Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gnixon (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 5 June 2008 (→A Section Break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Privacy of dead crime victims

Are the dead victims of crimes entitled to privacy? Does the concept of BLA extend to the survivors of victims in some way? Are our articles enriched by including the names of crime victims? Thanks for any ideas. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the dead victims of crimes entitled to privacy?
I don't see why they should, since the can no longer be harmed by an "invasion" of their privacy. However, family members still maintain their rights to privacy.
Does the concept of BLA extend to the survivors of victims in some way?
Only to information about the survivors themselves. However, the victim is not explicitly covered by WP:BLP since the victim is no longer alive.
Are our articles enriched by including the names of crime victims?
That depends very much on the circumstances. Was there anything significant about how the person was murdered or how the body was found? Was it the allege murderer's only victim or one of many? How much news coverage was there of the murder? In most respects, it is a judgment call on how much detail to include and the significants of those details. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless the victim was notable themselves, I don't see a reason to include their name in an article about the crime. As Farix mentioned, the victim's families are still affected by this, and I'd say the spirit of WP:BLP1E applies. If the only thing the victim is known for is being a victim, there's no real reason to include them. There are exceptions, such as if the victim's family makes it a point to bring them up in the media repeatedly, but the average crime victim isn't going to get that kind of treatment. -- Kesh (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. While some sensitivity is warranted in very recent cases, if the crime is notable enough to include then there's no reason to exclude the names of victims. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't omit pictures of nudity for fear of offending people, and I don't see a reason to omit the names of murder victims if editors think there's a reason to include them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree. If the information is already available in reliable sources, and if the crime is already notable enough to include, then there isn't any reason I can see not to include the details of the crime up to the maximum possible amount of information that we can cite with the sources that we have. This doesn't mean, of course, that the victim should be the subject of an article (unless they themselves become the subject of independent coverage, such some of the victims of Jack the Ripper). It just means that we shouldn't not include information when there is clear benefit from doing so unless there's a very good reason not to. Celarnor Talk to me 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it should be noted that from a legal standpoint, the families aren't affected by libel and defamation of the subject. They can't even claim it. Libel and defamation are damage to the reputation of the individual, and common law has long held that the reputation dies with the person. As an aside, an alternative has been attempted before: the family would have to prove that there was extreme emotional duress being done to them, which has a much higher bar to achieve. This is rarely successful, since for that, you have to show that serious damage is being done, and I really don't think that saying "Person A raped person B, was later found guilty and sentenced to 29 years in prison" cuts it for that, just as it didn't for The Daily Herald. Celarnor Talk to me 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the opinions above by Celarnor and Will Beback. The biographies of living persons policy, as evident from the name, exists to protect the living. That is not to say, of course, that articles on a deceased subject are not required to be NPOV, as of course all of our articles are required to be NPOV. However, the extraordinary measures allowed by BLP are only counterbalanced by keeping them narrowly confined to the area in which they are strictly necessary—and this area is solely biographies of living subjects whose reputations and lives could be done harm. The life of a deceased subject cannot, by definition, be harmed. We do not censor reliably sourced information because it offends someone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This conversation tipped the scales here: Dennis Dechaine. Thank you for the reality-check. David in DC (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the coverage and the fact that WP:BLP does not apply to deceased victims, it is quite reasonable to mention the victim's name in the article. Put simply, this is no reasonable expectation of privacy for the victim. This is also a case where the alleged murder was charged with killing of only one victims, as opposed to a serial murder. In my opinion, the value in naming each victim diminishes when the number of victims increases. On top of that, naming all of those victims could be viewed as a form of memorial if not handled properly. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
After a more thorough look at the article I have to say that if there is a WP:BLP concern with the article, it would be on behalf of Dennis Dechaine. The article is poorly sourced, quotes are not cited to any specific sources, and the only source that is used is a trial transcript. On top of that, the article also does not assert the notability of the subject. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody have an idea of what the appropriate response to this is:

