Wikipedia:Update/1/Content policy changes, January 2010 to June 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Content policy changes, June 2010







May 2010


  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
    • In the introduction, added: "Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
    • In WP:BLP#Attack pages, changed: "BLPs" [that are unsourced and negative ...] to: "Pages"
    • In WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, added: "... what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." Changed: [Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should] "bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard." to: "consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption."
    • In WP:BLP#Privacy of names, changed: [The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons,] "without independent notability." to: "otherwise low-profile persons."
    • In WP:BLP#Non-article space, changed: [Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced,] "poorly sourced, or" [not related to making content choices, should be removed ...] to: "or poorly sourced and"
    • In WP:BLP#Deceased, added: "Any individual that would currently be less than 123 years old is assumed to be living unless a reliable source has confirmed death."
    • In WP:BLP#Legal persons and groups, added: [The policy does not] "normally" [apply to edits about corporations, ...]. Changed: "With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." to: "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP situation than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw any distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources."





April 2010




  • Wikipedia:No original research
    • Substantial changes to the introduction
    • Removed from WP:NOR#Reliable sources: "If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. Once your discovery has been published in a reliable source, it may be referenced."



  • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
    • A footnote was added to the introduction (now reverted)
    • In WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored, added: "Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information from being displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion from showing a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."
March 2010



February 2010
Note
"article names" was changed to "article titles" in several policy pages, corresponding to the renaming of that policy page.


  • Wikipedia:Article titles
    • Generally, changed "article name" to "article title"
    • In the introduction, added: [It] "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies ..."
    • In WP:TITLE#Common names, changed: "... it is often reasonable to assume that sources will be switching to the new name. It is not necessary to give weight to sources which are known to be out of date. When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name, use the official name (as defined in a legal context, for example, such as a national constitution), or the name that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. (For foreign terms, see the next section.)" to: "... it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best."
    • Changed WP:TITLE#Considering name changes to WP:TITLE#Considering title changes, and added: "While titles for articles are subject to consensus," [do not invent names as a means of compromising ...]
    • Added to WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source: "... it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;"
    • New subsection, WP:BLP#Special considerations


  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, previous selected version
    • In the introduction, added: "... nor does this policy apply to people legally declared dead in absentia."
    • In WP:BLP#Rationale, added: "It noted that there are problems with biographies of living persons that are overly promotional in tone, that are vandalized, and that contain errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect."
    • In WP:BLP#Templates, added: "{{Blpo}} is suitable for other articles containing information on people that are deceased but has information pertaining to others that are still alive."


  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
    • Removed several paragraphs from WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and added: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration when reporting on recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Also removed a subsection heading, and changed: "from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." to: "or from fairly explaining the significant-minority views, or even the tiny-minority theories if the latter are represented."
    • WP:NPOV#Point of view (POV) and content forks was rewritten.


  • Wikipedia:No original research
    • In the introduction, added: "All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text." Added: "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."


  • Wikipedia:Verifiability, previous selected version
    • In WP:V#Burden of evidence, after [The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.], added a footnote: "This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to provide a citation to the source of the statement." Added: [Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but] "whether and" [how quickly this should happen depends ...]


January 2010

See the Update talk page for discussion about the selected versions.



  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions
    • In WP:NAME#Common names, added: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."
    • In WP:NAME#Explicit conventions, added: [This practice] "of using specialized names" [is often controversial]. Changed: "uncommon" to: "common".




  • Wikipedia:Verifiability, selected version
    • Added to the nutshell: [published source] "using an inline citation. This applies to all articles, lists, and sections of articles, without exception."
    • In the introduction, changed: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations, and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." to: "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately."
    • In WP:V#Reliable sources, shuffled text around and reworded since December, but without any significant changes
    • In WP:V#Questionable sources, removed: "Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."
    • In WP:V#Non-English sources, changed: "Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article." to: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. ... When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline."