Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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

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

The real effects of advertising on Wikipedia

 Note: Swinglineboy G and JBackus13 are blocked sockpuppets of a banned user, JeanLatore/Wiki_brah. Darkspots (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever figured this out and blocked them. This is a much better discussion without them. It was becoming more and more obvious as Swinglineboy G and JBackus13 continued to comment that "their" contributions were becoming more and more about trolling than good faith discussion about the issues. Please see WP:Troll. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, I know that they say what will happen if Wikipedia allows paid advertising. Yeah yeah, like everyone will get upset and fork off, start their own Wiki, and all that. But its not like EVERYONE would leave. Some people, especially the newer ones, will stay. Even if a majority of editors left some would stay behind and continue to contribute to Wikipedia even with ads. But what would result? "Wikipedia" still would continue to get mad google hits and attract new users in its post-advertising era, and those disgruntled editors who left in the wake of advertising would be at what would become a wanna-be "forked off" project, not THE wikipedia, which would linger on in obscurity. Wikipedia will thrive even if many of its productive editors left -- no one is irrplaceable, and on the internet, people leave all the time anyway. How many of the productive editors and admins from four years ago (2004) are still here, for instance? The conclusion here is that if and when Wikipedia does decide to allow paid advertisements, it will not suffer one bit for it. Your thoughts welcome. Swinglineboy G (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

this has been discussed a thousands times and the answer is always NO, see here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe optional advertising (user decides) has ever been seriously discussed. It has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Advertisements. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, i'm just saying the main reason that advertising has been nixed is because of the massive editor opposition to it and their threats to boycott or leave. My point was that their threats have no weight to them. Wikipedia has a critical mass of its own now, regardless of its individual editors. I guess I was just using advertising as an example to prove that. Swinglineboy G (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed to a vast extent. However, the main issue is that as soon as advertising is allowed, advertisers would get pressure from readers to affect the encyclopedia. What company would want their ad on the page for penis, for example? (well...Trojan, maybe) Maybe American Express, if those photos weren't posted. So to please advertisers we could get rid of offensive photos. Then maybe questionable content. Then...what next? Money brings pressure. No money has pressures of its own, but when it's introduced, it has a bigger influence on distorting knowledge. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Who needs troublesome advertisers? There are millions of advertisers. If optional advertising (user decides) is the mode of advertising used, then neither Wikipedia as a whole, nor the individual users will be effected by anything an advertiser does or demands. Each of us can turn ads on and off, and Wikipedia as a whole can tell troublesome advertisers to go to hell. Or we can move their ads off pages they don't like. There are millions more advertisers who would be happy to advertise on most of the controversial pages on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in that discussion. Do you know where to find it? What if wikipedia would allow ads but explicitly not entertain any demands. Just be like hey I got your money now naff off. Swinglineboy G (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. I want to live in your world. Srsly. I am much too cynical. You might want to read this page, and its talk, and join along in the discussion there. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey how much would the article advertising space sell for? Would it be specific by article? More importantly, you can say that every editor can "advertize" here on Wikipedia, for free, by editing it. Like if i wanted to talk about how great Zack Enfron is there is noboby that would stop me really -- and I would not have to pay any money to do so! JBackus13 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another point: Wikipedia is always "losing contributors" for one reason or another. That's one thing I like about Wikipedia: no commitment, no obligation. People come and go as they please. Originally Wikipedia allowed non-logged-in users to create new articles. In the aftermath of various editing abuses, Wikipedia clamped down a little by requiring users to register accounts and log in before creating new articles. Undoubtedly, that policy change caused some unregistered users to leave. So what? The number of new articles kept going up. Now it's up to 6,909,922 and still growing. However, only a tiny fraction of articles are up to featured status yet. Out of 48,257,710 registered users, only some tiny fraction have the editing experience necessary to bring articles up to featured status. For example: what percentage of people who edit on Wikipedia have a solid understanding of WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, and WP:CITET? Editing skill on Wikipedia probably follows something like a power law distribution or Pareto distribution, with the vast majority of contributors able to make only relatively simple edits, and drastically fewer contributors at each increasing level of skill. The problem is that getting up to a high level of skill requires an enormous amount of time and effort. Not many people can afford to sink in the necessary time unless they are fairly well off financially. Someone working two jobs to make ends meet won't have the leisure time or energy to become a Wikipedia expert. Wikipedia needs a lot more experts if it is going to get a large fraction of its articles up to high quality. One way to get more experts might be to start paying people a little something to get up to a high level of skill. I don't think the pay rate would have to be comparable to professional work, since Wikipedia does not burden contributors with overhead expenses like buying business clothes and traveling to a physical office. Wikipedia is already fun enough to do for free, so a lot more people might pursue it seriously if they could just break even on their minimal expenses. Of course once money enters the picture then lots of things start to change; I have no idea whether the net impact would be positive. I'm simply saying that while Wikipedia is not having any trouble attracting vast numbers of contributors, it's doing less well at motivating enough of them to learn Wikipedia editing in depth. This might be even more true in the poorer countries, such as in parts of Africa, where even a modest stipend for skilled editors could make a huge difference. In a place where the average income is $1/day, being able to earn even $10/day for editing on Wikipedia would be a dream job. --Teratornis (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The last time advertising was seriously considered, the result was that the Spanish Wikipedia community split off and started Enciclopedia Libre. My best estimate is that the split set the development of the Spanish Wikipedia back by almost two years. Losing a few contributors is no big deal; losing 90% of the core community is much harder to recover from. --Carnildo (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Going with opt-in advertising (user decides) would probably only cause a small percentage of users to leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia really needs the money, and there is so much basic bug fixing and feature enhancement that needs to be done. We need to pay more developers. Better, more intuitive wiki software equals more users. So there would be a net gain in users. Probably a huge gain in users because there would be far fewer slowdowns. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Only a tiny fraction of users have an account and can set preferences. Even if every user turns it on, you're going from a few million people per day (based on the number of hits per day on the main page) to a few thousand people per day (the number of users who have made at least one edit in the past month) who will see the ads, not including the people who would leave the project if we add any ads, opt-in or not. We would still make money off it, but not nearly as much, it may not even offset the loss in donations from putting ads on. Mr.Z-man 17:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

People could opt in through cookies whether they are a registered user or not. The few ideological users who leave because of what other users choose to do (view ads) would be far offset by the many new users who would enthusiastically participate due to a faster Wikipedia, and more choices of things to do such as Wikibooks, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikijunior, Wikispecies, etc.. And whatever else the Wikimedia Foundation decides to start. The money could be used to create unified watchlists. Unified watchlists [1] [2] would greatly increase participation of both new and old users due to being able to more easily participate in multiple Wikimedia projects. I personally would like the option to unify all my watchlists other than English Wikipedia and the Commons. I like those 2 on separate watchlists. The millions of dollars raised from even a few users and readers opting for ads would greatly offset any loss in donations. Those who opt for ads are donating their eyeballs and their time. It is condescending and paternalistic to say that their contribution is not also worthy, and that ads would hurt them somehow. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree completely. Essays i just read on Wikipedia:Advertisements suggest that Wikipedia might be able to raise nearly $1,000,000,000.00 a year in advertising revenue. That's larger than the budget of some smaller states in the USA and most developing nations! I think Wikipedia should jump on this opportunity, put away a modest 10% for growth and investment in Wikipedia, then divide the rest up and sent something of a "dividend" cheque to each editor at the end of each fiscal year. Said payments could be based upon the number, and quality, of his edits throughout the year. Even if the dividend simply were equally split by registered users (8.1 million I read), the payout still would be in the neighbourhood of 80-90 dollars. But if the divdent were equitably split as a function of edit quality, edit count, and active service to the wiki, then each of the active 2,000 or so users would get quite a large payout each year. If wikipedia does do ads, then it is obvious that they should give most of the money not to charity, but to the wikipedians. This also would deflate much criticism of advertising! JBackus13 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I once saw an informal study suggesting that most raw content is contributed by occasional users, frequently anonymous users. They might not be as enthusiastic about contributing if some arbitrary set of "core" contributors is receiving big checks based partially on their work and they receive nothing.

