Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Questions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you.
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This Wikipedia:Teahouse has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

You can also talk in real time chat at Wikipedia's Help Channel, and participate in discussions at the host lounge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers — Preceding unsigned comment added by KanhaiyaSharmaBMM (talkcontribs) 07:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

I notice that presumably because of InsightOut1's questions, the pages Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/4 are now categorized as fellows of the American Institute of Architects (Category:Fellows of the American Institute of Architects). Does this need fixing, or will those questions eventually drop off the radar? Rojomoke (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No action needed. The pages and the main THQ aren't in the category because the categorisation was fixed previously by the addition of the leading colon. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2016[edit]

If we see the button that the template uses is exactly this very template. Can we transclude that into it. Unnecessary code left on User's talk page only increases it's size and make it difficult to use the text editor whereas transclusion cuts down the code to a much simpler and shorter form. Thanks your respnse will be appreciated.

VarunFEB2003 I am Online 11:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a vote, but slight oppose due to the ever increasing number of transclusions over time, and that that template which has no protection would possibly become high-risk. The invitation as it currently stands does not transclude templates. Unclear if there's consensus for the change. non-admin comment — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 16:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Please establish consensus for this change here on the talk page, then reactivate the edit request if needed. — xaosflux Talk 23:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It was first talked about here - User talk:Jtmorgan. I'll find a possible result for high risk can we protect the button template....no? VarunFEB2003 I am Online 13:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If it will be highly transcluded, then protection will be in place - however some (inc one one specific objection above, others in general) editors are against highly transcluding templates in this sort of use-case. I could go either way - but before changing this there needs to be some support one way or the other. — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok! VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Support, as long as we don't anticipate it will create additional work for anyone down the line, and the bot can still send its invites! J-Mo 19:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

Thank u for the welcome and invitation... All the best! Dufirenze (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dufirenze: It is unclear what you said. This is Wikipedia talk:Teahouse not a User talk page! Probably you are at the wrong place! Face-smile.svg VarunFEB2003 I am Online 13:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I think Dufirenze is just thanking us for the invitation to the Teahouse, VarunFEB2003. Seems pretty clear to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok! I didn't get it Thanks @Cordless Larry: Face-smile.svg VarunFEB2003 I am Online 14:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Draft approval[edit]

HI, we have created draft of one famous notable actress.And it is under review. Could you please let us know,how long it will take to approve the article.It's been nearly a week we have created the article.Below is the draft link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manvitha_(Actress). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasadz (talkcontribs) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Prasadz. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Creating new article[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Want to ask to create article on Kumar J. Doctor which recently got rejected from wiki. Samkrjohn (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Samkrjohn. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. You don't need to use the {{Help me}} template, either - that's for requesting help on your own talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How to help in article improvement[edit]

Dear Sir, I wants to know how can i search articles which need improvements. I want to work with article improvements on wikiepdia. Thanks Kambojharsangeet (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kambojharsangeet. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Also, many of our volunteers are women, so I advise against addressing everyone as "sir"! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Madam for detail.Kambojharsangeet (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How to respond to users with COIs[edit]

(I've centralized the discussion here, but it's of relevance to the Teahouse, WP:AFC, and WP:AFC/H.)

As I think should be obvious to most people, we see a great many questions and drafts from users with conflict of interests. Maybe even a majority. But I'm concerned that the message COI editors get at venues like the Teahouse and AfC is quite different both from what they would (and will) get in mainspace, or from reading the relevant policies. In mainspace, users with COIs get warnings telling them not to edit articles directly and may be blocked if they ignore them. Yet at the Teahouse and AfC, I frequently see people giving new users the impression that COI editing, and even paid editing, is okay as long as you make a disclosure, stick to the content policies and ask someone else to review your edits for you (i.e. at AfC).

In my opinion policy couldn't be clearer in this regard. Obviously people helping out at the Teahouse or AfC should read WP:COI in full, but I think the relevant extracts are:

COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted.
If you have a conflict of interest: you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles
If you receive, or expect to receive compensation (whether money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia: you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles
You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes.

I suspect that the language used ("strongly discouraged" rather than "not allowed", etc.) may mislead new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia's attitude towards rules into thinking that these policies are less stringent than they are. But we shouldn't fall into the same trap. "Strongly discouraged" is as clear a directive not to do something as it gets around here. In case there's any doubt about that interpretation, here are some more extracts from the Organizations FAQ:

Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization?
You are discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organizations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest... The COI guideline very strongly discourages direct article editing
What rules should I follow while editing Wikipedia articles?
It is best to avoid editing articles relating to your organization entirely, because of the conflict of interest.
I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?
...the best thing to do is to provide any useful sources and request that an independent editor create the article

It's also worth bearing in mind some thing that are not in the policies, as far as I know:

  • COI editing is okay as long as you stick to content policies (specifically contradicted by WP:COINOTBIAS)
  • AfC can be used bypass the COI policy and create articles about yourself/friend/company

Our role at the Teahouse and AfC should be translate Wikipedia policy concisely and accurately for the benefit of new users, not to sugarcoat it for them. I know there is a temptation to do so when you see an earnest newbie with a COI wanting to make a good faith contribution, or who has already put a lot of effort into a draft, but it does no good in the long term. Apart from giving them a false impression of the community's opinion on COI editing, it places an additional burden on volunteer editors to review the activities of SPAs with a COI, and undermines the quality of the trustworthiness of our content.

