Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2607:fb90:422:2134:aade:cfc:fcd8:e84e (talk) at 08:35, 18 January 2015 (→‎Proposal for reformation of 'fringe theories' and the supposed 'neutral stance' of Wikipedia: adding references). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

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



Banning policy and IAR

This is something I’ve wanted to post for a long time, but have never gotten around to it until now. I guess I was just worried about being seen as a “bleeding heart” towards banned users. In my view, site bans are unevenly enforced. I’ve seen banned editors have their new accounts exposed, only to be allowed back onto the project after a community discussion (with mixed results). Conversely, I’ve also seen editors blocked indefinitely with widespread community support at AN/ANI, despite making nothing but positive contributions, solely because they were banned.

Consider this scenario: an editor first registers an account on Wikipedia at 13 years of age. They make some productive edits, but are ultimately too emotionally driven to be a collaborative presence on the project. It is later discovered that they were operating a massive sock farm to carry out all sorts of nastiness: vandalism, trolling of the most heinous variety (death threats, ethnic slurs, legal threats, fake suicide threats, etc), attempting to “out” a contributor, etc. They were indefinitely banned. After six or so months of continuous activity and trolling, they stop editing altogether. One year later, they register a new account and begin making constructive contributions. This time however, there is no trolling or anything of the sort; they are simply a productive editor. In fact, they have become a very prolific member of the community, racking up thousands upon thousands of edits and making significant contributions in their areas of expertise (be it article writing, RC patrol, volunteering at the help desk, or anything else of that nature). After ten years of uncontroversial editing, their prior identity is revealed.

My questions are as follows:

  1. Would the correct course of action be to immediately block them indefinitely (talk page access revoked, email disabled, autoblock enabled) and place a sockpuppet notice on their userpage? Does the block of a long-term, prolific contributor for ban evasion warrant a post to AN or ANI? If so, would you be inclined to support a (renewed) community ban?
  2. Should this user be forced to undergo the standard offer, or appeal their ban via the ban appeals subcommittee?
  3. Would their age at the time of the original ban be considered a mitigating factor? Does their recent history largely invalidate their troubled past, or does it demonstrate contempt for the community and its rules?
  4. Given the nature of their past activities (death threats, outing, massive sockpuppetry, etc), can an unban ever be considered a possibility?
  5. Assuming you feel that this sort of editor ought to be blocked, should more efforts be undertaken by the community to identify and expose these sorts of ban evaders wherever possible, as a means of holding them accountable for their past actions?

The overarching question is – where do we draw the line? Can IAR be applied to banned users? Kurtis (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... my first reaction would be to question the likelihood of your scenario... leopards don't change their spots quite so quickly. Someone who was as disruptive as you present is unlikely to completely change their ways after just one year.
But (to play devil's advocate) - let's amend your scenario to a slightly more realistic one... a 13 year old kid is banned for highly disruptive editing... and stays away for 5 years or so. He does a lot of growing up during those years, and now realizes that his prior behavior was wrong. Now, at 18, he is starting college and signs into Wikipedia (under a new identity) and constructively edits from then on.
Chances are, no one is going to notice (or care). It is extremely unlikely that anyone would discover his prior identity ... because he is not giving anyone a reason to even wonder whether the two identities are connected. The issue of his prior identity is simply not going to come up, unless he mentions it himself (again unlikely).
OK... let's say he does mention it... first it would be a very WP:DICKish thing to report him, given the behavior of his new identity. I would say that (in this very unlikely scenario) we should invoke IAR and simply "forgive" the banned editor his youthful transgressions. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I disagree about the "leopards not changing their spots quickly" thing when it comes to adolescents. You'd be surprised - I find that kids mature very fast in a short amount of time. ;)

