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 proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

« Archives, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Should deletion nominations be limited to a certain amount of tries?

I noticed that some articles have been getting nominated more than ten to even twenty times, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America, and the article of now-defunct Encyclopedia Dramatica. I thought a question should be asked to the community of Wikipedia on how many times an article should be allowed to go through deletion, and if possible, should it be limited to a set amount? Rainbow Dash 14:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would say there should not be a specific limit, just as there should not be a limit of deletion review requests. What matters is that each new request is not merely a request to re-run a previous conclusive result with the hopes that a different outcome occurs, but that there is a good faith belief on the part of the nominator that either some policy requires that the article be deleted which was not addressed (or in existence) in the previous deletion discussions, or that general consensus on similar articles has moved since the last discussion. I would just mention that GNAA went through a large number of DRVs before getting restored, and any hard limit would have stopped that, so it works both ways. Monty₈₄₅ 14:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• The gay NA was trolled by nominating vandals and many of the 20 are not AFD discussion at all but vandal edits and deletions. That article has not been nominated since 2006, over four and a half years ago. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Rule creep. We can deal with this on a case-by-case basis, along the lines that Monty advocates. Do we have an actual problem with AFD being gamed like this? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• This isnt just a case at AfD, it's everywhere in Wikipedia, if a policy says something someone doesnt like or doesnt go "far enough" according to a few people they just keep bringing up the same wording change over and over and hope eventually they get a day where those opposing it are too busy and they get a slight majority and once they have their way they shut down anybody from the other side who wants to bring up the discussion again saying "we just had consensus on this". For this reason ALL DISCUSSIONS need to have time limits between when you can bring up the same discussion, whether its a new policy wording or an AfD or anything else. Once a consensus (or no consensus) has been reached, then THAT is the decision. You shouldnt get 1,000 tries before you get your way. Just as you have to for the next election (in 2 or 4 years depending on the office) if you lose; you cant say "well, I just lost the election, now I want a new election right NOW two months after it. I think I might win now because my opponents wont show up at the polls."Camelbinky (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you advocating an actual rule, Camelbinky? If so, could you provide examples of (alleged) gaming of the present system? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not advocating an actual rule because Wikipedia has no rules whatsoever at all. I'm advocating the addition to policy that we have a time limit between bringing up the same discussion after it fails (or passes based on what side you are on), and as with any policy there are and will be exceptions based on consensus of the Community on what is best for Wikipedia; we may ignore the time limit on certain occasions and we dont need to spell out in policy the exceptions because we dont need "rules". As for examples... Well, let's see- every four months we go through at WP:V or the RS/N the discussion regarding whether non-English sources should be allowed and each time we have to state YES. Constant discussion at WP:5P regarding their status, each time results in "no tag" or no consensus regarding putting it as an essay and definite consensus against policy tag; but yet we have to drag out another discussion every couple months because someone wants to change the wording of the 5P or the FAQ page or asks "what is the 5P?". Latham Circle was nominated for AfD based on non-notability, passed by a large margin, and then was renominated based on non-notability (and I guess stub-status, but stub-status is not a legitimate reason for deletion). If something is found to be notable then it's notable. You lose, then you lose; you had your chance to make your point.Camelbinky (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But Latham Circle was kept the second time...? I don't understand the problem. Notability guidelines could evolve over a period of time, for example. What's the point in having a policy which says "don't renom within n months" and then let people nominate within that period? Everyone's going to think their case is an exception to the rule. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead, that an unsuccessful XfD should preclude another XfD for a reasonable period, say a minimum of six months between bites of the apple. Right now, sometimes the very week an XfD has been closed, another nomination for deletion is made, or a discussion arguning for such is made on the article talk page. This verges on gameplaying at that point. Collect (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• If an AfD is premised on the question of whether the subject is notable based on the existing content of the article or existing sources are reliable, a determination to that effect should be difficult to upset. However, if an AfD closes on the premise that existing problems can be resolved, the article should remain subject to deletion if the problems identified are not addressed. bd2412 T 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • the whole AfD close under "keep and fix" premise is such a farce - the "fixing" is never doneActive Banana (^bananaphone 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Both a maximum number of AFD/DRVs and fixed time limits between AFDs are bad ideas. Keep the current system, it seems to work reasonably well. Yoenit (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It does? Really? Where is the proof that it works? That's like saying the US education and health care systems dont need to be fixed because "they work reasonably well". These frequent AfD's waste our time that can be used on editing and creating other articles. Creating and adding information to articles is the very (and only) reason Wikipedia exists and it is crap that there are those who waste time on anything else thereby causing the rest of us to waste time. If an article needs to be "kept and fixed" then how about those that think it needs to be fixed (or deleted) take THEIR time to fix it! Ridiculous that people go around slapping templates and AfD's on articles but never seem to have the time to do what needs to be done to FIX the problems they are so willing to point out.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it does not work? Is the sky falling down? The encyclopedia collapsing? With regards to wasting time, look at the hyphen-dash debate. Now that is example of wasting of time, a few unnecessary AFD's are absolutely nothing compared to that. I also don't understand the attitude that you create a crappy article and then expect me to clean it up? That is like having your dog shit on the street and then telling to people who complain about it that they should clean it up. Yoenit (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind the next time I delete an article about a teacher/junkie/activist who is known for pedophilia and smoking crack. Or some 9-year-old kid who has a high gamerscore and plays Halo a lot. –MuZemike 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article is kept on a very marginal basis, I watch the article and after a reasonable amount of time ~3 weeks I re-nominate the article explaining the previous AfD's marginal keep reasoning and how the article has not improved, despite assurances that it's issues could be resolved. Some articles (Like a certain neologisim) have been nominated for AfD multiple times despite the significant community consensus that it is notable, well sourced and cited, and provides a decent understanding of the word. If you want to fight something, fight the editors who are bringing these spurious AfDs that are taking away time from articles in general. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Collect: I'll give a prime example that is in the AfD process currently. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Bhandari (2nd nomination). The article was created before the creation of WP:BLPPROD, was nominated for deletion on the 27th of May, was speedy nominated on the 27th of May (and speedied thereby closing the original AfD discussion), was restored via a user request on the first of June for userfication, and moved back into the Article space less than 3 hours after userfication. At this point I was trolling the AfD closing date page and noticed that the article had been nominated, speedied, and was a blue-link again. I went through and edited the article to remove links that masqueraded as RS citation and rightly nominated it for AfD. Now this meant that less than a week after the previous AfD was closed a new one was opened for the same article. If there is a truly good reason for the article to be up for deletion it should, otherwise I'm open to a 3~5 week stay on deletion discussions while those who were in the majority consensus work on the article to improve it. Hasteur (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, if someone has something new and useful to add to the discussion or the consensus, then they should be free to add it. Users have the right to challenge consensus, and if the new AfD ends with "keep", then the discussion serves to reaffirm and augment the original consensus. It wouldn't be fair for to bar users who missed the chance to partake in the previous discussion from starting new ones, where they could potentially bring up new ideas, issues, or alternatives that weren't brought up before. Several users and I worked hard in the discussions involving the GNAA article's restoration, and it would be a shame if all our collective efforts were doomed from the start due to some silly discussion cap. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - there is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Require a seconder?. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• The last time this was bought up I offered a suggestion that I expected to be rejected as CREEPy and I expect it to be rejected now but I offer it anyway. If any first AFD closes with a "clean keep" (not "no consensus", not a "delete" overturned at DRV, not "speedy" or "procedural" anything), then anybody who nominates the article again shall be required to "impeach" the previous decision. That is he must explain why the previous consensus was wrong. Can he show that the sources used to demonstrate notability in the previous AFD were not reliable? Has a guideline or policy changed since the first AFD? Did a significant number of the "keep" !voters turn out to be somebody's socks? If he just says something like "not notable" while pretending that the previous discussion never happened then the AFD can be speedy closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is basically covered by wp:BEFORE point 3. Than again, wp:BEFORE could do with a big cleanup and trim so people actually start reading it. Yoenit (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I doubt the length of WP:BEFORE is particularly significant; I think that, in cases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu Gaze, it's simply ignored. Meph^talk 09:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Much more likely the editor, with his grand total of 16 edits, had no idea it existed in the first place. While making wp:BEFORE shorter may not help with that issue, it will definitely not make it worse either. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Of course there shouldn't be a limit. Such a limit is so trivially gamed as to be laughable, and to virtually guarantee no article ever gets deleted again. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. An ad hoc solution, with the potential for exploitation. Meph^talk 09:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, somepony isn't getting the idea. This isn't some deletionist scheme as a guy said in the other discussion linked, nor is it a way to guarantee a said article should never get deleted. But when you take into account articles on a subject that are obviously hated and/or cause editors to have such an extreme bias, that said person will try at least 100 nominations until said community gets fed up and lets the moaning child get his wish. Rainbow Dash 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lulz, unintended sentence fragment anyone? But to continue my argument above, because this moaning child who will not stop at nominating the article so many times, the article will never get any benefit or effort to fix, and the community will only start thinking of new ways to get their agenda to work. Rainbow Dash 12:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any example of this or are you just making it up as you go along? Yoenit (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's go back to the GNAA subject again. Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America has this curious template that shows 21 deletion discussions directed at this one article. And the Gay Nigger isn't alone, because his buddy Al Gore III went through 8 AfDs, and 1 DRVs, and his distant cousin List of male performers in gay porn films went through 7 AfDs and 2 DRVs. All of these discussions have one thing in common, and that is an extreme biased hatred from the community. Rainbow Dash 12:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinfo (6 nominations) should also be mentioned. I don't think it can be argued that the community "hates" this article. It was kept for a long time for "historical" or "legacy" reasons or something but was eventually deleted. There's also Steak and Blowjob Day (3 nominations) A subject that "technically" fails our notability guidelines but otherwise seems to be a popular meme. I don't see this as a matter of "hatred" so much as a strong belief by some that WP:N needs to be enforced consistently and a subject shouldn't get a free pass simply because it has a lot of "groupies" to defend it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, which of dozens of editors who nominated these articles for AFD/DRV is the "moaning child"? I will not dispute that these articles have seen a unseemly amount of deletion discussions, but almost all of those are several years old. The male preformers article was last nominated in November 2009 and while Al Gore III was put to DRV half a year ago, the last AFD before that is from February 2008. A similar gap can be found between the last discussions for List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (Feb 2011 - April 2009). (why did you remove this one from your comment btw?) I don't see how a nomination once every 2 years is a problem, regardless of the article's prior history. With regards to the GNAA, its last AFD is 5 years old, so I couldn't care less that it has 21 of them. It is definitely record holder for most DRV's though (although those are seriously inflated by trolls). But even this extreme example has been stable for 3 months now and is in fact being actively improved (note it is nominated for GA). Yoenit (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered by Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22? The GNAA didn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines until the At&T Email leak, so it was the 18th AfD that finally fulfilled what the AfD was meant for, and it was the 12th DRV that finally fulfilled what DRV was meant for. As I'm said in the last GNAA DRV, some of discussion were started by trolls wishing to heighten GNAA's AfD high score rather than "haters", and the haters in opposition were correct about the GNAA's lack of notability until about a year ago. It also took many discussions for the community to realize that Daniel Brandt wasn't notable. Somethings, the community is too stubborn to admit that it's wrong, so repeating discussions in order reaffirm or overturn the previous consensus isn't such a good thing. Wikipedia needs to be open to new discussions. There's a chance that a group of users may try to continuously create new AfD in hopes that the community will eventually lose the willpower to combat them, but that's why we have closing admins who could see through these attempts. Disruptive users may also be warned or blocked. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was ever to be implemented, it would have to be limited to good faith nominations. Without that caveat it would be quite possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion several times, withdraw the nomination quickly each time, and reach the limit so it couldn't be nominated again, thereby removing any possibility of it being deleted even if it deserves to be. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with the proposal. Bad-faith nominations should be the ones limited, not the good-faith ones. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone talking like an article should be renominated for DELETION if it isnt "cleaned up"? Being a stub or having crappy formatting or grammar or what have you is NEVER a reason to delete! We are specifically a "work in progress" and it is in fact policy not to delete based on such BS like "it has bad grammar", delete because of notability, not whether it is a crappy article. Maybe people thinking anything that is "crappy" should be nominated is the problem and their ability to nominate should in fact be limited. And secondarily- Why is it any of your concern if someone makes a crappy article and you dont want to fix it, then why do you care if it exists? If it bothers you so much then FIX IT. Or ignore it. But deletion to make it go away is not an option.Camelbinky (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we need to do somethig to quell this problem. I get rather frustrated when I am involved in a 6 week conversation about something only to have it get resubmitted a week after it closes and start the process all over again. --Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but I don't think we want a firm rule. If we have new information, we should act on that. Also, WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway, so adding a "no re-nominations allowed for 30 days" rule wouldn't really have much impact. It'd just be one more bureaucratic (rather than substantive) complaint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have at various times proposed rules, but in practice, it does depend on the details, and I would not like to try to solve any general problem using GNAA as an example. I think we are in general getting more reasonable about this--there is much less repeated abusive nomination going on than there used to be 3 years ago when I first discovered AfD process. I've also seen objections to renominations after repeated non-consensus, and this is a very different matter than if after repeated keeps. If there's no consensus we need to admit it, and see if we can get it a little later. My suggestion was 3 to 6 months after a keep,doubling after each successive keep, with anything need to be done quicker being approved by deletion review. There is sometimes a need to quickly revisit a keep that was anomalous. What I think we really need, is some way to equally easily review a deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand concerns about rules creep but conversely does anyone have a valid example of where more than 5 nominations was ANYTHING BUT an attempt to do by brute force what could not be done by consensus? I am entirely in favor of both a hard cap on the number of tries (remember notability is not temporary, but a page's defenders may move on as time goes by) and a hard limit on renomination after a valid consensus close. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of a hard cap on the number of tries, a better policy might be giving a topic closed a Keep immunity from another deletion challenge for one year. Consensus does change over time; the point is to limit the gaming of the system implicit in multiple repeated deletion attempts. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a year may be too long.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree a year is a bit too long because sometimes things change rapidly. Conversely, I have never seen a nomination tagged "sixth nomination" that was anything other than an attempt to forum shop until the nominator found a group of editors willing to delete, the most ardent defender of the page was away for some reason, ect. I understand that there are concerns about changing consensus, and I'd change my vote if anyone could provide me a good counterexample. As it stands there is a point at which nominations should be presumed to be WP:POINTy, and I think 5 is about that number. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the closing admin would understand that, review the "Keep" arguments made in previous discussions, and, if strong enough, close as "keep" despite the fact that the present !votes were all/mostly deletes. They should be no need for a hard and fast line. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was actually bored enough once to list them at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Deletion wars. I just updated it down to four debates, I had those logged from a while back but forgot to add them. Fences&Windows 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole system is unfair and biased

