Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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

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

When to apply Category:Pseudoscience?

We are having back-and-forth discussions in Acupuncture over whether or not is it Category:Pseudoscience. There seem to be three interpretations, and the policy documents don't appear to speak directly to the point raised: How to determine whether to apply the category to an article? In our discussion, several options are being argued over:

Option (1) is to look for a RS from a scientific source explicitly asserting that "[topic] is pseudoscience." And If this can't be found, then we can't apply the label. This position is argued against by some, saying that it's too restrictive: the category page doesn't require this. Also, scientists don't study and write about pseudoscience usually, and so this is a catch-22 which prevents applying the category when it ought to be. Also, they argue, the usual OR requirement (secondary source explicitly supporting the assertion) shouldn't apply here because the category tag is a Wikipedia-meta-management device, not actual article content.

Option (2) has been proposed; to use the definition of pseudoscience found in several Wikipedia policy documents as the test itself. Namely, we should apply Category:Pseudoscience if [article topic] is "a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that [1] claim or appear to be scientific, but that [2] are not considered being so by the scientific community." Proponents of this option say it sets a more realistic, attainable yet reliable standard for inclusion. They also argue that of course we're supposed to apply some logic here; that's why we have multiple policy documents (like Category:Pseudoscience and WP:Fringe) which define pseudoscience carefully. If instead, we were only supposed to apply the label once it's written in an RS, then there's no reason to truly define it specially for Wikipedia use.

Finally, an Option (3) is by transitivity: Both alternative medicine and energy medicine are in category pseudoscience. And since Acupuncture is in both alt. med. and energy med., then it is therefore pseudoscience as well. (It would be cool if Wikipedia's database understood sub-categories, or relationships like these; then this would be automatic.) Can anyone here weigh in? How has this been done on other articles? Thanks!

Disclosure: I'm involved in the discussion/argument, and am in favor of options 2 or 3. Dogweather (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither term is a suitable category to have in an encyclopedia, why have either of them -that's the real issue. Whilst they may both have dictionary definitions, their common use is as a 'judgemental' label. Thus, they will always mean different thing to different people and be dependant on context, so ruddy useless in an encyclopedia. I would support having them deleted.--Aspro (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Because real encyclopaedias use them and because they are reliably sourced. Verbal chat 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 2 sounds an awful lot like original research - Wikipedians taking content from reliable sources, applying their own logic, then adding content based on it. As far as I can tell, there is no indication on the category page itself that it is not a content category. I think 2 could be an option, but it would need to be made clear on the category page that it is a "management" category only, and a not a content one - it shouldn't have other content categories as subcats, it should be hidden on articles with {{hiddencat}}, and it should probably be renamed to something like "Wikipedia pseudoscience articles." Otherwise, option 1 is really the only thing consistent with our sourcing policies. Mr.Z-man 15:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The issues of whether these categories should be kept and how these kinds of labels should be applied are separate issues. I think the main question is the application of these labels. The way this was asked indicates the question is being looked at from the wrong perspective. In general assertions of fact or opinions about facts should not be stated unless they reflect widespread consensus among the experts. Usually if there is no widespread consensus for or against a viewpoint it is best not to bring up the viewpoint at all. In the rare cases where it would be a glaring omission not to at least discuss the viewpoint it should be clearly discussed as a controversy and the article should not attempt to weigh in one way or another. To the extent that we use categories or other formal labeling mechanisms these should be reserved for topics where the general scholarly consensus indicates that they belong. In the case of acupuncture there is no consensus for or against its being a "real" treatment so labels like this are inappropriate. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dogweather's "Option 1" includes a straw man, since scientists do write about well-known topics whose demarcation has been debated (homeopathy, acupuncture and Chinese medicine, psychanalysis, even astrology, etc.). For some time, there has been consensus on WP that WP:PSCI WP:FRINGE##Pseudoscience explicitly refers to the user of category:pseudoscience, and that the type of source needed to categorize well-known topics (like astrology and the rest above) is described in RS#Academic_consensus: something like a statement from a mainstream scientific academy such as those found in List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design and Scientific opinion on climate change. We put Homeopathy in category:pseudoscience based on such a source, which I fully supported. Interestingly, there are no sources of that caliber calling acupuncture or any aspect of Chinese Medicine a pseudoscience, suggesting that some skeptics are more eager to use the term than mainstream scientists, and perhaps scientists see something of value worth investigating (the prescientific map of TCM theory is not the same as the clinical territory, it includes useful hints not predicted biomedically, e.g. acupoint P6 for nausea). Chinese Medicine is the best-known and most widely-practiced indigenous medicine in the world, and mainstream scientific bodies will not have missed the opportunity to comment on it (just as one recently did with homeopathy).

So, Support Option 1 with the above parameters. If you want to discard that metric and use something loosey-goosey like Discover magazine or an article in CSICOP or anything else that's miles away from a good WP:MEDRS, be my guest, and take a few more steps toward the reign of wikiality (which comes in many flavors). regards, Middle 8 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: We can and do label tiny-, fringe topics as pseudoscience -- see "obvious pseudoscience" under WP:PSCI WP:FRINGE##Pseudoscience. That (along with RS#Academic_consensus) has worked fine and I see no reason to change it. Have a look at Category:Pseudoscience: as it stands, it's amply populated, and I don't see much over- or under-inclusion, if any at all. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Please see corrected shortcuts above; they changed since the last time I checked. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, the never-ending pseudoscience wars... The problem here (as it has always been) Is that while pseudoscience is a valid encyclopedic concept (e.g., it has been used in a certain analytic/historical context in the real world), it is a heavily-pushed form of original research on wikipedia. In brief, there are a number of wikipedia editors who (unintentionally, most likely) engage in a denying the antecedent type fallacy - i.e. "Things accepted by the scientific community are not pseudoscience; X is not accepted by the scientific community; therefore X is pseudoscience" - to make novel assertions about the status of all sorts of ideas that the scientific community hasn't weighed in on at all. Wikipedia isn't the place to determine what is and isn't pseudoscience, and topics should not be considered pseudoscientific except in the strong case where we have a reliable source that clearly explains why it is pseudoscientific in scientific terms. In this sense, even proposition #1 is too loose: the simple assertion that some idea is pseudoscience without a descriptive explanation of the claim is not a scientific or scholarly statement - it might reflect the speaker's ignorance or misunderstanding, a conflict of interest, or may simply be an ill-considered off-hand statement. There are countless examples of researchers who have offered opinions against ideas that later became accepted - even a few who thought that Einstein's special relativity was idiotic.

Acupuncture is not pseudoscientific by any meaningful definition of the word. It does not conform to the principles of modern analytical science, true (it uses a different medical model, and has a different set of validity rules for empirical evidence), but it does not violate modern medical principles in any significant way either - TCM and modern medical science simply tend to talk past each other. They can be, and have been, used in tandem without contradiction. I do understand that there is an urge to label things like acupuncture as pseudoscience out of a fear of charlatanism, but that, too, is part of the original research I noted above (it is the medical community's job to deal with charlatans, and wikipedia should not get ahead of them). I think it's time we put a rest to this conflict. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

+1; well-said --Middle 8 (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding (in option 1) "...the usual OR requirement ... shouldn't apply here because the category tag is a Wikipedia-meta-management device, not actual article content." Crap. The term is heavily loaded with contempt and, plastered over an article, is making an assertion about the subject, which needs to be supported by more than an anonymous Wikipedian's considered judgment.

Regarding option 2, it's OR.

Regarding option 3, are you kidding? Are you serious!?? Anthony (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I hear you about Options 1 and 2. But right now option 3 makes the most sense to me. Yes! I'm being serious. Taking acupuncture for the moment, it's been in category pseudoscience for a long, long time: ever since it was first attached to any of the categories Acunpuncture (it's a category too), Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Energy Therapies. Because each of those are subcategories of Pseudoscience. So what is the problem here? Are these three categories erroneously made subcategories of pseudoscience? Dogweather (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "alternative medicine" is broad and vague, with some people demarcating subjects as alt-med that have no evidence while others demarcate alt-med based on sphere of usage. Thus, it is possible to have an alt-med for which there is evidence: acupuncture is probably the best example. Characterizing it as unambiguously pseudoscientific is misleading as long as we lack proof for scientific consensus on the matter (and well-known topics like acu do attract scientific commentary, unlike tiny, little-known fringe topics). It's more informative to quote who calls it pseudo and why rather than to use a broad brush (as long as a mainstream scientific body hasn't called it pseudo; compare homeopathy where the Royal Society did). As for the other supercategories, I'm not sure TCM belong in the category (where's the source?), and Energy Therapies refers to qi which is prescientific and likewise (for that reason?) lacks the proper kind of source. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rules of this game

1. Rule 1: Those who believe in pseudoscience don't like being told it's pseudoscience
2. Rule 2: Wikipedia doesn't discriminate against those who believe in pseudoscience
3. Rule 3: Wikipedia will always have issues with people who believe in pseudoscience arguing that their pet subjects shouldn't be called pseudoscience.
4. Rule 4: Some people who are aware of rule 3 will decide that it is better to remove any hint that a particular subject is pseudoscience just to avoid the inevitable confrontations.

The pseudoscience category has survived deletion debates whenever they've come up. The arbcomm ruling, for better or worse, can only be objectively associated with four topics. We need a system to determine which articles satisfy the vague criteria that arbcom gave. Certain individuals think that "organizations are better than individuals" or "all skeptics are biased" are good reasons to keep out categorization of pseudoscientific articles under the category:pseudoscience.

I have a better idea.

All articles listed at List of pseudosciences can be categorized as pseudoscience. They do not have to be categorized as pseudoscience.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People might like to consider this all in the light of discussions at Talk:Ghost, Talk:Reincarnation & several other fora. An apparently reliable source, the US National Science Foundation, apparently described belief in ghosts, reincarnation & witchcraft as pseudoscientific. Common sense suggests they were using language loosely, & never intended to apply this term to religion, folklore & "superstition". Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in pseudoscience, ScienceApologist, and I don't believe in your pseudo-ability to judge what is and what is not pseudo-science. Did the Lord hand you those "rules"? How dare you. Anthony (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't believe in the existence of pseudoscience? Hmm. And you don't believe that I have a "pseudo-ability to judge" something you don't believe in? Does that mean since you don't believe in my pseudo-ability, you believe in my ability? Or are you not into the whole binary thing? I don't believe in the Lord as writ large here, so, the answer to the question you ask is, "no". And the last interjection which probably should end in an exclamation mark is so funny I laughed out loud. You should consider comedy, Anthony! ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't get it. I was quoting your confused thinking back at you. The eye sees not itself. Let me be your mirror. "Rule 1: Those who believe in pseudoscience don't like being told it's pseudoscience." Anthony (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who doesn't get it. I was quoting your confused thinking back at you. The eye sees not itself. Let me be your mirror. "How dare you. (sic)". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A waste of time and energy; simple guidelines already work

It's always good to look to relevant policies for global consensus. Here, we have a system that works; we just need to remember to apply it. The relevant guidelines are WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC. According to these, all we need, in order to use category:pseudoscience on a well-known topic, is this. That's it. Just an edit furnishing a source like that (a mainstream, scientific body sounding off), and then we can use the category on any well-known topic. Otherwise, we wait -- we don't stick a fork in anything prematurely, or mislabel any alternative views or other oddities that may not be science, but aren't quite pseudoscience either (see: much of Freudian theory); we wait to see where verifiable scientific consensus goes. (Of course, for tiny fringe topics, we can go ahead and use the topic based only on editorial consensus; WP:FRINGE/PS is very clear about this.)

Also, up front, let us acknowledge that scientific societies indeed comment on important topics that they believe are pseudosciences: oh boy, do they, when the issue is important, and impacts large numbers of people educationally, in terms of their basic well-being, health and so on. See List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design, or even more important, Scientific opinion on climate change. Then there are old favorites like astrology, which also easily qualify (see this and others). By contrast, homeopathy, which most scientists seem to think is relatively harmless BS (as long as appropriate medical care isn't withheld), took awhile to elicit the commentary of a mainstream scientific body: see this BBC News article from 2006, which quotes the Royal Society of Pathologists as saying that promoting homeopathy is a move "away from science" (which is close enough to pseudo for our purposes).

But I do believe that it's important, for well-known, grey topics that may have been called pseudo by various people but not yet by a scientific body, we recognize the obvious: there is not yet verifiable consensus that the topic is pseudoscience. This is one of many areas where WP shouldn't play at leading, but rather follow science. And, in the case of homeopathy, waiting worked! The trend was clear, and a scientific body finally spoke up. It was inevitable. That's simply what WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC require. What is unreasonable about this? It's based on guidelines that are very nearly policy, so it's firmly part of global consensus on WP, and in terms of scientific rigor it's solid enough to make any encyclopedia proud.

I really think we could happily get along with out the category or the even more "in your face" infobox (see #3) at all. Just telling it like it is ought to be enough, certainly for the biggest pseudosciences in the world (intelligent design, say, or climate change denialism, or genocide denialism) as well as the littlest and the grey areas. But if we're going to keep the damned things, I think the above provide some reasonable guidelines that have worked in the past.

Finally, I'd like to say that I believe this is an unusually annoying debate, especially because it's so polarizing: we have editors putting great deal of energy into whether to use the label or not, and it's only a fucking label, and not a very informative one at that, in certain cases. If we were able to bypass this debate, which is not all that important but has become a time-sink, we could work on genuinely interesting things. Just because editors oppose use of category:pseudoscience on certain articles does not mean they are blind "promoters" who obdurately refuse to allow debate or criticism of the article. It just means we disagree over a content issue, and have backed it up with evidence and reason and resort to global WP consensus. Now we ask those who disagree either to meet and engage us on that ground, or join us and move on to more interesting issues. And wait for what the real authorities have to say, as scientific consensus emerges.

