Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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

Improving Wikipedia's credibility

Merged to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - please avoid Wikipedia:Multiposting

Noindex of brand-new pages

Would it be helpful or hurtful if brand-new pages and pages recently moved into article space, say, pages less than 6 hours old, were not indexed? I'm not sure how this could be done or even if it could be done, but supposing it could, is it a good idea or bad idea?

The goal is to deter search-engine vandalism. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about NOINDEX being set until the page is patrolled, and then it reamins for one hour in case it's CSDed?

That would work if the indexing was added to unpatrolled pages more than a day old, and if it was added to previously-patrolled user-space pages which were moved to mainspace for the first 24 hours in mainspace. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it take a while for a page to be indexed anyway? The crawler has to get to it. –xeno (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen google get a page within 4-6 hours of creation. So it should be assumed that if a page is created, it is google-dexed. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do decide to set new pages to NOINDEX until they've been patrolled (and perhaps also unsighted versions under some proposals), then for the benefit of crawlers, we need to ensure that there is an RSS feed that lists pages that become indexable. Otherwise, the crawler will find the page under new pages or recent changes, note that it is NOINDEX, and never revisit it. Bovlb (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've said this before but this is a good reason to enable FlaggedRevs. Then it would be as simple as have to NOOINDEX'ing all pages which have no flagged rev. Pages which do have some flagged revs would display the last flagged rev by default and to anonymous users including the GoogleBot. — CharlotteWebb 16:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the everyman

I have noticed this problem for some time now but I wished to have some form of solution before I brought it to the attention of the wiki communtiy at large. Unfortunatly, I have not found one thus I am openning the floor to suggestions by anyone. I have noticed the pages in the math and physics sections of wiki have become far too complex for the everyman to understand. I understand the desire to include the proper equations and theory behind the pricipals but most people do not come to wiki for equations like : $ds^{2}=-\left(1-{2M \over r}\right)dt^{2}+{1 \over 1-{2M \over r}}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}.\,$ They come for a basic overview understand or to find places where they can do more reaserch through our references. That is not to say that we shouldn't have the complexies of physics and math theories on the site. I just think that there should be a seperation or even a seperate page for it. Proposal: Each theory gets its own basic oerview page. From those pages there are links to more advanced pages that are for people with degrees in those areas. Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... can you give an example of an article like this? In my experience articles that would feasibly be in a general encyclopedia like special relativity do have an overview before they proceed into more technical details.

But many of the math and physics topics that have articles here are things that would never appear in a general encyclopedia, they're things that would only appear in a specialized encyclopedia of math, science, or physics. (Which is still within the scope of Wikipedia, though; there's nothing that says Wikipedia is supposed to be only a general encyclopedia, or that it needs to be like a general encyclopedia more than a specialized encyclopedia at all, for that matter.) In those cases I don't think it's really appropriate to write the article so it could be understood by the layman; it's ideal if that's possible, of course, but educating the lay reader far enough to understand topics like semigroups or Lie superalgebra or what a phonon or what entanglement distillation is would be beyond the purview of an encyclopedia, I think. That sort of thing might be more appropriate for the Wikiversity.

That actually might be a good idea for the Wikiversity too... to have pages that are paired to scientific or technical topics that are designed to direct a lay reader through learning what they need to know to understand the topic. I'm imagining a link "Can't understand this? Click here." in the Wikipedia article... that could be pretty cool if it was done well, actually... you could use templates across multiple Wikiversity pages that would cover the basics in each field and subfield... hmm. I think I might go mention that to them.

It's sort of like, if you were looking at the entry for an episode of the American television show Lost, you wouldn't expect to see an explanation of the entire television show or the season that the episode is from. Or if you were looking at the entry for Andrei Gromyko, whose claim to notability is that he was the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union during the 1980's, you wouldn't expect to see anything but the briefest explanation of what that position entails or how it fit into the structure of Soviet government, nor a discussion of the politics or history of the Soviet Union in general. It's the same in the case of math and science except you'd probably expect to have to read a great many more articles before reaching an understanding of it just from an encyclopedia.

Anyways, I also don't agree that the people coming to these articles are likely to be the Everyman. I think it's much more likely to be a student or a scientist in a related field. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I know many people who use wiki for getting a basic idea of a topic but I agree now that's probably not the general use for topics like quantum mechanics and entanglement. I actually went back to one of the pages I thought was too complex and realized that I skimmed through the layman explanation by accident. However, I still think my idea has merit but perhaps as you suggested, it would do better on Wikiversity. Anyway thank you for the response. I have had people who will shut me down before they really understand what I am saying so it is really refreshing to have someone take the time to read what I said before responding. Thank you Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(response to original post) There are many technical topics that necessarily require a lot of background to describe, but we try to assume as little background as possible. Sometimes articles on basic topics come out as too technical, but this is an issue that is being actively worked on. If you come across any article like this, please use the {{technical}} cleanup tag to mark it. I think it would needlessly divide effort to write two separate articles on any topic; detailed information of little relevance to a general reader can be relegated to its own section(s). Dcoetzee 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One approach has been to split topics into separate articles, one for introductory purposes and another for a more technically advanced presentation. Some examples of this approach can be seen at User talk:Kenosis/Research2. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any article on a notable topic that people I trust tell me is really well-written, even if I can't follow the article. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question, and I think it implicates the general question of "What is an encyclopedia for?" I actually disagree with the heading that an encyclopedia is "For the everyman." An encyclopedia is designed to be a quick reference guide, or compendium of learning on a topic. I don't think it's realistic to think of an encyclopedia as a substitute for receiving an education in a topic. Quite frankly, I don't think that anybody is going to be looking up a complex math equation on Wikipedia unless they already have some interest in advanced math. I don't see the point in dumbing things down for the general reader when it's highly unlikely that a general reader would ever consult a page like this in the first place.

I think that if you look at classic encyclopedias, such as our well-beloved 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, you would see that its content was often fairly technical, at least to the point where it required a person to be generally educated in a subject in order to understand what's going on. A couple examples: the 1911 article on Condensation of Gases, Geometrical Continuity, or Calculus of Differences.

The fact of the matter is that in any field of knowledge, as you move from a general overview towards the specifics, the content of the articles is going to be more and more difficult for non-specialists to ascertain. I don't find that problematic because, as I said, an encyclopedia is a reference guide of learning and a compendium of knowledge, not a substitution for an education.

Adam_sk (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for entries on free software projects?

Recently, the entry on the free software project TurnKey Linux (copy from google cache) was speed deleted, in error, as spam at the sole discretion of an administrator (Efe) who does not seem to understand the concept of a free software project.

Update: the copy of the entry which I copied into User:LirazSiri/TurnKey Linux has been deleted in yet another abuse of process by User:JzG, a zealous deletionist who has threatened twice on User_talk:LirazSiri to block me for "making waves" (I.e., expressing my opinions). I've asked him to reinstate the entry so non-administrators can judge it based on its merits, and more importantly cool down and let someone else weigh in on this matter. - LirazSiri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

For the time being, the google cache for the article can be found here: [1] LirazSiri (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After running into a wall with the deleting administrator, I asked for a review of the deletion. I believed the absurdity of arguing that an entry on a free software project (that obviously isn't selling anything) meets the Wikipedia criteria for spam, would quickly dawn on the community and the entry would be restored.

Instead the entry has jumped from the frying pan into the fire, with a handful of deletionists now arguing that though the entry is not spam, it should still be deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability despite being independently sourced, the argument being that the cited sources are not significant enough.

More worrisome however is that the TurnKey Linux entry exceeds the de-facto notability standard adhered to by most Ubuntu derivatives and free software projects listed on Wikipedia, only a few of which are sourced independently.

In general, most free software is at a disadvantage here compared with proprietary software because free software projects typically don't have a budget to spend on public relations.

Does this mean literally hundreds of Wikipedia entries on free software are at risk of deletion? Is a "speedy deletion" nomination and oblivious administrator all that it takes? Also, don't count on Wikipedia:deletion review to save free software coverage on Wikipedia because there seems to be a bias there towards deletionism - following a strict and demanding interpretation of the official guidelines seems to matter to more than improving Wikipedia.

I'm writing not just to save the TurnKey Linux entry but also because I am alarmed at what I believe is the very real potential for deletionism to destroy Wikipedia's valuable coverage of all but the largest of the free software projects.

The purpose of the notability guidelines is well intentioned, but like any other guideline it is a vehicle for improving Wikipedia, not an end in itself. In many areas, especially niche areas such as free software, the matter is far from black and white and if you set the bar too high you run the risk of violating Wikipedia's ignore all rules policy which roughly states: "Any policy, guideline, or other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia."

Update: I withdrew my request for a deletion review so as far as I'm concerned the issue is no longer the entry on TurnKey Linux but rather the general notability of hundreds of Wikipedia entries on free software projects which could suffer the same fate. From Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_3: "Alright, that's it deletionists - you win. I give up! I hereby remove my deletion review request and will refrain from commenting any further on this matter. It seems once they throw the book at you arguing is an exercise in futility. Nevermind that the article has been around informing users for many months with no objections. Nevermind that the original reason for deletion (Wikipedia:SPAM) was absurd and that debate was never sought. Nevermind that capricious and arbitrary nature in which one free software entry is singled out over hundreds of others by a kafkaesque mob that seems eager to ignore the Wikipedia:ignore all rules policy and discounts my arguments due to the poisoned well nature of my contribution to the article or the project it describes. None of that matters because once an entry is deleted (for whatever reason) and reaches review it will be held up to standards which few entries of its kind could meet. I get it now. You win. Good day." - LirazSiri (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could everyone who cares about this please weigh in? What do you think?

—LirazSiri (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, being based on free software, free software ideals, and crowd-sourced development, has an innate bias of editors towards free software. Please remember that when complaining about any bias towards deletion.

However, outside of some large projects, most free and/or open source software is a niche. You said so yourself. It does not get used nearly as much as the press about it would indicate. Most open source projects do not, and will not, meet our notability requirements. It is not about money for advertising and public relations. It is about mainstream attention and documentation. A product that gets used will get attention, reviews, critics and recommendations, and independent documentation.

Wikipedia isn't the place to document most of these projects. There are other wikis devoted to documenting open source projects but I don't know of any universally respected one. Moving the Wikipedia content that has been deleted to another wiki is always an option. Miami33139 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requester forgot to mention that they are a developer of the software in question, and that the sources in the article were two mentions in the Ubuntu community weekly newsletter (not independent, sourced fomr the project itself) and multiple pages from the project's website. This was a classic WP:CSD#G11 deletion of WP:COI material with no reliable independent sources cited. As you say, our bias is towards, not against, this kind of software, but software projects are no different from garage bands: no independent sources, no article. And don't write about your own endeavours is a part of WP:BAI as well as WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubuntu Newsletter has a good reputation, has been operating for years and is read by hundreds of thousands every week. I don't see how the community journalists who put their heart and soul into it are any different from journalists in other media sources. I added that source in good faith because I believed it to be a legitimate reference. I find your casual dismissal of the sources in the article to fit the pattern of arbitrary and abusive callousness that led you to threaten repeatedly on User_talk:LirazSiri to silence me for "making waves" (I.e., criticizing counter-productive deletionism that does improve Wikipedia) and to delete the copy of the entry in question that I put up in my user page for non-administrators to review. Is dissenting opinion from the Wikipedia community so frightening that you would risk your reputation to crush it? Shame on you for abusing your administrator privileges. - LirazSiri (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally see why you'd find it offensive for the article to be defined as 'spam', liraz - and personally I hope it hasn't insulted or stressed you out. I think it was a mistake to call it 'spam' - and fwiw I for one, am sorry that happened. The whole 'notability' thing is a bit harder to figure out - it is important that article subjects are 'notable', but obviously it's important that this is discussed / checked out openly / fairly etc. Sorry if you feel you've been caught up in something, Liraz, I'll certainly take a closer look to see if I think I might be able to help, for what that's worth :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at the deletion log, and without being able to see the article, I can't really comment on whether the criteria given were actually met. But ISTM speedy deletion wasn't the right route. Moreover, A7 was given in one instance, but from what I can make out it isn't even in the scope of article subjects to which A7 applies. And looking at the deletion review, the only thing I can see that might be a valid reason for the deletion is being the work of a developer of the product, but I'm still not sure about this. Liraz,

Are you an actual member of the TurnKey Linux development team, or just a random individual who happens to have contributed something to the project?
How much have you contributed to the article that was deleted? Did you create the article, contribute much to it, or just add a few bits here and there?

