistent leadership! This is a fun and stimulating exercise and I continue to dance with you only because I know it will ultimately be collapsed and so do little harm to the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not trying to pull rank, we're both frontline grunts and have bonded in the same phony trenches. As your unpaid work friend, I'm just a bit worried about you going mad with power. Take the easy way out or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, November 20, 2019 (UTC) I do feel a wikibreak coming on, but that's my choice not yours; and it's probably more likely if I'm not being pushed; that's just human nature. I'll see how it goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I still think a good starting point is existing Wikipedia guidance. In general, 1) we discourage lists where information is better presented by prose ([1] and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Use_prose_where_understood_easily) and 2) We discourage bare lists of otherwise non-notable (i.e. would never merit a Wikipedia article) people (WP:LISTPEOPLE, to wit "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: 1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. 2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." bold mine). I'm not entirely sure why people who were killed in some unfortunate way (natural disaster, accident, mass murder, etc.) suddenly become exempt from these principles. If people are worth mentioning in the article for something more than merely dying (like if they did something important to the narrative), write about them in the prose. If all we have to say is "they died", then don't. If we have guidance, the guidance should be "don't treat these situations differently". Just as we don't create a list of every alumni of a university, we don't create a list of every employee of a company, etc. we don't need to create a list of every person who has died. Any new guidance should make clear this is NOT new policy or guideline, just a restatement of existing policy and a reinforcement that it still applies for these situations. --Jayron32 14:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: There has been some confusion about the purpose of this discussion, and I now believe it's the result of disagreement about what a proposal should look like. If we want a binary up-or-down like the last one, which would necessarily be some variation of inclusion or some variation of omission, then it makes sense to discuss the merits of both here. On other hand, if we want something like the three-way I suggested above, it's more of a neutral question than a proposal, and it doesn't make sense to discuss those merits here; that discussion would be saved for the RfC. Therefore I think there needs to be a decision about that before we do anything else here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a workshop. It isn't a proposal. We're just throwing ideas out and brainstorming stuff. This isn't a vote. These are my thoughts. --Jayron32 15:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't think the workshop should start with a decision on whether the RfC should present a three-way neutral question or a two-way non-neutral proposal? I do. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No, workshops don't make decisions. They collect ideas. See the instructions at the top of this page: "The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas." (bold mine). If you had wanted a vote, you should have started the discussion at WP:VPR. This is a "give us your ideas" place, not a "vote on my proposal" place. --Jayron32 15:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We appear to disagree about the purpose of this workshop. A decision on whether the RfC should present a three-way neutral question or a two-way non-neutral proposal is not a !vote. It is a framing question, and the first one. It's precisely the kind of thing a framing discussion (workshop) should decide. It has been my understanding that this is a framing discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You know what, have your own workshop. You asked me for help a few days ago. You also literally said in your first post above "I don't know how to get that started except to just start talking about it and hope something useful comes out of that." I spent some time giving the issue consideration. After careful thought, I threw out some ideas I thought would be helpful. That's it. Given the deep levels of ownership you seem to want to have over this discussion, including the walls of text you keep adding, the repeated attempts to collapse parts of the discussion you don't personally like or agree with, and the continuous badgering of good faith comments by others, including myself (who, I might add again, you contacted about the issue and brought me in on this), and your desire to carefully control the discussion and steer it only in the direction you want it to go in, consider my hands washed of the matter. Have fun doing this by yourself. It seems like what you really want anyways, given your actions. Vaya con dios, amigo. --Jayron32 16:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Adios. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it seems my participation here to date is not widely appreciated, and I don't know of a different way to participate, so I'll exit this workshop. Sincere best wishes on developing a viable and useful proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Jayron32, I'm thinking that there are two sets of options, which might be rendered something like this:

• Should we include a bulleted list or a table of victims' names?
  • None
  • Some (e.g., if it's short, or only notable people)
  • All
• Should we include the victims' names in the article, but not in a list?
  • None
  • Some (e.g., if it's short, or only people who were involved in some element of the "plot")
  • All

Presentation options

List	Prose
Victims Alice Bob Carol	Victims After archiving Aunt Alice, Mallory bludgeoned Bob and criticized Cousin Carol.

