Wikipedia talk:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline

Where this should be discussed

This should be discussed at Mediawiki talk:tagline I think and this page redirected there rather than that here. -Splash 04:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Per your comment, "Why this page was created" is added to main page. Link to Mediawiki talk:tagline was already in place. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 18:30, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Disclaimer prominence

There is no need for the disclaimer to be so prominent. In fact, I think it would do more harm than good. Our disclaimer is already more prominent than those of most other encyclopedias, and that is sufficient. Pcb21| Pete 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the disclaimer does not need to be so prominent. I also think the source of our articles and mode of operation does need to be more prominent. The average person comes here, thinks it's a traditional encyclopedia, and trusts everything they read. This is a very bad situation. - Omegatron 20:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I've moved up the disclaimer prominence concern in the "reasons against" section and added another Version that doesn't use "disclaimer". Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 04:43, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

I support proposal 6, mentioning that anyone can edit, and referring to the disclaimer, but without links. It is short enough to fit on one line, clarifies the distinctiveness of this encyclopedia compared with others, and plants the thought that a new user might want to seek out the disclaimer. It does not distract with extra links.

I feel that it is important to mention the disclaimer on the first screen (rather than at the bottom of the page) so that any elementary school students using the Wikipedia are prompted to think about the quality of information provided on each page. Mamawrites 09:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I've added the elementary school student comment to "reasons for". Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 11:30, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

I oppose this change

I oppose this change on the grounds that all of the proposed alternatives are aesthetically awful. The tagline is short and sweet and should stay that way. We should not lack self-confidence and feel we have to put a disclaimer on everything.--Jimbo Wales 12:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive J#Wikipedia disclaimer?

We can't just stick out heads in the sand and pretend that our articles will be free from vandalism and inaccuracy when a newcomer visits from a google link and trusts everything they read as much as they would a traditional encyclopedia.

We don't trust everything we read on the Wikipedia; we're constantly looking for bits that need updating or vandalism that needs to be removed. We shouldn't encourage an atmosphere where newcomers trust the content more than we do.

My proposal was simply:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Short, sweet, optimistic, and clues in newcomers as to the source of our information. - Omegatron 14:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I like it, how can one say this is aesthetically awful? The aethetics of the page will change depending on the monitors resolution. Many of us see these pages in completely different ways, not to mention all the different wikipedia skins. At the end of the day it's the content that is important. We need to protect the 'green' users. Let's educate them, not hide the disclaimer at the bottom. David D. (Talk) 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I have added your comments to "reasons against" under disclaimer too prominent and doesn't scan well. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:57, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

I believe the argument based on aesthetics is a valid concern. (See counter proposal subsection below.) However, I respectfully disagree with the argument concerning lack of self confidence. To the contrary, I believe Wikipedia is superior to traditional encyclopedias in many ways, and I particularly don't think there is any need for the proposed disclaimer to apologize for possible inaccuracies (see last part of "background" on project page.) The current disclaimer is very thorough, but not very visible. The idea of an improved disclaimer is to help point out the positive differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias, while also ensuring readers understand that articles are not "approved" in a formal sense. Rather, Wikipedia achieves accuracy (and I think our articles are indeed generally accurate) by relying on the collaborative process. --Wyatts 00:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal to separate this proposal from the tagline

The original idea from the Village pump had nothing to do with the tagline per se. We were discussing the possible need for placing a simple disclaimer statement at the top of every page to make it more visible. Since the tagline was already there on every page, the tagline became the suggested vehicle for the proposed disclaimer statement. But there is no reason why the disclaimer statement must be incorporated into the tagline. I agree that aesthetics are important. And the disclaimer issue is also important. Maybe we should not mess with the tagline and investigate a better way to incorporate a more visible disclaimer statement separately from the tagline. --Wyatts 00:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my problem isn't so much related to the disclaimer itself, either. I just think newcomers should realize the very basics of how articles are created before they start reading their first one, so they can approach with caution where caution is due. - Omegatron 00:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. I updated the my original wording above. It's the visibility of the disclaimer, not the disclaimer itself. I don't think newcomers should have to read the fine print to understand the basics. --Wyatts 00:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that this is required now. Article standards are higher than ever, and much better than the average wepage. Pcb21| Pete 09:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put the village pump on your watchlist. :-) - Omegatron 10:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Most, if not all, sections already are, but it is quite possible I just tune out this sort of question. WOuld you mind pointing me to a discussion or two that shows this is a problem? Pcb21| Pete 11:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I have added a section to this project page for users to cite articles showing a problem. I have asked Linda Estabrook, David91, and Mamawrites (who posted discussions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive J#Wikipedia_disclaimer) to help. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:49, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Please state specifics of the counterproposal, relative to current article page format, with tagline being first line under article title:

1. WHERE would the text go?

2. WHAT text?

NOTE: Do you still want the proposed text on every page?

Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:14, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

A slight change

May I suggest that any change to the tagline (which, by the way, I would not be in favour of) exclude the full stop (period) at the end of the phrase. It is not a sentence (it has no verb or subject), and to my mind it looks clumsy. No doubt there is some American convention to shout me down, but I just thought I'd mention it... [[smoddy]] 14:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: A valid point. Will keep it recorded here in Talk. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 14:13, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Apologies

I seem to be arriving rather late in the day. Thank you for the invitation but I do not come bearing gifts of sample pages as requested. Because any material may be altered, whether for the better or worse, at any time, any given number of innocent readers may view a page before the next edit takes place. Hence, the focus of attention should always be on the disclaimer to guard against the possibility that even one reader accesses the page while errors are on display. I see no point in making prominent some form of advertising slogan about Wiki being a free source of information created by all-comers. Since the policy here is not to lock pages once a good 'pedia standard has been reached (the presumption against further additions could be rebutted for cause), the need is to warn naive users in the clearest possible terms of the dangers in accepting any page as giving reliable information. -David91 19:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: This supports "reasons for" and is good to keep on the record here on the talk page. It would help very much if we could point to some current pages (or their edit history) where clearly inaccurate information was presented. Thanks for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 01:31, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

"Free"

My biggest complaint with all the proposed changes to MediaWiki:Tagline is that they all keep the word free, which is a rather ambiguous word which suggests things that Wikipedia is not. It should really say "From Wikipedia, the gratis encyclopedia," or perhaps "From Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia" (although that gets into another set of double-entendres). Almafeta 20:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are actually proposing either of these changes. I simply struggle to work out what possible other meaning of free could possibly be read into this. I mean, would anyone really think this meant that we thought most other encyclopaedias are in captivity? [[smoddy]] 20:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most other modern encyclopedias are held captive by copyright law. I think the freedom meaning of "the free encyclopedia" is the most important and the one emphasized in translations of Wikipedia's logo. — David Remahl 12:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered new users who think "free" means "there are no rules. write about whatever you want". The tagline at the top of the page is, I think, just a shortened version of the tagline on the main page. Maybe we should just expand it to the same thing, links and all. - Omegatron 23:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE: There is a discussion comment about the word "free" included under reason 1 for change, and the word is actually removed in proposed change version 11. Will keep these additional comments here for the record. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 22:23, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Well, isn't that extremely suitable. Is it mere coincidence that Syme was working on the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak dictionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four? "[The] definitive edition."

We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day.

The word "free" in particular was discussed in the appendix on Newspeak:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of ' politically free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.

In short, I very strongly oppose the motion to remove "free", describing intellectual freedom, from Wikipedia's tagline. — David Remahl 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with a science page

Sorry I'm late to the party. As an educator I think Wikipedia definitely needs a more visible disclaimer. I never noticed the one at the bottom until it was pointed out in this discussion. If the disclaimer is not in the tag itself, such as "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Articles are user-created in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer." in proposed change version 3, then it should at least be on the top some where.

I'll give one example of an article that is clearly confusing and actually wrong. It is a featured article on action potentials listed in the biology section. Looking back in the archive (Dec 2003) that article was not too bad. Since then there have been many changes. When I first started reading the article there were three parts that led me to comment on the talk page for the article. First someone had kindly drawn a diagramatic representation of the action potential. This picture was added with minor revisions July 2004 and minimal comment.

Releveant paraphrased quotes from the action potential talk page are as follows:

"I redrew the action potential image, would anyone object if I replaced the current image with my version?" --Diberri | Talk 17:22, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)"

Three other users accepted this figure.

"Nevermind asking for permission. I decided to be bold and make the change." --Diberri | Talk 17:49, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
"Fine with me. The new pic looks good." Sayeth
"No problems. Looks good, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

It took eleven month before another user questioned the validity of this figure.

"Is the refractory period a) that long and b) is the hyperpolarisation so "hyper" (ie does it go so negative?). I thougth that both were smaller. Batmanand 14:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree the hyperpolarisation should not be that hyper. Somewhere between 10 and 15 mv would be more accurate. As far as the duration is concerned i think it should be longer, at least 4 ms. David D. 15:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This information was then corrected. That is a long period of time for an article in the featured article category to be incorrect. This is evidence that while wikipedia in the long term is self correcting, it is not always a short term process.

The very first paragraph of this article still has two very dubious statements that are uncorrected to date. I commented in the talk page but no one has tried to rewrite the paragrah. At some point I will try and add some relevant plant information.

In May 2005 the first paragraph was: They [AP's] set the pace of thought and action, constrain the sizes of evolving anatomies and enable centralized control and coordination of organs and tissues. Non-propagating action potentials occur also in some plants.