-- Smjg (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smjg, I created the article and wrote the bulk of its content while adhering closely to Wikipedia guidelines. The article was written in a neutral tone (at least nobody is disputing that) and was properly sourced, though some dispute the reputability of those sources (it was the Ubuntu newsletter). I also prominently displayed my involvement with the project on my user page to promote transparency. I actually don't do a great deal of development for the project (Alon Swartz deserves the credit for that), mostly I help out with the website, documentation and answering questions on the user forums. I wish you could see the entry and judge for yourself but a deletionist administrator that has threatened repeatedly to silence me has deleted the copy I put in my user space (User:LirazSiri/TurnKey Linux). - LirazSiri (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue for deletion discussion. It's also the wrong venue for special pleading in respect of articles on people's own projects. User:LirazSiri is one of the founders of the software project. It's a recent fork of Ubuntu, and no independent sources have been presented. This looks very much like a perfectly standard case of abusing Wikipedia to spread the word, and frankly we don't need it. Wikipedia is not the place to make something significant or raise its profile, and it is entirely inappropriate for software project owners to start discussions in multiple venues, as Liraz Siri has done, in the hope of getting the answer they want, especially when they show signs of ignoring every answer they don't want - WP:LAWYER and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are in play here, as so often in cases of WP:COI. One thing is for sure: I don't see a change in policy being likely in order to support allowing this user to create an article on their shiny new software project, based on sources in the Ubuntu community wiki newsletter and from their own site. And Liraz is entirely wrong to say I threatened a block for making waves, what I said was a statement of fact: that continual self-promotion may lead to blocking. It happens all the time. That's just one example of how Liraz is distorting the facts to portray this as "evil deletionists destroy wonderful content on valid project" instead of "Wikipedia nukes self-promotion by owner of project" which is what actually happened. Since Liraz has now withdrawn the deletion review request, I suggest that further discussion is pointless. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. TurnKey Linux is not a fork of Ubuntu. Aside from the occasional billionaire nobody has the resources to do that. Is it so hard for you to understand what a software appliance is?
Further discussion is still desirable. I have withdrawn my request for deletion review to neutralize exactly the kind of ad hominem attacks you have used to discount any merit in my objections to the abuse of process that took place in the speedy deletion of the TurnKey Linux entry as blatant spam which was done to save the involved administrators the trouble of going through the regular WP:PROD or WP:AFD channels. I sacrificed my own interest in the matter to allow the discussion to shift away from arguments against/for inclusion of the article I created on a free software project I contribute to and refocus on the larger issue - the notability standards for free software projects on Wikipedia. It is not black and white as you seem to make it. None of the unofficial Ubuntu derivatives (see List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions) that have entries in Wikipedia would have met the standards you applied against TurnKey Linux and there are literally hundreds of entries (just browse casually through List of open source software packages) which do not meet a deletionist's destructive interpretation of Wikipedia's notability standards. I believe these articles add value to Wikipedia and serve its user base well. Most deletionists would support their deletion, but they're smart enough not to attempt to remove them all at once. They'll use a divide and conquer approach, singling out a handful of articles at a time until only the largest commercially sponsored projects remain. This is a real issue and I think continuing the debate is useful. - LirazSiri (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so re-reading this, one possibility is that your article on your own project was deleted so now you want us to delete loads of others just to make a point; the other is that your article on your project was deleted and you want it back because it was clearly the evil deletionist cabal and nothing to do with WP:N, WP:COI, WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM, honest. Neither is persuasive, I'm afraid. Your arguments consistently and completely ignore the fact that you are writing about your own endeavours, something that has pretty much always been considered a bad idea. On top of that you are assuming bad faith of everybody who tries to tell you why your advocacy of your project on Wikipedia is a problem, the while believing and taking as gospel any part of any comment that agrees with you. I am here to tell you that pretty much every user I have seen behave like that, is now blocked. That is not a threat, it's a statement of fact. As WP:ROUGE says, Administrators have been known to oppose editors because their edits violate policy, rather than because the admins are conspiring with the Forces of Darkness. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sure sounds like a threat, and a suppressive one at that, coming from a powerful administrator such as yourself. Dressing up a threat as "a fact" doesn't make it any less abusive. Editors are entitled to their opinions you know.
Editors may express concern for how a particular interpretation of a policy effects the well being of Wikipedia because they are genuinely concerned, rather than as part of a Machiavellian plot to destroy Wikipedia by misapplying the "all or nothing" objection.
You know, I don't think I've ever seen so many cryptic references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in such a short space before. Why not just link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and be done with it? Strange that you accuse me of Wikilawyering. If there ever was the case of the pot calling the kettle black. Anyhow, you seem to have completely lost your neutrality and feign ignorance that opinions counter to your own exist. They do, just reread this discussion, or my talk page, or Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_3#TurnKey_Linux where at least a couple of administrators voted to overturn the decision to delete. Here's a friendly suggestion from a lowly editor - why don't you stop repeating the same old ad hominem attacks over and over and sit this one out. Cool down a bit. Let someone else share their wisdom with us. I'm sure other areas of Wikipedia need your administrative attention just as badly.
One last thing, before you go, please restore the User:LirazSiri/TurnKey Linux entry so that those following this discussion will be able to judge the content of the discussed example entry on its merits. There is no justification for you to use your administrative privileges to censor legitimate discussion on Wikipedia policy by concerned editors. Thank you for your assistance. LirazSiri (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards are no different to any other page: Our notability policy requires multiple, independent, reliable sources to confirm notability. Such sources are plainly not found in your article. I see no reason to think that there is a problem with our inclusion standards for free software projects. I do agree, however, that neither G11 nor A7 should have been used to delete the article -- PROD/AFD is the way to go for this kind of thing. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liraz, every time an editor uses the word "suppression" it raises a red flag. It is a remarkably reliable indicator of an agenda being brought to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, are you trying to suppress the word "suppression"? Well done. - LirazSiri (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, it is one of the most reliable flags around, the last thing I want is for people to stop using it so we have to use other, less dependable cues. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was basically a short version of a website for the software. The prose may not have been overly promotional, but it only had about 2 sentences of real content, followed by feature lists and a dozen screenshots. This was not an appropriate article. My best advice: Contribute some real content and move on. Trying to get policy changed so your article can be restored is pretty much the wrongest possible thing you can be doing right now, and the amount of time you're willing to spend to get this article restored at any cost makes people question your good faith in the matter. Mr.Z-man 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. I seeded the article with verifiable facts and would have loved others to contribute to it.
I've given up on restoring the article for now. Why bother. The project isn't going anywhere, and it's only a matter of time before it passes even the strictest standards for notability. Meanwhile, I don't have anything personal to gain from it's inclusion in Wikipedia, and according to the web logs (I'm the webmaster) TurnKey Linux's website only had a handful of visitors from Wikipedia in the last few months. It's really the unsanitary way in which the article was removed that bothers me the most. The arbitrary way in which TurnKey Linux was singled out of all the other Ubuntu derivatives and free software projects. The abuse of process (the article was speedy deleted as WP:SPAM, no less!). The personal attacks, an affront to my reputation implying that I am a spammer, acting out of bad faith, in conflict of interest and merely seeking to promote myself. That's what really ticked me off. It was the last reaction I expected from the Wikipedia community for contributing to a free software project. If the article was deleted in the normal WP:AFD or WP:PROD process after a consensus was reached I wouldn't have cried bloody murder. LirazSiri (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented in the deletion review, IMO this has been an abuse of process by the administrators involved here. It raises serious WP:HONESTY issues that this article was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria asserting that it was spam, yet in the deletion review all arguments in favor of deletion were presenting notability-related reasoning. Further evidence that this has nothing to do with concerns about spam is that other mentions of "Turnkey Linux" on Wikipedia were left intact and only the article itself seems to have been deleted. (see the history of List of Ubuntu-based distributions, for example.)

The article may have deserved deletion under a normal WP:AFD or WP:PROD process. The editor LirazSiri may even be be acting in bad faith, though I have seen no evidence of that to this point.

But it is a far, far more serious thing that the editors involved in this who have administrator accounts appear to be using their administrator privileges in a content dispute - using their administrator privileges to acheive an advantage in a discussion over notability so that they can save themselves the time and effort involved in the AfD or PROD that a non-admin editor would have to go through.

The purpose of admin privileges is NOT to give yourself advantages in editorial disagreements. If you find yourself violating WP:HONESTY in pursuit of administrator tasks or other Wikipedia work it's time to at the very least take a breather from exercising your admin privileges.

Despite LirazSiri's withdrawal of the deletion review I maintain that this article needs to be undeleted and placed into the normal deletion process. If, as is asserted, the topic is not notable it should be extremely easy to demonstrate that in an AfD. If the topic is notable the article should be kept and improved.

To reiterate - I don't care about the article at all, it may well deserve notability-based deletion within Wikipedia process. That's practically irrelevant, the alarming thing about this case is that there are people using their accounts' admin privileges to win editorial disputes with other editors. So far those individuals appear to be flagrantly avoiding the slightest acknowledgement of the impropriety of their actions, which indicates to me that they have no remorse and are probably willing to do it again in the future. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point out the abuse of administrator privileges. The article as it stood did not, in the views of several admins who have looked at it now, express notability; some admins might have pushed it to an AFD, others would have acted on the deletion. There is no editorial disagreement involved here; the article was deleted, a deletion review was engaged in and withdrawn and the article remains deleted. Several people are now involved in a running battle that's going to end badly, and this discussion is in entirely the wrong place at present. If you feel there's a problem with the way it's been handled, dispute resolution is thataway. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out, and thoroughly documenting, the abuse of administrator privileges, and giving the perpetrators an opportunity to respond or ignore it all on the record. Catching malicious or overreaching administrators isn't something that can be done over a single incident, so when you spot things like this what's important is thorough public documentation.

I'm not in a dispute with anyone, which is why I don't need dispute resolution. The individuals whose behavior I've been pointing out have not even deigned to respond to me anywhere. (Except for Guy on LirazSiri's talk page, who rather than addressing any of the process or administrator integrity issues appeared to be attempting to dismiss everything I said as some sort of observation of WP:AGF towards LirazSiri - which it is not.)

I say again, I don't care about the article at all, it's the admin behavior that concerns me. The involved administrators serve my purpose of documentation either way, by responding to my specific descriptions of their malfeasance or by pointedly ignoring them or dissembling.

Unless anyone is saying that an article can be speedily deleted without meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion there's no question that a violation of Wikipedia process has occurred here. And unless administrators have suddenly come to hold some sort of authority on notability that supersedes community consensus, this is unquestionably an abuse of administrator privileges as well. (My understanding from reading lots of policies and project pages, and observing practice, is that administrators don't have any sort of authority different from other editors: they just have a bunch of extra buttons and pages that show up when they're logged in - it's just a flag on their account, albiet a flag that is applied through community process.)

I'm somewhat surprised that no administrator has taken action to overturn these things and put the article into a standard AfD; that might say something about those administrators as well, but probably more about the system itself: you undoubtedly need to tread lightly around each other if you want to ever be able to get any legitimate work done at all. ;^) So understandably it needs to be us non-administrators who point out this sort of stuff.

(If the dispute area serves as some sort of centralized tracking mechanism for this sort of thing I'll post it there once I'm sure we aren't going to get a response here in VP. But my understanding was that there effectively is no centralized tracking area for this, you have to do lots of searching and reading to get even a partial picture of anyone's behavior.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the criteria for speedy deletion were not met. I strongly disagree that this was an abuse of administrator privileges, because JzG plainly considered this to fall under them. It is hardly a content dispute, unless every administrator action that involves content is a content dispute! I agree that this was not handled optimally, but it certainly was not abusive and the right decision was reached. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 10:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about some decision about the notability of the article reached outside of process? By administrators only, effectively, since (if I understand properly) they are the only ones who can delete and undelete articles? I'm not clear how that would not be an abuse of administrator privileges to have ensured that such a decision would govern whether or not the article is deleted.

By saying that this is a content dispute I'm saying that the dispute was about the notability of the article and was never about spam or some similar sort of vandalism that administrators are chartered to combat. It was a dispute over a non-administrator aspect of Wikipedia, one that any editor can have input into. Those are the sort of disputes where administrator privileges must not be used to gain advantage. (I thought this was pretty clear, I am a little bit suspicious at your suggestion that it might be interpreted as being about "every administrator action that involves content"; that seems rhetorical.)

One or more administrators decided on their own cognizance that an article was not notable; based upon a variety of evidence I presented above which has not been challenged so far, it appears that a false pretense was presented so that the article was entered into the speedy deletion process rather than the normal deletion process. So in a span of less than 24 hours, during most of which the actual article content was not available to anyone except admins, a verdict retroactively justifying the original deletion was arrived at by a small, select group of editors. Hardly the standard deletion process where every editor, not just admins, has several days to examine the content and provide input.

That is not how judgements of notability occur on Wikipedia. In this exchange it appears quite obvious to me that between LirazSiri, who would be the party arguing that the article topic was notable, and the one or more administrators arguing that the article topic is non-notable, the party in favor of non-notability obtained massive advantage through use of administrator privileges. In fact, they appear to have basically managed to avoid having to make a real case regarding notability until they had already moved the matter completely outside of LirazSiri's purview and pretty much guaranteed that any meaningful evaluation of the article's notability would only involve admins. A fact made quite clear to LirazSiri and the stated reason for why he withdrew his request for a deletion review; he gave in because he acknowledged the level of effort and frustration he would face to even get a fair hearing in an AfD, much less if he was going to try to actually preserve the article from deletion long-term. I have difficulty believing that this was not the intention from the very beginning.

Can you at least agree that this was not a fair and equitable use of administrator privileges? Also, you didn't respond to whether this was an abuse of process in forcefully routing this into the speedy delete process under false pretenses - so would that mean that in your view this is an abuse of process but not an abuse of administrator privileges?

And apart from the merits of the incident itself - don't you see that allowing things to proceed this way pretty much encourages future abuse of process along the same lines? "Whoops, I miscategorized that as spam instead of a notability problem! Shucks, it's too late." In fact this sort of thing appears to happen pretty frequently to me - perhaps that is the product of admins giving each other a pass on violating Wikipedia process in this way in the past.

And following process here would actually have taken at most a few extra moments if the evidence against notability is so overwhelming - post the AfD, act on the outcome a few days later. I think that may be why there's so much resistance to following process here - because this is actually somewhat of an edge case given the wide precedent for articles on other derivations of Ubuntu, not a slam dunk, and the individuals arguing against notability don't want to have to genuinely establish the case against it the way normal non-admin editors would have to. Why, that kind of stuff is positively plebian.

The mention of "cabal" in Wikipedia policy and project pages is not referring to some sort of secret explicitly-agreed-upon conspiracy. It's referring to exactly what you guys are doing here: a group of admins backing each other up instinctively in trying to prevent this being put through the AfD process - which supposedly will take someone only a few moments today and a few days from now because the evidence against LirazSiri's position is so overwhelming. If you think it's time that administrators should be a more trusted group freed from some of the restrictions placed on other editors, make that proposal above-board. Don't subvert policy and process to get your way.

(And I'm serious - maybe the project is mature enough or large enough that a change like that needs to occur. P.S. I'm going offline now, probably for a day or two; but as you can see I don't have any problem with making lengthy replies, so I will endeavor to respond to any and all comments directed towards me in my absence.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LirazSiri opened a Deletion Review here which he withdrawed himself. I'm going to suggest that he withdrawn, and I'm going to suggest that LirazSiri has (finally) realized that he had little chance of defending the article successfully until he can make it meet wikipedia's notability policy, and so he has decided to wait until he can do that[2] (yeah, I know, this is my interpretation, I can't read his mind).

I'm going to suggest that it's perfectly correct that an admin speedy deletes an article that has no sources showing notability, and with a subject that doesn't appear to the admin to be notable, following the criteria for speedy deletion in the speedy deletion process.

I'm going to suggest that this discussion is a total waste of time because there was never any admin abuse or out-of-process actuations here, just an admin that used in good faith the spam criteria (G11) when he should have used the non-notable criteria (A7).

I'm going to suggest that there is no conspiracy to prevent Ubuntu software articles from reaching AFD, it's just that don't people don't bother bringing them there because they are created with very weak sources and can be speedied without overloading AFD (hint: don't write an article where your only sources are your sourceforge page and a couple of newsletter announcements on some mailing list). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Enric, I think its especially ironic that the people wanting to restore an article on a technicality are the people complaining about an abuse of process. I would suggest they read WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. We don't go through process just for the sake of process. People are claiming that admins are deleting in a content disupte; it only became a dispute when people started complaining here. This was a straightforward deletion, not some evil plot to keep Turnkey Linux off Wikipedia. As for "a group of admins backing each other up instinctively" - did you ever consider that maybe your interpretation of how Wikipedia works is wrong, rather than everybody else being wrong? We have 856 admins, suggesting that they all instinctively agree with each other about everything as some sort of groupthink is laughable. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can dispense with any discussion of plots or conspiracy. I have explicitly said that I am not referring to any sort of plot or conspiracy hence bringing such things up in reply to me is disingenuous and purely rhetorical. I am talking about admin integrity.