People might feel quite differently about these two presentation options, and just as strongly as they do about whether any given name ought to be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

Please note that possible canvassing has already taken place by TheHoax in their mass message — I attempt to address it here. As mentioned there, I hope this will not end up tainting the proposal before it is even had a chance to be formulated! El_C 17:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

---

These are the users that were mass messaged by TheHoax:

Locke Cole, Bus stop, Nsk92, Puddleglum2.0, Joseph A. Spadaro, Starship.paint, Carwil, Knowledgekid87, WikiVirusC , Pharos, and InedibleHulk.

In addition to the mass message being problematic in itself, the only names I recognize are ones who support inclusion. If that is, indeed, the tendency, we may have a serious problem to contend with, and as a result, perhaps it would be best to suspend the proposal for a month or two. Note that, for now, I have topic banned TheHoax from Gun control, broadly construed. El_C 17:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be easy to spot any adverse effects of the canvassing. Like if a list Supporter argues for elimination of "default to omit" as an option, that's a red flag, or at least a dark pink one. I think it would be premature to postpone at this juncture. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Stricken per comment below. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The editors were clearly selected from Talk:Saugus High School shooting#Request_for_comment: Victims' names and Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting#List of victims' names. They all supported inclusion. Apart from InedibleHulk, they were canvassed in the same order they participated in the earlier RFCs. CIreland (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I, actually, am not sure it would be that easy. We may have to postpone, so brace yourself for that possibility. I want this process to be as fair as possible. Having double digits number of editors canvassed may prove to be too much of a hindrance to this process. El_C 18:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think postponing the discussion will change anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to place more weight on opinions from those users who have not been canvassed. This is not your fault, but it's just the way it is. El_C 18:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Canvassed or not doesn't make my opinion invalid, this has been a hot ongoing debate for years now on Wikipedia and will attract a ton of editors. I am not sure what "fairness" you are looking for? If the include arguments are weak then omit would be in favor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

And yet, I still place less weight of it, since you now, unwittingly, have a temporary conflict of interest. It would be to your side's advantage if the canvassed proposal was launched. Fairness as in a proposal that has not been tainted by canvassing. El_C 18:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

if the canvassed proposal was launched. Ah, I didn't think of it that way. Canvassing here taints discussion there, since one follows closely after the other. I get it now. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• I was one of the users canvassed by TheHoax. Since the current discussion has become tainted, I would suggest closing this entire discussion and starting entirely from scratch, with notifications being sent to a broad range of users who have participated in the discussions on including/excluding victims names for various articles. It may in fact be a good idea to work out here, at this page, the list of users who would be notified, first, before such notifications are sent out. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• I also am a canvassed editor, my opinion isn't really changed by the message, I was aware of this discussion before I got canvassed. If it's the best option, I'm fine with just staying out of the discussion also. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Off topic. (Unless you wish to discuss the canvassing and resulting possible postponement of the proposal, please do not comment in this subsection.) El_C 18:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the end it comes down to you having to make the case that not including victim names improves Wikipedia. Consensus is measured by argument strength and not by votes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Like TheHoax above, you are off topic. This is about the formulation of a proposal. One's opinions about the merits of the lists have no place in this particular discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Default to Include Victim Names – So, what exactly are we "voting" on? I read the above discussion. And I am not quite 100% sure. But, I think there are three choices: Default to Include; Default to Exclude; No Change. I am going on that assumption to place my "vote" here. Also, whether I was "canvassed" or not should not "discount" my vote or comments or opinions. I have been weighing in on this topic repeatedly and consistently for, what, years now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Like TheHoax and Knowledgekid87 above, you are off topic. This is about the formulation of a proposal to be presented at WP:VPP or WP:VPR. Should there be a proposal at this time, or is too soon since the last one? What exactly should be proposed? How should the proposal be framed? What should the options of the proposal be? And so on. So, what exactly are we "voting" on? Well, we weren't "voting" on anything, per se, until you created a subsection called "!Vote". We're just talking at this point, batting ideas back and forth (this page is Village pump (idea lab)". Feel free to join that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Well, since everybody seems to be "off topic" ... it's clear that it's not clear what the actual topic here is. I say. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, El_C, for spotting and mopping up the canvassing. Not sure what to do about the proposal; putting it off might be best for the reasons described above. Also maybe as a deterrent to future canvassing attempts. – Levivich 00:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about artificially lightening my opinion to ensure business as usual, El C, I'm blowing this fugazi carnival stand and the whole assclown circuit. No offense you fine jugglers, ringleaders, trapeze artists, midgets, giants, lions, lizard people, bearded ladies, unitarded unicyclistic unicorns and ushers, but this media circus act ain't what she used to be. Too political, too regulated, too expensive. I've given up seven potential marriages for this Great Kabook of Knowledge since the dark night rose over Aurora and enough's enough. You want to promote murderers and bury the dead, go for it. I've had enough blood and fear and bureaucracy. Exodus, anyone? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