"Sarah Cherry is a public person as is her family. Taxpayers are spending perhaps a million dollars or more to incarcerate her alleged victimizer (who was convicted in opposition to established medical science). The taxpaying public have a right to know who they helping. If some crime victims do not want their name known, they or their families do not have to report the crimes. Withholding a victim's name is dishonest. Criminals are supposed to wear masks, not the victims. --Danras (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And then there's a reality check of a different sort. As I understand this last comment, if this 12-year-old didn't want to be a public figure she shouldn't have gone off and gotten kidnapped, raped, sexually tortured, and murdered. Hmmm. I'll have to try to wrap my head around that. On second thought, I don't think I'll bother. David in DC (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think some writers here have an ego problem, not Sarah Cherry. For all I know Cherry's family and others who knew her have no problem with her name being reported. I don't think Megan Kanka's mom wants to rename Megan's Law. I fail to see why reporting one's name is so deeply embarrassing. Victims who are too embarrassed to make their names public and acknowledge "somebody wronged me," don't deserve help. They are such losers that everyone can screw them without fear that these losers will report being wronged. --Danras (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Dechaine"

I guess the appropriate response is no response at all, but it does make one wonder.David in DC (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Those comments are borderline uncivil. But as I said earlier, that article has some very serious sourcing problems that need to be addressed if it is to comply with WP:BLP. As it stands, the article would either be reduced to a stub or deleted. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
On that score, Kevin has done a fabulous job of bringing the article up to snuff. Take a look for yourself: Dennis Dechaine David in DC (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The status of the Wikipedia:Logos policy