Otherwise, I agree with the points you've made. I do not think the banning policy should be a suicide pact, and IAR should apply in those sorts of cases. That's just my opinion, though. I'd imagine some people would disagree with me, and their reasons would likely be valid. Kurtis (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if a user who was site-banned is capable of making thosands of edits with a new account, over several years, without anyon e suspecting them - that probably means that the ban is no longer necessary. Add the age of the user at the time of disruption - and no action could possibly be necessary. Bans, like blocks, are preventitive, not punitive - and I doubt that even Grawp ould be denied an oter chance of the community could be convinced that he will behave. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if they invented a flying car? Would you still drive it? What if we collected 20 years of checkuser information? What if we could use checkuser information to fuel flying cars? This whole scenario is terribly convoluted. Some of our members hold long grudges, but I don't think that if the last transgression is more than five years ago and there has been a lot of good behaviour since has been shown many would still care so much that they believe the user should remain banned. I do believe we should all move on - but this kind of situation would be so rare that we should probably look at it case by case. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hypotheticals, Martijn. Hypotheticals. ;) Kurtis (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would definitely drive a flying car fueled by checkuser information. bd2412 T 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a grossly irresponsible use of IAR to allow back a banned user who engaged in making death threats. There is a line and terrorizing our users crosses that line. Such a user should be blocked for block evasion if they come back. The standard offer makes it very clear that it is not for anything serious such as something you would involve the police over. Death threats means no standard offer. Chillum 22:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make a difference if we're talking along the lines of fake death threats (i.e. blatant trolling), as opposed to legitimate threats of violence? Kurtis (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such cases seem to be sufficiently rare that they can be handled as they are now: on a case-by-case basis. Circumstances vary so much from one banned individual to the next (consider the elaborate baroqueness of the hypothetical scenario we've been given) that trying to create a firm rule now will either result in an unsatisfactory outcome when we try to apply it, or require us to create a complex and over-engineered policy to try to capture every single possible hypothetical. And even an over-engineered and hyper-detailed policy might still break down when today's hypothetical discussion crashes into real circumstances (and an evolved community) some years in the future. Finally, building an extremely specific framework and ruleset now invites wikilawyering and targeted gaming of those rules later. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the hypothetical, (A) yes it would be dickish to report them but there are dicks around, and (B) the reformed ed you describe likely has the maturity to just accept the nuisance of formal appeal, and (C) if the community is unable to welcome the reformed person back, then that would be a sign our dysfunction has finally gotten the better of us. I prefer to keep hope alive and trust the rest of you. In the death threat example, I prefer to apply the US standard - innocent of crime until proven guilty, and no double jeopardy. In the scenario presented, should a prolific contributor who has atoned wear a millstone of shame until they die? Sanctions should be preventative, not punitive. However, a key point of your example worth emphasizing is that they returned in a single guise. That's very different from an IP hopping sock. Both should have to go through the process of formal return, but the former's history shows a lot more respect for the community than the latter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the question being asked here is' Can IAR be applied to banned users?' the answer is self-evidently yes - that is what 'ignore all rules' means. As to whether it should, it will clearly depend on particular circumstances, and since the discussion here relates to an entirely hypothetical situation, there is nothing to be gained in debating how to handle this particular imaginary scenario. I can seen nothing in this discussion that amounts to evidence that we have any specific problem: instead there seems to be an assumption that Wikipedia policy has to cover every possible future hypothetical scenario. That is simply not the case. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to construct a Byzantine system of rules and regulations just for the fun of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to construct a Byzantine system of rules and regulations..." Too late! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scenario I've created was more or less a means in which to gauge multiple different variables that would be taken into consideration when debating whether or not an editor should be blocked for ban evasion. Specifically, it considers the user's age, the offences for which they were banned, the amount of time that has elapsed, and their contribution history to date. The intention was to gauge where the community stands on the issue of ban evasion when mitigating factors are considered, and to see if the policy as it is currently should be revisited. I'm inclined to agree with AndyTheGrump and TenOfAllTrades that creating a "one size fits all" solution or a complex set of guidelines would be too bureaucratic for something which is best handled on a case-by-case basis. Kurtis (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots filling talk pages

We have some very long user talk pages. It would be good if bots like User:SuggestBot, User:EdwardsBot, User:MiszaBot, User:MediaWiki message delivery, etc, did not deliver to pages, which were over, say 100,000 bytes in length. They could perhaps, leave a one-off short note explaining that they would resume (or could be asked to manually), once the page size was reduced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot (talk · contribs) can be configured to overwrite its previous message, as here. EdwardsBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in six months, and MiszaBot (talk · contribs) has been blocked these three years. As for MediaWiki message delivery (talk · contribs), that's not a bot, but a generic username used by a software feature, see m:MassMessage. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Red, this discussion is a fork of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#User talk. It may be best to centralize the discussion there. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like a fork to me. It's a related topic, but a separate question: the VPT thread was about where to get a report of long user talk pages from. This one is about preventing bots from posting to long talk pages, which might be the same ones listed in that report, but probably aren't - the report linked above includes several pages that are not in User talk: space, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her, so that's not a given. Also, since a bot cannot be expected to run a report - or even check a pre-prepared report (which may well be out of date by several months), presumably the bot would be coded to read the page size prior to posting to that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent idea. I have seen several user talk pages where the user has been inactive for months or years, yet the talk page still accumulates spam from newsletters and what-have-you. I would go further and suggest an API addition so a bot can quickly determine whether a user has been inactive for an extended period; there is no point delivering newsletters to someone who has been inactive for six months. However, something concrete that can be done now (such as a page-size limit) rather than pie-in-the-sky proposals may be better. One issue is that adding a section to a talk page does not involve reading the whole page, and I don't know if there is any other way to get the size of a page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your suggestion might be going too far. See this discussion for why we don't want to automatically stop sending things to retired users just because they're retired. However, stopping at a particular page size is a good idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Six months might be too short, but a longer period, such as two or three years, might be a good idea. That should cover all the people who are offline due to military deployments, serious illness, or other all-consuming life issues. If none of WikiProject newsletters from the last two years have motivated a single edit, then next month's WikiProject newsletter probably won't, either.
However, the subject of the message matters: Notices of copyvio-related deletions should probably be delivered no matter what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing templates

I raised the following issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music: The two templates IMSLP and IMSLP2 were nominated for merger. Someone put a notice at the top of the template that the templates were up for merger. Now, everywhere the template appears, it includes that notice. Like this:

Free scores by Beethoven at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)

I asked that the notice be moved so that it does not appear in article space, and was told that this was policy.

It seems that, if this is policy, it is one of the more idiotic ones I have encountered. I would guess that at least 50,000 people or more read articles with those two templates every day; of those, maybe one or two are interested in a technical discussion about merging templates; the others are simply confused by an irrelevant message.