As someone who, to my recollection, hasn't commented previously in this debate, I suggest not worrying about a handful of canvassed editors and instead focusing on casting a wide net to get other potentially interested editors involved. Hopefully the result will be a fairly concise request for comments, which is going to be put forth to the entire community anyway. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal phase postponed until 2020 — Workshop phase remains open, of course

I have decided, with some misgivings, to postpone the proposal phase until 2020 at the earliest. It's just better, I think, to be sure that the process is as fair as possible, then have a decision that may be later marred with claims of impropriety. Sorry for the delay, at any case. El_C 20:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget to post a message on everyone's talk page when the proposal re-starts. – Levivich 03:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Can't "re-start" a proposal that hasn't started yet (because it doesn't exist yet). Workshop phase remains open per this heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Could you clarify where you mean for this workshop phase to occur? Here, on this page and in this thread? Or somewhere else? Nsk92 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Sure. It's already started in this subsection's parent section. It can continue in that section and/or in one or more new subsections not yet established. How to organize the process to make it manageable is TBD, but I question whether simply dumping comments into a continuous series of "arbitrary break" subsections is likely to yield usable results. Any suggestions welcome. We almost need a workshop to decide how to run the workshop. Anyway as it stands today there's nothing stopping you from just adding comments to the parent section. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing other people's comments during discussions

Are there any guidelines for {{collapse}}? This is becoming a frequent tactic and seeing abuse and escalations. One involved party dismisses another party in a grey area of legitimacy. It can be intimidation. Akin to deleting a post without crossing the line.

A possible remedy is 1RR where anyone can collapse comments, but anyone else can uncollapse. Both parties are under 1RR. Someone else would have to re-collapse and a fourth party would have to re-uncollapse etc.. everyone under 1RR. If it still doesn't work out, discuss or take to ANI. Perhaps Admins would not be subject to 1RR to better deal with abuse. -- GreenC 21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Best way to get others to read a post is to collapse a post....makes everyone want to see what it says. Simply human nature to want to see. So if the tactic is to hide somthing collapsing has the opposite affect.--Moxy 🍁 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's extra true if Javascript is disabled. I just see everything framed in a box with an eye-catching red/green overline. I almost have to read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

No, the point is not to hide but to say to other readers, "This is unrelated or otherwise inappropriate. If you want to waste your time reading it, click Show and knock yerself out." I think many editors can resist the temptation (I'm generally not one of them, but then I have lots of time to waste). I have zero doubt that collapses make a closer's job considerably easier, when there is a closer.

As to the OP's questions, you can't codify all aspects of good behavior. In general the community needs to be less tolerant of chronic disrupters, in my view, and that would help alleviate many problems including this one. Barring that, Idunno. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As a related aside, I strongly feel that all collapses including other editors' comments should be signed like any other comments. But I'm not sure I would advocate a guideline on that either. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The only people who should be collapsing other editors comments in my view are administrators/crats, arbitrators or ArbCom clerks. It's especially troubling when the collapsed content is one or two comments as it strikes me as censorship. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:TPG might be a good place to discuss this further (or at least link to this discussion from the talk page there). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If it is to be done, it is absolutely NOT the exclusive purview of functionaries like admins, arbs, etc. No way at all. I'm not saying it should or should be done, but if it is to be done, it is definitely NOT an exclusive power of admins. Admins have three exclusive powers: to delete an article, to protect an article, and to block a user. Absolutely everything else can be done by any other user in good standing. If a discussion does qualify for collapsing, anyone can do it. Insofar as the closest policy to this is WP:CLOSE, it specifically and directly states "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins." Furthermore, an RFC clearly and unambiguously determined that admins don't have special rights to close or to overturn a closure by a non-admin. Admins do not have special consensus powers, and having the admin toolset is not a big deal. </rant> --Jayron32 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need new rules or guidelines about collapsing (hatting) material on a talk page. I agree with Jayron that collapsing material can be done by anyone, not just administrators. If it appears to have been done in bad faith, it can be reverted by anyone else, including the person/people whose comments were collapsed. Collapsing can be appropriate for disruptive material (falling short of outright vandalism which can be deleted), personal commentary about other editors ("discuss content, not other users"), off-topic digressions - basically things that disrupt or detract from the discussion, or take focus off the point at issue. As Mandruss said, it makes a closer's job much easier (although I'm guessing closers generally do look under the hat), because it makes it easier for readers to follow the thread. Of course, a reason should be given and signed by the person who does the hatting. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