Years ago, I remember one WP editor saying, regarding category:pseudoscience, something like "the more the merrier!" Huh? As if there's no point at which enough is enough? Madness. Many of us are just bloody tired of the debate, the epithets it generates, and the overeagerness of some "label-proponents" (I tried for neutral language) to get ahead of what what scientific consensus verifiably is. My view is that where there is a reasonable doubt, we should err on the side of caution, and in any case just go with WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC. They're well-established, they're not broke, and they don't need fixin'. cheers --Middle 8 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"genocide denialism"? History isn't a science, so pseudohistory isn't pseudoscience.

As I mentioned further up, the US National Science Foundation apparently described belief in ghosts, witchcraft & reincarnation as pseudoscientific. This seems silly, as religion, folklore & "superstition" usually make no pretence of being scientific in the 1st place, so how could they be pseudo? Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Introductory articles

Another editor suggested that this topic has broad enough interest wrt Wikipedia policy that it should be discussed here.

There has been a trend toward creating introductory articles as means to deal with complex topics. Briefly, introductory articles are simplified discussions for readers who do not want to read the more involved discussion of the topic. Though I believe this trend is well-intentioned I believe that it violates policy and, regardless, is a bad idea in the context of what Wikipedia is intended to be.

Policy violation

The two policies that I am particularly concerned with are WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:Content forking.

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK says, among other things

A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.

If the original article has actually followed the guideline then the novice reader should be able to understand the material in the earlier part of the article. The introductory article should not be necessary. Perhaps more importantly, Wikipedia:Content forking says

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. ... As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage.

By this definition an introductory article is a content fork. WP:Summary style clearly discusses creating article hierarchies but in no way advocates creating two articles on the same topic for different purposes.

Larger concern

In general there are two problems with allowing notions like introductory articles to develop:

• The idea that you can neatly divide readers into technical and non-technical readers, or similar distinctions, is elitist and fallacious. Trying to divide treatment of a topic into two classes of reader makes an assumption that is not really true. The reality is that for any particular topic the amout that any particular reader can or wants to understand about a topic can vary greatly.
• Wikipedia could start to fragment into more than one encyclopedia, each targeted toward a different type of reader. Though specialized encyclopedia's may serve a purpose, Wikipedia's aim has always been to be targeted to everyone, not simply any particular segment of readers. The introductory article concept runs counter to this aim.

Alternative

IMHO the motivations for creating introductory articles fall into two general categories:

1. Editors who have difficulty writing and are trying to do something to compensate.
2. Experts who want the main article on their pet topic to be treated formally like a paper or a textbook.

To whatever extent it is possible to create an introductory article it is similarly possible to incorporate this same discussion into the main article. Doing so may make the main article longer requiring splitting sub-topics into their own articles. But that is how Wikipedia is intended to be organized.

Forgive me. I did not sign this. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comments:

• The above interesting thoughts are unsigned. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Such separation of articles risks their ending up controlled by different cabals of editors & pushing different POVs. Maybe this could be considered a good thing in warning the reader not to trust Wikipedia. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a nice drum you're banging there, Peter. Fences&Windows 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My view on this: "Introductory articles" of sorts can be perfectly done with the current system, in fact that's what we actually do. If a topic, let's say a long war, is so complex and there's so much information about it, then there's already an introductory article: the article itself. It provides a general overview, while the most specialized or detailed information is moved into related articles (battles, war leaders, treaties, etc.) or content forks (Causes of X war, Timeline of X War, X War in popular culture, etc). If things are done as they should, the specific article "X War" will always be smaller than "The big and heavy book about X war", even if all its important information was considered and included at the right place within the web of articles MBelgrano (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• • MBelgrano, I think that you are saying that you agree with me (i.e. that using the standard Wikipedia process of article hierarchies should be used instead of introductory articles). Is that correct? --Mcorazao (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Introductory articles are a form of topic that fails WP:MADEUP. They don't exist in the real world as a subject of study, for it is a heading or a title used to denote that a topic is being studied in a casual way for a short period of time. They are rubbish articles, like "outline of" they are little more than content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. There are countless books, and university courses, in the real world called "An Introduction To Subject XYZ". Barnabypage (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:MADEUP is completely unrelated with this proposal. There may be reasons to avoid creating "Introduction to World War I" articles, but "This a novel idea you and/or your friends made up" is not one of them MBelgrano (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MADEUP has nothing to do with this. Fences&Windows 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are made up. There are no sources which address the topic directly and in detail. Call them "Introduction to...XYZ", "Dummies guide to...XYZ" or maybe "XYZlite". Its all the same, all made up. I think some editors are living in a buble in which they can create topics that have no external source of validation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All the existing "Introduction to..." articles (of which there are only a handful) are on technical scientific or mathematical topics. At least one of them is a featured article. I can see the content fork argument, but I reckon if people want to make accessible introductions to technical topics, let them. An alternative would be to take what's good about the "Introduction to..." articles and merge them in. Fences&Windows 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MBelgrano in principle. As a rule, in most situations, the main article on the topic is already likely to serve as an introductory article and a special article is inappropriate. An article called Introduction to World War One, should serve no purpose on Wikipedia because that should already be covered by World War One.

However, in practice, I can see a strong case for simplified introductory articles in topics where any reasonable main article on the subject is likely to be far too technical for many readers. The most obvious example I can think of is Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, as a theory, is highly technical and strongly counterintuitive. Even a basic overview of the topic, such as one would expect in the lead of the main article on the subject, is likely to be full of concepts that, while absolutely fundamental to the understanding of the topic, will require a non-trivial explanation for uninitiated readers.

So the standard practice would be to just Wikilink them. Fine, but a lay reader is then going to find himself constantly going down Wikilinks, simply in order to find out what the article is talking about. But how many readers are going to have the patience to follow five Wikilinks in the same sentence simply in order to work out what the article's on about? Entirely understandably, they'll lose interest. Physics students lose track of Quantum Mechanics pretty quickly, so non-technical readers are always going to find it difficult. Explaining the topic in line has exactly the same problem.

But lose those topics and you no longer provide even a basic description of Quantum mechanics in the main article on the topic. It would be like trying to write an article on World War One without mentioning Austria-Hungary or Germany. An article on Quantum mechanics that actually does its job cannot be written without them.

So we're stuck. Discuss those basic concepts in detail in the article or in separate dedicated articles, and we lose the reader's interest by writing an article that is overly fragmented. Remove the basic concepts and the article no longer achieves its basic aim of describing its topic.

Thus the concept of an introductory article. The main article Quantum Mechanics should be equivalent to, say, World War One. But I would suggest that having an additional article, Introduction to quantum mechanics, going through the basics of the topic, is a good way of explaining the topic to our readers while allowing us to maintain a full and appropriate treatment of the topic in the main article. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with and would go on to state to consider that we're not a textbook but we should provide as much useful navigation links as we can, something that likely won't be in X. Taking an expanded idea, Chemistry is quite a large field, so if you're very unsure of where to find a specific piece of information and search isn't cutting it, an intro article that explains - briefly - what each of the subfields are within in, and a list of useful links, will help you narrow your search. So we could have sections on the various types of chemistry (organic, inorganic, analytical, etc.), the disciplines within chemistry (experimentation, thermodynamics, etc.), the types of terminology used in chemistry (including elements, compounds, etc.), with just enough prose with the list to establish the context to help the end reader. Such articles are only good when the number of articles that fall within the subject surpass 40 or so articles - where a end-of-page template or navigation box becomes too complicated to easily follow. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk and Masem, thank you for the feedback. But can you clarify your arguments more? These arguments seem (to me) to be skirting the point and/or straying into things are already established no-nos. E.g.

• "So the standard practice would be to just Wikilink them." This is completely untrue. It is a violation of WP:MOS to use Wikilinks to compensate for a lack of explanation in the text. The fact that some inexperienced editors often do that is irrelevant (that's like arguing that because most drivers in the U.S. speed, then speeding is not illegal).
• "Even a basic overview of the topic, such as one would expect in the lead of the main article on the subject, is likely to be full of concepts that, while absolutely fundamental to the understanding of the topic, will require a non-trivial explanation for uninitiated readers." This doesn't make sense. If it were impossible to introduce Quantum Mechanics without straying immediately into highly technical jargon then it would be impossible to write the "Introduction to ..." article. This is circular reasoning.
• "so if you're very unsure of where to find a specific piece of information and search isn't cutting it, an intro article that explains - briefly - what each of the subfields are within it" This is what the main article should be doing. If it is not doing it then it is not properly covering the topic (i.e. it is not following Wikipedia's guidelines).
• "a list of useful links" This violates Wikipedia policy. Articles are articles and lists are lists. As a general rule lists of links for the purpose of navigation are to be avoided altogether except in "See also" sections. The type of article you are describing is explicitly discouraged.

Please forgive me if I am missing your points. To more specific, please explain how an article could follow Wikipedia's guidelines and yet still need an introductory article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, you don't have to use wikilinks. You can instead provide explanation in the text. But given the volume of explanation that would be necessary to do explain what are in some cases complex and strongly counterintuitive concepts, the article would quickly become far too long and far too fragmented to hold the reader's interest. It doesn't matter: whether you use wikilinks or provide explanation in the text - or indeed both - you're likely to lose the reader. Better to produce an introductory article to help the lay reader with the basic parts of the theory and leave the main article to do the job of covering the topic appropriately.

You ask how we write the introductory article if we need all this technical information. My response would be that the introductory article could not plausibly replace the main article. It does not adequately cover the topic of quantum mechanics as the main article on the subject of quantum mechanics should. That's OK, because that's not what it's aiming to do. But it is what the main article should be aiming to do. Pfainuk talk 22:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• --Mcorazao (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy that makes distinctions between articles and lists for sake of intra-wiki links. You can have hybrids without any problems.

But here's a better way to think of an introductory article: Done correctly, it is serving two purposes: an executive summary of the topic - that if you only had 5 minutes to read up on something, this would get the job done, with less detail than the main article but at more depth than the lede would allow, and secondly, a table of contents of sorts to jump to other sections of that topic. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I was led here by Mcorazao's note on Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics to the effect that the article, by virtue of covering the same topic as Quantum mechanics, is a content fork and a "serious violation of policy", and that, "If these types of violations of Wikipedia continue to develop I believe Wikipedia is in danger of falling apart." I was skeptical that there could be so many well-established introductory articles in spite of community consensus against them. Coming to this discussion I now see that such consensus does not exist. Anyway, the spirit of Wikipedia:Content forking is that we should avoid content forking when it is out of laziness, ignorance, or a desire to POV-push, and that forks are OK so long as they are done for a good reason. I think having accessible introductions to complicated, technical topics of wide public interest (quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc.) is a good reason to create a fork. Strad (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I expected when I brought this up that consensus would not be readily forthcoming. Let me say that some of the arguments above amount to "well, it may be a content fork but I still think it's ok". It is a troubling path to say that we abandon our own policies whenever they are uncomfortable or challenging to follow.

I hope that the rest of you will think about this and maybe this will be discussed again in the future.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I also responded to over in the Intro QM talk page, and that has what has led me here. There are two problems with the arguments against the Intro to QM article.

First, Intro to QM is an article already packed with content - aimed at the introductory level. It is currently at around 76 kilobytes. This is already at close to the maximum advised limit. The Main QM itself is alreay at 64 kilobytes. Merging the content of these two articles would create a much larger, harder to download page. It would become less navigable. Let's say everything in the Main QM is needed for this topic. Even if you cut 25 kilobytes from the Intro to QM the resulting article would still be much larger, harder to download, and less navigable.

Second, characterizing Intro to QM as a content fork is not accurate. That is an oversimplification, and merely labeling. This article is consistent with WP:VERIFY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:NPV, etc., etc. The editors on this article discuss and collaborate. It has even achieved featured status. It is a Wikipedia article in the every sense of those two words. It is not a content fork. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But if you look at the wider picture, these arguements don't hold up. If two articles share identical subject matter - right down to the defintion of the topic itself - then they are the same, with only slightly differing article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• These are not the same article. I am sure the main QM article covers a lot more information. Saying these share identitcal subject matter, and that's all there is to it - is not the correct way to characterize these articles. The main QM article is dense with technical language, and that is as it should be, in this particular instance. This is a great article.

The intro to QM article is written in a much more understandable language and more easily accessible to the lay reader.

The intent of introduction articles in general, and Intro to QM in particular, is that introduction articles were (or are) written to provide readers with a non-technical introduction to unavoidably technical subjects.

The main QM article covers the subject in a succinct, but technical manner compared to the "overview" of the intro article. Except maybe for the very first section of the main QM article, it is not understandable to a general audience. The Intro to QM article is much more understandable to a general audience.

This is not simply a black and white issue. There are all kinds of guidelines, intentions, and even the policy WP:IGNORE, which are at play in this situation. And as I stated above, Intro to QM is consistent with policies and guidelines in its own right. One more thing - it appears to me that to present a good introduction to this topic it takes around 75 kilobytes. I know this because more could have been added to the Intro to the QM article, but there was agreement to stop where it is. There is a good faith intention for the article to be composed as it stands today. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steve.

The object of any good book or article is to serve the needs of readers. Some readers have no math or physics background whatsoever, and others may be grad school level individuals with a formidable competency in calculus. It is very difficult to write an article that can provide for the needs of all levels of readers. Putting higher math in the middle of an account that can be meaningful to a novice reader will affect the coherence of the article. The advanced reader may feel talked down to because of the need to put things in basic terms for the novice readers.

One of the functions of Wikipedia is to educate. To educate may mean to take a reader somewhat beyond his/her comfort level. An article written for the advanced reader will use math and conceptual approaches that will be beyond the reach of less advanced readers, and will not include the mathematical explanations that are within reach of those who have not taken several years of higher math.