If this really is the policy, it should be changed forthwith. If it is not the policy, could someone please remove this ridiculous message from article space? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the same thing happens with {Template:Infobox musical composition}. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your alternative plan to advertise mergers and deletions? --  Gadget850 talk 10:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't really thought about it. It seems pretty silly to advertise mergers and deletions to a vast audience of people who have absolutely no interest, and who don't even know what a template is. Wouldn't it make more sense to post notices on the relevant project pages, and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? People who are interested in technical issues like these probably watchlist those pages.
Imagine if, every time there was a technical issue in Unix, all the Unix users all over the world got a message, "We are considering a change in the salamander widget. All users are invited to voice their opinions." What are normal users - secretaries, businessmen, students - supposed to think of such a message? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#The_majority_of_deletion_and_merger_proposals and Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#Can anything be done?. I personally support wide advertisement of discussion. I don't really have a preference for where this discussion is held, but consolidating it to a single venue is better than the fractured discussion that is arising now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as some TfD nominators refuse to notify major template contributors and active WikiProjects about the proposed deletion or merge of templates within their scope, there is no alternative. In the absence of direct notice of concerned parties, this is how most concerned editors learn that a TfD is pending; both the template to be merged and the surviving must be noticed. Ironically, some TfD nominators, perhaps from ignorance, also fail to properly use the TfD notice template options, effectively placing the TfD notice template at the top of every article where the subject template is transcluded -- the ugliness complained of above.
Several regular TfD participants are fond of saying that TfD "is an invitation to discuss the template"; well, it's rather difficult to have a good-faith discussion about merging or deleting a template when most of the concerned editors and WikiProjects aren't even aware of the pending TfD. Not tagging the subject templates and not notifying the major contributing editors and WikiProjects is horrible practice. And, yes, the failure to consult and notify is one of the principal reasons for the increasingly hostile atmospherics of TfD discussions (that and the snarky "we know better" comments from some regular TfD participants). Like a handful of other "specialist" backwaters, TfD discussions too often devolve into a series of personalized arguments between a handful of regular participants and those editors drawn to the discussion by the particular topic under discussion. The failure to consult and properly notify the concerned editors and WikiProjects only exacerbate the perception that some regular TfD participants are determined to achieve their desired deletions and merges with the minimum discussion possible with template stakeholders. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To those advocating the hiding or removal of these messages, I refer you to the answer that I gave ten months ago. The discussion was moved to this page a few hours later, and may now be found here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redrose64, to me, there is a fundamental difference between that discussion and this one where-as that discussion was whether or not deletion notifications should be hidden from readers and this one is about whether or not merge notifications should be hidden from readers. Some may ask, what is the difference. Deletion means it is gone, no substitute, it will no longer be available and this effects readers as much as editors. Merge means that the functionality of the template will still exist, just as a part of another template. The reader doesn't see any difference in the end result in these cases, and should not be burdened with having to read about them all over the place. To be clear, my position on hiding deletion tags has not changed, the outcome of those discussions effect everyone. That said, I support hiding merge messages from readers. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some merge discussions end up with massive loss of functionality. Somebody once told me that "once a template is at TfD, all options are open". That may even mean that a discussion initially proposing a merge closes as "delete". BTW a bit off topic, but relevant to a thread from a few days ago - if you (Technical 13) follow the diff link that I gave, you'll find immediately above my post, Legoktm asking for RfCs not to be conducted on VPT, so I'm not the only one. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had no idea this was already a topic of discussion. When I first saw the notice (and I am a pretty experienced user, both editorially and technically), I assumed this was a bug. Now that I have read the discussion, I realize that, like in the old joke about Microsoft, this is not a bug but a feature. I guess some people think this message adds something valuable to my user experience when I am reading about Beethoven's Grosse fuge. So, I'm kind of sorry I brought it up.--09:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I share Ravpapa's concern with this 'feature', and I note and agree with Technical 13's comments. So, er, how do we take this further?--Smerus (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need to increase participation at TfD, not decrease it. Other relevant threads have taken place at WT:TFD, and include: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 14#Make notifying significant editors of deletion mandatory (4 August 2013), and Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 15#Discussion to add instructions to use "noinclude" tags for highly-visible templates (24 April 2014). IIRC others have occurred on this page, at WP:VPR, and at WP:VPT; possibly elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose, you may well be right about increasing participation, but advertising the issue to hundreds of thousands of people, none of whom care and none of whom have the least understanding of what you are talking about, does not seem a reasonable way of increasing participation.
But rather than just be negative, here is a suggestion: why not have a checkbox in the user preferences that says "I am interested in seeing technical messages"? Then display those messages only to users who might be interested? You could even display them more boldly, because you know people who are seeing them have actually asked for them. I realize this would involve a bit of work on the part of you tech honchos, but it would address notification only to those users who would be likely to participate in a discussion. Otherwise, what you are doing is like putting a billboard for ice machines in Alaska. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dreaming up solutions is still much better than throwing our hands up in the air. The main problem with notification of template discussion we have in my perception is that we have no good way to notify interested parties, since nobody who uses template x also watches template x (for some reasonable approximation of nobody). The only way we currently have is the invasive tagging of both pages, and displaying the notification to everybody. So I boldly created a bugreport: T86159. Don't expect this to be fixed tomorrow, but at least it's now brought to attention. For now however, I still think we definitely shouldn't do anything that decreases the visibility of discussions on template. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bug received the priority "Needs volunteer" which means that it is unlikely that it will receive much attention any time soon (unless someone here jumps in. Any takers?). Don't expect this to be done tomorrow now means don't expect it the day after tomorrow either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A better software change is on the watchlist star, an option "Watch this page and all transcluded templates" and also "watch this page and all subpages". This would provide the same benefit Martin's proposed change does, without burdening those who don't want to see the templates. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Better watch list options Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Pinging @Ravpapa:, and spelling the name correctly this time Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a JS userscript proof of concept technical doohicky for this. This is compounded by me trying to write javascript without actually having learned javascript or knowing javascript well, so it's taking a little longer than I would have liked. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is coming along well. I would use this feature. I note that templates on a page can change, meaning the button will need to be reclicked afterwards to watch the new templates. Also, it will be quite hard to unwatch in bulk: If a template is removed from a page, all other pages on the watchlist will need to be checked before unwatching automatically. —PC-XT+ 23:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you'd be sorely mistaken! The fact of the matter is that I'm starting to believe that one of the design goals of JS was to annoy me to the greatest possible extent. I think I'll have something bad in about two days, after which I'll recruit more help making it not bad. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, please continue discussion at the topic I opened and linked to above. Everything since I posted that topic qualifies as off-topic here. I noted there that the watch all templates option needs to be dynamic, which I seriously doubt you can do with a javascript routine. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This must be the discussion with the most severe case of wanderlust Wikipedias history. As a side note, whatever I make as a userscript for myself or for demonstration purposes as a proof of concept needn't anything, other than meet my own expectations. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia hosted alternative to current reliance on outside email