As to reasons, I'm a bit concerned about your "wall of text" prevention rationale setting a dangerous precedent. When you busted me at Saugus, it made sense. That was 24 lines (on my monitor), with three line breaks and roughly 80% off-topic stoner crap. But above, Mandruss presses the same charge against four lines, no paragraph breaks and 80% relevant quitter talk. Where do we draw the line? Mandruss' introduction is relatively gargantuan (33 lines, 9 spaces, 9 signatures) and you just here went twice as long as I did. Puzzling. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Hulk, I will say that the Saugus bit was the first time I have ever hatted with that particular rationale, and that I hatted not a single comment, but three - two from you and one from El C - a humorous side discussion more appropriate for a user talk page. It might have been OK there if that wasn't already such a problematic discussion. As you know, that particular RfC generated many, many side discussions about other editors, which I and others collapsed in an attempt to keep the RfC discussion readable. I did not intend for that collapse to set a precedent, and I would not have applied it to your post above where you bid a colorful sayonara to the process - although it's true that it did nothing to further the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've reversed my collapse. Not worth it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you two. For what it's worth, not furthering discussion was entirely the point of trying to end my part in it. Can't just say nothing after seven years of saying things a weirdo might say, just be glad it was shorter than usual this time, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

You're aware that this thread has nothing to do with the preceding one? you just here went twice as long as I did. Puzzling. Not puzzling at all, if you refrain from comparing apples to oranges. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• In a few ANIs I've seen, the burden of reasoning for collapsing content gets higher the more involved the editor is and interpreted intent in doing so. I've rebuked several editors and an AfD was reconsidered for suggested abusive collapsing (as well as, as above, just undoing it when I more conventionally disagree with it). But as they say, it's all dependent on circumstances. While I don't think 1RR for it is a poor idea, I also don't think it's needed Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This IMO is the most important thing we've identified so far in this discussion: "the burden of reasoning for collapsing content gets higher the more involved the editor is and interpreted intent in doing so". If you're heavily involved in a dispute, if you have a strong POV about the main subject under discussion, if you are perceived (fairly or otherwise) as having a difficult relationship with any of the editors whose comments you want to hat, or any similar circumstance applies, then you shouldn't collapse those comments yourself. If it truly needs to be done, someone else will recognize that need and do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It goes both ways with the collapser and uncollapser being involved, that is the grey area situation. There are also cases of group vs group where one member will collapse another member from the other side, but the collapser is staying quiet in order to reach in and appear neutral enough to do controversial things, like collapsing inconvenient arguments. -- GreenC 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

What if we rival Google and YouTube?

It sounds dumb, but don't we have the resources? And, Google and YouTube are censoring creators, and wikipedia, as a free into source, can compete. What do you guys think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New340 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Its a dumb idea, but who knows? We are the free Infomation website. YouTube is censoring creators of all kinds. Same with Google's bias to right side sources. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by New340 (talk • contribs)

