Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis

• GENERAL LANDSCAPE

In the ambiguous zone of cultural struggle to which falls discussion of politics, philosophy, and religion, citation for Wikipedia page construction amounts to the presentation of cultural support for bias. Where esoterica becomes so sparse as to glean insufficient cultural support in the way of books, journals, or even many web pages, the contested contributions are repeatedly created, then "edited" (effaced) by opposition factions to stubs, then removed.

• SPECIFIC EFFACEMENT TACTICS

One encroachment device serving to facilitate this is the category marker. Proliferation of the use of pejorative category identification facilitates the infringement of pages and categories with critical oversight from which this effacement may take place. Those who have a vested interest in seeing particularly targeted categories or pages effaced merely patrol the zones of their interest and repeatedly employ the Weapon of Effacement.

• INSTANCES OF DEPTH PRESENTATION OF EFFACEMENT

At least 3 instances of attempts to bringing this problem to greater light have recently been attempted here at Wikipedia. I presume that there may have been others, but how to see and recognize them is not immediately apparent to me, let alone how to address it with any deftness, or start campaigns or proposals to rectify it (i have neither the time nor the interest to do more than analyze it and comment upon it, myself). Therefore i'll point out these 3 instances here so that others might track them down somewhat if they have the interest to do so and/or use them to their advantage:

-- One instance of bringing the matter up on the Village Pump as a cite taging and culture war, along with a suggestion for a solution to this problem: edit-credits.

-- One instance of attempting to address a particular user's employment of the Weapon of Effacement, presented as an ANI-Proposal.

-- One instance of attempting to launch a protest removal of abused Pseudoscience category tags, subsequent discussion about that protest, and an explanation as to the abuse of the Pseudoscience tag as part of cultural struggle.

-- Realizing the depth of the cultural struggle ongoing at Wikipedia, another tactic was attempted in association with this problem: the placement of defensive category tags upon the categories and pages under assault. Here is the discussion of the Call for Deletion of these new tags, wherein the whole of the issue is aired with particular reference to Pseudoscience as an abused, pejorative category tag and the remedial, defensive category tag is supported.

• HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: The Bowl-Shape Wikipedia

Imagine that the ideal Wikipedia is a sphere-shape of knowledge or data. What is being created instead, by virtue of the Weapon of Effacement, is a bowl-shape of hard scientific data supporting a fuzzy or fluffy fluctuating residue of unchallenged popular culture, entertainment, and other matters which those employing the Weapon of Effacement have little interest in combatting. Repeated attempts are being made to extend this bowl toward greater depth of record and therefore toward the spherical shape of its ideal, and in some cases (at least temporarily) these extensions remain, often under a heavy burden of supporting the point of view of scientific skeptics who have infiltrated their categories and required conformance to their citation and support-standards alongside their negating evaluations.

Those who are not willing or interested in arguing with or combatting with the editors employing the Weapon of Effacement (i.e. without an investment in Wikipedia.org specifically) are gradually shifting to wiki projects that are more friendly and supportive of their interests. These, by virtue of their experimental nature and their dependence upon private individuals (rather than institutions) to support and maintain them, will of course have a fluctuating existence en par with what are called MUDs or, in general, web pages. They will come into existence, thrive for a time, and then go out of existence due to a lack of administrative/technical support or participant interest. Their GNU Licensing feature, however, makes it possible for what is constructed on these wikis to be archived and moved forward to other venues if obtained prior to their disappearance.

With the proliferation of wiki software and the growing interest in it as a means of presenting knowledge, more and more wikis are coming into and going out of existence. The more that exist, the more specialized is their application and what type of material that they are hosting. We are already seeing numerous wikis that feature the works of prominent authors, for example. These are but the preliminary wave of the type of condition which may yet come to be, along with numerous specialized wiki projects by factions whose principles or policies are different than that of Wikipedia (whether with regard to participation, such as with Citizendium and its requirement of full disclosure for participants, or with regard to article writing/editing itself, such as Kiamagic, whose premise is apparently anti-authoritarian).

