Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by P7njsl (talk | contribs) at 09:12, 29 May 2009 (→‎Irrelevant "Cultural References": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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


Is this really a disambiguation page?

I leave it entirely to others to decide, and I will not intervene further. But to me it seems nonsense to set up a "disambiguation" page for a word like "Sanctorum", when none of the items referred to on the page is called by that name. The page does not disambiguate the word. The page Sanctorum is merely a substitute for typing the word "sanctorum" in the Search box and clicking "Search" (not "Go"). A number of similar pages have recently been created. Are they worth keeping? If they are, is it appropriate to call them "disambiguation" pages? Or "search" pages? Or "index" pages? Soidi (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are worth keeping. Keep in mind that most times such a word would normally be used as a redirect to one of the individual articles if multiple options did not excist. But when redirecting towards multiple pages, how can man determine which article is more important? And how can people know what the name of a page would be? For example when i type Agile i will go to a similar page. In my case i am looking for Agile software development. If i did not know the name how would i find the article? Maybe it would be called Agile (Software) or Agile (Software Development). As for calling them disambiguation pages: The policy itsself states that they are used in case a word can refer to multiple things - and that can also include non exact name matches Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Excirial must be right, but I do think there is an essential difference between looking for "Agile software development" (which could go under various names) under Agile and looking for anything (what?) under Sanctorum which is not a word that can refer to multiple things, since it always has the meaning "of holy persons or things", and which isn't the first word in even one of the phrases linked to. (Yes, I have intervened again. But only to clarify my meaning.) Soidi (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a perfectly reasonable page to me. "Sanctorum" may not be the first word in any of those phrases, but it is certainly a major one, and one which someone unsure of the complete phrase might search for. It seems to me the real reason for any disambiguation page to exist is to make it easier for someone to find the actual article being sought, and this page does that. LadyofShalott 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word (and any apparently very specific word) doesnt necessarily mean the same thing all the time. maybe for now it does, but i could create a notable software program called "Sanctorum" which, say, organizes a churches projects. I think this is a good disambig. i was surprised at first how many disambigs link to somewhat marginal articles, but this doesnt really get in the way of its functionality, as long as they are in a reasonable order of usefulness. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free content encylopedia?

It seems increasingly obvious that the English language Wikipedia has moved away from it's mission,

  • Every film contains a copy of it's non-free poster
  • Every song has a non-free copy of the music CD box
  • Every company contains a copy of the non-free logo
  • Every TV programme contains a non-free screenshot
  • Every sports team contains a non-free logo
  • Every newspaper has a non-free copy of the front page
  • Every modern book has a non-free picture of the cover sleeve
  • Every piece of software has a non-free screenshot, an icon and usually a box

