Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page.

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Policy archive

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Is it time to restrict editing to registered users?

Moved to perennial proposals as subsection of previous discussion, Abolish anonymous users. Steve block talk 13:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD the wrong version

the wrong version should be deleted. Whenever it is cited it is invariably an insult and personal attack by the person citing it. It promotes a culture of mocking entitlement and hubris among the admins, which is increased even more by Jimbo's apparent approval of it. It is in poor taste. the wrong version is an insult to us all that take wikipedia seriously, and try to work within both the spirit and letter of its rules. We all know cases of admins violating and abusing the application of protection, and this article's mocking tone contributes to that attitude. I vote that it be deleted, and good riddance. --Silverback 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you want that deleted, wouldn't the place to request it be on meta? Aquillion 12:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, yes, but since it is part of wikipedia culture and people are slapped with it as an insult and personal attack, I thought it important to discuss it here in a public place to try to win hearts and minds. The people most likely to vote on a Meta deletion are also some of those with the worst entitlement attitudes.--Silverback 13:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make blanket personal attacks in forwarding your arguments—you don't win hearts and minds that way. Page protection is almost always part of an ugly process. If a page is protected, it is usually because one or more editors are behaving like petulant children and only the blunt tool of "Go to your room and take a one-hour time out!" will get them to stop. Bruising slightly the egos of editors who have conspicuously failed to uphold Wikipedia's accepted standards of behaviour is not something I find troubling. I note that The Wrong Version wouldn't sting at all if it didn't have at least a measure of truth in it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blanket personal attack wouldn't sting at all if there wasn't some truth to it. (Although I'm not clear what you meant by the blanket personal attack). We have had admins before the arbcom for personal use/abuse of the protection power on their own behalf or on behalf of a friend, 172 for instance. We also have admins show up to protect that have not been openly asked to protect a page, who were contacted by a backchannel by a friend, and lo and behold, it is the friend's version that gets protected. If wikipedia demanded more openness and transparency on these actions, there would not be as many complaints about the wrong version. And if articles like "the wrong version" did not encourage a mocking, dismissive attitude among the admins, there would probably be less abuse of admin power.--Silverback 22:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"The people most likely to vote on a Meta deletion are also some of those with the worst entitlement attitudes." That was the blanket personal attack. I don't feel particularly stung by it because I don't edit on Meta.

I don't believe that it does serious harm for an article to be stuck on the "wrong" version (or even m:The Wrong Version) for a little while. Generally the behaviour that led to the page protection was more damaging than the temporary suspension of editing. If you feel that an admin has been misusing page protection or any of the other admin tools, file an RFC. If you feel that a page on Meta should be deleted, go through the process there. This page really isn't the place to handle your question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see I got the "some" in the wrong place to communicate my intent. Here is a corrected version "Some of the people most likely to vote are those with the worst entitlement attitudes". I generally concur with your thought that it doesn't do harm to have an article stuck on the wrong version for awhile, but that value is not reflected in the practice, obviously the colluders who select a friendly admin, feels there is a benefit to having their version protected, and even neutral admins, sometimes get all concerned that they may have protected a bad version. Often the persons requesting protection, do so through a back channel instead of in the open, so that they can exploit a monopoly on the knowledge that protection is coming to increase the chances that it is their version that is protected. And if there is some truth to your statement that being stuck in the wrong version does not do serious harm, the same probably can also be said for the dynamic state the article is in during the edit war. Protection is often used even in mild edit wars where there was not even danger of 3RR violations and no sock puppets were involved. --Silverback 07:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Wrong Version should be kept. Whenever I cite it I invariably use it as a way of capturing the thought that, no matter what protected version of an article is up at any time, someone is bound to take offense. It promotes a culture of self-deprecation and encourages people to take a step back. It is in excellent taste, and one of the most appropriate examples of constructive irony we have.
Criticizing administrators for abusing protection is one thing. Blaming the The Wrong Version for how people use it is a bridge too far. To paraphrase Voltaire: if The Wrong Version didn't exist, someone would have had to invent it. And to quote John Cleese: this offends exactly those people who should be offended. JRM · Talk 14:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the admins would develop a culture of privilege and perogative, without the article, but the article sanctions that culture which is the last thing that is needed. Cleese was wrong, it offends those people to whom it is unjustly applied. Using it is a personal attack, but even worse, it is a smokescreen that abusive admins hide behind. They know because of attitudes like that in the mocking page, their abuse is less likely to be investigated.--Silverback 22:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

With regards to personal attack: I do not think that means what you think it means. "JRM is a bloody idiot" is a personal attack. "JRM tends to make edits riddled with typos and factual inaccuracies" is not, provided it's true. "JRM is complaining because I protected the Wrong Version" is not, though it's subjective and might be wrong. There are a whole host of things that might be not nice, but they're not personal attacks. You probably want an appeal to civility instead. And even that does not work, because, well, the Wrong Version is real. There is no right version you can protect a page on, period. The whole idea of protection is that it's necessary when people cannot agree on the right version. Protection isn't permanent, so even if you wanted to accuse an administrator of being involved in an edit war and locking the page to a version they prefer, what of it? It can't stay that way forever. While protected, one version is as bad as any other, from an independent point of view. This is what the Wrong Version expresses, along with exactly the sort of whining, complaining and altogether completely unproductive attitude exhibited by people who insist the Right Version be instated immediately. No such creature.

Having this satire eliminated will not address any of your concerns. I don't think anything will. There is no right version to protect, there is no justice to be found in protection, administrators will ask other administrators to protect pages like any other user will have to do, and they will ask people who are more likely to be favorable to those requests like any other user would. None of these things are inherently bad as long as they're openly acknowledged. You seek a remedy for something that not only admits no cure, but is not necessarily a disease to begin with. You'll want to offer additional counterbalance to the forces that make it easier for administrators to "win" wars, even though they shouldn't be trying to, not outlaw practices that cannot be avoided in any case.

Singling out a document that seems to exemplify these values for deletion, when you acknowledge it's not the cause, is folly. If you cannot change the core behaviour, treating the symptoms won't help you either. What you may want is a change in the protection policy or perhaps a qualifying guideline; I refer you to Wikipedia:How to create policy. This may be a slow and uncomfortable process, but I can guarantee it's a lot more effective than trying to get a humorous description of all too common unproductive behaviour deleted.

The Wrong Version does describe an attitude. But it's not the attitude of administrators, it's rarely off the mark, and most importantly, it is neither policy nor directed at individuals. If in cases it's wrongly applied to explain your behaviour, explain why it's being wrongly applied and what parts of a complaint are legitimate. If you cannot, and simply find yourself disagreeing with the spirit, consider that that may have been exactly the intent. The basic advice is this: don't attempt to censor people's views of conflicts even if you find them rude; if you succeed you will simply breed more hostility in the background. Try instead to refute the assumptions underlying the views. Otherwise, the wrong version will remain the wrong version, even if we were somehow encouraged not to call it that anymore. JRM · Talk 23:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, a change in policy is probably more in order than deletion of this article, but I am addressing the attitude not just of the article, but of how the article is used in practice. However, it is uncivil to be dismissive and mocking of an individuals concerns, and it is a personal attack to slap the person with this article, essentially saying "you are just like all the others, who complain for no good reason". I'm not really attempting to censor those views represented by the article, and those who use it, but to expose those views to light. You may not have a personal attack in mind when you slap someone with that article, but if you've been on the internet for long, you know that this impersonal kind of communication can be much harsher than you intended when viewed in retrospect. If you find, the idea of deleting the article an offensive kind of sensorship, then just view this as a kind of protest, perhaps civil disobedience to expose the ideas in and behind the article and its use, to more critical scrutiny. Obviously, if the culture of the administration of page protection were more open, ethical and transparent, then the ideas presented in the article and behind its use would be more benign and less important. I definitely prefer the reforms to the deletion of the article, although a disavowal of the way the article is used, would be a step in the right direction.--Silverback 07:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think this Meta article is both harmless and hilarious. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I need to lighten up myself occasionally. Andrewa 21:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback, in regards to "the culture of the administration of page protection were more ope, ethical and transparent" I encourage you write up a well sourced essay(in your userspace) on the culture of page protection, laying out the culture as you understand it, and providing copious references to specific diffs (and the protection log) to justify your points. I'd read it, and I think quite a few other people would too. I look forward to it. Thanks to everyone involved for all your good work on the 'pedia. JesseW 08:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking guideline proposal

Some editors have put together a page, Wikipedia:Stalking which is being propsed as a guideline. Feedback from other users would be appreciated. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does deleting another editor's comment from this page count as the good or the bad kind of stalking, I wonder? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The other editor's comment was deleted to merge two simultaneous requests on the same article, Slim. There's no point in having two requests for the same thing. Please assume good faith as Wikipedia directs you to do. Rangerdude 23:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to delete your own comment if you feel two are too many, but please don't delete Will's again (now restored for the second time). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Merging redundant notices about the same article reduces repetitiveness and saves space, Slim. I posted the proposal tag to the article in question thus the accompanying notice here was mine to make. Will is free to comment and participate in that process, but retaining a wholly redundant and less detailed post by him on the same proposal (which was not his and which he does not support) is unnecessary, and your repeated attempts to reinsert it are quickly approaching the level of a WP:POINT disruption. Since you are adamant about wasting space and making your point to the detriment of serious policy and guideline discussions though, Slim, I'll separate his post back out from the notice I posted and restore it below. Rangerdude 01:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restored again. Leave other people's comments alone. What is wrong with you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, Slim. WP:POINT. Furthermore, please do not lecture me about removing other people's material for a merge of two redundant comments when you yourself have deleted material of my own responding to your comments above and reminding you of Wikipedia's stipulations against disrupting to prove a point. [2]. Also please note, Slim, that I consider your comment above, to wit "what is wrong with you?" to approach the level of a personal attack of the type defined by Wikipedia:No personal attacks as "Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks." Consider this a caution that personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia and a reminder that you yourself have been previously cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbcom "not to make personal attacks, even under severe provocation."[3] I trust that you will accordingly cease and desist your disruption of this effort to obtain good faith contributions and suggestions regarding a developing guideline article. Rangerdude 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion above concerns a notice on the stalking article that was posted by Willmcw simultaneous to the posting of another notice on the same subject by the proposal's author. Upon finding the redundant notices the two were merged and the more detailed version retained.[4] Notice of this merge was also posted at the time on the proposal's talk page.[5] Shortly thereafter User:SlimVirgin objected to the merging of the two notices for reasons unrelated to their content. Rangerdude 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger, no matter how much you think you're helping, you don't delete someone else's comments, and it is amusing how much text you've expended trying to defend what you did. Admit fault and get on with life. --Golbez 20:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, Rangerdude himself is now accused of wikistalking. User_talk:Rangerdude#Wikistalking How awkward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note to Slim - Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Both you and Willmcw would be well advised to familiarize yourselves with this, as the fraudulent allegation you are assisting in certainly qualifies. Rangerdude 08:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new user account keeps deleting the wikistalking allegation against Rangerdude from Rangerdude's talk page, so in case it gets lost, here is the diff. [6] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Er - the Village Pump is not so congested that a short duplicate notice is such a problem; the principle of Don't mess with other people's comments is a much stronger principle. Rangerdude(and anyone else who's done this) don't mess with other people's comments. If Will's notice was duplicative, then comment so underneeth it, and/or copy your explanation there. This ought to be obvious, eh? ;-) JesseW 08:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion within the article namespace

Is there a policy on using transclusion within the article namespace?