The status of the Wikipedia:Logos policy has been changed to an "essay". While I cannot see that there was consensus for this change, I think it would be good to have some input from other users. I am myself getting more and more confused over this matter. At what extent can we use logos in Wikipedia articles? Whether the WP:LOGOS page stays as a policy or not, I think this it would be helpful to make policy clearer on this matter. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos. --Kildor (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Am I allowed to upload scanned pictures from my own Bible or Qur'an? License/Copyright? Thanks for answers.--  LYKANTROP  15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is probably no. Generally not unless the physical book in your hand was physically published over 95 years ago. You may own the books but you are not the publisher, the editor, the author, or in the case of illustrations the artist. If you are talking about scanned text then better you just post the text (if the text is not copyrighted. Note that most revised and/or translated works are often copyrighted). If you are talking about scanned images then again you have to determine if the image was copyrighted (even ancient images may be copyrighted because the photograph of those images is a new product involving the skill of the photographer and the skill of the printer to transfer that image to paper). 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Under U.S. law, the photograph of a 2-D work (such as a painting or another photograph) does not qualify as a new copyrighted work, because American copyright law does not protect applications of skill, only creative expression. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., Template:PD-art-life-70. A photo of a sculpture or other 3-D work may be copyrighted, however. Postdlf (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that is why you are allowed to put up a photo of a bible published more than 95 years ago (i.e. a bible design now in the public domain) but not of a more recent version (i.e. a version that is still under copyright protection). Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably not. Unless you're talking about something that is now under public domain under US copyright law (such as Webster's revision of the King James bible, which was published in 1833 and has since lost its status as a copyrighted work). In that case, you would be free to scan the whole thing page by page and do pretty much whatever you wanted with it. Celarnor Talk to me 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For example: My version of Qur'an was published in in 1974. The picture (not just a text) I want to upload one short Sura (chapter in Qur'an) that is "written in famous traditional turkish calligraphy". For an amateur it actually looks like a persian carpet. The picture is definitely hundreds years old. The author is unknown. Is it a public domain? --  LYKANTROP  17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That might qualify as a Fair-use image of the calligraphy in question, but I'm not terribly familiar with the image guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I would still say, if you can find a 100 year old version of the same calligraphy that is preferable as that has definitely no copyright (the specific style etc. of your 1974 version maybe copyrighted). Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If there isn't anything public domain or otherwise reasonably available to illustrate the calligraphic techniques, then you're probably safe claiming it as fair use. Preferably, if the image in question is of something that itself has entered public domain, you're better off finding some other standalone image of it that isn't hindered by being in a copyrighted work. Otherwise, this is a good fair use rationale. Celarnor Talk to me 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If the image would consist of nothing but calligraphic text, then the only question is whether the content of the text itself is copyrighted. The calligraphy itself cannot be copyrighted and cannot make something copyrighted that otherwise wouldn't be. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. And even if the text is copyrighted (e.g., if it's a modern translation), individual words or short phrases cannot be copyrighted, so scanning a few words to illustrate the calligraphy would not even require a fair use rationale (see Template:PD-textlogo for an example of how we treat this issue). Postdlf (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure of that in this specific case where the calligraphy is made in such a way to resemble a persian carpet. IMHO putting large parts of that may go beyond the two mentioned fair use criteria. (or they might not; as I said I am not sure) Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose there's a point at which calligraphy (or any font) departs significantly enough from rendering writing to become pictoral in some manner, but from what I gathered of the comment above, the resemblance to a persian carpet is accidental for those who can't read the writing. Postdlf (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A typeface cannot be copyrighted, but calligraphy is art, not a typeface, and therefore can be copyrighted. --Carnildo (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Copyright Office disagrees with you: "Like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such, not-withstanding the effect achieved by calligraphic brush strokes across a striated surface."[1] This is why Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts states that calligraphy is not copyrightable. Postdlf (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a public domain image public domain, regardless of whether it is published in a copyrighted work or not? Unless the copyright holder altered the image in some way, I don't see how putting in a copyrighted work somehow removes the public domain nature of the image. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, if an image is public domain, then its subsequent republishing in an otherwise copyrighted work does not change that. Postdlf (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if a book is so old that it's in the public domain a modern translation of the text is likely to be copyrighted. That wouldn't apply to the King James Bible, but it would apply to the New International Version for example. Likewise, many translations of the Koran are modern and likely copyrighted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A translation of such calligraphy would be copyrightable (insofar as it is original, though if the calligraphy itself were old enough to be PD, anyone else would be free to do his or her own translation as well). However, the calligraphy itself is not copyrightable to begin with (it is considered a font, according to the Copyright Office, even if a very fancy one), and even if it were, a photograph of a 2-dimensional work in the public domain is uncopyrightable, as it is not considered to have sufficient originality to attract copyright. That would be true even if the original work were creative enough to be copyrighted, such as a Civil War daguerreotype. The original daguerreotype would have been copyrighted when created, but that copyright is now expired, and photos of that 2D daguerreotype cannot themselves be copyrighted. Or in short—the photos of the calligraphy are in the public domain, because the calligraphy, A, was not copyrightable to begin with, B, is old enough to be out of copyright, and C, is two-dimensional, meaning that someone taking a photo of that does not change the copyright status, and such photo is not considered creative enough to attract copyright. (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp). So it depends largely if the same page also includes a translation of such calligraphy. If it does, you would have to crop out or clone out the translation, because that is copyrightable, but the image itself is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks--  LYKANTROP  21:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

School threats proposed policy at Wikipedia:School_threats

Please comment on the proposed policy at Wikipedia:School_threats which is, in my opinion, the distilliation of the important component of WP:TOV. TOV failed, as it should have, but I think a school threats policy or guideline is significantly different - particularly in todays climate of violence in schools and publicity. Avruch T 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental objections to TOV apply equally to any particular case, regardless of how high-profile it is. The only credible argument I can see here is that evidence of school violence is more likely to appear on Wikipedia as a first site of publication than other threats, due to the resources available to a typical student. But school threats are also quite likely to be hoaxes, and I think that efficient use of law enforcement and Wikipedia editor resources mandates that we use our best judgement in ignoring threats that aren't credible. Dcoetzee 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture move