Mr.Z-man, I am certainly open to the possibility that my interpretation of how Wikipedia works is wrong. But I have very completely explained how I think Wikipedia works above in the course of a great many paragraphs, without anyone disagreeing with my statements on how WP works, so I think it's odd that rather than pointing out any flaw in my reasoning you have rephrased everything I've said into "admins all instinctively agree with each other about everything as some sort of groupthink." This makes it appear to me that you are simply trying to pejoratively re-state what I've said above so that you could decry it as "laughable" rather than to make any sincere attempt to enlighten me, say anything about the way Wikipedia works, or discuss the responsibilities that administrators have in a situation such as this. (This tactic is usually referred to as a straw man and within a debate or even casual conversation is considered evidence of bad faith; but you may have not been aware of that.)

An article being speedily deleted under false pretenses is not a matter of technicalities and is not straightforward - certainly a deletion that has to be retroactively justified after the article in question is no longer visible to the community is not straightforward at all. The abuse of process - the actions taken to by default corral the decision about the article's notability into a post-facto admin-only venue - is the entire and sufficient reason for these actions to be reversed and for the article to be placed into the normal, transparent, consensus-based deletion process.

"Not a bureaucracy" does not mean anything like "admins do not need to obey the same rules as everyone else." (And besides that, WP:CSD explicitly states that reasoning derived from WP:NOT is ineligible for justifying speedy deletions.) "Ignore all rules" does not mean "it's okay if admins forget about acting with integrity when it's convenient" nor "If a rule requires you to improve the encyclopedia in a fashion inconvenient or distasteful to you, ignore it." So neither of those rules you cite have bearing on nor provide a reason why the policy-defined process should not be followed here.

Enric, as far as A7 possibly having been a criterion for speedy deletion: that criterion as I read it is referring to articles that don't even try to claim or indicate that their subjects are notable - I don't believe that it means "an admin can speedily delete an article under A7 when it's the admin's personal opinion that the subject isn't notable." As I said above, it appears to me that anyone with a passing familiarity with IT would recognize that as either the only Ubuntu-based virtual appliance distro, or perhaps one of two documented on WP, the subject may be a distinctive open-source representative of a toolset whose use has grown explosively in IT during the last decade, so I think that someone judging this impartially would concede that there's at least a small possibility this subject is notable. Not to mention that as LirazSiri pointed out by the precedents of practice for including Ubuntu distro articles alone consensus might regard this as notable. So these aspects are possibly related to Efe's unfamiliarity with the subject or how it's been handled on WP in the past if what occurred here was Efe trying to judge the notability of the subject on his own cognizance. I think that's exactly why we must not allow subversions of process like this: the process is there so that details like these can be examined transparently, above-board and in public, by the community not just some admins, and so that the article is deleted or not deleted with WP:CONSENSUS among all users, not just consensus involving admins.

As best as I can tell this isn't some outré or distorted view of WP on my part: everything I've ever read indicates is that this is the Wikipedian way of doing things. But if anyone disagrees let them say exactly what they're disagreeing with and state how they believe WP works instead - no more generalized innuendo that I have some basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia, please.

Also, please no more of the "this entire discussion is a waste of time" attempt to unilaterally dismiss all the points under discussion here. The issue of admin integrity is a very important one: in any dispute or disagreement between an admin editor and a non-admin editor the admin basically holds all the cards - not only is there an asymmetry of capabilities due to the admin privileges but there's even an asymmetry of information: the admin can get access to all kinds of stuff other editors can only guess at or are completely unaware of.

So it is very, very important that editors with administrator accounts observe principles of personal integrity meticulously and adhere to the Wikipedian code of conduct even more closely than the average editor: the community as a whole must have confidence that administrative tasks are being handled with integrity. IMO it is extremely damaging to the prime directive of improving the encyclopedia for the community in general or a segment of the community to come to believe that the administrators cannot be relied on for some things. I certainly refrain from making certain types of contributions because it has been my experience and observation that there are some situations where you just can't expect the average administrator to act with integrity and your work will simply be destroyed without a massive investment of time and effort to attract the attentions of an admin who holds themselves to high enough standards of behavior and who can articulate the issue to his or her fellows.

(I had an admin tell me privately, actually, that many admins and other editors actually expedite that sort of thing by maintaining a network of friends and acquaintances who they can bring into a discussion through meat-puppetry. But that route is of course is solving a problem caused by integrity issues by engaging in policy-violating and somewhat underhanded behavior yourself.)

I originally wasn't going to get involved in generalities of admin integrity; I'd thought that a small amount of prodding would be sufficient to get someone to do the right thing, especially since the outcome in all probability will still result in the desired deletion. But since such a large number of admins are being evasive or appearing to not understand what I'm saying, I will get into the basic integrity issues. The up-shot is: if an article or other page that was speedily deleted has been found under consensus to have been justified with false pretenses, whether or not the presentation of false pretenses was in bad faith or good faith, the deletion needs to be reversed and the page put through the normal deletion process. In that case the admin doing the deletion simply blew it, whether intentionally or by accident, and has created a situation where it is not ethical to continue pursuing a speedy deletion by retroactively justifying the deletion with different CSD or with AfD-like criteria. For this type of situation to be handled with integrity someone would have to bite the bullet and spend a few minutes of time putting it through the normal deletion process.

(Because, if a page really, genuinely fulfills one or more CSD, an AfD ought to be a slam dunk. As I see it that's the entire point of the speedy deletion process, to expedite the deletion of articles that would be a slam dunk AfD; speedy deletion is not there to give admins a special way to overcome the objections of other editors, at all. If someone thinks that speedy deletion is there to give admins special powers or jurisdiction outside of the normal community-consensus-based deletion process, they can say so explicitly - please don't imply or indirectly assert that it grants authority to admins, say it openly.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that we should open an AFD because someone used the wrong CDS criteria, in spite of knowing perfectly that the AFD has no chance of closing as "keep". You see, what you are proposing is jumping throught bureaucratic hoops in the name of whatever ethical or moral reason, but wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we are writing an encyclopedia here, we are not making a perfect system of justice. If you think that the article has a chance to fulfill notability, then make a draft in your userspace and present it at WP:DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I think he's saying that consensus regarding notability has to be reached by the general Wikipedia public as to opposed to a select group of Administrators, who's judgment may be skewed by the natural tendency to look out for members of their peer group. Ideally Administrators wouldn't regard themselves as separate peer group, and I'm sure many don't, but some some seem to do that, and there is a potential for abuse there. We also have to take into account that Administrators are much more likely to be friends and allies with other Administrators and may support them simply as a matter of good politics (e.g., you scratch my back I'll scratch yours). Also please note it is not unanimously agreed that the article does not meet notability requirements. (e.g., [3]) LirazSiri (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy literally means "rule by the desk." It's when the people in a government or other organization who are charged with administrating a process take unwarranted control or authority by manipulating the process and its outcomes. It's using red tape to take power - like railroading into an admin-only venue decisions that policy mandates must be made by community consensus. You and others are advocating and enabling bureaucracy here Enric, not I.

Speedy deletions made under false pretenses must be reversed. Making objections about possible AfDs that could occur subsequently is begging the question of whether the deletion of the article was policy-compliant or justified - which it was not.

"Perfect justice"? Another attempt at misdirection. You guys avoiding your responsibilities - and avoiding them disingenuously - has made it clear that this is a far larger issue than any particular article. Administrator integrity is something we absolutely must have and is not something you nor any administrator can excuse yourself from. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now it has been sent to DRV without finding first better sources *sigh* .... @LirazSiri, in Wikipedia "bureaucracy" means what is written at WP:BURO, no more no less. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion on abuse of process and administrator privileges has reminded of a quote by H. G. Wells: The law giver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He of all men should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we presently imagine we own.. If you observe the conduct of many administrators on Wikipedia you might be forgiven for perceiving that some of them think the rules and regulations are merely petty formalities that stand in the way of a more direct exercise of power. Seeking consensus and having to convince those who may have different interpretations of the law of the land is really such a bother. We know what has to be done, so please get out of our way in a hurry and let us do it. I don't think these problems are unique to Wikipedia. They're inherent in human nature. Power corrupts. It's just that in Wikipedia this gradual corruption of the intended system of checks and balances is happening out in the open. LirazSiri (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently listing the article in an AfD wouldn't even require undeleting it so I have created another deletion review to propose that. Hopefully we can just do that quickly and get it over with. For my part, if that was done I would be satisfied that process and policy had been respected here in the end. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anyone noticed that the speedy deletion tag was placed by an IP editor, but I haven't read all the reams of discussion this generated. This affair is a poster boy for requiring AfD when speedy deletion is contested. Simple enough, and far, far less contentious. (AfD can be bad enough). Contested speedy deletion, if undeletion is refused, isn't speedy, and it's much harder for a "losing editor" to accept. I requested the article undeleted and userfied so that people can see it, it's now at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux, and one of the first things I noticed was that the db-spam tag was added by 87.196.76.86. The IP geolocates to Portugal, and it may or may not mean anything that the editor also nominated NUbuntu (speedy denied), and quite inappropriately removed Alinex, a Portuguese distribution, from List of Ubuntu-based distributions. In four minutes on January 29, this anonymous editor created quite a splash. Maybe it's about time the IP gets credit for this. Is this the same editor who tenderly expressed some wishes today with a series of edits, including [4]? In any case, I suspect there are some lessons to be learned from this affair, so I'm starting a page, User:Abd/Open Source notability to examine the issues that LirazSiri attempted to raise here, without all the shouting. Anyone interested, join the salon. Be nice. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Libel --> BLP

I'm going to suggest that Wikipedia:Libel has been slightly superseeded by BLP and should be redirected to that as a result. Has the benifit of reduceing the total number of policies.Geni 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always agree with Geni on BLP matters, but in line with the gradual trend of taking policy pages more seriously, I'm in favor of demoting any policy page that people don't read any more. Does anyone still read WP:Libel, or do you always turn to WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK or WP:Attack page instead? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could probably get away with redirecting attack page and libel to BLP, if one encouraged others to participate in such discussion; presumably here? --Izno (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of Wikipedia:Attack page ("primarily to disparage its subject") is not limited to people, living or dead. Of course the same thing could be said about most of the rules covered in BLP policy but good luck enforcing them in any other context. — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... noted. Couldn't one merge libel to attack page then, at least? --Izno (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do essays that represent a minority view, even if only held by one or two editors, belong in the WP namespace?

WP:Essay states that an essay represents the opinion of one editor or a group of editors, with no mention of where they belong, other than to say that an author may choose of their own volition to keep an essay is userspace if they don't want anyone else editing it. According to that policy, an essay representing even one sole editor's opinion may stay in WP space. I'm wondering if this policy needs to be changed, since there seem to be a number of editors who feel that essays in WP space need to represent a broad consensus.

This issue has come up at WT:NOMORE. The essay is unpopular, with only one or two supporters, with the majority of editors involved repeatedly trying to redirect or move the page. I've reverted two such attempts so far. If the consensus is indeed that essays need wide support to remain in WP space, I think the relevant policies need to be changed to reflect that. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:27, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

We want to move the proposed policy, which is a pointy disruption by a known problematic editor, to his account userspace so that the page consensus for redirect to creep can take place. Anything in nomore that should be added to creep can then be discussed there for addition. Creep has more support and a much larger crowd of editors to review any additions. Verbal chat 08:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pointy and it's not a disruption. The essay's existence doesn't disrupt anything, and it doesn't fit the definition of WP:POINT at all. The author made an essay because he has an opinion he wanted to express. There is no apparent ulterior motive for the essay. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:38, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Seems OK to me, and I think not liking an essay as a reason to do something to it would be not good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I just want to stress that I'm not here to merely discuss this one example of the problem (the issue at WT:NOMORE). I think the larger issue of which essays belong in WP space needs to be addressed, because this is a problem I've seen repeatedly in the past. WP space seems to have a few patrollers who object when certain things appear there, namely essays or policy proposals that don't have much chance of gaining broad support. According to present policies there is no reason to remove such things from WP namespace, but I've seen this cause enough repeated problems that I think it's time to discuss it head-on. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:59, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

PS, this is unacceptable. You must wait until this has been discussed before imposing your opinion on policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:50, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

... as is this. The issue is already being discussed from a policy standpoint here. Let's not splinter the discussion. Verbal, discuss the issue or don't, but either way, stop taking shortcuts. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:59, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Use WP:MFD if necessary. Step one would be to open a discussion on the Wikipedia talk: page recommending userfication to a particular user and/or deletion. If there is consensus to move it out of Wikipedia: space but there is no consensus as to exactly what to do, or if the consensus user-space owner doesn't want it, then take it to WP:MFD with the pre-canned consensus as the recommendation. If there is insufficient debate but you personally want it moved, see if the primary editor will move it to his user-space. If not, then go to MFD with either a recommendation to userfy or delete, but realize the result may be "keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, better the project namespace than the article namespace. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what to do when there's a dispute about where something belongs in general, but I was hoping to clarify the policy on essays so that such disputes would have some ground to stand on. Those arguments currently don't seem to get anywhere aside from ending up in a poll. Some people ask why it should be moved when it does no harm and no policy requires moving it, and some ask why not userfy it if only one or two people support it. If we had a policy to clearly answer the question, those disputes could arrive at some actual conclusion. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:54, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I think that there's been a gentleman's agreement that frivilous or fringe essays wouldn't be kept in project space, to be backed up by MFDs if necessary, but I don't know that it's been written down anywhere.

If it's really only two editors who support it, then that's pretty fringe. I don't see this as having been frivilous, having read it, and I don't think any less of its writers for having done so. But perhaps it should migrate to userspace. I don't think this needs a stick (MFD) at this time though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this guideline written by 8 editors? Should it also be moved to userspace?

Should we change essay template to say that it takes 3? 4? 12? editors for it to be in mainspace instead of 1 or more?

ps. on its talk page, I counted 4 people in support of wp:nomore (half way to the guideline! :O) 212.200.240.232 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say why I oppose this strongly. If wp:nomore was in userspace, user Equazcion would probably never contribute to it, and as you can see now, his contributions have clarified lots of thoughts expressed in the page and have made it much better. Forcing an essay into userspace prevents it from being improved by other editors. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The substance of the essay has a lot more to do with it than its number of supporters. If an essay has a valid point to make, no matter how contentious, then it's okay to keep it in project space, particularly if it is clear about the opposing position. If an essay is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and doesn't reflect the actual practice of anyone who hasn't been banned, it doesn't. The question we should be asking about an essay is, "would someone who reads this essay find it useful or interesting, whether or not they choose not to follow its advice?" In this particular case I think the answer is yes, but the essay should also avoid a prescriptive tone, at least until it's proposed as a guideline or policy. Dcoetzee 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition to an essay is prehaps more important than the number of supporters. An essay with no dissent/opposition can stay where it likes. An essay with no more than one or two supporters, but with plenty of opposition, belongs in userspace. WP:MFD is a suitable place to discuss cases. Ideally, essay writers should seek to achieve WP:NPOV, and the essay should recognise and address opposing views. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End the policy/guideline/essay distinction

The more I observe discussion about/based on policies, guidelines, essays and various other bits of documentation that serve a similar purpose, the more I get the feeling that trying to maintain a distinction between these various classes of page, without even any clear procedure for deciding which is which and why, is just a cause of endless trouble. We should simply have a set of pages - it could even be merged into the Help namespace - which give editors advice about how to behave in a manner that is approved by the community. Good advice should be included; bad advice should be excluded; simple as that. Disputes about what goes in should be resolved cleanly with an AfD-like process (less the bureaucracy). Proposal pages can appear in the WP space for a time, but if they don't get consensus they should be deleted or moved to user space (or marked as failed, but not allowed to live forever as essays). What do we think?--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that policies are things you have to do, i.e. you'll get blocked/banned if you don't. Guidelines are things that some group of people at some point (possibly back before anyone still active had even heard of Wikipedia) agreed you're supposed to do, but probably won't get blocked if you don't, at least not the first few times. And essays are just any old nonsense that someone wrote and stuck in the project space, and which every other contributor to the project might disagree with, though in practise, usually represent widely-held opinions that there is too much disagreement about to make a policy or guideline -- Gurch (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, policies are things you have to do (or get blocked) — except when you don't. Guidelines are things that you really should do – except when you really don't – and you probably won't get blocked if you tread on them, unless you're generally being a dick about it at the same time.

A 'guideline' may also be any policy that was created in the last few years, after it became impossible to get consensus for any new policies. It's easier to accept a compromise 'guideline' label than to fight the stubborn and pigheaded wikilawyers. (Under that definition, a guideline is any sound policy that a few loud wingnuts will argue with when their conduct comes to AN/I.) For this reason, the clever policy wonk will now – wherever possible – attempt to introduce new policy by changing, amending, or expanding an existing policy rather than by starting from scratch.

Essays range from convenient shorthand for long-standing arguments, to explanatory notes on policy, to venting by vested contributors, to cruft that nobody got around to userfying. In value, they run the gamut from 'helpful exposition on an aspect of Wikipedia philosophy and process' to 'WP: shortcut that can be used in an argument in order to save the parties the trouble of thinking'. (Some essays probably fall into both categories simultaneously.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that we don't know ourselves what the significance of these distinctions is, and the multitude of possible descriptions within any one category (as Ten accurately illustrates), are just more reasons to abandon them.--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you think that the average policy dispute could be "resolved cleanly with an AfD-like process" then either you've seen too few policy debates or too few AfDs. The whole point of raising certain community norms to policy or guideline status is that it lifts them out of the total lottery which is your average one-off debate on WP. I'd certainly welcome a more proactive approach to promoting those parts of essayspace which are widely held as gospel and weeding out the rest, but what you're proposing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What baby? What you're suggesting about essays is exactly what I have in mind; but having done that, how do these "gospel" essays differ from guidelines, or indeed policies? Given that all rules have exceptions, there is only a continuum of absoluteness, and it's specific statements rather than whole pages that take their place on that continuum. (AfD-like was perhaps not exactly what I meant, but it would be something involving neutral adjudication like we get at AfD but rarely get for policy debates.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and here's what I would do. Policies should be limited in number, consisting of WP:3RR and its exemptions (i.e. WP:Vandalism, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc.) That would be a far more operative definition of a policy - something which can be immediately enforced (by anyone) without the enforcer risking sanctions, provided what is being removed is a clear-cut violation of one of those policies. That would also likely mean that WP:IAR did not apply to policies, which it currently does.

All the other policies, including NPOV, V, and OR would be demoted to guidelines. What are currently the main content policies seem more like goals. Attempts to rigorously enforce them by summarily removing from an article all material which violates said policies will often be seen as disruptive. In practice, then, they are not policies. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new policy template to mark policies which are 3RR exempt. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One policy promotion track: User essay, essay, guideline, policy. User writes an essay. A couple of others say "that's cool" and he moves it to Wikipedia: space. He links to it in the "see also" line of a few guidelines. It starts getting cited in edit summaries. Someone decides to rewrite the text in the form of a guideline. After much use, someone proposes promoting it to a guideline, and everyone says "I thought it was a guideline already" in the discussion. After admins start blocking people for violating this guideline repeatedly, a few admins start treating it as policy. Someone objects at AN that they were blocked without warning for not following a guideline. After a discussion, the guideline gets promoted to policy. OK, things never really happen this way, but it's possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget {{Infopage}}s. That obscure little step between Essay and Guideline that things hide out in. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I got scared, and thought there may be more of those than guidelines, but luckily, there are only few [5]. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 700 essays in WP space [6] and 500+ in user space [7] 212.200.240.232 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the "why not?" side of the debate, m:Instruction creep would appear to be relevant here. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this proposal; we've been evolving in the other direction for a while now. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and look where it's getting us. Do you really think Wikipedia will function more effectively as a huge bureaucracy where people spend their time arguing about the rules and what they mean, instead of getting on with making a better encyclopedia?--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... A Wikipedia with no rules. I can't really see that working out. I see it being sort of like communism -- on paper it sounds progressive and utopian, but it wouldn't be practical. Everyone would think they could do whatever they want. Then we'd have to add notes to those "information pages" to say something to the tune of "Well, they're not rules exactly, but in most cases it's a good idea to follow them, cause if you don't you could get blocked." Then they'd basically be rules that we wouldn't call rules, and the ones you couldn't get blocked for would need to be excluded -- similar to what we have now. Even if that didn't happen, many essays present opinions contradictory to guidelines and policies, so if you call them all the same thing, no one would know what they're actually supposed to do.Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well precisely, we would eliminate those contradictory essays into user space. And I'm not advocating "no rules", just an end to false, misleading and pointless-controversy-generating distinctions between types of rules. (Very few of the rules are things you would get blocked for violating anyway.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to original poster) The distinction is clearly discussed and defined at Wikipedia:Policy, and I find it quite useful. It's a good measuring stick for the amount of consensus behind the position. And I find it especially useful that a new user can literally go through all the policies and read them, because there aren't too many of them, and those are the most important things to know. Dcoetzee 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might be convinced if the distinction really were as you say it is, or even if it possibly could be as you say it is (it can't of course, because the amount of consensus is a function of statements, not of whole pages - and what you say is not what it says at WP:Policy anyway). But it's not; nor is your second statement accurate, because (a) by the time he'd read all the 40 or so policies he'll probably depart Wikipedia in a disillusioned haze; and (b) the policies aren't always the most important things to know (much of the most important stuff is in guidelines like the manual of style, or on help pages or even essays). --Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think user would depart Wikipedia, but i think while he gets familiar with all 40 or so policies, a few will be changed, so he may get discouraged in keeping track of changes... 212.200.240.232 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help to know where this is coming from. User:Kotniski is involved in a dispute over a guide that is being used as policy. The example that User:davidwr gives where users say "I thought it was a guideline already" is accurate in that it shows that much of it is based on perception and not the actual. The disputed guide WP:ICONDECORATION is being used as policy. Anyone can click on "What links here" and find many discussions where the guide is referred to as "policy," and the advocates for the guide don't bother to correct the misunderstanding. It suits the advocates for the guide just fine that it's seen as a badge of authority. It appears that Kotniski is looking for a distinction that is based on the actual distinctions and not the perceptions. I doubt there will ever be a concise distinction because perception makes a big difference when considering actual results.

But if I may offer another imperfect attempt at an actual distinction, much of it is based on the language used in the document. I'd say that an essay is an informative persuasion, a guide is suggestive advice, and a policy is authoritative commands. An example of the language in each:

"Here's a problem because blah blah... Here's a good goal to strive for," Essay.
"To solve this specific obvious problem, specifically avoid this and try doing that." Guide.
"Specifically don't do this and just do that, because we say so. Trust us. It's better this way." Policy.

This is not to say that policy doesn't contain persuasion and suggestions. A policy will most likely contain commands that don't require persuasion. But a guide shouldn't contain commands, especially without persuasion of why one should adhere and consensus that the command should be there. If an editor gets blocked because they didn't understand why a policy is making a command, it's not as serious as if an editor got blocked for not adhering to a command without persuasion that any newbie editor may have put in a guide with little or no consensus. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But most of these kind of pages contain a mix of the sorts of language you refer to, so the distinction is (to use one of your own favourite expressions) a false dichotomy (or rather trichotomy). (By the way, this proposal has nothing to with with the dispute I'm said to be "involved in" at WP:ICON - it was more provoked by the one at WP:Editing policy, although it's based on impressions that have been forming for some time.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to make a distinction between the actual an the perceived. A false dichotomy would be saying that there is no overlap between the way essay, guide and policy were used. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the distinction is in the language, not in the way they are used. As we've seen a guide can be used as policy. But if what is being called a guide was really used as a guide, then it would guide and not police. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is hiding script assisted edits against policy?

I've noticed a few people who have modified their twinkle or other script related tools so as that they will be counted as regular edits and not script edits. Is this against Wikipedia policy?Smallman12q (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean deactivating the little edit summary advertisement, like "(HG)" for Huggle or "(TW)" for Twinkle? There's no rule against removing those. In fact most scripts have an explicit option to edit or remove that. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:00, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)

That is all I wanted to know=P.Smallman12q (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users doing such a thing should say they did it if they ever ask to become an administrator. Some people include the # of manual edits in their criteria, and an inflated number that is discovered during the RFA will need to be addressed. Getting out in front of it with something like "I changed Huggle so it wouldn't say Huggle, I'm guessing 60% of my edits are with Huggle" will help defuse anxiety. It's pretty obvious from contribution logs if someone is making rapid-fire edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't see why the decision of some RFA voters to use silly criteria necessitates the need for an editor to reveal that they have made such a trivial change. As you say, it is pretty obvious who is making rapid edits and who isn't. Let the voters do their own homework. Reso lute 04:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^Agree. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:28, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I wish that were the case. I wish I had the time to look closely at all RFA candidates. People like shortcuts. If you are questioned and give a reasonable response, it shouldn't matter. At best, you would make it harder for someone to support you because they would have to devote more time to figuring out how many manual edits you made, and they might say "to heck with it" and just not participate in the RFA. Or, they might wait for someone else to report a number, a number that might underestimate the number of manual edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think of all the criteria to consider at an RfA, the number of manual vs. script-assisted edits should be the least of a voter's concerns. The advertisements that scripts add to edit summaries might be switched on by default, but they aren't required by any stretch. They're just an extra feature for the convenience of the user, in case he or she wants to take pride in their use of the script. I think it's a bit dramatic to stress the fear of "being questioned" and having to give a "reasonable response" if one has decided to switch them off, as if it could end up in scandal cause they "hid" this "crucial information" from the public. As Reso put nicely, if voters choose to make a big deal out of something so ridiculous, that's their problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, if a voter is weighing their support vs oppose on a candidate based on the tool used to make an edit rather than the quality of the edit, then I would question that individual's fitness to judge whether a candidate is fit for the mop. Such tools exist to aid our ability to maintain the encyclopedia, their use as a measure of an editor's ability is inconsequential. As always, editors should be viewed based on their judgment in contributing; everything else is static. Reso lute 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are responsible for their edits regardless of if they use a script, so I don't think it matters. Chillum 05:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and Guidelines re Linguistics

Reliable sources and language articles

Articles about language belong to the category Linguistics. I have noticed that many editors are not aware that Linguistics is a distinct academic field. That is, they naturally assume 'Linguistics' is the domain of Literature professors, Educational bodies/Boards of Education, or published grammarians. This is understandable, since modern Linguistics doesn't hit 50 until next year.

How best to redress this in the policies and guidelines, and what is the process for getting it done?

Thanks for your replies. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

few editors imposing a new guideline on community without any discussion

Wikipedia talk:Advocacy. Please contribute with your thoughts. To my observation that WP:Policy has been violated, I got a reply WP:IAR. I don't have energy to argue with the editor, so others will have to get involved if the imposed guideline is to be discussed. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your complaint against the proposed guideline, or is it that the process to gather consensus needed for adopting new guidelines is incomplete or not being followed? If the former, maybe work it out on the guideline talk page... if the latter, I'm not sure what the right forum is. I'm restoring it to proposal status because it does not seem to have much notice, discussion, or adoption yet.Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A tangential discussion was moved to User talk:Jehochman#discussing anonymously --Equazcion •✗/C • 17:20, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to remedy en:wp's chronic incivility

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki

Incivility is standard on en:wp. Actual personal attacks are routine and expected. This drives people away from the wiki and leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other. This is despite Wikipedia:No personal attacks supposedly being hard policy.

Precis: the AC to warn that it expects better behaviour, and then to start knocking heads together. Likely to start with the admins, as the ones most expected to set a good example.

Commentary at the above link (or even just "great idea!" or "terrible idea!" will likely be read by the AC.

Let's make this encyclopedia project suck less to be involved with. - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one way is not to describe Wikipedians as borderline sociopaths :D

Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that would include myself! But I can learn better, so everyone else can too ;-p Any thoughts on the idea itself? - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean only sociopaths? :P 212.200.240.232 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. More seriously, I presumed action would be taken in such cases as the proposal outlines. Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping it's a workable proposal. It takes very little incivility to turn n00bs off Wikipedia altogether, and just a sustained bit more to put off a regular. The culture of routine actual personal attacks (see WP:ANI in the last week, for example) is worse - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of civility is it leads to more discussion and a better chance that people will be able to benefit by polite constructive criticism. We could institute a WP:NN "no nagging" rule that once you have called something to someones attention you should wait a decent interval to allow them to digest your points before going into full shoot to kill mode, wikistalking, posting negative comments about them on other peoples pages, harrassing, and reverting everything they write. Rktect (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing over "civility" seems to be fractal in its infinite detail in practice. I suggest starting with actual chronic personal attacks, of which there is no shortage - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any culture of routine personal attacks here. When there is one, it's called out and quelled, usually, in my experience. Maybe this pattern would seem more apparent with some specific examples. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:49, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:ANI, and then look at the style of editing and edit summaries by regulars outside said board - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is mainly at ANI, a place with people used to acting as "the complaint department", then I'd say a gradual buildup of incivility was inevitable, as it is in similar real-life institutions. You might make better headway with your proposal by focusing specifically on that forum and others like it. I don't think this is as general a problem on Wikipedia at large, as you've implied. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:57, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly an excellent place to start. But the proposal - to, y'know, actually enforce WP:NPA - applies there probably as strongly as anywhere, if not more strongly. Look at KPBotany's comments on the above link. Professionals and experts don't want to come here any more - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I would say about any forum rules is that they make life easier for moderators. That is, good to be able to say "no arguing" and just block/ban where necessary. Good for dealing with extreme cases.