This question comes from the latest edits to sustainable energy, until recently a redirect to renewable energy.

My immediate reaction was that this use of transclusion should be banned from the article namespace, but I'm wondering, are there times when it would be useful?

So my questions:

1. Is there any relevant policy that I've missed?

2. Are there instances where similar transclusion is working well?

3. Are there potential ways in which transclusion could work well (assuming a "no" to question 2)?

4. What should the policy be (assuming a "no" to question 1)?

Any help with this particular article would also be appreciated, it's a bit of a mess at present IMO but it could be worse and I'm trying to avoid it becoming an edit war. Andrewa 21:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this sort of transclusion is strongly discouraged, but I could be wrong. Template transclusion is, of course, encouraged, however. Shimgray 21:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace after two cricket transcluded articles came up for deletion and survived. I think a policy needs formulating, but there doesn't seem to be consensus on it either way. Steve block talk 21:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's exactly the sort of previous discussion I was looking for. It seems to have fizzled out without any conclusion being reached, unfortunately. Maybe this will revive it a little. Andrewa 23:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of previous discussions on this topic was that transclusion in article space may be acceptable as a temporary solution for some limited set of circumstances where it is useful, but that it should not be used as a permanent solution to anything. As far as I know, so far there has only been talk and no one has really formulated any guidelines or policies on this issue. Dragons flight 21:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The general principle is that we are here to compile an encyclopaedia. Usually there is no need for transclusion of text to help us achieve this goal - but there is not and should not be an absolute ban. In the very rare instances where transclusion does help this goal, we use it, jguk 22:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But is that documented anywhere, or is it just assumed to be commonsense? Andrewa 23:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes. - ok Three

The cost of Transclusion could be lessened (it seems) if sections could be identified rather than the whole page.
The Benefit is quite high for Meta-articles, such as is "Sustainable energy" which is really a bried discussion of Wind power, Nuclear power, Wave power, etc ... Since those articles all exist, and each one is summarized in the opening section, the ideal form would be a holding page which lists these energy sources, and then leaves it up to the editor groups who are versed on the subtopics to KEEP THEM CURRENT. So I think the benefit has to do with the degree to which the information is changing, and in addition, it leverages contributions by allowing them to be repurposed in different contexts. I maintain that it degrades the quality of the encylopedia to have a substantive debate on a subject - which comes to a resolution, but the rejected facts are spread far and wide by virtue of having been copied at a previous time into other articles.
In short, Sectional transclusion adheres to the maxim of data normalization and consequently served to increase data integrity. Benjamin Gatti

Your suggestion is in contrast to Wikipedia's summary style. That holds that information about subjects within a larger topic should be summarized and related to the main topic. Full information should not be provided, but should be linked to. Transclusion goes against all of this.Superm401 | Talk 06:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The question is, does transclusion help make for a better article for the readers? If the answer is yes (and to be honest, it will only be very rarely that the answer is yes), then use transclusion. Almost always the answer is no, in which case it should not be used, jguk 07:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's my feeling too. Any comment on the current state of the sustainable energy article, which triggered this discussion? Andrewa 07:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the link, because that is a very, very bad usage of transclusion. Just link to the relevant articles, please. --Golbez 07:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please define transclusion? It isn't in any of my dictionaries, online or paper.

Please sign your posts, user 210.185.11.15, and have a look at transclusion and Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. In this context, we particularly mean the facility to include one wikipedia page within another by using curly brackets, see this old version for an example of what not to do. Andrewa 14:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, tranclusion is most often used to include templates, by using the syntax {{nosuchpage}}, which would include the "page" nosuchpage from the special namespace template. There is also a facility for passing parameters to the template, see m:Help:Template for this and lots more details. However it's also possible to transclude from other namespaces. In this case, a syntax such as {{:nosuchpage}} was used to transclude two whole articles from the main (or article) namespace into another article. This gives problems with headings, table of contents, performance, all sorts of things, and there's some debate as to whether it is ever useful, but no policy as yet. Andrewa 15:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been impossible to have such comprehensive encyclopaedic coverage of the 2005 English cricket season without using transclusion (ie transclusion actually allows WP to have articles that it would not otherwise have - because of the time it would take to write the pages if it were not used). Note that in order for it to be used effectively all the pages have to fit to a standard form so that the headings, table of contents, etc. look reasonable for all pages where transclusion is used - ie it is used with thought and care so that the problems are minimised. Apart from the instances of sports seasons covered in detail, I can't at the moment think of anywhere else where it would be appropriate - but I'm open to persuasion. As noted above, the question is - does transclusion make for better articles? In the very rare instances when it does, it should be used. In the case of the sustainable energy article, it made for a bad article, so it should not have been used there, jguk 16:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elections might be a similar case, but I don't believe any of our current elections articles use transclusion (as opposed to having a lot of transcluded templates, mind), so it's moot. Shimgray 16:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cricket articles are a completely different scenario to the sustainable energy case, which now seems to be sorted out, thanks to all who have contributed opinions, links to other discussions and edits both here and elsewhere.

We probably need some guidelines. For example, if a stub is transcluded, any stub template used would become a meta-template, which has performance impacts. So as well as the need for special care in the section and heading design, perhaps templates should be avoided in articles to be transcluded. Probably we need a standard notice to go on transcluded articles to say this (and the notice shouldn't be a transcluded template, we should use the subst syntax instead).

Are these good and workable guidelines? What else is needed? Andrewa 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be problematic having specific guidelines - the real one is to just use commonsense, although I admit some people do have difficulties applying it sometimes! :) Any guidelines are bound to contain bits that some will try to interpret too rigidly. Also, I don't see this as being a real problem - when articles use transclusion inappropriately, they tend to get reverted fairly quickly, jguk 17:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That really means that this discussion and those it links to will become a de facto guideline. There are three problems with this. One is that it's simply more difficult to find than if it were gathered and summarised in one place, and given the appropriate categories and wikilinks. Another is that not everyone is convinced that the decision here was correct, see Talk:Sustainable energy. Lastly, some of the issues are quite subtle. I don't know, for example, whether performance is significantly impacted by transcluding tagged stubs. Andrewa 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion might be useful and justified for verb conjugations as well: I am currently battling with the formatting on French and Catalan conjugations. Interwiki links should be absent from pages to be transcluded, otherwise the target article will have multiple links. Physchim62 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When this discussion dies down, and get's archived, would someone(maybe the archiver...) mind copying or linking it to [Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits]]. That way, when this comes up again, we will have a nice list of previous discussion. Thanks! JesseW 08:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vice chancellor of austria

Type vice chancellor of austria in the search box and hit <Enter> or click GO or click Search. Hitting <Enter> is the same as clicking Search and gives a list of possible hits. Clicking Go invites you to write a new article and DOES NOT GO TO the existing article Vice Chancellor of Austria. * very puzzled expression * -- Sitearm | Talk 19:23, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Well OK. More gory details. "Vice Chancellor of Austria" is considered by the software to be a mixed case title ("Vice Chancellor Of Austria" or "Vice chancellor of austria" would not be). This makes the GO search for it case-sensitive. When a GO search fails to find an article, it proceeds to do a SEARCH. I see there are some existing redirects, but none from either "Vice chancellor of austria" or "Vice Chancellor Of Austria". If either of these existed, the GO search would be case insensitive (although a case sensitive match has priority). Unless the redirects are for the benefit of links, there's no point in adding multiple redirects (one redirect, with a non-mixed case version of the title, suffices for GO searches in any capitalization variation). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ok so what one redirect, added, would resolve this example? * was with you until last sentence * -- Sitearm | Talk 20:34, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Sorry. Either Vice chancellor of austria or Vice Chancellor Of Austria. The existing redirects were

Vice chancellor of Austria (which nothing links to)
Vice-Chancellor of Austria (which something links to)
Vice-chancellor of Austria (with no links)
Vice Chancellors of Austria (with several links)

I'd suggest Vice chancellor of Austria should be Vice chancellor of austria, and Vice-chancellor of Austria should be Vice-chancellor of austria. I've added Vice chancellor of austria, which I believe makes Vice chancellor of Austria pointless. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Out of all this I conclude the generic solution to make sure a true article mixed case title can be found by Go is, add one redirect page with first word cap and all other words lower case. Barring hyphens this fixes all possible Go searches. Do I pass? * is anxious * :) -- Sitearm | Talk 20:59, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Pass, of course (I didn't realize I was giving a test - I would have made it harder). It's perhaps worth noting that adding the redirect is only necessary if the title is not all initial caps (or all lower case except for the first word). It may also be worth noting that the software implementation is subject to change and I base all of the above on observation of exhibited behavior (not examination of source code). Yet another hedge - the English wikipedia now supports UTF-8 (Unicode). I'm not positive how UTF-8 characters in titles affects all of the above, but I strongly suspect accented characters are NOT treated as case variants of their unaccented forms. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a request to include correct redirect usage for mixed-case titles on the Redirect help page here. Thanks for your help! I've learned something new yet again today. :) -- Sitearm | Talk 21:34, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Rick Block has added an entry on using redirects to accomodate mixed-case article titles to the Redirect info page. I know there are still search issues but this helps further resolve them. Thanks Rick! -- Sitearm | Talk 23:25, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

If you want to be sure you're not doing duplicate work, you can also do a case-insensitive search within the wikipedia domain using Google. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Linking to Blogs

Are blogs per se not to be linked to?
Are blogs to be linked to provided the blog is not an advocacy blog?
Are blogs to be linked to as a matter of discretion using criteria such as relevance, quality, etc. apart from advocacy?