Firstly, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests that the speed of an action potential contrains the size of an organism or organ. Also this point is not even discussed in the article. This seems very speculative and has been in the article since it was first listed as a featured article (Dec 2003). In response to my comment someone even confirmed this was speculative,

"Since evolutionary statements such as the one made in this article are often just informed speculation anyway, this whole problem can be (and has been) fixed by using the all-purpose scientist solution: "when you've got a feasible idea that you can't prove, say "may"." Synaptidude 5 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

and edited in the word "may" so that the relevant sentence now reads: They [AP's] set the pace of thought and action, may constrain the sizes of evolving anatomies and enable centralized control and coordination of organs and tissues. Is this acceptable? Since when has speculation been acceptable in an encyclopedia?

Secondly there are propagating action potentials in plants. They can move along the phloem cell membranes similar to nerves. A good example of this is the sensitive mimosa plant. It's leaflets close in response to touch and the movement can be seen to propagate down the stem. So the comment Non-propagating action potentials occur also in some plants." that implies propagating action potentials do not occur in plant is misleading.

You are justified in claiming "then why don't you correct it"? This is true, but misses the point. How many other featured articles contain inaccurate and speculative material like this article? How long will that information be in wikipedia before a knowledgeable editor notices the mistake?

Wikipedia has many advantages over paper encyclopedias, however, it is still in it's infancy with respect to the scientific content. Yet, this information is being used all over the web as factual. Many students believe if they read it enough times on different web pages it must be correct. My job as an educator is to help them to think critically and teach them to question their source material (where ever it comes from). Unfortunately, when they are green, they are much too trusting. It is for those users that the disclaimer is important.

The disclaimer is not a sign of weakness. It is a statement that says, "Think!". Every university hopes that the one lesson their graduates take with them is to think! Wikipedia would be helping to get that message across by making the disclaimer more prominent. David D. (Talk) 04:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: In addition to your citation on main page, added "Think!" comment to discussion under reason for change 2 . Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 15:10, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

A collaborative effort

I have two short observations:

the point I was making earlier was ethical. I believe that, in default of a policy to freeze pages of an appropriate standard, this 'pedia has a moral duty to warn all users that the information on display may be corrupted or wrong. Those of you who are Admin spend much of your time firefighting vandalism and policing petty edit wars that frequently skew the informational content so the failure to put a clear warning in the heading is indefensible;

although I have only been here a short time, I find the assertion that this is a collaborative venture misleading. Almost without exception, all my edits or the edits I have responded to have been made without prior consultation. That a group of independent people happen to be working on the same project and, occasionally, on the same page is not a collaboration. A collaboration is a form of partnership where people actively co-operate to achieve common goals. On two occasions where I signaled my wish to collaborate, i.e. agree content on the discussion page before amending text, I received abuse and withdrew. Too many editors feel that their intellectual territory is being invaded when outsiders offer assistance, hence the edit wars. -David91 05:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That has certainly not been my experience. Wikipedia is the greatest collaborative effort I have ever participated in. There are some occasional quarrels, but on the whole we get along very well. I also do not think that Wikipedia has any "moral duties". Wikipedia does not lie about what it is. Everyone can form his or her personal opinion on the value of the content without having it painted on their nose by a legalistic disclaimer. Sure, some people are stupid, but that's their prerogative. — David Remahl 10:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: A change Version removing "collaborative effort" has been added to the main page. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 15:32, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

COMMENT: "Collaboration" to me does not necessarily imply that workers working together "get along well with each other". But it does often imply "jointly accredited for the work done", "working with someone you don't normally work with", and "working together less from willingness than from necessity". -- Sitearm | Talk 16:42, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Emphasising Readers risk

Its important to remind the reader that it is (s)he who bears the risk when using our free info. Could have the word 'CAUTION' before this staement as well to make it stand out. Any comments??Light current 14:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Thank you for posting proposed change versions 16, 17 capturing these ideas! -- Sitearm | Talk 08:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Watered down....

... to the point of not being useful? That's how I feel about proposal 15 (and it's why I'm not weighing in as either supporting or opposing it).

Has there been any investigation of the possibility of adding a link to the disclaimer in the navigation menu? Mamawrites 08:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: No other discussion has been posted to date regarding the navigation menu proposal, which is listed as proposed change version 14.

RESPONSE The poll is whether you support having a second tagline at all. There is overwhelming support to leave the first tagline as is with no change. To get any kind of additional text on each page requires support for having a second tagline. -- Sitearm | Talk 08:49, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

P.S. You said: I'm not weighing in as either supporting or opposing it. Would you record this vote in the "Other" section, repeating your comment why? Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 09:06, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Recusing myself from further editing of proposal

I was for changing the tagline until some things clicked just now. Having been actively involved in reading and factoring discussions "for", I have finally signed support "against" change (with my reason) and recuse myself from further editing of this proposal. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:55, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Recusing myself from recusing myself (temporarily)

Have to move a few things into place. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:57, 2005 August 18 (UTC)