Einstein was very well able to write comprehensibly for a general readership, and he was of course also very well able to supply the higher math. But he did not try to talk to more than one audience at a time.P0M (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See also #How to improve Wikipedia's readability? [sic] below, which overlaps this discussion. Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we should have articles such as "INTRODUCTION TO XYZ" in capitals so that readers with bad eyesight (or who SHOUT!) can read them? Hell no. There is no external source of a validation for these topics, so Wikipedia should not have articles on them, capitals or no capitals. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," reliance on sources is important. It may seem a good idea to create an article on an "introductory" version of an otherwise "non-introductory" article. But there is really only one article. Sources are not likely supporting one or the other of two articles — sources are supporting one topic. Articles should only be written on topics that have been established by sources to have a real-world existence outside of Wikipedia. We should not have editors creating articles simply because an idea appeals to them. I think an "introductory article" is an "editorial creation" without a separate counterpart in sources aside from the sources pertaining to the topic in general. Close adherence to sources is crucial to Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP's goal is verifiability not verified. As long as an introductory article on an obviously notable topic is not introducing original research, quotes, or statements of contention, there is no issue with backing up the whole of the article with a number of useful references for more information on the topic. Remember, we the editors are already deciding how we best summarize information on notable topics, and there seems to be wide consensus for intro articles as part of the summary for large, multi-article topics. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

An introductory article is an "obviously notable topic." That is not the question. The question is do sources establish the introductory version of the topic? They do not. They establish the topic itself. The further manipulation of that material into "introductory" and "non-introductory" is something conceived in the minds of the editors favoring the creation of that article. That freewheeling approach cuts against Wikipedia policy. Better to arrange the article to provide overview, with transition into more dense (or detailed, or more difficult-to-comprehend) coverage, either in the article, or in articles on subtopics that can be easily linked to off of the main article. This project is ultimately based in sources. It may seem like an innocuous thing to do to create two versions of an article. But it is not. Two such articles would take different developmental paths, and no mechanism exists at Wikipedia to tie them together. Nor do I think any two articles should be tied to one another. [User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We are writing a encyclopedia via community standards - a learning tool, not a bastion of perfect research. The comment "The question is do sources establish the introductory version of the topic?" flies completely in the face of the goals of WP. Obviously, most topics don't need a separate introductory article - that's part of the article on that topic, but for very large topics, like chemistry, World War II, or the like, an article written to provide a roadmap of where one can find more information can only help the work, not harm it. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing for perfection of any sort. In fact I think one has to see that Wikipedia is the unique entity that it is. It is not another encyclopedia. It has its strong points and it has its weak points (though overall it is very strong). Within the context of Wikipedia we may have to make choices, and this is one such juncture. We can opt for what we think is a "good idea," which is what I think you are arguing for, even if I am paraphrasing you. Or we can opt for adhering closely to sources, which is what I think this project always calls for us to opt for. All that is required is a layout of information that progresses from the general to the particular. This would take place within an article and it would also span articles — more in-depth coverage might be found at articles linking to a main article. And even at these satellite articles, information can be presented as transitioning from the general to the particular, or from the less difficult to understand to the more difficult to understand. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say that I support having introductory articles on Wikipedia. Second, User:Bus stop, I agree with adhering closely to sources. To me this makes Wikipedia a quality encyclopedia and resource. Third, it appears that I have discovered sources which may actually support having an Introduction to Quantum mechanics article on Wikipedia. Please excuse my elaboration of the first source. I guess I just want to be clear. The sources are numbered 1, 2, 3and 4 and are as follows:

1. Philips, A.C. Introduction to Quantum mechanics. Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2003. (Part of the Manchester Physics Series, developed at Manchester University) Author's Preface: "...there is a distinct lack of books which attempt to give a serious introduction at a level suitable for undergraduates who have a tentative understanding of mathematics, probability and classical physics. This book introduces the most important aspects of quantum mechanics in the simplest way possible.... [This introduction]"

• reviews relevant concepts in classical physics before corresponding concepts are developed in quantum mechanics.
• presents mathematical arguments in their simplest form
• provides an understanding of the power and elegance of quantum mechanics that will make more advanced texts accessible

2. Manners, Joy Quantum physics: an introduction Taylor & Francis, Inc. July 2000

3. An Introduction to Quantum Mechanics Betha Chemistry Tutorial, Ohio State University. (choose the second menu, it works better). With all these modules combined is this any less of an introduction than Wikipedia's introductory article?

4. The next two give a view of what another Intro to QM article looks like on a wiki or the web:Introduction to Quantum Theory and Chapter 1: Introduction to Quantum Physics.

Comment - It appears there are more sources available to take a look at which have this very similar, or the same titles. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a judgment call. If sources are establishing "Introduction to quantum mechanics" as a topic that has its own established identity then such an article could be created, in my opinion. No article title, or topic, is utterly off-limits, in my opinion. If "introduction to quantum mechanics" has truly adequate sourcing for exactly that topic, we would have no choice but to accept that topic as the basis of an article. I am unable to weigh those sources. A determination would have to be made by editors with familiarity with the topic.

But I think there still remains a problem — isn't the same subject being covered by both an "introductory" and an "advanced" article? The topic has not changed, only the approach to the topic has changed. Can't both of the approaches be easily enough placed in one article? The real judgment call is whether a source representing itself as "introductory" is really primarily that. I am skeptical of the significance of such terms as "introduction to" in sources. The underlying topic remains the same in all treatments of it. I am not sure that sources using the word "introduction" are placing as much weight on it as we may be attributing to that word found in for instance the titles of books on a subject. It is possible that a term such as "introduction to" is not intended to set apart a topic from a more "advanced" treatment as we may be assuming. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are not seperate topics, for they are truly the one and the same topic. If you do a word search in the articles cited by Steve Quinn[1][2], you will see that the article title does not appear anywhere in the body of the article: its just a label used to describe the fact that it is just a brief outline. I think there is some confusion here: often university courses and text books use the title "Introduction to..." but the subject matter is merely a label. All of the coverage in the article is derived from the study of Quantum methanics; there are no scientists out there doing research into the "Introduction to Quantum methanics", nor are they publishing any papers about this topic. There may well be books with the term "Introduction" in the title, but again this is merely a label, in the same way "Advanced Quantum methanics" might be used to label a more advanced course or book on the subject. I think this is a fundamental mistake made by the creators of these "Introduction to...XYZ" articles have made: they have mixed up descriptive titles used to describe the summary level at which a topic is being discussed, thinking that they are somehow distinct or seperate from the over-arching topic itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Titles can give guidance to both the subject matter covered, and to the level of reader preparation that is expected. Such a high level of math competence is demanded in modern physics that certain math courses are prerequisites for certain physics courses. The physics student who is at the first year level can expect to do lots of back-filling should s/he decide to dip into something in an advanced physics course or an article in a professional journal. Heisenberg's ground-breaking 1925 article leave many professional physicists scratching their heads -- not particularly due to the math level itself is anything too arcane but because so much of the article is implicit. If one has the proper background one presumably can figure it all out by supplying what Heisenberg forgot to mention, but even with a very good math background some people seem not to see how he arrives at his conclusions. They regard the discovery announced in this article as a "magical" process.

In addition to levels of difficulty, there is also a fan-out factor. The same basic concepts must be learned in an "introductory" course to allow progress in specialized courses, but competence in one specialized study may be of little help if a student decides to take on another specialty.

The current Introduction to quantum mechanics is not a study of how quantum mechanics is introduced, nor is it intended to cover a field of learning separate from that of the senior article on Quantum mechanics. "All of the coverage in the article is derived from the study of Quantum methanics," but it take account of what can and what cannot be understood by someone with only a high school math education. "The underlying topic remains the same in [both] treatments of it," but one approach would be appropriate for someone with a good high school preparation in math, and another approach would tell things in more depth because it could depend on a more advanced math level and a greater contextual understanding.

A case in point is the explanation that was worked out by Huygens for the phenomenon of diffraction. It is now regarded as having been superseded by a quantum mechanical explanation, but the explanation of Huygens is a coarser-grained explanation that gives the general features of a diffraction pattern. The quantum-mechanical description/calculation is more precise, but study of the classical explanation gives students a way of understanding why the phenomenon occurs, and the method is simple enough that individuals with a ruler, a compass, and a piece of paper can work the solution out for himself/herself. Advanced coverage of the subject would go directly to the quantum mechanical calculations because that gives a more precise picture, a more highly detailed picture, or you could call it a more finely grained picture. Moreover, the calculations would help consolidate the learning of the math for a student at that level instead of providing a stumbling block as those calculations would for a student without the required math background. (See Optics#Physical optics. P0M (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(←)WP has chosen to adapt to certain size constrants for the body of a given article, a constraint that doesn't exist if we were printed. I doubt we'll be ever easily change our size constraints for numerous reasons, mostly technical (the cost of serving up large pages in bandwidth and CPU; limitations on the end-user side). So let's start with the fact that one job of WP editors is to figure out how to take a topic that easily breaks the size barrier for one page and split it among as many pages as necessary to get the job done of summarizing the topic as a whole. There are two added complexities to this: We need to make sure each resultant page is able to stand alone by itself to be understood by the reader, providing hyperlinks to help connect it back to the main topic and other pages under that; and we need to make sure that the splits are not so infinitesimal to have short, stubby, hard-to-source articles on singular, non-notable topics. Thus, when covering a large topic that certainly spreads well beyond a few pages, its a lot of work to make sure the balance is right between coverage and comprehension and page sizes.

What does this have to with intro articles? Well, I don't think any disagrees that an article on a topic should start off with an introduction to establish what the topic is to the reader completely unfamiliar with the area; this is a combination of the lede and first few sections on a page. But when you have a huge topic that spans several dozens of articles (in appropriate fashion, natch), a clear introduction could take up a whole page within size limitations. This makes the main page, to those who are researching that topic out of familiarity, rather useless. Thus, in such cases, it makes sense to put this introduction into a separate article, referring their as a means of preparing the unaware reader, and making the main page suitable for those familiar with the topic and serving them better.

Remember, if this was a printed work without any size issues, that introduction would lead off the printed article.

This is similar part of our mission couples with size constraints. We have to do something like that because there is no other possible solution except completely drop this introduction, which to me seems like failing to meet our educational requirements. The topic and introductory contents are still verifiable and notable, nor present any POV or original research. It simply seems to be this hold up on the fact that "no sources have "introduction to X"". But again, I argue - our job as WP editors is to figure out how best to summarize topics in a tertiary manner with the added constraint of WP:SIZE. If we were paper, it would be easy to include such, but the fact that suddenly this becomes taboo in an electronic form makes no sense. Again, I stress that the proper distillation of a large topic across numerous pages is a tricky prospect and can also likely be done in several ways, though I'd argue we've adapted a certain approach on WP for that. Introductory articles are not always appropriate - a two-page topic isn't going to need one, and sometimes even on a 40+ page topic the same can be effected by the use of navboxes and the like. But when it does seem correct to use, we shouldn't be shunning those just because sources don't say anything about it. That hurts the encyclopedia more than helps it. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You make reference to "failing to meet our educational requirements." What "educational requirements" are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, I'd note that on Wikipedia, all articles have to come up with a way of balancing the encyclopædic need for appropriate coverage of the topic with our readership's need for a clear and concise explanation of the topic, taking into account article size constraints (noted by Masem). In most cases this is not that difficult to do. But it does become a problem when we start to deal with the main articles on highly technical topics. If we give appropriate coverage in such a way as to be well understood by the lay reader, our article will be far too long. If our coverage is clear and concise, it will, by necessity, miss out information that is absolutely fundamental to the topic. And if we give appropriate coverage concisely, it will be impenetrable to the uninitiated reader.

So which do we lose? When it comes down to it, there's one that gives more easily than the others. The size constraints aren't going to disappear any time soon as Masem notes. And if we're not aiming to provide appropriate coverage of a topic on the main article about that topic then it's difficult to see what the point of that article is. But if we're sacrificing clarity on the main article, we can then write an article to clear things up - an introductory article. An introductory article can be more relaxed about giving appropriate coverage because it is not intended to be the main article on the topic. It can thus be written at a lower level, to allow the reader to understand the basics of the topic while giving appropriate coverage in the main article. Pfainuk talk 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed a question that had been deleted from a discussion page (because, I suppose, it didn't belong there) from a fifteen year old student who had become interested in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle by viewing a television program on the subject by a noted physicist. He is obviously a bright student, but he had become confused over some of the arguments and/or vocabulary in the program. I haven't seen the program myself, so it is possible that it was a bad lecture, but it doubt it. The problem, for the lecturer, must have been how to cram as much information into the lecture as possible. So he probably did not explain the meanings of terms such as "momentum." He used terms such as "λ" for the wavelength of light, when he might better of used "L." The high school student remembered the pronunciation of λ, but it is not clear that he understood what it stands for. We can't expect the lecturer to have taken four or five minutes to explicate the idea of momentum as it is used in physics. By the time he had gotten through with the basic vocabulary, the program would have been over. His target audience was presumably adults who have not given up on the idea of ever understanding science and so may be presumed to have at least the basic concepts of classical physics straight.

I doubt that there are any cases where all members of a TV audience come with even the same general level of preparation to understand something technical. So we ought to expect one level of presentation on Sesame Street, another level of presentation on Charlie Rose, and perhaps a third level of presentation on "Re-tread Your Creds" between 3 and 5 a.m. I think everyone can see the problems for viewers with different levels of competence. The same general considerations apply to encyclopedia presentations. In the world of paper books, there are encyclopedias written for high school students, and there are encyclopedias written for adults. Even among the adult-target encyclopedias there are probably differences in the expected background of readers. Beyond the encyclopedia articles dealing with topics such as the Uncertainty Principle, there are books that go beyond the "Intro to Physics" level, and articles in professional journals. All of these levels should be talking about the same general subject, and in the best of all possible worlds even the high school encyclopedia would never over-simplify or simply put in false information.