It seems to me that, while wikipedia is presented as the encycleopedia that anyone can edit, this is very misleading. It seems a lot more like an encycleopaedia which only experienced, well connected people who know all the tricks to keep their articles on and delete other people's can edit. And also, the rules are supposed to be all community driven and democratic, but democracy doesn't work when most people are wrong about something. It is the more experienced editors who know how to change things on wikipedia, and these are the people who the unfair, biased, current system benefits. I keep hearing the saying 'When in Rome, Do as the Romans'. I prefer the saying 'Be in the world, but not of the world'. Just because most people are wrong, that doesn't mean I should be wrong as well. It also seems that people on here enjoy deleting people's articles for fun, however much they may make excuss about 'official wikipedia rules'. so I think the whole sysem needs sorting out, but the chances are this will never happen, because of who gets to make the decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicianpig (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This desk is "to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines." Why did you post the above rant here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm really tired of seeing new editors attacked and belittled for not knowing all the rules. This includes the removal of the editor's comments above by TreasuryTag [1] ([2]) after I restored them once before. [3] [4] While I have to assume Bob House 884 just didn't know any better because he is a fairly new editor, TreasuryTag is not a new editor. In the case of TreasuryTag's removal of this editor's comments, this has got to be one of the most blatent disregards for WP:AGF and WP:BITE that I've seen. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I never questioned Alicianpig's good faith. I said that they posted their rant on the wrong noticeboard, because it is clearly not a proposed new policy or a discussion of existing policies. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it expresses a viewpoint about the way policies ("rules") are applied on WP. Many threads on this page are far more off-topic than this.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to say, I removed the comment initially because it seemed plainly outside the scope of the board and didn't seem likely to attract any constructive comment. Perhaps hatting would have been a better idea. Slightly ironically it seems that the cause of Alicianpig's stress is the impending deletion of an article called 'Whinge wars' Bob House 884 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(Directed at the OP) Instead of making vague generalizations, can you give specific examples of what you're referring to? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the OP may be making a reference to Wikipedians' general scepticism of the WP:BROTHER excuse! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that might explain things; however, I do see Alicianpig was given a dose of good faith there, which is, after all, what we're supposed to do around here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Tempest in a tea pot, really, hatting would be likely been better. We should go have a refreshing beverage. But am I correct that implying another editor is a troll in an edit summary could be interpreted as a personal attack? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. [5] This also begs the question if TreasuryTag wasn't simply trying to revert my restoration of Alicianpig's comments here because I had warned them for canvassing [6] here on VPP for this section above. Sigh. WP:POINT, anyone? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag you did question Alicianpig's good faith, by calling them a troll in an edit summary. GB fan (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the particulars here, but Wikipedia is a vicious place for new editors. Imagine a world with zillions of imperfectly written rules where everything done violates a literal broad interpration of them, and where every person (including social misfits) is given a badge and a gun. That is the WP world to a new editor. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TheParasite (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that North8000 (talk · contribs) and TheParasite (talk · contribs) are the same person [7] – ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the "badge and a gun", wouldn't that be real life? –MuZemike 08:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking as an occasional but serious editor, still a newbie in many ways, I have to say that I do not have a problem with understanding and following the rules once they are pointed out to me (which sometimes had to happen repeatedly.) I find the experienced and active editors to be friendly and helpful without exception. I do get irritated with editors who persist, sometimes in very mischievous ways which stay within the "rules", to push their (obviously) biased PoV. I have to work hard at disciplining myself not to retaliate in kind, and I think I have mostly been successful. I love what Wikipedia is doing, and I am pleased and proud to have played a small part in it. pietopper (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• With regards to the "particulars" in which why the complainant is here, I need to repeat that Wikipedia is not the place to post stuff that is completely unverifiable or otherwise madeup; see Wikipedia:Verifiability for details. This is an encyclopedia which relies on information that is verified by reliable, independent sources and that are neutral. If the complainant cannot understand those very basic things, then there is not much we can do to help. –MuZemike 08:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course Wikipedia isn't the place for unverifiable material, but we still shouldn't bite and bash a newbie over the head when they attempt to express their frustration with the general unfriendliness of the system. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Alicianpig - it's amazing that 'the free encyclopedia' can have such a vicious hierarchy which seems to take great pleasure from removing posts from new editors. How is Wikipedia supposed to encourage more people to start editing, when anyone who accidentally violates the smallest, most inane rule is slapped with an angry notice and sees their article/post deleted? I once referenced an online news story about an event which happened in July 2008. In the article, I accidentally wrote that it happened in 2007. Clearly a typo - but what does the editor at the top of the food chain do? Instead of correcting the obvious, one-character error, he/she decides to delete my article. This is exactly the sort of thing the 'important' people endorse - they assume they have some sort of power and decide to use it to make the whole experience difficult for new editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R013 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  First off, there are differences between your case and Alicianpig's above – you were writing about stuff that were more viable, as opposed to something that was completely unverifiable or otherwise madeup. Second, it is not your article – once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and can be edited at will by others, within common sense and basic policies, of course. Moreover, I highly doubt an administrator deleted the article in question because of one minor typo. –MuZemike 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• "It seems a lot more like an encycleopaedia which only experienced, well connected people who know all the tricks to keep their articles on and delete other people's can edit."