This practice rarely even gets commented on now, and they are not included to significantly increase understanding or any other reason listed in nfcc, they are meerly there as this is the English language wikipedia, and that is what is done here. I think it is either time to create a blanket exemption which would reflect practice across the encylopedia, or have a mass removal of content not meeting NFCC. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Most sports playoffs and championships (World Series, Super Bowl, etc.) also have logos on them every year now as well. At the very least it should be limited to one per article, many CDs have a regular and special edition cover. Also, educating people about this better couldn't hurt, it seems that most people don't really understand the need for fair use claims, and many of them aren't even legit claims. blackngold29 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I fail to see what the exact problem is. Non-free content that is gratuitous is cut; non-free content that helps illustrate the subject of the article (or in any other way convey important information) is helpful and gets kept. You forgot to mention that fictional characters have non-free images on them, but at the same time, an article like Palpatine would be less helpful if we killed all the images. To be so obsessed with "free" to the extent that the quality of the encyclopedic content suffers... not good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I disagree. It recently came up (but is certainly not limited to) the FAC of 2004 World Series. The logo of that series in no way enhances my ability to learn about the topic, and yet there it is in all of its fair use glory. That image does not pass WP:NFCC policy 8 and yet there it is (not to mention the logo for every World Series, Stanley Cup Finals, Super Bowl, etc.) Whoever is cutting these "gratutious" images are not going far enough. I'm not worried about legal issues, I'm just wondering why we continue to pretend this is a free encyclopedia. blackngold29 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with EVula. The goal is to be free, but the goal is also to be complete, and frankly, the latter cannot occur if we adhere to Fasash's extremist views on the former. I also disagree somewhat with BlacknGold's view. Such logos are a visual representation of the event as it occurs. Strictly necessary? Perhaps not, but helpful, even if only a little. Where it would cross the line would be if team logos were added to the World Series article, or the World Series logo was atted to the team articles, as that would be blatantly gratuitous. It all comes down to balance, imo. Resolute 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And they're only used where a free replacement is not likely to be found. So non-free images are not supplanting free content; they are only supplementing it. Postdlf (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but my point is that the criteria states "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Removing the logo of the World Series doesn't decrease my knowledge about it one bit. When I nominated PNC Park as an FA this was brought to my attention for the first time, and after removing the park's logo I came to realize that the article actually looks better without it. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the reader to see a picture of the Series' MVP? Or (when avalible) a picture from a game itself? I think people get lazy, they just say "We'll throw the logo in the infobox." When there are a number of possibilities that are free and actually improve the article. All that being said, when it comes to team logos or albums I tend to be more lenient. blackngold29 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, many logos are treated as nonfree when they should actually be tagged with Template:PD-textlogo...) Whether an image is significant or insignificant to an article topic is really a matter for discussing on that article's talk page. But generally speaking, and as Dcoetzee expresses below, it's certainly reasonable that the logo by which a commercial enterprise has been presented to the public is a significant part of how it's identified, and that how that enterprise was branded is relevant information. Companies use logos exactly because they perform that function. Postdlf (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the image examples given above are noncontroversial and well-established uses of non-free content, and all very sound legally. Obsessing over these is completely nonproductive, particularly given that non-free content isn't limited to images. Non-free content also includes quotations from copyrighted text and even summaries of copyrighted fiction. The images you note above are legally far less problematic, and it's far easier for downstream users of Wikipedia content to simply omit non-free images than it is for them to omit non-free text from articles. Postdlf (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. These images are fair use. Low resolution versions of copyrighted images used for things like putting cover art on a Wikipedia article is considered "Fair use." Wikipedia is the last haven for free-use content. Very little things these days are free use. In that sense, without fair use, Wikipedia would have no images at all.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The Commons has over four million free images. That's not a bad start. blackngold29 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, a matter of principle. I agree with the Fasach Nua that we are far too liberal in our non-free content policy. My view has always been that we should only have non-free images that are essential to an understanding of the topic in hand. You can't have the article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima without a non-free photograph; most pages will survive quite happily without non-free images that are essentially decoration. The fact that the use of such media is legal is quite beside the point: the free encyclopaedia should be as free as it possibly can be. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is largely a philosophical discussion, but I think the status quo is just fine - "free" is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: a way of enabling wider reuse under a variety of circumstances. Fair use images are okay because: 1. there are many contexts in which they can be safely reused; 2. because they can be systematically removed. One should not underestimate the value of images that appear to be "decorative" such as logos - a logo is, in effect, another name used to recognize the subject. I believe it's a critical part of a subject's representation. Dcoetzee 23:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf states "All of the image examples given above are noncontroversial and well-established uses of non-free content...", which is entirely true, however the use is not consistant with nfcc. The problem I see is the inconsistancy between policy and well-established practice and one of the two needs to be modified, either a more liberal FU policy, or the application of the existing one Fasach Nua (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps the problem then is with NFCC itself. NFCC #8 - which is liberally over-applied as a bludgeon against all sorts of images by some editors - is utterly subjective. While there is certainly a need for an image to be relevant and contribute to the article in some way, the clause is clumsily written and just begs a fight. Two different editors can quite honestly and legitimately come to the table with one saying an image does not enhance my understanding, while the other says that it does indeed help my understanding. NFCC #8 needs to be re-worked and should not be - as it currently stands - in and of itself sufficient cause to arbitrarily remove an image with discussion. I understand there is a process for such things ... Wiggy! (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I see it is that in many subjects the goals of "free" and "encyclopedia" are in tension: coverage that is limited to free content cannot be comprehensive, and comprehensive coverage must in some circumstances include nonfree content. The reason that in practice Wikipedia uses more nonfree content than a strict reading of its mission might suggest is that most Wikipedia contributors don't really care about the philosophical underpinnings of the free culture movement. They're interested in the product, an encyclopedia anyone can edit. As a result, they often want to include nonfree content simply because for copyrighted material it contributes to comprehensive coverage of the subject. It just makes sense that an article on a book would include a picture of the book's cover.
The policy question Fasach raises is really a question of whether policy should prescribe behavior, or describe practices as they exist. As Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines notes, the latter is generally more effective. Honestly, I think that the Wikipedia community is too big now to enforce more prescription — we can barely enforce the rules we've got. The free content goal of Wikipedia is still part of our intention, but if we want it to be part of the encyclopedia's practices imposing more restrictions from above isn't the way to do it. That will just cause more resentment and conflict. Instead, I think that we need more education and community outreach, to explain the importance of free content and encourage its use in all possible circumstances. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
most Wikipedia contributors don't really care about the philosophical underpinnings of the free culture movement. -- indeed. I obviously I have no proof, but I would imagine that if WP suddenly removed all it's non-free content, or even just limited to the the sort where the article is actaully about the content in question (cases like the Iwo Jima example) -- which is what some people want, I'll grant -- a LOT of editors would leave, and WP would very likely get a good deal more bad press than it already does. Again, I have no proof, but it's what I imagine would happen. Also, a lot of the time free content makes the article WORSE, not better (in terms of the article itself, not the mission and such). Yes yes, obviously living people need free pics, but often they are so horrid it WOULD be better without them. True in many other cases as well. It's actually funny that a somewhat similar argument, in a sense, is going on at an RP game I'm at. Some people think that text alone should be sufficient, and anyone using pictures is lazy, where others are much more visually oriented and like having them -- it's the same here, many people simply 'click' better when there's an extra illustrative element to things. A logo or boxart to represent what's being described helps to make a...how to put this...association in the mind. 'Further understanding'? Without a doubt. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching people to recognize a topic visually by its logo/cover/graphic/etc. does significantly increase the understanding of the reader. There is no conflict with NFCC. Dragons flight (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That is the very reason why logos exist in the first place. Resolute 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that our Free encyclopedia also contains many copyrighted quotes that are only allowed under fair use. Like Josiah says: "The problem as I see it is that in many subjects the goals of "free" and "encyclopedia" are in tension: coverage that is limited to free content cannot be comprehensive, and comprehensive coverage must in some circumstances include nonfree content." I'm of the firm believe that Fair use is a good thing in Wikipedia. Definitely in text, and in images as long as it is properly tagged. And I'm a Free junkie, just so you know. That doesn't mean there are no limits, but Logo's and promotional posters and stuff hardly infringe on the monetary value the copyrighted work has if we would not use it. As a matter of fact, it's free promotion for them, with also a lot of benefit to our readers. Although I agree that the older "screenshot" issue with TV series and movies was problematic at times, I do think we are on a better path here. So I agree with Dragons flight on this.—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we can barely enforce the rules we've got", Josiah? Let's be frank about it. We can't, or rather we don't. Anyone with experience of RfCs can tell you they tend to get little response. The community simply can't be bothered to enforce policy. I'm talking about content policy here of course. The authorities are authorized to enforce behavioural & legal policies. Perhaps that's what you were referring to. Peter jackson (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say that the content policy as practiced is significantly looser than the content policy as written. And Melodia is right — if we did attempt a strict interpretation of the free content portion of our mission, to something like the German model, there would be a huge negative reaction from the contributor base and from the culture-at-large (media et al.). The only way to enforce a significantly tighter non-free content policy would be to abandon the idea that Wikipedia governs itself by consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask ourselves what we're trying to accomplish here. Philosophical imperatives are just meaningless soundbites if we don't understand what those mean in concrete practice, by real people doing real things. If we're convinced non-free usage on WP is on solid legal ground, then whether the content is "free" or not is purely a concern regarding downstream users' ability to use WP content freely, correct? As noted above, the "irreplaceability" requirement for non-free content means that no free content is ever getting supplanted. So the inclusion of non-free content does not mean anyone is missing out on free content. The only issue is then the ability of downstream users to filter out non-free content when they re-use Wikipedia articles and images.