Projecting into the future somewhat, and supposing that nothing about the methodology of Wikipedia will in fact change due to its momentum and the character of those assembled to pursue its aims, what will develop will be numerous wikis with differentiated protection and orientation within the zones of knowledge in which they may seek to specialize. Rather than bowl-shapes, they will assume all manner of appearance, metaphorically speaking, and be comprised of less and more coherent and supportable data as well as coverage. Due to the fact that so many of these wikis are accepting the GNU Licensing standard for text, however, this makes possible what we might call a 'meta-wiki'¹, which will effectively become a 'Best of Wikis', using the 'You Edit It' wiki backdrop as raw material to incorporate information from all of the various protected wikis operating, but excluding by editing standards and top-down direction (much like a conventional encyclopedia or other print reference source) the factional disputes and net results of the Weapon of Effacement that may be employed at any specific wiki due to cultural struggle.

• HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: Spectrum From Personal to Meta

With this in mind, contribution to wikis will perhaps change somewhat in that wiki software (or something much like it, displaying knowledge sets more adroitly) will be employed extensively and having a wiki will become as commonplace as having a web page. What will apply at that point will be what i call a 'hierarchy of wikis'. Individual users will create their own knowledge sets of varying type, quality, and extensiveness (prolific writers of encyclopedic knowledge effectively replicating or improving what has emerged from conventional wiki projects), and these may or may not accept the GNU Licensing standard of copyrights. Focussing solely on those which do, the interchange between them will reduce what we are seeing now as the employment of the Weapon of Effacement (due to our limited perspective on wikis and their importance to overall knowledge presentation) to the character of a boundary-setting device used by factions and editors to limit what is contained within any specific wiki based on its standards of knowledge vetting or inclusion.

Extending from these individual wikis operating in numerous literate places in cyberspace will be intermediate 'edited wikis' which feature collection caches from GNU Licensed personal wikis of a specialized type but which do not attempt to achieve the same level of inclusion as an encyclopedia. Up on the top of the heap of these individual and edited wikis (or at the bottom of a collection trough, if you prefer) will be what i am calling 'the meta-wiki' which attempts to actually produce the sphere ideal that Wikipedia may one day become.

• CONCLUSION

As long as Wikipedia supports and allows the employment of the Weapon of Effacement in its policies and procedures, so it will effectively exclude to other wikis those editors whose efforts might have been employed to achieve its lofty goals (and thereby lose valuable resources). Instead of a complete encyclopedia, what will be created by Wikipedia is a restricted edifice of substantial worth to a specific group of people, a helpful reference source on topics substantiated by conventional citation or so fluffy and peripheral as not to interest any in dispute.²

Let this post stand as a prophetic and referential strand between the Wikipedia that exists today, the wikis that exist in comparison to it, and the Meta-wiki that Wikipedia should eventually become. It should be seen as an interested attempt to describe or troubleshoot from a distance what it may take decades to realize and effect in pursuit of encyclopedic coverage of contested zones of knowledge. It is based on peripheral observation of the dynamics and social policies which currently exist, as well as a brief and intriguing foray into Wikipedia before moving on to wikis where esoteric data is allowed greater protection against those opposed to it.

• NOTES:

1 -- This is not to be confused with the "Meta-Wiki" which coordinates all Wikimedia projects.

2 -- This may seem to be burying an evaluation of what is ostensibly a significant problem at Wikipedia, but as there doesn't seem to be any obvious place wherein such problems might be brainstormed, and i have here no specific proposal to put forward, this will have to do. Feel free to copy this essay with proper reference to other venues should you desire, or simply make reference to it in the archives of Wikipedia's Village Pump, where it will lay indefinitely for future generations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At a quick skim, the above may have something to say. It seems, however, to make an awful lot of use of neologisms and imprecise jargon; I didn't have the patience to slog through it, and there seems to be nothing like an executive summary. Does someone care to provide one? - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

transplanted with additions from JMabel Talk:

* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If something is actually "esoteric," doesn't that pretty much preclude anyone with inside knowledge writing about it in an encyclopedia, in a citable manner? Conversely, certainly there is nothing to stop those people from publishing elsewhere, either in a wiki or in any other form. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

re 'esoteric' -- see the Wikipedia org page which linked from that original essay. 'small' or 'inner' as regards the terminological portion 'eso' is relative. some esoteric subjects are very well-sourced, even by unaffiliated individuals, academics, and are broadly covered by a variety of quality interests, pro and con. there is nothing consistently which makes esotericism secret, though some of it may be so. citation is strictly possible, but it will depend on interest in keeping supportable data in Wikipedia by those who aren't exercizing hostile cite tagging, hostile category/page tagging and the Weapon of Effacement to eradicate to stubs what they oppose, ideologically (there is already Wikiversity interest in this matter, and i suspect that some portion of this message is getting through the hostile editors mentioned).

re elsewhere publishing -- very obviously so, but it is NOT in the interest of Wikipedia to see substance-contributors flee there based on hostile editing, and it is not to the public's best interest to see Wikipedia, which is given heavy weight by Google, show up above it with less substance and depth than third-party interests. we're not talking about function here but the application toward and against principles. supplementally, re 'meta-wikis' -- there appears to be one in existence already at Veropedia. I contend this is a trend that will continue in part as a response to the enabling of the Weapon of Effacement and cultural struggle as it continues unabated.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The poster appears to be complaining about the existence of Category:Pseudoscience in the most roundabout way imaginable. They also don't like {{fact}} tags because they think the demand for scientific references with regard to subjects that claim to be science is unfair. --erachima talk 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abridged version: I think the poster is complaining about mass amounts of percieved bias in articles concerning Pseudoscience. He's been doing various edits and most are deleted or removed by editors, check his contribs. Basically he's saying most editors, admins, and bureaucrats are biased and in some sort of cabal, and Wikipedia's structure does not allow opposition, as we use policies for deletion. Something about original research, too.

He cites a Village pump policy discussion and an ANI-proposal by his wife (who in turn seems to have a conflict of interest problem regarding WP:AUTO), a request for explanation of his very major editing concerning Category:Pseudoscience, a reverting of all of it because of that, a proceeding complaint about how the category is currently biased, and the creation of an "opposing" category which was deleted with an overwhelming majority, citing WP:POINT. They also have their own web pages. [1][2][3]

I strongly suggest finding someone to explain Wikipedia to him, but he has noted(at the bottom) that he is unwilling to make a bigger, perhaps proper protest due to this bias, and the tediousness of the policies. I suggest something like ANI if everyone believes that it cannot be done. Either way, I don't think this belongs here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

where does it belong?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I already summed it up as best I could; read my version. I didn't read most of it either y'know. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, beyond evangelizing, the original poster doesn't propose a solution to address his perceived problem, nor ask for help developing one; what exactly do you want us to do? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is not the proper place where such an observation of a perceived, extensive, ongoing problem at Wikipedia may be stored and allowed to remain, for reference by interested others, then please point out where it should be moved and i'll helpfully do that. I could move it to a non-Wikipedia website (more hostile and less cooperative ventures have been undertaken by such sites as (especially) WikiTruth and WikiReview, for example), but i understand that Wikipedia may have some forum or outlet for discussion and/or consideration of such things and i am attempting to get it recorded for future reference rather than, as with the data about which i am complaining is evaporating, simply effaced from perception by those who have a vested interested in perpetuating their agenda. btw, a helpful description of this 'game' employing the Weapon of Effacement and other hostile technical tagging is a brief essay called 'What is Wikipedia)', which see.