  In some way this is true. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where everybody can write whatever he or she wants to. In order for this to work, there have to be some rules, otherwise everybody would just make what he or she wanted to and no encyclopedia would be built.

  Also, I think that I am also still a relatively new editor (I started editing in mid 2010). And I have made some mistakes since then. At the beginning, I really had no idea, where to look for anything I wanted to know (rules or policies for example). My experience is, it requires some time to be able to become a "well working editor". You can't expect to simply jump in and know all the nos and goes of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes in good faith. I have also made a number of mistakes since I began editing here. I think you simply have to take Wikipedia a bit serious and you should always try to improve your knowledge of the working of Wikipedia. If you don't know how something works, don't just give up. If you really can't make sense of something yourself, you can always ask at WP:Help desk. Don't be afraid to ask question you think might sound silly, simply bring up what you have problems with, and try to behave as intended (eg try to avoid coming into the NOs part of Wikipea, such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). For example, Wikipedia is not a democracy. And if there is anything you need help with, you can always ask me on my talk page. I simply try to be a helpful part of this community and while there are editors who bite other people or might seem unfriendly, there are also a lot of welcoming people on Wikipedia. I hope I am one of them. Cheers. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of Wikipedians have problems with the hierarchy, bureaucracy and sometimes difficult to understand, or to access, rules that WP operates on. Sometimes this results in inequity or BITEyness and sometimes we all want to complain about it, but this thread does not contain any actionable proposal. Have a cup of tea and visit the help desk if you need help. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Actionable isn't the point. There is active discussion going on here and I've undone your close of this discussion thread. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  (edit was simultaneous with the closing) Us who have have been down in the rabbit hole in the Wikipedia alternate universe for some time should realize that newcomers sometimes may have a better perspective than we have. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's time for some massive change

I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who seemed to agree with me about the unfairness of the current wikipedia system with regards to the treatment of new editors. I think that if so many people disagree with the way more experienced editors aggressively treat newer ones, maybe it is time for this to be changed. Please leave your opinions about this below (Alicianpig (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Agree that change is needed

• change? (I got nothing) Gurch (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this is relevant. However, deleting it would go entirely against what I'm trying to say. (even though your post was actually pointless, thanks for giving me an oppurtunity to make this point)(Alicianpig (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Disagree that change is needed

Other

Right yeah 'change' - are you actually suggesting something? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about changing the rules so that it is not so easy to delete other people's articles and so the rules are less complicated (as this gives an advantage to experienced people who learn them). However, I'm interested to hear what other, possibly more experienced editors, have to say about this issue. Thanks for asking, I didn't make it very clear to start with. (Alicianpig (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm inclined to think that your experience at wikipedia might be better if you didn't upload obvious copyright violations (File:Vishling.jpg), didn't make personal attacks [8], and didn't write insulting things on people's own personal pages [9] and maybe didnt ask other people to come and sabotage wikipedia on an off-site website [10]. All of these things are real world rules - they're easy enough to stick to with a healthy dose of common sense. People might be more inclined to help you out if you stuck to the more obvious stuff like that - you can then try to get to grips with the more complicated ideas which are specific to wikipedia like WP:Notability (which is why your article got deleted) and WP:Verifiability. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the system or policy, just a need for consideration for inexperienced users.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP appears to be unfamiliar with WP:BITE. --Jayron32 17:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me or to Alicianpig? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not you. --Jayron32 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. so it's bad doing that stuff, but it's ok to do vicious, underhand stuff as long as it fits in with the ridiculous rules on this website. It's ok to repeatedly come up with different excuses to delete someones website. It's ok to call someone a sockpuppeteer and a troll. It's ok to accuse them of breaking copyright laws with a photo they NEVER ACTUALLY ENDED UP PUTTING IN THEIR ARTICLE. I think I'm starting to get the idea. If you're an experienced editor who knows the tricks of the trade, sure, it's fine to do bad stuff, go ahead, as long as you keep within your own stupid rules. But a new editor doing what's necessary to fight his own against repeated harassment and aggression? Who could think such a ridiculous thing?.(Alicianpig (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Are you, Alicianpig, asking for help or are you just here to express anger because you didn't get your way? --Jayron32 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Both, and more. Not just on a personal level, I do think that there needs to be a certain amount of help and protection for newcomers. However, I am also expressing a certain amount of anger about how I have been treated by certain editors so far, both with regards to my Whinge Wars article, and also to my suggestions of change. Thanks for asking. (Alicianpig (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

The main reason for your concern seems to be the deletion of your article Whinge wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whinge wars. I see there is also an attempt to recruit people to keep the article at http://whingewars.weebly.com/news-and-updates.html. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. In [11] (admin only diff of deleted page) you wrote:

"This is not a made up game

Due to the current small scale of this game, there is no information available other than the source website. However, this does not necessarily mean it is made up, just that it has little online presence. As it is not a commercially available or predominantly online game, the internet does not have much information about it. This is why it is necessary for the information to be published on wikipedia, so the information is accessible online somewhere other than the actual website. It is a mistake to say that there is no online information about it, because this article IS the online information. If wikipedia only contains information which is available elsewhere, there is very little point in it existing"

Regardless of how new editors are treated, the above is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. The article would also have been deleted if it had been written by an experienced editor knowing all the rules. Nobody would be able to satisfy Wikipedia's source requirements if the only source in existence is the subjects own website. Wikipedia is exactly for containing information which is available elsewhere in reliable sources, but collected here in a free encyclopedic format. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. You will not get this fundamental principle changed. And there are millions of selfpublished websites. Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate the Internet or advertise almost unknown subjects which "need" a Wikipedia presence to become better known. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter here. I thought several other editors made this clear several threads above. Wikipedia is not intended as a substitute for the rest of the Internet, but rather it is a complement. This all concerns an article you created that was doing to be deleted regardless of how lax we would have been with the guidelines we have. Once again, it is (or was) not your article; once you hit that "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and can be edited at will, within common sense and the basic rules we have. That is one of the most basic aspects of a wiki-editing environment (its communal nature), and editors who cannot understand that will likely not get along well here.