Would the same criteria proposed for blogs be applied similiar sources such as opinion columns in printed publications or non-blog online-only sites in deciding to include or exclude links? Are blogs tainted in a way that a corporate online site isn't? patsw 23:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about initiating a discussion on this subject myself. I think the policies on blogs are hopelessly outdated (which is to say, too open to abuse). There are so many blogs out there now, you can find someone saying just about anything; does that mean it's proper to include as a critical source in an article? It's very hard to argue against a blog link that is "sourced" (i.e., you can link to it off the page), just by saying "Wikipedia discourages blogs as sources." · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Blogs are just a slightly different mode of publishing. We don't judge sites based on whether they use PHP or ASP. Why should we judge them based on whether they use blog software or format? To answer your first question, there is no policy or guideline, nor should there be, that blogs may not be linked to. As for the second, Wikipedia understands that other pages and sites do not share our NPOV sentiment. We accept linking to biased pages as long as the link clearly indicates it. As for your third and best question, absolutely yes. For factual issues, link to any page that is trustworthy and useful. To document existing opinion, link to the opinions of those you are describing. Only describe opinions that are noteworthy, just as other topics are only described if noteworthy. Superm401 | Talk 00:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The barrier to publication for other media (print, I mean) is such that noteworthiness is inherent. Blogs are much different because anybody can have one, and describing them as "just a slightly different mode of publishing" is quite the understatement. Should a blog run by one minor Republican or Democratic operative be considered noteworthy enough to use to criticize someone or thing inside a Wikipedia article? Is it noteworthy? Trustworthy? What's the determinant? · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please read previous comments thoroughly before posting. We are not discussing the differences between print media and blogs. We are discussing whether it is less appropriate to link to blogs than to other web sites. Even saying blogs are slightly different from ordinary web sites is probably exaggerating. If you had been paying attention, you would have clearly understood that was the comparison. Unfortunately, you have failed completely at explaining differences between blogs and ordinary web sites. As for your comments about the difficulties of determining trustworthiness and noteworthiness, they are valid. However, they apply equally to ordinary web sites and every other media on earth. Rather than making foolish and pointless rules against using blogs, the only solution is to use our judgement.Superm401 | Talk 05:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would never presume to comment without reading the matter at hand thoroughly. Perhaps you would like to re-read Wikipedia:Civility. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, it seems to me that blogs should generally not be linked, not unless they're big official blogs for the subject at hand (e.g. the official blog of a writer could be linked to from the Wikipedia article on that writer, or a blog at the center of a debate mentioned in the article.) Unless a blog is absolutely central to an opinion, point of view, or criticism touched upon in the article, I don't think that linking to it to illustrate that opinion is a good idea. We wouldn't link to a random geocities-type page to illustrate an opinion if any better options were available; a standard blogspot blog is not an any better source. Aquillion 04:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for linking to blogs should be the same as for any other web site. Why is a random company's home page better than a blog? Case by case judgement is required. Superm401 | Talk 05:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Several reasons. First, a link to a random company's home page would be a pretty silly source; it would usually have to be a company central to the article, just like with a blog. Second, in the rare cases where someone might use a company homepage for information for some other reason, it still takes a lot more to open and run a company than it does to open a blog. The millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people involved in the daily operation of, say, Sprint make them (and thus their official website) inherently more interesting, reliable, and representitive as a source than a free prefab blog that is essentially the creation of (and represents the opinion of) just a single person. Likewise, an article published in a peer-reviewed journal gains at least some prestige and significence from the history and professionals involved in the journal itself, and gains some additional significence from the fact that it is likely to be read by numerous other professionals in the field; a random individual with no professional credentials who is "publishing" through a free blog service that automatically approves anyone who signs up generally lacks all of that. Aquillion 05:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it takes more work to open and run a company. All that is required to create a company is file for a business license in most states. Nothing must be done to run it. It takes even less work to create a web site that is indistinguishable from a successful company's. Sprint is a successful company, and I would trust their web site for certain types of information. I would also trust a blog that I could verify was written by a high-level Sprint employee. If Sprint had a blog, I would trust that too, because I don't make decisions based on form of publication. I also disagree that blogs are "essentially[...] just a single person." You are obviously unaware of the growing phenomena of corporate, non-profit, scientific, and political blogs that are run by multiple people. That shows there is nothing distinct about blogs as a media. An article in a peer-reviewed journal is vouched for by the journal. However, history has shown that the error-checking is superficial at best. Hence, it is still a much better idea to judge the articles on the author. Admittedly, there may be some indication that the article is useful simply by being where it is, but that is rare on any part of the web, so I don't see it as relevant in the distinction between blogs and other sites. Superm401 | Talk 15:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, a company that has no assets to its name but a business license is not generally a good source for a Wikipedia article; obviously a fake web page for a non-existant company is even worse. This does not change the fact that an established company starts with a far higher level of credibility, noteworthiness, and significance than even a well-established blog; for a company website, it takes five minutes to verify that the company exists, is non-trivial, and that the site in question is their offical one, whereas it's often impossible to verify anything about the background of a blogspot-type blog unless it falls into a handful of 'offical' blog categories. I agreed above that that those 'offical' corporate (and likewise, I suppose, professional, celebrity, etc) blogs whose author/maintainer is central to the subject might be worth including; but your implication that there is any blog, anywhere, that could ever approach the weight of an established and credible peer-reviewed journal is absurd. The question of whether or not error-checking for peer-reviewed journals is sufficient is beside the point; what matters is that the fact of publication in a peer-reviewed journal itself carries a weight that will never exist when just posting to a privately-owned website, no matter how credible the poster may be. Doctor Noteworthy von TrustedSource may be an authority on his subject wherever he goes; but his is always going to be more careful about his statements when submitting an article to a peer-reviewed journal than when posting it to his blog. Likewise, most opinion-type blogs, even if run by a small group of people, still only represent the opinion of that small group of people; providing a general link to a blog whose premise is "Freely McWheely is an honest/dishonest politician" serves no purpose but to illustrate that there exist a few people who like/dislike Freely McWheely, which isn't an especially significant point. If it could somehow be illustrated that the blog in question is actually representative of a relatively widespread or otherwise important opinion on the subject, it might be different; but there aren't many blogs where that can be easily shown. Aquillion 17:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said blogs are as trustworthy as any print media. I still think they are as trustworthy as other sites. Superm401 | Talk 17:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

One of the places this comes up is with respect to the climate "blogs" (e.g. RealClimate [7], ClimateAudit [8], etc.). These are blogs run by professional scientists whose aim is to comment on climate change. I would generally consider this kind of blogging to noteworthy and reliable enough to justify linking to as a source based on the premise that the opinions of established scientists are generally reliable, noteworthy, etc. So, I guess my perspective on blogging is one of consider the source. If the individual writing the blog is doing so under their own name and has a record of non-blog significance in the area on whihc they are commenting then their commentary may be appropriate as a link in Wikipedia assuming it satisfies all the other criteria for being useful and appropriate. (Not every page dealing with climate change needs to be peppered with climate blog links, however). I would not however link to my little sister's rants about men or to any random anonymous person's blog. Dragons flight 04:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why we can't judge on the publishing media. These blogs are far more useful than ones that could be found on a normal personal home page. They clearly pass the criteria of trustworthiness and are valuable. Superm401 | Talk 05:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

In the case of these climate blogs, they do seem wothwhile. I agree that we can't whole sale say "don't link to blogs," because cases can be made for their usefulness. I think the main problem comes in partisan blogs. Anybody with an axe to grind can register a domain and start up an attack page. Should those be considered valid sources? I think our policies need to be tightened when it comes to these types of blogs. As for saying we should judge case by case, you're probably right. But we need some stricter standards by which to help people judge. Because anybody who would be inserting a partisan attack blog to justify some criticism they wanted inserted in, say, a politician's article, would argue that it was inherently worthwhile and pertinent. How do you prove that it isn't? There are no teeth to the policies currently that help defeat bad actors. We should have some kind of guidelines that point the way. Maybe something like what Dragons flight mentioned above -- that the person running the blog must in some way be the sort of person, say, the mainstream media might quote themselves. Or, that the blog would not be appropriate for using as criticism unless it HAD been quoted by the mainstream media. Something like that. Otherwise this is ripe for abuse -- witness Houston Chronicle and Texas Media Watch, which is a blog that bills itself as an "independent watchdog" group but in actuality is run by one former Republican spokeswoman who only critiques liberal ideas. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Linking to moderated discussions forums/chatrooms

Some editors are profusely linking to moderated discussion forums/chatrooms, or resort to copying conversations from these discussion forums into websites, and then use these webpages as "references" to backup a certain POV. Can we expand Wikipedia:Cite your sources and/or Wikipedia:Reliable sources to give some guidelines to combat this? Many of the issues discussed above for Blogs are also relevant to this. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Can you link to some of the articles in question? I'd like to see the context in which they're doing this. Linking to a random post on a discussion forum to try to prove anything seems like such an absolutely and obviously bad idea to me that I just have to see it for myself. Aquillion 04:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Personal_lifestyle_and_choices. There are libelous allegations made against Prem Rawat, sourced from copies of "testimonies" made in chatrooms/forums. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say allegations had been made on forums, but note that they were not verified for source or accuracy. Superm401 | Talk 17:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

See the above conversation. There is no point in mentioning an opinion unless it is somehow notable. The average forum contributor is far from it. Superm401 | Talk 05:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Another reason not to link to a forum is that you should only provide links that are going to last. Since forums almost always discard old posts, any link to a particular post on a forum will go dead in a short time. Most of us are here to share their professional knowledge and their hobbies. The few who think this is a place for political propaganda are, I think, providing many of these objectionable links. - Rick Norwood

The problem is that, given the easy manner in which anyone can put up a web page, some people with a political agenda, "republish" these Forum posts under the "In an interview with xxxx, XXX claims that abc and def", when actually these were not an interview but just an hardly verifiable post made on a moderated forum. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I find Jossi's wording of the controversy here disingenious because the stated reason in the Wikipedia policy for not allowing chat forums as a source for Wikpedia is because the problem that the identity of the poster cannot be verified. However on talk:Prem Rawat, Jossi implicitly admits that the poster whom he personally knows has the same identity as the poster claims. Besides, the identity of the poster has been checked by the people who run the website.Andries 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content guidelines

Recently someone added a few lines to Tonya Harding regarding her performance in a porn video ("On the tape Harding shows her breasts, buttocks and pubic area. She is shown performing oral sex on her husband and then having sex with him."). My instinct tells me that this information isn't necessary and shouldn't be there. Is there any Wiki policy regarding this kind of thing? Thanks. Fang Aili 19:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. There's absolutely no reason to include that information -- it adds nothing to the article. --Carnildo 20:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my instinct. Fang Aili 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to the more complete and factual text. DES ^(talk) 04:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the sex video paragraph to include the two relevant facts added by the disputed text (full nudity, and oral sex), but, as I agree that the specific text was not in encyclopedic style, I have left Carnildo's 2nd reversion alone. JesseW 09:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The merciless editability of signed comments on talk pages

Last night I inserted an gratuitous dig at one singer within the talk page of the article about another, irrelevant singer. While this may be judged odd behavior, rude, etc., it was limited to just two words and I think was well within the bounds of Wikiquette. To my irritation, an IP a few minutes ago removed those two words. I of course reverted. Well, it's not that big a deal; it's not as if he or she had changed "worst" to "best" or similar, and even I can't get all that excited about it. (I hope I've struck the right tone in my complaint, but since this is an AOL IP, even that's probably a waste of my time.)