However, I for one do favor paid full-time editors - particularly in developing countries where labor in cheap and the local language edition of Wikipedia is in urgent need of beefing up. Dcoetzee 06:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Profits from advertising on Wikipedia are that much?? Zomg! Before you know it we'd be clawing over each other like rats in a cage fighting over that money! I'm buying a pony with my dividend check, and you better be sure i'd be making like hella edits 24/7 on here to get a bigger cut! Hellz yeah! Swinglineboy G (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Turning a free and altruistic project into a cash cow (see above) is one of the best arguments not to allow advertisements. Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

These type of discussions frequently bring in some crazy ideas. As long as the Wikimedia Foundation stays non-profit and is run by experienced Wikipedia users who truly believe in WP:NPOV, then I think we are OK. Newbies are usually the main ones who go off on the money and glory tangents. Most people who know how much time and effort it really takes to put out all this WP:NPOV info to the world don't usually have these low-level goals. And ramping up the opt-in ads will gradually increase the ad revenue. I doubt it will reach ten million dollars a year instantly. I believe we are on a 4 million dollar a year budget now. We need, and could easily absorb a few million dollars more a year. I believe many registered users would opt for ads over time. Many know the need for the money. A lower percentage of non-registered users would opt for ads. They don't know the need. But there are far more of them. But most don't want to bother clicking an opt-in ad button that would put ads on their Wikipedia pages whenever they stop by Wikipedia. They just drop in from Google and leave. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with making a little money? The United States would like wikipedia to sell ad space for it would love a 28% tax cut (in the area of $250 million in taxes a year) of wikipedia's revenues to fund the war in Iraq, and Jimbo and the execs would love it because they could give themselves huge salaries and corporate expense accounts. The editors would like it because they would not even have to look at the ads (with ad preferences discussed above) and still get healthy dividend checks each quarter, and Wall Street would like it because with that profit margin (cash flow in the hundreds of millions v. operating expenses of 5 million?), Jimmy could take the thing public and soon be awash in billions of dollars in investor capital....maybe enough to buy a seat on the exchange or get listed on the Dow Jones index. These kind of millions generated into the economy would seriously do a lot to blunt the current financial crisis. So there, advertising on Wikipedia might be worth it to a lot of people, including our veterans and average americans who don't even use wikipedia. JBackus13 (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)

I support on/off buttons for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Wikipedia for all readers (via cookies).

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The simplest and easiest managed way of raising ad money would be to use Amazon's existing partenership scheme. We don't need full ads, just a change that means anytime any book is listed with an ISBN in an article, the reader would see a little link beside it saying "review this book on Amazon". It's fairly useful for the reader to be able to do that, and if of course he then buys it, the foundation would get cash. If readers are annoyed by it, they can set preferences and opt out. Strictly speaking it isn't advertising, since there is no "hey buy this" on out site, just a link to where you can see if it is in print and what the cost is, if you want. Given that wikipedia is often the first port of call for someone interested in a subject, the number of people interested in buying on of the books listed might be quite high. It also solves the problem of add selection, as the "ads" would be selected by those constructing sources and further reading sections. And I imagine, all products linked from Penis would be genetailia or sexual health related.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, and fairly simple to implement now. There are more choices than just ads on every page, or no ads on any page. From Wikipedia:Advertisements: "In a comment dated March 7, 2008 on his Wikipedia talk page Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has stated"

While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals. Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the ISBN link is a terrible idea-- we're being spammed heavily enough as it is. If everyone with a book to sell thought they could increase sales by finding a way to use it in Wikipedia references, we'd go mad trying to clean up the results. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It was a creative idea, though. But you are right about the incentive it would create for authors and booksellers to reference their books on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a terrible idea. We get enough spam and references to vanity publishing as it is. We certainly don't need to create a financial incentive to make more of it and further degrade the quality of the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion many of the past discussions ended up in silly binary ideological arguments over capitalism. As in; 1: We use ads on all pages and we will have to bow to the evil capitalist swine, or; 2. We remain pure and chaste by having no ads on any pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment This thread is not up to the usual Wiki_brah standard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about JBackus13 though. ;) --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So............... how much revenue will advertising bring? Is it $10 million a year, as suggested by another user above, or is it $1,000,000,000? That is obviously a huge disparity; does anyone know? I can see passing on it if its just $10 mil, but $1 billion? Man, gimme a piece of that shit! Does wikipedia know what it can do with that kind of money -- like buying Encyclopedia britannica, for example? Or funding its own military force like Blackwater Worldwide or some such other worthwhile endeavor. JBackus13 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dividends based on edit count? Any suggestions on how I should spend my $3,000,000? --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing is wikipedia can't keep the money, since its a non-profit. So the only thing they could do is pass the profits (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) to somewhere else. The U.S. government would prefer that the money be passed onto taxable entities-- the users, so the gov't could collect income taxes on it. And the editors do have a "stake" in wikipedia based on the equitable value of their contributions to wikipedia. Thus, Wikipedia will be a "pass through" non-profit where the revenue is taxed when it "passes through" to the users themselves. That way the government benefits, and the user benefits, for even after taxes, that's a lot of money. Like carnildo said, he would stand to gross $3m, which would still be about $1.8 million, post-tax. JBackus13 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Wikipedia is not about making money for its editors. I think if we ever have enough money (highly unlikely) to think about paying editors to edit pages, then it should be editors from disadvantaged parts of the world. And it should only be concerning regions where we do not have enough Wikipedia articles. See also: WP:Countering systemic bias. A better idea would be to put out some public service ads asking for expatriates from those disadvantaged countries to do more editing. People in the poorest parts of the world don't even have computer access, so paying them will do little good. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Disadvantaged" parts of the world are rife with corruption and graft. If Wikipedia started paying Africans and other third-worlders money to edit chances are this money would be intercepted by the warlords and public officials, not doing the average "wikipedian" in Africa the slightest good. This money would simply be used to fund war and human rights violations. Swinglineboy G (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't clear in my last comment. I actually do not support paying editors. I think it is better to make greater efforts to recruit editors from countries that need more coverage in Wikipedia. There are now WikiProjects for many nations and regions. Their efforts have done a lot of good. I think we need to further extend their reach with free public-service ads to places with expatriates from those countries. For example; university press and media and websites. University-connected radio stations often air ads from nonprofits for free. The expatriate students can pass the word on to their friends and associates in their countries. Even though the poorest nations may not have internet access in most parts of their nations, even the poorest nations oftentimes have internet access in some of the cities. Personal internet access and internet access in libraries, businesses, cafes, etc.. I communicated with someone who used internet cafes in Laos, for example. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing new under the sun... First, estimates of ad revenue are just that: Estimates. Revenues depend on supply and demand. All of Wikipedia suddenly being open for advertising would greatly increase the supply of ad space. Selling in bulk always decreases the price. And apart from editors leaving, there also is the question of donations. Would you donate to a Wikipedia that's raking in cash hand over hand via ads? Also, ads need infrastructure. So part of the revenue would immediately go towards more servers and bandwidth. Developers, currently often volunteers, would also expect to be paid. Assume US$250000 per developer per year if you have to pay real costs (and that is probably rather low). I would be surprised if a solidly argued business case even exists. And I'd only trust it if the author backs it by guaranteeing an increase in revenue - and a faster one than Wikimedia has managed on donations alone. As for the the idea of paying "dividends" to editors? Just image the overhead, and the possibilities for abuse. How do you evaluate the quality of contributions? If you reward quantity, be prepared for an invasion of bots. In short, this idea seems to be completely unworkable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We need more developers. And they don't cost anything close to US$250,000 per developer per year. Some would get paid, some wouldn't. Just like now. You are making several incorrect assumptions in my opinion. Ads do not require a massive infrastructure. Google ads for example are easy to implement. Google does most of the work. And there is no doubt that opt-in ads would raise more money than donations eventually over time. More money than donations alone could ever be reasonably expected to do. That is not a bad thing. We can ignore the dividend ideas. That was started by the sockpuppet trollers. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If we need more developers, then the solution is to reach out to students and others interested in the development of Mediawiki, not to throw money it. Paying them simply isn't necessary; all that's necessary is that we rid ourselves of the elitist developer mentality that we have now and welcome the code commits of new people. There are other solutions to the problem than becoming corporate slaves. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We obviously need more developers. Good ones, too. Because some mistakes can be very damaging. Here is a message currently at the top of my Commons watchlist:

"On Friday September 5, 2008, a human error resulted in the loss of many images (most current list). Since then, the vast majority have been recovered by various means. Please see the post to the commons-l mailing list for technical details. Please do not request deletion of any of the affected images. If you have a copy of these images, please upload them at the image's current page. You may be able to find the images on web.archive.org, Google cache or similar sources. Further inquiries may be directed to commons-l."