Wikipedia has clear policies on such things as WP:CANVAS and yet it provides an email service via Special:EmailUser. It even provides the Template:You've got mail. Once this has been used and personal details have been swapped there can be no end of conferencing, planning and requesting of support and I do not think that this is the way things should be in our encyclopaedia. I was wondering if there might be any way of developing a Wikipedia based system within which messages could be sent privately but in a way that would leave an information trail in case there was a need for information to be checked by an authorised person? GregKaye 20:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would tentatively support such a thing, but I am a bit concerned that if Wikipedia were to offer a semi-private mail function, there would be efforts to hack it and liabilities where those efforts succeeded. bd2412 T 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making a centralised information trail in case there was a need for information to be checked by an authorised person sounds like something the NSA/GCHQ/etc. would have orgasms over. Not that they can't already hack people's emails, but conveniently storing all communications by Wikipedians in a central database? BethNaught (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Waste of resources; what's to stop anyone from just publishing an e-mail address on their user page? Or any number of other methods (some people already link to a Facebook profile, etc.). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above by BethNaught and Orange Suede Sofa. And because I'd be very wary of setting up a system which allowed such messages to be read by 'authorised persons' unless there were stringent checks and balances involved - which I doubt that the WMF would want to get involved in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sort of already exists. The actual text of the email isn't stored, but sending an email is stored with checkuser results. The recipient is also stored, encrypted, but I don't think there's anywhere in the CU interface it's actually accessible, so it would require a WMF employee with database access to retrieve it (I think the purpose is mainly for dealing with threatening or otherwise illegal emails rather than canvassing). Of course this, and the proposal here, are fairly trivial to get around, per Orange Suede Sofa. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that GregKaye needs to clarify whether the proposed 'information trail' includes the contents of communications, or just the identities of the sender and receiver. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could be okay with the information trail if its use was highly restricted, such as to oversighters only, for example. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose vehemently: I don't like other people reading my private communications, especially "authorized" people. When countries do that kind of thing, it has a name. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have pointed out this only works if the content of the messages are stored and also only if it actually prevents off-line communication which it doesn't. Finally Wikipedia is not a social network and the presence of a full blown semi-private chat system seems like it would be easily abused in an area outside Wikipedia's remit with all the other costs involved ( especially those for dealing with complaints about messages, threats etc. that would surely happen under a general messaging system ). PaleAqua (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose in any cost - benefit ratio this is a pure loser all around and it will not prevent the issue it seeks to curb anyway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a fairly moot proposal as there is already logging that can only be accessed by WMF staff that are granted with access to email information by going directly through the server. Now... If this proposal was to have WMF host it's own webmail service (since there are issues with sending mail through the system to multiple free email clients Phab:T66795), then I would expect to see some support of that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom, I don't understand the objections to the idea in principle. Whatever Wikipedia says in regard to the things that it claims that it is not, Wikipedia is an anarchy. All of its rules are determined by consensus sans any arch leadership and the auspices of inter wiki communication would be no exception. In most circumstances there would be no need to check communication and, in situations where editors stuck to guidelines based activities, I can't imagine that there would be any need to. However, in situations in which activities such as canvassing or incitement were suspected, I think that it would be reasonable for posts to be looked at by consensus by a specifically authorised admin who could then report back on or declare contents as relevant. No user need have automatic access to content. GregKaye 18:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be happy with admins reading private conversations - it appears that others here aren't. They are appointed by the community to carry out publicly-visible functions, and can be held accountable for such. Having them delve into matters where nobody can see the evidence is outside their remit, intrusive, and open to abuse. And in any case, given that contributors wishing to engage in canvassing etc can quite easily do so through other means, the proposal singularly fails to solve the problem it purports to address. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump It is not that I am happy about admins reading private conversations. I am unhappy that there are private conversations and further that there is no visible trail to indicate that these conversations are occurring. This flies in the face of other areas of policy. GregKaye 12:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia policy whatsoever against contributors having private conversations - and if there were, I would cease to have anything whatsoever to do with the project. This is an online encyclopaedia, created by volunteers.It is not a fucking police state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, your proposal reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to privacy. A communication is considered private if a user has a reasonable expectation that the channel she is using is private; to read or eavesdrop on that communication is a violation of the fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. A user of a Wikipedia email system would certainly have such a reasonable expectation, and the communication is therefore inviolate. If Wikipedia were to eavesdrop on a conversation on its email network, it would be violating the law, and subject to a suit in torts. See, for example, Expectation of privacy, Email privacy, United States v. Councilman (specifically relevant to this idea). --Ravpapa (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa Not at all. Perhaps there could be a feature by which an editor can leave a transparent talk page edit that would send an email to a user saying that direct communication is desire and that an email address is requested. The other editor could then transparently respond in a process that would give the email address and then it would be known that the two editors were capable of off site communication. GregKaye 14:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe Wikipedia could transparently mind its own fucking business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps I didn't understand your suggestion correctly. I thought you were talking about creating a Wikipedia-hosted alternative to email, where users could exchange messages with a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that certain Wikipedia officials would be authorized to examine those emails, thus violating that privacy. That is precisely the scenario which is forbidden by United States v. Councilman. Isn't that what you are talking about? (and incidentally, publishing the fact that authorized people could scrutinize your presumed private communications would not in any way mitigate the reasonable expectation of privacy). --Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am a bit in two minds about this but at the moment it is too easy for people to pass their own email address back when replying to mail on Wikipedia rather than doing it via wikipedia. I have no problem with Wikipedia storing the mail if a big warning is given when the mail is started, I think in fact it is a good way to stop its abuse. The alternative is for Wikipedia to just completely remove its support for email. Dmcq (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem there is that we have at least two processes that currently rely on email, for which a 100% secure alternative would be needed before we turned off email. The two that I am thinking about are (i) obtaining a new password if you have forgotten yours; (ii) filing a request for oversight. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Talk pages are a great place to have conversations that other people can check. Adding <div style="display:none;"> to the top of your talk page should give it the same level of privacy as the proposal at hand. moluɐɯ 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date format.

