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 other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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

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

Toward a unique language policy

There is a proposal to unify the criterion of language policy titled Unique and workable criterion. you can participate in the discussion.

Tor nodes

An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?

Moved from archive as it's premature to close this - future datestamp applied to make sure it isn't archived again - Will ^(talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Moving from WT:RFC...

About two months ago, I listed Requests for user comment for deletion under the premise that it did not work, and it's basically a quagmire of personal attacks and a stepping stone to ArbCom. The consensus in the MFD, including the creator of the process and the MfD's closer, is that it doesn't really work 99.9% of the time, and only exists because there is no other process existent. Just get rid of it and reinstate the Community Sanction Noticeboard, as that actually did do some good. Will ^(talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I personally preferred CSN better than RFC/U. D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support CSN provided there was a minimum time for comments (about 7 days). There should also be a maximum time for banning (1 year, same as ArbCom). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CSN had teeth, RFC/U hardly any. CSN saw discussion and nuance, RFC/U sees ganging up and party-lines half the time. With the same provisos as R. Baley, except I'd prefer six months, it would be good to have it back. Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could merge the two... CSN to me always seemed to arbitrary. Consensus could be declared in an hour or never... that kind of gives power to people who can generate a mob of "me too"s on demand. RFC is very structured but seldom goes anywhere. Is there any realistic way to have CSN but with a more normalized process, to give the accused a change to reply, slow down the mob mentality, and reasonably assess consensus? --W.marsh 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it need a new name possibly? Also please note than CSN only closed three and a half months ago and consensus might not of changed much since then. Also, a lot of things that "could" of gone there are instead now sent to WP:AN or WP:ANI, meaning they get a lot more traffic and stress put on them. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

W.marsh, don't you think a minimum one-week period for each sanction discussion would help with the mob of "me-too"s? (Too much evidence has emerged lately of off-wiki co-ordination for us to discount that as a factor.) Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A week sounds reasonable. If it's truly an emergency WP:BLOCK should apply, and if someone's transgressions don't seem blockworthy a week after the fact, then a ban was a bad idea to begin with. I'd also like to look at a waiting period before people start bolding words (ban, don't ban, etc.) maybe 48 hours of pure discussion without people taking definitive stands like in a vote. I think that would lead to better discussion, people tend to feel psychologically committed to a stance once they're locked in to it. --W.marsh 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At Arbcom they've decided to take the ambitious step of waiting (I believe 48 hours, but I can't remember) before voting on the proposed decision page. We could do something similar, discussion can take place for 2 days, but no proposed "remedies" (ban, topic ban, etc.) could be offered until 48 hours after a new complaint had been certified (maybe not "certified," just following the initial complaint --basically enforce 2 days of discussion before any talk of "banning"). R. Baley (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC works when it's used for asking for comments, it does not work when sanctions are sought, but that is not its purpose. The CSN should be brought back and RFC kept and used for its intended purpose. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Community Sanction Noticeboard had its own problems, though I'm not sure that it needed to be eliminated. Part of the problem is that dispute resolution mechanisms seem to come and go - Mediation went away, and now it's back under a new name, the CSN came and went, ANI seems to alter its mission every so often. I see three main problems with RFC/U: it is not empowered to sanction, it's intended to keep reduce the burden on ANI, and it's a mandatory step before going to ArbCom, which can sanction. The solution I see is to 1) bounce more stuff, both from RFC/U and ANI, to Mediation (wherever it's living right now), 2) have some level of sanction available at RFC/U, which would probably require administrator patrolling, and 3) allow admins to move complicated cases off ANI to RFC/U. Perhaps a name change would be in order - instead of "Request for Comment/User Conduct", it could become "Administrators' Noticeboard: Ongoing Problems" (to distinguish it from AN:Incidents). Making it part of the Administrators' Noticeboard would mean that sanctions would be available and it would be an appropriate preliminary step to ArbCom. It would also reduce the load at ANI, where probably half the volume of discussion is on complicated, drawn-out issues, even though those are fewer than 10% of the actual incidents reported. Community Sanctions would all get moved to AN/OP, also. As part of the AN cluster, AN/OP would be fairly highly visible. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Opposed to this. Many of our processes suffer from a lynching mentality and RFC is as bad as some of them but it does serve a purpose. I really do not see a return to the votes for lynching that CSN turned into as a viable alternative. If we are replace this process we need some other way to garner community feedback into problematical or disputed editor behaviour and a noticeboard doesn't seem the way forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rlevse's and Spartaz's comments. --Iamunknown 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Both W.marsh and Spartaz voice important concerns. The CSN was split off from ANI, and then was merged back into ANI after only 8 months. I think ANI, with its high visibility and traffic, is the proper place for most such discussions. The deletion discussion is very instructive as to the potential problems that must be kept in mind. I oppose any page dedicated exclusively to "sanctions," as well as any form of voting for a ban.

Getting back to RFC/U, I think its purpose and its place within the DR process should be better defined. The list of DR options here is rather bewildering, and does not indicate (what I see as) RFC/U's status as a second-tier DR forum for problems that have proven intractable in the first-tier forums. The third tier, of course, is Arbcom.

There is a grave problem when people see DR as a list of hoops that must be jumped through before you can ban someone. Emphasis should be placed on restoring relationships and on helping problematic editors to become better ones. Note that I am not talking about obvious trolls, who should be dealt with easily enough in the first-tier DR forums. To me, the purpose of the first-tier forums is to have one or two experienced editors tell a problematic editor that he/she is behaving problematically and should change. At this point, the case may be obvious enough that a block or ban would be appropriate. The purpose of RFC/U is then for the larger community to communicate that same message. If the problematic behavior continues, then an admin can enact a community ban, and the tougher cases can go to Arbcom. If I am out in left field on this, then tell me so or ignore me. If not, then the DR guidelines should be a lot more clear that this is the case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if it worked that way, but the practice is less harmonious. The process seems to escalate conflict rather than diminish it. I don't however know how to substitute it. CSN was seen as a kangaroo court, so that too had problems. DGG (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Practice does not need to be harmonious. I'm not so naive as to think that a large fraction of people are actually focused on "restoring relationships" etc. But I'd settle for orderly. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have seen in the few RFC/U's I've seen (as an outsider) is that there is very little in the way of objective evidence. It usually ends up in IDONTLIKEHIM comments, or sometimes people siding with the nominator they like or the defendant they like, or even lining up with the POV they like.

Any complaint, whether it is in an RFC/U or an AN/I or a proposed AN/OP, should have specific charges based on policy or guidelines and specific diffs to support the charge, and diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem. A user who behaves badly should be warned every time the problem is noticed. Just as we warn against vandalism, we should warn about NPA, incivility, etc. (If we had more warning templates, users might issue warnings more often.) If we warned users more often we might see fewer problems. If problems persist, then the warnings will provide the evidence to justify blocks.

AIV is not contentious because there is a visible history of escalating warnings to demonstrate the problem, to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem, and to justify the length of a block. 3RR is not contentious because diffs provide objective evidence of bad behavior. RFC/U, AN/I, CSN almost always are (were) contentious because there is usually no objective evidence to demonstrate the problem and attempts to resolve the problem. I think that RFC/U would be more effective if it required specific charges of violated guidelines, specific diffs to support the charges, and specific diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem.

