Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new 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.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Why do we have this guideline/policy?

As a user who does a lot of work reverting editors, warning them, and pointing them at the policies and guidelines themselves, I get asked this question pretty often: why do we have the policy / guideline in the first place? The common Wikipedian response is to refer the users to the text in the guideline itself or to refer them to other policies which themselves refer to other policies. Our internal guidelines are written primarily for experienced users and they can be very confusing and I feel that Wikipedia itself never gives full answers in plain English to these problems.

So I want to throw this idea out there to see how it's receive response: How about we place within our policies a clearly visible section that either explains the purpose of the policy (in language non-Wikipedian readers can understand) or links to the discussions and arguments that have produced the policy. The main argument against this is, of course, instruction creep. There could also be wording issues with the summaries of the most contentious policy areas. But I feel that explaining our policy in a way non-Wikipedians could understand would make Wikipedia a friendlier place for newbies and non-Wikipedians, give us less of a Kafkaesque reputation, and it would help outsiders understand why we have the policies we do. ThemFromSpace 00:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea. However, I'm not so experienced with policy yet, so unfortunately, I would not be able to help you write that stuff. This idea does have my full support though. Brambleclawx 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I do remember coming across something like this. Maybe in the Help: namespace? If i'm mistaken, I would gladly volunteer to help write it. It is a good idea to help newbies get used to the steep learning curve here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't most policies already have a {{nutshell}} description on top? Links to discussions are probably going to be less useful to non-Wikipedians than the policy itself. Mr.Z-man 00:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The nutshells often contain a good description of the policy, but they usually don't offer any reasons why we have chosen the policy. ThemFromSpace 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea; the only problem might be that the other thing people perennially complain about regarding our policies is their length, and adding "Rationale" sections to all of them would not help in that department. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we cut a lot of the unnecessary wordage and repetition out of our policies and guidelines, I reckon we could get them down to about a fifth of what they are. Then there'd be plenty of space to add rationales for those points whose reasons aren't obvious.--Kotniski (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. WP:NPOV is half as long as a month ago. And I believe a concise version combining WIkipedia's key policies is being worked on. Perhaps a rationale section could be explicitly added here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I admire your optimism. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"I believe a concise version combining WIkipedia's key policies is being worked on"? I was under the impression that thre were already several such pages. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If the {{nutshell}} is insufficient, an expansion could be placed in a FAQ template or non-archived section at the top of the talk page. Placement there would help keep the explanation in sync with the actual page. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored"

Except that we are; see WP:OFFICE. This policy needs to be eliminated, because as long as one small group has complete control over Wikipedia's content and uses this power to suppress information, this policy is a lie. --J4\/4 <talk> 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ridiculous! The point of Office Actions and Oversight is to make sure people aren't posting things that are illegal (like uploading images of child pornography) or libelous. "But... we're not censored!" is not an excuse to, say, call Pierce Brosnan a 'douche nozzle' and reference that statement to a shock site. "Uncensored" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. We don't remove content that offends a particular group's sensibilities (like taking down images of Mohammad), and we have graphic depictions of ejaculation, including a video. But when content violates real-world laws, it will be removed. The small, tyrannical, independent, secretive group you're talking about is the same group that runs this entire site, and they're free to do whatever they want with it. --King Öomie 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blocking illegal actions is not the same as censor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's censorship if the laws which the content violates are unjust (such as the DMCA). If hosting the server in another country would enable this same content to be hosted legally, it should be done. Material which is false or unsourced should be removed, but that's it. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is idealism taken to an unrealistic extreme, and I assure you the notion won't be entertained. Hosting content illegal for any reason is a poor choice of action for an operation that survives on donations and its own tax-free status. --King Öomie 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Whether you think it is unjust is irrelevant for our purposes. Go get the laws changed. Until then, Wikipedia must comply with the Florida ones. Moving it to another country is not really an option any of us have control over. Wikipedia Foundation moved to California, but kept the servers in Florida so clearly they have some reason for preferring the location (I presume being one of the few commercial hosting centers that can handle the servers and traffic). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• What should happen if Wikipedia relocates to Sweden, and posts content that violates SWEDEN'S laws? Are those laws unjust as well? Why is the DMCA unjust? This is ridiculous. --King Öomie 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On a more fundamental level, the two things the original poster is claiming we have "censored" are not information that is particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Then again, WP:NOTNEWS appears to be routinely thrown out the window. Mostly, though, I agree with Kingo that Wikipedia is in is in the real world. I as an editor routinely suppress advertisements, vandalism, and fringe theories, because I believe they are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. While on a theoretical level I believe the kidnapping information is appropriate encyclopedic content, I value human life over my desire to get "the real dirt" and I trust the Wikimedia foundation to at least have some sense in the matter. The TI thing is silly: it's outright theft of intellectual property, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is unjust for several reasons. First, there's no penalty for filing an invalid DMCA takedown notice, though there is a penalty for filing a false counter-notice. This enables companies to force fair-use materials to be taken down, despite those materials not being illegal. Furthermore, the DMCA prohibits copying works for your own use, even if you own the original. For example, it's illegal to copy a movie from a DVD which you legally bought onto an iPod. In addition, the DMCA has a significant chilling effect on legitimage cryptographic research.