Hi
However for several years I'm active on pl:wiki, here on en: I just put only the first steps. I don't want to fall into any conflict at the beginning, so maybe I will ask here first. My doubts concern date format. I've make some edits on Constitution of May 3, 1791 changing date format into the right one. Now the question is - what is the "right" date format. Although I know that american use mm/dd/yy format (even if I don't understand why) and (possibly) half of articles have this date format, I cannot agree with Constitution of May 3. The integral name of this document is Constitution of 3 (Third) May.
Maybe this is some Tilting at windmills, but it lead me to question - why and when mm/dd/yy format began to be used? I didn't find any answer in Calendar date, just that all standards point dd/mm/yy (of course in some variations - most important is day before month). It's free to use any format I want, while editing of creating new pages? In the past, I saw some edids, that convert dd/mm/yy into mm/dd/yy format. This format is most promoted?

Gregory --Blueye (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ps. If I make glaring language errors, feel free to tell me that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueye (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For acceptable date formats see MOS:DATEFORMAT. Per Date format by country modern Poland and Lithuania use Day Month Year format, so per MOS:DATETIES the article should use that format. But MOS:DATEFORMAT does "not apply to dates in quotations or titles", thus if "Constitution of May 3, 1791" is the official title, then it should be used. But looking at the article history, there seems to be some editing on that; this need to be discussed on the article talk page, where there is discussion from 2012. --  Gadget850 talk 11:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, these date formats should be consistent with the article title, which remains in the mdy format. Given that such a change is likely to be controversial, I would suggest the following course of action.
  • Revert the changes you have made so far to the date format.
  • On the article talk page, request a move to change the article title to the dmy format. The article has 64 watchers, and a move request is automatically posted where it can be seen by the entire community, so you will likely get a healthy amount of participation in the discussion.
  • If the move request is successful, then make your format changes to the text.
  • If there is no consensus for the move, accept the community's judgment and move on.
For general discussion about the two formats, I would suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the pedantically contentious problems that English Wikipedia is stuck with. You might also have a look at WP:Engvar where the same issue arises with spelling and other things.
Generally, use the style appropriate for the article and do not fight over it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Engvar has nothing to do with dates. MOS:DATETIES is the guideline. --  Gadget850 talk 14:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it did I merely pointed out a similar issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there is no comma in the dmy format. It would be 3 May 1791, not 3 May, 1791. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATETIES only applies to topics with ties to an English-speaking country. The concept is that most of the readers of the article would be from the country the article is closely tied to, so most of the readers would be more comfortable with the date format in that English-speaking country. Since Poland and Lithuania are not English-speaking countries, we do not try to guess what format an English-speaking reader of an article about a Polish or Lithuanian topic would be most comfortable with; MOS:DATETIES does not apply to this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for reply and some advices. I will read all those guidelines. --Blueye (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Maybe this is some question with no answer, but why there are two main date formats? (mean day before month and oposite. Dont care about comas or dots - those are details) Is there any historical reasons? --89.71.65.202 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (That was me --Blueye (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
For general discussion about the two formats, I would suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Because some of us are British and some are American, and ne'er the twain shall meet. You say tomato, and I say tomato. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of us is Dan Quayle. You say potato, he says potatoe. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women