I'd therefore suggest the following guidelines for interacting with new editors with COIs:

  • Be up front and clear about the spirit of Wikipedia's COI policy: do not edit if you have a COI
  • Advise COI editors that they should stop working on drafts that will realistically never be accepted – something we need to be better at in general
  • Avoid implying that the directive not to edit or create articles is optional*, because that is only true in the narrow sense that all Wikipedia policy is optional per WP:IAR
  • Don't direct editors with COIs to AfC, that is not what it is for
  • Link paid editors to WP:COI, not WP:PAID. The former is the relevant community policy, the latter is a bare minimum legal requirement.

* i.e. "it's okay as long as you declare your COI", "it's okay as long as you stick to <insert policy here>", "it's okay as long as you ask someone else to check it"

Joe Roe (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I understand where you're coming from, believe me, but you fail to understand you cannot stop COI editing. That's just a fact of Wikipedia life. The only "recommended" path a COI-editor has at this time is to go through AfC, where their draft will be appropriately assessed, regardless of its intentions. COI is hard to detect at times, but more often than not can be self-evident. Yes, most times their drafts will be unacceptable garbage and they need to be told that as soon as possible in a straightforward manner, and the drafts declined and possibly MfDd. But there are COI drafts that are actually very good drafts about notable subjects. We have no right to decline those for being paid edits or COI edits (not a decline criteria, by the way) when AfC is precisely the path to take when you're a company employee trying to create an article about your employer, for instance. As a follow-up, I always advise these editors NOT TO EDIT said articles if and after they're moved to mainspace, additionally patrolling the page for a while. Editors for drafts that "will realistically never be accepted" need always be told so hastily, regardless of whether they have a conflict of interest or not. We have no time for this garbage. Finally, what do you suggest paid editors do if not resort to AfC (which they're in fact not required to)? Banishing them from AfC will only make a bigger mess in the long run. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at AfC about how many editors who use that route do not get appropriate advice (whether its about CoI or other things), with AfC reviewers being over-strict on interpreting policies and guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen good COI drafts at AfC, sure. But maybe 1 in a 500. That's why I think we need to be more open about telling some people that it is just not appropriate for them to make certain edits, otherwise we waste their time and ours. Paid editors need to be told to give back the money and write a GA-class article on a little-known female poet as penance for trying to turn the encyclopaedia into the yellow pages. Joe Roe (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
"Avoid implying that the directive not to edit or create articles is optional" Really? Citation, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Citation for what? That people do it? I'd prefer not point fingers, but look through the last few archives here or at WP:AFC/H and you'll find
Citation for the advice? As explained above, I don't see how the COI policy is any more optional than any other. We don't point new editors to WP:V by saying, "you are strongly encouraged only to add information that is verifiable, but if you want to make stuff up anyway, please do so at AfC because there's a chance they won't notice." Joe Roe (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
For your assumption that "the directive not to edit or create articles is not optional". For that matter, for your assumption that there is such a directive. The COI policy is indeed not optional. It just doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with much of what you say, Joe Roe. We part company, however, where you assert that by "strongly discouraged", the conflict of interest guideline means "not allowed" (the only exception being the policy ignore all rules). My reading of the guideline is that "strongly discouraged" means "strongly discouraged". When something is forbidden, Wikipedia policies have no hesitation in saying so, for example "Vandalism is prohibited." (WP:VAN), "The following types of usernames are not permitted" (WP:IU), "Editors must not use alternative accounts to ..." (WP:ILLEGIT), etc. The literal reading is borne out by subsequent statements in the COI guidelines, such as "Editors with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, are advised not to edit affected articles" (italics mine).
  • The policy on autobiography instructs users who insist on creating an article about themselves to do so through Articles for Creation.
  • WP:BFAQ#COMPANY suggests that users with the appearance of a COI submit a draft through the Wikipedia:Article wizard.
  • In the wizard, if one clicks "I'm writing about a company, organisation or foundation", the wizard warns about conflict of interest and offers "best advice". If the COI editor nonetheless continues, saying it's notable, has good sources, is neutral, and is not copied from elsewhere, then in the final step they may create a draft to be reviewed at Articles for Creation. Indeed they are told on that page "we strongly recommend that you use Articles for Creation", although they may create the article directly in mainspace if they are registered.
  • WP:AFC itself states "If ... you have a conflict of interest, but have an idea for a new article and some references, you can create one here and it will be reviewed and considered for publication."
  • Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Creating a new article says "If you have a possible conflict of interest, you're not barred from editing articles where such a conflict may exist" and goes on to offer the dated advice that COI editors should not move userspace drafts directly to mainspace, but should ask at a WikiProject or WP:EA for another editor to review the draft and move it to mainspace if it is sufficiently neutral.
  • The essay Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide tells COI editors to create a draft and ask for someone to review it through Articles for Creation.
I believe one reason that Wikipedia doesn't forbid paid editing is that if it did, some people would do it anyway without disclosure. Barring significant changes to Wikipedia, it would be difficult to prevent them from doing so. So allowing paid editing, provided that it is made transparent by the proper disclosures and all policies are observed (especially WP:NPOV and WP:V) is the pragmatic approach.
Appropriate ways for AfC participants to respond to users with COIs are:
--Worldbruce (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I partly disagree with the Original Poster. I think that it is better to direct conflict of interest editors to Articles for Creation, where they will go through tough review, than to tell them simply not to try to edit their articles at all. I think that a large percentage of articles at AfC as it is are undisclosed COI articles, and I would rather have them disclosed than having all of them being undisclosed COI. I can recognize many of them by repeated submissions when I can see that the editor is a single purpose account who does nothing but submit one article. I would rather have them admit their COI and go through AfC than just go through AfC without disclosure or than just go into mainspace. So I don't think that we should just tell them to go away. I respectfully disagree with the Original Poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Imminent change with implications for the Teahouse[edit]

Please see here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)