I can't see it affecting general behaviour. 99% of people know how to behave, and if they are uncivil it's because they want to be. Whether as a one-off, sometimes, or in general. I can't comment further because I'm quite new and I've generally found people to be more calm and dispassionate than I am. Businesslike, even. Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, there is a lot of room for improvement, but Wikipedia is nonetheless one of the most civil forums on the Internet that is truly open and public. AN/I is a place of considerable incivility, but anyone who resorts to that there turns others off and hurts their own case. It's probably a good thing that we see people's true stripes there. Also, AN/I functions as place where people can take their complaints about each other things that, if true, are actionable but if untrue would be a personal attack or WP:AGF violation if voiced elsewhere. Using the legal system and courts as a case in point, you have to give people a safe haven to resolve their differences, rather than punishing them for bringing up accusations that may be incorrect or inactionable, but are nevertheless made in good faith. Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to remember about AN/I is that the non-admin editors who post requests for intervention are usually already involved in a heated dispute before they post there... From the POV of the person being complained about... that the complainer went to ANI is seen as an escallation of the debate... it can even be seen as being a form of a personal attack in itself (ie... so and so attacked me by complaining to the admins). It is natural that discussion at ANI starts off with a high level of animosity. Admins do their best to calm things down, but that is not always possible. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

change to Wikipedia:Copyright

see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#shorten_the_page.Geni 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to think about article content inclusion?

I wonder if it's time to address one of the biggest holes in Wikipedia guideline space, the threshold inclusion criteria for when content that otherwise meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ought to be put in an article. Repeated attempts to do this in the past failed, and the closest we ever got was a statement that content that is otherwise compliant (i.e. passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:MOS, WP:NOT, etc.) may be included if it is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article.

Although we haven't been able to define it quite, I think there's broad consensus that there is some encyclopedic standard for when material does and does not belong in an article. This comes up often when people add trivia or extraneous details, and sometimes things of a POV-ish nature that are not really related to the subject at hand (e.g. coatrack, criticism sections, etc). Someone might remove the content as trivia, then it gets reverted with a note like "please do not remove sourced content". When these things come up it's often hard to point to anything where we say that it takes more than sourcing or even notability - for a verifiable fact to appear on a page it has to belong on that page.

People often use the word "notable" for this, which causes confusion with the WP:N guideline. It seems to translate to something like "has enough reliable sources to indicate its significance and relevance to the subject of the article".

I'm wondering if there's a place to say just that, or we could create one in a guideline or essay. Namely, although there is no single standard for what belongs and what does not belong on a page, content has to be significant enough to be encyclopedic, and relevant to the subject of the article, in a way that adding it to the article increases the reader's encyclopedic understanding of the matter at hand. Something like that.

Please forgive if this is a perennial proposal or already exists.Wikidemon (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Wikipedia:Writing better articles style guide that includes a section telling us to stay on topic. In essence, it says what you want, but it's very unspecific. —JAO • T • C 11:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is: Is it encyclopedic/relevant/on-topic, and is the space used by the new information the "right amount" given the information's importance and the other items in the article. If I'm adding a tangentially-related item to a short article, it might stick out like a sore thumb, so I'm better off not adding it. If it's a long article, it might fit in quite nicely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

it seems that there is confusion among some editors about how pages are becoming official guidelines and policies.

WP:CONSENSUS is very clear about it: In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages.

However, Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies unfortunately doesn't mention "high participation".

I have witnessed recently few cases where editors thought that simply posting a thread here was enough exposure, even though very few editors responded to it (or even saw it?).

I think that participation part from WP:CONSENSUS should be restated in the Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies section.

212.200.240.232 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as this has been the consensus for over a year. However, it should be advertised to avoid shouts of hypocrisy. Pick a place to centralize the discussion and I'll endorse there as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which centralized place I should post to, but it should definitely be posted at talk pages of above 2 policies.212.200.240.232 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump policy (this page) is the most central place there is to discuss a policy change. Anyone who has any interest is likely to be watching this page and notice it here. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but to help this get 'high participation' we need to inform other relevant pages! 212.200.240.232 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That didn't seem to be david's concern though. The opposite, actually -- he seemed to be suggesting that this was a fractured discussion and there might be a single more central place to hold it. I'd say the opposite, that it's already centralized and needs to be spread around, as you say. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:05, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Note: A tangential discussion was moved to User talk:Jehochman#discussing anonymously --Equazcion •✗/C • 17:13, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. People don't seem to be taking that stipulation too seriously, but I think it's pretty important. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:13, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. Absolutely vital. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Policy creep. If people make a good faith effort to involve the community (posting to the pump, relevant talk pages, AN, CENT) and the community doesn't respond, WP:SILENCE applies. Mr.Z-man 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already part of policy though -- high participation is required for new proposals to be accepted, it's already stated. This would just mean putting an additional reminder of the same fact in a related policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:59, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Oppose- silence is not agreement, but silence is also not disagreement. I'd rather not codify how policy is written. When we need it, we write. If it is wrong, we rewrite. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this proposal doesn't constitute a change. It's taking something already written in one policy and mentioning it redundantly in a related policy, to ensure it gets followed. Frankly I wouldn't have even thought asking for permission for such a thing here would be necessary. Putting something in a policy that's already part of established policy would probably not have been challenged had it shown up in an edit summary. I think the only reason to oppose this is if you disagree with that existing portion of policy to begin with, and that's a whole other discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:25, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per J and Z. If this is already policy, why are we even !voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Because although it is already policy, it seems to be easily ignored in practice. This is an attempt at making the policy stand out more so that it hopefully gets its due attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:46, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  - If its ignored in practice, then it isn't really policy. Mr.Z-man 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a good point. However in a case like this it can't (shouldn't?) be quite that clear-cut. Think about it: We're talking about what good practice should be when creating new guidelines. Guidelines are something that some editors might have personal or minority motivations for drafting. If we say that advertising a proposal and high participation isn't really required before promoting it to guideline, we might as well be condoning a practice of people trying to pass guidelines by keeping them more or less under wraps when they know they might be unpopular. I think policy and guideline proposals are different from other consensus issues in that in order for it to be fair and open, we need to start with a rule that says anyone doing it may need to do something that has the potential to hurt their chances for success. Otherwise no one would do it.

The people authoring a proposal will surely support it, so what's their motivation to go to the public and risk defeat? If we just sit back and base the policy regarding proposals on what people are doing -- when what people are doing is what will be most likely to get their proposals passed -- that's really not what's best for the community. And I think whoever wrote this part of the consensus policy foresaw that, which is why this distinction exists there. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:02, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Read my previous comment. I'm not saying people can just make a proposal, let it sit for a few days, then call it policy. I'm talking about if people make the proposal, advertise it to the community, and the community doesn't respond. If people know about it and have objections, but don't raise them, that's their fault, not the fault of the people advocating the proposal. Mr.Z-man 01:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to have ignored the advertising requirement too though. That's the OP's main stated concern. The repetition of the high participation requirement would've been a good way to ensure proper advertisement, since proposers would need to advertise to get the level of participation they need. But I guess... if proposers aren't advertising their proposals... maybe that shouldn't be policy either. Right? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:06, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well then we agree there. I agree that changes to policy should be advertised I don't agree that policy discussions should require a certain level of participation to be official. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to have reached at least that agreement with you, however I think the higher level of participation is still essential. And since we've established that this issue is beyond that of merely forming a policy around describing what people are already doing (you want advertising despite the fact that it's not being done), then the participation standard has every bit as much merit. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:58, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are not advertised, this thread itself is testimony to the fact that major policy change won't slip through the net without anyone noticing. I'm sure plenty of the most active editors know what they "should" be anyhow. The wiki model makes changes that would have no consensus futile. Bold, revert, discuss... it will happen (again, see what happened with Advocacy. Not a problem). I wouldn't worry too much about changing policy about changing policies. Lasting policy changes would be hard to get through... Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I see here mostly people who interacted with me recently, and therefore probably were looking at my contributions. I don't see many 'new faces' in this thread. In other words, if this was posted by some other random IP or account, there would probably be fewer responses. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If policy awareness and consensus were restricted to whether an editor posts in this thread or interacts with you, then you would have a point.

Protecting policy is not a matter of writing it in stone, or "do not touch". Quite the contrary. It's really not a big deal if someone changes policy, for the same reason it's not a big deal if someone vandalizes a page. With policy, you have a high level of awareness and not very many pages to maintain. The implications of the wiki model and a consensus driven community enable a different mindset towards rules. They are as sacred (and only as sacred) as the community makes them.

Making a fuss about someone "not using due process" is not the way to look at it. Look at it as "Is it controversial? Should I reverse it?". If the answer is yes, you can reverse policy, and ask for discussion. Boldness applies to reverts. Undo undo undo. Don't insist upon the process. The process is bold-revert-discuss, simply because there is never explicit consensus from all users. How many new policies and guidelines have been brought in the last two years? I bet it's not many. Ddawkins73 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my incomplete list, about 35 current guidelines were started as pages in last 2 years, and about 50 in 2006. I don't know when they actually got promoted to guideline status -- obviously some time after their page creation and before now -- therefore an estimate of about 50-60 guidelines in last two years may be a good one (not even counting pages that were created before 2006 and that may have became guidelines in last 2 years). [8] 212.200.240.232 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I think it's valuable to have something in policy that encourages a tendency towards the creation only of policies that already have consensus, rather than encouraging not to worry about consensus since it can all be reversed later. Having a guideline/policy tag on a page is considered sort of gospel-ish, and removing it or making drastic changes once it's already there can be a hassle and create divisiveness. It's like getting married on a whim cause you figure you can just get divorced later. The reversal is a bit more of a process and we'd have even more drama than we do now if it were policy to do things that way.

And by the way, anon is right, that most of the people responding here are doing it for a specific reason, and one that I'm probably not allowed to mention because of AGF. If not for that reason, this posting would have gotten very little response. I'll leave it at that. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:37, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. That's how it is. I'm not suggesting a change. Or encouraging anything, other than not worrying about changing the "don't change policy" elements of policy.

It doesn't matter how few people respond here - I already said that.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how it is, then are you opposing stating that that's how it is in two policies rather than in just one? Cause that's what this proposal is for. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:52, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Comment Policies and guidelines that don't reflect consensus will be reversed in no time. Move "Wikipedia expects..." to the 2nd line of WP:CONSENSUS, above "Silence implies consent", if as I expect that is the focal point of the proposal (cf Advocacy). Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block messages

I notice that there has been a recent change in the software, so that when an editor is blocked the date of the termination of the block appears in the block log rather than the duration of the block. In principal this is fine, but I live in England, and dates are written differently here than they are in the USA. I just found an editor who was blocked until 2009-02-11. On the American side of the pond this means, I realise, until February 11th; over here it means November 2nd. This is going to cause some difficulties, if not with unblock considerations then certainly in the event of a re-block or a block modification being needed. Comments please, but please remember that I have no power to chenge the whole British dating system! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has always been that way. Prodego ^talk 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's neither an American nor a British date (American would be 02-11-2009). It's an ISO 8601 date. If we have to standardize on a date format, I'd go with ISO. It would be better if it were preferenceable though. Algebraist 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, where are you seeing this? The block log looks the same as ever to me. Algebraist 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dating system in the world that uses YYYY-DD-MM. –xeno (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And 2009-02-11 means 11 February in the UK as well anyway. 02-11-2009 would mean November, but that's a totally different format. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some policies may need aditional input...

Hi all,

so I've just completed a list of all? policies and their editing statistics. Please take a look, as I think few of them may benefit from additional community input. Second column tells how many unique editors participated in policy page/talk page discussions.

Here is a list of most guidelines (some are missing as I was manually collecting them from guidelines category pages). Among guidelines, there are definitely a few that need more community input.

Why I think they need more input? Because I've noticed in last few years that guidelines have been promoted by a limited number of editors. The more input the better the guideline will be. So find some with few contributors that interests you, and give your opinion!

Thanks!

pps. i see that numbers are not correct in cases where categorized guidelines was linking to a redirect.

212.200.240.232 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post and blogs in general

In the past, I've tried to use The Huffington Post as a source in articles. Each time I was told that HuffPo is a "blog" and as such is absolutely not allowed. President Obama just fielded a question from a reporter with The Huffington Post, so I suppose he has lower standards for reliability than Wikipedia.

Has there been any discussion of the bright-line rule against "blogs" being disallowed as sources? JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the best place; the right place is WP:RS/N for particular questions, or for policy changes, WT:V or WT:RS. When it's come up at WP:RS/N, opinions on Huffington have been mixed, so I don't think that "absolutely not allowed" is the consensus on them; blogs can be acceptable in some circumstances. In many cases HuPo could be fine IMHO. If they were the only source, say, for a complete Q & A with Obama, rejecting them would be ludicrous.John Z (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are kind of divided on it. See here. Like John said, it's a question for wp:rs/n. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "bright line" rule. Those who told you so should be politely asked to read WP:RS, then you can all discuss the source on its merits. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post has a mix of content. This mix includes at least 1) publication of wire service news articles, 2) original news reporting, and 3) blogs by various people. Different types of content have different levels of reliability. The wire service reprints are pretty much the same as any established media paper reprinting the wire service content - and generally also available directly from the wire service and from established media. The original news reporting has been spotty; we've seen some that obviously lacked error correction prior to publishing. Their blogs are best treated as self-published sources just like any other blog, used when the author is an established (via traditional media) expert in the topic of the article the source is to be used on. Any number examples of people taking questions at a press conference is not going to meanigfully change our assessment of their original news reporting. What would change that is solid evidence that they have established fact checking procedures and corrections processes designed to provide a reasonable level of asusrance of accuracy. While I know of editors who have asserted that they have such processes, none have ever provided any evidence of it in the WP:RS/N discussions. GRBerry 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability of Language Reference

I see many articles on Old Testament nouns; people ,places, and things where an editor has referenced Hebrew as the language and Hebrew Bible as the source. Given the Documentary Hypothesis discusses the authorship and approximate period of writing, it should be possible to be more particular about what we are saying

The way the articles are written at present there generally is no thought given to the fact that through most of the Pentateuch Hebrew doesn't exist as a language. Where articles on Hebrew reference its existence as a language as evidenced by a single occurence of a name that occurs only in the tradion of a people the jump to the assumption that there is a body of literature already written in the language seems unverifiable. Most languages aren't considered to exist as a language until there begin to be enough artifacts of that language to distinguish it from others.