I was just about to make these suggestions about specificity over at WT:RFC when I saw the link to this discussion. I might still suggest it over there to try to improve the process while waiting to see if a consensus develops over here to eliminate or replace the process. I'm also thinking of starting a new section over here to suggest that we should issue warnings for bad behavior much more often. I have seen a lot of incivility go unwarned. If we had escalating templates for warnings, editors might use them more often. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, RfC on User Conduct should be used to elicit a wider community involvement in the background of the situation instead of the superficial cat-calling that we stumble acrost in article-talk and user-space. I frequently accidentally wander into a vicious debate, simply because I visit a lot of pages. The RfC/U posted to the article-talk, and user-talk of both the RfC presenter and the subject would allow for impartial input. Which should continue for a minimum of three days there. Then, as above mentioned, the subject can be given some breathing room in which to evaluate improvement or at least detachment. After sufficient time, if an editor feels that anti-project editing still exists, then it would be appropriate to escalate to CSN and allow at least 3 further days for responses to be gathered. So my nutshell, RfC/U as a precursor to CSN and a necessary part of DR.Wjhonson (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ANY system of open community comment on another editors actions, regardless of which Wiki-acronym you attach to it, is that it is always open to sniping and abuse (once someones name shows up there, everyone they ever have pissed off gangs up on them). The question is whether such abuse is willing to be tolerated in order to have a system whereby the community can comment on user behavior. You can't have a system in place that is immune to this kind of abuse, but neither should you throw out the baby with the bathwater... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of the WP:RFC/U system. It isn't good at seeking punishments for past bad behavior, but that's partly because sanctions are preventive, not punitive -- the point is, sanctions should be applied when bad behavior continues, rather than because it existed. RFCs are good for that -- if a user pushes POV, for instance, and it becomes well-established that this is the case in an RFC, and they continue to do it, sanctions can be safely applied. RFCs sometimes get out of control, but that's actually a good thing -- think of it as water in the mountains, it needs to come downhill somewhere. WP:RFC/U is a good way of handling that release of tensions because of the way its rules keep editors from commenting back and forth, which tends to build tension. Plus, they have a good way of adding lots of uninvolved editors to the mix, which distributes the energy. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think. The Wikipedia community hasn't shown itself to be anymore trustworthy than the Wikipedia admins. Both increasing and decreasing admin accountability or things like RFC/U seem counterintuitive. Making it more strict allows people to witch-hunt users and admins they don't like. Making it more lax allows trolls and corrupt admins to do whatever they want. The problem is that so many Wikipedia editors have zero regard for reason. That needs to be addressed first, I think. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC works (as stated above) when it's used for asking for comments on behavioral issues of a user or users, it does not work when used for witch-hunts, lynchings, Public floggings, personal attacks, bitterness, and character assassinations. Since this process does seem to escalate some conflicts rather than diminish them, perhaps modifying the guidelines within the process is needed as opposed to removal. Without RfC/U, the only formal steps in dispute resolution that focuses on editors are AN/I and ArbCom. Conversly AN/I could serve as an appropriate venue and does provide wide community involvement on issues (Apropriatly a modified format would be needed on AN/I to replace RfC/U). Processes exist to have a purpose, I belive this does, but some reform may be needed to improve it.--Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you thought RFC is terrible, CSN was horrendous. I don't ever want to see anything like that back on wikipedia ever again. But if I do, I shall certainly crucify the inventor using their own process. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Argyriou's suggestion of making it AN/Ongoing problems. From the very little experience I have with RFC/U, my impression is that it's essentially a temporary repealing of the NPA policy on both sides. There are votes but no conclusions. After lambasting each other for days, both sides claim victory, and use the archived RfC as a method of ongoing bypassing of NPA by simply providing a convenient link to the RfC.

On second thought, don't call it "Ongoing problems". Self-fulfilling prophecy. Call it AN/Problems. A header at the top of the page can specify what types of problems are postable there. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved recently in an ongoing controversy regarding a disruptive editor that has gone through an informal RfC on the talk page of the affected article, a discussion on the No Original Research Noticeboard, a formal RfC on the talk page of the affected article, and finally an extended discussion on AN/I. At the end of a month of these discussions there was a clear consensus for a topic ban, but everyone seemed to be uncertain as to how to formally impose the topic ban.

The advantage of CSN (as I understand it) was that there were people who were knowledgeable about the problems and procedures for dealing with disruptive editing. The concerns that led to WP:DE first appeared in WP:Expert Retention and sought to provide a speedy way to deal with such disruption. As it stands now, the lengthy and ineffective procedure of dealing with disruption "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors," which is one of the definitions of disruptive editing. From what I've heard, CSN apparently went overboard on instantaneous bans, but the present ineffective model has become part of the problem. I'm not an advocate of any particular solution, but we need to have effective procedures and make them clear to all editors and admins, if we are to deal with disruptive editing, point of view pushing, personal attacks, etc. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How to guide

I think RFC is a good way to gather evidence and gauge community sentiments. If an RFC/U convinces an editor to cease causing problems, that is a good result. If they continue, a note can be posted at ANI requesting a community remedy, such as an editing restriction or ban, with a link to the RFC/U. If there is no consensus at ANI, the case can go to ArbCom, and again, a link to the RFC/U provides much of the necessary evidence. The processes work when people use them correctly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if we ever want RFCU to ever work, we need more admin intervention - Anittas was indefed a second time in October. The attack he was blocked for was on RFCU for twelve days, but nothing happened until ANI got wind of it. Will ^(talk) 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP-Lock: A way to deal with contentious BLP articles

After reviewing the Don Murphy DRV, it's obvious that the community has some differences with regards to BLP articles, Notability, and how to handle things. I tried to come up with a compromise that would ease some folks mind with BLP. I actually brought this up with one of the folks whose article would be covered under this policy, and they were pretty positive with it. It alleviated one of his major problems about having a Wikipedia article about them.

So, without further ado..

User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock

The basics:

A) The article can be placed under BLP-LOCK by any uninvolved administrator. When an administrator places an article under this policy, they must either refer to an existing OTRS ticket, or submit one, and detail why such action is necessary in that OTRS ticket.

B) If an OTRS volunteer agrees that the article should be placed under BLP-LOCK, the article will be stubbed down to a bare-bones situation (just bare facts, no controversial information), and fully-protected for a period of a MININUM of six months (this can be permanent).

C) During this BLP-LOCK status, the only edits that should be made are those via {{editprotected}} requests that have full-consensus on the talk page. Any information that not reliably sourced should not be added to the article, even with consensus. While a subject of the article does not get an automatic veto over information being added to the page, administrators who handle BLP-LOCK editprotected requests should be fully aware of the BLP policy and judge accordingly.

This is actually fairly close to the Stable Versions idea we've been promised for eons going forward.. It reduces a major part of the reason that folks (here and elsewhere) are upset about BLP: That any "child with a computer" can vandalize it, and then these vandalizations are available in the history forever.. and for folks that don't have people watching/OWNing the article, these vandalizations can persist for a period of time until caught. Instead, the article grows in a more controlled manner.

The reason for thinking that the OTRS ticket is necessary.. I'm not sure this is necessary or a good idea for ALL BLP articles, but if an article needs BLP-LOCK, then it should have above-normal levels of attention paid to it, and OTRS is one way to do that. I know that the problem is that OTRS can be overwhelmed at times, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on it, and work OTRS/BLP-LOCK if it goes through.

Also, on a strictly personal level of thought.. if a subject complains to WP via OTRS, this should be a standard option (to BLP-LOCK their article) going forward. It's bad enough if a subject needs to email us once if there's problems with their article. We shouldn't have to make then continually monitor their article. 21:14, 21 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Why are "short articles" bad ?

Up above there is a discussion on the contentious topic of "inherent notability". The original author of that thread states one of the problems is: "We end up with lots of short articles." Ignoring the issue of "inherrent notability" (that's a separate debate I do not wish to rehash here) I would like to know on a more basic level, why are "short articles" a bad thing?

I don't know about you but in almost every encyclopedia I have ever seen the majority of the articles are very brief. Yes, WP is "not paper" so we don't have space restrictions ... but that does not mean we MUST create articles that are long.