As far as the perceived harassment is concerned, we have several people who are trying to help you and trying to guide you in the correct direction, but, from what I have seen so far, you have not tried to follow our guidance. If you feel you have a problem with being harassed, then I suggest that you step back a bit and try to put things in perspective.

That being said, when I started here some 3 years ago, to me, it seemed like common sense that we try and build up articles whose content is verifiable, and that not everything under the sun is going to be included; otherwise, Wikipedia ceases to be what its primary purpose is – which is an encyclopedia. –MuZemike 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to say. If the old rules are wrong, however 'fundamental' they may be, surely they need changing. Nothing is really ever going to be changed if no one is willing to do anything more than modify the most minute rules. (Alicianpig (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

I tend to agree with all of this (and the reason that it's being brought up, because the user "lost" at AFD, certainly doesn't help), except... NPP'ers and vandal patrollers still seem to get overzealous or burnt out from time to time. More importantly, I think that many of us who have been around for a while have become somewhat "ossified" in our thinking, which is exemplified by your closing comment MuZemike. I find the whole "Wikipedia is too big!" thinking to be unproductive, and I suspect that it's more of a reflection of some user's need for control rather then anything that is really related to the encyclopedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I find myself wondering why it is people seem to have already forgotten about the results from Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion (related Signpost article)? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can (seem to?) be an extremely bitey place, even for an intelligent person. My first 'comeback' edits disappeared insanely quickly, because I was unfamiliar with the rules (obviously! How many people, in all seriousness, are going to read the whole rule book before making a one-sentence or two-sentence edit?) If I had not been me, I might have just never come back, instead of trying to find out what happened and where I went wrong. And we really do need to remember that some newbies can be real youngsters, and what seems mightily important to them may be complete crap to the rest of us - but it doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to turn into really useful members of the community, given the right nurturing. Imagine if the newbie you'd just given a severe bite to turned out to be a very bright 10 year old kid with a load of potential, who spent the next week crying themselves to sleep every night. Hmmmm. I'll bet Einstein himself could have looked pretty trollish as a kid. We really mustn't assume that all our newbies are adults, and likely to respond and react and interact in an adult manner. And DO remember - we have some exceptional young-teen editors on-site; they have to start somewhere! Yes, some people are just trolls. But some really do just need a bit more guidance than others, and could turn out good - instead of just walking away whimpering, or biting back.

Always remember, in your interactions with someone who just doesn't seem to 'get it', that this could be a kid you're talking to. They're not going to 'get it' like a 17+-year-old will! And they may not even know what some of the words and phrases you're using even mean! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't get what is so "ossifying" about requiring that content be verified by stuff that is reliable rather than from some "Joe Schmoe forumite" or "I heard it somewhere" source. Moreover, I'm not suggesting that "Wikipedia is too big", as we're already at over 3.5 million articles and increasing daily – including topics from Abraham Lincoln to Toilet paper orientation. However, there is a threshold for what we include and don't include, and that one most basic policy is one of our gauges of that. –MuZemike 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: why don't we try and make sure that our rules and guidelines are written in a vocabulary that our younger editors can actually understand without having to have a dictionary on-hand while they read them? Young !=stupid. But it can very reasonably = reduced vocabulary. So, with rules and guidelines, the first one to follow is WP:KISS. This might not only solve quite a few problems, but actually encourage and retain the next generation of Wikipedians. If we can't make our rules easy to understand, then the fault lies with us, not with them. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Real proposal - project

Re-wording templates, rules, all-sorts.

Suggest adding a "The Simplest Explanation" sentence to the top of each rule page.

Example:

• NPOV = "Don't take sides. Anyone reading what you've written shouldn't be able to guess which side you're on."
  • (I boldly did that one)

• Verifiability : "people have to be able to check that you didn't just make it up!" Maybe?
  • Boldly did that, too.
    • ... aaaand ... just got reverted! Oh, well .... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bite: "don't be too harsh on new editors"
  • I Boldly did this one (Alicianpig (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

Simple stuff. Who do we have who's creative enough and interested enough to make this work? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a very good idea. (Alicianpig (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

Ahhh, good! I've done two 'simple explanation' things - can you go check them out, please? They're at WP:NPOV and WP:V. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If people are unable to read the guidelines as they are written, they are not going to be able to contribute writing of the quality required for an encyclopedia. The "nutshell" versions are concise and clear, and I don't see a need for two one-sentence summaries of the policies. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many things people can do that don't involve writing high-quality prose, but still require understanding the policies. For example, Alicianpig does not appear to have understood that merely uploading a copyrighted picture to Wikipedia is itself a serious copyright violation, even if s/he never linked the picture into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

People who fall foul of the rules, either because they don't even know what they are, that the rules exist, etc., are our target-audience for the policy pages. In order to be able to understand what the policies actually mean, so that we can make sure they don't continue to fall foul of them, there has to be a dead-simple explanation which that target audience can understand. As we're for the main part likely to be talking about newbies, and often young newbies, it's therefore our responsibility to make sure that there's a jargon-free, readily-understandable 'simple concept' thing right near the top of the page. There's almost always a way of describing a concept so that a 12-year-old can at least understand what we mean by what we're saying; and if we write the entire page in language which is hard for them to understand, from start to finish, then we can hardly blame them for our failure to make it clear to them. It may be one's view that 12-year-olds shouldn't be trying to edit Wikipedia in the first place, or that 12-year-olds should come to us ready-equipped with an internal WikiJargon dictionary - but that's not what happens in real life. The target audience for policy pages is going to be precisely those people who don't yet know the rules or understand the jargon. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think you have a very good point. There was a previous small scale study on the readability of user warnings which was covered in the May 16, 2011 Signpost. It might not be a bad idea at all to see a larger study done for all of our guidelines and policies. I seem to remember there also being a bot-generated list of the most frequently cited policies and guidelines but I can't find it now. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Tothwolf, as and when you can find it, could you please let me have a list of those? If we can improve the understandability of the first thing people see in all the guidelines they get pointed to, that would be a great start :o) Anything we can do which makes the basic concepts really easy to grab will reduce the necessity for subsequent re-explanations, and ultimately potentially save everyone a lot of time and heartache. This is the idea. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I've spent hours looking for it and I cannot find it now. I even checked under Wikipedia:Database reports and it isn't there either. In order to generate a new report for the various guidelines and policies the bot or process will also need to resolve any incoming redirects (mainly shortcut links) for each of the guideline and policy pages too. It would probably be best generated by someone using the toolserver. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is another related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Teenage Editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Template, please?