That part of the editing that can be identified by colophon as Hebrew should be labeled Hebrew and that part written in Akkadian or Phoenician similarly referenced. If we don't know which language the author was writing in then neither or both labels should be given with the reason given in a reference. I emphasise that if we don't know then we shouldn't say, because that is Wikipedia policy, but I would allow that in fairness we could add a reference to what most verifiable sources say if it isn't speculative.

Its clear that those parts of the story which are contemporary with the Atrahasis occuring in the time it was written are not myth but historical and written in Akkadian

The reference might say whether the author was suspected to be J writing in Akkadian c 950 BC because of the rich narrative style as is found in Genesis 14, with references to ritual objects such as the ark which are mentioned frequently in J but never in E; or E who is somewhat less eloquent and writing in Akkadian c 850 BC focusing on the status of judges (never mentioned in P) and prophets (mentioned only in E and D); or the style of D whose writings are limited almost exclusively to Deuteronomy and tend to be transitional from Phoenician to Hebrew, focus on vocabulary items such as the names of God, or the use of Horeb (E and D) or Sinai

Though all of this is then added to by the commentrary of D the Deutrenomisist, because he is mostly writing about the Law and in Deuteronomy using a distinctive term YHWH Elohainu, and identifying who did what where as a commentary that continues in 1 kings, he can be treated as a special case not really affecting stories from the rest of the Pentateuch. As they are overlain with elements by the D, or Deuteronomist, source; writing c. 650-621 BC, in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform they begin to transform into Phoenician and Hebrew in a period when there is little difference between the two where it can be difficult to tell the two apart, or whether its characteristic of the P, or Priestly, source Aaronid priests writing c. 450 BC in Hebrew.

In light of the above discussion about the use of the word myth, I think its possible to place a bound; lower limit Genesis 10 upper limit Genesis 14 on where the contributions of J are supplanted by those of E. J is apparently writing very close to the time of the establishment of the first temple before Hebrew exists as a language.

Thats the place where the Sumerian and Akkadian myths that go back to the time of Sargon transition to Bible stories in the 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis epic. The oldest known copy of the epic tradition concerning Atrahasis can be dated by colophon (scribal identification) to the reign of Hammurabi's great-grandson, Ammi-Saduqa (1646–1626 BCE), but various Old Babylonian fragments exist; it continued to be copied into the first millennium by J.(the J, or Jahwist, source; written c. 950 BC in the southern kingdom of Judah.

There is then a period of transition to the writings of E which go back and forth with J line by line starting around Genesis 10. The E, or Elohist, source is writing c. 850 BC in the northern kingdom of Israel, still not as yet using Hebrew as a language.

For stories where it can be documented that the sources are historical and writing in Hebrew then the word myth shouldn't be used except when referring to the speculations and guesses of the commentators.

These elements from a later date that add covenants, commentaries and attempts to editorialize on the earlier stories, that may be written in Hebrew or Phoenician at a time when there is little difference between the two are the places where we have references to the upper and lower waters of the Elohim, where there are references to Elim and to Elat, where Yahwah has Asherah as his consort and where there are about 40 references of an editorial nature regarding her worship.

There appears to be a point of transition to the story of Abraham from scribes who use Akkadian as their native language to scribes who write in Phoenician and the Hebrew such as P and R. Where we can identify those writing in Hebrew such as P who is dry and legalistic and the redactor R the use of a language label for the story is appropriate, otherwise its just a guess. Rktect (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use the Documentary Hypothesis, then you are going to believe that the final form of the tanakh was assembled somewhere between the 7th and 4th C BC. In this period, there most definitely was a 'Hebrew language'. Many words (especially names) may have been borrowed from Akkadian or elsewhere, but at the time of final redaction they had been wholly assimilated into the Hebrew. Hence, it is perfectly acceptable to describe these words as being 'Hebrew'. Whether we then go on to say that a particular word originally comes from Akkadian, Aramaic, Sumerian or whatever is determined by verifiable sources. If the sources state that a word comes from elsewhere, then we not only can, but should, say so.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully that makes no sense. The final form is what you have after the assembly is complete c 100 BC, maybe later. Everything prior to that is a different book or books. In some periods you have as many as four separate versions which then get edited together at a later date.

Many names get left in their original form because it was the practice of the scribes not to change a letter when copying. As I recall the policy was to burn the Torah if a mistake was made.

Bible scholars can go through and identify which part was written when and by who up until about the time of the redactor. I'd be happy to allow that the final form of the Hebrew Bible is Hebrew, but the earlier parts are anything but.

Take for example the name of Moses. Strongs concordance identifies that as Egyptian. In the article on Moses that is noted. The same should apply to all other Biblical references to nouns because many of the toponyms and personal names are clearly not Hebrew but retain their earlier linguistic form. Many of the words in the Bible that are written in other languages such as Akkadian, Greek and Aramaic first, and then translated into Hebrew retain their form. As to when there was a Hebrew language Van Sert seems to think that would be after c 500 BC.Rktect (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be supporting my point. 'Moses' may not be a Hebrew word, but it is the name used in Hebrew. Hence, it is entirely appropriate to use the Hebrew in that article. However, the word comes from Egyptian and there are verifiable sources which state this; hence, it is entirely correct to include the fact that it is Egyptian, with the Hebrew listed after. The point of the parenthetical section in the lead is to show the origin of a word if known with reasonable certainty, along with the translation into other languages where relevant. In the case of Moses, if we did not have evidence to show it is Egyptian in origin, then we would simply state the Hebrew as found in the tanakh (as the primary, notable source). If there was doubt about the origin, or the origin is unknown, then that should feature somewhere in the article.

I have little doubt that there are some articles on WP which incorrectly ascribe the origins of a word (principally names) as Hebrew. However, unless there is reasonable certainty about the origin of a word, all we can do is list the relevant translations. In, for example the case of Noah, where WP has

Noah (or Noe, Noach; Hebrew: נוֹחַ or נֹחַ, Standard Nóaḥ Tiberian Nōªḥ ; Nūḥ ;Arabic: نوح ; "Rest"[1] )

in the lead, it is not stating that Noah is a Hebrew word (although it does state that it means 'rest' in Hebrew - not the same thing). The reason the Hebrew is listed there is because it is the primary, notable source. Only if we have verifiable sources stating otherwise can we insert another language - and that source must explicitly state the origin of the word. Furthermore, that source must reflect the general consensus of scholarly opinion.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't in disagreement. Every word has an etymology. Where Sumerian determinative forms are borrowed into Akkadian scholars generally capitalise them, as for example URU KI meanung city place. Later when the Akkadian gets borrowed into Hittite we see the same thing. By the time it gets borrowed into something like the name for Jerusalem in the Amarna letters, URU URU salaam KI, Akkadian is already giving rise to Assyrian, Canaanite, Phoenician, and Ugartic, but still not yet into Hebrew. We know that at one point Jerusalem was a fortified well garrisoned by the Egyptians. We aren't sure what that name was but we can reference what its referred to in Akkadian in the Amarna letters. Where a name in a foreign language is later borrowed into Hebrew its etymology should be acknowledged as from its original source. What you suggest is all I'm asking that we do, reference its origins. Only if we have verifiable sources stating its Hebrew can we call it Hebrew, and we are agreed that source must explicitly state the reason the general consensus of scholarly opinion gives for thinking we know the origin of the word; otherwise we reference the language its borrowed from. Rktect (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate editing : It's in the sources. No POV, no OR

Do you really need to approach this topic, on this board, with an essay?

Document the facts. Where there are no facts, document scholarly opinion, not your own. If it's opinion, not knowledge, document it as so. Give due weight.

I see many articles on Old Testament nouns; people ,places, and things where an editor has referenced Hebrew as the language and Hebrew Bible as the source. Given the Documentary Hypothesis discusses the authorship and approximate period of writing, it should be possible to be more particular about what we are saying.

- You can't say a hypothesis is a given. That's advancing a point of view and doing original research.

A hypothesis cannot, by definition, be a source of authority. If it is appropriate to discuss the hypothesis in an article, then do so, but obviously you have to discuss the other POVs, with appropriate weight.

Discuss appropriate mainstream viewpoints, i.e all of the relevant ones, as documented in reliable sources.

You should be aiming to give the general reader an overview of the subject and the genuine controversies surrounding it.

The way the articles are written at present there generally is no thought given to the fact that through most of the Pentateuch Hebrew doesn't exist as a language.

- Is it a fact? What do the reliable sources say? Are they in agreement?

Again, no POV or OR. If it's a fact, reference it. If it's a controversy, document it.

the assumption that there is a body of literature already written in the language seems unverifiable

- If there is a genuine controversy, academia will have thought of it.

Seems? To who? To you? Defer to the sources. No OR, no POV.

Same goes for the rest of the post. If there is a problem as to who the reliable sources are, then that is what needs to be addressed. If you're saying there are no reliable sources, then that is a simpler question, although not necessarily an easier answer.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a big deal to ask that no OR, no POV apply to the assumption that everything is Hebrew just because the Bible mentions it. All I'm asking is that like anything else it be a verifiable statement. Rktect (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the Hebrew Bible - how more verified can you get?--FimusTauri (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats in there? That its written in Hebrew? Does it discuss that there is more than one author? I use the Jerusalem Bible. It discusss the authorship in its introduction to the Penteteuch. Most reasonably modern Bibles do the same, drawing the line at the Genesis/Exodus boundary. Rktect (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion might belong to a better place. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get over-involved here with Rktect's continued essays and original research (which I admit I am discussing in far too many other places), just pointing out that the Documentary hypothesis is neither the last word nor does it bear out his claims that parts of the Bible were written in the 18th c. BCE. dougweller (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing that the lable WP:OR may sometimes be overused by some editors, I'm curious why we do or don't apply the same standards to religious texts. Is it enough just to say "Its in the Hebrew Bible" or do we get to ask if there are questions of authorship, language, veritability, time frame, and reliance by the author on other uncited older sources. Some people are telling me the Bible can't be used as a citation because its a primary source. The way the Documentary Hypothesis (still called a hypothesis despite its been around for over a century and is generally accepted by most bible scholars) has it its not a primary source its essentially in about its fifth edit. Others have claimed its not the last word and cited John Van Seter. Still others, Ken Kitchen talk about it in term of geo-political context and claim it has textual artifacts such as the form of contracts and the price of slaves. Isn't it best just to presume people have questions and provide references as to the verifiability of the part being discussed, especially where its a part that isn't internally consistant with some other part? Rktect (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what a primary source is. In whatever edit, the bible is a primary source as it does not analyse the reported issues in the bible. A secondary source would be a bible analysis by a theologisht. Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Do we get to ask..."?

No.

No OR.

It's not that you can't or shouldn't mention the Documentary Hypothesis...

"Isn't it best to presume"

No.

"...provide references as to the verifiability"

Of course. Not "best". You should. Or the article is rubbish.

What exactly is the problem?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Bible were a primary source its writer would be reporting something he observed. If the author of a passage in it heard a story from someone who heard a story, from someone who heard a story ...about 500 iterations back, then thats a secondary source. If he copied a story and edited it to say something different then thats a secondary source. I'm not saying we should presume or assume anything. Quite the contrary, Where an article says the language is Hebrew it depends on who said or wrote what when. I'm asking for a reference as opposed to "its in the Bible how much more verified can you get". If its a set of Passages copied from Strongs concordance I take Strongs as a secondary source also and they usually reference the language Rktect (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passages from the Bible are still a primary source even if you get them from an index/concordance/whatever. Just as the Amarna letters are even in translation, something else you disagree about. That's how we define primary source.

I think this is actually about Talk:Location of Aram, am I right? Which is a fork of, and should be a redirect to, Aram-Naharaim. dougweller (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read primary source and secondary source articles. Arnoutf (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source[1][2] is a term used in a number of disciplines. In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information(paper, picture,....etc) that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.

In what way does that apply to the Bible?Rktect (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this to do with policy and guidelines? Ddawkins73 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where articles about Bible nouns begin with "Noun (Hebrew)", indicating it is supposed to have been written in Hebrew, and there is no evidence even that Hebrew exists as a language at the time it is supposed to have been written, may we ask for a reference to say where that supposition comes from? Rktect (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As policy? You don't need a policy to edit contentious statements! Just sources. If the statement is inaccurate, document what academia has already thought of, using the sources. What isn't clear about that? Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you mean guidelines about editing articles on religious texts or historical texts, or in the category mythology, then "may we ask?" wouldn't be the in the text of the guideline, nor would "Hebrew" or any specific language, would it?

I think I've finally deciphered what you're saying. You're not saying "If an article says line x was translated from Hebrew but the extant sources are in Greek, may we ask if it wasn't translated from Hebrew?" - which is what I was answering. You seem to be asking if Hebrew words are Hebrew. Well, ask yourself if the difference between classifying a word as Modern Hebrew or Classical Hebrew is useful in the context of the article itself. Or even meaningful, in many cases, seeing as where Modern Hebrew comes from.

You can't have a guideline where you're not clear what the guideline should be yourself, so I suggest you take this up with the Wiki bible project as was suggested earlier. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break for easy editing

Let me clarify a couple of points.

Where an article is about a religious story, the primary source for that article will always be the relevant canon - if its a Bible story, that means the Bible. This does not mean that the canon is a primary source for the events described therein. However, where there are no other sources, then the religious canon must, perforce, take primacy.

If the primary source is written a specific language, then we can quote that language as source, unless we have conclusive, citeable, unchallenged references that demonstrate that the word comes from a different language. In that case, we can list the original language, with the word in that language, with a reference - and then quote the word in the language of the primary source.

Essentially, words have been quoted as Hebrew because there is no certain alternative. Just because some professor makes a good case for an alternative is not a good reason to dismiss the Hebrew and insert the alternative. In order to that you must demonstrate that there is almost universal acceptance of said professor's opinion. This has been done, for example, in the case of Moses, where it is universally agreed that the word is Egyptian. --FimusTauri (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest if OP wants to continue this, he cut n paste to his talk page or relevant project. Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the OP has been indef blocked for OR, this discussion is ongoing at [9] where a policy change is being discussed. dougweller (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't the same thread that was transferred there... it was the discussion Mythology and Religion which is already on archive #60 of this talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on notability

There is a request for comment regarding notability, including whether or not it should be used, should be changed, or should be renamed. All input would be appreciated. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a WP:RS view on Who's Who, the Canadian publication?