There is a picture uploaded on Wikipedia with free licence (Template:GFDL-self-with-disclaimers) by some user. Is there some way how can I move (or copy) it to Commons? Am I allowed simply to dowload it and upload it to Commons? Thanks for the answers. --  LYKANTROP  21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are other ways, but yes, you can simply download it and upload to Commons. Make sure you include all the source and copyright information avaliable here, and tag it with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers|name of copyright-holding user}}. Algebraist 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way is CommonsHelper. Very handy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I found "fair use policy" warnings for some game screenshots on Talk:4X. Then I looked for guidance and it appears one has to use Template:Game screenshot rationale. I know nothing about templates and I do not want to spend time learning them. I suggest that requiring editors to learn about the mechanics of Wikimedia or its implementation in Wikipedia is a good way to drive potential editors away. I understand the need for a fair use policy but it needs to be implemented in an editor-friendly way, e.g with simple fill-in-the-blanks sample wikimarkup. Philcha (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Copyright law is not a "fill in the blanks" kind of thing. Images are the hardest thing about Wikipedia precisely because they're such a legal mess. If anyone wants to upload images, they're going to have to dedicate a lot of time & effort to learning the template process to make sure everything is on the up & up. -- Kesh (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and copyright is, unfortunately, not a simple issue. Our mission is also free content, so the burden is on those who wish to use nonfree content to tell us why their nonfree content is so necessary for understanding of a subject that we must make an exception and accept a nonfree image in that particular case. That should not be simple, and should certainly not be "fill in the blanks", as we shouldn't be making exceptions if an image is not essential and critical to a subject, and irreplaceable by free content. Why that would be differs from case to case, so it can't be templatized. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the legal-related points you've made. I was talking about the mechanics - there should be no need to go looking for how to write a non-free use rationale, no wikimark-up, no hunting for templates (which are often hard to find and poorly explained) - just a button that pops up a form, with short guidance on the form and a link to fuller guidance. "Non-free use rationale missing" mesages on articles' Talk pages should link to the form and the article's title should be entered automatically in the form - it's just a matter of passing the right URL parameters. Philcha (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the mechanics need to be improved. There's also much dissent, currently, against the idea that you have to use specific templates or follow specific formatting conventions to have a fair use rationale -- see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#STBotI blocked. The idea that you need to use a specific template has actually been rejected before, and the policy doesn't require a specific format except "clear English" -- which you could argue that a template isn't. But really, none of this would be an issue if someone could figure out how to make a form that walks you through the fair use rationale process, like the upload form currently walks you through choosing the right copyright tag. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Adjudication Board

I wanted to bring to the community's attention the fact that as a part of a proposed decision (in voting stage) in a current ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision, ArbCom is considering the creation of a new structure called the "Sourcing Adjudication Board". The board will have broad authority in dealing with sourcing complaints on Wikipedia. Its mandate is described in the proposed decision as follows: "The Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:

  1. Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
  2. Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
  3. Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.