In practice, this should not be difficult, as all non-free images are tagged as such, and raw article text obviously contains only pointers to those images and not the images themselves. Then the only problem for downstream use is removing the image tags from the raw article text. We could probably make that process easier by adding something to image tags for non-free images that makes them identifiable as such within the raw article text itself. Postdlf (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest wrapping all fair-use images in a template, like we do for self-references ({{sr}}). This may fail to mollify those people who feel very strongly about free content, but it would make it trivial to remove them all in a mirror or fork. Dcoetzee 21:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one argument for limiting non free content, even if its considered fair use. someone reading a WP article with a logo on it MIGHT get the impression that the article is endorsed by the logos bearer. its shaky, but i think its a good reason on top of others to not have multiple logos on pages like "world series". I think the issue of whether the structure of a WP article (links, images, format) misleads the reader as to the importance of the article should be addressed at times. i know that multiple blue links to things like month and date, or common words, at first made me think "wow, this guy is in the list of dates, or is referenced in the article on "god", so he must be important". And i absolutely think that a lot of nonfree images help significantly, such as the covers of books which are illustrated by notable illustrators. A chance to show copyrighted art under fair use, ethically, thank god. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that all of Wikipedia's content is framed by its graphic background and its own logo (and URL), and given public awareness of the nature of what Wikipedia is, I think we'd really have to go out of our way to suggest third-party endorsement, like a statement at the top of the page saying "this page is sponsored by Microsoft." But anyway, implied endorsement is not a non-free content issue because it's not relevant to copyright, nor is it specific to pictorial logos that could be copyrighted. It's instead a concern applicable to all use of trademarks, most of which are not copyrighted or copyrightable. Postdlf (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. its not really an issue, as long as the fair use guidelines are followed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Outlines"

continued from: WP:AN#Shadow Wikipedia
Further information: Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge

Just when we thought we had the "Introductions" in check, enter the Outlines". Blatant WP:CFORK on a mind-boggling scale. Apparently, the idea is to reate an "outline" counter-article to every Wikipedia artile ("an all-encompassing outline of the knowledge of humankind (still under development), which also serves as an outline of Wikipedia's contents.") Wth? --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty unconvinced that this is a good idea. Certainly it will need to be very well done to avoid being either a content fork, pointless duplication of categories and navboxes, or just plain mess. Rd232 talk 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The outlines follow Wikipedia guidelines. First of all, they don't violate the fork guideline - see my reply concerning Dab's post below. Duplication is not a problem either, and is covered in WP:CLN.
Some of the best ones are Outline of robotics, Outline of classical studies, Outline of Japan, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of library science, and Outline of cell biology The Transhumanist    23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worrying that you highlight Outline of robotics as a good one. How is this not a duplication of robotics categories and navboxes? What exactly is the value added by this? Rd232 talk 11:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dab's statement above is misleading. This set of articles has been around a long time, and Dab himself has already participated in a discussion that involved these back in 2007. He has also been posting messages elsewhere lobbying against them, but to no avail. See WP:AN#Shadow Wikipedia. There he came off like Chicken Little yelling "the sky is falling!" while waving a conspiracy theory flag. Concerning dab's forking argument, Skomorokh stated at WP:AN "That guideline is primarily concerned with the phenomena of POV forking and unintentional duplication, which are not issues here. Outlines, as their etymological past as "List of x topics" indicates, are not articles (i.e. prose), but are structured and annotated lists."
Outlines are simply a type of list, and they follow the guidelines for lists and stand-alone lists, including WP:CLN. The Transhumanist    23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't repeat the content, they simply list articles. We haven't done so well with other methods that we should discourage this one. It has the great advantage of highlighting where articles are possibly needed=much better than categories. I think it's cleaner and more flexible than navboxes, which mess up the appearance of major and minor articles in mainspace and are much more obtrusive. Maybe we should be discussing removing navboxes,once this is developed. Of course, the automated production of the outlines needs some subsequent human attention, and it might be well not to proceed faster than that attention can be provided. But that's not an argument against the project, just an argument for doing it better. DGG (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the portal format a failure? I don't really use it, so I don't keep track of it. I guess that would be evidence of failure. Anyway, maybe this one would fail too, but I don't see that as a reason to discourage it, since it's not hurting anything. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've been around since 2001. Not new, just renamed a few times. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a severe danger of introducing original research via original synthesis, but that could be handled on a case by case basis and it's a theoretically surmountable obstacle. Whether we should have these at all is a question of editorial judgement that probably belongs on another noticeboard. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The danger of OR is less with these pages than it is with other articles on Wikipedia. Actually it is much less, because we have a fantastic WikiProject/development team working on these. The approach is also very neutral - these are "reverse outlines", built for the most part of links found on Wikipedia about each subject - they are being built from what's already here! (Most of the redlinks are standard names based on typical subject expansion patterns). And we're in the process of making all relevant subject-related WikiProjects aware of the piece of this system that corresponds to their respective subjects, so they can help build them and keep an eye on things. Actually, that's what caught Dab's attention and why we're in this discussion today! So the approach is definitely working. The Transhumanist    01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there's no reason not to expect that the danger could be avoided with due diligence. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equality

The idea has been swirling in my head for a very long time on this, and from a variety of bits of feedback over time, and the massive amounts of commentary on-Wiki the past couple of days that somehow we admins are "above the rules", or somehow held to a differing standard than everyone else, I present an utterly simple proposal:

Feedback on Wikipedia talk:Equality, and thanks. rootology/equality 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the idea sounds sympathetic, it is IMHO counter-productive for several reasons. First of all, users are not equal, and should not be treated as though they are. Some users are knowledgeable about the topics they contribute to, while others are clearly not. Currently Wikipedia favours the second group, because there are more of those and because it is far easier to add random text than to improve an article. Your principle would solidify this situation. Second, Wikipedia does not have the structure to enforce anything like this. It is extremely easy for someone with buttons, or with support from someone with buttons, to ignore it and get away with that, just like they can ignore policies and guidelines now. Third, policies are not rules, and therefore never binding, nor are they set in stone. Sometimes they even conflict with each other. Each case has to be judged on its merits, in fact it happens that a case where a policy is not applied gives rise to a change of the policy. With your rule in place, this natural process would be eliminated. Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely right. Edits are to be judged based on merit, not who made them. That said, I'm not sure we need another policy page for it, as it could be worked into another one. How about "Wikipedia is not an aristocracy"? --Ryan Delaney talk 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... That one is just an essay... At best, maybe another example in WP:NOT, but, not a good policy, for me... (If I remembered that one essay/guideline/policy that said something like we already have too many policies, I would cite it, but I don't. Regardless, that applies here...)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! It's WP:CREEP--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree somewhat on that point. The principle already exists in multiple spots, but would be given more visibility through this proposal. See Wikipedia talk:Equality#Where_is_the_added_value_.3F. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with it is that it's simply not true - IPs are banned without a second glance while embedded admins can pretty much do what they like. That's the reality, so there is no point having another toothless policy that pretty much amounts to a lie. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a policy, it's an objective. We might as well propose Wikipedia:Everyone Be Nice To Each Other. Laudable as an objective, useless as policy. By all means, come up with ideas to ensure that editors (a) don't get slapped for being newbies and (b) don't get excessively lenient treatment for being "in" with the right crowd; but for lord's sake, drop this particular thing as a waste of time, and quickly. (Try joining WP:PROJPOL to hash out new ideas.) Rd232 talk 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have a lot of user conduct policies and guidelines, soooo... there would be a lot of precedent for this. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we do have a lot of user conduct policies and guidelines, soooo..." so we should be simplifing, merging, and abolishing the useless? Rd232 talk 15:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yes. Note above where I said I don't think we need a separate policy page for this since I'm generally opposed to fragmentation of policy. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term topic bans (similar to 3RR)