I don't believe that the answer is necessarily simple. The selection criteria do not seem to be published, nor is it clear whether the biographies are self authored and submitted, or are written by the publication. Nor is it clear whether they are validated or not.

I have emailed them to ask, but I am not hopeful of an answer.

I'm trying to form a view on an article with a number of woolly sources of which the Canadian Who's Who is the "best". But I am not clear whether it is a sufficient reference to assert and verify notability, and, if it is, whether as the sole decent reference, it is sufficient by itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Who's Who is not RS. They are spamming me last few years with emails. ps. i'm refering to american who's who, but guess that's the same thing. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they follow the same editorial policy as A & C Black, publishers of the UK edition as cited here then the answer is no as the publisher policy is confined to extending the inviation to submit an entry. The contents of the entry are generally written by the subject, and thus not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming that to be the case. It fits with the mechanism one woudl choose to use in order to collect this load of self puffery! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the 'Questionable sources' and 'Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves' sections of WP:V apply here. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put the article up for deletion, and I'd appreciate a good consensus to keep or delete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies

I am confused by an apparent contradiction raised by this:

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source would suggest that autobiographies such as WW would be acceptable sources, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources", but
WP:SELFPUB, though linked as a fuller treatment of the same topic, doesn't mention any circumstances where such an autobiography would be acceptable.

Normal practice in Wikipedia seems to be to use autobiographies as a source for non-contentious facts about the subject, so I think that WP:SELFPUB read on its own is a misleading summary of the community's consensus.

Do you agree with my conclusion about normal practice? Is this an FAQ?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures that have no link

It appears to be a new craze. More people are configuring their signatures so they appear on talk pages without a link. It makes it very frustrating for editors to communicate with each other when there is no link to their user page or talk page. Some recent cases have turned up on the Administrators Noticeboard / Incidents page:

ANI case 1 Feb 2009
ANI case 2 Sep 2008

At Wikipedia:Signature#Links, it clearly states that signatures must contain a link to the userpage or talkpage. I don't know what the answer is. But it's very frustrating when you want to reply to someone's post but it has no link on the signature. ANI doesn't seem able to deal with it. What can be done? --SteelSkin (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't respond to a polite suggestion, block them. People who deliberately and egregiously make it difficult to communicate with them have no place in a collaborative project. Algebraist 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block per Algebraist. But Wikipedia:Signature is a "behavioral guideline" ... presumably we need this element to be described as policy (which I'm sure is part of SteelSkin's purpose in bringing it here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this more and more - it's a pain in the arse and should be stopped. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to be blocked for violating a behavioural guideline. People have certainly been blocked for disruptive editing before now. Algebraist 00:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we saw argument from, for example, User:Bishonen: "Really? And what , Tom, does "policy/guidelines" stand for—why do you call it that? Do you think WP:SIG is "almost policy", or "policy on a bad day"? It's in fact an editorial guideline Do we really need to display our ZOMG Great Adminz Powerz at every opportunity". --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get this made into policy? What is the process?--124.170.250.200 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus deciding that it is policy. We don't have a process as such. Algebraist 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures without links are problematic. The functioning of this encyclopedia depends on communication between editors: for collaboration, clarification, editing concerns, dispute resolution and so forth. If signatures are unlinked, then this process is disrupted. Certainly, the user could still be contacted via a search under user name, but this presupposes that their doctored signature is an accurate transcription of their actual user name. (Many people use short forms, symbols, diacritics or completely different names.) It also makes it difficult to verify the message is left by that user, or by someone impersonating that user. The actual poster could be discovered by checking the page history, but this can be difficult on pages with large histories, and almost impossible if it is not correctly date-stamped. (People intent on obfuscating their details might well not datestamp, or enter false ones.) I would support a policy which insists on user links in signatures. Those who do not comply could have their signature-setting preference disabled (if that's possible). Gwinva (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkless signatures are very annoying. However annoying ≠ block-worthy disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The functioning of this encyclopedia depends on communication between editors

Sort of. Obviously there are a minority of editors who do a lot of the vital stitching and glueing etc.

But most editors are unregistered. So how can you block someone who does register but doesn't have a linkable signature?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unregistered editors can be identified. (Much more easily, too: they cannot set signature preferences!) They couldn't impersonate other editors easily, either. 2. We can block people for other signature-related issues (such as profanities, names which impersonated others) so why not for this signature offence? 3. I was not proposing blocking, anyway, but disabling their signature setting preference. 4. While unlinked signatures might not be block-worthy disruption, they mighht hide block-worthy disruption (such as impersonation), or make it difficult/impossible for others to contact or communicate to warn or discuss concerns. Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there is no problem if you can clearly identify the user. My being annoyed isn't grounds for sanctions. Now, if the user can't be clearly identified, and I have to dig through edit summaries, that places a load on the server, consumes an inordinate amount of my time. If enough editors are affected, it crosses the line to disruptive. Solutions vary from politely reminding the user to identify himself to bot-tagging to blocks. I would favor the first two as they are more in line with WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL. Personally, I think the "must link" should be replaced with "must link or clearly identify yourself, and should link."

Here's an idea, have signbot treat unlinked signatures the same as unsigned posts and have it append a properly linked signature? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea, Ron. Is it technologically feasible?--SteelSkin (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask slakr. Algebraist 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I like the idea of a signbot, but I would allow a global exception if the signature consisted of just the user's username or the user's username with the first letter in lowercase. This would give people who insisted on not having a link in their signature for whatever reason an option. I don't think we should exclude people whose religion prohibits them from putting a link in their signatures from editing :). The important thing is not that there be a clickable link, but that it be very clear who made the comment without checking the history. I also think any bot should limit itself to pages that are already monitored by autosigning bots. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot already treats non-linked signatures as unsigned. People currently have the option to opt out via {{NoAutosign}}. There is an archived discussion about why I don't think SIG needs to be policy. Also, I've found that the people that don't have a link in their signatures tend to have simply made a mistake and ticked the "raw signature" box in myprefs, and they're usually open to fixing the problem to keep the bot/other people from annoying them. :P --slakr^\ talk / 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are the signbots configured in the first place? What do they look for? (I have no idea how they work.) I suggest they add linksigs to any comment that doesn't have a signature that matches the name of the person who made it. In other words, anyone who signs with their username will not have a link added. This allows the editors to "opt out" and allows other editors to find them. -Freekee (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Edit: I guess that answers my questions. Slakr's comment wasn't there when I formulated my comment). -Freekee (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Slakr, for commenting. You said that SineBot already treats unlinked signatures as unsigned, meaning that it will automatically sign them. But that doesn't always seem to be working. If you look at the thread 'ANI case 1', linked on the first post of this thread, there are some unlinked signatures that have been there for about a week, and SineBot doesn't seem to have signed them. I find that some people with unlinked signatures seem to be avoiding discussion with other editors, which may be the motive for such signatures.SteelSkin (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le test. Xeno 21:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

^See, signbot didn't annote the signature... –xeno (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it didn't. You have over 800 edits, so SineBot (note spelling) ignores you entirely. Algebraist 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, would a solution to this be for SineBot to disallow any exceptions? Remove the threshold of 800 edits after which SineBot is currently disabled. What do we need such a threshold for anyway? The other possibility would be to remove the 'No Autosign' option.SteelSkin (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize SineBot had a threshold. –xeno (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, currently set at 800 (it assumes you know what you're doing). To re-enable auto-signing, you need to use {{YesAutosign}}. --slakr^\ talk / 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disable custom signatures

I would support going one step further. We don't need embellishments or distractions on our signatures at all (I used to have a terrible multicolored bold one myself). Just make sure the default signature links to the user page (as it currently does) and appear in standard blue text. If everyone goes around trying to customize their sig, eventually we end up with the zoo currently visible all over WP pages. Second suggestion: also make it link to the user talk page and/or contribs. This would makes it MUCH easier to communicate and follow a user's contribs rather than clicking through several pages or using Popups. Thoughts? Note I've long since re-customized my sig to this, which I think should be the new standard (can you see what I've done?): Zunaid 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to change the current rules, what do we gain from standardising sigs? Two things we would lose - it can sometimes be useful to follow a particular editors reasoning in a discussion and I find that signature differences make that easier. Also some users choose to have a user page and some don't, so it makes sense to keep sigs customisable so you can tailor your signature to link to your user page if you have one and not to link to it if you don't. Though I don't understand why we need to type ~~~~ at the end of each talk page post, can't we have a software change to automatically sign all posts, with a nosign option for those rare occasions when you don't need to sign a talk page post. Were Spiel Chequers 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, though it will be hard to get people to agree. The thing that annoys me the most is when people sign with a completely different name than their user name; what is the point of that? I then see what looks like one person's comments in edit summaries and another's in talk pages, while all the time they're the same user. Is this a kind of low-level sock-puppetry?--Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete separate issue and wouldn't solve the one above it. The stubborn users could just sign manually, i.e. as follows -

 Annoying User ~~~~~

–xeno (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-By Editorials

One weakness of the Wikipedia's current policy in my opinion is its encouragement of "drive-by editorials". By this I mean editors who come to a page and make no contribution to it other than adding editorial templates like "needs references", etc. These annoying banners clutter up the pages with non-content. In my view editorial remarks should be confined to the discussion page. The content page should have just that: content. Also, my feeling about the matter is that if some jerk thinks there is not enough references he should put in the hours to find them and write them himself instead of defacing the page with his bitching. If an article is devoid of references I can see that myself, I don't need Joe Anonymous to waste my screen real estate informing me of the obvious.

Ultimately what this is about is letting readers just read for themselves without having to be told what to think or having their articles cluttered with the opinions of non-contributors. If an article "reads like an essay" or whatever, fine put it in the discussion, but don't start lecturing me, the reader, about it. In most cases I am there just to read the article so whining at me about the article's supposed shortcomings is not going to get it changed any faster.

Maybe I should repeat this last point to emphasize its importance: most visitors to a page by a wide margin are READERS not contributors so forcing them read banners advising editorial changes is just punishing them and ruining their experience. Contributors read the discussion page and that's where complaints about an article belong, not the content page. John Chamberlain (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind the tags is to turn the readers into contributors. That's a bad thing? --Izno (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? – ukexpat (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader I find such tags very useful, they tell me ahead of time that the article has quality issues. As a reader, I want this information right in front of me not on the talk page. Now, if there was a button with a note "this article has x section- or article cleanup markups and Y in-line cleanup markers, click to show/hide," along with a user preference for the default show/hide state, that would be much goodness. But please don't make me go out of the way to see them. Of course, as an editor, they tell me quickly where I can help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^That's an interesting idea. Has anyone ever proposed it? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:48, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#.22show.2Fhide_cleanup_tags.22_button_to_pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the roads. And better sanitation. Aqueducts, don't forget aqueducts. But, yes, apart from that and all the reasons posted by the users above, I agree with the OP completely. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I reckon davidwr's development of the idea isn't bad actually) Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any reason to think that these tags actually turn readers into editors? I've been here a long time, and I've never heard anyone say anything like that. Wikitext is basically a programming language, and beyond a newbies abilities, so I don't think "This article needs references" is actually producing any refs. "This article's prose needs work" is kind of self evident. NPOV tags are probably useful to a reader. We use tags as editing motivation, which we shouldn't. Basically, "I'm going to make your article look like crap until you do what I say". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for editing, I'm not sure. If a random article I come across is tagged as lacking references, I don't feel any particular motivation to go looking for references. However if it's a topic I'm interested in, and/or an article I've worked on heavily, it may motivate me to improve it for the sake my pride, so my work doesn't have that "This article sucks because..." banner on it.

I find the tags very useful as a reader though. On Wikipedia there's a certain amount of scrutiny required when reading articles. To know that others have already looked at it and assessed certain problems gives me something to watch out for.

Way back during the ambox migration I suggested that maintenance tags be toned down a bit (smaller, more subtle, something like that), but didn't get much support. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:18, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes when I'm on random-page-patrol, I see "citation needed" and other tags as a challenge to fix it. Sometimes not. Tags like Notability prompt me to search the web or online books, newspapers, and newspaper archives for possible signs of notability and add them, or if I find none, WP:PROD the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP. In fact, I just left a long comment on the talk page of one of these templates. Someone left one on an article where it, along with an unreferenced tag left only the first five lines of article text visible (at my screen resolution). As a reader, I don't want to read suggestions as to what kinds of things are missing from the article. I think it will be obvious what's missing, once I start reading it. Some templates serve as warnings to readers. This is good, but only in cases where information could possibly be misleading or wrong. Use the tags as warnings, and the less critical the warning, the smaller and less prominent it should be. I like the stub tags because (1) they're a very general appeal for editors, and (2) they're at the bottom.

I also have a problem with the general unreferenced tag used on pages that hardly have any info in the first place. It seems like some newbie editor saw no references on a stub, and thought he was helping. Please, ask for references only when there's info that could be remotely questionable. -Freekee (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I.e, everything? --Izno (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all facts are supposed to be referenced. Not just the 'questionable' stuff. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:51, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. From WP:CITE: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged... I do a lot of work with album articles. I just saw one that had about two pieces of information that were not taken from the album itself. There is no reason that the album should be provided as a reference for itself. As for the other two pieces of information, one is the release date, which is generally not in question, and the other was a "the album is hailed as" statement. This is the only info in the entire article that should require a reference, yet there's a banner across the top of the article, and not a template pointing out that questionable sentence. That doesn't do the reader any good, and it doesn't lend validity to our encyclopedia in general, when people see these templates on every page. -Freekee (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are handy because they warn the reader the article is shit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most tags are fine, but there are few that take half the page, and it's just annoying. Making them smaller would be nice... 212.200.240.232 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some are find, some are not. We do not, as far as I have ascertained, have any policy on which notices are acceptable and which are not. By way of example, I think it is fine to alert the reader where there is a health warning - the article is not wikified, there are POV issues, citations are needed for bold claims. Others - and I single out {{orphan}} - do not help the normal reader at all (and there's precious little evidence they do any good). These templates simply get in the way and devalue our product. The most important thing about this article is not that it is an orphan.