As for the TI keys, how is it stealing intellectual property? You are using a calculator which you legally purchased for your own personal use. TI experiences no loss of anything in any form as a result of using the keys.

Finally, the very concepts of intellectual property, copyright, trademarks, and patents are flawed and outdated. In fact, I would argue that they are the greatest barrier to human progress. --J4\/4 <talk> 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, but none of this matters, at all. I mean not one tiny, minuscule little bit. Wikipedia will not be used to rail against a system because you don't like it. I say again, what should happen if Wikipedia relocates to Sweden, and posts content that violates SWEDEN'S laws? Are those laws unjust as well? Where do we move then? Shall we gather 250,000 miles of CAT-6 cable and host Wikipedia from the sovereignty of the Moon? You said yourself that you have no problem with Wikipedia removing incorrect/unsourced content- why isn't that censorship? Sounds to me like you're just looking for something to stick in the DMCA's eye. Look elsewhere. --King Öomie 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no practical way around the law of at least one country. Clearly, almost every country has some ridiculous laws, forbidding completely innocuous things. So WP should not boast "no censorship". −Woodstone (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Abiding by the law is inherently "censorship"? I think you need to move your standard of what qualifies for that term. If you don't like a law, contact your congressman, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of decreeing individual laws "unjust". If Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is redirected to Peaceful day of studies 1989 due to an office action, we can talk. But presently, nothing going on here can reasonably described as "censorship". --King Öomie 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that "the law" is a human universal. Many countries (including the U.S.A) have laws that forbid things that are considered completely normal in other countries. So, yes there is a degree of censorship. And yes, that is probably unavoidable. −Woodstone (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you must know that WP:CENSOR refers to the fact that Wikipedia removes only the content it must to avoid copyright/libel lawsuits. Again, I really don't think it's reason to call either of those things "censorship", but my point stands. Wikipedia, while uncensored, is not an experiment in anarchy. --King Öomie 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that with regard to the TI keys, even if there was not an OFFICE action in effect, there is currently no consensus on the talk page discussions to put the keys themselves in the article. Just because we're legally allowed to do something doesn't mean that we have to do it, there are ethical (Rohde kidnapping) and pragmatic (TI keys) concerns as well. As for the "one small group" with complete control over content, this is the same small group that legally owns the servers and does almost all of the legal/technical/financial work required to keep the site running, consider yourself thankful that that is basically the only power that they maintain over the site. Mr.Z-man 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

J4V4 is absolutely right: Wikipedia is censored for certain things. There's also a lot of things that aren't censored here, which is what wp:NOTCENSORED attempts to convey. I agree that it's poorly named. Perhaps better would be "Wikipedia is not censored for everything that anyone might find objectionable". Though to be fair, we censor a lot of stuff only because some people find it objectionable. I agree with the OP: we are censored, so we shouldn't claim we aren't. Our content disclaimer is sufficient, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation censors (and only then for limited legal reasons), we the editing community don't; significant difference. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "not censored" is an absolute statement that isn't exactly true, especially since the term "censorship," like most words in the English language, means different things to different people. Like almost all of the WP:NOTs, there are exceptions and qualifications. I can't imagine any benefit to "fixing" it so that it is absolute Truth. Is there a proposal or action that we could take that would make this better? If not, I don't see much point in this discussion. SDY (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