To assume short articles have little or no value is as erroneous as to assume that long articles are automatically worthy just because much can be said about a given topic. 72.87.158.243 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Short articles are, in themselves, not bad. Obviously a long article is better as it provides more information but small articles certainly have their merits, that's why there are so many stubs. That's just my two pence (I'm English and hate the word 'cents')...... Dendodge..Talk^Help 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's traditionally a certain article length that people like Wikipedia articles to be (see e.g. Wikipedia:Article length) - there is such thing as a very short yet complete article on a very narrow topic with little available information, but I haven't run into many of these. 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it's a question of organization. Since we're not paper, we can also organize things into logical groupings, and instead of a ton of short articles, we can have several redirects leading to one coherent, reasonable-length, in-context presentation of those subjects. We can even anchor redirects to a specific section. In traditional paper encyclopedias, such "see also" entries require the reader to find a different page or even perhaps a different volume. Here, the redirect is seamless and automatic. There's also the legitimate question of "What is important enough to give any space to?" If we can only say a sentence or two on a subject, we should have it merged to a parent, if possible, or simply decline to mention it, if not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's two kinds of short articles. One is an article which should be longer, but no one has bothered to expand it, and the other is one that is destined to have no meaningful content ever, because there are no meaningful references to cite to help write the article. The former is not a problem. The latter is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with the anon here. Short articles are fine, and most of the articles in traditional paper encyclopedias are short, but the publisher has still decided that these articles (which we invariably call "stubs" on Wikipedia) are useful to their readers. For an example of a rather short article, Vadsø Airport is a fairly "bare bones" article by Wikipedia standards, and marked as a stub, twice. It contains only six lines of text in the body, along with a destination list, an infobox, and some references. But by paper encyclopedia standards, this is not a bad article really, it is four times more informative than the corresponding article in Store norske leksikon which just gives the location, opening year, runway, and passenger numbers. Their entire article goes over two lines of text. Shorter articles than the stubs we have can be found in paper encyclopedias, so we should not really be too worried. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are short articles bad? Of course not. Sometimes biographical articles are necessarily short due to a lack of information, are still notable, but are not suitable for merging because, well, they are articles about a person. See these examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Some of those can be expanded, others will forever be short or will rely on only a few sources. Those are only 19th century people. If you go back to the 16th and 17th century, there are plenty of people where snippets of biographical information exists, but it is difficult to decide where to put them in an encyclopedia. You could put footnotes in all the articles the person is mentioned in, giving the biographical information about that person, or you can create a short article that will never be more than a few paragraphs, and link to that from the places where the person is mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The gist of this discussion is: short articles aren't bad - poorly sourced ones are.-Wafulz (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the complaint about "short articles" in the context of the inherent notability discussion refers to articles that are extremely short because they contain only the most trivial of information. Some of these examples are liable to get deleted... but take a look at Abrided anime All Good Things (film) Alcatraz (Horse-Ecuador 1967) and Bilanga Department. Generally, we are talking about articles of a few sentences that merely state some basic directory-like information about the topic. They capture information that would usually be presented as part of a list in a more general article. --Marcinjeske (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify my comment... the short articles I mentioned above were examples of *bad* articles of the type justified by inherent notability. They were provided to answer the original question of "why are short articles bad?" by differentiating between shortness due to lack of notability and shortness due to brevity. --Marcinjeske (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit Cards/Sockpuppet control, pt. 2

I personally think the above-proposed policy of having users register with their credit cards to buttress their identity is a great one. Let's take it one step further however. Make users register their credit card, and the Wikimedia Foundation can fine them a certain amount for vandalistic edits. That should put a stop to vandalism quick. I'm not saying the fine should be large, like $1.00 or so for each fine. And only blatant vandalism should qualify. The money would go to the foundation, or to charity. I think the future of wikipeida depends on it. JeanLatore (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What about people who do not have a credit card or don't want to play such information on the Internet? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• then those chaps certainly will not be wandalising wikipedia sir. JeanLatore (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... just ... ... ... no. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

considering we allow IP address to edit, this wouldn't work (and no IP addresses will continue to be allowed to edit) I for one would never give my credit card for this Idea and many of your good editors and SysOps are under 18 and probably don't even have one. My position is NO--Pewwer42  Talk  03:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the ridiculousness of the premise altogether, "fining" users over something as subjective as what constitutes vandalism would, I suspect, be remarkably illegal. Resolute 03:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(looks at proposal)

(blinks)

(blinks again) Waltham, The Duke of 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus that IP contributions should be allowed. This would not only intoduce mandatory registration (against the current ideas), but also wants to limit Wikipedia editorship to people who have access to a credit card. That is not going to make the content better. You then also exclude a lot of people who do have a creditcard, but are not willing to provide Wikipedia with that data.

On top of that this proposal also introduces a lot of (legal) strain on the Wikipedia organisation, that cannot, can never be handled by volunteers as this is about privacy/financially sensitive data. It requires 2 costly operations to be put in place (1) a way to check credit card data whether the card is valid (2) A way to collect, check, and store the credit card data in a way that guarantees it cannot be abused (ie. the peopel with access need to be thrustworthy (hence no volunteers), the data submission system must be completely secure, and the storage area has to be unhackable. This will generate a huge amount of costs for the foundation.

In brief, to reduce the nuisance of vandalism many valuable editors will be excluded and the foundation will be forced to make huge financial cost. Not a good idea at all! Arnoutf (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That gives criminals one more venue to achieve credit card fraud, and the resulting vandalism upswing is not necessarily good for the encyclopedia either. This "proposal" doesn't even pass the laugh test.--WaltCip (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit card registration is not a good idea, IMO, primarily due to extensive disenfranchisement. Although there should be a real identity based registration process other than signing up with any email address to prevent sockpuppets. However, the real problem is anonymous editing which really needs to be gotten rid of before Wikipedia can and will be taken seriously. Socks is just one part of the problem. I can't believe that anon contributions are sufficiently strong to make up for all the disruption in reverting, warning, reporting, and blocking the rampant and persistent IP vandalism, as well as the damage to WP's integrity. — Becksguy (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Allowing IPs to edit without registration is part of the spirit of an open wiki. These ideas were inherited from the c2.com wiki, which I think is the first original wiki, and where editing by IPs is still allowed today. Look, if wikipedia prevented anonymous editors from editing, then it would take such a serious hit to its reputation that it would eventually be destroyed by it and replaced by other open wikis unless it reverted its decision. Wikis are supposed to be edited by anyone that happens to visit them. Jimbo Wales is not idiot, and surely he knows all of this perfectly, and he is going to let anonymous edit as much as humanly possible --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not against IP contributing as long as they provide the credit card. I firm believer that most of hte productive small edits here come from IP. JeanLatore (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No one's going to take this seriously. I'm pretty sure you're not going to get consensus for producing "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as they have good credit." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cubans are not going to like this... :-) Waltham, The Duke of 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Um... sorry, but if BJAODN was still open, I'd be putting this proposal there. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stolen credit cards numbers are selling for 40 cents a piece right now. So the card that someone else uses could be yours. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose and recreate BJAODN for this purpose: We would be excluding some of Wikipedia's best editors...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just take this opportunity to mention that it does still exist. Hut 8.5 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When I started the thread it was because the credit card method was the first thing that came to mind to prevent a second(or third...) account. It seems most people took the credit card idea and ran with it instead of taking the preventing socks idea and running with that. It is pretty clear that most people are less concerned with who gets in than who doesn't get in. I say we move on to driver license numbers. Wait. I changed my mind. That would exclude minors too. Okay how about this. New Wikis. WikiKids 'for the young editor in you'. WikiSocks 'for those of you who can't stand having just one sock'. And the good ole Wikipedia* The (sock)Free Encyclopedia. *Visa and Mastercard accepted. The preceding message was sponsored by Hanes. Libro0 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

... ... ... You do realize that no one's taking you seriously, and that they want to move this thread to a page that used to exist called "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense". Anything like that is going to require far too much from editors in terms of privacy, identity. yes, we are concerned with who gets in rather than who doesn't get in. This is "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". You edit first, we ask questions later if it looks like you're a sock. This isn't "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopeida that anyone can -- oh wait, papers, please." Anything like this is going to get shot down and laughed at like it already has. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone above mentioned they wanted all 6.6 billion people to be contributing. Actually you don't need that. Not everybody wants or needs to contribute. We can't all be teachers, coaches, and leaders. We still need students, players, and followers. Saturation would be bad. That is why there are sock puppets now. People who want to get around the rules and have their way, altering content that is fine the way it is and never adding anything new. I think we need 'contributors' not 'redecorators'. Some people's only contributions are cosmetic. I am more interested in finding info and less concerned with how it looks. So...are you going to accepting American Express? Libro0 (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we only need teachers, coaches and leaders? Why don't we need auto mechanics familiar with automotive techniques, programmers familiar with operating systems, chemists familiar with chemistry, physicists and physics, basketballers and basketball, teenagers and pop culture, writers and literary devices, anime freaks and anime, gamers and video games, conosseiurs and fine dining, hobbyists and their hobbies, activists and social programs, lawyers and law, doctors and medicine, engineers and mechanical dynamics, mathematicians and math, gamblers and gambling, soap opera fanatics and their favorite tv shows? We need as many people we can get who can make good contributions, and even better if they happen to be experts in their fields. We also need copyeditors. Encyclopedias are not just ugly, useless repositories of information rife with grammatical corrections, improper citations, missing / broken links, and words spelled incorrectly in every other sentence. They're usually well-written, concise, predictable in their formats, and readable. Not looking like crap. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suspect you don't have the experience necessary to quite understand what it would take to implement this kind of system, the kind of legal obligations that would have to obeyed, etc. We'd have to get a merchant account, hire people to manage to that/add to the Foundation's already long list of responsibilities, pay for each and every verification. No, we aren't going to be taking American express. Or Mastercard. Or Visa. Or social security numbers. Or drivers license numbers. Or the middle name of your cat. Or anything else other than a username and password. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a "secret question" (like the middle name of your cat) as part of the registration process could help reduce the problem of people losing access to their account if they don't have an email address confirmed and forget their password. But that's another proposal altogether... Mr.Z-man 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental trouble with "secret questions" is that that the secret answer has to be easier to remember than your password and just as secure - in which case, why didn't you just use it as your password in the first place? If having the question is a useful reminder for you, write down the question. This is one of those commonplace measures that doesn't make any sense. Dcoetzee 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to get over emotional. This idea clearly is 99% against. If I said you would need to present a student ID card to prove you are scholastically inclined then that would eliminate another massive chunk of the population. No more attacks please. We are supposed to be finding a way to prevent socks and not good editors. I consider the the credit option closed. I am starting a new thread. Preventing sock part 3 : term limits. Libro0 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: allow non-admins to block users

I primarily edit as an IP (I simply prefer it that way). However, right now I'm having to edit using my fallback account as the IP address I'm at - one that is shared by a large number of internet users - is currently blocked.

In my opinion it would be a really bad idea if IP address ranges, or shared IP addresses were to be blocked even for established users.

So how about if autoconfirmed users, not just admins, could block users (both IP and registered)? Hear me out first please: what I suggest is that autoconfirmed users should be able to block IP users and non-autoconfirmed users for a very short period - say, 15 minutes. This would disrupt vandalism campaigns more effectively because admins would not have to be called in to block someone, and as it's almost immediate it stops a vandal in their tracks instantly.

It should be made clear though to users of this facility that it should only be used for clear and obvious vandalism, and not simply for poor edits such as inappropriate external links or good-faith POV. Perhaps also it should only be used after the second or third instance of vandalism. And of course if someone abuses this facility it should be withdrawn from them.--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want all of Graw's socks to be able to add spam links to the block log, do you? If it's ok with you, I'd really like to keep "Hagger" out of my block log. This would just become a free-for-all for disgruntled users, socks, and jokers, to vandalise the logs of any user they disliked. Can you imagine what Special:Log/block/BetacommandBot would look like if every one of its 'targets' had been able to block it when it was doing image tagging? Happy‑melon 09:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You and Betacommandbot are both autoconfirmed, so wouldn't be blockable if this were implemented. (Not, you understand, that I'm in favor of it. For starters, way too many people have too broad a definition of "vandalism".) —Cryptic 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because BetacommandBot and yourself and almost all registered users are autoconfirmed. I'm only suggesting that non-autoconfirmed users (and IP users) be blockable by autoconfirmed users.--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I missed that caveat when I first read your proposal. I still think it would lead to near-anarchy in the 'lower echelons' (for want of a better phrase) of users; and clutter the block logs beyond comprehension. Plus the autoconfirmed user-group, once granted, cannot be removed, so it would not be possible to "withdraw" it from abusers without blocking them (in fact, blocked users can still use Special:BlockIP, so there are significant security issues to be considered). Perhaps (and I really do mean "possibly", with a bucket-load of caveats) a permission like this, which files to a separate part of special:log, with a short-duration fixed time-limit (15 mins sounds good), with no restriction on who can be blocked, should be bundled with 'page-patroller' as and when we finally get FlaggedRevisions. In fact, I would support merging 'rollback', 'page-patroller' and 'short-block' into one user group, perhaps 'trusted'. Just my £0.02. Happy‑melon 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob, Happy-melon. If the proposal to tighten up the criteria for becoming an autoconfirmed user happens, then maybe that would protect us against the likes of Grawp. However, I hadn't realised there would be a difficulty in "de-autoconfirming" users that abuse the facility, so maybe that isn't the way to go.

However, I do like the concept of a "trusted" user, and binding it with other privileges sounds a good idea (as perhaps we don't want too many ranks of user in the hierarchy: IP, non-autoconfirmed, autoconfirmed, trusted, etc. etc. up to Jimbo.) Another alternative would be to require users to apply for the ability to block people (just like they have to apply for some of the anti-vandal tools).

Actually, why is this discussion on VP's Technical page and not on the Policy page?--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Implementing de-autoconfirmation would be relatively simple to do, development-wise. You'd just have to allow implicit groups to depend on the presence or absence of one or more explicit groups. The rest would be configuration. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All of Grawp's accounts are auto-confirmed, some are over a year old when they start page move vandalism. MBisanz ^talk 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is deadly: blocking is the most serious of admin's abilities, it should be used extremely carefully, as it's the easiest way to make someone pissed off. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that reality-check, MaxSem; you're right, of course. I do still like the idea of a 'trusted' user group though. Happy‑melon 13:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Philosophically, I'm a big fan of figuring out ways to take sysop privileges away from sysops and give them to the editing community at large, in support of wiki principles. I'm hopeful that flagging revisions will obsolete protection, for instance. But deletion and blocking seem difficult to give out so freely. If blocking were given out freely, I would suggest that it be in the form of "moderation", like some bulletin boards or mailing lists have: with FlaggedRevs, this might mean that changes made by the user would have to be approved on any article (while normally they'd have to be approved only on some, if I understand correctly).

I would imagine something like that any autoconfirmed user can put a non-autoconfirmed user on moderation, or remove one from moderation. There might be varying levels of moderation: the first level would moderate only edits to articles, the next edits to any page other than one's own talk page, and the final one could moderate all edits. Finally, sysops would be able to remove autoconfirmed status in case of abuse, and would be able to moderate (or entirely block) anyone, including other sysops (but as now, they could probably unblock/unmoderate themselves, too).

Of course, sysops are still important here, but a lot less so. As I said, protection could in principle be replaced more or less entirely by FlaggedRevs (well, still keep the main page protected, I guess). Now about deletion . . . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Respect is always hard to obtain and once gained, easily lost. Creating a "trusted" user group would mean something that took a lot to obtain, but would be easily lost. I like it. However, I have no idea how it would be implemented, although probably the easiest way is to select one editor as trusted, and only trusted editors could contribute positively or negatively in the selection of other trusted editors. Wait, we already have that - isn't that the cabal? And yes we have long ago drifted off from technical implementation inappropriately into policy discussion. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(above discussion moved from wp:vpt to wp:vpp)

To allow some limited blocking or moderation of obvious vandals, preferably just IP vandals, by established editors sounds like a good idea. Providing it's not automatic, and there is some vetting before granting that right. In the very early days of WP, all users had sysop rights, but as WP grew, that was split off, and rightly so. Now that WP is immense, I think there is a need for other levels of user trust below that of admin. WP:Rollbacker is a good example and the caveats expressed there about reverting ONLY vandalism are good. Another example of new user rights; The WP:Flagged revisions page discussed new WP:Userrights for: Surveyors and Reviewers. All that to say that a usergroup could be created called "established editor" (I don't like the term trusted, since it implies that others may be untrusted) or preferably a new term that is unambiguous. The term Editor was also used in a test version of the Flagged Revision software (Editor and Reviewer as separate rights). — Becksguy (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the current process for granting blocking powers insufficient to extend such powers to those 1) who are established enough to be trusted with that power and 2) who are interested in using that power to police vandalism? Postdlf (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a 'blocker' usergroup, somewhere between the process of requesting rollback and adminship?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned above, blocking is the most serious of admin's abilities, and granting it w/o granting all the others makes no sense. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a systeme where all users (including IPs) had the power to block. Taht;s more in spirit of wiki. JeanLatore (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I even know who will use that button most often;) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There's one big disadvantage to splitting up admin tools: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some problems are better solved using page protection, and some using blocks. If someone only has a partial toolkit, there is natural tendency to apply the wrong tool for the job. Bovlb (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. To be honest I think the admin procedure has become way to strict. The original idea was that every editor in good standing (i.e. with a history of little conflict and good edits) would be able to become an admin. Look at the current admin nomination procedure and the third degree interrogation going on to establish whether someone is allowed to become one...... But that is another discussion entirely Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about scope of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Benjamin_Creme
• Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Is_this_notice_board_for_discussing_each_and_every_minor_religious_group?
• Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Project_crossovers,_or_not.
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Share_International

Andries (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...perhaps you should actually lay out the dispute here instead of just links? — Scientizzle 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the discussion on undersourced articles on minor religious groups that are works in progress should take place on the respective talk pages and not on the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard because that deals with balance and NPOV issues regarding scientific theories. Some other users disagree. Andries (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion has been about two articles that are, in my view problematic. Those are Benjamin Creme and Share International. Share International has been nominated for deletion [1]. I think that an AfD is more fair when there is maximum participation, and I encourage users to take a look at the article, and to comment on the AfD. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Malcolm Schosha, may be you can explain why the discussion of minor religious groups is on-topic on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, because I really do not understand your view on this. What balance/NPOV issues do these articles have or cause? What are the scientific theories that receive too much or too little weight?Andries (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

I certainly see how articles on fringe religious groups might warrant attention from the noticeboard...it's not solely limited to fringe science, particularly given that the guideline cites urban legends, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism and the like as examples of WP:FRINGE-relevant topics. — Scientizzle 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So then this would included Christianity and Islam and most other religions too because they also make claims that diverge from mainstream science. Andries (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article on Christianity or the article on Islam had problems with WP:FRINGE ... of course it would be appropriate to raise the issue at the Fringe Theories/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[EC]As I wrote above, WP:FRINGE doesn't just deal with fringe science, but any "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". For Christianity, as an example, claims regarding the how Apocryphal texts relate to New Testament scholarship might delve into FRINGE territory; if there were problems with undue weight given to non-mainstream views, certainly Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be a place in which to gather useful outside input and garner discussion. — Scientizzle 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

~:So how do these two article diverge from the views of the relevant experts in the field i.e. religious scholars? I do not see any balance issue. Andries (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your wires appear to be crossed. I'm not active on those pages so I don't know if Christianity and Islam have FRINGE issues or not. They were your examples. (And, so I'm not completely sidestepping the issue, supernatural claims by religions, such as resurrection, are dealt with in the scholarship of that religion, which meets the WP:FRINGE requirement of "prevailing views" in that "particular field of study".)

Maybe a more general explanation of how WP:FRINGE, and therefore the noticeboard, (should) work would help...?

• There is a notable subject X with a Wikipedia article.
• Scholarship on X has a readily cited consensus that A happened, with consequence J resulting.
• There exists a very small group of X enthusiasts that claim B happened and not A, and that J is a conspiracy perpetrated by the all-powerful X lobby.
  • This view demonstrably departs significantly from the prevailing/mainstream view, therefore...
  • In order to be covered by Wikipedia appropriately, we must gauge the level of in-depth, quality coverage:
    • If it's a substantial enough minority (with corresponding ample quality sources), B may deserve its own article (in which it can be discussed in detail with due representation of the mainstream view) and perhaps a link from the article on A from the "Criticism of A" section.
    • If it's an insubstantial view (and/or cannot be properly sourced), then it makes no appearance in Wikipedia.
    • If B is one of several alternate viewpoints, maybe they can be merged together in a "A denialism"-type article.

WP:FRINGE informs this, no matter what you substitute for any of those capital letters. The noticeboard, then, is an appropriate place to discuss relevant matters in the proper sourcing, weighting, and organization of alternate viewpoints. In some cases, even the existence of an article is undue weight. Between WP:FTN & the other noticeboards, FTN is a reasonable place to bring up concerns regarding the appropriate coverage of a non-mainstream topic, including religious cults. — Scientizzle 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand it. And following your reasoning, I think the treatment of minor religious groups on the noticeboards only because they are minor and undersourced is off-topic. The claims of most (minor and major alike) religious group are religious in nature and not conspiracy theories, nor (pretend to be) scientific, scholary, or pseudoscientific, or pseudohistorical. Andries (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

of course they have fringes issues. Jesus resurrected and the Koran was channelled. So that diverges both strongly from mainstream science. Andries (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, it was you, not me, who brought this issue here. Why are you asking me to explain the nature of the problem instead of doing that your self? Your position is that articles can be discussed nowhere but their own talk page; but you have not explained how you reached that conclusion, or why other users should agree with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to explain your own position on this because I sincerely cannot understand your position. Andries (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, you initiated this Village Pump discussion, but without any explanation. How am I supposed to know what your issue is if you refuse to explain it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cults, sects, and new religious movements and the discussion should go either there or on the talk pages of the article. Andries (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK... let me see if I understand... you believe that discussion of Fringe religious sects should not be discussed at WP:FTN... because... nope, still don't understand. Would you please explain? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The mere existence of an article on a minor religious group and its founder in itself is not enough reason for a discussion on the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard noticeboard, because they do not cause balance problems. The noticeboard has as its stated purpose NPOV problems, balance problems with regards to scientific theories. Andries (talk)

You created that page 12 minutes before posting this. That's not a Wikiproject, that's just plain weird. -- Kesh (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, in the Share International article you write: "The Share International website claims that Maitreya is not a religious leader, but rather an educator in the broadest sense of the word, whose coming signals the dawn of a golden age." Also the article claims a tie with Alice Bailey, who considered that she had founded an educational (2nd ray), not a religious (6th ray) movement. Considering that, why do you insist calling Share International a "new religious movement"? Either you must, for the sake of consistency, change what you are saying here or change the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I have no sources, but I cannot seriously doubt that it is religious movement. Andries (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, You were right: I changed the article. This sentence was not sourced to a reputable 3rd party source. Andries (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, in my opinion it is not about the "religion about Maitreya" that is a fringe theory, but about the existence of "share international" (just like the theory of creationism (introduced as belief, not as theory btw) can be considered a fringe theory, but the movement supporting it is real, and notable enough). Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, this isn't a "dispute" about any noticeboard, this is just a weak and transparent attempt at wikilawyering and making political noise in order to dodge the actual issue. Well known and persistently unserviceable approach to Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the issue? I am sincere in my belief that the mere existence of an article on a minor religious group and its founder in itself is not enough reason for a discussion on the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard noticeboard. The noticeboard has as its stated purpose NPOV problems, balance problems with regards to scientific theories. Andries (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

yes? your point being? The article wasn't discussed by virtue of being about a "minor religious group", the discussion did indeed surround npov and balance. Why are we discussing this? If you want to move the discussion to another noticeboard, suggest so, but don't start a meta-discussion for no reason. The article is on AfD now. Case closed. Is there any point to this section? dab (𒁳) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection policy proposal

There is a proposal at WT:PROT#Proposed change to policy to ensure that it is the "right" version (rather than the "current" version) that gets protected when protection is applied to stop edit wars.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the admin who places the the protection to know which is the "right" version? Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Engagement of brain, basically. But please continue the discussion at the policy talk page, not here, to avoid duplication.--Kotniski (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact don't even do that, since brains apparently prefer to remain disengaged, and the discussion has already closed as a clear rejection.--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What discussion? You yelled at everyone who disagreed with you and closed the discussion in seven hours, hours in which some of us were working or sleeping. There's no way to have an actual discussion under those terms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't remember yelling at anyone. I closed it because the proposal seemed to have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. Open it up again if you disagree.--Kotniski (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revisions: let's get this sorted

It would seem desirable that we finally agree on what to do about flagged revisions. There's a discussion continuing here where consensus seems to have been reached that we should implement them, but there are still outstanding issues that need to be settled before we do so. Please have a look.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm slightly puzzled: Why is this being debated in user space, and not at the proposal page Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions where it belongs? --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I'd hardly consider that userpage "consensus". --CapitalR (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, we should try to bring the various discussions together in one place (as already proposed on that userpage) and actually get something done.--Kotniski (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the proposals are different and some even predate the flagged revisions extension. I think the best thing to do would be to try to combine whatever bits had support into a new proposal as well as observe how it works on the German Wikipedia (I believe there are also plans to use it on the Russian Wikipedia as well). Mr.Z-man 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the central place for this kind of proposals would be Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and its subpages. There are two active proposals, Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions and Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions, where you may want to weigh in. Of course you're free to start a separate third proposal if you feel it's warranted; but please leave at least a link at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions so that people will be aware of it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as a reliable source...

I'm arguing this point over on the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources discussion page. Please join in.BcRIPster (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Input requested for propsed deletion addition: postponed deletions

I have presented this idea at AFD and it seems to have some legs, so I would like to get more input to improve it. Wikipedia:Postponed deletion would allow an editor during an AFD to request a four week delay in the deletion process to improve an article, primarily in cases where the AFD is the first time that the article's quality has been brought into question. After four weeks, such articles would be reviews and renominated for AFD if they still fail, as to prevent "cleanup limbo". --MASEM 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia logo

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of WP:DEADREF guideline

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Proposed rewrite of 'What to do when a reference link "goes dead"'. --BrainMarble (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Socks the trilogy

There is already a quality rating system in place. There are also plenty of guidelines to follow when it comes to quality and content. I was thinking that when an article met a certain quality rank it can then be locked. In a sense articles can be finished. In order to continue editing it would require approval by an admin or by sufficient consensus. Granted that might be difficult with certain current subjects that are undergoing changes. My point is that it is better to 'force' consensus than to have to deal with undos/reverts and vandalism. This would reduce make people resort to discussion than to run amock. If someone cannot find consensus from lack of other editors it can simply be approved by an admin. If the editor does any damage or edits in a way other than authorized then they will be blocked. Libro0 (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposals of this general nature have been discussed before. Postdlf (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. It does little to protect the less established articles. Would it be possible to require consensus? Or is consensus one of those things that are more of a suggestion than a rule. Libro0 (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is contrary to the way Wikipedia is intended to work. Blocks and locking of articles is only done as a temporary approach to specific problems. The internet is filled with static pages. Wikipedia is supposed to be something different. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. However, would it not be true that an article can eventually be more or less 'done'. Libro0 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Everything on Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if we believe, in theory, that an article can be "done," how would we determine that a particular article was, in fact, done? Postdlf (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Knight who said Ni above. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a collection of static pages you can only contribute to if you have the admin bit. Semiprotection is used to protect articles from common vandalism, and if something gets too bad, it gets fully protected for a while. In the case of articles such as Penis, the duration may be infinite because it's such a high-profile target. Blanket protecting all articles just because they're FA seems to be contrary to our pillars and ideals. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am not against this. But back to consensus. How about requiring it. Libro0 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Things can already be closed with "No consensus to change". I don't really understand what it is you're saying... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to consensus with regard to policy not article content. Libro0 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're saying. Are you still talking about locking FAs with no criteria other than being FAs? That's almost as bad of an idea as the credit card thing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I think you missed the spot where I said I was not against blocking FA's. I am now talking about people following the rules, namely by requiring consensus. Socks refuse to follow the rules. Maybe WP should be a little more harsh. If attempts to reach consensus through talk pages is disregarded then maybe this can constitute a reason to block a user or lock a page. Libro0 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring already gets pages locked and people to dispute resolution, whether they're socks or not. What new material are you proposing? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think WP should have less regulation, not more, in the spirit of a wiki. That is, no locking articles for ANY reason, no semi-protection for ANY reason, letting IPs create articles, disestablishment of the admin class, getting rid of the 3RR rule, and the "no legal threats" policy. Let the market, not bureaucracy, decide our path, man... JeanLatore (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there is too much wikilawyering, we don't anarchy either. So how many policies/guidelines should Wikipedia have without being bureaucratic or too rigid? --SMP0328. (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I really can't take you seriously at this point. There is no "market" on Wikipedia, despite your "suggestions" to create one. -- Kesh (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there may be a market of some sorts, but certainly not one we encourage. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions requested on a quick policy question

Disclaimer/assurance: This has nothing to do with WR, or anyone/anything that has shown up on AN/ANI the last couple of days.

It has something to do with an editor I'm dealing with via email, and I want to have things very clear in my head before I reply to them. I think, based on the past few WR threads on WP:ANI that I've stooped to reading, that I know how it works, but would like to be sure.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm 100% sure, and could document for ArbCom or someone if necessary, that User:AbleWiki on Wikipedia is the same person as AbleX on website X, and 100% sure that User:BakerWiki on Wikipedia is the same person as BakerX on website X. AbleX makes some truly offensive attacks on BakerX on website X, which would result in a rapid indef block if they had been made on Wikipedia. AbleWiki and BakerWiki have a history of fighting on Wikipedia, but neither has been blocked for it.

Am I correct that current policy is "what happens off Wikipedia stays off Wikipedia", and that no action is taken here against AbleWiki? That's my interpretation, but I'm not sure it's right. And based on the "Wikipedia is not a battleground", if AbleWiki was clever enough not to do anything further against BakerWiki on Wikipedia, and BakerWiki retaliated against AbleWiki here, I'd actually have to warn and eventually block BakerWiki, and leave AbleWiki alone, even though I know for a fact that AbleWiki is the true weasel? --barneca (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only time off-wiki behavior is punishable on-wiki is outing an editor's RL identity. -- Kesh (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, take Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying, for instance. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries

A new guidleine regarding plot summaries is being discussed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hit Counter Proposal

Why don't we put a "hit counter" on every single wikipedia article. That way we can track how many times a page has been viewed and how popular it is. Or does the nature of the wiki software prevent hits from being counted? JeanLatore (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the software is such that counting hits is not meaningful, and the two billion visits a day mean that trying to set up a proper hit counter would kill the website. --Carnildo (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But apparently is now possible: http://stats.grok.se/ x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know who's hitting the page? Would it be helpful to know if the pages were read by editors, versus readers? A page gets an edit, and a couple dozen people check it to see if it was vandalism? Helpful? Meaningful? -Freekee (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really useful. The squid caching cluster allows this (raw data available here), but we'd have to start hosting it on Wikimedia servers. I don't really see how what this does for the project, though; specifically, what benefit would this add? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think there are better uses to server capacity; the meaningfulness of the counters will be fairly low because of editor/reader diffs anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A possible work around for this would be to allow embedded objects[2] as long as they had no visible content, in this way the strain would be passed onto third party websites although there are several problems with this idea such as that the third party sites would have access to the users IP. - Icewedge (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TFAQ#Can I add a page hit counter to a Wikipedia page? hit counting is a feature of the Wikimedia software but it's turned off for performance reasons. Even access logging is typically turned off in the squid front ends for performance reasons, so I'm not sure how http://stats.grok.se/ works. I don't think adding invisible tracking images to all pages would even be considered - note that the strain of fetching the invisible image would be a far greater performance hit than keeping access logs in the squids. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The external hit counter works by having each Squid cache send a UDP packet out for each hit. This keeps the load on the cache servers reasonable, but means that hits will be lost if the stats server is overloaded, or if there's network trouble. --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Source question

Is an album's booklet a verifiable source? How should such a citation look like? If I write "In the insert booklet of "some album", the band notes blah blah blah." - is it a sourced statement as it stands?--  LYKANTROP  20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it is just as much the primary source as the album lyrics itself are, and most likely self-serving. JeanLatore (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, but of course it depends on the subject matter, and whether it's something controversial. First off, I would recommend using a <ref> tag instead of writing it out as a sentence in the body of the article. Album notes (once popularly known as liner notes) are published and verifiable info, and can certainly be quoted for hard info such as who played what instruments, where and when the album was recorded, etc. If there are opinions being expressed by members of the band, I fail to see how self-published quotes are inferior to media quotes, for example, and I'm not sure what the "self-serving" concern is about. I haven't looked at Lykantrop's recent edits to see if I can find the subject in question, but if you want to provide a link, do go ahead. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to know generally if it is verifiable. I know the WP:SELFPUB rule very well.--  LYKANTROP  09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This has come up over at WP:RSN before, and the consensus was that liner notes WERE a RS, (and therefore verifiable). DigitalC (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on editorial over-focusing

I have a question about a type of behaviour, not an editor. It is a question that specifically doubts good faith and yes this question is prompted by an editor who shall remain nameless. I think it is appropriate to not identify who. If I am wrong then no harm is done by asking this nameless question, and if I am right then I will follow official dispute resolution processes starting with discrete personal discussions with this other editor whom I will call "Editor1" for this discussion. As you read this please keep in mind my question is about WP perspectives and/or policy on the kind of behaviour described, not a specific editor.

I have been involved in editing a set of related articles that have been difficult to source. Editor1 is one of those wikipedians whom I assume in good faith tries to improve WP by aggressively challenging unsourced or poorly sourced material. All of that is well and good. My concern is as follows... Based on an offhand comment by another editor of those articles I looked at the contribution history of Editor1 and it seems that roughly 90% of his challenges over the past year have been on topics that go against his personal belief systems. While the challenges are technically done correctly it seems to me that the targetting of a group of articles and more importantly a subset of specific topics within those articles could represent a hidden agenda to bias the articles. Perhaps even an unintentional/subconscious agenda.

If Editor1 truely is trying to improve WP by seeking out faulty citations shouldn't his edits cover a wider range of topics than only (mostly) those he disagrees with? Faulty and missing citations are easily found everywhere on WP. Does this represent a broad-spectrum violation of WP:OWN or any other WP "rules" ? 66.102.205.150 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, it is much easier for people to to challenge ideas they oppose than to guess what the weak points in their own arguments are. The standard of supporting evidence on the English Language Wikipedia required here has increased significantly in the last few years (and articles which are widely accepted on smaller WPs have to fight for survival here). The "I'm an expert and this is obvious" school of thought is giving way to the "This reliable source says" school. I have seen this lead to tension in a number of cases. The latter school is perfectly acceptable in, for example, Wikinfo. I think Wikipedia is big enough that there will be readers with all opinions, so the bias in improvements of one particular editor will balance out overall, giving a well sourced body of knowledge in all areas. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

True Stephen, however the aggresive nature of this behaviour is causing a clear pattern of sentences, paragraphs, "poorly formatted" citations, whole subsections and even whole articles being tagged and removed only to eventually be brought back with obvious but difficult to find reliable sources (mostly due to being offline and specialized texts).

Is the material unsourced or poorly sourced? Yes - at first edit it often is.

Should they remain on WP as such? No, not forever ... but the WP:INSPECTOR essay suggests much wisdom on this matter.

Can these articles be validly sourced? Yes, allowing for a cooperative effort and time to do research.

Are there editors willing to do such work on these articles? Yes, but dwindling in number because reluctance to do so is increasing as a result of these behaviours.

I realize that WP:INSPECTOR is only an essay, yet it strikes me as significant that this particular behavior flies almost 100% in the face of every suggestion in that essay. 66.102.205.150 (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the easiest solution would be to find the sources, and re-add the material with citations. Unless the editor is being disruptive, there's really not much else to go on here. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the trend towards good sourcing, if the fact mentioned is obvious to anyone, or otherwise would never be questioned by a reader, a citation is not necessary. But keep in mind that your view might be biased as well, if it's a topic you're very familiar with. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a few cite tags. Let him place them. Try not to get upset at the implication that the article is less than perfect. But don't let the info be removed unless there's a real possibility that it is untrue. -Freekee (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can feel with the anonymous editor. I have seen a section on city transport naming the numbers (E27, E12 etc.) of the highways connecting to this city being deleted without warning as this information was not sourced (this has actually happened). Anyone owning a map of the region could easily have checked, or you could turn onto the road and read the signs. I think the tagging and deletion has become a goal in itself for many (rather than a means of improving wikipedia as a whole). Arnoutf (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've come across one who's reducing articles to stubs in particular area, will not discuss, is seemingly abusive, non-negotiable and cite-righteous. They don't seem to contribute to articles and focus on a particular area almost as if they were a specific-type account (I forget the correct term for it). If they weren't an IP, it would amount to a kind of vandalism. Disruptive is a euphemism. Is there any recourse re someone like that? I'm willing to walk away, but I see where that's pretty common in response to this one and it's a pity if this behaviour is too effective. Any advice greatly welcome, thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Julia I think we are talking about the same editor but that really isn't important (see below). What saddens me is your comment I'm willing to walk away, but I see where that's pretty common in response to this one and it's a pity if this behaviour is too effective. I hope you will not walk away but I think you've clarified for me my own concern. Is the effect of such behaviour to cause opposing editors to walk away? I will not ask if the intent is to create that effect, but I am concerned that this could be used in the future as a very subtle disruptive strategy and so I am seeking input on if this is or should be allowed.

There are policy instances where single edits by multiple users have been equivalenced with multiple edits by one user. This issue feels related to that concept somehow. 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback so far. Unfortunately I feel the heart of my question was missed - perhaps because the editor Julia and I know of should never have been mentioned and I should have asked in a more hypothetical way. Let me try that now...

All editors at WP are supposed to do things that improve and add value to the encyclopedia, and certainly pointing out missing citations does do that. My question is: Does pointing out missing citations only for topics which one dislikes (or disagrees with) constitute a problem? Doesn't that amount to an attempt to destroy specific material by nibbles rather than improve the encyclopedia? If an editor is concerned about missing citations should they not be applying that concern with a wider paintbrush? 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If it shows a disruptive pattern of behavior, yes. It's really hard to say for sure without knowing the situation, though. Some people are here because they're interested in one particular subject/group of subjects, and will excise any unsourced statements because they want to make sure only verifiable facts are presented. As an example, I've been keeping an eye on a few cryptid pages because people like to toss in personal "sightings" and wild claims about the subject. I've offended a few posters because their pet theory/prank edit got reverted. So, it's hard to say without knowing the situation. If you really think this editor's work is disruptive, or based on an agenda, it's best to take it to WP:RfC. -- Kesh (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixing questions posted to Reference Desk in all uppercase letters

From time to time, (inexperienced) users post questions to the Reference Desk in all uppercase letters. Quite predictably, the questions are responded to with comments that posting in all uppercase is the equivalent of yelling. In my observations, usually neither the original poster nor the commentators who pointed out the problem would do anything about the problem. I think it is harmless for others to fix stylistic problems like this but I hesitate to do it because I don't know whether it is an accepted practice or something frowned upon.

I propose that fixing formatting problems in questions posted to the Reference Desk be recognized as accepted practice.

What are your thoughts?

While we are at it, what are your thoughts about fixing broken English in Reference Desk questions?

Of course, all this talk about fixing problems in posted questions assumes that the meanings of the questions are not altered. --71.162.233.156 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen – on more than one occasion – cases where a 'helpful' editor has in good faith 'corrected' an 'error' of spelling or grammar, and their change has a) not been necessary, as the 'error' is simply a regional variant of English; b) introduced a new or different spelling or grammar error; and/or c) has altered the meaning of a question completely (by, for example, 'correcting' an obscure or archaic term to a word with a similar spelling but completely different meaning). Per Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers, it's a bad idea to mess with anyone else's signed comments. In general, we don't 'fix' anything except broken markup (unintentional leading spaces, unclosed formatting tags, etc.).

In other words, while the intent of the 'fixers' is almost always to preserve the meaning of the question, the effect is not always what might be desired. If you see a question that's in ALL CAPS, you might offer a polite explanation to the original poster about netiquette and YELLING. If the question is lengthy enough that the ALL CAPS interfere with reading or understanding it, consider reposting the question in the same section properly formatted and under your own signature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be. Some people get very angry if you refactor their text, even just taking off all-caps. Too many people feel that you're insulting them by doing so, and it's not worth the fighting. If you can figure out what they're talking about just make a polite pointer about proper typing, and then answer the question. If not, a polite request for clarification is all that's needed. -- Kesh (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, leave it be. Explain but they may save/bookmark the anchored URL and when they discover such a link doesn't exist any more, there is every chance an angry person comes along. After all, it doesn't do any real harm to anyone reading because if it's obvious the user isn't shouting, then it's not harmful. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, leave it be. I got "reprimanded" once, for changing a term in someone's comment to a wikilink. While I still feel it should have been perfectly fine for me to do so, the person whose comment it was was not happy. We shouldn't be making people unhappy, especially at the reference desk. -Freekee (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Namespace?

are there any rules about namespace pages? Guitarplayer001 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "namespace page" is but there are some restrictions on certain namespaces, such as "no fair-use images outside of the Main namespace". Could you be a little more specific? x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the links, that's pretty much what I was looking for, searched for it, couldn't find it. so thanks. *problem resolved* Guitarplayer001 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

is it just me or does nobody make comments or even check the "editor review" list anymore? JeanLatore (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The best way to get people to do an editor review on you is to advertise the fact that you are looking for feedback. Do this by adding a link to the editor review to your signature. That way people who interact with you (positively and negatively) will know that you want feedback. But no, editor review is an area where a lot of people don't partake. It takes 2-4 hours to do a decent editor review on somebody, and most people aren't willing to spend that kind of time on a stranger.Balloonman (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar experience last year with no repsonse to my request, and I guess I never took the time to comment on others. I like Balloonman's idea. But, if you are posted there I'll take a peek. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of dead crime victims

Are the dead victims of crimes entitled to privacy? Does the concept of BLA extend to the survivors of victims in some way? Are our articles enriched by including the names of crime victims? Thanks for any ideas. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the dead victims of crimes entitled to privacy?

I don't see why they should, since the can no longer be harmed by an "invasion" of their privacy. However, family members still maintain their rights to privacy.

Does the concept of BLA extend to the survivors of victims in some way?

Only to information about the survivors themselves. However, the victim is not explicitly covered by WP:BLP since the victim is no longer alive.

Are our articles enriched by including the names of crime victims?

That depends very much on the circumstances. Was there anything significant about how the person was murdered or how the body was found? Was it the allege murderer's only victim or one of many? How much news coverage was there of the murder? In most respects, it is a judgment call on how much detail to include and the significants of those details. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the victim was notable themselves, I don't see a reason to include their name in an article about the crime. As Farix mentioned, the victim's families are still affected by this, and I'd say the spirit of WP:BLP1E applies. If the only thing the victim is known for is being a victim, there's no real reason to include them. There are exceptions, such as if the victim's family makes it a point to bring them up in the media repeatedly, but the average crime victim isn't going to get that kind of treatment. -- Kesh (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Amending the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale - community input requested

(cross-posting to several noticeboards)

We've had a considerable amount of discussion discussing the merits and drawbacks of the current assessment scale, and it has resulted in two proposals. The first consists of moving the {{A-Class}} assessment level below {{GA-Class}}; the other is the addition of a new {{C-Class}} scale between {{B-Class}} and {{Start-Class}}. We'd like the community to voice its opinion about these propsals here. Thanks, Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The status of the Wikipedia:Logos policy

The status of the Wikipedia:Logos policy has been changed to an "essay". While I cannot see that there was consensus for this change, I think it would be good to have some input from other users. I am myself getting more and more confused over this matter. At what extent can we use logos in Wikipedia articles? Whether the WP:LOGOS page stays as a policy or not, I think this it would be helpful to make policy clearer on this matter. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos. --Kildor (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Am I allowed to upload scanned pictures from my own Bible or Qur'an? License/Copyright? Thanks for answers.--  LYKANTROP  15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is probably no. Generally not unless the physical book in your hand was physically published over 95 years ago. You may own the books but you are not the publisher, the editor, the author, or in the case of illustrations the artist. If you are talking about scanned text then better you just post the text (if the text is not copyrighted. Note that most revised and/or translated works are often copyrighted). If you are talking about scanned images then again you have to determine if the image was copyrighted (even ancient images may be copyrighted because the photograph of those images is a new product involving the skill of the photographer and the skill of the printer to transfer that image to paper). 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Under U.S. law, the photograph of a 2-D work (such as a painting or another photograph) does not qualify as a new copyrighted work, because American copyright law does not protect applications of skill, only creative expression. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., Template:PD-art-life-70. A photo of a sculpture or other 3-D work may be copyrighted, however. Postdlf (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why you are allowed to put up a photo of a bible published more than 95 years ago (i.e. a bible design now in the public domain) but not of a more recent version (i.e. a version that is still under copyright protection). Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Unless you're talking about something that is now under public domain under US copyright law (such as Webster's revision of the King James bible, which was published in 1833 and has since lost its status as a copyrighted work). In that case, you would be free to scan the whole thing page by page and do pretty much whatever you wanted with it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For example: My version of Qur'an was published in in 1974. The picture (not just a text) I want to upload one short Sura (chapter in Qur'an) that is "written in famous traditional turkish calligraphy". For an amateur it actually looks like a persian carpet. The picture is definitely hundreds years old. The author is unknown. Is it a public domain? --  LYKANTROP  17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That might qualify as a Fair-use image of the calligraphy in question, but I'm not terribly familiar with the image guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)