Ideally we would develop a policy specifying which may appear in article space, and for those which can go in article space, mandate whether they go at the top or bottom of articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{AfDM}} for example needs rework. bottom half of it has no use for readers but is actually needed for users who are placing the tag -- it belongs to relevant instruction page. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

refactored --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I am one editor who was encouraged to become one by the existance of a (actually four) banner(s). Seeing there was a dispute on the article Noah's Ark led me to look at the discussion and then get involved. I may be an exception, but someone asked for evidence that the banners encourage people to become editors.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the banners do tell you that you can edit articles. The "advertising" value, to misuse a word, should not be discounted. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are fine. Drive-by-tagging is fine. I do almost all of my editing by tagging and subsequently fixing, I'm in the top 500 contributors by edit count and have gotten plenty of articles to GA/FA by doing so. They're nowhere near as widely deployed as people imagine and have the positive effect of encouraging readers and editors to improve articles. Readers who object to tags in principle can hide them in their skin prefs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just does not cut it. If we take the 6,700 articles tagged since November 2006 as orphans, what can we conclude but that the tag does not work. Is the most important thing about the article that it is an orphan? Clearly not. Bragging about edit count does not add to your argument.

As I noted, we need policy: what is important enough to be in article space? What is important enough to be the first thing you read when you pull up the article? A one size fits all "I don't want to see tags" is a blunt indiscriminate instrument and is clearly an insufficient substitute for cogent policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an article which is orphaned has a far higher likelihood of being deleted than an article not tagged as such. It is therefore a good idea to make this issue prominent so that it is fixed. If it is not fixed, then making the issue prominent is a good warning to readers that they are looking at an article which is probably neglected, and to adjust their expectations accordingly. To make this clearer, articles which are tagged are frequently bad articles, and the lack of tags on an established article can be taken as an implication of quality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence at all to substantiate that claim w.r.t. {{orphan}}? My experience of orphan articles is that they are no worse or better than non orphans. For very many articles which I've looked at recently from orphan queues, there just is not an article which can bear a link to the subject. A case in point is a warwickshire cricketer from the 1950s ... categories have taken over from lists as means of corralling all such players together. No reason to link from WCC article. No matches he played in have articles, &c. Meanwhile there are other means entirely of finding orphaned articles for those who wish to maintain them. And there's the evidence of 6700 articles having tags for two years to no effect.

I really do not think you can gainsay two things. There should be policy, for the area is contentions and there is not consensus. 2. Ideally there should be evidence that the tags that seek only to get work done and not to warn of the state of the article, work. I think we have this for {{wikify}}. I think it is entirely absent for a tag such as {{orphan}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence does not consist of guessing about how well they work. Saying there's 6700 articles that have had orphan tags for 2 years is meaningless. How many were there 2 years ago? If there were 6800, it probably isn't working. If there were 15000, it probably is. Wikipedia is not on a deadline. Just because nobody has bothered in 2 years to fix the problem does not mean we should dump the process. Mr.Z-man 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We should at least measure the process to understand if it works. We should not start from the presumption that tagging articles is a good thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should also not start from the presumption that its a bad thing. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, using Category:Orphaned articles from November 2006 as an example: There are currently 6614 articles in the category (based on a count from the API, rather than the sonetimes unreliable category counts, though its fairly close here). The first database dump to have the category table that includes the internal counts is the July 2008 dump, almost exactly 7 months ago. In that dump, the category count was 8086, so in 7 months, 1472 pages were removed from the category (either deleted or the template was removed, indicating a fix), an average of about 7 pages per day removed from the category since last July. Mr.Z-man 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the figures; very helpful. Now I want to know to what extent {{orphan}} contributed to that 7 per day. By way of comparison, the job of adding geo-coordinates to articles tagged with the (invisible to the reader) {{coord missing}} is being measured and achieves 176 {{coord missing}} removals per day. It is not enough, as a previous poster noted, to know a single absolute figure, nor the rate at which work is done, but rather we need to know the increment of work done that is attributable to the template. I understand that an evidence based approach may be thought of as a bit much, but anything less is supposition and hunch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEREN#Move maintenance tags to talk pages - Something like this comes up about once a month, with pretty much the same arguments for and against each time. Mr.Z-man 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which basically says "it's all too difficult to do". 1. It isn't, and 2. I'm not asking for tags to be moved to talk pages. I'm asking for cogent policy on tag use in article space.

I see nothing wrong with the way tags are used right now. If an article needs fixing, and it has a tag, either a) fix it or b) leave the tag and move on. If a user is being pointy by adding tags where unjustified, that is a behavioral issue that needs to be dealt with, but that is not a weakness or a fault of the tagging procedure. We cannot "pre-un-dick-ify" all of Wikipedia, and if someone going to be obnoxious, we shouldn't make it inconvenient for everyone else just to make it harder to be a dick. Otherwise, the tags are useful and helpful; I have been known to patrol the cleanup categories, and find the tags helpful in knowing how to cleanup and improve articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The last 2 sentences of the "Reasons for previous rejection" refer to the difficulty and logistics problems, the first 3 refer to the arguments that have already been discussed here. Mr.Z-man 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we at least agree that there is no policy? Or is there? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no policy, but does there need to be? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:04, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the matter, only ossified custom. There's no guidance for other projects wishing to visit their hobby-horse banner on article space. Is there some problem with contemplating policy or guidelines? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I just don't think there needs to be a policy for everything. WP:BURO and all. Assuming we need to limit the issues for which we develop written rules, I think maintenance tagging practice is a relatively trivial issue in grand scheme of things. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:27, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

That said, maybe an essay on that would help. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:28, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: I am all in favor of tags to warn the reader of potential problems with an article, but some tags require a talk page explanation. Many tags, such as {{POV}} and {{Dubious}}, specifically refer to a corresponding talk page discussion. Tags such as {{unreferenced}} and {{fact}}, however, should be okay to drive-by. Mike R (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Mike R with my 2¢ Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the above I gather that members who support tags being on the content page seem to think that the "usefulness" of the tag on the content page outweighs the annoyance to some readers at least for some tags. I would dispute that. I find the tags on the content pages to be totally annoying way beyond any utility they have. The argument that users can filter tags is lame because most readers are anonymous (not logged in). To settle who is right I propose that we run a poll with the following questions:

Title: Should Editorial Tags Be Restricted to the Discussion Pages? Vote!

Yes, all editorial tags should be moved to the discussion pages

No, tags are fine the way they are

Some tags need to be moved, develop a policy

This poll should allow anyone to vote without logging in (just like a normal reader) but multiple votes from the same IP should be counted only once.

Of course, we don't need to run this poll to guess what the likely result will be. John Chamberlain (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, but not all tags are equal. A one size policy does not fit all. My interest in such tags tells me that there is not consensus on all tags that appear in articles, but there is a body of custom and practice which seems to be verging on ossification. Policy or else guidelines would, therefore, be useful. And I repeat that we should ideally be guided by evidence for tags which are not required as a warning or article quality: there should be an obligation on tag owners to account for the quality of their tags, namely is there evidence that the aesthetic & annoyance cost of the tag is outweighed by the incentive it gives to fixing the advertised problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not all tags are equal. Some tags do have a relevant function as warning for editors (e.g. need reference). Some are important to alert editors something is going on (e.g. AfD). Some give a personal opinion of an editor (e.g. {{Nationalhistory}}.

I think the number of templates allowed in mainspace articles should be limited to important tags from the first two categories, with all other tags to be limited to talkpages. Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not all tags are equal, vote the third choice in the poll then. Of course you don't want to do the poll because you know it would show 90%+ of readers would vote choice #1. Let's face facts: drive-by banner tagging is only supported by one small group of users: the graffiti artists who do it. Everybody else wishes they would take their micro-opinions somewhere else (like the discussion page).

---

Drive-by taggers shooting uzi-cites at articles doing nothing but being harmless and sourceless, while readers suffer, the body bags get filled, and mothers weep a vale of tears...

Unsourced material should be deleted. That's what I read. And it makes sense. But people don't like to do that.

As a reader, nice to know, always was nice to know, before I registered, what material might just have been made up.

It's a little learning that is a dangerous thing, and most of us are guilty of it.

Let's "face facts": cite tags are a lot more efficient than discussion pages (Unless you want to duplicate the articles).

I don't think "graffiti artists" is good faith (let alone getting further into a rather unfortunate metaphor). I'm sure some very productive editors use them. Vandals just write nonsense.

Opinions are opinions, unless the people who don't have micro-opinions have macro-opinions.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some tags serve as warnings to readers about article content. Some tags serve as suggestions to editors. Many tags serve as adverts for new editors. Can we keep only the tags that are most pertinent to readers (the warnings), and move the rest down the page? Compare the ubiquitous stub tag. It's perfect. It implies that there is info missing from the article, asks for help improving it, and is not a big flashing orange banner complaining that the article sucks.

I ask for moderation. Keep tags to a minimum - only the most important, keep as few as possible on the top of the page, consider moving some to the talk page. -Freekee (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the guideline WP:Notability be promoted to a Policy?

Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.

Amazingly, Wikipeida policies do not define what topics are suitable for inclusion as a standalone article. Instead, WP:What Wikipedia is not makes it clear that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and just because a topic may exist or is useful does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

To differentiate between what is indiscriminate, and what is not, Wikipedia employs the concept of '"Notability", an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The principal underlying notability is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.

Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence. By chance or by design, it is the same reliable sources that generations past have used to expand our knowledge of the world around us by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past, described by the metaphor "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants".

Since WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Notability are closely linked, such that they can be described different sides of same coin, I propose that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability should be promoted to a Policy in order to strengthen the First of the Five Pillars that define the character of Wikipedia.

Please make your views known at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very fitting that the very next entry is mine. Since notability is the number one reason that articles are deleted, and those deletions overwhelming effect new users. Ikip (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing too, otherwise there'd be no one to read any articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

82.6% of articles put up for deletion were by new users

After a couple of months of compiling data, I finally finished the first section of my research: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, thanks to a dozen admins who gave me a copy of the deleted material. I found what many article squadron members already know, that our current deletion policy overwhelmingly effect new users:

31 out of 98 articles, nearly one third, which were put up for deletion were created by editors whose very first contributions was the new article.
66 out of 98 articles, 67%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 100 contributions or less when they created the article.
81 out of 98 articles, 82.6%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 1000 contributions or less when they created the article.

Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users? Ikip (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by compiling similar statistics for earlier points in time (say, November 15 of 2007, 2006, and 2005). My impression is that the majority of deleted articles have always been by new and anonymous users -- by the time you've accumulated a few hundred edits, you've got a feel for what sorts of articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was going to say. It stands to reason that the people most likely to have their articles deleted are those who are least likely to understand the project. The drop in editing since 2007 has a lot more to do with the fact that the "main encyclopedia" is done. There really are only major paths to editing right now: improving existing core articles, which not nearly as many people have the patience for, or creating pop culture articles, which are by far the most likely to face deletion. Reso lute 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very important that wikipedia retains editors.

I am troubled by what you say Resolute, because I think there is so much more we can write about. Ikip (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no bar to article entry, in addition to the lack of a bar to editor entry which makes us something of a laughing stock already, I'm not sure we'd have enough of a reputation left as anything that might possibly resemble the shadow of an encyclopedia. So what about retaining readers? Is that important too? Or are we just hoping to coddle authors so they'll feel fuzzy inside and get to have their work appear online for no one to read? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:28, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The "main encyclopedia" is done? What a let down. Here I thought I was contributing to a paperless encyclopdia that was stiving to collect the sum of human knowledge? Its done? Human knowledge has ceased? With each new day there is nothing more to learn or share? The "main encyclopedia" is done? Wow. No wonder new editors are discouraged. Why not post a notice on the Main Page? Main Encyclopedia Is Done. Please wait for the next encyclopedia. Inexperienced editors need not apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't mean that literally. That's why it's in quotes. The point is that of course there'll be an observable drop-off in editing over time for an encyclopedia. There was a very large blank slate to fill before, and now there's not. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

At that we disagree. There is so much more Wikipedia can be. To even consider that in a world of growing population and history and events unfolding before our eyes that there should be a "slow down" seems add odds to what Wiki's potential is. We should be continually expanding it... unless we have finally run out of paper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are continually expanding. I don't disagree with that. Nevertheless there can never be enough current topics available at a given time to equal the amount that needed to be created to cover history. A drop-off was inevitable, and is for any similar record of information. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:42, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the drop of in article creation have more with our structure than with available topics. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans. The slowdown of article creation is caused by a tendency to delete red links and to favor links to broad topics. Taemyr (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Editors should be encourged to create articles for those redlinks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was once a need to create articles about all the presidents of the united states. Now there's not. There was once the need to create articles about every Hollywood celebrity. Now there's not. Sports players. Now there's not. I could go on. These all needed to be created at one point, and now they don't. An overall drop-off in creation will be observed. Your point might also play a part, but Resolute's is a solid fact of logic. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:02, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

With repects, I disagree. History is a changing and mutable beast. Okay, about the presidents. At best, barring deaths, we'd have a new article every 4 years. But celebrities, authors, filmmakers, scientists, musicians, sports figures, political and religious leaders, etc, etc... there are continued worlds of information to be captured within these electronic pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, continued. I don't contend that. It still accounts for a predictable dropoff. Unless you're saying that in 2007 enough new celebrities emerged to equal the total number that existed prior throughout history. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:26, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Roughly every other article that I created was nominated for deletion at one point. About 10-15 percent got deleted. If I haven't been persistent about defending them, more would end up deleted. That is quite a frustrating experience for an editor, that when you contribute, someone comes and puts a del tag, instead of trying to improve it. Problem is the dominance of controlling mentality over contributing among a number of editors. Also, deletion discussions drain so much energy that could be focused on article creation/improvements. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That and posting obnoxious messages everywhere to try and propaganda people into supporting a particular side, rather than making a point in the designated forum like a mature adult and then shutting the fuck up. Not you anon. They know who they are. (that being another problem mentality, in addition to what you mentioned) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:51, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

To make sense of this I would have to see the percentages of articles not nominated for deletion; otherwise these are useless statistics. Most of my articles used to be nominated for deletion. They were plenty notable, it was just the hovering cloud of overeager new article patrollers. Then I learned to use the {{inuse}} tag, also not to save my articles until I added a few sources. It's kind of a vetting or hazing process. There are a huge number of very notable subjects untreated on Wikipedia. One that comes to mind are major corporations of the world. There are established, publicly traded companies with thousands or even tens of thousands of employees, a billion dollars a year in sales, leaders in their industry, etc., that don't even have an article. Every once in a while I still get a notability tag or even a deletion nomination when I creat one because someone is too lazy to check google. I usually just remove the tags per IAR.Wikidemon (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate statistic would be this: how many articles are proposed for deletion? How many did get deleted? If Deleted/Proposed is low number, then something needs to be done so that many useless deletion discussions are avoided. If Deleted/Proposed is closer to 1, then deletion process already works fine. In my experience, D/P is about .3, and therefore far from efficient or just. ps. Deleted number should NOT include articles which were successfully recreated or renamed/redirected to new titles. pps. I know some articles are kept because RS are found in deletion discussions and therefore argument that deletions resulted in better articles, but finding those on talk pages would be less stressful. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]