So now to my main point. Editing not only an article but also a talk page brings up this message: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it (in bold, to boot). WP thus forewarned me that my signed comment could be edited mercilessly, etc.

I suggest that this warning is inappropriate here; it either should be reworded to distinguish between articles and talk pages, or should not appear when editing a talk page. -- Hoary 04:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that was defendable as RPA, though I'm not really sure it was necessary or advisable there. Your signed comments can be mercilessly edited though, and there's nothing wrong with the odd refactor, in fact a lot of discussions on wikipedia don't get enough refactoring (it's hard and thankless work, but as wikipedia grows it's going to become more and more important). Of course wikiquette (and possibly libel law) prevent any serious misrepresentation, but in a lot of cases I'm all for editing (with liberal use of []'s). --fvw * 04:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think editing another user's signed comments ought to be considered equilivent to making a personal attack, if not worse. Technically it may be possible. IMO it is never acceptable. DES ^(talk) 04:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not true. I've just checked, and, to my mild surprise, find that there is no User:Dick Tracy; I thus feel free to use this fictitious user for potentially offensive examples. (My apology in advance to anyone who chooses this name in the future.) Now, if in the middle of some argument I come across the comment "[[User:Dick Tracy|Dickless Tracy]] is just being an asshole as usual", I'd remove it (clearly saying as much in the edit summary) or perhaps cross it out (<s>...</s>). Also, I'd feel free to cut moderately polite but long, irrelevant and unhelpful diatribes about how Dick has done this or that to other articles. My own comments have at times been admirably edited by others. However, this usually involves the clearly labeled cutting of clauses (and more), not the removal of adjectival phrases, etc. -- Hoary 05:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fvw, as you say, "(with liberal use of []'s)". Thus one might edit the comment:

In his latest "improvement", [[User:Dick Tracy|Dickless Tracy]] seems to be adding flamebait. But let's pay this fool the undeserved honor of serious consideration. Saying that the Beatles were "washed up" a full year before they disbanded isn't encyclopedic. What does it mean? "Had become unfashionable"? "Had run out of new ideas"? "Had been overtaken by other bands"? [[User:Flashy Gordon|Flashy Gordon]] 07:42, August 236, 2005 (UTC)

to perhaps

In his latest "improvement", [[[User:Dick Tracy|Dick Tracy]]] seems to be adding flamebait.... Saying that the Beatles were "washed up" a full year before they disbanded isn't encyclopedic. What does it mean? "Had become unfashionable"? "Had run out of new ideas"? "Had been overtaken by other bands"? [[User:Flashy Gordon|Flashy Gordon]] 07:42, August 236, 2005 (UTC) .... personal attack removed by [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 08:12, August 236, 2005 (UTC)

and of course we could quibble over the details of that. I think you and I agree, though, that editing an unpleasant comment is not a routine action, and that when one does it one announces this. But this isn't what's primarily suggested in the note that others will edit "mercilessly". -- Hoary 04:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, <s> is deprecated, please use <del> — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 18:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Editing other users' comments is generally frowned on, although in some cases it helps preserve a civil discussion (see Wikipedia:Civility). Whether this case warrants it is perhaps debatable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's generally frowned on (though as fvw points out above, it can be very beneficial). But as things stand, a very conspicuous warning (one that you saw when you wrote the comment above) implies that it's routine. Something here strikes me as odd. -- Hoary 04:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be permissible for anyone but an administrator to moderate somones comment. Even then, the only option should be to warn/delete or ban/delete the user/comment. By signing the article it is telling others that it was your words. While you no longer own those words, you shouldn't be mis-quoted. That should be considered vandalism in my opinion. It seems outragious to think that somone can come along and change what we might have said or make slander against somone else and because our signature is next to it... we must have said it, but we did not. This could lend itself to legal problems and more. Sure if it came down to the wire you can look at the history and revert. But why waste the storage space, bandwidth, and time BlackWolf 04:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that it is a judgement call, but it is very rarely necessary to alter another editor's signed comments. The most important point is, if you edit someone else's comment, make it clear what was changed and by whom. Changing a signed comment without noting that this was done is akin to rewriting a quotation—good intentions or not, it's highly misleading. It attributes words to an author that the author did not write. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It thus seems to me that one improvement would be for the warning "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" not to appear when editing a talk page -- or project page? or anything other than an article? -- as this might encourage "merciless" rewriting. (Those having good reason to rewrite would still be able to do so.) Comments? -- Hoary 08:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Editing another person's signed comments gives the impression that the person wrote something other than what they did. This is forgery; it is falsification of the record of discussion; and it is not an okay thing to do. If a person makes a talk-page comment that is nothing but vandalism or a pure personal attack, go ahead and delete the whole comment -- but never allow someone else's signature to stand on words that they did not themselves write. --FOo 04:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the original poster didn't get his question answered, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is a guideline, not a policy, and it is disputed, meaning not everyone agrees with it and some disagree with it strongly. Which is another way of saying you never know who you'll run into. I do it on rare occaision myself, and generally I replace the attack with the word "interesting" in parenthesis. If someone posts "You're a moronic editor, with stupid ideas", it becomes "you're an (interesting) editor with (interesting) ideas". I then put something in the edit summary saying something like "certainly some (interesting) comments" because if you say they're personal attacks then the person might get angry at the acusation and feel teh need to get defensive. I do it on rare occaision and so far it's worked. Your milage may vary. FuelWagon 08:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements and Goings-on

I would like to ask questions about two pages on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on. First what is the Annoucements page for? There's no description at all about the aim of this page and what it should be annouced. It's maybe known that significant milestones are put into this page, but what about announcing new projects? There's no consensus and you have a 50% chance that it will be deleted by an editor (I tried many times) whereas less important annoucements are sometimes kept (like the fact the the WP:RFC is split into sections). And what about the Wikipedia:Goings-on page? It states that it should keep annoucements about news in the Wikipedia community. But it doesn't do this at all. It includes only current collaborations and new featured content.
My point is: The goals of these two pages should be stated clearly by consensus and "activated". I like what the French Wikipedia has done: the Announcement page keeps only important milestones, alexa rankings and server news, while the goings-on page is onpened publicly for any user to state new projects, policies, portals, admins, important issues, even new significant categories and templates. CG 08:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Feel free to add descriptions to the pages (or to the {{welcome}}). Radiant_>|< 13:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- There is also a fair bit of overlap with Wikipedia:Village pump (news), which gets far fewer postings than the other pump pages. - SimonP 15:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Based on the suggestions from the French Wikipedia, current convention, and my own unique ideas, etc. I propose the following goals for the three pages:

Wikipedia:Announcements: Important project stats milestones(i.e. some many articles, so many featured articles, alexa ratings, etc...) and server news.
Wikipedia:Goings-on: News of updates to any existing local project(i.e. new Collaboration articles, WikiProject guidelines feedback requests, changes to existing policies, etc.)
Wikipedia:Village pump (news): Mainly ways in which Wikipedia is affected by the outside world, but can also include notifications of new projects; generally having loose requirements(i.e. nothing should be removed other than through normal archiving)

What do people think of these proposed goals? Wording changes, basic philosphical disagreements? Once a number of people have chimed in, and assumeing they gain consensus, we could migrate them onto the headers of the respective pages, and {{welcome}}. Well, folks? JesseW 09:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Although I would like to make the Goings-on page more open to the community, where everyone could add new projects, portals, collaborations, significant templates or categories, policies, guidelines, proposals, surveys and their results, with all related important changes. Unlike the Announcement page, any of the entries should be deleted unless they really don't fit (like new articles). And about the village pump (news), there is no rule, but it should be a way to get commments about new notifications, which the other two pages don't allow. CG 18:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I like Goings-on, and I would like it to have more life. It could be the place for any kind of news and progress/success of projects inside Wikipedia. Or simply a place to note unusual things that happen. — Sverdrup 15:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulties putting this into words, but here is how I think of it:

Announcements should be about project matters: the project announces things relevant to the project. Example: Milestones, major new policies that are beginning to be enforced. By Wikipedia for Wikipedia.
Goings-on: Things that are made by Wikipedians (not wikipedia community together, do you get the distinction). Things that could interest editors, new projects of all kinds and proposals. By Wikipedians for Wikipedians.
Village pump (news): When you need discussion and large influx of interested people, when you post news about established wikipedia institutions and policies. Discussion.

— Sverdrup 14:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That makes sense to me. It seems like the idea of limiting Goings-on to updates rather than including new projects isn't going to fly. But suggeting that people not post items that don't need discussion to VP (news) seems like a very good and interesting idea. Hm. I think I'm going to be bold and do this, linking this discussion in the edit summaries. It seems like the best way to generate more interest and clearer consensus. JesseW 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of WWII photos

I have an questionabout image copyright. I apologive if this isn't the best place to post this. My Grandfather, who died a few months ago, was a member of the Army Air Corp and took part in the Battle of the Aleutian Islands. His effects included a few photographs he took during that time, which I think could be useful to that, and related, articles. My question is: Who owns the copyright? He is survived by one son (my father), four grandchildren (myself and my siblings) and assorted great-grandchildren (all minors, my kids and my siblings' kids). His will divided his estate (small amount of cash left) equally between his son and three of the four grandchildren. (The black sheep is my younger brother.) The will does not mention the photos. My older brother has the the photos. Who owns the copyrights? Is it shared between all of his descendants, the four benficiaries of his will, or the brother who actually has the pictures? Or, are they public domain since he was active duty military at the time? Would they be PD even if they were taken with his personal camera while "off duty".? He was not an Army photographer. Dsmdgold 20:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Unless he registered a copyright with the Library of Congress (unlikely), they were never copyrighted in the first place, and are in the public domain. It's only recently that everything is copyrighted on creation. --Carnildo 21:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this only applies to US photos, i.e. photos taken by US citizens or residents. WWII photos by citizens or residents of other countries may be copyright. Physchim62 23:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Recently" meaning 1978. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymity, Profiles, and Privileges

Recently I read of a German interview with one of Wikipedia's creators or some managerial position about the possibility of making some apparently well established articles fixed, that is, not be open for addition, deletion, or any other editing. There are two major problems that may at least somewhat be lessened by simply making users create a profile like the talk pages require. Is there a reason the less important talk pages require that users sign in while article pages, that take hours to work on, and hours to keep up in reverting pranks and other bad uses, allow anyone with an IP address to edit pages? I understand that even a profile is not much deterrent but even that process could be made more demanding. Imagine something like Paypal, but without the sensitive information of SSNs, credit, etc., but does identify users beyond easily displaced IP and email addresses. No way to simply create an extra user on a computer with a different IP address, but a profile that is universally accepted and demands personal responsibility where ever it is used. So, the problem of adding to pages that one could contribute to may remain open, and irresponsible users cannot enjoy this freedom without risking their privilege. BeyondBeyond

See Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users. JesseW 09:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too much redirection?

