Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content

Primary editor

There is some talk that so called "primary editors" have certain veto powers in their articles. This need to either be codified or refuted here. Agathoclea (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. It is true that some people viewing the WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes case have thought such an argument had been proposed, but no one has made that suggestion. In fact, the editors who are maintaining the articles in question are among the best and brightest at Wikipedia, and they are fully aware of, and endorse, WP:OWN. Everyone knows that no one owns an article, but it is also true that no one owns the top-right hand corner of article pages. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So you would agree with adding "the primary editor does not want x" as an example of ownership? Agathoclea (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's an over-simplification. If someone who happens to be the primary editor says "I do not want X", that is their opinion, and obviously WP:OWN is not saying that the primary editor cannot state their view. I don't think it needs any clarification, but WP:OWN could possibly say that the fact that someone is the primary editor does not give their opinion any special status. In the same way, the opinion of an editor who is new to an article does not have any special status either.

The real meaning of WP:OWN is that disagreements are resolved by following the principles of established policies, guidelines, and best practice—the fact that one side might have written the article is not relevant to those procedures. On the other hand, there are many cases where a proposed change is not clearly justified by applying the principles mentioned. It may happen that general consensus cannot resolve a disagreement based on standard procedures—that is, the issue boils down to some like this, and some like that. In that case, I find it obvious that there would need to be a good reason to make a change against the views of a group of editors who have built the article (I'm assuming a good article, not something like a POV or FRINGE nightmare). Nearly all experienced editors know that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS means a group cannot make special rules for "their" article. But the infobox wars show that some cases are not clear—good arguments can be presented from both sides, and in the absence of a policy or guideline or consensus from a widely discussed RfC, it is a fallacy for one side to accuse the other of ownership—just because someone happens to have written an article does not mean their opinion must be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tangential discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline

Hi. There's a tangential discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline about, in some ways, whether articles should be signed. Any and all are welcome to participate in the request for comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A needless footnote

It struck me, reading this page, that it made no sense at all to have a definition of what is actually covered by the policy taken outside the text and put into a footnote, instead of being right there in the text. Inexplicably, though, it seems that people prefer to have vital information in a format that means fewer people will see it. Why is this? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No response to my question, just continuing reverts without anyone bothering to attempt any explanation. Why is that? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How spectacularly rude that people ignore my questions and prefer to just talk amongst themselves about my edit. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Spectacularly rude..." Now THAT is funny. "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." You wish to make a change to this page. The burden is on you to establish a consensus for the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fucking hilarious. So, to clarify what you're saying - I made a change to the formatting of a sentence and therefore it's ok for people to ignore me while talking about that change amongst themselves? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to make a change to this page, you need to find a consensus to make that change. Instead, you went ahead and made the change. It was reverted. (It would have been a bit better if the reverting editor had explained why, but we do get a lot of drive-bys from IPs.) Having failed to seek consensus, you now missed a second chance to discuss the reverted change, which would have put things back on track toward finding a consensus for or against the change. Instead, you reverted to your preferred version with a non-reason reason. This was reverted with the edit summary "Don't change policies without consensus" (as the page header explains). You reverted this with a condescending edit summary making it clear that you didn't particularly care why you were reverted. You were reverted for insisting that your change without consensus is "right". You were reverted again, with a suggestion that your insisting on changing without the required consensus was a WP:OWN issue. You reverted this (still no consensus...) stating "reverting without giving a reason is tantamount to vandalism - don't do it again" (most of the edit summaries gave reasons). You cannot ask a question, forge ahead without waiting for an answer and demand to know why no one is talking with you.

If you return from your new block and still wish to pursue this issue, you will want to build a consensus BEFORE you make the change again. A helpful hint: A battleground mentality will not help. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how you're so desperate to be snotty and sanctimonious that you didn't even notice that the people rudely discussing me and my edit while ignoring what I had said about it did, in fact, agree with it. If you would like to make a change to this page, you need to find a consensus to make that change - bullshit. That's not how wikipedia works. Now, for everyone's benefit, let's look at all the edit summaries of people who reverted.

• [1] No edit summary given. Reverting without leaving an edit summary is rude and unhelpful and can only be seen as a deliberate provocation.
• [2] "revert... the footnote was suitable" - a vacuous statement is not the same thing as an explanation.
• [3] "Don't change policies without consensus" - How could anyone think that a change of formatting was a change of policy? You'd have to be spectacularly stupid. More likely is that the editor hadn't bothered to read the edit and just wanted to be provocative.
• [4] "there's irony in you trying to own this page" - a snide comment in place of an explanation for a revert is not acceptable. Once again, nothing more than an attempt to be provocative, as well as a grotesque misunderstanding of the point of the page.
• [5] "revert to version accept by the community" - This summary betrays either dishonesty or ignorance - discussion on the talk page had already favoured my revision.

So there you have it. A simple common sense edit got me attacked and harassed by three different editors, who were either too stupid to understand what the edit did and what the talk page discussion said about it, or were being deliberately provocative and aggressive. I believe the latter is the case. Of course, no apology for this appalling behaviour will be forthcoming. Of course, no other editors would even dream of telling these three goons to leave edit summaries when reverting, understand edits before reverting and to read talk pages before claiming to be acting on behalf of the "community". Instead, a fourth editor gets involved for the sole purpose of being snotty and superior, condoning the bizarre practice of people ignoring my talk page post while talking about me and my edit elsewhere, again failing to understand the edit and falsely claiming it constituted a change of policy, and again failing to read the talk page to see that the change was supported. People like these four are the kind of people who are ensuring the long term failure of the Wikipedia project. 189.124.217.111 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnote in lead

200.120.158.78 wants to change the first sentence (diff) from the first of the following to the second (this uses em dashes rather than the IP's double hyphens):

All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively.

All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and others—is edited collaboratively.

I'm thinking the edit is useful—why use a somewhat pompous footnote when the alternative is short?

References

Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP's edit doesn't change the meaning and is stylistically preferable. See no valid reason for reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is an "internal document" intended for Wikipedia editors, simplicity is not only preferred, but usually appreciated. Let the "dashes" remain. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 04:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)