This is in part why i didn't want to place it on the Policy, Technical, or Proposal sections of the Village Pump, because i could see that it didn't actually qualify for those spots either. Thank you for your constructive assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's summation, and repeat Celarnor's question: What do you want? Just that this exists? Ok, you've written it and it exists. Your userpage would have been better since you don't seem to have a solution or a request attached. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What do i want? An end to the influential cabals in Wikipedia that Jimbo says should not exist. An equitability between Editors and Writers (esp. in the esoteric cats) such that Wikipedia doesn't continue looking like a hack and slash MUD where the content is merely being used for target practice in a game to entertain Editors. A greater accountability than Wikipedia is providing with its anonymization-support about which Larry Sanger and others have objected, left, and which enables the sock-puppetry which is being used in hegemonic cultural warfare. An end to the employment of tactics like hostile cite tagging and hostile tagging of pejorative categories or the enabling of some defensive zone wherein esoteric topics under cultural assault by convetional science apologists may be adequately covered in depth without having to provide real estate for opposing viewpoints. The termination of futile newspeak (it is Orwellian) contending that Wikipedia is not a Battleground (when it is in some places), that cabals should not exist (but they do), and that there are no rules (when there are). Those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head that are related to this posting.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Orwell also wrote about Double-Speak. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is what you want. Some of those things (an end to pseudonymity, a space where fringe ideas can be described without reference to mainstream thought) are unlikely to happen as they go against very fundamental cultural aspects of this project, but others are theoretically achievable. What means do you think are most likely to achieve those ends? Naming problems at Wikipedia is trivially easy—believe it or not, you're not the first person to hit upon the MUD analogy, or the first person to get mad about "deletionism". Do you think that posting lengthy and, frankly, somewhat impenetrable sheets of text labeling other editors as "hostile elements" is the way forward? Do you think that by treating Wikipedia as a battleground yourself, you'll convince others to beat their swords into plowshares? If there's a roadmap to becoming a marginalized, foaming malcontent, then you are on what is sadly a well-trod path with a predictable terminus. Venting frustration is potentially a useful preliminary step before taking action to improve a situation; I'm wondering whether you've given thought to making that transition. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What means do i think are likely to achieve those ends? Those within the scope of this project may be addressed by somehow bolstering writings-security in opposition to effacement. No, i don't have specific suggestions on that as i am not a programmer, but i shouldn't be expected to solve the problem(s) about which i was writing, to my understanding. If there is no solution, so be it. If a problem recurs or poses a significant roadblock to one or more of the inherent goals or principles of Wikipedia, then something may need brainstorming by those involved to problem-solve it. Having named it once and archived it may be insufficient for its resolution. I am not mad about deletionism, but i am disappointed at the likely result, and will take my writing efforts where they are better accomodated. I do think that some of the way forward is in broad overviews that only some with an ability to follow will understand, yes. I also think that 'on the ground' discussion grappling with the tools of such effacement (such as pejorative category tags -- in this case Pseudoscience -- and its proper employment on its appropriate talk page) is also conducive to refining what seem to be newly-constructed tools of editing. I am doing that, and clearly explaining my proposed solution. Multiple levels of engagement can be helpful. I know that i can't do it all myself, but i am receiving encouraging feedback and assistance from those who have similar values and areas of concern. Avoiding newspeak, calling a space a spade, is helpful in identifying problem areas and attempting to forge real solutions. Protective gear for those in the trenches might also be helpful, if possible. Thank you for your caution and your feedback. If you notice any of the problems to which i am pointing and think you have constructive suggestions for any with an interest in fixing them, please contribute that too. In good faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Knol and Wikipedia

Hi! I'm a Spanish user (I have the sysop flag in Spanish Wikipedia) and I've seen that many Wikipedia artcles have been copied by some Knol users. I don't know if that has been comented here before. The problem seems important, there are a lot of articles copied, in some languages. The problem is the license, because I think Creative Commons 3.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Knol shows that problems with copyright must be communicate by mail (not e-mail) but may be there are another way to delete those articles. The language most copied is English, but also Portuguese or Spanish. I've shown that in Spanish Wikipedia, but I've thought that It's better to comment here also. I've started to write a compilation of articles and user involved in a user page, es:Usuario:Millars/Knol (It's wrote in Spanish, but I think it is easy to understand). Is there any expert user in licensing issues? How can we act against that? Knol is new, but when more time past, biggest will be the problem. Thanks a lot and sorry for my English. --Millars (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I seem to remember that at least one CC license is GNUFDL compatible. --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If Creative Commons 3.0 is compatible with our license, then they have to show the origin and main authors, and in almost all those article that information doesn't exist, and the author of the knol apears like the author. --Millars (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No CC licenes are GFDL compatible in the GFDL->CC dirrection.Geni 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in considerable detail before (Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 15#Google Knol to copy Wikipedia?). Perhaps you can find some answers there. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Invited to participate in Wikiproject Attica!