Can someone do this? I feel that the 'simplest explanation' thing should be in a box right under 'this page in a nutshell'. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So we're going to have a "In a nutshell" box with a once-sentence summary of the policy, and then below that there will be another box with a one-sentence summary of the policy for people who lack reading comprehension? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not the point, quite. We need to make sure that whatever summary we have can be understood by pretty much anyone capable of clicking on the link to the page they've been directed to. I'm really hoping that we can get this done - even if people don't yet have the ability to understand the in-depth explanations - or even the 'in a nutshell' explanation (because some of those aren't 'simple'!) they really have to be able to understand the purpose of the rule at an elementary level. We can't just throw people in at the deep end of vocabulary, particularly if they're new - and those are exactly the type of people who'll be being directed to those pages. Anything we can do to recude biteyness has to be a good thing, on the whole. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What does your suggested one-sentence summary do that is different from the one-sentence summary in the "Nutshell" box? Can you give me an example of a "Nutshell" box that uses difficult language? Can you explain why you feel that it wouldn't be better to just rewrite the "Nutshell" box to use simpler language? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting the 'nutshell' box is certainly an alternative way to go about this. My suggestion - of really dead-simple wording - will get the idea across to absolutely everybody, including the 12-year-old who wants to put something in about thier favourite place / game / whatever. If they can't understand what we mean, and make mistakes because of that, then that's our fault, not theirs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia about 12-year-olds' favorite comic book characters. We don't need to cater to people who can't read. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" isn't that easy for a youngster to 'get'. "don't take sides!" they understand from very early on! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're not concerned about the vocabulary, really. You're actually concerned with people not understanding the purpose of the policies. Is this correct? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that at least the basics of each rule, the why and the how, must be able to be understood by the person we've just directed to the page, whoever they are. It seems unfair to expect people to abide by rules which we can't make really clear for them, and all of us should be able to word things in a way in which people don't have to be totally fluent in the jargon to understand. I hope this is clear :o) So, a summary which a 12-year-old can understand will help them not to fall foul of the rule. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just removed "Innocent until proven guilty" from wp:Assume good faith because that is not what AGF means. This a serious danger when you try to explain policies in 6 year old language. Take for example your "don't pick sides", that is not what the actual policy says. For example we write the moon landing happened and only provide a small section about the people who say it didn't. If we didn't pick sides we would have to treat them as equal, but as the undue weight section explains we don't do that. "don't pick sides" completely ignores that section of the policy and would therefore actually cause new editors to misunderstand the policy. Yoenit (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of 12 years olds won't understand most of the concepts anyway, not matter how simplistically you break down the content. I understand where you are coming from, Pesky, but I think it is a mistake to equate a lack of clarity (or failure to understand) the policies with the choice of language. Talking simplistically doesn't often have the effect that is expected. The policy pages are primarily there to record, in detail, the established policy of Wikipedia. Making them understandable is probably best done as a separate "project" - perhaps a collection of pages expressing the policies in various simple and effective ways that can be used to link new users lacking comprehension.

Although, at the end of the day, no matter how simple or clear you make something there are still many people for whom it will not "click"--Errant ^(chat!) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to get all the small details into a 'The simplest explanation sentence. You just have to get the general point across. for example 'don't take sides' doesn't give you an exact, detailed explanation of NPOV, but it gets the general sentiment across. (Alicianpig (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

The problem is that it doesn't really. Such an explanation is useful advice for an editor, of course, but isn't really the NPOV policy --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As Mesoderm already pointed out, that's what we have {{nutshell}} for. I think most of them are written pretty reasonably, but if there is room for improvement, then changes are welcome, though care should be taken per Yoenit's points above. It is understood that there is often initial confusion, and that's what we have WP:BITE for. Otherwise, if someone really doesn't have enough competency in the English language to grasp the meaning of the policies (whether it is because they are 10 years old or speak English non-natively, or have a learning disability or etc.), then maybe the Simple English Wikipedia is the place for them. —Akrabbim^talk 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything that gets even the beginning of the idea across has to be better than something which people shy away from. Sometimes you have to do a minor 'not-quite-accurate' version of something, just to give people a foothold on the thing. See Lying_to_children; that explains it pretty well.

I should probably point out here that I'm actually a trained & qualified instructor myself, and have been since (eeek!) 1977! I've taught all ages, and obviously don't teach beginners and advanced students the same way. Beginners progress to more advanced knowledge, and more advanced explanations, as they go along. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-aggressive usernames

Absolutely no offense or bad faith assumed for any of the editors mentioned but I have to make this observation. Whinge wars was proposed and then nominated for deletion by an editor with the username "Steamroller Assault". I can't help but wonder what newbies think when they are warned/blocked by an admin named "Smashville" or even reverted by a bot called "Smackbot". I'll state again that I have no problem with any of these policy compliant usernames but I can see how some newbies might feel that they have been "steamrolled" "smashed" and "smacked". This was actually an issue in Snotty Wong's RFA. (another 100% policy compliant username). My advise to anybody with a username that suggests aggression is to take their usernames into consideration if they do anything, such as NPP/RC patrol, AFD nomming etc. which brings them into close contact with newbies. IMHO you have to be just a little more civil then the rest of us. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Something similar could be said of many of the edit summaries used too. Even the default Twinkle summaries can sometimes look a little "bitey". --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• But then what about someone like me, whose username contains more than enough letters to spell the word 'rage'? Or someone whose username contains the word 'wolf'? I think that going too far down this line would get a little silly... ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

i am only a gurch i don't mean to hurt anyone Gurch (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think 'animally' names are OK. But then I like animals :o) And I'm a WikiWolfcub. A good point about trying to ensure that people don't appear to be approaching potentially bitey areas with a name which suggests that they take pleasure in inflicting pain or oppression ... maybe those with 'bitey' names need to take care to be even more un-bitey in their style? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there, Ron Ritzman et al. I invite you to look at my edit history, which has spanned about three and a half years here. My sincere hope is that new users look at my often personalized advice or reasoning before leaping to my signature. For the record, I briefly engaged Alicianpig (a username for whom I hope no kosher Wikipedians are offended) on the (now deleted) talk page of Whinge wars. I am interested that he/she is now looking into Wikipedia policy, but it seems that interest has only been piqued now that the article promoting the game he/she invented has been deleted. Much good-faith advice was given on that talk page, but I believe it was deliberately ignored because the advice did not fit with that particular user's intent, which was to promote and legitimatize his/her invention. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes good outcomes spring from unlikely sources. Anything that piques someone's interest in getting into the policy stuff has to be good - my 'comeback' started just the same way, but at a slightly different level (verifiability vs. truth, WP:NOR stuff). And if the result of it all is that we can do anything which makes policy clearer, that's a major net gain, and reduces the need for experienced editors to spend time on personalised explanations :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, I was of course only responding to statements of general advice that specifically used me in an ill-informed manner. To respond to the issue of "simplest explanation", my feeling is that in whatever form or placement it takes on the policy page, it is unlikely to be read by your target audience. Direct contact with the editor who can't, won't or hasn't yet read that page is still the best option. Remember: this entire proposal began not with an editor who couldn't comprehend the "in a nutshell" template; it began with an editor who was unwilling to accept, after many instances of simple personalized guidance, that Wikipedia is simply not the place for him/her to promote a made-up game. In a nutshell: I feel a solution is being proposed here for which no problem previously existed. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

All games are made up. (Alicianpig (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

BLP links to their Facebook page

I'm sure this has been asked before, somewhere. But I don't notice links to a person's (or entity's) Facebook page in the same way that I know a link to a person's website is permitted, and indeed encouraged. Is there a usage policy on this? Is it encouraged or discouraged or not permitted? JohnClarknew (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL; in particular, the "Minimize the number of links" subsection. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see at "Links normally to be avoided" there, it's listed under no. 10: Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook). I think that this should be reconsidered in light of the fact that social networking sites are now so huge, and growing. Researchers use them all the time to get a rounded view of their subjects, so why not make it quicker and easier by providing them in a standard WP format and a suitable template? It should suggest that the links may contain inaccurate and unreliable content, and are not endorsed by WP. Comment anybody? JohnClarknew (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time you can get to the social site from the main official page easily enough, so there's no need for the redundancy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Plus there can be problems of validation, and what would it add to the articles, really? --John (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, virtually everything on such sites would be self published and primary source. We avoid these for sound reasons.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes a website qualify for listing as WP:ELOFFICIAL—the subject's own official website—is the very fact that it is self-published. WP:EL is very different from WP:RS; external links do not have to be reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I bring up Oprah Winfrey's page, as an example. I see a link to her at Twitter and YouTube. I don't see a way to find her instantly on Facebook. And Facebook pages are not necessarily self-published. And (permitted) Websites obviously are! What would it add, really? Information. Information. Information. That's what an Encyclopedia is supposed to do, isn't it? JohnClarknew (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't post infinite information, we make editorial decisions where we decide which information is appropriate and which isn't. The justification of "its information, isn't, why not include all information" is bullshit because we never include all information about anything, even if it's true, and even if it's verifiable. Certainly, it must be verifiable if it is included, but merely being verifiable doesn't mean we always include it; there's lots of stuff which is verifiable but irrelevent, for example. Same with external links. We need some standards, so we make choices, we decide some links are better than others, and over time the community has decided that one link, to the subject's official website, is enough. Of course, this doesn't have to be the case forever, but you're going to have to come up with something better than "It's information!" to justify a change in longstanding practice here. --Jayron32 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you reporting Policy, or just your Opinion? At the moment, you sound like a Republican running for office. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

wp:ELOFFICIAL is the relevant guideline here. I quote: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." This is already linked above though, so I am not sure why it needs repeating.Yoenit (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:JohnClarknew: There are numerous pages at Wikipedia that clearly support what I said. I would also note that your disgusting, outrageous, and clearly uncalled for personal attack against my character is quite upsetting, and I will thank you to never do that again to another human being so long as you are alive. If you want policy and guideline pages which support that sometimes, information is not included in Wikipedia articles, even if verifiable, see the following:

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
• What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper: "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced."
• Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information."
• Wikipedia:External links (lead section) "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

There's more about this if it is confusing to you, JohnClarknew, but I think you can read the relevent policy and guideline pages yourself. If you need additional explanation as to Wikipedia policies, I can provide them for you. --Jayron32 17:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, that is a wonderful bullet list. I'm cribbing that onto my user page for ease of copying later. Thanks for assembling it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A link to the subject's FB page is clearly permitted by the policy if it is the "official" site of the subject, and if it is the only such site. If the subject maintains his own site at www.subject.com and the FB site, then the FB site should usually not be listed since there will be a link to it from the main site and the FB site is almost certainly not going to have encyclopedic information not found on the main site. It will probably be used primarily for fan interaction, event posting, and other marketing activities that are more ephemeral. If the opposite is true, then I would link to the FB page instead.--Hjal (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I said you sound like a Republican running for office, and you said I would also note that your disgusting, outrageous, and clearly uncalled for personal attack against my character is quite upsetting, and I will thank you to never do that again to another human being so long as you are alive. Well, I am glad you have a great sense of humor! I thought I was flattering you, Jayron, but I see where you're coming from. LOL, you made my day! And thanks for your calm comment, Hjal. A Facebook (FB) page then can be used as a substitute for an official website page, if I understand you correctly, an either/or? JohnClarknew (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. We generally include one single official external link to one single official website, regardless of where it is hosted. Sometimes, we need to make a decision on which external link is the "officialest", and there's nothing to say that it can never be Facebook; however in general where a normal, just straight-up, non-social networking plain-old official website exists, this is usually the one we link to. There could be cases where a Facebook page is linked instead of such a website (for example, if the facebook page appears to be actively updated, and said normal website is grossly outdated), but such matters are considered on a case-by-case basis. So it itsn't that we never link to Facebook, its that we generally don't link to every single external link in existance about a person or company or band, we link to one official website about them, and the best official website. --Jayron32 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline seems to be fairly clear. There is nothing 'wrong' with a facebook or twitter or similar link, but if the official page clearly links them, we don't generally do so also. They are acceptable links, but they aren't needed. Is there a specific page you have in mind for your concern about not having these links included? (Side note...You sound like a 'politician' running for office is unlikely to ever be taken as a compliment. Your suggestion that it was intended as flattery in this context is absurd.) --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Hjal's comment. Even if an official site does not link to a Facebook page or other social media, I see no need for us to do so here as long as we have the link to the official site (unless, as Hjal states, the FB page is more substantive than the official site, in which case we'd link to FB rather than the official site). This is an encyclopedia, not a web index. Persons wanting to survey websites dedicated to the subject should check with Google. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ever tried to link your FB page to your website? It's a real puzzler, not simple at all. I very much doubt that it's common. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Boxes with social media links are incredibly common. Or did you mean the other way around? But that's pretty common too. Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was said somewhere that a person's website will often have a link to their FB page, so why bother. But I find little evidence of this, perhaps because it is difficult to put it there. I know on my website, I can't even upload the link, says it's "not authorized" http://johnclarkprose.com JohnClarknew (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

It appears that the directions for doing so with your provider are "shoot us an email". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it Wikipedia's problem if the official website does or does not link to a facebook page? It really isn't Wikipedia's role to promote the subjects of the articles in it... --Jayron32 16:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is little argument that the category Biographies of Living People (BLP) has and is causing more problems than any other, and is the one most likely to undergo Darwinian change. Controversy surrounds the subject, mainly to do with the fact that subjects are discouraged from editing their entries, even as to correcting errors of fact (i.e. a cited newspaper reporting a wrong date, etc.) INMHO, the next areas will be to do with the linking of certain social networking sites, Myspace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin being the most representative. As I said before, a template could be written that would contain just those links, and display the label that the contents were not necessarily endorsed by Wikipedia editors. I also believe that our founding fathers see the need for these concerns to be addressed. JohnClarknew (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As an incentive to make this change, imagine what it would do to readership response if people knew that WP was the only place to go for a BLP's list of links? And to the volume of donations? The increase would be exponential. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The "only place to go?" Hardly. And I don't see how we'd get an "exponential" increase in donations; most people who use Wikipedia already don't donate. There's really no incentive to add these links, and several disincentives. — The Hand That Feeds

You:^Bite 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hardly"? "most people"? Poor argument. And stop being vague - where exactly is the one place you would go to find out these links? I challenge you to give me an example of a random LP and apply your answer. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag prompt bot

Given that any newbie can slop a speedy delete tag on any wikipedia article there is something very wrong if experienced editors like myself here can't be trusted to remove clearly invalid speedy deletion tags to articles, especially after they have made improvements to it. It is extremely irritating to remove invalid tags [placed by inexperienced or disinterested individuals and then be instantly reverted by a bot and drilled a warning. Can we PLEASE change this speedy deletion tag to exclude the experienced editors here with privelages, much like rollbacking and auto new page patrol. We should be trusted to know when articles meet speedy criteria or not, even our own articles. This is potentially damaging as any admin could accept speedy delete tags and delete content which could be easily improved and the speedy tag removed. Vandals can do this to any article and the experienced editors here cannot revert their speedy tagging if it is their own article which is wrong.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of articles being deleted under the above scenario? Singularity42 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't as I've worked with so many articles, but I do know admins have been warned in the past for deleting articles which were sloppily speedy tagged and they didn't even look into them before deleting them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As an experienced editor, is there any problem with simply being patient and waiting for an admin to remove a blatantly inappropriate speedy tag, if inappropriate it be? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well I've know of articles which have been speedy tagged for several hours before anybody actually bothered to assess them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  You'll notice that I used the word 'patiently' in the comment to which you are replying? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  "Speedy" does not mean "within an hour". If the decision is made within a week (that is, faster than PROD or AFD), then it's still "speedy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think this is a big problem. CSD tags are reviewed by admins relatively quickly (insert your own definition of "relatively"), so the tag doesn't stay up for long. I don't think CSD tags are used too often as disruptive editing (although there are some incidents). There is a lot of work in setting up a whole new privilege, and we would also have to develop some type of policy of who is or isn't qualified for such a privilege. That's a lot of work when TT is right - it is just as easy to be patient and wait for another editor or administrator to remove the tag. I also think there is a bit of illogic here: 1) a few admins don't use their privileges correctly; 2) therefore create a new privilege for editors which has the potential of not being used correctly... Singularity42 (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Many administrators have a poor track record of accuracy when assessing speedy deletion taggings, so I have some sympathy for Dr. Blofeld's point (for example, the tortuous logic often employed to delete things as "test pages" when they very obviously aren't). All the same, the scenario he describes only affects people who remove speedy deletion tags from articles they created. If you believe an article you created was inappropriately tagged, all you have to do is ask any other editor to remove the tag. If you can't find anyone willing to do so, perhaps the tagging wasn't so inaccurate after all. Bearing in mind that any user may already, in good faith, remove a speedy deletion tag from any article that they didn't create, I don't see the need for a new privilege here. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Thpharkth: Don't remove the tags yourself; go get a third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• You can always add hangon tag with a reason, or add to the talk page. Of course some admins won't bother reading the talk page before deleting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new CSD

I've seen enough cases where this has happened to warrant my suggesting it... should we have a speedy deletion criterion for unreferenced articles created in a foreign language that have no equivalent in another language Wikipedia? There's no real reason why an unreferenced stub in a foreign language should be sitting around with a PROD tag on for 7 days or go to an AfD debate. If the subject is notable enough, someone will eventually start an article about it in English. XXX antiuser ^eh? 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of requiring there to be an equivalent article already on another language Wikipedia is that if there isn't, it could potentially be usefully moved to that project. Theoretically, adding {{not English}} to the article brings this to the attention to people who might do that sort of thing; in practise, pages needing translation into English isn't that active. They should at least be given a chance to, though, so I don't think speedy deletion is a good idea. Gurch (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of A2, and my suggestion is completely unrelated to it. CSD are intentionally very narrow, and that's exactly why I'm suggestion a new criterion for unreferenced articles only. Having a page in a foreign language sitting around waiting for a PROD to expire or AfD to conclude is more harmful than helpful, as it might confuse users. Jinjeru is an example of that. As far as giving them a chance to be translated, most articles that are tagged with CSD can be "rescued" from speedy deletion. This would be no different. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

People at WP:PNT are usually reasonably quick in determining whether a foreign-language article should be translated or deleted. If a page is listed there it doesn't take the 7 days of PROD or AFD to come to a decision. As foreign language pages need somebody who reads that language to check them, they are not a good candidate for something that should be speedily deleted (as not everybody can check what they are deleting). Also, this discussion belongs at WT:CSD. —Kusma (t·c) 10:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the point. If an article is created with no claims to notability, no references and a biased POV, even if the subject is notable, it would still qualify for A7, and another editor could just as well rewrite it or recreate it with content that conforms to WP standards. A foreign language article in the English WP doesn't really do anyone any good - and if the subject does warrant an article in English, someone can just as easily come up and create it, in English. What I wanted to suggest was a criterion that is purposefully narrow, just to keep unreferenced foreign language stubs from slipping through the cracks and "messing up" the project. It's just something I not infrequently come up against whilst recent changes patrolling and figured I'd suggest it here. I wasn't aware of WT:CSD, thanks for letting me know. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what Kusma said, in smaller words: If the article is written in a language that I do not understand, how the heck am I supposed to know that it contains no claim to notability? Magic?