The Board's findings shall not be subject to appeal except to the Board itself. The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be determined, with appropriate community participation, no later than one month after the closure of this case." The current vote on this portion of the final decision is 6 for, 1 against and 1 abstention. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An idea that will never take off, is my prediction. Somewhat like the ideas found in the IRC decision and its clarification, which languished because the Committee did not find much community support for their initiative in forays outside their normal ambit. Avruch T 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This board is a novel proposal. But if there is no board, and if admins will never take any action on sourcing, in what sense is Wikipedia:Reliable sources a guideline we should take seriously? Is it only lip service, or is it enforced? EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's routinely enforced all the time, in new page patrol. However the cases there are simple and obvious. It's easy to delete things for having no apparent coverage in sources, but solving harder problems takes more than 10 seconds at a time. We already have noticeboards for getting admin help. Maybe we just need to publicize this need more? There are plenty of admins who focus mainly on damage control. We just need to get them to deal with this type of damage also. Friday (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The reliable source noticeboard is already focused on sourcing issues. I don't follow that board, but the regulars there are the right place for a community driven practice to come from. GRBerry 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to say that I don't really like this, as it moves ArbCom into content decisions, which should be the realm of the editors. Like Avruch, I don't see much community support coming out for something like this. A very bad idea, in my opinion. Celarnor Talk to me 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I commented on the case's talk page that "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing." The committee should not be looking to staff with specific topic expertise (an expert on global warming would be of no use for a homeopathy issue, much less for a medieval philosophy issue); they should be looking to staff with people who have expertise in sourcing - which is academic librarians with the relevant MLS degree. Unfortunately, I only know of 1 editor that I suspect can be so described. (And we know we suffer from editors that falsely claim expertise, which is another related problem.) I suppose on further consideration that some folks with language expertise might be useful for cases where the issue is foreign language sources (like one recent ArbComm case), because they will be able to actually read the supposed source. If the committee wants sourcing advice to consider a user conduct case, that is within their remit, because user conduct issues are within their remit. But a content ruling board would be a terrible idea. GRBerry 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GRBerry (believe it or not ;-)). We need people with broad experience in evaluating information, not subject matter experts. They would be people who recognize e.g., the relative merits of ISI-indexed publications versus self-styled "peer reviewed journals" rather than those who know the difference between barotropic and baroclinic instability. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
GRB, if you by any chance mean one of my colleagues or myself, that;s not what librarians do. We don't rule on information. We help people find information for them to make their own decisions. That's the basis of our profession, and the only basis on which we can work over broad areas--we'll guide you to information, and, if asked, tell you our way of looking at it. and that's where we stop. In fact, that;s why we're comfortable in wikipedia--this fits the pattern of working by general consensus. DGG (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself have some institutional concerns about the Board idea. It seems to me that if something like that is established, it should be as a result of a formal new policy rather than an administrative ArbCom action. Institutions and bureaucracies, once created, tend to take on a life of their own. This one has a very broadly described mandate (all sourcing complaints on Wikipedia). The text does not even explicitly say that the Board can only act on a case at ArbCom's request. It is not hard to imagine that, once the Board is established, it can take on independent authority of its own, starts issuing binding opinions and setting binding precedents, etc, and influence general Wikipedia content policy to a substantial degree. All this with a fairly unclear source and scope of its mandate and ambiguous lines of accountability. If we are going to have a body with such broad influence on de facto content policies on Wikipedia, I think its establishment needs to be based on a community consensus (that is, a formal adoption of a new Wikipedia policy), not on ArbCom's administrative action. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me most is how it promotes credentialism, which is something that has always been against the ethos of Wikipedia. The idea is supposed to be that anyone can edit and improve the project regardless of their academic training. It rubs me in a very wrong way to see the project headed away from a consensus-based model to a model where there's a disconnected board that decides whether or not your edits are good. I really don't see the benefit that such a body creates over the exiting reliable sources noticeboard, which supports the consensus model rather than the disconnected corporate board model. If brought into policy with the inherent problems it brings, I think this should be an absolute last rung on a ladder that is seldom reached, much like ArbCom is the last part of the dispute resolution ladder. As few things as possible should ever get to a disconnected non-consensus-based system of resolution. Celarnor Talk to me 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A Section Break