Template:Participation Wikiproject Attica --Dimorsitanos (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was about Attica. Or Attica. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know hooks for the main page

Dear all, I had an idea; many of the one-liners that appear on the front page of wikipedia (from wikipedia's newest articles) are obscure - not surprising really with with 2.5 million articles already written. As I have wended my way 'round the 'pedia, I have noted loads of stubs on some pretty notable things. Recently valhalla was expanded five-fold. Thus, a mini/informal competition of sorts, if folks see something notable/general/humorous/essential knowledge as a stub (i.e. article of fewer than 150 words), why not list it here or better still try and expand it five-fold (with appropriate references) for eligibility on the front page? If you have not the time or resources, listing some really obvious ones might be fun for someone to pick up (and there may be some funky barnstars out there...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia

Since people are using this as an attempt to silence people discussing various issues, I've written a new essay, to compliment it, and would appreciate thoughts/additions. Cheers. Majorly ^talk 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... no offense, but that page really doesn't seem to say much. Reminds me of something reassuringly meaningless you'd tell a little kid who was feeling picked on, perhaps concluding with the statement "now let us skip and sing!" --erachima talk 10:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say much to you, but some people are forgetting this important fact. Majorly ^talk 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh Wikipedia, what a nice encyclopedia you are! You always cheer me up with your fascinating facts! You're so knowledgeable, I'll bet that you're the most popular encyclopedia in town! And of course you're so much more than an encyclopedia: you're a study guide, a self-help manual; and a shoulder to lean on, too. Thank you for making the world a better place, you old bundle of bytes, you! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

O hai Derek, good to see you about. Perhaps Wikipedia's greatest achievement is in becoming the most massive source of virtual serendipity on the planet! (link to check I've got that right, yeah, looks ok.) By a remarkable coincidence I've just added a stub on George Graves, a chap with a somewhat improbable Scottish connection. Where would we be without Wikipedia? (rhetorical question, answers like 'out on the golf links' not appreciated). As for the new essay, not sure I see the point of it, but someone somewhere will surely find it invaluable. . dave souza, talk 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. Yes, they haven't managed to get rid of me yet! I read it too. For a complimentary essay, I thought it was a bit short on compliments. Hence my urge to add a few to this thread. Perhaps they should be added to the essay to complement the non-complimentary material. I see that George Graves is up to your usual high standard. I admire your devotion to fleshing out all Darwin's influences and contacts. My own favourite was always Patrick Matthew. I was always impressed that he outlined the theory of evolution by natural selection 30 years before Darwin as part of the appendix to a book on growing trees for shipbuilding of all things! Don't know if that counts as serendipity but it certainly counts as curious! -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, of course, that Wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia. The essay you wrote doesn't deny that, despite its bold title. In fact, the essay says nothing at all about why Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or what it is, if not an encyclopedia. It's not a forum, it's not a blog, it's not a self-help guide... quite frankly, Majorly, it's a compilation of articles on many different topics for the purpose of offering factual information about those topics. In other words, it's an encyclopedia. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it deny it? The title isn't "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia". It's not just an encyclopedia. The fact we're editing this non-encyclopedia page, and discussing a non-article proves my point. Majorly ^talk 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see I've misinterpreted something again! Me and my big mouth... I read too fast! I missed the "just". But personally, I've never used "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" against anything other than trash articles. It doesn't apply to non-article space, IMO. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SourcesDiffs would have been good, then we'd have known what people, and where, and when. That way we could have made an informed decision. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Professor Wikipedia

Hey, if anyone is interested, here is a humorous parody of Wikipedia (also, of Encyclopedia Britannica). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate self-editing of Saxo Bank