66.167.137.182 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC): I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over two years now, and I have recently becoming a bit frustrated with what I would consider the abuse of Wikipedia:Redirect. The specific issue I have is the redirection of specific and wikipedia-precise terms into large articles of a broader nature which include a sentence or two about the specific term. For example, until I introduced a starting point for an article on agricultural subsidy, that phrase and several others like it were redirected to agricultural policy. Likewise for feature film, which until I introduced a new specific article was redirected to the massive article on film.[reply]

I suspect that some contributors use redirects to reduce or even eliminate references to as-yet-unwritten articles. Others may do it because they are glad to see at least some mention of a term, yet don't consider it from the readers perspective who didn't follow a link to get a treatise that is too broad or complete for the purpose.

Wikipedia of course needs the big overview articles, but I would hope that the practice of redirecting specific terms to big-picture general ones should be discouraged. There are all sorts of option. Even though I contribute anonymously, I'd be fine about having redirects be for logged-in users only. Heck, for the logged-in I'd even add a check box that must be checked in order to check in a REDIRECT. That would at least reinforce the notion that redirects should be used in specific ways. Or maybe a report should be available on old redirects?

Or am I in a minority about this issue? Policies such as the principle of least astonishment give me hope that I am not, as do comments seen in this vote for redirect templates deletion.

If I remember some ancient discussions on this topic, one feeling was that it was better to direct people to *some* information than to leave them with a red link with nowhere to go. Personally I think that that hides the need for unwritten articles. Let's say that 50 articles had links to "feature film"--but with the redirect you mentioned, no one would ever know that that article was missing and needed to be addressed. But sometimes it's a judgement call: Person A might truly believe that there's nothing one could say about feature films outside of a one-line definition and therefore create the redirect, while Person B might come along, having done their thesis on feature films, and throw up his or her hands in horror. I just unredirect things when I find stuff that I believe needs its own article.

Along the same lines, I'm not keen on piping links to avoid redirects when it's not a clear and simple alternate spelling or synonym, because then you can NEVER discover that there are 50 links to feature film (that have all been individually piped to film). Elf | Talk 02:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One technique with "red links" that can be used sometimes is to follow them with parenthetical references to the broader topic, e.g. (made up) "The decline of the Roman Empire was accelerated by provincial abuses in their agricultural subsidy policies (see agricultural policy for the broader context)"...I agree with you 100% about the problem of hiding unwritten articles; limiting their use to just alternate spellings and synonyms would be a significant improvement over the abuse seen now 66.167.137.182 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I know it's frustrating to have your stubs merged into other articles, but I am convinced, as I think are most Wikipedians, that it's more helpful to the reader to have the stub develop in the context of a larger subject, until there's enough information to become a separate article. While there is undoubtedly enough information on agricultural subsidies to merit a separate article, as long as it's in the beginning stages it's more useful to readers to have it be part of a larger article on agriculatural policy. It's not any harder for you to develop that topic in that contect; and in addition, as you develop the topic, you'll have the assistance of the other editors of the agricultural policy article. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two cases I mentioned (feature film and agricultural subsidy) were not stubs merged into a broader article, but redirects (in one case, a two-year-old redirect) never before fleshed out on their own. But more to your point: I'd like to challenge your assertion that a stub for a specific topic is better developed first in an article on a broader related topic. It is quite simple to have the stub incorporate a link to the broader article, so that instead of a redirect that is out of the reader's control, they see something, however stubby, on the specific topic, with a link to the broader topic a click away. And I've had pretty good luck soliciting other editors to contribute by noting the new stub on the talk page of the broader article (as I did here) 66.167.137.182 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

When you see one of these sub-topic redirects, if you don't want, or don't know enough, to write a full article on it, at min, you can add {{R with possibilities}}, which will put it in a specific category, Category:Redirects with possibilities from which it can be found by people who want to expand such things. Plus, sub-topic redirects can be found via Whatlinkshere on the page they redirect to. JesseW 09:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indie band article deletions

Recently, I posted a few articles about some indie bands -- Strange Presence and Freebooter -- of whom few know little. A few days after posting, I saw that my submissions had been flagged for deletion. Someone had decided that the entries were band vanity, even though I am a longtime entertainment journalist who wanted to simply offer information about people not widely know. According to Wikipedia, it seems that, unless a subject can be found elsewhere on the Net, it appears suspect, and should be discarded. I feel a bit frustrated for my wasted efforts, but I feel bad for Wikipedia. Indie bands can and do accomplish great things. They can influence people who do go on to celebrity, and they do make up the fabric of what was. They're fact. They existed. They inhabited physical space, and I wanted to believe that Wikipedia could be a starting point to offer and preserve fragile information, but it appears that I am wrong in this belief. I won't contribute again to Wikipedia, because I don't wish to feel as if I'm wasting my time and the time of others, but I do feel for the many artists out there who will pass into oblivion. I tried to help, but, well, you can see the result.

Unfortunantely, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't the place for non-notable things (that's what nn means). I'm sorry you misunderstood the mission of Wikipedia. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 18:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia:No original research means that we do not accept material that contains new ideas. It seems unlikely to me that any report of any band will fall under NOR; almost any band will have been mentioned in its local press at some point. By all means delete band articles for their lack of notability, but to dismiss this person's reportage as OR seems to perpetuate the widespread misunderstanding that NOR applies to anything that cannot be checked on the web (and I am not saying that this is what Ambush Commander intended or believes). —Theo (Talk) 19:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you reconsider contributing to Wikipedia. Have a look at the guidelines we've set up at WP:MUSIC, that will give you a good idea of what articles we will keep and what articles we'll delete. While we want articles on obscure bands, we also don't want articles on every kid's high school band, so we have to take steps to prevent the latter. Gamaliel 19:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles were about people not widely known then they were at least arguabley non-notable. If there was some reason why they were notable nonetheless, it would be wise to mention it in the articled. See WP:MUSIC for criteria on inclusion of bands and band members followed by many, although not official policy. I agree withGamaliel, I hope you reconsider. DES ^(talk) 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry we had to remove your work. I understand it is frustrating to earnestly contribute only to be rebuffed. However, I will try to explain our reasoning. Wikipedia functions based on the open review or maintenance. Hopefully most articles can be verified through online sources. If there are no alternative sources readily accessible, then other editors are unable to challenge the text. Wikipedia can not work if there is only one participant behind an article. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little questionable to say that only things that can be verified through online sources can be kept... There are many things that reside in paper books that should be kept, despite not having a strong presence on Google. I am a little distressed at the practice of trying to delete anything that doesn't come up immediately on a google search. Trollderella 19:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe citing a book reference is supposed to be just as valid as citing a net reference. I certainly hope so Sam Vimes 19:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that there is something printed about some indie band that would make it notable, that has not made it into a fanboy blog or an article in a newspaper archived by Google news? Zoe 20:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was simply stating that I hope that printed references are given as much credence as google searches. You keep mentioning 'notability', but I honestly cannot find it in any of the policy pages related to deletion. In voting on vfd, I am careful to weigh the article against the criteria in the guidelines, and am confused that you keep mentioning this one. Trollderella 21:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noteability is a speedy criterion, and by that is a de facto criterion for all deletions. It's also the logical outflow of WP not being a general list of info / yellow pages / web directory / what have you. As for book references -- those are absolutely legitimate sources! They're probably better than a web source in most cases. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:15:06, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Errata: you can find both non-encyclopedic and non-notable in WP:GVFD. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:19:55, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Hi there Lomn! A couple of things: 1. I thought that the criteria for speedy deletion and vfd were separate. 2. In voting on vfd, I have tried to follow the actual criteria, rather than making up my own, or relying on what I am interested in, so I am naturally a little skeptical of 'de facto' criteria. However, people seem to be able to vote how they like, regardless of the criteria, so I guess that' ok. 3. Re what wp is not, that seems to leave a large grey area for articles like this, which is, I suppose, why people vote on them. 4. Book refs, agree 100%. 5. All references to 'notability' 'importance' etc seem to be heavily caveated, or not actually policy. I cannot concieve of how they could be applied in any way that would not simply mean 'I am not interested in this'. Trollderella 21:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response... yes, those criteria are separate. In particular, the CSD criteria are very clear-cut, and the VFD criteria are rather subjective (which is why we vote on them). "Not notable" is subjective, but it has its merits (for instance see WP:VAIN); it basically asks the question if there's anything to say about the subject that could be interesting to people unfamiliar with it (it is sometimes misinterpreted by people who claim that things they aren't interested in are not notable). In other words, if <name> is a <profession>, is there something to be said about <name> that isn't automatically true for all people of <profession> in general?
For instance. "My neighbor is named Jake, he works at a bakery, and he has a bright red car and a dog named Blooze." This hyptothetical article is entirely uninteresting except to Jake and his friends. So it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We could add some facts about how he makes bread, but whatever is said there would be true about any baker. Now if Jake had done something special, such as participate in the olympic games, or had a book published, or holds the Guinness Record for biggest bread made, then we would have something to say about him.
In other words - obviously Bill Gates is notable. Obviously nobody in their right mind would consider an article about my goldfish to be encyclopedic. But there's a huge gray area in between that people are debating in. We have some guidelines - for instance, for a band it is generally assumed that unless they actually released an album, they aren't notable (see WP:MUSIC for details). Similarly, if a writer hasn't actually had a book published yet, he can't be much of a writer in most cases. The biggest list would be at WP:VFDP.
HTH. R adiant _>|< 10:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Radiant, thanks for your response - I can totally understand your reasoning. In voting on vfd, I have been careful to try to weigh each article against the deletion policy and vote accordingly. I think, from your response, that you feel that I am arguing that an article about my goldfish, my neighbour etc should be kept. I do not think that they should be, but not for the reason that you mention - it is not that that article is not interesting, who can say what is interesting to others? Rather, articles of that type are impossible to verifiy and write factually with references, it would be original research, so not appropriate. These extremely personal articals don't belong here because no-one else has documented them, so we cannot reference them in any reasonable way. Trollderella 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really meant to imply that you wanted to keep the proverbial goldfish :) Verifiability is a good start, but it's sometimes not enough. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite for an example. And also WP:VAIN, of course. But that is my opinion, and feel free to differ. The whole point of VFD is that we do not have a clear policy about it; if we did, it wouldn't be so controversial. And of course, sometimes the solution is simply to merge - e.g. the father of a celebrity is generally both verifiable and not notable. So a solution may be to merge his article onto the celeb's. R adiant _>|< 23:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the original question, good faith listings of totally unknown indie bands are unfortunately inseparable from band vanity pages, since presumably the only reason to write about an indie group that is happily flailing around in oblivion is because you (the author) like them, which presumably supports boosterism. The assertion (being bandied about here above) that notability is not grounds for deletion is simply a quixotic personal position and a largely untenable position wrt consensus community opinion (which clearly is to maintain a notability standard). Thus, the guidelines appear to be a straightforward solution to the question of asserting notability, and the good faith intent of the original author, while admirable, is inevitably of subsidiary importance in assessing whether to keep an unknown indie band entry or not. Dottore So 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