I am distressed that we don't currently have the multiple levels of hardware and software backup that we need to prevent these types of serious losses. Imagine the huge amount of time that went in finding, uploading, describing, and categorizing these lost images. I have donated thousands of hours of time editing Wikipedia and the Commons. I am not surprised by this problem, though, because of the small budget that Wikimedia has. Relative to the huge number of hits that Wikipedia gets. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Backing up commons to disk would be a massive task, and would require a ridiculous amount of storage. Most of the images that you mention were found in the squid cache, leaving only around ~500 orphaned, which really isn't all that many when compared to the vast amount of data that resides there. But, yeah, we do need more developers. Why not ask them to accept more? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am really glad that in the end only ~500 images were lost. I have websites of my own, and have worked on others. One gallery I helped out at recently lost most of its albums. The images remain, but without most of the albums the images might as well have been lost since they are no longer easily accessible by most people. Maybe 6 months from now and with a lot of work the gallery can be rebuilt from web.archive.org copies of the albums. Web.archive.org purposely is always 6 months behind in its archiving of a site. I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts more qualified developers. I have seen the damage that inexperienced web developers can do. I have asked Bugzilla to accept more reports. See: mw:Talk:Bugzilla#Email addresses do not need to be public anymore --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"rid ourselves of the elitist developer mentality that we have now and welcome the code commits of new people" - Do you actually know what the process is to become a developer? Its basically:

1. Submit a few patches to Bugzilla that don't suck and get them reviewed and/or write up a nice extension and get it committed to SVN, to establish that you know what you're doing.
2. Send an email to Brion or Tim asking for commit access.
3. Get approved, exchange SSH public key, checkout a copy of the code.
4. Start working.

If you use IRC, you can do the last 3 steps in a few minutes. As far as I know, there's no backlog of people waiting for access, just not very many people volunteering. Mr.Z-man 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if not dividends (I am opposed to that myself), Wikipedia should then keep the profits. Become a for-profit corporation. Imagine what Mr. Wales could buy with all that money. Not to mention offering stock in Wikipedia, which would raise more billions of dollars. Seriously, this kind of money being put to use in the the economy would do a lot to stave off the financial crisis and coming recession. JBackus13 (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Big misunderstanding. Money is not being made, it is being redistributed. And advertising dollars that go into Wikipedia would go missing somewhere else. The real value that Wikipedia offers is the encyclopedia. This value is the higher the less strings - visible or invisible - are attached. And if Wikipedia became a publicly traded for-profit, the board would be forced by law to maximize investor returns, not encyclopedic quality. American Idol meets the WWWF - here we come. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you fail to appreciate even the rudimentary aspects of capitalism. Your "zero sum" take on the economy hearkens back to simple Marixan ideology that has been defunct for at least a century. Get with the times... Swinglineboy G (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Note: Swinglineboy G and JBackus13 are blocked sockpuppets of a banned user, JeanLatore/Wiki_brah. Darkspots (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I support on/off buttons for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Wikipedia for all readers (via cookies).

The trolling by Swinglineboy G and JBackus13 became very obvious with their later comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

no ads

This user stands against advertisements on Wikipedia.

For balance.  :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Direct advertising is not the only choice we have. Indirect advertising would work too. For example; the Google search box. See: Wikipedia:Advertisements#Income from search tools on wikipedia pages. For example; from AdSense#AdSense for search is this:

"A companion to the regular AdSense program, AdSense for search, allows website owners to place Google search boxes on their websites. When a user searches the Internet or the website with the search box, Google shares any advertising revenue it makes from those searches with the website owner. However the publisher is paid only if the advertisements on the page are clicked: AdSense does not pay publishers for mere searches."

A variation of this allows the non-profit Mozilla Foundation to raise around $60 million dollars a year. They put Google search as a dropdown option in their Firefox browser search form at the top of all their browsers. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I emphasize again that paying out "dividends" is utterly infeasible for Wikipedia - our contributor base has many core contributors, but also a fat tail of occasional contributors who contribute a large proportion of all content. The administrative and transaction costs are far too high to pay all these people proportionally to their contributions (it's difficult to even determine the value of each user's contribution). There's a reason donation money goes to hardware, and not to us - any kind of compensation system would create perverse incentive to contribute for return without contributing any content of real value. Dcoetzee 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why you are replying to me, though. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. I was replying to the original poster. Blame wiki-based threads and indentation resetting. Dcoetzee 23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not the Mozilla project. They make a browser. We're not a browser. That makes sense in a browser; it doesn't make sense here. Placing a widget to provide search functionality for an external website not connected to the project and that may lead to non-RS/blacklist/spam sites doesn't seem like a particularly good idea by any reasonable stretch, not to mention the ideological problems with an advertisement-driven Wikipedia, which I think are more than enough to keep this from happening. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing special about a browser searchbox. Nor is there anything special about a Wikipedia searchbox. There is one in the left sidebar. As I said earlier, the objections to opt-in ads and expanded searchboxes seem mostly to come from a few ideologues. But I haven't heard any objections to the Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft search tools in Wikipedia's main search page at Special:Search. Click on the dropdown menu there. That searchbar could be moved to the top of Wikipedia pages. There would be no namespace table. So there would be a short searchbar using up half a line. Using space that is currently unused at the very top of Wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Where on the top of the page? The only empty space I can see is next to the page title, but that's only if the title is short enough. And that would be a really annoying place for a search box. Mr.Z-man 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a browser searchbox and a Wikipedia searchbox. A webwide search bar makes sense in a browser; it is, after all, a web browser. That's kind of one of its functions. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a web site; beyond that, we're an encyclopedia. We are not a webwide search engine. if someone wants to search the entire web, they should go to a search engine.

There's also a big difference between using another searching utility to crawl Wikipedia's contents (which makes perfect sense, and can be accomplished without advertising nonsense) and using advertising and adding more searchboxes to confuse users. I don't go to Wikipedia to search the web; I go to Wikipedia to search Wikipedia.

What you propose doesn't even make sense; why on earth would I want to add more steps to a simple process? If I wanted to search the web, I'd use my more efficient browser search bar, which sends my search directly to the wanted search engine; no unnecessary duplicated POSTS happening. I don't want to see all kinds of sponsored crap showing in my searches, and I certainly don't want any kind of corporate interests leveraging any kind of search on-wiki. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You obviously are ignorant about Special:Search, Wikipedia's main search page. The dropdown menu allows one to use search engines from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc. to search Wikipedia.

The left half of the very top line of any Wikipedia page is open. That is what I see right now to the left of my user name at the very top of the page. I am signed in. The searchform and dropdown menu from Special:Search could easily fit there. There is even more space if the Wikipedia globe on the top left is pushed down a little bit.

It is mainly ignorance and a few ideologues that are against millions of dollars of search engine money coming our way. Control-freak ideologues try to control others. They want to prevent others from viewing what those other people want to view. Such as ads. This is paternalism. A non-paternalistic attitude would not feel that optional ads are wrong. Wrong for who? Shouldn't readers decide what to view? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously ignorant about what The search page is. Those items on Special:Search use existing utilities to search Wikipedia; they don't add interstatial ads, popup ads, or any kind of extra fluff nonsense. They're a search engine for here, nowhere else; they don't search outside domains. They're not there to make Wikipedia your "web portal". That's not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And again, like I said, there's a big difference between using someone else's search to trawl Wikipedia and using it to generate ad revenue by putting it in the worst possible place I can think of; the first is current practice. The second ties us to advertisers, as well as making searching clumsy and unprofessional.