The article Saxo Bank and its talk page have been self-edited by an IP number from the company, removing critique. I tried to use WikiScanner to find further edits, but WikiScanner's result didn't even yield those edits I already found manually. On the talk page you'll see that a user accuses Saxo Bank of employing computer technicians who, among other things, "go on the internet and make good publicity for Saxo bank". It was also claimed that the early version of the article "reads like an advertisement". I can't say whether the former accusation is true, but at least there is evidence now that the article was edited directly from Saxo Bank. The latter accusation, "like an advertisement", seems to be true about those early versions of the article, of which a substantial part remains. This does not prove, however, that the bank itself deliberately did it. Those edits could come from admirers or happy customers. Corporate self-editing is not acceptable. I think there is very good reason for keeping a close eye on the article! I'll start scrutinising the edit history and I hope somebody will help.--Sasper (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate self-editing, like personal self-editing, isn't an out-and-out no-no but it should always be treated with suspicion, so you're doing the right thing in checking it out. However I don't see a problem with editing the talk page. In fact people who find something wrong with "their" article are recommended to bring it up on the talk page, so that others can decide whether to change the article. I would have thought that it was alright for Saxo to do that too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but they didn't just address issues on the talk page. They simply deleted a critical post. In that post a user asked for more information regarding a rumour about Saxo Bank's employment policy. That user did the very right thing, searching more knowledge before writing in the article, but the bank deleted his post, thus obstructing his request for information. I have now written a long blog post about their self-editing, with ample sources and links: Exposé: Saxo Bank remove info about themselves on the web It is in Danish but you'll be able to see the Wikipedia version differences by the links marked [Se forskel] and see all edits when you click on the IP numbers. --Sasper (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is bad behaviour on their part. Let's hope that people of influence in Denmark take note of your blog posting. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't find article on Fresh Water

"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race."

Why if I type in "Fresh Water" into the Wikipedia search engine the result informs me of the Album name of an Australian Rock and Blues singer by the name of Alison McCallum?

Is it not incumbent on such a media as Wikipedia to consider Global life threatening issues such as available " Fresh Water " and prioritise where such facts come when search engines are being used.

--outsider (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles are case sensitive. The article you are looking for is at Fresh water, not Fresh Water. --erachima talk 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my lack of knowledge concerning the case sensitivity, but I think you may be missing the point. Maybe the majority of people surfing Wikipedia will be as uneducated as I, should VITAL Global issues rise above case sensitivity? are you really saying that if I search all other devices known to man,in the manner I did, they will offer me details on an Australian Rock and Blues band? --outsider (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone trying to sort global life-threatening issues should probably look harder before finding some to complain to. Had you done so, you would have found the helpful text

For other uses, see Freshwater (disambiguation).

at the top of the page. Algebraist 23:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are talking, Thanks. --outsider (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable article title?

Calling an article "9/11 Truth Movement" bothers me. I don't know about anyone else. Northwestgnome (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You could argue the article name isn't NPOV. Suggest you raise on the article talk page. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A deletion debate isn't moving at all. How do we get users to pay more attention to AFDs?

There's an article I'm trying to delete - Wolgot.

In the past few days, Its AFD hasn't gotten any votes and had to be extended once because not enough people are voting on it. Therefore, could I please get more people to vote on the AFD (and maybe edit the Wolgot article, if they so choose?) --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 06:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you, or someone else categorised it under "AfD debates (Media and music)", which probably doesn't help -_- --UltraMagnus (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of votes *is* a vote - in the sense that nobody is enranged/irritated/offended enough about the article to think it needs to be deleted. If almost nobody says 'delete it' then don't delete it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David on that one- close it as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Many users do participate in AfDs, but if they look at one and aren't interested one way or another, it means there's neither enough people who really think it should be kept nor enough people who really think it should be deleted. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. By that logic, we need to get rid of the WP:PROD system, as that's basically how it works. Someone tags an article for deletion, gives a rationale, and if no one refutes that rationale or provides a different rationale for keeping, it is deleted. Once challenged, the onus is on those wishing to keep something to explain why it should be kept. Mr.Z-man 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're absolutely backwards on this. The onus is on those wishing to delete, not save. If there's little or no support for AFD then the article should't be deleted - there does not have to be opposition to the idea. (After all, the default on no-consensus is "keep", not "delete") The problem is that any schlub can slap an AFD on any article; I've seen AFDs placed on an article three minutes - THREE MINUTES - after the article was created. Delete is too strong, too un-revert-able a process to be followed through on a whim. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, here, I quite agree. There's also a certain subject bias at work on the AfD pages. Specific topics seem to receive a higher proportion of AfDs, while others go almost untouched. This is particularly true of any entertainment-related topic (films, games, musicians, &c.) I'm not quite sure why. Perhaps it reflects a bias in the article generators?—RJH (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And once someone provides a reason for deletion on the AFD, its up to the people who want to keep the article to refute it. Why on earth should we "listen" to people who don't care enough to leave a comment on the AFD and ignore the person who cared enough to nominate it? That's not backwards? We just assume the people that didn't make a comment want to keep it? Why? And since when is deletion unrevertable? Special:Undelete still works for me and WP:DRV seems to still be a blue link. Mr.Z-man 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Echo this. We should always err on the side of content, and the onus is on those providing reasons for deletion. Although, as an aside, Z-man, I do think we should get rid of PROD, as it lets things slip under the radar without actual consensus, but that's beside the point.