Okay, I have an idea floating around in the back of my head and you people are tasked to tell me why it's a stupid one. Here goes: We have a system in place, namely WP:3RR, that is designed to avoid edit warring, no matter who the person violating 3RR is. Sometimes, looking at ANI or similar noticeboards, I wonder whether we need a similar policy to handle people who keep on repeating the same statements in discussions and their continued participation is more disruptive than helpful, although their behavior does not allow a block. With my idea, a group of editors trusted to be neutral and uninvolved (I'd suggest crats and/or ArbCom members), could issue, where needed, a short term topic ban to any editor who has continued to repeat their statements without adding anything new (like continuing to call for some user to be punished whenever someone disagrees with that proposal). Such behavior is usually quite tiresome and not helpful. If someone were to add the same content to an article over and over again despite disagreement, they'd be blocked for violating 3RR. I think when the same happens with statements on a discussion, then it should be equally possible to "block" an editor from participating in that discussion for a short time. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • I think this is a horrible idea.
  • I think this is a horrible idea.
  • I think this is a horrible idea.
    • Sorry, couldn't pass that up. I do think the idea is valid, but it's going to get really subjective really fast. Much more than most admin actions frankly. And sometimes it's important to actually repreat things. The FT RfA discussion I think had a user that might have been blocked from the discussion by that definition and i think it would have been a shame. The only cases I've seen where I think it would have been useful are those who are arguing with things on the other "side" from me. That really makes me worry about the overly subjective nature of doing this. Just too scary and I've almost always seen these things work themselves out over time. The real problem is when there are two of them (one on each "side") that things get ugly. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RR is a complete failure, primarily a tool to remove the opposition. We don't need another, methinks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to initiate discussion, don't remove the discussants. Instead, protect the article. In the correct version, of course. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guido den Broeder please tell me you were being sarcastic when you said "in the correct version, of course", because no matter what a version is protected it'll be the "wrong version" and the person blocking it will be accused of "favoritism" (and called really bad names), I'm sure we've all seen that happen. As for the proposal it is sometimes important to repeat yourself, too many editors who come into a discussion in the middle or towards the "end" only skim the points made and/or really read the last comment or two and make stupid comments supporting or disagreeing without really knowing the full "story" and therefore one side or both feels compelled to "inform" the newbie to win them over. And other times the other side is just plain stupid and doesnt get the point and needs to be curmudgeoned with it. There are policies in place to deal with disruptive editors who threaten or harrass, as long as an editor in a discussion is keeping TO THE TOPIC at hand then why ban them? Not a rhetorical question, anyone can answer if they think it will help me understand, I'm open to learning and changing my opinion. Of course there is always an editor's personal ability that we all share, and that ability is simply to ignore the stupid. Blocking for repeatly putting info back into an article is appropriate because that disrupts encyclopedic content that non-editors will see, blocking someone for repeating themselves in a talk page (which non-editors are rarely going to go to) is overblown because it doesnt "hurt" content of the encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is no correct version is a myth created by poor/lazy admins. In most cases it's easy. One side is explaining their version on the talk page and providing reliable sources, while the other side is reverting and refusing to talk. The correct version to protect is that of the first user (rather than the version of the admin's buddy). If both sides are just warring it doesn't matter, and in the rare cases that both sides are constructive there is no need to take any kind of action in the first place, even when there are various reverts. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also: m:The Wrong Version. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I'm currently involved in an ArbCom case involving an editor who does exactly that... I'm open to easier solutions.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 04:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No guarantee is required at all; no one is neutral and no one's knowledge is perfect. BTW I seriously doubt that "knowledgeable, neutral editors on that topic" will be willing to impose this kind of censorship on opposition. The other sort of editors perhaps will; is this what was intended? NVO (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No guarantee. Wikipedia would need significant changes to set this up properly and attract sufficient expertise. But while I have some ideas on how things could run better, I don't think Wikipedia will move in that direction, or even has the ability to do so. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punishment for sticking to the truth? Apparently now the editors must change their views every other day to stay out of range of irc crowd. The first target may be you, why not? Pick up any topic where you haven't changed your mind between edits and bingo, go looking for other venues. NVO (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have this. Really: it's right there at WP:BLOCK#Disruption. Any uninvolved admin who strongly believes that an editor's involvement in a discussion is sufficiently disruptive can single-handedly impose a topic ban. This is done by leaving a note for the editor that says, "Your editing is disruptive, and if you post today at [relevant page], then I'll block you." The reason we don't see much of this is because it's almost never warranted, much less helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand editor "sowhy"'s proposal it isnt quite the same as wp:block#disrupt. Blocking for disrupting a talk page discussion is used for someone who isnt contributing anything useful at all, harrassing people. Sowhy's proposal, as I understand it, is saying that if someone is simply repeating the same info supporting their view each time they post they should be blocked. I may be misinterpretting, please let me know if I am.Camelbinky (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