CC, of course the editing community censors. When it's working correctly it censors unsourced statements, biased material, original research, non-notable material, fringe theories ... When it's not working correctly cabals of editors censor reliable sources they disagree with. If you want an environment that doesn't censor such things go to Wikinfo. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well of course "we" do censor all the time, that's what enforcing WP:NOT,NPOV,NOR and all other no-no's are about. There's nothing wrong in admitting this. Every revert censors someone's input (good or bad). There's nothing wrong in admitting this. East of Borschov (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This blows the word "censorship" far out of proportion. You're talking about basic editing being "censorship." It takes all meaning out of the word. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• point taken, the Foundation has a legalistic view of copyright that minimizes claims of "Fair Use", which they could use more effectively. they have a zero tolerance policy toward copyright or defamation, which is unrealistic, and when a good faith effort to police the domain is shield enough. while i agree the censorship is light, it's not where i would draw the line. like don't be evil, more of an aspiration than reality. notice the management through slogans. Texas Instruments signing key controversy is instructive, with all the legal beagles sending warnings around, i'm sure the foundation would prefer to avoid the crossfire. we have the best legal system money can buy; best wikipedia lawyers can intimidate. Pohick2 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We minimize fair use for several reasons. 1) We want to focus on free content, to maximize the re-usability of our content 2) What qualifies as fair use depends on the user. What might be fair use on a non-profit encyclopedia website may not be fair use for someone using a portion of a Wikipedia article in their own publication. Some countries don't even have fair use laws. Its not a legalistic view (though it has the side effect of reducing the likelihood of infringement complaints), its more of a idealistic one – Ideally, we could make an encyclopedia using only freely-licensed content (and some Wikipedias don't allow fair use, mainly ones where the majority of users live in a country with no fair use law). The reason we didn't fight the TI keys issue is because its not our fight. The content of the keys themselves is barely related to our mission. As I noted above, even if we could use them, there's no consensus that we should. Mr.Z-man 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • i appreciate the response. when i say legalistic, i mean that the Foundation appears to be very sensitive to letters sent by lawyers, (on DCMA, copyright, or defamation) and rule bound, rather than ethically or idealistically bound, on issues such as "censorship", or "fair use". clearly they chose to buckle to legal threats over the value of no censorship in this case. the lawyer by sending the letter makes it a wikipedia fight. the poster has a point that DCMA is fraught with dubious ethics. ultimately, the users will, by their conduct both on and off wikipedia, determine the fate of DCMA as seen in the Digg AACS encryption key controversy: i.e. ethics trump law. the question for the foundation is: at what point is wikipedia going to draw the line to the importuning lawyers? the warning letter here seems a stretch, at what point will the foundation reject an incoming legal theory? btw, why the use of "Office" rather than a normal lock? it seems disproportionate, it shines a light on the article, and seems to suggest the "Office" is concerned with legal liability alone (or doesn't trust the admins). Pohick2 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The article is not actually protected, the only "office" action was to remove the keys from the page. What I mean by "its not out fight" is that we lose little by not being able to publish they keys themselves. Wikipedia is not a calculator hobbyist site. The article can still stand without the keys (and if TI didn't send any DMCA letters, we wouldn't even have an article on it). The DMCA may be flawed, but we're an educational publisher, not the EFF; we're not explicitly an advocacy or political organization. As for defamation, we're highly ethics-bound. We typically respond to defamation complaints before it escalates to needing lawyers to step in. If you want the foundation's official stance or opinion, you can always ask. Mr.Z-man 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
        • the "office" is watching, on only this one article indefinitely, seems odd, why not the normal procedure? and deleting the edit history? taking things down is defense enough, purging the memory hole is extreme, wouldn't you agree? i agree, have no keys, as too techno-geeky, but the other article has the keys in the lead!? [1] don't tell the open source people about the no advocacy, it's all they talk about at meet-ups. (one of the biases of wikipedia) but address the bias in the normal manner: by pulling special procedures, it just makes it worse. i would actually prefer a lock: it is a consensus procedure. "censorship", and "fair use" are nebulous concepts or legal theories used by judges to interpret law. bending over backwards to address complaints is fine, but the position of TI is egregious, and they need to be told that by the recipients of their letters. wikipedia is quite happy to speedy delete vanity articles by people, but it won't speedy delete a nonsense legal warning? i hear a lot of talk about defamation, but havn't seen any, except in AfD: i take it that is a roaring success.Pohick2 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
          • This is the normal procedure for a DMCA notice. It just seems like a special procedure since it happens so infrequently. Most page protections are done unilaterally by a single admin, typically after a request by a single non-admin user, so I'm not sure I understand how "consensual" it really is. The WP:OFFICE policy has just as much community support as the protection policy. For every discussion like this about "censorship", there's probably another about how protection is overused and/or evil. If you're seriously going to try to suggest that a vanity article is similar in any substantial way to a takedown notice in how they should be handled, I really don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. But as for defamation, we get a fairly constant stream of complaints (several per day) by email. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, if we were to remove "Wikipedia is not censored" (which I don't think we should, as the 'censorship' here is for legal reasons), then we'd also have to remove "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia which anyone can edit", as there are thousands of accounts and IPs which have been blocked/banned, and so not everyone can edit it. I'm sorry, J4V4, but I have to disagree with your basic premise for the reasons given by many others here - just because you don't like the laws that govern the state in which the servers are physically located does not mean that we can ignore them. Unless, of course, you are going to pay the costs for a new server farm in a state/country of your choice and take over from the Foundation... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins renaming images

Why is it that non-admins can't move images? I've been told that it's because of some interaction of the CC-BY license, but I'm not entirely clear on why that would be a problem. Can anyone clarify? Gigs (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly technical, actually. For hysterical raisins, the way images and their histories are stored is completely unrelated to how wiki pages work and deleting/moving images used to be a very destructive and one-way action, hence the paranoia (which I'm sure was borne out of actual abuse). Now, it's not as bad, but image histories and undeletion are still tricky enough that you don't want random moves being possible. — Coren ^(talk) 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, image moves still are annoying enough that we want them as little as possible. Also, it opens the door for pagemove vandalisme, and since files are not watchlisted as much as articles, it is probably something the vandals will enjoy... Just use {{media rename}} or ask any admin on his talkpage. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And it is very easy to tag an image for renaming. I think the response to renames have been timely. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Length of core policy pages

The recent reversions at WP:NPOV have increased its length from less than 18kB to more than 43kB. Almost no one reads these policies all the way through. We know this because almost no one reads them at all: NPOV stats for Feb, and when presented with such a daunting document, human nature will mean most people who do visit the page will not read it all, let alone inwardly digest it.

Correction: I have been alerted to this page, which shows that there are many more hits under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which would suggest that each year a significant minority could indeed be looking at the NPOV policy page. Another good reason not to waste their time with an unnecessarily long text. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This brings up a more general point. Are the policy pages for scholars in Wikipedia policy, or are they for the millions of people who read and edit Wikipedia articles?

It seems to me that for these policy pages to serve their core audience of volunteer Wikipedia editors, a typical new editor should be able to read and understand each of the core policies in under five minutes. If we allow a reading speed of 20 characters per second (around 200WPM), this means that the pages should be no more than 6kB each. This does not preclude wikilinks to long, complex and detailed essays, histories and the like for those seeking more nuanced views. But the length of these core policies, such as WP:NPOV, should be kept to around 6kB.

What do people think? And for those who answer, please would they indicate whether they have read the current versions of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V end to end. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did actually read through all the policies a while back, which took a long time, and of course they've changed since then. I wouldn't dream of trying to read all the guidelines. Nobody even seems to know how many there are, though there seem to be hundreds. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole "policy" thing has become ridiculous. There are far, far too many policy pages (we'll leave guidelines on one side for the moment, but the same points apply to them too) and the pages are mostly far, far too long. They repeat the same points over and over again, quite often in ways that contradict each other, waffle on about this and that, give examples that don't illustrate what they're claimed to be illustrating, contain whole reams of incomprehensible text (that even experienced editors can't agree on the intended meaning of), and have little relevance to improving the encyclopedia. And when someone makes the effort to tidy them up a bit, various editors come out of the woodwork to revert them, not on any substantial grounds, but apparently because they believe the text has some almost religious value by virtue of it having sat around in a particular form for a particular number of years. It's an embarrassment to this project that we can't even communicate our key principles in a clear, concise and comprehensible manner.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and NPOV is a particular problem, almost a stream of consciousness. The result is that no one can read it, and it's therefore largely ignored, except when individual editors use a soundbite from it here and there to aid them in an edit war. I've put up a version at User:SlimVirgin/NPOV, where I may try to work on it and invite experienced content contributors and policy writers to do the same. It would be a slow process and would require wiki-wide consensus, but it might be worth trying. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the policies are too long, and think Stephen B Streater right to emphasise ability of new editors to read and understand the policies easily and quickly. And I didn't read any from start to end!

• WP:NPOV was about 39KB at 19 March 2010. A group of editors slimmed the policy to 19KB at 00:55, 30 April 2010. Then one editor, without any discussion, reverted the policy to a version from 23:15, 25 January 2010!!. In the last days the policy has grown from 39KB to 43KB. I suggest the following from Jimbo Wales covers about 50% of NPOV:

  : From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list
  If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

• WP:NOR has grown from 20K to 23K between June 2008 and present - not a great increase, but a lot to read.
• WP:V IMO is almost usable.

I suggest an RFC to get wider discussion about: the principle of making the policies shorter and more readable; the revert to the start of Jan 2010. -Philcha (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that 20 kB is a good upper limit to aim for. I'd make an exception for BLP, because there are details there that need to be spelled out and reinforced, but even that is only 21 kB. The current 37 kB at NPOV, plus another 19 kB at NPOV/FAQ that someone recently tried to place a policy tag on, is unacceptable, and the recent reverting undid months of work from several editors who had been trying to trim it down. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - several valid points there. A reasonable number of highly experienced editors were involved. There was a constructive attitude for ensuring important details were not lost, and many refinements had been discussed and implemented by the time of the revert. No one tried to block well thought through and discussed changes to preserve "their" version. This was collaborative editing working well in an important area. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Philcha for suggesting an RFC. It makes sense to collect some ideas from several people together first to make sure we ask the right questions. Perhaps now would be a good time to start discussing what we should ask editors to comment on. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Those who think the policy "grew" are in error. It didn't grow at all. Extreme cuts were reverted, that is all that happened. The policy was actually gutted to the tune of about 25kb. This was restored; core pieces of the policy, such as the part which overs pseudoscience, had been removed. I am in favor of concise wording. I am opposed to gutting policy so that fringe POV pushers have no policy to prevent them from turning Wikipedia into some New Age Woo haven, where some fringe theory about aliens controlling the stock market can be presented as "fact". I am assuming no one wants that; I am assuming those who trimmed the policy didn't want that - but that they didn't realize that would be the end result of their actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that much wording and repetition could be trimmed without opening WIkipedia to abuse. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So who's going to get it going and where? I ask where because I think we'll need a draft, and do it there would be confusing and unhelpful to users of this page - how a sub-page and, if so, where? Then we can copy the completed draft to here, so that people can add their support/oppose/comments. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?

Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [2] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [3] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the previous Rfc was not labeled "should the Pseudoscience and Religion portions of NPOV be removed" but rather "Should NPOV have topic-specific sections" thus ensuring no one would understand what was being proposed unless they followed the link, participation was lower than it would otherwise have been - and surely fell far short of the "higher standard of participation and consensus" required by WP:CONLIMITED for significant changes to policy pages. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, the Rfc you're claiming had consensus has three views and a comment - two supports, one oppose. This is not enough input to gut a policy, SV, and you darn well have been around here long enough to know that. If it were an Afd on a third rate pop singer you'd relist for more input. I cannot believe you've been claiming consensus on that basis. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC needs to be clarified: it aims to demote WP:PSCI from policy to an ignorable guideline. Currently, WP:NPOV requires a neutral point of view, but makes an important exception allowing pseudoscience to be labeled as such. PSCI also ensures that articles can assert that science and pseudoscience are not simply two equal viewpoints. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely the place for a discussion of the merits of the RfC is the RfC itself. It makes no sense to repeat one's arguments at each of the neutral pointers that direct to the RfC. Hans Adler 08:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And if SV had not edit warred to keep a misleading title and description, it wouldn't be here at all. This is about how the Rfc has been described, not about the Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the accusations and the insults. You've accused me in edit summaries of lying and being dishonest, because I asked "should the NPOV section contain these sections." You may not like it, and others may have phrased it differently, but it's neutral and it's straightforward, so stop the assumptions of bad faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a productive or civil line of discussion. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Overturn WP:POINT guideline so that instruction creep can be better exposed

See Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#This_guideline_keeps_instruction_creep_in_place. 18.246.2.83 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources being Unreliable

It's been a while since I've seen something like this. What is our current best practice for when a highly respected source appears to make a glaring factual error? In current case, the NYTimes appears to have misstated the amount of oil spilled into the Persian Gulf during Gulf War I by two orders of magnitude too high compared to other sources. (If the NYTimes were correct then the amount of oil dumped would be roughly the same as the total global petroleum consumption in a year.) Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If the mistake itself is so obvious that a multitude of other reliable sources confirm it to be erroneous, then I'd just use those ones... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The best answer is: write a letter or email to the corrections department at the New York Times. If they're in error, they'll correct themselves. Reliable sources are reliable not because they're always right, but because they include mechanisms by which their errors can be corrected. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

While the first part of that comment ("write […] to the corrections department") is good, the second part ("Reliable sources are reliable […] because they include [correction] mechanisms") not so much. I mean, by that measure, Wikipedia ought to be the most reliable source ever. :P {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

VERACITY trumps so-called "reliability." If something in the New York Times or any other organ of the mainstream media is clearly wrong, ditch it without a second thought. The cynical mantra that Wikipedia editors don't care if something is true, only that it is "verifiable" as published by a "reliable source" is a load of crap and a corrupting influence on the Wikipedia product. If there's a political gridlock in the Wikipedia governance system that causes veracity to continue to go unrecognized while cynical platitudes remain unretracted IGNORE THE RULES. If it's factually wrong, out it goes without a second thought — that should be the official policy. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Well, that's the whole point of providing references. So now people can't claim that WP is unreliable anymore. It still has that reputation, but it was never really true, and now less than ever. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Providing a reference is no guarantee that there aren't lots of RSs contradicting it, omitted because WP editors either are unaware of them or disagree with them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NYTimes make mistakes. Nothing new, handle it like any other situation of sources being different to each other. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They do make errors daily. Just send them an email, and the article will corrected within a day or 2.Smallman12q (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

i have seen this as an excuse to delete a nytimes reference, and then delete an article since all the references were "unreliable". if you really feel this way: caveat it, don't delete it. while i'm sympathetic to Veracity, by our editing of the verifiable sources, we will get to the veracity. ain't cynical: don't confuse means and ends. in fact i would be inclined to add a section about the nytimes (and others) misreporting of the incident. Pohick2 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable is not equivalent to infallible. TreasuryTag's advice is good - I'd supplement it by suggesting you explain in the talk page - e.g. NYT says this, but source x, y and z say that, so the article now says that, and please don't add the NYT reference which appears to be mistaken.--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Image Galleries

I've noticed that some place-name pages, especially those about popular tourist destinations, have "image galleries"; for example, Santorini and Rhodes. Is there any policy about this? Personally, I think they should be discouraged for two reasons. First, they give the page a "travel guide" sort of feel which seems inappropriate to Wikipedia. Second, a lot of these pictures, however nice they may be as pictures, don't really add much to the article: I don't think a picture of a beach or church or village on Rhodes adds much to the article on Rhodes unless the beach/church/village portrayed is either really famous or there is something uniquely Rhodian about it. "Generic" pretty pictures seem to me just decoration. I'd welcome other opinions or pointers to policy. Thanks. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My take on this - I think we often get a bit too carried away with policy wonky here and the writing side of wikipedia without a lot of consideration for the end-users of the project. If someone adds some public domain images to an article about a place and they add to the enjoyability of the article without detracting from the readability of the article, I don't have a problem if they are simply decoration. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries which notes, among other things:

[T]he use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. ... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

and

[A] gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons category}} template.

I don't oppose including a few images for decoration, but I do think that too many purely-decorative images grouped into a generic "Gallery" translates into clutter and diminishes the readability of the article. The dividing line between decoration and clutter must, of course, be defined on a case-by-case basis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On the unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests

I would appreciate any thoughts on this here. –xeno^talk 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional CSD criteria

It has come to the attention of some users that Speedy Deletion is missing some rules that would allow for quick elimination of some pages that obviously have no encyclopedic value. Many of us are wasting time on AFDs when a page should be eliminated immediately. Here are some examples:

Example 1:

This page (in AFD as I write this) is called "Writing Stories".

Writing stories is something fun. But before starting, read the Important Notes below. Important Notes 1. Choose your main characters and describe them. The more characters you take, the more exiting the story, the harder to write. 2. Then, you can make the plot: Beginning, Middle (you usually put the climax in here) and End. Briefly write what happens in these parts of the story. 3. Write the rough copy using your brief explanation of that part of the story. Basically, add details to your brief explanations. 4. Read through the whole thing, seeing if you can make it better. 5. Write out the good copy. 6. If you are a grown-up and you want it published , send it to an editor, like: [4]Penguin Books or [5]Random House. They will recheck it. If you are a child, you can either give it to your teacher or keep it until you are old enough to get it published.

This failed CSD(!). Clearly this page is nonsense: "Writing stories is something fun." is the introduction This page is a how-to guide that is pure OR and/or POV. This is just absurd: "If you are a grown-up and you want it published , send it to an editor"

Example 2:

This page (in AFD as I write this) is called "Social netvetting".

is the process of making a careful and critical examination of another person (usually colleague, friend of friend or business associate) using platforms such as facebook, twitter, LinkedIn etc). This involves checking out their photos, their friends and their events.

This failed CSD also. How could it be? Zero google hits. It seems the term was created out of thin air. The name of the page, "social netvetting", isn't even in the article.

Further, both of these pages have the following in common:

• The editor of the page has edited nothing else.
• Only one person is the editor of the page (both pages are fairly new, I think).

I can't see how with any regard to a maintaining a reasonable encyclopedia that these pages could fail a CSD. Why gather 10 or so users to say "yeah, this sucks" when it is obvious that these pages will never contain encyclopedic value? Example 2 takes some research (a google test) to show that the term is essentially made-up, but Example 1 is a slam dunk. Isn't it?

I say this with no hint of irony... if I create a page called Reading Books is Fun, and give a list of the best ways to read books (curl up with some tea, perhaps your favorite candles or iPad), would it be speedily deleted? Clearly it should be. But if Writing Stories isn't CSD'd, then I don't know.

I really want more CSD methods to eliminate this nonsense immediately. In addition, articles with one editor who have no other edits... these should easily be deleted, especially when the topic is pure WP:OR like these.

I look forward to this discussion. — Timneu22 · talk 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

CSD is meant to deal with patently problematic articles that show no likelihood of being encyclopedic quality, thus ensuring that deletion by an admin is a non-contentious action. Both topics suggested above, as written, may seem to lack quality, but there's an implication that they are real topics; admin deletion without discussion would be too early in the process. That doesn't mean there's other ways to quickly deal with these articles; both could easily be PROD (particularly the latter as it seems to be a neologism) but that would give time for the creator and other editors to improve upon them. Neither fall into the class of articles we could easily patently delete. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have is {{db-nonsense}} covers only nonsense text, when clearly some topics ("Writing Stories") are, in themselves, patent nonsense. While the article can be understood (writing stories is fun), its inclusion on Wikipedia cannot be understood. Prod is too slow, AFD is too time-consuming. CSD is clearly the answer to crush this type of rubbish immediately. Let's ignore my example 2 altogether for right now. Example 1 is clearly an essay, it will not be an encyclopedic article, ever, because:

• There cannot be third-party coverage of someone's opinion
• It is an instructional how-to list.
• There is no topic in the world called "Writing Stories."

As a starting point, my suggestion is that we create a {{db-essay}} reason, that allows speedy deletions for personal essays. Clearly "Writing Stories" is an essay with no encyclopedic value. I honestly ask the question again: If I create Reading Books is Fun, shouldn't this be speedily deleted? — Timneu22 · talk 20:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing stories could redirect to Narrative with no need for an AfD. I'm sympathetic to deleting personal opinion essays and how-tos, but often these can be turned into acceptable articles or become redirects, so a bright-line criterion for speedy deletion would be hard to formulate. Vetting using social networking sites, aka cyber-vetting, is a notable topic, and we should have an article about it. I'm arguing keep on that AfD. Think outside of the speedy deletion box, a rush to deletion throws babies out with the bathwater. Fences&Windows 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With articles on non-notable subjects (CSD A7) and promotional articles by and about companies (CSD G11), there is also an implication that the subjects are real topics, so that argument is invalid. Notability is the issue- Truthiness is a notable neologism, whereas Webutation is not. For neologisms, we need some criteria that covers blatantly non-notable, unsourced neologisms. Right now we're having waste time putting them through AFD and PROD and get the same result a week later. (Except if you choose PROD, you have to baby-sit the article when the creator starts reverting.)

Regarding other problem articles such as Writing stories, additional criteria relating to WP:NOTHOWTO would be of great relief. My focus is on the problem of handling neologisms, but other stuff like this is certainly just as tiring. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Were PRODs attempted on these? This sort of thing is what they are designed for. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I took Webutation to AFD immediately. My general experience with PRODs is that they don't get any attention on the article and the article gets to enjoy another week of existence, and at that point it becomes part of the expired PROD list. If one submits an AFD, the article gets more eyes on it, and it gets deleted or sometimes speedy deleted via that process. So in summary, if I'm forced to use AFD or PROD, I find that PROD is less reliable. ALI ^{nom nom} 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that PROD is essentially useless. What happens with an article like Writing Stories, is that the editor just removes the PROD, and no one ever sees it. I think articles have three states: 0) Valid, 1) Invalid, 2) Discuss validity. There is no "invalid if no one responds in a week"; I'm just not a fan of PROD. It seems A little insignificant has issues with WP:NEO, whereas I have more gripes with WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOT#ESSAY; in any of these cases it seems that if an article certainly is something that falls into one of these not lists, it should be speedily deleted. I understand people have different opinions about articles and some need to be discussed, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that some of these articles will pass AFD, so why waste everyone's time? Honestly... the article is about someone writing a book. — Timneu22 · talk 00:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• While I'm at it, let us re-read this to show why discussing Writing Stories is absurd: The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start. For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again. — Timneu22 · talk 00:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If the editor removes the PROD without addressing the issue, take it to AFD. Mind you, that's your (that is, the person that doesn't want that content) responsibility to do that, no one is going to do that for you. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this feedback, but this discussion isn't about watching PROD articles. It is about finding more CSD criteria, so we don't waste time on here discussing nonsense. Really, the whole thing is about WP:SNOW being violated again and again. — Timneu22 · talk 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'it's our responsibility'? We patrol new articles and delete the problem ones. It's a job. We're asking for a way to make it easier. ALI ^{nom nom} 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something about the general case, but I've really tripped up over the first example.