Please see meta:Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women for discussion of a proposed place where "registered women editors may join the group and discuss Wikipedia related matters." NE Ent 19:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I a bizarre move all of the opposition votes have been moved to the talk page. Does anyone know why this has been done? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: That's a question to ask at a page directly concerning the discussion, which is on meta:, not here - this thread is merely a notification. If you're interested, they were moved by Siko (WMF) (talk · contribs) contactable on meta: as Siko (WMF) (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ==Opposition== sections are never used at IEG; it's more like an approval voting system (to the extent that it's a vote at all, which it fundamentally isn't). In the instant case, if the goal is to find out who would voluntarily participate in a smaller, thematic community, then it really doesn't matter how many people would not participate (even after discounting the views by people who learned about this proposal at Reddit rather than by being part of the Wikimedia community). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and policies for disambiguation pages

Where can I find the rules and policies for disambiguation pages? Specifically, I am interested in the rules for providing a parenthetical description of an individual. For example, if there are several individuals named "Robert Smith", they might be disambiguated with a parenthetical description that says "actor", or "singer", or "baseball player", or "politician", or "author", or such. Where are the rules for all that? I had assumed that these parenthetical descriptions should reflect the "status" or "job" or "role" of the person, as in the examples I gave. But, I ran across some that did not follow this method and used words such as "wrongful conviction", as in this instance: Ryan Ferguson (wrongful conviction). I would think a better parenthetical would be something like "convict", "prisoner", "ex-convict", "former inmate", or some wording that reflects his "title" or "role" (almost like a "job description"). A generic broad noun such as "wrongful conviction" seems to make no sense in "describing" the man. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that it is possible to have hard and fast rules for every possible future article? And no, Ryan Ferguson (convict) is not 'better' - it is worse, since it omits the most salient fact about his conviction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck kind of response is that? I came here, asking for help. Don't be an asshole. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I asked for direction to the pertinent Wikipedia policy page (which is the whole point of this Village Pump). And which you did not provide in any way, shape, or form. (2) Where did I state that it is possible to have hard and fast rules for every possible future article? (3) If "convict”" is not better, why is a similar articled disambiguated as Charles Hudspeth (convict), with exactly that same word, "convict"? Leave me alone, if you have no intention on helping with what is a reasonable and appropriate question for this page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) I don't see that Andy's response call for that sort of accusatory reaction. The relevant guideline is at WP:NCPDAB. FWIW, I agree with Andy. This appears to be a person known primarily for the fact of being wrongfully convicted. "(convict)" is not better better because the person's notability is associated with his being wrongfully convicted. Perhaps Charles Hudspeth (convict) could have a better disambiguating term. older ≠ wiser 18:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much like your recent thread, #Format of titles on a Talk Page, and many others in my experience with you. Frankly, your bedside manner sucks (as does Mr. Grump's a lot of the time, but that's no excuse), and if you keep it up the community will gradually stop responding to your questions at all. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for direction is not what this Village Pump is for. The page starts: "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines". One of your examples is "baseball player" but we actually say "baseball". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)#Disambiguation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I agree with Andy too. Because in my eyes the goal is to enable people to make a decision about which page to select as easy as possible. Therefore use the most prominent fact where the person is known for. This is also much easier for the contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.83.146 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Ferguson (convict) would be a serious WP:BLP violation. He's not a "convict", i.e., a person whom the court believes has committed a crime; Ferguson permanently stopped being a convict the moment that the court vacated the conviction. He's the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Ryan Ferguson (proven innocent) would be much more appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery in articles

Is this a valid usage of galleries per WP:GALLERY? (It is being aggressively added by two COI users, but this is a different issue).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another one here and I guess in hundreds more articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree it is currently a misuse of a gallery and more suitable for wikipedia commons. It isn't too big and with a little work it might be possible to make it okay. What is really needed is some text underneath each picture saying what aspect of the topic it is illustrating, basically they should make a case for why they are there over and above just being nice paintings. Dmcq (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that what's needed is more compare-and-contrast sorts of information. I've got no problems with having half a dozen paintings of a town in the town's article, but it needs to be in a section that has actual content. I'll have a go at Staraya Ladoga to see if I can give an example that is clearer than what I've said here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, see Staraya Ladoga#Sights and landmarks to get an idea. It's not perfect, and I don't know enough about the subject matter to make it perfect, but it should give you the idea. There's a specific, labeled theme (churches that are landmarks) for the gallery and it's in a relevant section (the sections about landmarks). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dmcq and WhatamIdoing--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an editor to be banned when they are already blocked

I've seen recently a lot of editors nominating indef blocked editors to be community banned. The general reply is that there is no difference between the two and it is a waste of time. WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, which gets pointed to a lot, seems to say nothing on it being the same. In particular, it says that banned users are definitely not part of the community, while blocked editors are. It doesn't it mention it there, but the processes for appeal are harder for a banned user than one who is blocked. So: should we be requesting bans for editors who are indeffed? It ought to be clarified in policy some way. KonveyorBelt 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The likely central point being intended is that a user whose main account is indefinitely blocked, and no administrator is willing to unblock that account, the user can be considered de facto banned. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for plural nouns

I'm not an expert on policies and procedures, but there are, IMHO, problems if somebody is looking for the plural (of an animal, particularly, such as in names of sports teams) and they are redirected to the animal article (singular), which further directs them to a disambiguation page for the singular (which they don't want, of course, and which they therefore may just ignore), which is sometimes pretty long, and which may include, along with the many singular references, a few plurals. Coyotes is an example of this. It has about 75 entries(!), only 14 of which are for the plurals, and it isn't easy to find them (especially the Marine aviators).