If remaining independent from corporate influence and remaining untied to the ad market is 'ignorance', then I guess that's a label that I can live with. At least I'll have a clean conscience and a nice, readable, sensibly designed encyclopedia that doesn't rape me every time I want to find something. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Such hyperbole. So you use Special:Search and the Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft search engines there to search Wikipedia? Putting a half-line version of Special:Search on the top of every page would not "add interstatial ads, popup ads, or any kind of extra fluff nonsense." It is strictly a change of location for a search form that you already use. The big search form would remain at Special:Search. The truncated version would be at the top of every Wikipedia page, and would be much more convenient.

The search results page can be made to open up in another browser tab so as not to cover up the Wikipedia page one is reading. You won't be raped. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So, then, you're seriously proposing a per-search revenue stream without any kind of advertisements wherein the search only operates on a specific domain? Where's the financial incentive for them to do that? You seriously think anyone would go along with that? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist nonsense in AfDs, RMs etc

Not sure if this or the proposals page is the best place to start this, but I'll try here.

The requested move of Flag of the Republic of Ireland is currently awaiting closure, and the debate has spilled over onto Republic of Ireland, where an improperly listed RM has just been opened a couple of months after the previous one closed.

Both debates have been seriously hampered by nationalist bias either from Irish or Northern Irish (and no doubt some will claim, British) editors. I have also seen this repeatedly in the Israeli/Palestinian-related articles, which is my main sphere of work. Nationalists use AfDs and RMs as ways of scoring points and forcing their opinions onto the rest of us. Examples of this include keeping articles on non-notable members of the public killed during the Israeli-Palestinian violence (e.g. Tali Hatuel), most likely as a way of highlighting the acts of the other side. The most well-known piece of nonsense was the multiple nominations of Allegations of Israeli apartheid - 8 times so far).

Anyway, I am getting thoroughly sick of how the nationalist elements are damaging such debates. If you look at the Flag debate, there is currently a majority in favour of the move (possibly helped by the fact that the move was advertised on WikiProject:Ireland and WikiProject:Irish Republicanism, but (unsurprisingly) not on WikiProject:Northern Ireland or WikiProject:Unionism in Ireland). However, if you discount the !votes of Irish and British editors (self-identified on userpages), the majority are actually in favour of the current title.

What do other editors think about requesting that editors with strong national ties to a topic do not participate in such debates (possibly using a template like this) and to leave outside (and much less likely to be biased) editors to the process? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. And this, coming from the original closing admin of the first non-consensual move. Seems like a desperate attempt to grasp at any mechanism to override the clear 27-14 majority to move the article back where it belongs. And what about using this warped logic and applying it to the non-consensual first move? It would disqualify all the opinions - resulting in no move! The original move should never have taken place and should never have been performed by an admin with a clear COI and strong POV on the outcome. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If your view are as such I would suggest you had a WP:COI in closing the first RM at flag of Ireland Gnevin (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So who would define these "Nationalist" or will everyone from Ireland be banned from discussing Ireland related issue. WP:IE was informed as the parent project, i'm not sure why WP:IR was informed or why WP:NIR would be informed bit in anycase. They projects where informed in a neutral fashion. Should we also ban Unionist and British editiors too ? What about Irish Americans?

Quite frankly this is an outrageous suggestion for a Admin to makeGnevin (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's generally quite clear what is contentious or not - anything related to national identity, the events and people involved in conflicts etc. And yes, if there's something contentious relating to Ireland, then it's probably best that Northern Irish and British editors aren't involved (I know I'm currently involved in such a debate, but I'd be more than happy not to in future if something like this could be agreed upon - it has been a very unpleasant experience trying to deal with the flag issue). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Gnevin. Everybody with an interest in this or any other subject has a political POV. Contrary to the perception of POV as a negative thing, the representatation of political POV, especially on talk pages, is essential if NPOV is to be attained. It was you who moved "Flag of Ireland" to "Flag of the Republic of Ireland" on a distinctly dodgy 7:4 majority (not consensus). If you believe your political POV did not affect your decision then you are kidding yourself big time! Inevitably, whether conciously or not, those who want "extremists" excluded from debate are only trying to eliminate opposition to their own POV. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you have no idea of my political POV on Ireland, and I again refer you to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Deletion, moving and featuring "Each of these processes is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." Secondly, like I said, I am happy to remove myself from such debates and rely on the input of outsiders. I would say that nationalists cause even more damage to the project than vandals, and there is almost nothing being done about it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I made no attempt to discern your political POV, I only said that it affected your decision to move the article, whether you think it did or not. Secondly, I also disagree totally with the notion that outside editors are "much less likely to be biased." They are more likely to be biased because, not being fully acquainted with the facts, they are likely to know only one side of the story and reject as crackpots or zealots anybody who puts forward a contrary POV. That is precisely why the input of editors with a strong bias is necessary. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"the input of editors with a strong bias" is precisely what is wrong with Wikipedia.

I think the implication of the claim that my political POV affected my decision to move the article is quite clearly that I am some kind of Unionist who objects to the largest state on the island of Ireland being referred to as Ireland. However, as I stated in my !vote in the second discussion, I am simply looking for consistency with the title of the main article - if it gets moved to Ireland (state) or just Ireland, then the flag (and all the other articles) should follow. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think that that is the implication then you are still not reading what I'm saying. I know you were not entirely ignorant of Ireland when you came to the RM, yet you concluded that the arguments of those who supported the move were coherent and reasonable while those of its opponents had no value, hence your "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" argument. That conclusion was informed by your political POV, regardless of what that POV is! By coming to the village pump to try to silence those who disagree with you, you are not acting against bias at all, only trying to ensure that the bias of "us reasonable people" (and we know who we are, and who the extremists are) will prevail. I repeat, the input of editors with a strong bias, on both sides of any argument, is what will ultimately make Wikipedia more neutral than any paper encyclopedia; the input of wishy-washy "neutrals" who can't even acknowledge their own POV inevitably leads to systemic bias. Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why you are claiming that I am trying to silence those who disagree with me when I've clearly stated that I would be happy to not be part of such debates where I would be compromised and that fellow British editors would also be unwelcome on such debates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I've put it wrongly, then, but I don't know how else to put it. As you've described it there, your proposal seems to be aimed at silencing anybody with a point of view, including yourself. But please tell me, what is the value of a debate where none of the participants has a point of view?

BTW, on re-reading this section it has become clear to me that the word "nationalist" in the heading is meant in its widest sense, but I would guess that many, many people, like me, took "nationalist nonsense" to be a reference to Irish nationalists. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The value of silencing them is that debates can be carried out without the hysterics, accusations etc that usually accompany them, and that it doesn't become a recruiting contest, i.e. which side of the debate can notify the most people to come and vote. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And the arguments are put forward and the decisions are made by the people who know least about the subject! I still don't get it. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm happy for involved editors to contribute evidence, but not actually !vote. I am also confident that there are plenty of people out there who have a good knowledge about what goes on outside their own country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You can take the title however you want. Like I said, the debacle on the flag article pushed me to suggest this, but I've experienced most problems in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere as this is where I tend to work. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not how I take it, I'm just warning you that a lot of people are likely to misinterpret your message and impute certain motives to you. If you're not bothered then neither am I. Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is well worth reading Sarcasticidealist's summary when moving the Flag of Ireland page. While he remarked (quite rightly) that "many of you are coming across as histrionic and a little unreasonable", he nevertheless treated each argument on its merits. It would not have been possible to come up with such a well-presented analysis had he simply disregarded the "nationalists". True consensus, which is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, arises from free and uncensored debate, and not from people with strong views "withdrawing" themselves from the argument. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of the particular articles discussed here. My question is whether there are collaboration WikiProjects in all the areas discussed here. Such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I have been involved in some Israeli and Palestinian article and category editing for a few years. Nothing really helped solve problems as much as Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Also very important were the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Has it really helped though? There are still edit wars raging on multiple articles (e.g. Battle of Jenin) with largely the same set of editors... пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not nearly as bad as it was before. Much more editing actually gets done. Many more articles are created. Before the WikiProject and the sanctions were implemented even the littlest disagreement could take up so much time that there was so much less time left over for productive editing. Nowadays the ratio of productive editing to non-productive arguing is much higher. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration which is inspired by the above project Gnevin (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great! There are a couple current CFD discussions that people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration might be interested in. Please see these 2 discussions linked below. One is above the other on the same page. The discussions concern how to categorize religious and nationalist terrorism.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4#Category:Palestinian terrorism

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4#Category:Nationalist terrorism --Timeshifter (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closures

There have been a few recent WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussions involving closures: Closures by involved editors, Non-admin closing requested move discussion he participated in, Kinobe.