Since when do we need consensus for every little thing? WP:BOLD anyone? Mr.Z-man 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killing off articles isn't a little thing. Consensus there, while slow, is desirable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours?

What happened to the afformentioned Wikipage?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted following this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Ian Mathers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

fact mentalism?

I know Wiki editors sometimes require citations for just about everything but honestly, have you seen List_of_the_first_female_holders_of_political_offices_in_Europe? I bet a penny to a pound that we don't have citations on many of the individual articles, so why has this page got so many? Over-caution? doktorb _words^deeds 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with the taggers myself - the article is asserting that these are the first female prime ministers etc so this fact should be supported by a source. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources are good, especially for things like firsts of something, as these are frequently stated incorrectly. My quick glance at the page revealed at least one totally made-up person. Algebraist 22:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal of werewolf and lycanthrope

I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in hte discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. I am placing this here as I am figuring it is a pretty significant article and worth some wider consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting an article into two (or possibly three)

Looking at Graham, I would like to split it into a "proper" disambig page (Graham (disambiguation)) and a page for the given name Graham (Graham (name) or Graham (given name)). Graham (surname) already exists. Two questions:

1. What is the right way to split a page into multiple pages (possibly leaving a dismabig page at the original title) without infringing the GFDL terms, and
2. Is there a consenus about how name pages are titled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The safest way to ensure GFDL compliance here is to start each subarticle with an edit summary of "(splitting [describe content] from Graham)"; for example for Graham (given name), "splitting given names from Graham".

Naming conventions for dismbiguation pages are covered at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions and at WP:NC. If those don't help, ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, or take a look at the actual conventions in Category:Disambiguation pages and pick one you like. Hope this helps, the skomorokh 13:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC was the first place I looked before coming here. I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that it doesn't seem to cover given and surnames. I'll ask at the disambig project talk page. Thanks for your suggestions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot approved.

Hi, I have recently approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot, an adminbot that has currently been running for a month. I believe that all concerns are taken care of. Please feel free to add comments. Xclamation point 03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Need for a WIKI Vocabulary

WikiPoke: Def. To forward a Wikipedia entry to someone

WikiWork: Def. Homework done by copying sections from Wikipedia

WikiPert: Def. Person with pretensions of expertise on a subject base on reading a Wikipedia article

etc.

82.81.159.95 (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Rube Vogel

WikiSpeak: the already-existing WIKI Vocabulary. the skomorokh 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

DMCA demand information?

I went over to the Wikipedia Signpost for information on the recent DMCA demand that a bunch of articles be removed that named TV stations, but it hasn't been updated. Is there info anywhere? Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question; it's at [4]. Tempshill (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute your opinions on proposals at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC

Is Bill Ayers a former terrorist? Is his wife, Bernardine Dohrn? Even if so, should Wikipedia say so in its articles on them? Should the term be used on related pages Weatherman (organization) and Obama-Ayers controversy? A Request for Comment page was set up at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC "regarding whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as "terrorists" as the RfC puts it. Sources, links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and proposals are on that page. Please take a look and consider commenting. -- Noroton (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) regarding whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as "terrorists".