Similar problems exist with Penguins, Lions, and Tigers, which are some sports teams I'm familiar with. Ravens handles it differently, but the disambiguation page doesn't even mention the bird or the other singular disambiguations. Eagles, IMHO, handles it the best -- searching for Eagles redirects you to Eagle, which has two hat notes: one directing to a disambiguation page for Eagle, and another to a disambiguation page for Eagles. Both pages have a lot of entries, and there isn't much chance of someone accidentally going to the wrong one.

IMHO, the Eagles style is the best, and would be good for Coyotes, with a separate ambiguation page for the plurals. Also IMHO, Ravens should be rejiggered to that format, as well. I can see the problems for users here, but my own skills are not great when dealing with redirects and disambiguations. Maybe somebody has some ideas on this. Lou Sander (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed an opinion on the method I prefer, but it's clear that our treatment of these situations is not consistent. There are at least three methods in use; for the sake of communication let's call them Coyotes, Eagles, and Ravens. It's worth reaching a consensus, codifying it somehow in a guideline, and fixing the deviants (I'm not terribly busy and could volunteer to assist in the latter). I'd also suggest that the scope isn't limited to animals, e.g. see Airplanes, an example of the Coyotes class. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While one could claim the usual need for flexibility, and some probably will, there are situations where the benefit of consistency outweighs the need for flexibility. I believe this is such a situation. And, as with any guideline, this wouldn't be a hard rule and could be deviated from when there is a compelling need to do so. I don't see a compelling reason why coyotes, eagles, and ravens shouldn't be handled in the same way, or airplanes for that matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is yet another form of this in use: searching for the plural Cardinals takes you directly to a disambiguation page for the singular Cardinal, which has links to articles involving both singular and plural forms of the word, but doesn't mention the plural forms at the top. Lou Sander (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thot plickens. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a primary topic for Cardinal, so I suppose that linking the plural directly to the disambiguation page is a good move. IMHO the plural form should be mentioned at the top of these disambiguation pages, though (if the disambiguation items include plural forms). That would be an improvement in, for example Coyote (disambiguation) and Cardinal (disambiguation). Lou Sander (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, when there are multiple meanings for the plural, it should generally have its own dab page (such as Eagles); in cases like Cardinals and Giants, if the plural has no PTOPIC, then the dab page should be at the plural title - see Cubs and Senators as examples. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 → Od Mishehu --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's an oter model to look at - Dodgers redirects to Los Angeles Dodgers, not to Dodger (an article, not a reirect or a dab). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks in article DISPLAYTITLEs

Input would be much appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags. Should <q>...</q> be encouraged in article titles as in Into the Dalek? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pen/Stage names vs real names in the body of the text

In the text of the article in our article on Mark Twain, we routinely refer to the subject by his pen name (as in "Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri" and "In 1847, when Twain was 11, his father died of pneumonia") and only mention his real name (Clemens) in passing.

However, in the text of our article on Deadmou5, we routinely refer to the subject by his real name (as in "Zimmerman was born in Niagara Falls, Ontario" and "In 2007, Zimmerman began his own record label") and only refer to his stage name (Deadmou5) in passing.

I don't really have a problem with the fact that the two articles do things differently... but it did get me wondering... Do we have guidance on this? Or is this the sort of thing that we leave up to editorial judgement and article level consensus? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the key question is what the primary name of the person is. The lede should always start either "Real name (lifespan), better known as Pen Name", or "Pen Name (lisespan), born as Real Name" (or something like that); beyond that, COMMONNAME should be used unless there's a good reason not to. I'd imagine that the reason for Deadmou5's deviation from this, is that it would make the article less readable for someone who skips the lede. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two big differences between these two examples. One, the name Mark Twain is extremely well-known worldwide, his works published in at least 72 languages. Deadmau5, not so much. Two, Mark Twain actually looks like a name rather than a username. As for guidance, I doubt it; a guideline would deprive us of something to argue about. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that holds true for the real names as well: "Samuel Langhorn Clemens" is far more widely known than "Joel Thomas Zimmerman" is.
I suppose my question comes down to this: both Mark Twain and Deadmou5 are the COMMONNAME for the respective article subjects... so it struck me as odd that one article uses the COMMONNAME in the text (and not the real name) while the other uses the real name in the text (and not the COMMONNAME). As I said, I don't have any real problem with the choice at either article, just wondering if there was a guideline or policy that expressed a preference on the issue. If it's the sort of thing we leave to editorial consensus at the article level, that is fine too. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I doubt there's a guideline, but I'm prepared to be corrected. Btw, I note that you write "Mark Twain" correctly but require a redirect to avoid redlinking "Deadmou5", lending a wee bit of support to what I said about "Mark Twain" being more well-known. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Deadmou5" being a redirect... sorry, my error... I simply mistyped. I meant Deadmau5 (which is not a redirect). Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's something it would be hard to make direct policy on: Consider, for example, George Elliot, Richard Bachman, Mark Twain, Barbara Vine, Pliny the Elder, Caligula Spy, John Wayne. I think that in four of those we'd be better using their psuedonym/nickname, one is a border case, one has his own article on the pseudonym and one on his real name, and one is best known by the pseudonym, but oh god would using it cause problems, and one of those - Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine is a person who uses different names for different types of books, or did, anyway back when I last read her. I think you can decide which is which otherwise. One could also add Prince (or, worse, File:Prince_logo.svg), Madonna, and Cher.
It's hard to make policy on this, but I think we can still get through with a little common sense and rough guidelines. Barring another Chelsea Manning incident, anyway.
Of course, if you do have a good suggestion, by all means give it. I think George Elliot is the hard one of the list, as her pseudonym was primarily used in order to hide from prejudice against women, which leads to some harder questions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK... using common sense and allowing editorial preference at the article level works for me. As for suggestions... no. Trying to force some sort of consistency between articles would probably be a mistake here. This is probably one of those areas where it is best to be flexible. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens there's already a truckload of guidance on this in WP:MOSBIO:

Archived userfication discussion closed

Just a heads up that I have closed the proposal regarding elevation of WP:USERFICATION to guideline status. Sam Walton (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Applying MOS to filmographies, or not

We need a consensus at the filmography project regarding accessible tables with rowspan. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaxafrad: Have you informed WT:WCAG? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I will now. Thanks. Xaxafrad (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (RfC) at G. Edward Griffin

Original Question: is it correct for WP to refer to Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first line in WP's voice, as the article currently does? (based on the sourcing provided here (and in the article if you like), and WP:policies and guidelines (including of course WP:BLP and WP:PSCI)

First line in the article states: G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American conspiracy theorist, filmmaker, and author. Atsme☯Consult 04:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for reformation of 'fringe theories' and the supposed 'neutral stance' of Wikipedia

"Mainstream" has nothing to do with anything.

  • In deciding whether to write articles about things, we look to whether they are notable, meaning that they are significantly talked about. Doesn't matter if the things are legit or not. See Wikipedia:Notability.
  • In deciding how to write articles about things that we have decided are notable enough, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint, which means that we address the concept in a stale, detached, objective manner and don't make value judgments about it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

That's it. — Omegatron 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! I've been trying to express something like that, but have obviously failed! This guideline is just plain absurd, confusing, biased, unnecessary, useless. Lakinekaki
Legit might as well be reliability. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Reliability of sources pertains to how trustworthy they are for the things that are cited to them. This is orthogonal to the legitimacy of what is actually being said. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Completely bogus claims can be cited with a reliable source, as long as they're attributed. You're not using the source to say that the bogus claim is true, you're using the source to make the who and what of the claim verifiable. — Omegatron 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this guideline has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the theory ... The key to this guideline is indeed notability... a Fringe theory must have achieved a degree of recognition (ie coverage) in the mainstream for it to be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia (either as its own article or as a section of some other article). That recognition can be approving or disapproving of the theory... that does not matter... all that matters is that it can be shown that at least one mainstream source has taken notice of the theory and discussed it in some detail. Blueboar 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notability. "Mainstream" is not notability. Notability refers to coverage in peer-reviewed journals just as much as it does newspaper articles written by people who flunked high school science classes. We need to stick to our actual notability policy and not shoot off on tangents about peer-reviewed research. If it's worthy of note, we write about it. — Omegatron 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is where I have a problem... how do we determine if something is worthy of note? "Worthy" is subjective, I may think some totally rediculous theory is "worthy" of being noted, but you may disagree. No, we have to draw the line at things actually being noted. I would say that publication in a peer-reviewed journal is certainly a great way for something be be noted (and for scientific theories I would agree that it is probably the best way). But there are other ways for something to become notable... such as being discussed in "mainstream" newspapers. Blueboar 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation says it all about the bias of Wikipedia. It's obvious that Wikipedia has a liberal agenda. Articles labeled 'fringe theories' should be observed with NO judgement, as to uphold an actual 'neutral stance'. This is NOT being practiced on Wikipedia[1]. Only articles that are recognized by the mainstream media recieve a non-condensing observation. Subjects, such as the events of September 11th, 2001 is a perfect example of such bias. A 'terrorist' claims responsibility for this attack, so the fact that these towers defied physics in their collapse is automatically discredited as a fringe theory? How is this stance 'neutral'? It could it be that this was never reported by a mainstream media outlet. News outlets are known for their political bias, to the point of lying. I just don't understand why politically bias mainstream media outlets are the only 'credible' sources. It's like when Galileo reported his revolutionary (and very true) findings, and the crown forced Galileo to rescind these findings, or otherwise face execution. Why did the king do so? The findings of Galileo contradicted the Bible, which has more plot holes than swiss cheese. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to, feeding the public lies at the expense of monetary execution? This is why Wikipedia needs reformation.

2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] [4]

  1. ^ http://wikibias.blogspot.com/
  2. ^ http://wikibias.blogspot.com/
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html
  4. ^ http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is_wikipedia_biased/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=643022971"