For that matter, how will I know that it doesn't contain any WP:INTEXT citations? If you typed "According to the June issue of Famous Magazine..." in the text, rather than between ref tags, I'd have no clue that it was there, but that text definitely qualifies as a (badly formatted and incomplete) WP:CITE to a WP:Reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, how the heck are we supposed to know if the article is a personal attack, or full of libel and BLP issues? I suggest that it would be better to immediately move any foreign language article to some sequestered space where the appropriate people can decide what to do with it. Whether that prevision belongs in CSD or not, I'm not sure.--Hjal (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New essay: WP:BOMB

I have written a new essay related to the recent RfC and arbitration request on campaign for "santorum" neologism:

• WP:BOMB / WP:Wikibombing.

Editors are cordially invited to review or improve the essay, leave comments on its talk page, etc. Cheers, --JN466 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider moving this "essay" out of the project space? At a quick skim it reads like a soapbox oratory about the controversy and the related issues around it. It reads like a semi veiled attack on Crit and an attempt to lay precedent tracks. Minimize the origination issue, generalize the comments (not only about online campaigns, specific examples from the issue, etc.) then I could see it being a valid guidance document. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone who wasn't active in the dispute would connect this essay with Cirt or any other user. I therefore think it unreasonable to interpret it as an attack on anyone.

The two primary reasons that we userify essays is that the editor doesn't want anyone else to make changes to it, and that the essay directly contradicts the community's view. I think that the general theme (i.e., don't abuse Wikipedia for your outside political campaigns) is widely supported by the community, and JN doesn't seem to mind others improving it. Therefore it is not appropriate to userify the essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who looked at the history would be able to tell exactly who is at issue, connecting it to Crit requires about 10 seconds of work. I agree this doesn't belong in project space as written--it looks to be a thinly veiled personal attack. I assume it wasn't intended as such, but intent doesn't really matter here. As such, I'm not real thrilled with it in userspace either. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be fine with just describing the effect and issue. Even with a simple note where the term was first coined. But the fairly long list of the "bad things" done by one user is what makes it seem like an attack. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think the essay would be fine if it were genericized to remove all references to specific examples, that is remove all of the "santorum" stuff from it, and just leave it generic. --Jayron32 20:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Since the essay was in project space, I decided to be bold and cut out a bunch of details. Most obviously, the author has little awareness of how pagerank is actually computed - internal links in a domain are not taken into account (or are only a small factor). Thus the complaints about creating inbound links with templates and DYK nominations are not only speculative, but actually wrong, and in my opinion impugn the assumption of good faith we should have towards the editors who worked on the variety of articles related to Santorum (who was after all a prospective presidential candidate), and the generally useful templates that were spun out of that article. A page should be judged on its own merits, not the supposed motivations of its original author. Dcoetzee 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks much better, thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's unwise to base essays like this on single events. This one in particular seems too focused on the details of what happened in the one case rather than the general issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me suspiciously like an example of what it is talking about. At the very least references to the specific example should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I already noted, internal links do not contribute substantially to pagerank computations. However I agree that an essay based on a single event may be premature. Dcoetzee 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the literature I find says that internal links are taken into account in calculating page rank: [12]. --JN466 22:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• This point (using single events to make decisions about how the community governs itself) is part of what I was talking about on WP:VPM yesterday before Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) started haranguing me about it, for whatever reason. Bad things happen occasionally (vandalism, hoaxes, advocacy, whatever...), and we should deal with that when it does occur. If there is something that we can do to enable volunteers to better combat the occurrence of those bad things (like the NPP, for example) then that's a good thing. However, trying to prevent those kinds of bad things is usually worse then the problem. In this instance, for example, it appears that the intent of the essay was to somehow prevent people from linking to the type of article represented by the santorum article (see the original Guidance section). Understandable, but misplaced, and that advice tends to contradict other widely accepted guidance (Wikipedia:Linking). My point is: let's not allow ourselves to become overzealous trying to prevent problems.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  What's has been discussed a few times, but never implemented, is to add nofollow to nav template links. That would take navigation templates out of the page rank equation altogether. Lots of people are saying that our internal dofollow links push our page ranks up. That's legitimate, but arguably less so with nav templates adding a couple of hundred extra links in one fell swoop. --JN466 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  The thing is... that's all external to the site. Look, I'm not making light of your concern with page ranks and how SEO issues relate to our internal practices, but... I mean, that's not something that is really in our control, and I'm not sure that we should try to throw monkey wrenches into the way that Google (or Bing, Yahoo, etc...) operate based on our necessarily imperfect view of the way that they operate. If there's a problem with our content, then our content should be talked about and changed to address those concerns. Trying to keep people from seeing it doesn't seem particularly constructive, to me. Besides, all of the stuff about what affects page rankings in Google or any other search engine are just guesses... they're well informed guesses, but they're still guesses. More seriously, the manner in which Google and other search engines operates can change at any time, without notice. Relying on "nofollow" or similar mechanisms for issues such as this risks the possibility of Google and other search engines choosing to ignore all of our robots guidance, which is trivial for them to do. If that happens, what would we do then?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, yes. On the other hand, once people generally wisen up to the fact that they can make their articles rise up the Google ranks by throwing in a couple of fat navigation templates, everyone will want to have some on their article, whether useful to the reader or not. You may argue that promoting our page rank promotes the project -- in which case let's all create nav templates for our favourite topics! -- but I'm doubtful whether that's best for a harmonious editing environment. Someone will create navigation templates for Republican scandals and Liberal columnists, another one for Democrat scandals and Conservative columnists, and so forth; you get my drift. Making nav templates nofollow would remove the incentive, and the potential for strife, and level the playing field. Articles would earn their page rank with their content, rather than nav templates. --JN466 00:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, keep in mind that there are good reasons to add navboxes to articles which are completely unrelated to any potential SEO effects (which, I still feel that the potential effects of our internal links on page ranking are speculative). See: Wikipedia:A navbox on every page, for example. Not everything occurring on Wikipedia is going to be related to partisan politics, even on partisan political pages. Some of us are actually concerned with improving the quality of our coverage. :)

  Taking your arguments on directly though (we obviously see this through slightly different paradigms, which is fine): should a "harmonious editing environment" trump potentially helpful content creation? If content can only come about though conflict... I mean, that kinda sucks (I'm awfully averse to conflict, personally), but in the end so what? After all of the arguing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, we do typically end up with good content. There may be some bent feelings as well, but over the long term... i mean, content is king, in my view.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  I've been googling about for a bit and everything I find says that internal links do matter, a lot. See [13][14] for example. Frankly, I need to think about this for a while, because I'd never really given it a lot of thought. Cheers, --JN466 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to get the "last word" in here, or anything like that, but... if I concede the point that internal links matter (even if they matter significantly), my main point is much wider then that, you know? I'm trying not to be dismissive of your concern, not only because I don't want to dismiss anyone's concern, but also because I think that it's something that we can legitimately take into consideration in certain circumstances. My main issue is using that single concern to make content decisions on is not something that is good for the encyclopedia in the long term.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  That's why I need to think about it. I came to the topic through the santorum thing, but that's obviously only one aspect of the issue, alongside many others. --JN466 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I agree that this essay would be better off without such pointed reference to Cirt, such as the list of his actions and link to the (declined) arbitration case filed against him. This appears to not just assume bad faith on his part, but also codify it into policy in a way that I'm not comfortable with until his actions are more thoroughly investigated and evaluated by the community. I'd also suggest that the guidance section be expanded/rewritten to give an editor guidance in how to write about a Googlebomb and expand its coverage fairly, rather than a warning that to expand coverage of a Googlebomb topic will be seen prima facie as bad faith. (Probably not how this section was intended, but it's how it's coming across to me at the moment.) I do think this is a topic worth talking about in policy terms, though, so thanks for tackling it. Khazar (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's appreciated. As originally written, I actually tried to just describe the actions that caused concern this time round in the essay -- because these are the sorts of actions that would likely cause similar concerns in the future, if another editor were to engage them -- and to do so without imputing intent, because intent is a matter of perception. I may have my perception, which may differ fundamentally from that of the next person, and both my and others' perception may change in the light of new evidence. So, as an essay, the text should not interpret actions that have actually occurred one way or another. But it is legitimate to address how things might be perceived, both within the community, and by our readership and critics outside the community, and to get editors to think about that. I think we all agree that we neither want to be cheered by supporters of a campaign we cover, nor castigated by those opposing it. I'm happy for others to take the lead in developing the essay further; please remove what you think is too specific, and translate the scenario that occurred into more appropriate and generic language. --JN466 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the essay in line with comments above: [15]. Further input welcome. Cheers, --JN466 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Boilerplate review for repackaged WP content books.

There was a recent discussion on whether/how to deal with publishers that sell repackaged Wikipedia content as what appears to be original work. A similar discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#LivingBot where it was pointed out that Amazon is starting to acknowledge the problem and that the number of such titles is in the hundreds of thousands. In the previous discussion, User:Spinningspark suggesting adding reviews for these books on Google and Amazon so people will have fair warning before they buy. I'd like to suggest a boilerplate review, possibly to be attached to Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. This would allow people to copy and paste rather than write they're own, which should be a big time saver if this is to be done many times. It would also save on possible blow-back if the language is reviewed for legal implications. As a first pass, I'm proposing:

This book seems to consist of repackaged free content from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia content can be purchased in hard copy form from Pedia Press (http://pediapress.com), some of proceeds of which will support the Wikimedia Foundation.

--RDBury (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, if someone started an off-wiki campaign to make systematic, boilerplate comments on Wikipedia, I'd be unhappy. I expect that an on-wiki campaign to do the same to off-wiki websites would be exactly as unwelcome by the targets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's to the benefit of Amazon and Google to protect people from getting scammed on their sites, so I would think they'd be happy to have the input.--RDBury (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Amazon makes just as much money from selling crap as they do from selling legitimate books; they are famous for not caring when authors, their agents and friends fill their "reviews" sections with shameless plugs for garbage. --19:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) (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, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A discussion and vote are on going about Pending Changes level 2 for certain BLPs.

While there is an RfC and it's on WP:CENT I was a bit surprised a vote was on-going here and I thought it might be of interest to those who follow this noticeboard. Hobit (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia written for?

Is it written for the worlds population at large? Or just the part of it that regularly visits Wikipedia? I can't find a policy for this. It should have an impact on every other policy. You can't really talk about neural points of view or global styles unless you know which part of the worlds population you're talking about when you say global. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.68.1 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious the aim is to write for everybody who speaks english at a reasonable level. For the people who are poor at english we have Simple English Wikipedia and foreign language versions. That we are only read and edited by a subgroup can mean this is not what actually happens, but it should not change our aim. Yoenit (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Humm... you know, even the most "obvious" issues (especially the most obvious issues?) should be spelled out somewhere. Doing so prevents confusion, at the very least. It can also inform and guide our other decisions. Wikipedia:Editing policy seems like the most obvious place to talk about this.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The audience depends on the article. We do not expect any typical 12-year-old native English speaker to understand anything in an article about graduate-level abstract algebra. We do expect that child to understand a significant fraction of an article about, say, George Washington or Queen Victoria. The audience for Introduction to genetics is not the same as the audience for Genetics.

In general, I would say that most articles I deal with (e.g., not pop culture) appear to aim for a level that is appropriate to first-year university students, with some articles and some sections being either more or less complex, depending on the needs o f the material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the audience of a given paragraph varies even with articles. I would expect a lead to have a broader audience in mind than body text. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What would be the problem with saying that on the Wikipedia:Editing policy page, though? Something along the lines of: Wikipedia is generally written for the first year undergraduate students, although the audience can vary significantly from article to article. Seems like a pretty straightforward statement to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, it appears we do have a guideline about this Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Yoenit (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO the "varies significantly" is far more important than the "first-year undergrads" part. Also, that's really a style issue instead of an editing policy one, so EP is probably not the right place for it.

WP:Make technical articles accessible has good advice: Write one level down. If it's a "graduate level" topic, then write for undergrads. If it's a "college level" topic, then write for high school students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you guys, it's just... I mean, one of the first things taught in any writing class, tutorial, or reference, is that you should "know your audience" and "write to your audience", so it doesn't exactly seem like an outrageous idea to me that we spell out who are intended audience is.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there isn't any single intended audience for the encyclopedia as a whole. It's too big a thing for that. There's an excellent essay on this, WP:MANYTHINGS.

On another note, though, I would kind of like to see a more general understanding that en.wiki is allowed to be aimed at speakers of English. So if we cover Shakespeare better than, say, Pushkin, or American politics in more detail than Brazilian, that's not unreasonable. Not to say we shouldn't cover Pushkin and Brazilian politics — naturally, we should. But the fact that detailed coverage tilts to the Anglosphere is not an indication of some evil conspiracy. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but WikiProject Countering systemic bias is also not an evil conspiracy. The English Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for the Anglosphere. It also serves as the place where an Italian speaker from Switzerland can quickly look up some facts about the culture of Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka. Also, translations between the various Wikipedias tend to go via the English Wikipedia. And of course English is the language of science, which is why I am at home here rather than on the German Wikipedia. Hans Adler 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment: All articles, even the most technically sophisticated (ie advanced Quantum physics and calculus articles) should be written in a way that an uninformed (but basically educated) adult could come to understand the topic. In advanced articles, the topic should introduce itself with wikilinks to articles that provide a simpler introduction to the concepts dealt with. If I, as a first year engineer, cannot understand what an article on complicated manifolds is explaining, it is using far too much technical jargon and must be simplified. All of our core and vital topics should be written so as to be understood by a grade 3 student researching their solar system project, or something along those lines. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No. While I agree that most technical articles are not as accessible as they should be, it is simply impossible to present every notable topic in this way. You can see this with the articles that Scientific American produces on mathematics and physics. I once cancelled my subscription because I could no longer suffer the nonsense that they were writing in that area. As a mathematician I should have had no trouble understanding these articles, yet I understood nothing at all because they dumbed them down to the point where they were not actually saying anything. That's a natural result of taking the ideology that you have expressed too seriously. Hans Adler 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Floydian with the exception that perhaps Grade 3 is dumbing it down a bit too much to Simple English's standards. And in the same instance I agree with Hans Adler, though I do have a subscription to Scientific American (and Discover, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, National Geographic, and Astronomy; all of which could have the same complaint put against them) As for who is Wikipedia written for? Simple answer- Those who are searching for information and type it into Google and get Wikipedia as their first hit. Realistically that's how the majority of people find the majority of our articles. They dont specifically come to Wikipedia, a search engine draws them to us. In a way we are very much similar to IMDB. Someone sees an actor on a tv show, cant remember where they've seen them from or the first name and they type it into Google, bam! you pick Wikipedia and you read all about him/her. We should therefore assume that the person reading the article knows SOMETHING about the topic, enough that they knew to Google the term, location, person, event. We should never dumb down to the lowest common denominator however. Secondly- we are not and should not portray ourselves as a research tool! Encyclopedia's are NOT acceptable research material for grad students, and neither should Wikipedia at any grade level. Using Wikipedia to take the sources that we have already used and read them oneself however is much better. We shouldnt write as if we are helping 3rd grade students write a paper on oak scrub ecology.Camelbinky (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The project as a whole has no overarching level of writing, nor should it. It is to everyone's benefit if at least some part of every article is understandable to the layman, but we should not be shy of tackling more technical information in articles where it is relevant. Some subjects simply require deep study to understand, such as light cones. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The language doesn't entirely have to be dumbed down throughout the article, but for core articles, the basic premise should be understood by an intelligent eight year old. Looking through them, there is not a single topic on the list that I did not already know about or wasn't capable of learning at that age. Not all there is to know about the topic, but the basic idea of the concept. Understandably, Curvature of Riemannian manifolds cannot be entirely written for someone who graduated high school. However, the basic premise could still be explained in both a technical and non-technical way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OpenCorporates

I've started a disucssion on linking to OpenCorporates, following an approach they've made to Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)