I contend that it is the high school student who most needs a reliable article, and the physicist (or the specialist in whatever the subject is) who least needs an encyclopedia article. In fact, the third tier kind of reader should be writing articles for the first tier reader. The reader in the middle is likely to need a good article, but it also likely to have the ability to get an appropriate book out of a library or via an on-line seller that will give an appropriate level of guidance. The last time I had reason to try to follow through on some of the more esoteric physics articles they were above the level of most college students -- including physics majors who have taken one year of physics for majors. In cases where one can only understand something if one is already a B.S. in physics, then that may be appropriate. But there are subjects that can be presented to the average well-informed reader without misinforming them. It would be wrong to make the specialist approach the standard for all articles. P0M (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that we also have the Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia to handle describing a topic at its most simplest terms - eg, the "Sesame Street" presentation you describe above. However, an intro article should not be written at that simplicity of the language. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Simple English articles do not assume that the people who read them are not well educated, only that they do not have a great facility for reading English. In a way, the more math one can use in a Simple English article the better. One of the motivations for writing articles in Simple English is to provide information for people who cannot find adequate articles in their own languages. I think that ordinarily Simple English articles are not read by people whose native tongue in German because they are almost sure to find adequate articles in German. Someone whose native language is connected with a small community without a very good availability of technical books. If that person has managed to develop good math skills, however, they may easily make their way through the math and just need a rough narrative to go along with the numbers.P0M (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Introductory articles cut against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia depends on a broad base of editors for stability and quality. The division of one topic into two articles is arbitrary and probably cuts against both wp:verifiability as well as wp:reliable sources. I say "probably" because I am allowing for the possibility that sources make the distinction between two different approaches to the same topic. I don't think a book for instance titled "Introduction to XYZ" can be said to constitute a different approach to the subject "XYZ" than a book for instance titled "Advanced XYZ." The approach is the same because the challenge is the same. The challenge is to shed light on the topic. Wikipedia editors are supposed to draw upon sources to compose our own articles. We are expected to paraphrase but to not stray too far from that which is supported by sources. It is in this way that we are supposed to create our own articles. When topics are extensive we branch articles off of other articles. Earlier articles or earlier paragraphs in the same article are generally of a simpler nature. Later articles or later paragraphs in the same article delve more deeply into the subject. All editors interested in a given topic follow this progression which covers one given topic, and the large number of editors ensures that the topic covered by the article or articles in question is of optimal stability and of optimal quality. The notion of "introductory articles" is contrary to standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. Editor's interests are what guides participation in this project. One does not have an "introductory" interest in a topic and/or an "advanced" interest in a topic. This is an arbitrary distinction between editors. And I think it is unlikely we would find this distinction reflected in sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We're already talking about topics that, by necessity, are split up into many many pages due to breadth, so its not an issue of a topic being covered on two different pages. There's no violation of WP:V either, since material in intro articles still needs to be verifiable. There are no policies that intro pages can, by their nature, violate. (Of course, poor written intro pages with editor's bias are a different story, but the general case is that they are fine).

Put it another way. Intro articles are appropriate to WP in the same way we have other navigational pages, like lists or the like; it is a necessary due to the fact that we don't cover a topic in a single super long article. As long as one agrees that in a printed medium, a very long encyclopedic article would start with an introduction overall, then it makes perfect sense to translate that to the electronic format. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification for two articles on the same topic. We are supposed to try to "improve" the article, if possible. We are not supposed to be creating an entirely new article on an identical topic. And there is no reason why one or more articles, involving branching into subtopics or related topics, cannot be presented in an understandable way. That is our job — to integrate material from sources to present material in a way that is understandable. That, in general, involves progressing from the general to the particular. First the editor spells out subject matter in a cursory way. Then an editor delves more into depth on same material or on related material. This methodology is operational within articles and this methodology is operational across articles. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(←)I've been looking around at what we have as "introductory" articles [3] based on the template for those, and I'm seeing part of the problem here per the above "general to particular". Basically, given an article on topic X, that article will have a technically-heavy background section (T) and then summary-style drill-downs (S) that follow that. Alone that's good. Meanwhile, over in the intro article, we'll have the non-technical introduction of the topic (N) that may overlap with to some extent with T - however, for most purposes these are sections with two different types of content and approaches to discussing T. None of T, S, or N violate any verification/POV/OR policy so we want to include T, S, and N in WP, but T, S, and N are so large as if they were in the same article, it would violate SIZE. Taking this case, the question really is here: should the main article on X contain N and S, with T split off as (as "Technical background" or "mathematical derivation" or whatever is the most suitable topic, or should we retain the status quo with T and S in the main article and N off on its own.

That question leads us to who is the intended average audience of topic X. In general, WP urges to write towards someone that's aware of the English language and basic concepts, but otherwise not technical in that field. This would suggest that article X should start with N and S, and push T off to a separate article (N being aimed towards that audience). But I've also seen people argue that a basic familiarity with core concepts should be presumed, so we should start with T and S in X, with N off as the intro. Given the examples I'm seeing in intro articles and the main topic pages, I'd push my weight behind having X include N and S, with T off as a separate article, so that a person landing on the topic X always moves towards more specific material from the general. That said, there is a lot of copyediting that I see to be done to be able to streamline N and T into a single section (the example that stands out is entropy and the associated intro article). In other cases, the intro article is just labeled wrong: Introduction to quantum mechanics is actually History of quantum mechanics if you read it closely. I feel there may be situations where an introduction article that is all N by itself and T and S in the main article may be appropriate, but spot-checking our present examples, I'm just not seeing it. I don't want to rule out the possibility however, and still insist that introductory articles aren't always bad, but they can be avoided in many cases with the right copyediting and thought to article content.

One type of article that is still important for larger topics is an outline article, which can act as an intro article - though it should not get into any depth and only be sections with summaries of the more specific articles, organized appropriately to work as navigation aids for a large topic. That, I think, is more what this discussion should support over the use of intro articles for large topics. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MASEM brings to mind two or three things. First let's look at Quantum mechanics. This is something I noticed earlier. This time I simply did a Wikipedia search of main space articles with the title (or words) "Quantum mechanics". First there is the "main" Quantum mechanics article. This followed by Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, Introduction to quantum mechanics, Measurement in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger equation (which is central to quantum mechanics), Matrix mechanics (a formulation of quantum mechanics created by Werner Heisenberg , Max Born , and Pascual Jordan...), Relational quantum mechanics, Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics), Perturbation theory (quantum mechanics)... and the list continues. There is more on this page, and twenty more on the next. How many Quantum mechanics articles are there? I don't know. There is also a History of Quantum mechanics. The result of the searh is here. There is a lot of ground covered under the general topic "Quantum mechanics". Perhaps it can be argued that Quantum mechanics is being viewed from differenct perspectives, but it is still Quantum mechanics.

I don't know if everbody is a aware of this category entitled Category:Introductions. This category lists separate introduction articles. There is a rationale provided for the exsistence of these articles on the Category:Introductions page. Apparently there must be some agreement for the exsitence of these articles. Also there is Category:Articles with separate introductions. There is a template entitled {{seeintro}} for these articles. There is also Wikipedia:List of Introductory Articles which is apparently incomplete. Based on these items I could probably say that Introductory articles are an accepted part of the Wikipedia culture.

And one final thing. Editors on Wikipedia did not invent the concept of Introductory works or articles. As has been stated above, in different ways, this is an accepted communication or learning tool at universities, with text books, tutorials, and perhaps even part of the high school curriculum. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. An introductory textbook is not the same as a popularization. A popularization may include mention of some of the conceptually/mathematically most difficult things because the author just wants to report on the interesting stuff without having to help the reader understand how these startling conclusions were reached. An introductory textbook is intended to take students from where they all presumably start, e.g., with a high school math background that includs trig and solid geometry, to as far as one can get in all directions or most directions (not tunnelling down in some specialized area) in the course of a semester or a year.

Quantum physics is almost equivalent to post-ninteenth-century physics. It is the successor of classical physics in all respects except for gravity. So the idea that anybody could give adequate coverage of the subject in 32k or 64k is incredible as far as I am concerned.

There are at least two fundamentally different ideas about how to introduce people to quantum mechanics. One idea is to teach students higher levels of calculus, and then hit them with Schrödinger's wave equations, and never teach them about classical physics. The reasoning behind this approach is that classical physics is wrong, that to the extent that one could argue that classical physics is right, it is just how quantum mechanics works out over a certain range of values, and that it is better for the students if they never learn a mistaken way of thinking about the world. One consequence of this idea, were it to be put into practice, is that most people would not learn physics unless we got most people to learn several years of calculus. There would be no physics taught in high school.

In a univeristy situation, where learning can be pretty much under the direction of a physics professor, one can learn enough calculus to keep up with a physics course that presents the laws of motion by deriving them using calculus -- rather than presenting them as formulas to be memorized as is done in a course for students who do not know calculus. The high school approach using memorization makes physics something that one must take on faith, and the only approach to grounding the formulas taught is to try to test them out in the physics lab.

The second fundamental approach to introducing people to quantum mechanics (or anything else in physics, for that matter) is to move the student from what they already know to some clearer understanding by supplying a little more information and helping the reader draw conclusions so that they actually come to understand the subject rather than simply taking statements about the subject on trust. In order to make the concepts comprehensible, it is generally helpful to put them in their temporal sequence. That kind of developmental approach will thus be in historical sequence, but the intent in the "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" article was to facilitate the readers' understanding of the physics, not primarily to present an account of the history of the field. An account of what principles or laws were discovered when would not have required the math and the detailed conceptualization pertaining to the physical world.

I have a couple of books in my library, one is called an "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," one of "The M.I.I Introductory Physics Series," and one is intended as a first-year college physics textbook. These books are intended neither for high school students nor for students working on their doctorates. They both have an undergraduate physics major readership in mind. As such, they neither write simply enough for high school students nor do they contain anything that the physics grad student would not already be expected to know. Their math level is intended to keep pace with the work of university students taking a five hour calculus class both freshman semesters and probably continuing with at least three hour courses later on. So the readership of these books is one that excludes all but exceptional secondary school students, and the concentration on the fundamental issues of modern physics means that grad students in physics would probably only use them for review.

The idea of an "introductory" physics writing would be to build the competency of students at a certain level. The standard Sears and Zemansky University Physics is an introductory text that condenses a series of very good physics text books by Francis Weston Sears on mechanics, optics, thermodynamics, etc. Even in ints first edition it was a fat, expensive book. If anyone had attempted to write a comparable book to include all of physics and all of the knowledge of physics that had already been presented in textbooks published at the same time, it surely would have required several equally fat volumes. If I recall correctly, the original Sears and Zemansky did not have a section on Relativity, so the decisions on what to teach first and what to teach later in the sequence may not have any absolute standard. On the other hand, it is a general principle of such writing that the fundamental stuff is taught before the stuff that is dependent on it.

Any writing on physics will be appropriate only for those people who have the preparation necessary to understand it, and people who have substantially higher preparation will find the material mostly irrelevant to their lives. That's different from writing in a subject whose information is basically "flat," e.g., statutory requirements for buildings over three stories tall in the European Union. P0M (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Introductions: a topic or a source?

It is clear that are many books entitled "Introduction to XYZ". But does that mean that an Introduction is a seperate standalone topic? I am not convinced myself. In the same way there are "reliable" or "questionable" sources, so too can sources be classified as "Introductory" or "Advanced". If Wikipedia does not have articles such as "Reliable source about Quantum Mechanics", then why should there be articles on "Introductory sources about Quantum Mechanics"?

I think the problem is that Introductory articles are a form of systematic content fork that has arisen because editors cannot agree on how to edit articles by consensus. Where an article is the subject of huge range of sources, cherry picking the best ones is complex process. These introductory articles have been created so that editors don't have to make difficult choices about which sources are best, or maybe because they encounter resistence from so called "experts" a.k.a. article owners. Instead, they have just madeup an article topic and created an Introductory article instead of having a discussion about which sources to use, and which to discard.

As Bus Stop said earlier, the editorial process for writing articles involves several stages. First the editor spells out subject matter in a cursory way. Then an editor delves more into depth on same material or on related material. This methodology is operational within articles and this methodology is operational across articles. Simply ignoring these stages and creating content forks to avoid editorial discussion is not the way forward. These introductory articles represent lazy editorial practice and have no place in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried writing an article on maths? I couldn't as I dropped maths after high school. And remember that the idea reader is a bright 14-year old, and that most adults have no better readings skills. --Philcha (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly common sense that "Introduction to X" is not a new topic, but part of existing topic X and need not be notable of itself. There are still other issues to deal with, but they are not some made-up context fork but instead part of the necessary decisions WP editors have to make about how to present a very large topic that spans multiple pages. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As Masem knows, "common sense" (aka his opinion) is not a rationale for inclusion. I think the case still stands: introductory level coverage is just another way of classifying a source, but its not a topic in its own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP is built by consensus, not objective rules. Common sense of consensus overturns whatever may be present or lacking in the sources. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently sources can be classified as "Introductory" or "Advanced", and they are. Books and textbooks in particular do have titles such as Introduction to... and Advanced.... Here are some "sources" that are "advanced".

Advanced physics, Advanced chemistry textbook, Advanced mathematical concepts, Advanced engineering mathematics textbook

Here are some sources that are apparently "Introductions to..."

Introduction to psychology textbooks, Introduction to programming textbooks, Introduction to quantum mechanics, introduction to chemistry textbook

Therefore, apparently, sources cited on Wikipedia derived from sources entitled "Introductory" by qualified experts (with expereince in their respective fields) would be acceptable for WP:RS. It is these persons who term the work or texbook "introductory" or "advanced", and they are qualified to determine which label is appropriate. It is the same "topic" - Chemistry, Engineering, or Mathematics, etc. But a distinction has been made by people eminently qualified to do so. Therefore, referecnes from these "Introductory" works would be appropriate for an "Introduction to..." article on Wikipedia. At the same time, I am willing to bet sources for these introductory books dovetails with sources for the advanced books. Hence, Wikipedia "Introduction to..." articles end up using these sources as well. And the argument becomes circular. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating that introductory articles are content forks because editors cannot agree on how to edit articles by consensus is not grounded in fact. The process has been exactly the opposite. Introduction to QM, for example, was created explicitly because there was agreement to do so. Furthermore, collaboration, and consensus between a group of editors developed this article. In addition, as far as I know, this article has the support of the Physics community on Wikipedia.

There is an assertion that these introductory articles have been created so that editors don't have to make difficult choices about which sources are best. This statement is also not grounded in fact. One look at the references in the introductory articles, and especially, Intro to QM should reveal the quality of sources. And anyway, "best sources" have nothing to do with acceptability of sources, nor notablility of article. The benchmark is WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Not "best sources".