What do you mean, there are no reliable sources about the process for writing stories? Do you want to explain what all these dozens of books are, if not possible sources? How about all this at Google Scholar? Are all of those scholarly papers just chopped liver? What about those ancient texts from Greek playwrights about how to write stories?

Now I'm not saying that there's any encyclopedic content in the existing page... but the subject itself has certainly be written about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a how-to page. Simple as that. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding new criteria for speedy deletion based on WP:NOT was discussed at length last year and ultimately rejected. The discussion is somewhere in the archives of the CSD talk page. The concept of what is or is not "encyclopedic" is far to open to personal interpretation to be a valid criteria for speedy deletion. The idea that the WP:SNOW is being "violated" does not even make sense, since it is clearly marked as not being an actual policy. While I have invoked it myself on many occasions, there is nothing that compels us to follow it, and indeed the section on the "snowball test" states: "This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, as the lack of snowballs in hell is not an absolute." The article that started all this is undoubtedly going to be deleted or at least redirected, so what's the problem? I fail to see how AFD makes it "harder" to delete an article, unless the problem is that users can't formulate cogent arguments that aren't already spelled out in a template. Yes it takes longer but the point that is being missed by that argument is that that is deliberate. The idea is to give the article a chance to be improved or to locate a suitable target page for merger or redirect. Although many articles are created every day that are rightfully deleted, it's not actually something we want, getting new content that has encyclopedic value is the goal of this entire project and it's important not to lose sight of that concept. However, if you have a specific proposal for a new criteria for speedy deletion you are more than welcome to present it. The basic requirements for any new csd are outlined at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I offered a specific proposal: {{db-essay}}, which includes obvious original research and/or how-to lists. See Writing Stories; if someone can tell me this article could ever be valid, I want to know how. — Timneu22 · talk 10:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See Writing process for an example of essentially the same subject but written as an encyclopedic article.Taemyr (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As that article isn't HOWTO and that has a tone that's not an essay, there's not really a comparison between the two. Here's what I'd like to see: This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that is written as a how-to list and/or is in the tone of a personal essay. This CSD reason is particularly valid for new articles created by new users, who may not have a concept of basic Wikipedia guidelines (or who may be ignoring the guidelines intentionally). See CSD X1. — Timneu22 · talk 12:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the AfD for Social netvetting is a waste of anyone's time. This is why speedy deletion criteria are narrow. It's not for one person to make a unilateral decision to delete such a page. decltype (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

PROD is only useless if the people who apply it don't use it properly. If an article is so bad that you would consider adding a CSD for it, it almost definitely should be PRODed. In most cases, it gets deleted. If the author, or deleting admin, or someone else disagrees, then you take it to AfD. Don't complain about too may AfDs if you're not even trying PROD for such "obvious" cases. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is about adding new CSD reasons. — Timneu22 · talk 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content.

Per comments of Jimbo on Commons, there is now a new interpretation of the existing polices regarding sexual content. Basically all images that might potentially require 2257 record keeping and that do not serve a current educational purpose are to be deleted instantly. Undeletion of these images can be discussed on a case by case basis. The effects of this new policy can already be witnessed by the removal of images in our articles by CommonsDelinker. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, if it is used in an article shouldn't it at least have an initial presumption of having an educational purpose? (Though there are plenty images that did not appear in articles too.) Dragons flight (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The talk page you linked doesn't exist. Where can we discuss this with Commons people? I would say, if we (or any project) are currently using an image, then it does "serve a current educational purpose". OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the talk page link above. Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)