Archived AN discussion: Closing XfDs that you have voted on. added Flatscan (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see two main discussions:

1. Do WP:DPR and/or WP:NAC need clarification? Wikipedia talk:Deletion process looks well-subscribed and is probably a better location to discuss this issue.
2. To what extent do AfD norms cover other discussions (e.g. merge/split, move, RfC)?

Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure by uninvolved admin

Closure by an uninvolved admin is not always required for non-AfD discussions. Obvious WP:SNOW, with a complete absence of opposition, may be applied. Since discussions occurring on article Talk pages are poorly subscribed, an uninvolved closer would need to be solicited, either directly or through a noticeboard. My opinion is that the request is excess process for an obvious SNOW close and that an involved closer does not ipso facto invalidate the close.

Requesting an uninvolved closer is an appropriate, optional step if it is reasonable to believe that the closure may be contested. I recently added a suggestion along those lines to Help:Merging and moving pages; there was previously no guidance.

• Discussions resulting from WP:BRD, with the bold and revert editors in apparent opposition
• Lengthy or heated discussions, easy to spot
• Content RfCs are generally started after an existing dispute cannot be resolved. (manual closure may not be necessary, WP:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs)

I've seen a few requests for closures of contested move or merge discussions at WP:Administrators' noticeboard that had prompt response and no opposition following the close. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding links to Wikipedia namespace pages

The following is copied from
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wavelength adding internal links to Wikipedia namespace pages.

(beginning of copied text)

This is the beginning of a discussion at User talk:Wavelength#Your recent contributions.

Wavelength, I had to revert one of your See also links, and I came over here to look at your contributions. I'm surprised. I'm really not the expert on these things, but this looks like a case of WP:POINT to me (specifically, point 6). Can we talk this out over at WP:ANI? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, I am surprised by your message. I have been working through Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace, to bring more attention to as many pages as possible (especially, orphaned pages, whether or not they are tagged as such). I actually thought that my efforts would be appreciated.

I checked your contributions, and it seems that you are referring to my editing Wikipedia:Explain jargon by adding a link to Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms. I was not trying to illustrate a point. According to WP:POINT, point 6 is: "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community". Maybe I have misinterpreted policy. If that is the case, please explain it to me (as clearly as you can) so that I interpret it correctly. In what way was adding that link inappropriate?

(By the way, are you an administrator? Your link to WP:ANI seems to suggest that you are, but I could find no indication of that on your user page.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, which is why I'm bringing up WP:ANI. You're making rapid additions to policy and guidelines pages, and as one of the guys who keeps track of these things, it's frustrating when one person creates so much work for everyone else, but I'm really not the guy to be making the call whether it's "too much". All I can tell you is, it's frustrating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you find it frustrating, I apologize. I am guessing that "so much work for everyone else" refers to reverting my changes (or, at least, examining them). Can you see my perspective in anticipating people thinking, "Oh, I am glad that someone brought that page to my attention. I did not even know that it existed."?

On some (but not all) occasions when I have added links to these pages on article pages, they have been reverted with the explanation that the links were not to other article pages.

One reason for my proceeding rapidly from A to Z is to avoid forgetting related pages which I have already seen, when I see other related pages later in the alphabet.

In summary, I am perplexed as to how best to bring attention to those pages. Maybe I should abandon that plan.

--Wavelength (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(end of copied text)

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wavelength, are you prepared to accept that Dan has an objection about your changes and move into the "D" phase of WP:BRD? It seems like Wavelength was being bold and making changes to project pages and Dan wants to slow him down. Both actions are fine. Might I suggest finding some centralized place to discuss this where other people who watchlist/shepherd lots of policy pages can participate in the discussion as well? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Village Pump (Policy) is a much better place to carry this on rather than ANI. It seems that both parties are interested in reaching a consensus on this, and neither really wants to be blocked over this, so lets all just enjoy a nice, relaxing hot beverage and discuss this matter at VP, and not here, since it does not appear that admins need to be involved with this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Protonk, I am prepared to do both those things. Thank you, Jayron32, for referring me to Village pump (policy). -- Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(end of text copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see two types of edits in Wavelength's contributions relating to adding links to Wikipedia-namespace pages:
[1] Adding them to other Wikipedia-namespace pages. I have no issue with this as a general principle. Whether the additions are appropriate in each individual case, I have not checked.
[2] Adding them to article-namespace pages. This is a violation of WP:SELFREF, and Wavelength should volunteer to go back and remove those inappropriate cross-namespace links. Anomie⚔ 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This matter concerns some of my editing from 23:39, 20 October 2008 to 17:35, 31 October 2008 inclusive. I have reviewed those changes and identified the non-Wikipedia-namespace pages which I edited by adding one or more links to Wikipedia-namespace pages. Some of the pages edited are in the Help namespace and the Template namespace.

On some pages, the links which I added have been removed by someone else. (r)

On some pages, the pages linked to have been deleted. (d)

On some pages, there might be a special case for keeping my changes (*)

On some pages, I added a subsection for Wikipedia-namespace pages. (n-s)

On some pages, there was already a subsection for Wikipedia-namespace pages, and I added to what was already there (sometimes, with a "srlink" code). (n-s, a)

On some pages, there were already such links with the other links (under "See also"), and I added to them. (, a)

On one page, I added the link under "Examples". (ex)

According to Wikipedia:SELFREF#Self-reference_tools, maybe some of the links which I added can be kept but modified.

(On pages where I alphabetized the list of internal links, generally I found it more efficient to copy and paste the added link first.)

These are the pages which I edited, in chronological order of my first edit (in this matter) to each one.

Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition Nineteen Eighty-Four n-s 2001 r 2002 r 2003 r 2004 r 2005 r Academic Competition Federation ASCII art GNU General Public License Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China Reliability of Wikipedia *, n-s, a History of Wikipedia *, a Criticism of Wikipedia *, a Slash (punctuation) Pedant Weasel word r Help:Starting a new page List of writing systems r d Black's Law Dictionary June 1 List of web browsers

CamelCase Uniform Resource Identifier Cascading Style Sheets Catholic Encyclopedia Diana, Princess of Wales Cemetery Structural formula Chess Chinese Wikipedia Climate change English grammar Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Contradiction Contest Cookbook Country code ISO 3166-1 r List of Wikipedias n-s, a, sr Evolution r d Creationism r d Intelligent design r d Creation-evolution controversy r d

American English British English DVD Link rot Definition Description Recreation ex Posttraumatic stress disorder Domra Easton's Bible Dictionary Consensus decision-making Template:Wikibreak r The Elements of Style Template:Email user Emoticon Encyclopædia Britannica r Theology Facebook r Find A Grave Free On-line Dictionary of Computing Help:Link Libre knowledge Free content , a Open access

Does any of the above information change your decision, even partly?