I consider this a remarkably poor idea. the understandable frustration with one particular group of articles should not produce a permanent bureaucracy which by fiat of ArbCom, completely changes the structure of Wikipedia. The remit of this board is exceptionally broad. Kiril, who wrote this proposal, has assured me on my talk pageof the intent is to use it very specifically, but that's not what the proposal says. Essentially all content disputes ultimately come down to whether sourcing is being used properly and fairly--and this is a proposal that the final decisions on sourcing will be, not the community of interested editors, but a small standing committee. The lines on which it can take decisions includes essentially everything. I don';t think any small group would even have the necessary competence. They will end up either deciding on vague impressions, or calling in outside experts to inform them. (I can see that as a rare exception we might need to actually need experts in a particular case, but if so we should go by them directly, under the principle of IAR, not as a permanent institution, and not in a way protected form the review by the community. And they will be totally protected--there's no appeal but to themselves. We don't need groups like this in Wikipedia. Not seriously, but I've speculated what I might hypothetically do if asked to join such a group, and I would refuse: I do not think that myself any more than anyone else here ought to have the authority in this way in our organisation's structure. I have no objection to following or taking authority in organisations that work that way, as I've done all my life in the RW. This is a different structure--a unique one, for no other single organization has even tried what we've been doing. We've been doing it with some success. Now, it is possible that some other structure might do better, and people are welcome to try them--and indeed are trying them. We should stick with the community, and do as much as we can on that basis. It may not be everything. I'm not intrinsically a conservative--I'd like to see some radically different organised free encyclopedias also & if I find one I like better & in which I can be more effective, I'll go there. But we already have our own values,and we should develop and refine them, not subvert them. And, at thevery least, such a change as this--so antipathetic to what most of us have joined in order to participate in--should be decided on after full discussion by the community.Arb Com should not impose this and then try to figure out the details with some participation from the ordinary wikipedians. Rather, if they think they need something of the sort, they should propose it for discussion. And then see what the consensus is, and follow it, like everyone else. DGG (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing prevents the community from deliberately granting the power to Arbcom to handle something like this. It could be carefully defined as an experiment, and have a finite term. It could even be tried out first on the articles in one of the less controversial areas. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. But at the moment, ArbCom is not asking for the community's consent and consensus but rather moving on its own. Nsk92 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it might make sense to do it as an experiment for this particular situation in a much more non-bureaucratic way, as an extraordinary remedy. Appoint something in the way of an outside special master of a group of 3 or the like, to decide this particular issue in this particular case, with no structure and no precedent. I think something like that could be considered within the discretion of arbcom--they recently tried something similar, a special small board with respect to a particular enforcement problem. If by any chance it works--and I wouldn't necessarily count on it--then it could be tried again in some appropriate fashion if the need ever again arises. DGG (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For those who think Arbcom has no right to rule on content, have another look at its charter. Arbcom replaces Jimbo in his capacity as God-King. So far, on English Wikipedia, it has chosen not to exercise its indubitable right to rule on content (or policy). A number of users (presumably including some current Arbcom members) believe that if it did rule on content now and again it could give closure to some issues that come back to Arbcom repeatedly. In general, I would much rather Arbcom acted rather than simply opening yet another policy debate which would only attract a self-selected bunch of wiki-policy wonks who by no means would represent the community, and who have demonstrated an inability to achieve consensus either for or against any significant new policy initiative in the last couple of years. On this specific case, I wish them luck...it does seem that the match of credentials to subject matter would have to be pretty loose, if the Board is going to be smaller than the faculty of a large university. PaddyLeahy (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked Kirill, who is the main sponsor of the Board idea, to comment on the ArbCom's power to delegate its authority to another body and to clariy what "final" in the describing the board's decisions as being final means ansd whether the Board's decisions in terms of findings of fact (e.g. whether or not some editor misrepresented sources) will be binding for ArbCom itself. Here is what he answered[2]: "It's worth noting that the Arbitration Policy says nothing at all regarding delegation of authority, and I don't see any reason or means by which a body with authority could be prohibited from delegating it. If it clarifies the pseudo-constitutional semantics any, you might think of the "final" issue as being equivalent to a statement of intent on our part that we will not overrule the board (without going into the question of whether we would retain a reserve power to do so)." Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say I don't think this new board is a good idea, although I can understand the motivation. WP:RSN seems like a better concept, assuming it can generate knowledgeable, uninvolved sourcing experts for sourcing disputes. I'd point out that expertise on the subject matter is likely useful, but shouldn't be necessary. Gnixon (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in usage of protection templates

The templates in question, generating message boxes or, in their small versions, variously coloured padlocks, are used in order to indicate that a page has suffered limitations to the editability thereof. More simply, they say "This page has been protected/semi-protected/move-protected" etc. Given that they are the most immediate way to show to editors the existence of such protection on a page, I find it regrettable that not all protected pages have them, often leading to surprises. And even though the Edit this page tab shows to an editor with no right to edit or move a page that this is the case, for editors who do have these rights there is no such difference.