There is a supposition that editors encounter resistance from another group of editors, for whatever reason, and this is the reason for an introductory article. Personally, I have to doubt that this is a strong motivating factor. More experienced editors would likely WP:PROD, speedily delete, or WP:AfD the article. For example, I believe I am addressing a group of vigilant editors in this thread. How likely is it that a nonsensical article will be given a pass by a group such as this?----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it is so. If your mother calls you Steve, and your doctor calls you Mr Quinn, they are addressing the same person: you would have to be schizophrenic to think they were different people. If a book is at introductory or advanced level, it is still about that particular topic - sources can't be schizophrenic, even if you argue they can. These are just labels that can be applied in different circumstances to any source, not just those with "Introduction" or "Advanced" in their title, but to all sources. The fact is that Introduction to Quantum Mechanics cites "advanced" as well as "introductory" sources. If an article cites sources that cover topics that are the subject of an existing standalone article, this is a very definite symptom of a content fork.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By this logic we should delete all ledes as duplication of content from the body, and remove summary-style summaries typically used in conjunction with {{main}} or {{seealso}} templates, since they duplication information too.

WP, by consensus, can decide that for a very large or complex topic, that an article that may duplicate content but in a non-biased way, is necessary for helping every level of reader in comprehending the topic. Unbiased duplication is not content forking, as already determined from previous discussions there. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFORK does not actually ban content forks in principle. If it did, then the introductory articles we have would be the tiniest part of the problem. After all, most of the topics we're discussing are pretty clearly content forks of Science. No, the content forks that are discouraged are those that are redundant and those used to further a POV.

These introductory articles are not, generally speaking, redundant. They do not seek to duplicate the material in other existing articles. Rather, they serve to introduce the topic in a way that is difficult to do in the main article. They aim to explain the basic details of a topic so as to allow the main article to explain the topic in all its technical glory without constantly having to interrupt itself. They allow the reader to get a feel for the topic without constantly having to click on constantly click through links to work out WTF the article's on about.

We shouldn't be looking at a narrow interpretation of the rules but at the bigger picture. I contend that the limited use of introductory articles to aid readers in their understanding of highly technical topics is ultimately a good thing for the encyclopædia. That we want our readers to understand us and that - given our size constraints - introductory articles are likely the best way of doing this while maintaining due and appropriate coverage of the topics concerned. And that if this breaks the letter of some rule that's written down, so be it. Pfainuk talk 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The main complaint that we have received about the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics article is that it is not easy enough, not that it fudges the science. P0M (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the main point is that naming an article "Introduction to..." is not WP:RS, nor is it WP:OR. This is because there is plethora of sources available which are entitled "Introduction to..." Also, the "Introduction to..." articles on Wikipedia are not content forks. I also see that the presumption of good faith is lacking WP:AGF. Not related to that, please refrain from using me as an illustration or an example. I am not a book or an article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Intro to QM article can be termed a spin-off article, because of how it came to be created, developed and established. See: WP:CFORK section entitled "Article spinouts - summar style". In the Quantum mechanics article the overview is the summation, and there is a link to Introduction to quantum mechanics. The other main, and introduction articles probably have the same or similar set up. This is in agreement with "summary style", WP:SS, and article size, WP:LENGTH, and WP:SPLIT. I believe that pretty much sums up the strategy and rationale employed. Certianly not a content fork. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. This article was begun in September of 2005. Since that time very many people have contributed to it, and I can recall few if any cases where there were possible divergences in science from the senior article, which I and others would have jumped on immediately upon detecting them. Forks usually occur when one contributor finds himself/herself unable to get a certain point of view or interpretation of some subject accepted into the original article and therefore writes a new article that "explains things the way they are in reality." I've corresponded with some of the contributors to the senior article from time to time, calling their attention to things I found questionable or unclear in the Intro article, and none of them have challenged the accuracy of the article, claimed it to be a fork, etc. P0M (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not a summary style article in fairness, because it fails WP:AVOIDSPLIT. It is entirely legitimate to have a heading within an article entitled "Introduction", but to create a standalone article based on a heading is a misunderstanding. There are no articles in Wikipedia entitled "Preface to Quantum Mechanics" or "Postscript to Quantum Mechanics" because that would silly. Having an article called "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" is equally as silly. This article is a content fork, there can be no doubt. I don't see how you can have a "good content fork" if the two articles share the same sources and subject matter - it is just needless duplication. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're using "introduction" in term of #3 of wikt:introduction, while everyone else is talking about the common sense, non-literal version "introduction" #1. Of course we're not talking about the literal split-off of the introduction section of a topic, but instead an article that introduces the topic at a level lower than we normally use to write about the topic. Completely rationale and common sense in a work. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and, more importantly, the status of this article has been reviewed by other readers with appropriate qualifications several times over the past five years. Pfainuk has explained the correct rationale for you (see above), but you are not responsive to his words. Some of what is useful to the reader without calculus, e.g., the matrix approach that Heisenberg lucked onto, would be regarded as a useless detour into old news by the reader in search of knowledge who has a good background in higher math because for that reader one hairy-looking equation encapsulates a few pages of elaboration needed to limn what Heisenberg had to do to produce the original solution that later got expressed with such economy.

Haggling over the word "introduction" will not be helpful. I forget what Paulc1001 originally called this article. It went by several names. Eventually one of the older heads around here told us to call it "Introduction..." because "that's what other articles of this type are called." In the Wikipedia context, an "introduction" refers to a treatment on the level of writing of Introducing Quantum Theory by J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate. A senior article uses a level of writing more like An Introduction to Quantum Physics by A.P. French and Edwin F. Taylor. (It's in the M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series of textbooks.) The first book is an admirable treatment for the general reader. The second book is unreadable for anyone without at least a prior ten units of "physics for majors." It is over 600 pages long, and the writing is comparatively terse. Combining the two would make a concoction the likes of a dense steamed pudding into which marshmallows had been interspersed. P0M (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you must have missed my earlier point. Both Quantum Mechanics and Introduction to Quantum Mechanics share the same subject matter and the same "advanced" sources, because they address the same topic directly and in detail - they are one and the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that brings all of human knowledge to the reader at a level which is understandable. Some would argue that "one level of knowledge fits all" is not what Wikipedia is about, but I beg to differ. Simply put, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference source, not a place for scientific papers: A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. All articles in Wikipedia are more or less at an introductory level. You can pull out the Animal farm defense if you like ("all articles are equal, but some are more equal than others"), but I don't accept this line of thinking. The arguments that there are "introductory" articles and "advanced" articles, or that there are "senior" articles and "junior" articles is more or less the same old argument put forward for articles without a rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia: WP:IKNOWIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining article content from the same presumption of knowledge the reader has is certainly the right goal, but a topic particularly as complex as Quantum Mechanics means to set the stage to actually be able to talk about the topic in depth from that starting point means we spend 90% of the allotted WP:SIZE getting there. So suddenly we need at least one more article, once the background information has been developed, to go from there to actually discuss the topic. So either Quantum mechanics becomes the intro article and moving the core details to something else, or we accept that in certain cases like this, where the details on the topic are determined by consensus to be more important to the reader, then we shuffle all that buildup from the "presumed set of knowledge" for all readers to the point where they can appreciate the rest of the article.

And yes, I would actually expect an intro article and the main article to use the same quality sources. Most of those sources are going to have similar introductions within them to build up from a low-level of knowledge to field-specific, and there is no reason not to shun those in an introduction article just because we used them elsewhere. By necessarily there may be some duplication of information but it should not be great nor anywhere close to problematic if the introduction article is done properly. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept the argument that you need two articles to cover the same topic: that is duplication of effort. What we have here is Wikipedia editors running competing articles: this goes against Wikipedia's policy on consensus. These articles are about the same topic, using the same sources, at the same level - only the style and presentation differ. The result is one topic, covered by two summaries and two sets of sub-topics. Its down to editors to write one article by agreeing on what is the appropriate level of coverge, and what weight should be given to different sub-topics. There is no rationale for these articles, and it should be the objective of editors to effect a merger of these content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right they cover the same topic with the same sourced, but they are written in very different styles. Furthermore, I would argue the "sum" of the facts are also different. I cannot stress this enough: if we were paper or had no SIZE limit, intro articles would be impractical over having that content at the start of the actual article on the topic. However, we have SIZE limits, and thus the necessity of these articles are required. --MASEM (t) 12:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Videos as references

Can videos be used as references in articles? For example, if you are quoting a source, and you have a video of the source making a presentation, can you base a quote in an article on that? An editor is deleting videos as references, and I don't think this is appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RepublicanJacobite#JFK_assassination_conspiracy_theories_article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#WP:YT

Thanks! Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you reference a line that is not a direct quote? Let's say the line says, "X has claimed that ...." and use the video as your source? Or to attribute facts presented by reliable sources, like a video of a chemistry lecture? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:RS applies to videos exactly the same as to everything else. Is the video published by an independent reliable source? Note that YouTube is not a reliable source, and neither are you. If the publisher's a reliable source you can quote it, otherwise you can't. It's the reliability of the publisher that's of relevance as to whether the events depicted actually happened (so whether the person in the video said what they appear to say), not the reliability of the people speaking in the video, as the publisher is the one with final responsibility for the editing and digital manipulation of the image and audio. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• See {{cite video}} --Cybercobra (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• This question should probably be posted at WP:RSN. I think the answer is that in principle a video may be a reliable source (that's what WP:IRS says), but in practice it is pretty difficult, and is open to a lot of interpretation (i.e. original research). One problem that can occur is that it is very easy for someone to mistate something in a video, and then it is hard to retract the mistatement (such a problem is much harder in a reliable printed source where editorial review should occur). I would want to know that the source of a video provided editorial review, and was known to have corrected previous mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• (EC)From WP:IRS: "[A]udio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." As with printed references, you can paraphrase source content rather than making a direct quote, but you must retain the original intent. As you didn't indicate what YouTube video you're referencing, nor precisely what you're referencing it for, it's hard to say whether you were doing it properly. A YouTube video of a scholarly documentary from the 1970s on the JFK assassination seems to be appropriate, assuming you note the name and producer of the doc, because you're essentially referencing the doc, and linking the YouTube clip simply as your proof that the doc says what you claim it to say; a YouTube video of some guy who took his videocamera to the grassy knoll to propound his own theory would, of course, be inappropriate, for both WP:RS and WP:OR. Abrazame (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• A YouTube video isn't proof that the original documentary says what it says as neither YouTube nor the uploader provide, or are required to provide, any evidence that the YouTube version is a faithful reproduction of the original and hasn't been altered in some way. There's no editorial responsibility. A link is still a convenience for readers interested in learning more, but it's not proof of anything and isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:V. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant what I wrote as appending, and not contradicting, the three comments before it (and began to write my comment before those were posted, or I probably wouldn't have felt compelled to write it). But considering that your second post seems to go further than your first, are you saying that my hypothetical, adding something sourced to a documentary clip hosted on YouTube, should be reverted as failing to satisfy verifiability because the uploader could have altered it? I see your point, I'm just unclear if you're saying you interpret that possibility as inherently preventing any such use, or merely in cases where an exceptional statement is being sourced or that there is a compelling argument for the possibility of alteration. Abrazame (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have that level of certainty in my own mind. See, when we link a book to Google Books, that's okay, because Google asserts their copy is a faithful reproduction of the original, and experience suggests they're reliable in that fashion. Whereas we know that films and television programs are, to begin with, edited and cut differently for different markets, and YouTube is not remotely a reliable source as to which version of a video we're watching. We have the further difficulty that YouTube features any number of videos consisting of altered or recut footage, often without any indication of what changes have been made. And then there's the third problem that videos can be re-uploaded to the same link so content can change. So a link to a YouTube video as evidence of anything runs a real risk of being deceptive. I don't think YouTube can be used for the purposes of WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS, regardless of what content it purports to be offering. However, where community consensus is that a given YouTube video does aid in an understanding of some aspect of an article it may still be a valid external link per WP:EXTERNAL, if used in compliance with that policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Of course, Google purchased YouTube, and (more complex copyright issues aside) it would be great to see them present an authoritative video library as they have done with books and periodicals; networks and studios could similarly host their own material and that they purchase from now-defunct production companies. I won't hold my breath, though, considering how far we are from the promise a couple decades back to digitize and offer for sale every music recording ever commercially available in history. You make several good points; I think we're of a similar mind on this, and if anything I go away from the conversation with more to think about, and a bit more reservation. Abrazame (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, here's a diff of some of the deletions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&diff=363634636&oldid=363634351 Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion that's not an acceptable citation, mostly because it doesn't provide the publisher of the video or provide information allowing other editors to identify and locate an original copy of the source material. (In short, it doesn't meet WP:V.) It may or may not be acceptable to leave the YouTube link for convenience but what you're citing has to be the complete details of the original video, as published by a reliable source, rather than merely its YouTube incarnation. For this (apparently) 1976 documentary, who is the publisher? The distributor? The director? It also has POV problems, in that what you're linking to is an extract (not a full version) with a summary from the uploader that may or may not be an accurate representation of the contents. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a higher standard that this, from WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." So a reader can watch the video themselves to verify that the quote is correct. Of course, ideally, they could access the entire original. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source. YouTube is not a reliable source, for the reasons above, so you need to be able to source this video back to someone who is (such as, presumably, its original publishers and distributors). That information goes into the citation template. The bit about "in practice not everything" refers to non-controversial statements not always needing a citation; see WP:QUOTE for policy stating that quotations are always controversial statements and must always be sourced. As a matter of practicality, in a controversial article like the JFK assassination one, you should in any case treat most everything as potentially controversial and cite everything you can. Having sourced the video appropriately, it MAY then be acceptable to leave the YouTube link for convenience, but the source must cite someone reliable, not YouTube. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add - did you see this first on YouTube? If so, you should probably refresh yourself on the principles of information literacy. There's no proof (on YouTube) that these are the people they claim to be, or that the documentary ever existed, or wasn't shot yesterday, or doesn't have the soundbites rearranged to portray different facts than those intended by the speakers. Not only can that happen on YouTube, it does happen, frequently and deliberately, for the purposes of comedy, hoaxes, or creative endeavours. If you saw it first on YouTube, you shouldn't be using it. If, however, you saw it somewhere else - on TV, or on a DVD, or somesuch - then you should be able to cite where you saw it, and that's the material that should go into the citation, presuming you can't find its original publishers and distributors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) In general, YouTube is not a reliable source because, as noted, the publisher information is often not there and frequently videos are not the legal property of the uploader (so not only are there questions of accuracy, but also [[[WP:COPYRIGHT]] issues). The only time a YouTube video can be used as a reliable source is when it was clearly, and verifiably uploaded by the actual copyright owner, such as some film production companies and music companies uploading "making of" videos to their official channels. In those cases, the YouTube video can be referenced. However, the caveat here is that if they later remove the video, it may be difficult to show that it did say what was claimed, versus other sources (finding this problem myself on some official RHI Making of videos that they have since removed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also treat videos similiar to books. We require a page number for a book so we don't need to skim the whole book. We should require a similiar location for a video, to within a minute. In addition, the video excerpt must be of good quality - e.g. cross-talk and other sounds. --Philcha (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(To Ghostofnemo) Yes, now that I've seen the diffs, see, that's what I was trying to say in my first response: you should be citing as publisher et al whomever produced/distributed/aired the video in the first place, and not YouTube. Note what Template:Cite video asks for. In an encyclopedia, the purpose of citing is not merely to facilitate surfing and further reading and viewing on the subject, but to allow readers to verify and assess the original source in its own context and as support for a particular statement in our article.