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I saw Cemetery on the list, and I just had to check it. It was a link to Wikipedia:Cemeteries, which is a guide on how to write wikipedia article about cemeteries. Imagine the Britannica article on Cemeteries linking to the relevant part of their style guide. That sort of self-referential stuff belongs to the talk page, where people interested on writing the article will see it. See, people who want to find encyclopedic information on cemeteries will get absolutely nothing from that sort of link.

Similar for Chess and Wikipedia:Chess, which holds a link to wikiproject chess and another link to a defunct chess championship. There is already a link to wikiproject chess on the talk page, and the defunct championship will be of no interest to 99,9999999999% of people that come to wikipedia to look for encyclopedic information about the chess game.

Links to wikipedia namespace belong on the talk page, for editors, not on the article pages, for readers that want to read about the subject of the articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the ones you marked "a", "*", or "ex". Note that I didn't bother to check which links you added, as anything I would say about your links applies equally to any that were there before you came along.

• Reliability of Wikipedia - I don't know which you added to the See Also section, but in the current version all of the links are external links (e.g. using {{srlink}}); this is good, but they should go in the External Links section or be removed if they don't meet WP:EL. I do see in the prose some cross-namespace links; those should be cleaned up (by someone, not necessarily you).
• Criticism of Wikipedia - ditto (didn't check the prose).
• List of Wikipedias - ditto (no problems in the prose that I could see, though).
• History of Wikipedia - If they're relevant, they should be converted to use {{srlink}}.
• Recreation - Useless, remove it.
• Free content - A link to Wikipedia might be useful, links to Wikipedia-namespace pages are not.

I suspect the rest of the articles would prove non-useful; I know ISO 3166-1 did, I did the removal there ;) What the appropriate ones have in common is that they pass WP:EL, and thus they'd be included in the corresponding article in a non-Wikipedia "Wikipedia". Anomie⚔ 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I have corrected most of them according to your instructions. There are three left that possibly need to be corrected. (I did not check or change the prose in any of the ones mentioned above.)

Is there a special case for keeping my changes to these pages, because they are not in the main namespace (the article namespace)?

• Help:Starting a new page
• Template:Email user
• Help:Link

(The page Wikipedia:Glossary corresponds to pages in the "Help" namespace in the French, Spanish, and Italian Wikipedias. The page Wikipedia:Edit summary legend corresponds to pages in the "Help" namespace in the German, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on those, there's nothing a priori wrong with links from those non-article pages to the Wikipedia namespace. Leave them unless someone else starts a discussion, I would say. Anomie⚔ 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Attributation for the purposes of meeting a copyright release

Whilst browsing through a series of articles on various space phenomena, I noticed a large number of captions which read similar to these:

"The "Pillars of Creation" from the Eagle Nebula. Courtesy of NASA/ESA" "Detail of Hubble image. Courtesy of NASA/ESA"

Emphasis mine.

The reason I make mention of this is that it is my understanding that all work taken by STScI (via Hubble) was done under contract to NASA and therefore any work would be immediately under the public domain.

I don't necessarily object to the tags per se, but there is quite a large amount of information in the form of pictures which are displayed without any accreditation on article pages whatsoever as they are being used under fair use. It would appear to be at least a little unfair that we're giving accreditations to groups (where one of the data for the picture on the file page states no such accreditation is required) whilst using images (at least theoretically against a company or person's wishes) and not giving any attributation at all.

I make no claims to knowing much about US copyright law beyond what I've picked up here, but if I've made some kind of huge error can someone point this out, if not would it not be a reasonable suggestions to remove any Courtesy of etc... unless specifically required to keep the image on WP? BigHairRef | Talk 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NASA works are public domain. Works by NASA contractors sometimes are, some times aren't. Works by the ESA or ESA contractors are not. Which these images are, I don't know. --Carnildo (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hubble material you see on these pages is copyright-free and may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:

• ESA is credited as the source of the material (images/videos etc.). Please add other additional credit information that is posted together with the material.
• The images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
• If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.

We request a copy of the product to be sent to us to be included in our archive.

It seems from that that NASA are trying to have their cake and eat it. THey've said specifically that the material is copyright free, and then give a series of conditions to avoid paying a fee?

Assuming their assertion that they need attributation to be fee-free, would a notice on the file page not suffice? BigHairRef | Talk 15:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry substitute ESA for NASA. BigHairRef | Talk 15:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're slightly mistaken. There's no option wherein you pay a fee; the second and third conditions aren't really copyright-related, and is a restatement of some principles of personality law (e.g, even using a public domain image identified as such in such a manner could carry consequences), and the first is simple creditation. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The last discussion I've seen regarding attribution for images resulted in a consensus that the attribution on the image page is sufficient. I also don't understand how it can be "copyright-free" and still require attribution, although it's always polite to give the attribution anyway. As Celarnor noted, the second is related to trademark and truth-in-advertising rather than copyright, and the third is related to privacy and personality rights; both are more of a "Coffee may be hot" type of warning than a restriction on those particular images. Anomie⚔ 16:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I obviously wasn't massively clear before. I am aware there wasn't an option to pay a fee, the point I was trying to make was that if a fee had to be paid (as in we couldn't use the images copyright free with out saying from NASA or ESA) then the imaes could be used under fair use.

As it stands it would appear that we don't need to attribute at all as they've already stated that the images are public domain, and even if we feel the need to an attributation on the file page would suffice. Anomie, have you got any idea where that discussion may have taken place? BigHairRef | Talk 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that even if, strictly speaking, the attribution "requirement" is more of a request, it's still polite to do so and I doubt many people have objections to their finding their way in the captions. — Coren ^(talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't object to 'any caption, but given thst I've never seen one for any other company or person, other than NASA I don't see why we should make them a special case.

Now if we were to caption all PD pictures then I wouldn't have a problem. BigHairRef | Talk 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that crediting NASA/ESA makes sense, but for a completely different reason: readers might be interested in who created the image. The same is not true of a photo taken by a random Wikipedian or Flickr user. --NE2 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear again there, I wasn't suggesting the credit of an individual user, but if for example an AP or Getty photo was conceiveably used then we should also attribute them as well as NASA. BigHairRef | Talk 12:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope adjustment to WP:3RR

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Old_Scope_Creep.3F for a proposed trimming of an old exemption from this policy. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What level of consensus is required to mark a policy as "disputed"?

WP:PLOT has been templated with "disputed or under discussion", so the meta-policy question is: what level of 'dispute' is sufficient for such tagging to occur. The practice is that anyone can label an article with some version of "disputed" (factual, POV, etc.). I see a new trend to label policies as "disputed", which is bit worrisome, as virtually any policy has some detractors, so this precedent could easily degenerate in a mass tagging of policies. VG ☎ 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)I previously asked this at WP:AN, but I moved the discussion here per recommendation on that board.

This issue is kind of addressed at WP:Policies and guidelines. But I agree that these tags are overused. Or rather that they are misworded - rather than saying "disputed", they should simply state that there is currently discussion of the issue on the talk page. If the (as yet rather theoretical) process described on that page is followed, then the tag should be removed when a neutral editor closes the discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned about the edit summary too; what part of the "!" in "!vote" makes it compatible with, like, basing arguments on tallies of them? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a lot stronger consensus than 50% for a policy. If there are as many people who disagree with it that agree with it, then its obvious that there are some things that need to be worked out. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Head count has very little to do with what WP understands as consensus, outwith Wikipedian Idol RfA. That's one of things which seriously irks me about the whole term "!vote"; it's meant to be a cute way of pointing out that consensus is not a head count, and then people go counting heads anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

True. If you went by head count alone, WP:RS is one of the most disputed policies there is, but I don't think many serious or responsible editors would dispute the need for reliable sourcing.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Head count alone doesn't mean anything (i.e, "Me toos", "I agree with X", "Per Y", etc), there are a great many more things that have to be taken into consideration, but it is a part of it. If there's logical arguments on both sides with support from roughly the same amount of editors, its probably a good sign that something shouldn't be tagged as policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there's a general understanding, though, that if there's no consensus in a particular discussion, then the status quo remains. We need some kind of stability in our policies, otherwise they serve little purpose.--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

