User:Titodutta/Essays/Requested Move: Ideas and Opinions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The aim of this essay is to discuss on the common mistakes made in Wikipedia:RM discussions. Or in other and more clear and appropriate words this essay aims to make a list of "Ideas and opinions" on how we can provide better arguments in Wikipedia move discussions.

Number of results in Google search[edit]

This is a common thing to mention number of search results in RM debates, but one needs to be careful for the following reasons–

  • Not the exact term: If quoted query (i.e. "Query") is not used Google shows you lots of results where the search words are in different sentences. For example you search Jenks24 and you get result– Mary, Jenks, Adam went to Oxford on 24 September, last year..
  • Common name: There are many common names. If you search with query like Bob, Adams or Michael (even if you use quotes), you'll get results of many more Bob or Adams or Michael other than the person you are searching about.
  • Number of search results: You'll often find Google is telling you they have 200,000 or so results for your query. But, if you browse to page 5 or 6, the same Google will tell you "There are no more results". There is a joke "What's is the world's safest place to hide?" The answer is– Google search's page 5 or 6. Because no body goes there. And since we generally don't browse till page 5 or 6 of search results we often miss that Google actually does not have that number of results.
  • Not aliens, it is we who make the web: As a result, in Google results you'll many wrong information. You'll find lots of Facebook, Orkut, Twitter, below standard personal websites, forum discussions, Youtube videos. These results are also counted towards total number of search results.
    • Wikipedia Mirrors: There are many mirror sites. Suppose I am requesting move of article AB to article AC. Now many WP:Mirrors have copied the Wikipedia article AB. If you search in Google, you get these results too which should be eliminated before presenting total number of search results.

Reliable sources are not reliable always[edit]

  • Self-contradictory: Yesterday I have started another essay to make a list of self-contradictions in reliable sources. For example see this. In the image caption and article body they are using two different spelling for same person's name.

Yesterday I have started an article Unnati Davara, now please see in Times of India, in this (and in few more articles) they are using the spelling "Unnati Davara", here they are using spelling "Unnati Davra" and here they are using both spelling in same article (see article body and image caption).

  • Differences between different reliable sources: This might be funny. Few months ago, I started an article Mon Bole Priya Priya, Times of India in their review told, the name of hero (male protagonist) is Akash, and Telegraph, Calcutta in this article is saying the name of the character is Arjun.
  • Differently covered by different journalists: In this RM I showed that in different articles of same newspaper, they are using different spelling. ell, since it is a draft, I am not giving more examples now. But, I can give more examples if needed. Now, I think, this kind happens because different articles are written/covered by different journalists. And these journalists write depending on their own knowledge/opinion.
  • RSs may have their own opinion

For example, I have seen Times of India always uses the spelling Kaushik (for example Kaushik Ganguly, Kaushik Sen, Kaushik Mukherjee). The alternative spelling is Koushik which is also acceptable (you'll find Telegraph using it). It might be their practice to use the spelling Kaushik for the Bengali word. Or, in a broader sense, some RSs may follow their own rules. You'll see Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika (which has most number of subscribers) write some Bengali spelling in different way. Now, if it so, we should think before adding such examples in RM discussion.

  • RSs POV

This point is is continued from the last point. Some RSs (newspapers etc) write with the idea "What should be" and not "What is". They may have have their own dreams of social reform, language reform, spelling reform. But, I am not sure about they importance of these reformation dreams in WP RMs.

Practices[edit]

Bad practice Good practice
NCherry picking
Presenting only those results where one's own points are supported
YesY Stay neutral. Present those results too which are against your arguments (specially if you are RM creator). The aim of an RM discussion should be finding the correct and the best article title, not just winning in an RM debate.
NVote without explanation like "I support it", "I oppose" or "Per ABC" (if ABC's comment is also weak) YesY Detailed explanation of your support or oppose
N Some Admin OR Bureaucrat OR Jimobo Wales OR a woman/man/girl/boy I like has proposed this move (or supported or opposed the move), then I must support him/her YesY Don't follow anyone blindly. Say what you feel

How to prepare a good RM argument[edit]

  • Search in Google with inurl:gov in query. For example, Unnati Davara inurl:gov. Government results are genrally considered as reliable.
  • Search in Google Books (specially accialmed authors and notable publishers).
  • Search in Google Scholars.