This is a blatant attempt at advertising this proposal to become official policy, or at least a guideline. It's been out there for a few months and hasn't gotten any horrible objections. Go, read, discuss. SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP address shown not warned

When an anonymous editor edit an article (or create) a new one (s)he is not warned that his IP address will be registered and shown. Since in many case the presence of his/her IP address could be a signature more than a choosen nickname, the user should be warned. AnyFile 16:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link Repository?

I know of one article about a controversial figure that has 77 external links. It seems like overkill for a biographical article. Moreover, while 5 of those links are written by the subject and 8 are supportive of his views, 64 are criticisms of his views, most of them emanating from one side of the political spectrum (a majority of which come from unpublished sources). What are some appropriate guidelines for the make-up of external links sections? Shouldn't links sections aspire towards representative relevance rather than just throwing up anything anyone has ever said about a figure? user: yen 17:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I had to go through a ton of links on the page 9/11 conspiracy theories -- all these wacky types would throw in links that all pointed out the same things over and over again, and it was unruley. When I cleaned them up. I decided to shoot for about 20 links, because Wikipedia is not a link repository, and more than 20 was just over the top. When I went through, I made note of which links were redundant (if two or more sites had the same content or same viewpoint, I would pick the best site and nuke all others). I also tried to balance the links so that there was no greater than 2/3rds all on a single side of the argument. Lastly, I got rid of links that no longer worked or were only slightly related to the article. If you follow these steps, I bet you can get the links down to around 20. After performing link clean up, watch the page and nuke any new links that don't add anything to the article. --Quasipalm 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and sometimes you have to be ruthless with these things. Recently we had to nuke over 100 external links from Sudoku, a featured article. I agree with Quasipalm: twenty is more than enough. — Matt Crypto 01:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A useful rule of thumb is that you should start looking critically once there's more than five or so external links (not counting ones which are references). Not to say you need to trim it down to that many, but it's probably all we really need. Shimgray 15:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attributions

I am a new user. I found much detail with statistics from your entry under "religion." Where do I find the crdentials of the person or committee that prepares such an article and revises it? Is that person responsible for the text if it is lifted and reprinted? Who Brian0918?

You can click the history button at the top of the page and see the (long) list of who has made exactly which edits to the article. You'll have to pick your way through them, or guess at which might be the ones you are interested in. We don't have a committee that prepares articles, since anyone can click the 'edit' button at the top of the page, and make any change they like. Bad edits are watched for and quickly removed, usually. Some users maintain a user page, and some of those give some small amount of personal information. However, there is no particular way to be sure of what a user says on their user page, and none of it is verified by anyone. Wikipedia does not have a peer review process in the usual sense of the phrase. Editors of pages are encouraged to cite their sources, but not all do.

If text is 'lifted' without permission from a source that is not compatible with Wikipedia's licence (the Gnu Free Documentation License), then it should be removed from the article on sight. If the whole article is copyrighted material, you should replace the article with {{copyvio|url=...}} and follow the instructions that will appear on screen when you press 'save'. Note that sometimes people have given permission for their copyrighted work to be used here.

You can find out a small amount about Brian0918 by clicking his username: User:Brian0918. If you want to leave him a message, go to his user page and click the 'discussion' button at the top of the screen. -Splash 20:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:About for more information. In a nutshell: "Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from around the world. The site is a wiki, which means that anyone can edit articles simply by clicking on the edit this page link."

No clue. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-25 20:34

Introductory Quotations

I just checked out Skyscraper and I noticed that it starts with a quote.

"What is the chief characteristics of the tall office building? It is lofty. It must be tall. The force and power of altitude must be in it, the glory and pride of exaltation must be in it. It must be every inch a proud and soaring thing, rising in sheer exaltation that from bottom to top it is a unit without a single dissenting line." —Louis Sullivan's The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered (1896)

this doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me... but maybe I'm just being anal. Opinions? --Quasipalm 20:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I can see where you're coming from, but I occasionally see articles that start with a quote, and, within reason, it can add some colour, without undermining the style and credability of the article. I could go either way on this one. Trollderella 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting articles, essays or book chapters with quotes is a bit archaic - it used to be very common in the c19th - but it's rather charming (in my opinion, at least), and if done sensibly doesn't detract in any way from the article, and can in many ways make it seem a little more complete. I'm not sure that this particular instance is the best quote for the context, but I like the intent. Shimgray 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sort of quote is harmless enough. Indeed in this particular case, the quote-picture-first paragraph make by far the best layed-out bit of the article... Physchim62 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of epigraphs has been discussed previously. Here's one take on their use: User:Raul654/archive#Raul654 says you can't use an epigraph at Wikipedia. -Willmcw 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I am fond of them, and I would be loath to take out a good one. Nothing wrong with having some articles that aren't cookie-cutter. I wouldn't protest if consensus went against having them, but I'd be slightly disappointed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What do you mean, consensus? Raul says no.

But more seriously, I must confess I've been removing these things where I've found them, too (usually because the quotes given, well, sucked). I guess this is completely and totally a matter of taste, ignoring the obvious issue of POVvy quotes, which would get weeded out naturally. While I love reading a good quote, I just don't think it fits Wikipedia very well. As Shimgray says, it's rather quaint and outdated, and there's the risk of turning into a popularity contest as people try to shoehorn in the "best" pithy statement on a subject. This is especially bad for fictional characters (e.g. Palpatine) and real people known for their wit (no example comes to mind, but I know I've seen this case). Note how James Joyce has an epigraph slash Wikiquote link as part of the caption to his picture. That's neat for Joyce, but it wouldn't work everywhere. Can you pick the best one for Oscar Wilde? JRM · Talk 01:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotes. (That's what Wikiquote is for!) The begining of an article is supposed to introduce the subject. →Raul654 01:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Two problems with that:

An introductory quote introduces the subject.
An introductory quote does not a collection make. A collection of articles with introductory quotes is not a quote collection.

Moving from what Wikipedia is not to what it is: an interesting question is whether any encyclopedia has used epigraphs. Not to refer to some sort of precedent, mind you; as I said, I don't think it works on Wikipedia. I do wonder. JRM · Talk 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these quotes are good encyclopedic style at all. — Matt Crypto 01:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note with sadness that the quote on Skyscraper has gone. I, for one, thought that it added to the article, introducing the subject, and setting it in a cultural context. I would be sorry if, in the name of style, all ideosyncracies in articles were removed. It would, ultimately, make the encyclopedia a less interesting and colourfull place, without providing any benefit in terms of information or readability. I place a personal plea for it's reinstatement. Trollderella 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncracies will always get weeded out if they're not explicitly codified as allowed somewhere. That's just how it goes if you have lots of editors who know "how things ought to be". If we held a poll, you'd probably find out most people will be opposed to epigraphs, because having none is more consistently good than having some (possibly bad or disagreeable to someone). JRM · Talk 02:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One potential issue with epigrams that I can foresee is that it's hard to NPOV a quotation. It's either there or is isn't. The alternatives are making them longer to give more centext, or adding info about the author, work, setting, and so on. Those techniques may succeed, but then we'd have some big chunk of annotated text instead of a pithy quote. Epigrams are terrific for essays, but I've never seen an encyclopedia that used them. -Willmcw 03:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

For example, here is an epigraph used to start a section. Alger Hiss#Lowenthal rebuttal. That epigraph is arguably POV. However, since it is used help to describe a POV, that may not be altogether wrong. -Willmcw 03:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Problem is that these things are Difficult and require Good Taste. Collaborative editing doesn't like difficult things and it definitely doesn't have good taste. It sort-of evens out to bland taste. Which may not be altogether wrong, for an encyclopedia. Heaven knows the 1911 Britannica was tastefully written, but the unrepentant, unsourced POV in there is truly atrocious if you're used to Wikipedia. JRM · Talk 03:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an article heavily taken from the 1911 EB get slapped with a NPOV tag the other day, for "severely biased language and original judgements [being] used throughout". I don't quite agree with this interpretation - most of the POV bits are just "let's say something unsupported but nice about the architecture" - but it certainly has a discernably different style.

(The worst POV I've yet seen in an encyclopedia was an 1898 Pears, which had a short article on Russia so effusive that even their diplomatic corps would have been embarrassed to put their name to it; the final line was "...which is why Russia simply must get a port on the Mediterranean!". They did things differently back then.)

I do agree with JRM that the wiki-nature is something that really militates against the practical inclusion of epigraphs. Pity, really... Shimgray 12:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in a general sense, but let's remember WP:IAR - just because we have a rule about the general practice, shouldn't mean that we remove it from the one or two articles where it improves them! Trollderella 15:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with a quote is archaic, starting with a disambiguation notice is encyclopedic... or is it? See Wetman's talk page. Valuable prizes will be awarded to the person who lists the best/worst epigraph and/or disambiguation notice to be found at the head of a Wikipedia article (don't put it there yourself after the start of this competition, please). Can you outdo Beirut? There used to be an attractive reference to Leonardo (Ninja Turtle) at the top of Leonardo da Vinci, too, see this historical version (but try for a live one if you want that prize). Put contributions at... uh... right here, please. Bishonen | talk 02:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman's noted one at Beirut was quite hideous, you're right. I've made it a little bit better, though, by moving it to a disambig page and linking to that from the main article. A rather delightful one that came up on the mailing list recently was on minority, which had a direct link to a Green Day song at the top... again, shifted to a disambig page. Shimgray 14:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The epigraph started out as a proof text, as it were. It was a citation at the head of a discussion that was supposedly "What made me start writing was reading these words by this famous person." Thus, its origin is the the old ecclesiastic tradition and then, in the 19th c., the essay tradition. It's still a cool thing for a particular type of writing (hint: the essay), as anyone who reads Lewis Lapham's essays in Harper's Magazine knows, but these days the epigraph is most often false learning and borrowing a don's robes. Most importantly, though, epigraphs absolutely are not, under any circumstances, encyclopedic. The encyclopedist is not an essayist. Got a quote? Cite it. Don't splatter it on the top. Geogre 03:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose an adjustment to the 3RR rule to ensure personal fairness against mobs

I recently ended up with a 2-day block under 3RR, as a result of an edit war at Asperger's Syndrome, after an argument was started by 1 user making gratuitous personal attacks on my character out of nowhere, in talk.It setoff a bullying situation of implacable group psycholkogy that resulted in an edit war because there was no other way to communicate having to answer personal attacks on the time and not being listened to.The bullies,who appear strongly likely to be cronies of one particular relevant website's leadership, used force of numbers to pool their 3RR rights to strike every few minutes and keep totally deleting all mention of a medically relevant item. You see how the balance of power was unbalanced if a group ganging up to suppress 1 issue have stronger 3RR rights in their favour, than their target has?

I can see the point of trying to bring some calm to the situation by trying to see if some reasoned discussion takes place while the contenders are silenced. So I actually don't contest my block provided all the opponents I had during the preceding day were blocked as well. Only they weren't. My edits were not even simple reversions but attempts to find consensual new edits incorporating others' feelings and interventions, and only the opponents' POV gets favoured by them each having a personal right to 3RR which they can pool.

How then is Wikipedia to guard against having its ethic of neutral content destroyed by the 3RR rule working in favour of bullying campaigns and organised frequent attacks on pages? An ethical concern for the entire nature of Wikipedia and reform proposal to solve the anomaly, arises from this case. It should be circulated to the entire community from top to users, for comment, so it can be put into practice straightaway. The proposal is, simply enact this:

(i) the 3RR rule also to apply when different people make the same revert, exactly the same as when 1 person does. Hence a group of users all editing on the same side of an argument will be subject to the rule, collectively, on equal terms to an individual.

(ii) When a 2-sided high-frequency edit war is happening, if a 3RR block is made it must be made simultaneously on every person on both sides who took part during the preceding day. Admins at all levels with discretion whether to apply a 3RR block, shall not have discretion to apply one to only 1 side of such a dispute.

(iii) Except as part of such a 2-sided parity, a reverter who does not make simple reverts to the past but writes new adaptations can't be given a 3RR block, unless - There is a constructive editorial discussion in progress, that is about content not personal attacks towards that person's side, and about factuality not an insistence on simply deleting an item on grounds of not thinking it important.

Studying this case, do you see that without these rule changes, Wikipedia can be dragged into giving non-neutral positions with content censored by the agenda of a group who keep editing the same way? even on medically serious issues to do with children? On the basis of this case that has just happened, I contend that Wikipedia visibly owes to its members to make this rule adjustment.

If two people are behaving identically, and you have reason to believe they are at least implicitly colluding, you can consider them meatpuppets. Essentially this means they are all treated as one person for purposes of policy. I belive this existing policy would solve your dilemna. Superm401 | Talk 00:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the above, if you feel that you're being shouted down by a group of people who share the same biases, and discussions on Talk have failed, then you could try going over to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and listing your dispute there. If nothing else, this would probably bring a little more impartial attention to the page, reducing the influence of any groups currently there. Modifications to the 3RR wouldn't help here, though. What, do you want six reverts so you can flip the page back and forth a few more times? That won't help. What you need is a method of resolution, not more reverts. Aquillion 00:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the design of the 3RR rule. It is good. It helps make Wikipedia better. Gene Nygaard 01:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone thinks this guy is legit, Tern (the user who started this topic) has just been banned permanently for linkspamming, personal attacks and legal threats (and that's not even half the rules he's violated, really). He makes more personal attacks in his average single comment than he has been on the recieving end of in his entire time at Wikipedia, and what he characterizes as everyone ganging up on him is nothing more than what most other Wikipedia editors refer to as "consensus". He never produced any evidence that his so-called "medically serious issue" is considered to be such by anyone but himself despite repeated requests to do so and even a detailed explanation from myself of what would be required. Tern's concerns were listened to and responded to in great detail - HE is the one who refused to listen to the comments of others with anything even vaguely resembling an open mind. His Web site, which he was put on a 48-hour block for linkspamming within hours of posting the above... well, I'll let it speak for itself. It has been called a hate site, though personally I would not go that far. (Interestingly, he has removed his attack on Wikipedia - I would have expected it to instead expand after this.)

He also has bizarre interpretations of many Wikipedia rules, for example insisting that the links to his site could only be removed if links to other sites he has had bad experiences on were also removed due to a... unique... interpretation of NPOV, which he refers to as "parity logic".

And speaking of NPOV, the content he kept reverting back to, starting this whole mess in the first place, was being reverted chiefly because it was blatantly POV; one version of it ran:

"These things illustrate how AS appears to correlate with child authorship, hence a number of aspie communities have a concerned awareness of the terrible injustice an aspie child can suffer when the chance to achieve child authorship is unfairly wrecked by high-handed school pressures." (Regarding "a number of Aspie communities" - that number, so far as can be determined, is "one", his own site, and though it does have occasional outside contributers it is hard to see how it can really be characterized as a "community").

He has repeatedly insisted that this is, in fact, NPOV, despite having it repeatedly explained to him, with far more patience and openmindedness than he himself has shown, why it isn't. His response? To cry "bullying" and "personal attack" and virtually accuse other editors, including myself, of child abuse.

In short, there is nothing vaguely resembling meatpuppetry going on here (and how dare anyone suggest otherwise when they clearly have not actually checked); there is one user with a persecution complex, a bizarre agenda and no respect for Wikipedia's rules trying - and, happily, failing - to hold an important page hostage to his distorted view of reality. PurplePlatypus 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the proposed adjustment - I agree with Gene Nygaard here. If you're outnumbered on a point, it's no good edit-warring over it - you will always lose. The 3RR is useful here - it forces an outnumbered user to talk a different approach. This doesn't necessarily mean accepting the edit - it may mean going to the talk page, asking others what they think - or, as what appears to be the case from the description given above, allow other editors to intervene to protect WP from disruptive users. If Superm had had more reverts, all that would have happened is that the page would have gone back and forth a few more times. It wouldn't have helped resolve anything. I see no fault with the 3RR here, jguk 07:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a user named Tern who started the thread, not Superm401. As annoyed as I am at Superm401 for as good as calling me a meatpuppet - and, now that I look at the policy, for (probably unintentionally) giving highly misleading information about what the meatpuppet policy actually says - it's a good idea to be sure you've got the right person when you say stuff like that. Superm401 was not directly involved in the edit war Tern spoke of. PurplePlatypus 08:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a rather unfairly broad description of the meatpuppet rule, and I apologize for that. In retrospect, it seems likely Tern just had a consensus against him. There was no unfair behavior. Superm401 | Talk 22:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and appreciated very much. PurplePlatypus 23:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tern has now given Wikipedia its own category on his web site. ManekiNeko 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

editing of anything by anyone

This is a fascinating web site. However, how can you say that you are not a propaganda voice, yet allow anyone to edit articles? How does the reader know that the edits have any value and/or are not representative of a personal agenda? How does one have any faith in an article that is edited by anyone, that person not necessarily a scholar in the related subject?

Take a look at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. --cesarb 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a good critical look at a few articles about topics on which you have good personal knowledge. Try some that are purely factual and some that you know are controversial. Let us know what you conclude. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Votes for Deletion and seperating out Wikipedia space deletions

Copied for VP (proposals). Dragons flight 16:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

It has been proposed to rename Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to Wikipedia:Pages for deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, to remove the word "votes" from the title and to be more consistent with our other "X for deletion" areas. It has also been proposed to rename Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion to Wikipedia:Deletion review. This has been announced in several places, but the discussion is in one place: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Name_change_.28again.29. Uncle G 16:35:52, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

It has also been suggested that deletion discussions involving Wikipedia:, User: and other namespaces have a seperate process, tenatively called WfD, which would of course mean a change in policy (or creating a new version of the old policy), so I am also listing this proposal here. Dragons flight 16:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

A sometimes wiki problem

At a medieval monastery the question arose as to the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. The monks began a furious debate, with the "brothers" perusing their great library and quoting one ancient expert or another. After a long and unfruitful argument, one young monk spoke up with the comment, "Why don't we look in a horse's mouth and count its teeth?"

The rest of the monastery was furious and the young monk was in great disfavor for a long time after.

An apocryphal tale can sometimes illustrate a common-sense truth.

In the same way the demand for citations (coupled with a denial of personal research) can backfire on Wikipedia. Most of the time, citations are a good thing. But it's not always the best way to ascertain the truth. In some areas one "expert" may have made a statement which was picked up by other "experts" until it became the "truth" known to all. In such a case, citations, and more citations, are useless.

Sometimes citations are demanded by an one editor during an edit war, to "prove" a negative, which simply cannot be done.

A good example of the problem with the demand for cites is the article on the Ku Klux Klan, in which, among other things, says (twice) that the Klan was "destroyed" by the Klan Act.

I suspect this was a wishful thinking statement made once, and picked up by others until it became a standard quote. Partly because of the secretive nature of the Klan, and the modern embarassment of many of the descendents of Klan members, direct citations to refute this whacky statement are probably non-existant. But the statement is simply untrue, and it's not worthy of Wikipedia to disseminate false information.

The problem with personal research, as I understand, is that Wikipedia looks unreliable if claims are unsourced; even if they come from personal research of a very respected contributor, viewers don't know that, they just see an unsourced claim. Regarding the KKK - if you know that it wasn't "destroyed", you must have learned that somewhere, which we can cite. ~~ N (t/c) 21:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a secondary source and reports on generally accepted knowledge. It is scholarship, and subject to the problems intrinsic in scholarship. Yes, it does happen—frequently—that "In some areas one 'expert' may have made a statement which was picked up by other 'experts' until it became the 'truth' known to all." That's too bad, but when it happens that is what Wikipedia reports. Wikipedia's purpose is not to correct generally accepted errors or to promote or disseminate new truths. You cannot get new truths into Wikipedia by writing Wikipedia articles about them. You must write about the new truth in published print books, academic journals, blogs, whatever until it becomes the generally accepted truth. Then Wikipedia can include the new truth, citing the newly available sources. Wikipedia is scholarship, not original research. We do not research horses' teeth, we research what others have published about horses' teeth. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N wrote: "if you know that it wasn't 'destroyed', you must have learned that somewhere". Perhaps we can state this differently. As the original poster pointed out, it's tough to cite a reference to prove that something didn't happen. However, the current version of the article claims that between some time "long" before 1882, and 1915, there was no existing organization calling itself the "Ku Klux Klan". If the poster has a reason to think that something calling itself the KKK existed in that time period, then he must have learned that somewhere. Where? As Dpbsmith did a nice job of pointing out, we go by generally accepted knowledge and existing research. The KKK article certainly follows generally accepted knowledge; therefore we would need a reference to prove it's false. — Nowhither 09:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikicities wikis and use of sideboxes for them

Recently there has been talk on Wikibooks of removing content that doesn't fit our tightened inclusion guidelines, and among these are game guides for things like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I've already organised a new home on Wikicities, but that creates a problem. According to {{wikicities}}, it isn't allowed to be linked to with sideboxes like the one at the right.

I don't want the shift to Wikicities to result in a loss of attention. Part of the shift is also because of the potential revenue from Google ads being "lost" by the current hosting arrangement, not to mention attracting more interest in Wikicities in general and demonstrating that it hosts a lot of legitimate and meaningful content... therefore I don't want the various game guides to fade into obscurity amongst a million fragillion fansite links just because we've made a minor change from one Foundation-funded wiki to another.

I'd already drafted a makeshift sidebox for the Academic Publishing Wiki (see Battle of Artemisium#External links) before I knew a Wikicities template existed; that seems fine to me the way it is and no-one's complained about it.

Really I'm just wanting some explanation of why the sidebox can't be the same. I don't see the problem, it's funded by the Foundation, it's interrelated and interlinked with us, its ads indirectly fund us, and the space to the right in the External Links section is usually blank anyway!

This is now the ONLY thing making me unhappy with the prospected move. I would just be bold and draft up some cross-wiki template for it regardless of this supposed rule, but if that means the streets are going to run red with my blood I might as well know in advance. :) Garrett^Talk 04:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicities is not funded by or directly affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it is owned by Bomis, which donates to the Foundation. There is no direct connection between the sites. A sidebar would be inappropriate. Superm401 | Talk 22:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... *grumblegrumblegrumble* well... um... hmm... I guess I have no choice then, obscurity it is. And here I thought Wikiversity was the Foundation's only bastard child... :) Garrett^Talk 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just rechecked. I made a mistake. Wikicities is not owned by Bomis either, but rather Wikia, a separate company created by Wales. Still, it's not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation, so my general point remains. Superm401 | Talk 01:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, sir, for those of us who think advertising for sister projects is too much, this is too much. "Wanting to get more google ads money" gets you nowhere in a wikimedia discussion.. — Sverdrup 00:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bars and public houses

I've noticed a recent spate of VfDs on pubs. Some examples: The Cambridge Arms, The Champion of the Thames, The Granta, The King Street Run (pub). The only specific guidance I can find on this is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents#Cities and villages which says "Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel", but this page doesn't seem to list sources. Presumably there is some minimum level of encyclopedic interest required for articles on drinking establishments, based on factors such as age, references in the news/literature/fiction, and uniqueness. Has this been discussed before? Are more specific guidelines available? Does anyone have any suggestions? Cheers, Bovlb 17:02:17, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I think, like most anything else, it's a running battle between those who see wikipedia as allowing anything verifiable that isn't original research and those that want some level of notability applied. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any notability levels codified, although I think some page somewhere in the middle of wikipedia is probably creating some as we speak. Steve block talk 20:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real life sometimes intrudes

Encyclopædia Dramatica is an article about a website that has many detractors. In the interest of NPOV the detractors criticisms of the site should be included in the article, of course, but they should not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a foundation to harass and attack the websites owner.

The current protected version is actual, real-life harassment of the websites owner. It is harassment to link the owner of the site to their real-life employer, a fact that has nothing to do with the website itself. It is wiki-vandalism (and further harassment) to include an excessive number of inline links to outside information and pictures that have been removed from the article itself.

This information says, in essence: "I know where you live." "I know where you work." "I know what you look like." That is stalker behavior, not encyclopedic. Publicizing it is incitement to other detractors to take on real life harassment via letters to employers, prank calls, etc.

I reverted the page firmly believing this is vandalism and harassment. I'm now blocked. 3RR does not cover vandalism and harassment. If listing to this information was done on a talk page it would fall under WP:RPA, we shouldn't allow it in an article either.

Yeah, I feel pretty strongly about this. There is a real life person here who these detractors are trying to ruin by sending disparaging letters to real life employers. By not doing a sanity check before blocking someone on 3RR and then PROTECTING the page with the links intact, Wikipedia administrators have tacitly endorsed using Wikipedia as an information source for this harassment. User:SchmuckyTheCat 135.214.154.104 21:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information, Information, Information

I'd like to ask everyone here what information they think is relavent to the Wikipedia, after posting a few Keeps on the daily deletion request page I was asked if there was any articles I would delete. I asked Gateman1997 if he wouldn't mind me putting up our discussion just to see what response I would get. I am sure this question has be raised in the past but I would like to hear other views on the topic, I would certianly like to see it raised as a policy issue in the near future.

I am concerned that deletion happens all to easily on information that might be irrelavant to some but of importance to other. For example how can I, sitting here in Edinburgh, judge the significance both culturally and historically of the Library Hotel to NYC, does the dewey decimal system affect or interact with most people? No, more people will not visit a library or college then those who will and so will possibly never come into contact with it, does that mean the hotel with its marginal connection to the system be included in the encyclopedia?

Just a question

Is there any kind of article you would delete?Gateman1997 23:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC) - There certainly is, but an encyclopedia, is by definition a compendium of all human knowledge. If that means you need to include an article on a small school fine it has relavance because the school may produce the next Einstein or the next Shakespear. I wouldn't have outright advertising, if someone went through all the books and redirected them to Amazon I would have a problem with that, and I hope other's would too, however a manufacturer who employes 100 people is a medium sized buisness and what's more is probably quite important in their local community, an unbaised article commenting on the production methods used the financial info of the company and its stock ticker would be acceptable.[reply]

On a slightly different note, if for example through the course of someones degree they undertake a Doctorate they would be contributing by researching a new technique/process etc, because of that I would consider that they would deserve an entry under their specialisation detailing the research that they did and what was concluded. We already have quite advanced topics in maths, engineering, physics and so on so it would not be unreasonable to include their information if their work has passed peer review (their's not wiki's).

Also take meanings for example, when a word is used in a context that its not suitable for does it become suitable by its use? For example 'I capped the fence post', mean I put on a waterproof top, bears no resembalence to 'I capped some guy', I shot him, if you check the Oxford English Dictionary your only going to find the former meaning and not the latter, but are both equally valid? So if 1 person is known to a hundred people because of something he/she does eg José Fernando Ferreira Mendes or Barbara Schwarz does that mean he/she is important enough to be notable here?

I would argue that provided someone has put the time and effort into developing an article, providing its not gibberish, pure spam, or a falsification then it has a place somewhere here. If a branch needs to be created to hold it then that might be worth doing, but all information has value however small.

I'd be interested in your views. --Machtzu 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well you definitely have a well thought out view and for that I salute you. Many people vote to keep articles with no notion of why they do so just that it should be in the encyclopedia. My view of the matter is a bit more pragmatic. I look at what the value of an article is to both the author and subsequent contributors, its value to the encyclopedia, and any potential value it could possibly have through maximum fleshing out. In some cases articles that are useless and woeful stubs now have the potential to grow larger and be useful to the encyclopedia. In some cases there is limited information that can be added to a stub and it will never be useful to the encyclopedia or anyone beyond a VERY limited audience. In those cases I vote to delete without prejudice. There are articles worth keeping and there are ones that though they seem encyclopedic are really just sucking up limited server space.

This was of course spurred by those 4 school articles up for deletion. I consider each differently and have voted accordingly as you can see. Some of them are worthwhile and have future potential. Some in my view can never be expanded to anything useful beyond puffing up the people who attend those schools that they have an entry here. That's all well and good for their self esteem, but that's not what an encyclopedia is. Just my thoughts. Gateman1997 23:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes the main flaw in my arguement is the limited resources that wikipedia has to work with, 6Billion people with 20KB on each is 120TB of data, quite unfeasable. That said the internet is the global village... I'm very new to wiki and I am sure this has been discussed somewhere but is it possible to list my 2 cents somewhere for public discussion?

Your also quite right that any self gratification on these boards is the wrong place but maybe less information about a lot of things is better than a lot of information about less things. ( heck I should be writing sound bites ;) and thats two in one article!)--Machtzu 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to encounter any giant public forum on the issue, however it comes up fairly often as a more concentrated issue revolving around a particular type of article here and there. The big one I've noticed most recently seems to be the school debate and the road debate. Some users take the view any and all schools from dance schools to preschools up to universities should be included, others take the opposite view that only colleges should be included. And it usually gets ugly. Same can be said for roads. I usually draw the line at numbered roads with a few notable exceptions like Broadway in NYC. But there are people who are on both sides of my view and we debate it endlessly on project pages and most often on VFD. Best way to find a debate is to go to VFD.Gateman1997 00:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can have 20000 bytes written about them without any excess, they are notable. Most people can not, and some of those who can't are notable. Superm401 | Talk

- Would you mind if I included this discussion in a new item at say VFD or the Village Pump?--Machtzu 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm always looking to discuss this with people, especially in a rational manner as we have.Gateman1997 00:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are other people's views?

--Machtzu 01:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Gateman1997. I think we should do away with deleting "non-notable" articles. We don't know when that information will be considered notable. If an article is well written, there is no harm in it staying. If people want to read it, they will search for it or click on links to it. If not, no harm done. We keep a lot of non-notable content (like tiny villages in Europe, broadcast towers, small schools) but people, small social groups, and websites get deleted quite frequently. I think it is a loss for the Wikipedia. There is currently a discussion at VfD to change the deletion policies. -- Reinyday, 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for discussion of naming convention for long lists

I am hoping to generate a naming convention for long lists that are broken up alphabetically. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and thank you in advance for any input you might have. -- Reinyday, 14:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)