Wikipedia talk:Blanking sections sometimes violates policies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's impact scale.
 

Thoughts[edit]

Hmmm. Having just discovered this essay, I consider it incorrect. Blanking sections is potentially justified under two policies: WP:BOLD and WP:IAR (and sometimes a third, WP:BLP). While it's not a great approach to editing, I would say that if you see a section which is seriously problematic (beyond your ability to edit it into accordance with our policies), blanking it is better than doing nothing. If someone else reverts and restores the section, no harm done (and then you should take it up with them); if not, presumably other editors agreed with your decision to remove it (see WP:Silence and consensus). Bold action like that is how most progress on Wikipedia gets made (see WP:BRD). Discussing a potential removal first is preferable, but not always necessary.

Additionally, I have to object to the suggestion that blanking part of an article is equivalent to deleting it (or nominating it for deletion). The major difference is that blanking is easily reversible by anybody, whereas deletion is not. For that reason, blanking is far less serious than deletion, and it is not necessary to always inform an editor before you remove their edits from an article.

Finally, I just want to make the point that an action taken in good faith with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia is not vandalism, although if it is not adequately explained it may well appear as such to others. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I understand your point-of-view, in wanting to emphasize the rare exceptions when instant blanking would be allowed. However, many WP policies clearly state that blanking (or wholesale rewriting) of sections is an extremely rare situation. If that rarity is not noted as being "very, very rare" then the door is opened to simply claim WP:IAR and then violate every policy, every second of the day, which is, in effect, what has been happening. I would amend WP:IAR to warn it should be used no more than "3 times per article" or "5 times per day" by a single person. The result has been severe chaos in hacking numerous articles, while claiming self-righteous justifications. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: For further issues, it is misleading to claim that blanking is easily reversible by anybody while deletion is not; instead, they are both easily reversed, by editing. I have recreated numerous deleted articles, and the resistance depends on what is in the new page, as well as people violently opposed to an article's title as a separate page. Blanking sections is akin to deleting whole articles, because if all sections are blanked, then the article becomes empty, thus effectively deleting the article (except for the title) without WP:AfD consensus. -Wikid77 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In any case, per The policy on biographies of living persons,

    Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced

    (emphasis added). Thus, if the section consists exclusively of such material, it will probably be blanked. Bk314159 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
However, policy WP:BLP advises to rewrite such material rather than merely delete all text. See essay: WP:BLPMEND for more details. -Wikid77 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Robofish. This is a highly problematic essay which was encouraging violations several core pillars, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I've deleted those passages. I really wonder if this even belongs in project space being obviously designed as an essay arguing for extreme inclusionism. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Wikipedia:Blanking sections sometimes violates policies per the suggestion of BarrelProof. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policiesWikipedia:Blanking sections may violate several policies – There are circumstances where section blanking is perfectly legitimate. Per WP:V, unsourced content that needs a source may be removed. JFH (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --JFH (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • How about WP:Blanking considerations? Apteva (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    That would be OK, but the content of the article would need to change. Currently the article seems heavily biased toward discouraging blanking. It doesn't even mention that blanking is highly recommended or mandatory under some circumstances, and the opening section of the article is cautionary against blanking. It relegates other cases to be "exemptions" to a general rule about not blanking. Also, we already have Wikipedia:Page blanking, which this article mentions only as part of a long list under "See also". Since we have that, do we need this? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia:Blanking sections sometimes violates policies. Excellent suggestion, BarrelProof. Though it's not my essay. Red Slash 07:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one confused by the use of the term "blanking" here? "Blanking" to me is what vandals do to pages, what new users do to try to delete a page. If you're removing a section of an article because it's crap—localized WP:TNT, if you will—this seems perfectly legitimate, and this essay amounts to a lot of clucking and finger-wagging over not very much. Sure, in most cases this isn't the sort of change that should be made unilaterally, but I can't really think of a reason I'd ever want to link someone to this page; I'd just use WP:BRD. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.