I can see your intentions for wikipedia are good, you seem to have intentions of expansion. The hard part of a successful Internet business idea is not coming up with the idea, the hard part is to get it to spread, to be widely known. This is where wikipedia comes in; global "brand name" recognition. New or old business models can be catapulted by the wikipedia brand name, for wikipedia and by wikipedia community. If wikipedia markets its own sister spin-offs, there is no risk of corruption from outside commercial forces; something that could be a reality by allowing external forces to market themselves on wikipedia. Per in Sweden (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Compete in what? Google is a search engine. YouTube is a video platform. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. GMG^talk 20:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Video content? Informational YouTubers censored elsewhere could contribute to WikiBooks, WikiNews, WikiVoyage or Wikiversity. The format would change: a WikiBook with a series of videos isn't quite the same as a YouTube playlist, but its an analogue. Most of what we're talking about has too much original research for the Wikipedia encyclopedia, and there's not really a Wiki for entertainment, but yeah, if you're making quality informational videos on sex ed or politics or whatever I don't see why you couldn't migrate to WikiMedia commons and present them as a WikiBook or WikiNews story. Work adapting to their formatting and style and such would be involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We do migrate content from YouTube to Commons all the time, that is, content that is appropriately freely licensed. The vast majority of content on YouTube is not. GMG^talk 21:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"We" are Wikipedia here at wikipedia.org, an encyclopedia ("pedia" in our name). This idea lab is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated. I don't see reason for Wikipedia to contain an Internet search engine or a video sharing site. If you mean a sister project run by the Wikimedia Foundation then see meta:Proposals for new projects. Open proposals include meta:VideoWiki. Closed proposals include meta:Wikisearch. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Forget Google and YouTube, let's rival Netflix and the Discovery Channel. BD2412 T 02:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Shark week? GMG^talk 02:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Given we're talking Wikipedia, more like Baby Shark week --Masem (t) 02:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A baby shark, unlike the young of decidedly less interesting fish, is called a "pup". Isn't that amazing? If you'd like to help shark puppies (including dog shark puppies) maintain their stranglehold on the marine human knowledge market, leave a comment below about how octopus afficionados are racist virgins who live in their mom's basement and support Donald Trump on Patreon, or suggest future sea animals to undermine and discredit. Be sure to check out InedibleHulk bandanas, mystery crates of chewable(?) vitamins or oversized foam novelty hands on AliBaba and don't forget to smash that Watchlist button to see this channel grow. The 1,000th stalker will win a chance to receive weekly notifications of authentic shark-based YouTube videos from around the web, signed by the Hulkster himself! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Why shouldn't Wikipedia have a Shark Week? We have the content. BD2412 T 05:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: I guess the question is, why should we have a shark week specifically, when it's already Discovery's thing? Pretty unoriginal. (There's also the fact that the entire purpose of Shark Week is to attract viewers with sensationalism, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion — not even for itself.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You think Discovery didn't steal Ancient Aliens from a bunch of dudes and a smaller bunch of dudettes on the Internet? Or Vikings? Or mermaids? What goes around comes around, nothing new under the sun. Even our current viewer retention strategy (sitting around waiting with our carpet-like oral discs extended) was directly ripped off from watching sea anenomes do their thing on screensavers and wallpaper in '98. If we can kill and eat Britannica, we can kill and eat anything we set our mind to. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:16, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

I think the answer to the first question, "don't we have the resources?", is a clear "no". To run a search engine or video-sharing site with anything like the popularity of Google search or YouTube would require far more server capacity that any non-profit like Wikimedia could possibly afford. But anyway, as PrimeHunter points out, this is a matter for Meta rather than the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@New3400: Just to give an idea of the scale of the resources needed to run a video-sharing site on a large scale, Netflix's annual electricity usage is roughly 250 GWh. To put that in perspective, the total electricity usage of the Wikimedia Foundation is roughly 3 GWh per year. That's before you factor in the cost of buying servers, network access charges, cooling systems, employing maintenance staff for all this new equipment, and before you take into account that Netflix largely has a single job—show a list of videos and stream them on request—whereas to replicate Google would not only mean all the above, but also the computing power needed to acquire, store and catalogue vast quantities of data and process it on demand. (Google's annual electricity usage is 11 terawatt hours—that is, they use roughly 3000 times as much electricity as us just to keep the lights on. To put that another way, there are more than 100 countries in the world whose total electricity consumption is less than Google's.) So no, we don't have the resources, and even if we did have the resources it wouldn't be a sensible use of them to replicate a service already provided elsewhere since Google et al can raise money through advertising, cloud computing, hosting and data mining to cover their costs whereas we're reliant on donor funds and few donors would consider this a sensible use of their money. ‑ Iridescent 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• For the benefit of those who weren't around a few years ago, this is what happened when the Wikimedia Foundation tried to rival Google, which was probably the single most disastrous episode in Wikipedia/Wikimedia history and caused damage, disruption, mass resignations and a loss of goodwill from which we've yet to recover fully. The likelihood of the board approving another attempt is near enough zero as to make no difference. ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Guys, I did not expect this! I'm pleased with this. When I was talking about censored creators, I was talking about people like Mark dice. He has been losing money, the algorithm hates him, yet he still keeps doing what he loves to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New340 (talk • contribs)

Iridescent, what do you mean? Explain like I'm 5. (Yes, it's a Reddit meme) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New340 (talk • [[Special:Contributions/— Preceding unsigned comment added by New340 (talk • contribs) |contribs]])

@New340:, please sign your posts by placing ~~~~ at the end. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As a notable person, if Dice wants to freely license his videos, then they would probably be welcome as uploads to Wikimedia Commons. I doubt he would want to do so, and if he doesn't, well...we're in the business of giving stuff away, and most other people aren't. GMG^talk 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I provided a link to the full annotated history of Wikipedia's brief attempt to rival Google up above, but a super-short summary would be "The WMF decided it wanted to try replicating Google, then realised it wasn't just a case of adding some additional off-the-shelf code but would be very difficult and extremely expensive and cut their losses, but not until they'd spent a lot of time and money and a significant number of employees had resigned in disgust".

On the specific point of Mark Dice, tread very carefully. As I suspect you know if you've tried to edit Mark Dice this is a topic with long-term issues of disruptive editing, and it's subject to discretionary sanctions—that is, people deemed to be acting disruptively in relation to him won't be afforded the usual assumption of good faith we extend to editors but will be expected to work entirely within Wikipedia's rules. ‑ Iridescent 22:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Commons still considers appropriately licensed videos by notable people to be within c:COM:SCOPE. Does it matter? Probably not. Because if the proposal is to turn Wikimedia projects into an outlet for content creators to make money, then it's a non-starter. GMG^talk 00:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely agree with those who say "No Way!" This is an encyclopedia, not a "let's upload every video we can get our hands on" site. A key question with respect to Google is "are all Wikipedia articles findable via Google?" across all languages. I've not seen an analysis which confirms that all of our content is accessible via Google, and I think this, along with an eval of other major search engines, is something that would be useful to determine. Lastly, what about our linked content - does Google follow all of our verrrry many links to external-to-WP resources and index those? Would be useful to know whether any of that content is blocked by Google or other search engines. I think that we are doing Google a solid by unearthing things from the far edges of the internet and adding them here as sources; that enriches the Google search indices, as well as those of other engines (looking at you, DuckDuckGo). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• My response to this sort of idea is always the same: Why would we want to, and what exactly would be the benefits of such a change?

Some of you are probably familiar with Discogs.com, arguably the world's (or at least one of the world's) "biggest and most comprehensive music database and marketplace[s]", to quote their own mission statement. Occasionally someone will surface over there asking why Discogs doesn't appear in the first 10 Google search results for whatever artist or song title, and offering suggestions for making that supposed goal happen. In a response to one such discussion, I wrote the following. (I promise I'm going somewhere with this.)

For most mainstream artists, their Discogs artist page isn't going to be ranked very high by Google. Nor, arguably, should it be.

When you're Googling "Justin Bieber" — think about this from the perspective of his fanbase, not the discogs userbase — it's unlikely that what you want is his Discogs artist profile. So, while there are techniques for increasing the PageRank of a particular site/page, to push your content closer to the top, it isn't within discogs' charter to have the highest-ranked Justin Bieber profile page on the web. Discogs doesn't need to be in the top 10 of every Google search. It would be doing a disservice to the Internet community at large if it attempted to goose its ranking, in fact.

And that's the thing. Due to the nature of its focus, Discogs isn't, and shouldn't be, a "bigger deal" in the online music community. It's not a popular-interest music site, and its content is not of interest to most people, at least in comparison to other resources they might access instead. Discogs is doing what it does, as a result it occupies a certain place online, and that place is where it belongs.

I view Wikipedia much the same way. It's already the #1 knowledge resource for a good portion of the Internet, and probably the most recognizable name in online scholarly / encyclopedic websites. Wikipedia is where you go to learn something about pretty much anything. That's... pretty damn good, right? That's a pretty lofty goal being achieved right there. And not only is Wikipedia's position and status impressive and laudable, but Wikipedia itself is important. It does more than just about any other site to expand and disseminate the sum total of human knowledge. It is a wealth of genuine, verifiable, factual information in a post-truth world.

Still, should Wikipedia be shooting for more than that? Well, not just "no need", in my opinion, but "absolutely not, under any circumstances!" Wikipedia could't be bigger than it is right now, without becoming something other than what it is right now. And that would destroy the thing that it currently is, which is pretty great and worth preserving.

The world already has a Google and it already has a YouTube, and there are plenty of competitors trying to oust them from the top spot in their respective niches. (Though, Google has expanded into so many areas these days that it's hard to claim it really has any one "niche". It's still at the top of search, sure, but it's also at or near the top of 50 other areas as well.)

The world only has one Wikipedia, though. (Well, OK, it has 16 even if you only count the languages with million-plus article counts, but you know what I mean.) Wikipedia is the biggest site doing what it currently does, and with very little exception it's the only site doing what it does. There are very few rivals for Wikipedia's current crown, unlike the ever-ongoing fights for Google's or YouTube's. So, why would Wikipedia want to give up what it has now, in order to join those other rivalries? (And if the answer is, "It shouldn't, it can do both!", I simply call bullshit.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@feRDNYC, what do you mean by few rivals? I'm new340, but forgot my password, so I made this account. We have wikibooks, wikidictionary, and more. We don't have much rivals besides nupedia. (Insert Larry Sanger joke) New3400 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@New3400: Wait, you lost the password to an account you created four days ago?!? 🤯

...Aaaaanyway, moving quickly on: Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc. are sister sites, they're other Wikimedia projects. So, they're not really relevant to Wikipedia in terms of either rivalry or focus. (Unless your question is really "Why doesn't Wikimedia rival Google or YouTube?", in which case you're in the wrong place, since the Village Pump is for discussion of English Wikipedia only — though I'm not 100% sure where the right place would be.)

As for rivals, there are some. Were more. About.com is the one that immediately springs to mind. There's also britannica.com, of course. Quora, to some extremely-disorganized extent. (Talk about a site that's lost its focus trying to become more than it was, maaaan...) Then there are other Q&A sites like Stack Exchange and Yahoo Answers. (...Is Answers even still a thing?) Google Scholar is also considered to be in somewhat the same vein as Wikipedia, broadly.

Now, you might not consider most of those sites, which typically have a far narrower focus and generate far less comprehensive content, to be serious Wikipedia rivals. I would agree, they don't really measure up. And that's kind of my point: Wikipedia is the best at what it does, and it shouldn't lose sight of that trying to be other things or worrying about competing with other sites that it isn't, in fact, actually in any sort of competition with. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC, yes, I am that stupid. Also, this account is better. What's about.com and stack exchange? New3400 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Including Patreon pages

I recently tried to add an individual Patreon page as part of their external link. But I found out that my link got deleted. The person stated that wikipedia doesn't support crowd funding and was inappropriate. Websites like news sites and newspaper pages require subscription services, so does wikipedia. Why can't a Patreon creator not have such a privilege? All their materials are copyrighted by the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roddie83 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why you say that Wikipedia requires a subscription, because it definitely doesn't – not even to edit. There are no copyright concerns here, but I suspect that since Patreon is primarily a fundraising service, people are leery of linking directly to it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: What Roddie83 (talk · contribs) originally wrote, making that argument, is Plus wikipedia itself includes crowd sources in terms of fiance's. Including an individuals Patreon pages should be related to such standards. (In other words, "Wikipedia takes donations!") Which is... true, I just don't see how it's relevant.

Wikipedia asks for donations from people who visit Wikipedia. A Patreon user asks donations of people who visit their Patreon page. Both of those are fine. But how does the former obligate Wikipedia to provide links to the latter? We're certainly not asking people who are the subject of Wikipedia articles to solicit donations on Wikipedia's behalf — in fact, it would be highly unethical to do so, as it would create a "paid publicity" sort of arrangement to the Wikipedia article, which is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic.

As that last link will tell you, @Roddie83:, "Wikipedia is not...":

• a soapbox

• free advertising space

• a social networking site

• a directory

We link to relevant source materials that inform our article about a particular topic, not whatever promotional resources the subject would like us to link to. They can do their own promotion using whatever online presence they maintain, something we typically do link to as long as it's relevant. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)