Today's featured articles are a clear violation of the "wikipedia pillar": " Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". Wikipedia is (or suggests to be) deciding it's featured article of the day with relation to a present time event. On doing so, specially since it is without precedent (as far as I can remember) it implicitly recognizes that event as "important". Even the format has changed: we have two featured articles on today's page. Will the Swiss elections have their main candidates pictured in the featured articles present? And the Spanish elections? If not, how come the american elections have? It is very sad and bad for the credibility of the encyclopedia. Is it an american encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilhermesfc (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite sincerely believe that if the articles on the main candidates in the Swiss and Spanish elections are brought up to Featured Article status by the time of their elections, something similar would be done. Besides that, WP:NPOV doesn't prohibit recognition of events as important - indeed, by having articles on a given subject we are implicitly recognizing it as being important to somebody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevance to a particular day has been a criterion for choosing TFA for quite some time now. In any case, there is already an enormous ongoing discussion at Talk:Main Page. Algebraist 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's recognition of the fact that the whole world is holding its breath.... Darkspots (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion page about many of the FAs that appear on the main page. There was an extensive discussion about today's. The first suggestion for today was Harriet Tubman, but many editors who are involved in the FA process thought it would be better and much more in line with the biggest event of the day (year) to have both candidates' on the main page. There was a related discussion about how to place them: side by side, up or down, democrat or republican first, alphabetic order... Two FAs on the main page is a first for Wikipedia. Should other countries' candidates articles be promoted to FA, this would be a precedent. I'm sure Canadian, British, Australian, South African - any other English-speaking (or not) country to have candidate articles prepared for an election day would be welcome. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely would be great to have more of this in the future for elections in all countries. The incredibly long lead-in time for American elections makes it easier but it should be possible to repeat elsewhere. Darkspots (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what Moni3 said above, it is not entirely unusual for FAs to be featured on the main page on a particularily relevant date. Off the top of my head, just last month the USS New Jersey (BB-62) article was the main page on the anniversary of the date the ship became a museum ship. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a quick glance at the FA archive shows it is not at all unusual to have a FA on the main page on a date that is especially relevant to the topic. A quick scan of the |October archive found that the following articles were all featured on the main page on dates relevant to the topic: James Robert Baker on his birthday, Akhtar Hameed Khan on the anniversary of his death, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix on the date of that race, Panic of 1907 was 101 years after that October event, and Treehouse of Horror (series) on Halloween. Personally, I rather like having topically relevant FAs. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA loophole.

Well, I have started a page where we could pool our whole "section 11" mayham. And until then, lets try not to transwiki anything alright? ViperSnake151 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This will sound unlike me as a real-life attorney, but this strikes me as a purely theoretical concern that is unlikely to actually affect the operations of the project (in other words, is anyone genuinely likely to care enough to take any action against us?). Of course, I could be wrong, and any genuine compatability issues should be addressed by people with more qualifications than me (i.e., IP counsel) as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While its probably true those eligible to file suit against us for actionable material probably ... won't ... I really don't think "Oh, its okay, no one really cares, so we're alright" is the correct attitude to take with this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just counseling avoiding panic. Of course it needs to be investigated and, if necessary, fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it only takes one person to do it out of spite to cause a big mess. --Tango (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait... any GFDL'd content that comes from another (GFDL) wiki is kosher, because it is on a:

• Licenced under the GNU FDL 1.3 (we're 1.2++), and originally published on a MMCS

ffm 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't I cite some articles?

Korean wikipedia prohibit to cite something. Becuase original article's copyright lisence is not GFDL.

I can't cite non-GFDL articles?

I saw many non-GFDL citations in english wikipedia.

What is wikimedia foundation's official policy? -- WonRyong (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter determined by the foundation, and we can't help you with the policies of the Korean Wikipedia. You should discuss this in the appropriate place over there. Algebraist 08:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Foundation issues, policies are up to each individual language project. With that said, unless there's a misunderstanding or a miscommunication, this sounds rather daft, as it effectively means you can't cite any sources. Perhaps you mean the problem is with hyperlinking, not simply placing a note that says, "see Book Foo, page 30"? Or is there some legal issue in South Korea (I presume) with certain citations? If the policy really is as you stated, that almost sounds like it would violate NPOV, which is a Foundation issue; how do you accurately determine what others say if you can't indicate your source material?

On a tangentially-related note, it would be really really really nice if the Foundation bothered to hire some translators, or at least set up some kind of relationship with a translation company. As it is now, interlingual project communication is like pulling teeth, as you either have to hunt down a very rare editor who's sufficiently fluent in each language, or attempt to work out what the other person is trying to say. —Slowking Man (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the list at WP:Translators available. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what exactly you mean by "Korean wikipedia prohibit to cite something". Do you mean that it is disallowed to copy large parts of non-GDFL source text directly into the article? Or copy small parts directly in some or all cases? Or is it also disallowed to formulate an article in the words of the editors and use a non-GFDL source as citation to verify the article? It's the last which English editors associate with the word "cite" and find really strange. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If something bad happens to Jimmy Wales

What would happen with wikipedia?Mr.K. (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We would all mourn, but that's about it. Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which makes it able to operate independent from mr. Wales (even though atm, he still has a lot of influence by being on the board of that foundation). A new person would be sought within the community to fill his position and the foundation would live on, as would Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we'd need someone to fill his position, whatever that is. --NE2 19:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Special:Listusers, his status is Founder. I'm not sure if that would need a replacement. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We could always get Larry Sanger --NE2 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Were something bad to happen, I think I'd nominate Newyorkbrad as the next leader of the project. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think his function of Founder, is specific to him. If there would be no more Jimbo, there would be no more Founder position in the board. But, the board in that case would slink 1 member, and the board would always have the option of adding a new member (with a to be determined "function") in that case. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We could create a "vice-spokesperson" position. But please, let's not tell Sarah Palin that there's a new job opening. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While it can be argued that Wikipedia might even benefit from more or different leadership, I don't think the role currently embodied by Jimbo really has to be filled by just one person. Should something terrible happen, I expect Jimbo's authority would be redistributed across various people, boards, and committees. Dragons flight (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's hear it for beaurocracy : )

Joking aside, I wonder if he has an "heir", and presuming they were interested, I suppose they might fill the role, though I don't know if with as much community support. He seems rather unique in that respect.

There's also the issue of the fact that technically he is the last horizon as far as if arbcom needs to be disbanded or overturned. (Not that anyone forsees that, but still...) - jc37 08:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "bureaucracy" (one of my fave gotchas in the English language). :) That said, the dramaz generated by the succession battle for the Benevolent Absolute Monarch (or whatever the vogue term is these days) would quite possibly violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this project has already reached the critical mass necessary to survive the death of its initial founder and leader (though, of course, I hope that day is not soon in coming). The Wikimedia Foundation is already established to provide for the financial and legal needs of the project, and the community already is largely in control of its day to day operations. I think that process has in no small part been thanks to Jimbo's increasingly presenting himself as "one more editor" in most issues here, rather than the God-King with unlimited veto power, and indeed his wishes have been overridden in some cases when this has been so. This project is beyond the scope of what any one person could hope to effectively control, but the many who assist in it do an excellent job. Jimbo, anymore, is more of a figurehead than an actual leader; day to day, a given arbitrator, bureaucrat, administrator, or even trusted and established editor has more to do with the direction the project goes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Contact information in articles

What is Wikipedia's policy on the inclusion of contact details (phone numbers, email addresses, snailmail addresses, whatever) in articles? I can't seem to find any statement on the matter by a quick search. I gather that they should never contain personal contact info, but what about contact details of a company/organisation?