For Two Men in Dallas, you need to be more editorially involved: a simple Google search finds it was released (I'm guessing on VHS) in 1991. http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/76960/Two-Men-in-Dallas/overview An editor interested in the subject should track down that video, both to verify that the statements are in the film (and not from outtakes) as well as to have the relevant data to present in the reference template. (To context, and to the editorial review concept that Johnuniq raises, while experience has taught me to take AllMovie/AllMusic with several grains of salt, given that we're ultimately talking about a number of men's deaths, and not just a film or a single, their review of the doc reads, "Lane...examines the claims of Craig with a less critical eye than other assassination experts who have shown some of Craig's claims to be laden with contradictions or errors.") Beside the question of whether that's relevant context for the article text and how one would appropriately weight or attribute that, the data in a cite should be full and accurate enough that someone could search for it and eventually find such perspectives on the source as might exist on their own, however much salt they may bring to it. Abrazame (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem with conspiracy theories is that it's difficult to prove or disprove them, and that's not really an encyclopedia's job anyway. Sometimes the best we can do is to try to objectively present the notable theories (in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article there is now a debate over inclusion of the "shape-shifting alien" theory, for example). It seems like an imperfect reference is better than the alternative, which is no reference at all and the removal of relevant material. I'm sure Lane's video is for sale somewhere, and I can buy it watch it at home and then note it, but it seems that letting the readers see it themselves is a lot more verifiable than asking them to take my word for it. I wonder if we added the purchase information (like an Amazon page) to the reference if that would be improve verifiability? That would probably also get the copyright holders off Wikipedia's back. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Amazon sales numbers are not considered noteworthy nor reliable - they are just one retailer. Nor does how much something sells make it reliable. Many videos are referenced without them being online. Being online is no more a requirement for a video than it is for a book, magazine, etc. It is just convenient for the reader if it is available, legally, for linking out too. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant if you had a link to a sales point, it would prove the work actually existed, it would give the publication data, and it could then be purchased by someone who wanted to verify the content. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah...no, that shouldn't be necessary. You can use {{cite video}} to include all of the necessary publication data, which would enable anyone to find it if they were interested in it. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no WP:CITEVIDEO page. Should we maybe create one based on this discussion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Or maybe WP:VIDEOREF would be a better title? I'd be willing to start this, but I've never done it before, and would want to clearly point out it's a draft. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't think it would be anything more than a paragraph, as it should reference Reliable Sources, etc. I had been thinking that Wikipedia:Citing sources should give guidance by type of source. The most prevalent question on the talk page is how to cite a specific source; this same type of question is asked on the Help Desk, and elsewhere. I added a table of templates by source to Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Templates by source for discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(E/C) It's entirely unclear from this discussion whether you have read or understood (perhaps I mean accepted) the value of the fields requested in Template:Cite video. Abrazame (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to point out that 1) video sources are held to the same reliability standard as other sources and 2) you should use the {{cite video}} template to cite the source data. But you're right, I'm not the best person to do this. Already the question has come up, when you fill out the cite video template, do you use the original video data, but then link to the YouTube video? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&diff=366700376&oldid=366271203 Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This one was even trickier, because there is a movie and a video version, and I'm not sure which one is the actual source of the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&diff=366701230&oldid=366700877 Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to link anywhere. And linking to potential copyright violations is also not a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, the link adds verifiability. Without the link, you have to find the video and either check it out or buy it, to verify the point made or quote quoted in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I just noticed that the quoted lines diffed above (Bowers) did not match the video, so I edited them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't add verifiability, because the reader (and for that matter you) have no reason to believe the YouTube version is a faithful reproduction of the original. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't add "total" verifiability, but it's a lot better no link at all. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone really wanted to, they could mock up a news source web page and fake a reference, too. Ghostofnemo (talk)

See, now you're getting at the heart of it. Someone could do that, but their page would verifiably (through WHOIS) not be published by a reliable publisher, so it wouldn't be a reliable source. That's why we only use reliable sources. YouTube provides no verifiability at all. You can't have "kind of" verifiability. The reason the link may nevertheless be relevant is for convenience, and should be presented on that basis only after full details of the original publication have been included. Then you're effectively saying, as an editor, "I have watched the original of this video and I certify that this YouTube version is a fair and faithful representation of the original content." With, of course, other editors able to disagree and remove it if they're not convinced. The key issue is responsibility. Reliable sources have an individual or corporation of verifiable identity who takes responsibility for the material presented in the source, be it an author, editor or whoever, and that individual or corporation has a reputation of reliability. YouTube videos are prepared and uploaded by pseudonymous individuals who are neither claiming the accuracy of their work nor responsible for that accuracy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is potential for abuse, but shouldn't an editor who removes a video link have to offer some evidence that the video has been tampered with? I put the burden of proof there because, although a video could easily be faked, I think this is about as rare as a news story being faked. To remove the fake news story, the editor has to say, look, the url is not right, for example. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, because neither YouTube nor the uploader have made an assertion of accuracy. The claim that the material is reliable isn't coming from the source, it's coming from you, and you aren't a reliable source either, so any editor is within their rights to challenge and delete it on sight per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EXTERNAL. (Examples of false claims that are equally verifiable to YouTube: Peter Chao starred in the Lost finale, Powerthirst is a sports energy drink that can be given to babies to make them compete in track events at an Olympic level, Katie Couric regularly presents the news in a musical format with the aid of Autotune) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me that those are parodies and not documentaries! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think videos like this are deleted because they powerfully prove a point that is in contention. Sometimes editors have been known to delete things from articles in bad faith, because it threatens their position, and claim it was removed for a technical reason. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you do have the link, editors can then discuss, and readers can verify, whether the line in the article is in line with the source or not. With no link, you can't easily do that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they can't, because that discussion would have to proceed from the basis that the video is a faithful reproduction of the original, and there is no basis on which that claim can be made, given the way YouTube works. There's no such thing as "kind of verifiability". Either you have the original, as published by a reliable source, or you don't. You can't get it second-hand from an unreliable source and call it "good enough". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a grand conspiracy against you, Ghostofnemo. Just get your head around WP:RS and follow it. Yes, it's hard to find reliable sources for a conspiracy article. That's why it's a conspiracy article instead of an agreed history article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did that come from? I thought we were discussing videos as sources? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you were the one who cried foul first. There is some phrase about the pot calling the kettle black I believe?--Terrillja _talk 04:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a very active imagination to believe my comment was directed at a particular person, whereas DustFormsWords comment was directed right at me, and I don't believe I have been exhibiting any signs of paranoia during this discussion to warrant that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ghostofnemo, I wasn't intending to make a personal attack or question your sanity, you've been very civil throughout this discussion. I was just trying to say that when an editor deletes content, the first step is to assume it's because the content isn't in accordance with policy, rather than assume bad faith. Looking through the history of the article and this particular source, it's obviously very heated and there's bad calls from multiple editors, but it's clear that the majority of the problems around this particular edit could be solved if your sourcing more stringently complied with WP:RS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are quite easy to fake. Even by sovereign nations. Any other questions?--Terrillja _talk 04:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's audio. This is video. I admitted it's possible, but not likely to happen often. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting someone could change a witness's words, and no one would notice his lips were not in synch with the audio? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This was less than 20 years ago and people were completely convinced of what they were seeing and hearing. You underestimate the ability of propaganda. I saw the results and met the people who watched the broadcasts. The Croatians were convinced that the Serbs were killing their countrymen and vice versa. Manipulating a video or editing it to change its message is a simple thing to do.--Terrillja _talk 05:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little wonky. WP:IRS is clear enough. Concerns over linking to copyright infringement is not what we are about. Youtube does not have a vetting process so those users could have fiddled with the sources with zero accountability. This isn't necessary. It appears from reading the discussion that several editors agree. So if you are trying to change policy or guidelines: I don't think it is happening. If you are tying to get these sources reviewed to see if they are appropriate maybe take it to RSN. I doubt they will be acceptable from the conversation here but that might be better then flooding this page after consensus has been made clear enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You both have referred me to lengthy pages with no clear guidance as to what you are referring me to that relates to this discussion. Could I at least have a section of the article that is proving your point? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Here you go. Policies below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Policies for Ghostofnemo

WP:RS/WP:IRS - Lead paragraph. "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The number of people engaged in fact checking and scrutinizing YouTube videos is zero. WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." WP:YOUTUBE redirects to WP:EXTERNAL, indicating that YouTube links should be presented as External Links, not citations. WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." See also past community discussions on using YouTube as a source ([4]). Consensus: if the best citation you can make points to YouTube, then it wasn't a reliable source and probably wasn't encyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:IRS was Johnuniq 05:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright was AnmaFinotera 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC) and you have tried to insert copyright violating videos on another article before. You are engaged in discussion with DustFormsWords on tampering throughout the discussion. Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheading for easy editing

The point I'm making is that there needs to be a WP:VIDEOREF page for this issue that makes it clear what the specific guidelines are for video sources, especially YouTube. There is a WP:YOUTUBE, but it was pointed out to me by the deleter who I challenged that this regards external links. Before you came on the scene here, we were working out a way to use the cite video template {{cite video}} to better source these. I'd like to see a link to the YouTube video, too, for instant semi-verification of edits using video sources. The videos can be very powerful sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be, Ghostofnemo, that a common-sense reading of the existing policies makes it sufficiently clear how to appropriately use videos. However, if you feel the situation could be better clarified, you are free to draft a proposed new document in your userspace and then solicit commentary on it. Better documentation is always an asset to the project. Be aware that policy documents are descriptive, rather than proscriptive - they should document existing practice rather than attempt to introduce new practice - so the end result would only be more clarity around what we already do, rather than a result of us doing things differently. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this topic has been discussed 50 times!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=YouTube&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+Reliable+sources+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search Definitely a need for a clearer policy I'd say. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this topic has been discussed 50 times!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=YouTube&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+Reliable+sources+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search Definitely a need for a clearer policy I'd say. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, only 50 times? Seems like an argument for it being relatively clear, given the userbase of Wikipedia. If only 50 of the 12,495,685 registered users were confused then I'm reasonably happy that we've already got solid policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying policy changes are impossible? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying policy evolves mostly through practice - through a substantial consensus building up that things should be done a different way. If anything, we're getting MORE strict about verifiability and reliable sources, not less, so I'm not surprised you're not getting any traction on using a YouTube video. More importantly, there's no need for a policy change here. Your particular problem can easily be solved by doing the legwork to track down the original video, and citing it. And it seems that that would be a faster and more satisfactory solution than going through all the argument of an unnecessary policy change. See WP:POLICY for a better explanation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think he's saying policy changes are unlikely to be accepted from a user who doesn't seem to have a grasp of the reasons for why the policy is as it is in the first place. If you understood what we're getting at but were articulating a reason why the status quo was not sufficiently encyclopedic, that would be one thing, but you seem to be going in the opposite direction, using an encyclopedia as a promotional tool to guide users to sites to increase hits or sell product. Abrazame (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was suggesting that both the cite video template and the link to the YouTube video be allowed. At one point, I suggested a link to a point of sale that has all the video data, but I was told that wasn't necessary and I dropped it. That was quite a while back in the discussion though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, an edit conflict happened while I was posting my answer but I like Abrazame's too. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I cobbled together something in my sandbox from existing policies and guidelines. Would something like this be worth taking to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or wherever to see if some sort of essay or guideline could be considered? Even if not, nay thoughts on if I missed anything or if anything is incorrect would be appreciated since there obviously is some clarification needed. Fifty discussions here is not much but I assume the help desk gets hit plenty and a few people here have seen the issue pop up in articles.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we edit your document, or do you want our input here? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the key points are:

• it's ok to cite a video as a reference, as long as it meets the reliable source criteria for other sources.
• use the {{cite video}} template. The guidelines for completing each field appear there. Not all fields are required.
• don't use the YouTube information to fill in the template, but find the original source's data for the video (a web search should be sufficient to find it if you know the title - http://www.imdb.com and http://www.amazon.com often have this data).
• don't link to the YouTube video. If you provide readers with data in the cite video template, they can search it out on YouTube themselves. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• and maybe: You can put the YouTube title in the "quote" field like this: quote=YouTube title:Two Men in Dallas Part 2. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So is there anyone familiar enough with the creation of guidelines that has an input? We have had the external link one for some time but a mention somewhere on sources would help clarify it. Should I clean it up and make it an essay? Put in an incubator somewhere? Leave it alone since ambiguity is better than a potentially contentious consensus?Cptnono (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Help desk has 140 mentions (appears most are regarding what is and what is not OK). ANI has another 264 (again didn't read all to see if they are related). It isn't critical to the project but it might be useful. Is there something that can be done here to clarify the guidelines using the previous conversations and existing standards?Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to disallow creation of new accounts with the same username as an existing account.