An oft-seen suggestion is disallowing or restricting edits by anons. A possibly acceptable alternative just occurred to me (this may have been suggested previously, but I haven't seen it). How about enforcing a restriction on saving anon edits lacking an edit summary? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has all the drawbacks of disallowing anon edits, ie. it prevents edits from people not familiar with the project. And it fails to address dedicated disruption. Taemyr (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would just lead to nonsense edit summaries, I'd bet. Interesting idea though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love how anon's are not supposed to be treated differently, they are to be treated with respect, their contributions in articles and their opinions on talk pages are to be treated with good-faith and with the same weight as those editors who have signed-in, BUT alot of editors on wikipedia spend so much time thinking of ways in which we can discourage anons like they are ALL vandals and need to be controlled. Some people just DONT want to sign up but still want to contribute. What is so wrong with that? It's not like the only vandals out there are IP addresses, forcing people to sign up by making it more difficult to edit with an IP address, will not bring the number of vandals and acts of vandalism down it will simply shift it to being made by those with usernames and probably make the number of sockpuppets go up as we then start blocking more usernames.Camelbinky (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all the other drawbacks, it would make patrolling vandalism harder. At the moment if an anon blanks a page or replaces it with "poop" without leaving an edit summary, the automatic edit summary says "blanked the page" or "replaced contents with 'poop'". If we forced them to put in a manual edit summary, we'd lose that nifty feature.--Dycedarg ж 18:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Than makes sense. The suggestion came after experience vandal-patrolling with WP:Huggle, and reverting lots of vandalism by anons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a hardened vandal fighter, I would like to warn you not to allow RCPatrol to influence your thinking about this sort of thing too much. A great many of our productive contributors are anonymous and the open nature of Wikipedia makes it easier to contribute. There are already enough hassles for anonymous editors trying to add stuff to Wikipedia and we should keep things open and easy for them, despite the bad behavior of some vandals. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoMultiLicense template

First of all, yay for Wikipedia finally adding Creative Commons licensing!

The template {{NoMultiLicense}}, which has always been a bit silly, is going to cause its users to violate Wikipedia's copyright terms every time they edit Wikipedia after June 15. I don't think these users really meant to create a legal confrontation with Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to just delete the template?

rspεεr (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the template, IMO, is a side issue to the larger question of whether the users accept the new licensing. I count 128 user pages and 2 user talk pages currently using that template; one of the message delivery bots should inform them of the vote and Board resolution in case they missed it, and tell them what (if anything) they need to do and what (if any) the consequences will be for not doing it. What the appropriate action and consequences should be if they don't do anything by June 15, I don't know; it could range from "block until they remove/replace the template" to "assume they accept the license change unless they state otherwise (in which case they get blocked) and rewrite the template on June 15". Anomie⚔ 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be truly stupid if this resulted in blocking people. They were, I assume, simply trying to show solidarity with what was Wikipedia's only license at the time, and possibly to show opposition to voluntary multi-licensing (which is basically moot now). I would suggest changing the template on June 15 to say "I license my text contributions only under the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright terms", and sending a message to the template's users informing them that it is going to change. rspεεr (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be stupid, but if someone really opposes the change to the point that they refuse to license their contributions under both licenses after June 15, I don't see that we have any other option (just as we customarily ban people trying to revoke the GFDL on their contributions). I expect most of the people with that template would be fine with the change, so hopefully it won't even be a real issue. Anomie⚔ 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been tagged for deletion, see here. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 23:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I will soon request that one of the existing message delivery bots deliver the following message to all users transcluding the template.[1] Feel free to edit, if necessary. Anomie⚔ 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Progress of resolution of naming issue for placenames in Israel and Palestine

In relation to remedy 13.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria,
I have requested an update on progress at:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Current_status

for the proposed guidelines currently located at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009.

The more comments/votes/consensus, the better. We really need to firm up consensus by community input into some of these areas to reduce the drain on resources in policing naming disputes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and sourcing

I have a few questions in regards to WP:V and WP:RS.

  1. Do fansites (such as television series type) count as reliable sources? If so, which ones, and why? If not, why?
  2. Can the official website of a television show be used as a reliable source? If so, why? If not, why?
  3. Can a television episode be used as a reliable source? If so, why? If not, why?

These are questions I need to know. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you are using them as sources for. A fansite typically just collects material from other sources, so should not be referenced directly. An official website and a television episode can usually be used as primary sources (for plot details, air dates, acting credits and the like. If you're lucky then you get official statements from writers and such), but be weary of falling into WP:OR or WP:UNDUE problems. Notability cannot be established using only primary sources. Do you have any specific examples in mind? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what "examples" you mean? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular article and a particular source you want to use for it? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I normally edit a lot of video game related articles, so I might be at help here and may understand what you're asking:
  1. Normally, fansites are not considered reliable as few, if any, have any editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. For example, I would not count [2], a fansite, as a reliable source for The Guardian Legend.
  2. The best place to go for guidance on when to use a show's official website or even the show itself is at WP:PRIMARY (part of no original research). If you're making an interpretation from what is broadcasted or shown on the show's website, then you need a secondary source. Otherwise, you can only use it to describe the show (for instance, when the show was first made, who are the main actors, who produced it, etc. - trivial descriptive stuff). Also, exercise caution when using primary sources to describe fictional/plot elements of the show that it falls under the Manual of Style, more particularly writing about fiction; there it is very easy to stray from strictly describing the plot/storyline and making inferences about it, which would be original research (unless, of course, you are able to back that inference up with a verifiable secondary source).
  3. See 2.
I hope that helps out. MuZemike 22:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favicon