Sometimes I see a broken phone number in an article, and I end up fixing it, but I'd like to know in which circumstances the right course of action is actually to remove it altogether. -- Smjg (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In almost all cases, an external link to the subject's official website would include that information anyway, so there's no point in providing it here. It's also a bit unencyclopedic - we're not a phone directory, after all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, not only is WP not a directory but contact details in an article invite contact and are therefore promotional, so I either delete them or in egregious cases tag the article for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensibility of articles

I recently posted a proposal on the proposals section of the VP aimed at improving the comprehensibility of articles. Far too many Wikipedia articles are hard to understand even for well-educated readers. However, I think that before we figure out how to better address this major problem, we need to determine what Wikipedia's policy is or should be on comprehensibility. It is clear that not every article is going to be instantly comprehensible to every reader.

Below, I've posted some precepts that I hope we can agree on. If we can agree on the root ideas, we can then discuss how to ensure they are taken into account by editors.

• Every article should describe at least the core of the concept in such a way that the least knowledgeable likely audience (hereafter "LKLA") can understand it.
• If an subject matter is likely to be encountered in daily life (e.g., in a newspaper), the LKLA should be considered a general audience. In other cases, the LKLA might be an undergraduate student in the field or, in rare cases, even a specialist in the field.
• Ideally, all of an article should be comprehensible to the LKLA, with more-complex topics in separate articles, where they can be explored in depth. If this is not possible, the part of the article comprehensible to the LKLA should be at the top, with the higher-level detail toward the bottom.
• If an article is not comprehensible to a general audience, the general reader should be able to find elsewhere in Wikipedia the background information necessary to understand the article. The complex article should help point the reader in the right direction. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This concern has been raised before, and resulted in the creation of Simple English Wikipedia. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple english is (in my view) a still-born project and even if it wasn't, it's existance does not solve the problems we have with our articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't solve our articles, no, but if there are people out there who can't comprehend a given article, it's better to dumb it down there and keep the more accurate, precise version here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But at least 99.9% (and that's not a guess - they have 41,000 articles, we have over two million) of our articles don't exist there and never will, they don't have the manpower and our project is expanding quicker than they can create articles - Simple is a red herring in this discussion, it solves nothing and will play absolutely no part in solving this problem. You might as well just say "well they should go google". --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Their problems are not our problems. By the same token that an article gets deleted on some character on Heroes and were correctly told to TRY a heroes-related wiki, "Not a lot of participants" doesn't mean you get to put the article back in mainspace. By the same token, we shouldn't allow crappy, dumbed-down and oversimplified articles. That's not what Wikipedia is here for. For what it's worth, though, I don't even think this is a problem. I've never seen an article that was difficult for me to comprehend. All of them have had wiki links to any relevant problematic terminology right there in the article, so whenever I need clarification on a specific sorting method or what not, I could just go there. I really just don't understand what this is about. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the phrase "dumbed-down" and its equivalents should be banned from this discussion. The proposal is not to dilute the content of articles but to express it in the simplest way that is adequate. For example Richrd Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life don't hold back on the content, but are masterpieces of exposition - see for example Gould's description of tagmosis in arthrpods. That's the standard of exposition WP should aim for. --Philcha (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• We already have at least one policy on this, WP:NOT PAPER: A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Mwalcoff, you're describing the way that many good writers here already work. We try to make each article accessible to the type of person who is likely to look it up; so addition should be written at a very different level than Peano axioms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support any attempt to make WP more comprehensible to non-specialists. I've seen enough complaints on Talk pages from non-editors about excessivlet complex language and presentation. As Cameron Scott says, Simple English WP is not the answer.

Unfortunately neither is the extract Colonel Warden quotes from WP:NOT PAPER. Leads are particularly difficult, since WP:LEAD restricts them to 4 paras and some reviewers seem to come in with preconceived ideas about the maximum lengths of leads. In order to summarise a complex article the lead is often forced to become an abstract, and abstracts of scientific papers are generally incomprehensible to non-specialists. I suggest WP:LEAD be revised to prioritise its objectives in the the order (1) comprehensibility, (2) adequate summary, (3, by some distance) brevity.

I think Mwalcoff's idea of a least knowledgeable likely audience ("LKLA") is sensible, but needs to be tightened up. IMO the default LKLA should be an averagely literate 12-year-old - for example kids are enthusiatic readers of articles on dinosaurs, and I've seen questions from kids on dino-related Talk pages - sometimes quite intelligent ones, even if phrased in simple terms. So I suggest "averagely literate 12-year-old" should be written into all relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:MOS and the GA and FA review criteria.

However I acknowledge that some subjects cannot be expressed at the "averagely literate 12-year-old" level - notably in maths, physics and chemistry. In these cases I suggest the burden of proof must be placed on editors and (when suggesting copyedits) reviewers to show that more complex terminology, mathematical expressions, etc, are necessary.

Finally, as "averagely literate 12-year-old" implies, the actual English used should be as simple as possible and all the precepts of the many articles and books on writing for the Web (e.g. this one) should be incorporated into WP:MOS. Sadly at present many editors and reviewers are keener to show off their literary skills than to communicate with an audience. --Philcha (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Philcha, you missed one of the objectives of the lede - it has to be (0) correct. If a person just scans the lede, and doesn't read the rest of the article, we don't want them to leave with any false ideas. This is a particularly tricky requirement for technical subjects, because they require space to explain properly in a way that can't be misinterpreted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl (CBM, I totally agree. That means brevity drops to a distant 4th and preconceived restrictions should be eliminated. --Philcha (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As any good professional communications professor will tell you, successfully communicating a topic requires accuracy, precision, and conciseness. In scientific, engineering and math articles, you don't have the luxury of catering to someone with no idea what the subject is even about. You have to use terminology to be absolutely precise. Explaining every relevant of the field to the level of detail required would simply be absurd, especially when you reach advanced topics like logic theory, compiler design, multivariable equations, and what not. You simply can't; you can't accurately describe a derivative as anything other than the instantaneous slope of the curve arrived at via the limit process, at least not without mangling the meaning or expanding the article into something much longer and more confusing.

Our article derivative has a reasonable shot at summarising the topic in one simple sentence: Loosely speaking, a derivative can be thought of as how much a quantity is changing at some given point. This demonstrates that simple language can be used in such a case. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with you vehemently about dumbing down article content, I couldn't agree with you more regarding leads, although I've never seen a lead like the ones you mention. Most of the ones that I've seen, including those at pi and e (mathematical constant), have been quite good. Some of them have taken it too far (re Curvilinear coordinates) and have dumbed things down almost too far), but I don't really see that as a big problem; so long as the definition and information remains expressed more accurately elsewhere in the article, I don't see anything wrong with it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"As any good professional communications professor will tell you" would not be accepted in an article, and I see no reason to accept it here.

I think you've forgotten something - "match your style to your audience". For example I've explained database concepts to managers without ever mentioning Codd, Date, etc. - in some cases I started with the disadvantages of the old multi-part form sets. Obviously presentations about databases to other audiences - e.g. (a) every-day commercial programmers (b) DB software designers (c) DB theorists - would all be different. The basic point is that encyclopedias are entry-points for non-specialists, while specialists use publications appropriate to their own specialism. --Philcha (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this like many things is something that develops over an article's lifetime. Defining a technical term precisely is relatively easy, and can typically be ripped straight from a textbook. Defining it in an introductory, approachable, yet not-misleading way is extremely difficult and is a problem educators struggle with everyday. This should be considered a lofty goal for an article to aim for, rather than a requirement. Dcoetzee 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Evan Kucera Incident revives sucide/violence discussion

this incident shows what can happen on the pages of Wikipedia. Various attempts to establish a policy have failed time and again. The problem was they all suggested to help the victim. I propose for this new policy we should just use IP geolocation (using checkuser if nessecary) and calling the police in the user's area. This should make WP:SUICIDE policy and the primary intent should be to sent the issue to the athorities as soon as possible. Any objections?--Ipatrol (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Several objections. View the discussion at TOV and its archives for reasons why this would be a terrible, terrible idea. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Colour on its entry

I think that the traditional and right spelling of Colour should be used for the entry on Colour. Sure, keep the URL the same for proper linking purposes, but at least for the entry have "Colour or color" and a link to the American/Brit spelling differences. That's the way it is for behaviour and neighbour. Please look into this. Regards, 68.111.64.250 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)