I was recently surprised to learn that current practice at WP:ACC is to grant a request for an account that has the same username as an older, inactive account, differing only in case. For example, if User:BobMcGuire had been created a while back, and never used for many edits, ACC would create User:BobmcGuire upon request. It's been proposed that we do not allow two accounts to have the same username, regardless of whether the older account is inactive or not. If someone wants to have such an account, it should be processed through usurpation rather than ACC so that the old account can never be reactivated. Note that the "Go/Search" box is case insensitive. Prior discussion here.

Counterpoints from the other discussion:

• Because of unified accounts, users could still create the account on another wiki and unify it over.
• We have quite a few existing account that conflict in this way, we probably should not force them to change username Gigs (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Seems sensible to me. Yes the unified account issue is a good point, and ideally this should be done across the whole of Wikimedia. But I see no harm in starting here. Equally we should remember that this can only apply to new accounts as accounts already exist - much as we still have some old accounts containing the syllable bot despite several years of reserving bot for bot accounts. Neither counterpoint seems to me a reason not to make this change. If the developers were to reveal that the search box will in future become case sensitive that would be a reason not to make this change, but I can't see that happening. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  I believe the developers have gone to great lengths to make the search box case-insensitive, so that would be a regression. –xeno^talk 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that two usernames which are identical except for a difference in case are effectively the same username - because some features of mediawiki treat them that way (e.g. search) and because human perception won't always effectively be able to tell them apart. Of course technically mediawiki usernames are case-sensitive and the two usernames are technically quite separate, but actually having both of them exist is bad practice. Many readers will be aware that UNIX and UNIX-like systems have case sensitive usernames; yet in 15 years of experience as a UNIX systems administrator working in large companies I have never seen one which actually allowed multiple variations of the same username with different capitalisation. Thparkth (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• This seems reasonable, although what we do with existing usernames which clash needs clarification. Take, for example, User:Aiken drum (several thousand edits) and User:Aiken Drum (no live edits, two edits to a now-deleted page). Is the inactive account removed? What happens to User talk:Aiken Drum, which is entirely separate from the rather more active User talk:Aiken drum? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  If I understand this correctly, the proposal seeks to discourage or forbid accountcreators from granting names that differ only in case, instead directing the user to WP:USURP. Current users will not be affected. –xeno^talk 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• We currently have 12 million user accounts. About 1% of them have made at least one edit in the last 30 days.[5] I dare say that 95% of all our accounts will never, ever edit again. That's more than 11 million user names we're going forbid. That's kinda weird, quite frankly. Of course, the actual number will probably be lower, but it'll still be in the millions. --Conti|✉ 16:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  The usurp process exists to deal with people who want to use those inactive usernames. At present you can skip WP:USURP entirely if you're willing to be KingFisher instead of Kingfisher or FredMcspoon instead of FredMcSpoon. Thparkth (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  You can only usurp user names that have made no or next to no edits. So if FredMcspoon never made an edit, you can register FredMcSpoon and be done with it. With this new rule, you have to usurp the account. How many newbies are we going to scare away with this for no reason? --Conti|✉ 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  If we want to purge old, inactive, never used accounts, then we should have a discussion about doing that, rather than compensating with a confusing half-measure of allowing the same account with different case. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, did this ever actually happen? Users editing at the same time with almost exactly the same name? This seems like a rather theoretical problem to me (and one that can be solved easily when it actually shows up every once in a blue moon). --Conti|✉ 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  I have a vague recollection of an ANI thread and an editor with a name similar to an admin. {{distinguish}} was used. –xeno^talk 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  Ever the reader that i am, this is the section i do believe xeno is speaking of vaguely recalling: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#.27Similar name.27 problem It is a matter of User:Dougweller vs User:Dougweler. Dougweler (one "l") SUL'd to ENWP from GLWP. After the matter was brought to ANI here on English Dougweler decided to be renamed across projects to User:Dou Gweler, at which point his ENWP account was merged into the new SUL. If this is not what xeno is recalling then my ability to read minds is malfunctioning ;) delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yea, I found that in the archives when I was looking for the one I recalled - but I could've sworn it was a little more recent, and that I had commented in it. But I could just be going senile. –xeno^talk 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (found it!)

  The matter of Barek (talk · contribs) vs Berek (talk · contribs) vs Borek (talk · contribs) vs Burek (talk · contribs). Barek and Burek are admins on different projects. Barek has an SUL while the others do not. I just did a check on the ACC sandbox [6] and Birek (talk · contribs) was not flagged as a spoof. The request would be declined should it come to ACC though as the exact user name exists on Commons, commons:User:Birek (SUL). I do not know when the spoofing check came into force and based on the failure to pick up on the spoof with Birek it appears that the spoofing check does not consider the difference of a single vowel to be too similar. I also had a test on the ACC sandbox for User:Deliriousandlost9. That exactly matches the 16 characters of my user name and adds on a number at the end. It was not considered too similar per the spoof check despite a 16/17 character match. User:FunPika thought to take it a step further and he actually successfully created testwiki:User:Deliriousandlost9 despite my SUL already including test.wikipedia.org There is also the matter that any account that is renamed will not be checked for spoofing. I just did a request in the ACC sandbox to test a spoof of an account that was just renamed a few hours ago. All i did was change the capitalisation and it was not picked up by the spoofing check.[7] To explain this for those who do not have access to the ACC Sandbox, if Honey Nut Cheerios lover (talk · contribs) is renamed to Dismantled Bomb (talk · contribs) there is nothing stopping someone from spoofing with DismantIed Bomb (talk · contribs) (caps "i" instead of lower case "L"). Once that first spoof has been done any subsequent spoof attempts are then caught, but only as a similarity to the first spoof. So i really don't know what to say about the spoofing check other than it has some serious flaws. We do out best at ACC to compensate with a lot of manual checking but in the case of a renamed account well anyone can spoof that, they don't need to submit a request to ACC. And if an account has been renamed then clearly it is active and we would not be granting a similar user name to someone else. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 05:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  The example you may be thinking of is user:MastCell, an admin, vs User:Mastcell, who is not. The non-admin is no longer active, but editors still leave messages on the non-admin's page for the admin. Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the one. Thanks! –xeno^talk 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal. It sounds simple, but I don't believe that users should have to usurp an account that differs in case. Usurp for a particular case that's in use, but other users may purposefully want altered case. As the best example I can think of at the time, I suggest hypothetical CamelCase users User:ABandOnshore and User:AbandonShore, as a band being onshore and abandoning a shore are independent concepts. —Ost (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Nay I wrote a lot on wikipedia talk:username policy#Case conflicts in usernames before suggesting seeking broader input here. Something that has been assumed but has no substance is that everyone wants the exact case of an abandoned account and that they are presently settling for some variation. More often than not people, based on their requests and comments, want a variation but the spoofing check is prohibiting them from making it themselves. I don't understand the fixation with case-variation. The similarity concerns that lead to this actually also include spacing-hyphens-periods-asterisks-etc, use of non-latin characters, and characters that look like each other (O / 0 or -LOL / *101). There is also the matter that a person without an account comes to ACC for an account; how are we to send someone to CHU/U if they still don't have an account? Brand new, fresh and shiny users are not that often permitted to usurp an account, even if they want that exact user name. Per the proposed policy, if someone wants a name similar to but not exactly what exists they would create some random name they don't really want, edit until they qualify to usurp, usurp the existing account that has similarity to what they want, then file a rename request to end up with the exact user name that would have been granted in the first place via ACC. You still end up with ExiSting account being similar to Existing Account (usurped). If that person recreates the account via SUL with each rename along the way how many similar accounts would that result in? Existing Account and whatever the person started off with. The net result would be creating two similarities instead of one. The concerns have validity. In my opinion when you look to putting the proposal in action it just doesn't make sense. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why workpages are evil and should be avoided

I'd like to invite comments on my suggestion to rewrite Wikipedia:Workpages here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a lot of good points but I also think Working in a draftspace shows the mentality of "my work is not good enough to be seen publicly, I need to improve it". Such mentality is counter to how Wikipedia. Almost all drafts are acceptable in mainspace. is going a bit far. There are plenty of good reasons why editors might prefer to work on drafts than put everything straight into the mainspace, most obviously when an article or section simply isn't completed at one sitting and isn't coherent in its incomplete form (for example, if it narrates a historical event, but stops halfway through). However, having said that, there's no reason that userpages or - whisper it - word processors can't be used for that purpose. Barnabypage (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is very common for articles or sections to be incomplete and incoherent :) This is why our articles are drafts. Leaving them in mainspace makes it more likely others are going to help finish and improve them. Sure, I can understand the desire not to let imperfect work be added, but the common problem is, in my experience, that this is likely to lead to such work never being finished - as the editor who started it forgets about it or cannot find time/will to finish the project, where if he just started in in the mainspace, it is likely somebody would do it for him. PS. Just to be clear: my goal is not to forbid people from using workpages for such purposes - it's a free world :) But I think we should discourage them from doing so, particularly when it comes to explaining to new editors how Wikipedia works (they should be encouraged to contribute directly to the article, and not encouraged to create drafts in their userspace). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is NPP. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the issue then is how long content remains in workpages. For a few days, it might be helpful - after a few months, as you say, it's probably been forgotten. I wonder if there could be some kind of mechanism to remind users of forgotten workpages...something like the opposite of a Watchlist, alerting you to pages that haven't been edited for a certain amount of time? Just a thought. Barnabypage (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny, you assume that articles are the only things stored in sub-pages. Other uses include:

• Citations. The NPP patrollers will other kill a new article in seconds, and will kill WP by drive away new editors. New editors can save citation in sub-pages, then create a article complete with citations, so the NPP patrollers will have to allow the new article.
• Other projects which are meant to be articles. --Philcha (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is almost impossible to start and finish an article without saving. In fact, it would be a waste of time and a possible loss of content not to save. Several times something has interrupted work on something in Wikipedia and I've lost an hour's work or so -- just because of mashing a button or something like that. When one does save, the next time one looks there will be a snarky message about lack of citations, etc., etc. People who put up these notices do not seem to even look at when the article was created, whether it has been edited before, etc. Beginning users are likely to react even more negatively to that kind of thing than I do. P0M (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A workpage can also be useful for testing and leaving personal notices. For example, a long table. If the user is checking each entry (if it belongs in the table, and the information is correct), the table may have some "done" or "not done" ticks next to it, which of course should never be used at the real one. Even more, what if someone wishes to add a new column to it? If the entries are not upgraded as well, and/or the content of the new field included, the table may look weird. A user page will serve to work in the "weird table", and move it once in a ready state MBelgrano (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, I strongly disagree that workpages should be prohibited or discouraged. In fact, one of my goals at Wikipedia is to encourage the use of user subpages. Having said that, I am sympathetic to your point that the very point of WP is that many eyes make an article better. I don't disagree, but I've seen brand-new editors start pages in main space that are abysmal, yet have some promise. (If you want to see example, hang around Requests for feedback for a few days. When these are in main space, they get littered with deficiency templates or Prod templates. In many cases, the deficiency templates are hit and run, so the editor makes a good faith attempt to address, then wonders why the template doesn't disappear. Having an incubation period helps resolve some of these issues.

I will meet you part way - I think there should be a time limit. I think a subpage inactive for six months should be deleted, but maybe after a couple months, there could be alternative responses - such as pushing them to move to main space, or actively seeking help from a relevant project. I haven't given these latter issues too much thought, but I'm open to the possibility that userspace work should be time limited.--SPhilbrickT 12:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see workpages as a matter of personal choice. Some editors feel more comfortable with them. I do agree that they stymy wiki style contribution, but if a work page is sitting idle nobody can stop you from copying it into mainspace, since all text is CC-BY-SA regardless of namespace. If we had a policy against this I would be upset. Dcoetzee 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy on a Wikipedia Editor writing a Published Biography?

I am a realtively new editor, and my first article is a biography on Douglas Youvan. If at some time in the future, I decided to write a more extensive biography (e.g., a 200 page book!) on Youvan ... Have I somehow placed myself in a conflict of interest as an editor here on Wikipedia? Also, as I find more verifiable tidbits on this living person, is there a general guideline on how long a wiki biography should / can be? The published, longer biography is likely to be a pdf file, published as free source on some website. In other words, I am not trying to make money, advertise, or push some POV. Any thoughts on this subject or policy that alreay exisits? Please don't bite, I am new, and I am very willing to comply and take constructive advise. I am editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, primarily by dropping questions on discussion pages that I will come back to when I have time. So, it's not like I am a single-issue person, although that might appear to be true at this time. Bridgettttttte (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no conflict at all, and I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time it's happened. Good luck with both projects. Barnabypage (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I get nervous when I see these "edit wars" and policy things, and I would rather back off and leave. So, I will proceed on your advise unless another comment is made invoking some hard policy idk about. Bridgettttttte (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You should be fine as long as you take care to attribute statements in your Wikipedia article to published sources - using unpublished sources (e.g. an interview you have conducted with Youvan) excites (rightly) the wrath of the Original Research police. Save them for your biography! Barnabypage (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to u all again. NOR! Might be too long and boring anyway. I guess a biographer has some artistic freedom not allowed in an encylopedia. Where is that GREEN CHECK MARK indicating done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgettttttte (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Bridgettttttte (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Or Template:Done whichever link style you prefer. – allen四names 01:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Archaic "common knowledge" terminology

I have looked but cannot find any Wikipedia policies on archaic terminology. Additionally I have read the policies relating to common knowledge but there is no policy addressing former common knowledge that has fallen into disuse.

I recently watched the old movie "Bell, Book and Candle" with Jimmy Stewart. In that movie there is a sign outside an herb shop listing various conditions that can be treated by the herbs. These names (as used in that time) were obviously common knowledge at the time (why else would they be used on public signage?) but some of them have fallen out of common usage or been replaced by more precise terminology. I wanted to know what diseases they meant so I went to Wikipedia and found very few answers. Here are the names I did not know, of which only two were actually helpful:

• Milk Leg <-- This is a good example of how I think this should work.
• Blood Disease <-- What medical conditions did this commonly refer to back then?
• Whites <-- I found no medical use of this term.
• Spleen Trouble <-- ?
• Catarrh <-- This is still called by the same name so this was just a word I didn't know.
• Hollow heels <-- ?
• Wobbles <-- I could only find an animal disease for this name. Was there a human one?
• Thrumps <-- ?

I have always considered an encyclopedia as a reference tool first and foremost. As a kid I had the 26 volume set plus an unabridged dictionary. Whenever I had a question on a word or a concept I could go to the bookshelf and find the answer in one of those 27 books. So I somewhat expect that is the way Wikipedia ought to work, and usually it does. Now however I have run into an oddity of material that I think ought to be in the encyclopedia but isn't.

How should Wikipedia deal with archaic terminology for what were once "common knowledge" terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.204.25 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a policy matter, but rather a content issue. If WP has anything on these terms, you can find it with the search function (which searches text as well as titles). Redirects from common names (as per milk leg) is appropriate; as is a mention on disambiguation pages (if the term is verifiable, and not just made up for a TV programme); content could also be included on the condition pages, or a history of medicine page. If a search of WP does not yield an answer for any question you have, then try asking at the reference desks: there's usually someone there who can help. The information could then be added to the appropriate article. Gwinva (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that whites means Leucorrhea. DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DuncanHill. 66.102.204.25 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted your question regarding the meaning of the terms at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Old_medical_terms. Gwinva (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, but its lede calls it a romantic comedy. Is it possible that an animal disease was used for humor and general ailments like spleen trouble or blood disease were used to fill out the sign? The wiktionary entry on unshoe also mentions hollow heels in a line about horses, so perhaps it used to be common to refer to hooves that way. —Ost (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I think this could be a policy issue is because "common knowledge" is often difficult to cite, and here we are talking about colloquial or informal common knowledge vocabularies that have become obsolete. I guess -- and it is dangerous I know -- but in the same vein as Notability is not temporary I wonder if common knowledge is temporary? Will current articles that are using current common knowledge have to be subjected to having to add citations as time moves forward? I've met people today who did not understand why we say "dial a phone" -- yet once the concept of dialing was common knowledge and I doubt very seriously anyone could find a way to cite that. Should we (can we?) anticipate the impact of time on this issue? 66.102.204.25 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Common knowledge is not only temporary, it is a patchwork of regional/ethnic/local "knols" that are very rarely collated together. No, depreciation of common knowledge is rarely predictable because we cannot predict the new knowledge that supersedes the old. We'd recognize the change when it's already irreversible. Even the more or less straightforward technological progress (dial -> push button -> scroll right over glass) is not predictable (especially when it takes us backwards). Social phenomena, from revolutions to that new reality show that premiers in September, are absolutely out of control. East of Borschov (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So how then does Wikipedia deal with ideas like "dialling" ... which currently is not sourced and which is very unlikely to be challenged because it is still "common (enough) knowledge" for the moment. If we cannot cite it now, how will we ever cite it or any other similar terms in the future. Do we start deleting every article/section that has uncited common knowledge? Another good example is the abbreviation "LP" ... most of us with any years on this planet know this is a "Long Playing phonograph 33 rpm 12 inch recording disc" (as opposed to 45rpm or 78 rpm discs). Yet there are kids/teens who have no clue what a record is let alone a "45" or an "LP". I would be amazed to see a WP:RS citation anywhere that says "an LP is the nickname for a 33 rpm 12 inch record". Yet as an encyclopedia shouldn't a teenager doing his homework essay on the History of Music be able to come across a mention of something called an LP and then come to Wikipedia (hmmm .. can any find a WP:RS citation that says "WP was the common nickname for Wikipedia"?) and find out what those cryptic two letters mean. 66.102.198.18 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have any trouble finding a source. If ordinary dictionaries haven't got it, there are dictionaries of abbreviations. Peter jackson (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chambers 10th ed & Merriam-Webster Collegiate 11th both have LP = long-playing (record) & the latter adds 33. Peter jackson (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Milk leg" is a condition which has the Latin name "Phlegmasia alba dolens" which is a kind of phlebitis of the femoral vein, etc.

Always try something on the line of "dictionary whites" (without quotes) in your search engine first. More often than not it comes up. "Wobbles and thrumps" has been mentioned in "Bloodbrothers" but not what they are.

As for the more general terms you mentioned such as "blood disease", "spleen trouble", or "catarrh", that could be almost anything. I am sure the words you saw advertised outside the apothecaries' in the movie exist, but they are so obscure that no-one in Wikipedia has stumbled upon them. Little point finding fault with the Wikipedians. It is a matter of what is likely to be found in general literary works, it is only then that people start looking for these obscure terms. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah Dieter Simon, but that is my point. At one time those terms were 'not obscure ... now in time they have become obscure/obsolete/archaic. Because they were common usage words back then they were never "notable" enough to be written about back then and now they never will be. I am not so much concerned with "thrumps" (though I am curious) as I am with the key question ... How will Wikipedia deal with words that are common usage now but which eventually become obscure. I know WP is not a crystal ball ... but that applies to predicting what will become notable. How do we handle material that is well known (undocumented common knowledge) now but someday may be unknown? How do we preserve that knowledge within the encyclopedia? Then, by extrapolation, how can we apply such a principal to already lost common knowledge so that we can include it into the encyclopedia appropriately? 66.102.205.43 (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Phone numbers and other contact info

Is there a policy against publication of phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, and other contact info? This is a broad question, but I guess I am asking this in the non-encyclopedic sense, like "Bob Smith's phone number is 555-4421" (like this, I guess or this). Many times, an article that includes this type of info is deleted as , but I'm wondering if this type of text should be immediately removed. Sorry for a broad question... — Timneu22 · talk 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I believe such stuff is supposed to be oversighted (or revdeled) unless it is someone just spamming their business contact (in which case it should just be removed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This kind of information should be reported immediately to WP:Oversight and should never be included into a wikipedia article. It has been my experience that when you come across things of this nature it is either being done in a WP:Vandalism situation or it is being done in an WP:Advertisement way. Both are against the rules and should be removed immediately. Canyouhearmenow 11:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPRFC3 is open

When the giant BLP RFC was closed, it included a mandatory review after three months. That review is now being conducted at WP:BLPRFC3. If you have comments about how the measures adopted are working, or how we could do better to protect out Biographies of Living People, your input would be appreciated. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright management of WMF Projects

According to WP:C, the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the copyright over contributions made to Wikipedia. This is very different from the practice adopted by software projects (see this). I think FSF’s policy of registering copyright on its own name is a better way of managing copyrights. In case of a large scale violation of our licensing terms, it would become almost impossible to enforce copyrights. Comments?--^Nilotpal42 07:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather retain my own copyright than hand it off to the foundation, thanks. It's also perfectly easy to enforce, I've seen it done successfully by others many times. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also not true that most Free and open source software projects use the FSF copyright assignment model - in fact, the license model (what we use) is more common. In any case, we have ten years worth of copyrighted material without an assignment, and the copyright holders would be difficult to find for a majority of it, so there's no way for the Foundation to actually consolidate the copyright in practice. Like OrangeDog, I myself very much prefer retaining copyright on my work as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The present model does have its problems. The way things are right now, the foundation does not owns content. If someone flouts the licensing terms, the foundation would be in no position to act. It would be up to individual contributors to enforce the licensing terms. Now that in itself could be problematic. I could cite hypothetical examples:

1. User:Deadmeet631267 (not a real user) was a significant editor on the English Wikipedia. He had written a certain article and it gets flicked without attribution. Now that User:Deadmeet631267 is dead, who shall enforce his copyright? His descendants either died with him or do not care about the article or are not aware about it.
2. User:Nilotpal42 (that is me, by the way) has written a book titled "Copyrights in the Wiki environment". LexisFlicksis, a publisher prints it and in doing so violates the license restrictions. LexisFlicksis is a publisher in the U.S. How does User:Nilotpal42 sue the publisher from India.
3. User:Alolymos has a similar fate with his contributions to Wikipedia. How does he stay anonymous and sue in his own name at the same time?

In each of these cases the editor may have the copyright. But how would they enforce it under the current model?--^Nilotpal42 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that your third example could be enforced by Alolymos hiring an attourney to act as his agent and protect his identity. IANAL but I have seen/heard of several situations where a lawyer "fronts" for an anonymous client such a ghostwriter. Of course this could vary applicability in different legal juridictions. 66.102.198.18 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If the foundation holds the copyright, then they may be considered legally responsible for other things like libel. Personally I doubt that even if the foundation owned the copyright that they would take any actions except in the worst cases. The foundation suing people to prevent them from copying Wikipedia article due to a legal technicality (all they need to technically comply is the URL of the article and the URL of the CC license) probably wouldn't look very good PR-wise. Mr.Z-man 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How does not owning the copyright insulate the foundation from liability from bad faith edits? I am not saying that the foundation should be held liable for defamation. The law in most countries seems to be clearly against helding internet service providers' liabile for defamation. Either way the foundation does get sued (I hope, mostly unsuccessfully). Holding the copyright in trust would, on the other hand, secure the content being used in non-open licensed formats. What you see as mere technicality, I see as the very spirit of the project. I have seen and heard stories where verbatim copies of Wikipedia content is published without att. What the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license really requires is that derivative work be not just attributed but also shared under similar licenses.

I raise my concern in anticipation of "worst cases" irrespective of whether there have been any in the past.--^Nilotpal42 05:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The current terms seem to be a subtle way of reminding contributors that the WMF really doesn't care to deal with legal action over what are (frequently, but not necessarily) trivialities. (If you think it's complex for you, imagine what it would be like for the WMF to deal with dozens of cases, few of which have any prospect of recouping the expenditures used to prosecute them.) Plus, given the scope of the Wikipedia project, I think they tacitly recognize that infringement of a free encyclopedia isn't actually such a big deal in terms of the core mission of offering unrestricted access to knowledge. TheFeds 05:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One usually finds that a polite letter is sufficient to deal with most copyright infringement. I'm far more likely to do something if it's my work then the Foundation would be if they owned it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By not owning the copyright, the WMF has basically no responsibility for the actual content as they are not the publisher of the content, only the provider of a service. If the foundation owns the copyright to the content, they could be considered a publisher (I don't think any such situation has actually been tested in a court). The point TheFeds raises is also good. We provide the content for free and the authors of the content are not compensated in any way for writing it. The best we could hope for is to recoup attorney fees and get a portion of the profits from sales of the content (which for most random websites where most infringement occurs, is nothing). Its not what I see as a technicality, its how it would likely be presented in most media. It might get a well written story in some technical and free content blogs, but if it hits national media in articles not written by IP and free content experts, it will likely just be seen as a technicality. Mr.Z-man 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Assigning copyright creates practical limitations for editors - among other things, if I write content for Wikipedia under the assignment model, I cannot later take that same work and contribute it to a public domain project, because I am violating the CC-BY-SA license held by WMF. I don't like FSF's use of the assignment model, and I would never work under it, but I see how it's useful for pursuing infringement claims. There's also a moral issue: if someone is copying stuff I created, and I don't care enough to complain, why should they be punished? Dcoetzee 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the news about Wikipedia relaxing its rules about 2000 articles and I'm thinking

It doesn't solve anything. English Wikipedia has the following simple problem: The large (populous) articles are on a very good footing: hundreds to thousands of users "watch" them at any time. This brings the usual 10 to 20 who will be throwing (and highlighting) the "hard rules" and will remove a lot of the junk. This is useful for the big articles. The problem is that very small articles (few wikipedians) may remain under "fascism" because one or two of the "hardcores" have taken over and ignore "ignore rules when it's a deterrent" with various excuses. i.e. what should be relaxed are the small rather than the large articles. --195.74.251.63 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2000 articles are a trial, if it works this will be extended across Wikipedia. If editors are owning articles this can be raised. I don't think characterising article ownership as "fascism" is at all helpful. Fences&Windows 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The system still requires people to review the changes to the article. If only a couple people are watching a small article, this likely won't change that. It could actually make things worse, as then the people WP:OWN-ing the article could make it so that changes they don't like are never seen by anyone. Mr.Z-man 22:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Groan. This has been endlessly debated already. After years of bickering and delays it is going to happen as a trial run. I think it's a bit soon to be announcing what the results of that trial will be. I'm not saying I support the idea of flagged revisions, in fact I don't like it all, but it seems clear the trial run is going to proceed and there is little point in more hypothetical conversation about it at this juncture. Once it's been up and running for a bit and the actual results can be seen would be a better time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case the current trial doesn't cover the sort of problem that seems to be raised at the head of this section, i.e. bias. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the reviewing policy

Several interesting questions about the "pending changes" system have come up at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing, and they would benefit from wider participation. They include:

• Should a reviewer "approve" a revision of a page which she knows is erroneous? Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#Don't approve things that you know to be wrong
• Is the "pending changes" system preferable to page protection for articles that are protected due to NPOV concerns? Is it suitable for pages where the only concern is massive juvenile vandalism? Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing#Sea of Japan and Liancourt Rocks

I hope we can keep the discussion centralized at WT:Reviewing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should Notability (fiction) be reinstated as a guideline?

There has been a long and detailed debate about the inclusion criteria for fictional topics, which have involved many changes and proposals. Have the discussions reached a point where Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) could be reinstated as guideline? Comments welcome at the RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:FlaggedRevs-2-1.svg

File:FlaggedRevs-2-1.svg

To me, the flagged revision logo is too similar to the CBS logo (see this file: File:CBS news logo.jpg) and is an invitation for a trademark infringement suit... Is it sufficiently different to pass the test?

70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)