Will somebody please explain why the favicon has been replaced with the Apple logo? 24.144.116.147 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a problem with your cache. Purge your cache, kill your browser completely, restart it. Should fix the issue. //roux   02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets should be stable versions only

Since reading VP Technical ((Ctrl-click)"> ?) and becoming aware of situation ans espically what the effects of it can become, I propose that we only have stable versions of gadgets available to users (eg: the code stored in the mediawiki/wikipedia ns) and then the developers and/or risk takers can use a copy from the developers userspace and test for bugs, this is espically more imporant for gadgets that effect the editing process. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 08:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this is what we do. Mistakes are made however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is established practice that only stable gadgets and tested versions should be put online (see Wikipedia:Gadget). Unfortunately, as with any software, it is not possible to detect very rare malfunctions before the release if they only happen under certain rare and highly specific circumstances (different operating systems, exotic browsers or browser versions, gadget interactions... For example, it was not possible to replicate the above problems by using exactly the same browser versions and gadgets!).
Multi-stage release cycles are not practical for gadgets and would be detrimental to quick bug fixes and improvements. In case something really bad happens and the developer is not reachable (which was not the case) it is always possible to deactivate a gadget on its MediaWiki:Gadget-scriptname.js page. Cacycle (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting CSD on images

Where do you you contest a speedy-delete tagging of an image. The talk page editnotice states it doesn't go there, so where? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar copied from another editor

An editor has awarded himself a Barnstar here by copying the Barnstar from another editor. My concern is that is was obviously unearned and may reflect poorly on the editor that awarded the original Barnstar. Other than what appears to be a breach in Wikiquette, is there a policy against this? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is less with the self-awarded Barnstar than with the fact that he falsely attributed its posting on his talk page to another contributor. It's arguably a violation of WP:CIVIL, and shouldn't be permitted regardless of whether that's spelled out on some policy page. I'll drop him a note asking him to remove that user's signature from the Barnstar and we'll see if that deals with the issue. Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else beat me to it; they interpreted it as an issue of impersonating another editor, which is probably an apt characterization, and definitely forbidden. Postdlf (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And he removed the comment too...with a nice all caps replacement... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An open letter to the Wikipedia Board

A policy now in place at Wikipedia deeply troubles a growing number of us in the community. We've observed that Wikipedia articles are increasingly being held hostage to political correctness at the expense of free expression and historical accuracy. I could cite a number of instances, but two examples are prime examples:

1. Kent Hovind. Mr. Hovind is a controversial figure primarily because of his college campus debate successes in support of intelligent design (ID), specifically, young earth creationism. The Wikipedia entry is clearly biased against Mr. Hovind because it reads like a tabloid dossier of innuendo, half-truth and accusation. Somehow, the primary individuals responsible for writing this wiki entry have successfully blocked editorial access to those who have first hand knowledge of Mr. Hovind, preventing contributors from balancing the entry with factual information.

2. President Barack Obama. Despite the noteworthy accomplishments and stature of America's first African American president, the current Wiki entry portrays a largely propagandistic and blemish-free version of Obama. This verbally-photoshopped caricature omits controversies regarding Mr. Obama's past associations and questions surrounding the documentation of his citizenship, even when substantiated by published mainstream sources, verified documents and first hand knowledge. This entry's gatekeepers have systematically censored such additions. Barack Obama is an historic figure, but the best Wikipedia now can offer is a locked entry that is biased, factually-gutted and largely irrelevant, reading more like an Obama campaign press release than a reputable and credible reference source.

I am sure your board recognize the danger when an information technology is co-opted by propagandists--regardless of their point of view--both in terms of relevance and the muzzling of free speech and free access to information. I hope you and your editorial board will address these abuses and make Wikipedia available to all points of view, so it can achieve its goal of being the world's first truly universal database of knowledge freely available to all.

HTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voicewr (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Kent Hovind (looks to be well referenced), but there's currently an ArbCom case regarding Obama articles. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the Hovind article seems well referenced. Also note that "first hand knowledge of Mr. Hovind" you ask for is not necessarily a good thing, as that would include both supporters and opponents. Both would be problematic for achieving a balanced and neutral point of view. Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this points out anything beyond "there are npov disputes". Which is hardly something new on Wikipedia. The vocabulary chosen by Voicewr to state this unremarkable fact (propagandists, censored, muzzling of free speech) isn't only completely inadequate, it also shows the classic confusion of (valid) npov concerns with (invalid) demands to use Wikipedia as a platform for "free speecch". Wikipedia never was open to "free epression", it always had the very narrow goal of reporting encyclopedic sources weighed by their respective notability. --dab (𒁳) 20:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the board nor the staff makes content decisions, except when legally necessary to protect the foundation. And there is no "editorial board." Mr.Z-man 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have first hand knowledge of Hovind. Looks accurate to me.  ; ) The issue of the Obama "citizenship controversy" has been discussed ad nauseum on that article's talk page, somewhere in the FAQs and 60 pages of talk archives. Beyond that, I refer the OP to Matthew 7:5. Postdlf (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a policy issue: the policies are fine. The editorial process, and if necessary dispute resolution, will have to take care of implementation of the policies. Finell (Talk) 21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is always conservapedia for those that just want a different perspective and even their version of Kent Hovind is not flattering. David D. (Talk) 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that:

  1. Voicewr has previously been blocked for edit-warring to insert this disclaimer into Kent Hovind (which was a violation of WP:DISCLAIM).
  2. That there is currently no WP:RS evidence that "Kent Hovind ... is a controversial figure primarily because of his college campus debate successes in support of intelligent design (ID)" -- in fact (AFAIK) there is no evidence that Hovind is part of the intelligent design movement at all.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the specific articles mentioned. However, WP's procedures mean in practice that the content of an article is decided by those who feel like working on it. If most of them happen to have the same bias then the article is likely to share that bias. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a huge oversimplification. Without commenting on the articles in question, I understand Voicewr's concern. There is a tendency of articles in certain categories to move towards a non-neutral state and then get locked. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's an oversimplification. How can you talk about a couple of million articles without oversimplifying? Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using big words for no reason

I am wondering what the policy is for changing items such as: Passion of the Christ, which has in the first paragraph of the plot 'in media res,' or Cube Zero, which has necrotizing fasciitis, instead of words that people can easily understand.

I would like to change it to in the midst of things or flesh-eating disease.

Would this be stepping on someone's toes? Jabberwockgee (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason "big words" are used, is that they are more precise and correct. Any uncommon terms should be wikilinked anyway, so you can learn what they mean. in media res is a specific literary technique and necrotizing fasciitis is a specific disease. If you're after a dumbed-down encyclopaedia that uses more common and simple words, try Simple English Wikipedia. Sorry if this seems a little harsh, but I feel learning is one of the primary purposes of Wikipedia. In some situations using overly-complicated language is unnecessary, but don't go changing things just because they use "big words". OrangeDog (talk • edits) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a word is wikilinked, I understand that it goes to either a term that is shown or to a more complicated/informative version of the word that is there. If it is a word that is shown, I usually find it appropriate if it's someone's name or the name of an event, etc... If it's a term that people feel like using because they happen to know it, I find it obnoxious. I feel like I could go look up some words in the dictionary and then go around and replace every instance of words that are related to it with that word... Informative, maybe. Annoying, yes. However, if it's wikilinked with the more complicated word, then I can put my mouse over it and learn a new word for it. I find that simpler than being forced to go to another page to learn what it means, especially when reading the summary of a movie. Sorry, I'm not implying that I'm dumb and need simpler words. Jabberwockgee (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the majority of cases, either using a simplified version would be wrong (like in media res above), or it is just part of the writing style, which shouldn't be changed just for the sake of changing style.
Wikilinks should work the other way around - uncommon terms should be linked, not simple words linked to more specific or complicated concepts. Your way works more like a wiki thesaurus, for which we have Wiktionary. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 06:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RfC

Following discussion at WT:CAT#Eponymous cats, I've begun drafting an RfC to determine what to do about articles with eponymous categories (e.g. should France be only in Category:France or in its natural categories as well). Input on the draft is very welcome at Wikipedia:Categorization RFC.--Kotniski (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black listed site

I would like to ask why www.lulu.com has been black listed? I can't seem to find any reason to why it is on the list as it's just an online publishing site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianfbond (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2008#lulu.com and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133#Associated Content, gettin' paid to spam. Nanonic (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Oxford English Dictionary in Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

We have some examples in that policy:

  • "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press."

1) Should we also mention OED in the policy? AND/OR 2) Should we say something about dictionaries? (Currently, dictionaries arent mentioned).

I'm proposing this cause I've run into a problem here Talk:Fascism#OED and it seems to be a very redundant problem so if we make the policy clearer, noone in the future would have to run into a similar problem. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is already being discussed at both WP:RSN and at WT:RS. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a caveat - dictionaries can be very wrong in one of my fields of interest. Please se my comments at the two venues above, this is one of the rare times I've disagreed with Blueboar on this type of subject! Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant "Cultural References"

I think wikipedia is a great source of knowledge but one thing I find perturbing is article about historical events etc. that include "cultural references" at the end talking about how it was mentioned / portrayed in some science fiction or other not particularly famous book, clearly inserted by some rabid fan type. Can you delete these things? I have seen it many times, what inspired me to finally ask was the Wootz_steel article I just read. At the end it includes a "cultural references" section talking about how an "elaborate fictionalized manufacture" of it is included in random books, and the last line is a real gem, "Don Krieg of One Piece wears armor made of Wootz steel." Is this really the type of information that should be included in a decently respectable source of information. Even worse, many articles include 'references' that state something to the effect that some obscure band that probably 1000 people have heard of mentions the event / person in one of their songs. Can this stuff be deleted? I think allowing these fan types to muck up serious articles really hurts wikipedia's credibility, and it is fairly common. --P7njsl (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=293059523"