Therefore, for the purpose of general informativeness and transparency, I propose the mandatory usage of these templates for all protected pages, and that a clause should be inserted to the appropriate policy page to this effect.

Although the easiest way to apply consistent usage of these templates is to require administrators to insert or adjust them after changes in pages' protection status, a robot could perhaps be tasked with this job (there already is, to my knoweledge, a 'bot removing them from unprotected pages). This, however, could lead to various problems which I am not in a place to predict. Waltham, The Duke of 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to change the software to display appropriate system messages when a page has protection? Then it would be 100% reliable, and we wouldn't be imposing a manual step on admins. On another note, we could consider similar automatic messages for user/talk pages to indicate blocking, which would not replace a regular blocking notice, but would help you determine if it it current. Bovlb (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not mention automation because I believe there are choices to be made as far as the correct placement of the template is concerned. Perhaps the exact form of the displayed message could be chosen by the administrator while protecting the article, supplied to them as an option in the protection page. Waltham, The Duke of 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Any other comments? Waltham, The Duke of 03:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Zigic

There is a requested move that a a page called Nikola Zigic be moved to Nikola Žigić although all but one of the reliable sources presented in the debate spell the name "Nikola Zigic" the majority of the editors who have taken part in the debate support the move to Nikola Žigić, because it is the "correct" spelling. My position is that the correct name for the page's spelling depends on what the majority of verifiable reliable sources use, (and as it is a footballer/soccer player that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources). This is the position taken by the guidelines WP:MOS, WP:NC and WP:UE all based on the policy WP:V, but despite pointing this out not one person in favour of the move has changed their opinion. I would appreciate it if those who look at this page would contribute to the debate as it seems that either I am misunderstanding the guidelines or they are not worth the storage space they take up. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some debates about this sort of thing. Talk:Jennifer Lopez/archive1#Diacritic/accent mark on her last name comes to mind. I'd bet cash money there's been arguments over the Tokyo article. I've seen it go one way or the other, depending on circumstances; ultimately, as long as one redirects to the other, it may not be the healthiest thing to get high blood pressure over. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:HOCKEY has had some epic battles over this as well. Basically, we've accepted that WP:UE is a dead guideline, since many of our player articles clearly are not English spellings of names. We came to an unsteady truce on the topic by agreeing that North American related articles would hide them, while international would show them, given North American sources never use them. Resolute 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup they have definately been epic. But yeah its probably a harder distinction for football/soccer. But yeah at the hockey project we have a truce giving player pages the diacritics and any international page shows them, but any North American page like an NHL team page they do not show them. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The move will be a bad idea until Wikipedia's search engine can return Nikola Žigić when asked for "Nikola Zigic" and wkiliking Nikola Zigic does not return a red link. Philcha (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Until we invent redirects, you mean? Algebraist 11:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There are limits. At present we wouldn't have the main entry for a Greek person have a title in Greek font. In general, there are problems when you use characters in titles that will not be found on the keyboard of the person searching. So Wikipedia:Use English has some logic when you are trying to meet the needs of people who read English and use computer keyboards designed for the English language. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is justified, IMHO. It is the Latin alphabet, so there is no reason to mess up the spelling. If Judit Polgár can be written correctly, then so can Nikola Žigić. The birth certificate would be one of the few reliable sources. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom powers and capabilities

I made a request for clarification on the Episodes and Characters case. I was taken aback to see that Kirill proposed a a topic ban on TTN and myself. Fortunately, the idea of a topic ban on me has been derided as ludicrous by all commentators that took a position. Unfortunately, that has not been so strongly the case with TTN, and there is still the risk that 2 more arbitrators will side with Kirill and FloNight on the motion to topic ban me from all articles relating to any form of "art", which seems to be breathtakingly broad, encompassing anything involving film, television, video games, or music. So, my questions:

  1. Can Arbcom create new sanctions as a result of a request for clarification? Or does "clarification" retain its normal meaning, with Arbcom being restricted to explaining earlier sanctions rather than crafting new ones?
  2. If they are allowed to create new sanctions, can they apply them to specific individuals that weren't a party to the arbitration being clarified? I commented heavily on E&C2, but was not a named participant.
Kww (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know they can, and I support that they have such power otherwise any bad-faith-editor could get another (bad-faith) opponent blocked thus basically deciding an edit war (where 2 are to blame) through arbcome. Abitration should therefore be able to balance behaviour of all involved parties, even if they are not named. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
My answers to those would be yes and yes. For number one, occasionally cases get modified because of mistakes or because there is an obvious loophole and sometimes they come in forms of more sanctions or remedies. For the second one, I believe so; the list of parties is sometimes never complete or lists people that are not really part of the case. If you find any problems, then I would, however, stick to the Arbitration page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, the ArbCom is free to expand or amend previously-closed cases where it makes sense to do so. The 'clarification' section of WP:RFArb is titled "Clarifications and other requests" (my emphasis). If a request for clarification highlights to the ArbCom (or another party) that an existing remedy or sanction is incomplete, it's reasonable for the Committee to suitably amend or expand their prior decision. Changes may be proposed if it is apparent that the original sanctions are either not working or are no longer necessary; parties may be added if they engage in problematic conduct in areas related to a case.
If a major shift in a previous decision is being contemplated, or if the ArbCom would likely benefit from additional evidence and extended time to deliberate, a request may instead be made to reopen a previous case. Doing so has the downsides of requiring a great deal of additional work and (usually) taking significantly more time to reach a conclusion.
In general, the ArbCom has a fairly free hand to address matters before them in whatever manner they see fit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
where arb com has the power to ban someone altogether, they certainly have they power to ban someone only partially. DGG (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging from those responses, I guess I'll just have to take comfort in the fact that most people think Kirill is being silly, and that there isn't much chance the rest of Arbcom will come out in favor of a ban with so little justification or support. I was hoping I could more or less ignore it as being beyond their scope.Kww (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in the NPOV/FAQ

Some editors have expressed that the second paragraph of WP:PSCI (A section of the NPOV FAQs dealing with pseudoscience) may be confusing or unclear, and may not express that topics having a pseudoscientific component may have other views to cover not related to science (eg. epistemological, historical, or cultural views). Part of the discussion centered around whether or not the current text implies that the scientific view is always the majority view and that the context of a pseudoscientific topic is always a science-related context (ie. SPOV). The current text reads:

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Following a discussion on the NPOV talk page, it was suggested that we clearly make a distinction that the topic as a whole may not always be about science, that we should clearly separate when it is and isn't, and that a better wording may reflect the current policies regarding pseudoscience in a clearer way. As such, we came up with this wording as a replacement for the second paragraph:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study. In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents. By weight, less detail (or none at all) may be required in mainstream science discussions if the concept is not prominent in the mainstream science field. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

It was suggested that we take it to the Village Pump for wider community feedback. Comments? --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit wordy, but I agree with the basic point. The Parable of the Sower is not a treatise on agronomic practice. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was concerned about the worth-length as well (being a less is more kind of person), but there were several issues raised and we wanted to be as clear as possible. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see a few huge problems with the wording. For a start, his version does not state that we should have "the majority (scientific) view as the majority view". It says instead "pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view" which leaves a wide gaping hole for editors to insert lots of pseudoscientific POV and marginate the scientific view as one more view. Another problem whis this wording: "the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study", it leaves another hole for inserting any study from anyone that can be labelled as a scientific, and to insert "scientific" studies from pseudoscience pushers. This is so wordy that it's leaving lots of holes for interpretation.
Also, I think that the ArbCom case on Pseudoscience wasn't cited on the NPOV discussion? I would look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Serious_encyclopedias and see that we are not supposed to treat pseudocientific views on the same way as cientific views. This is something that the new wording fails to express. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It does state we should have the majority scientific view when talking about how it's pseudoscience, and it explains what the scientific view is, as "...the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study". A study couldn't be inserted as a majority view if it's not a majority view, ie. pseudoscience can't be inserted as a majority view of science. You left out the majority/prominence part in your analysis. Where's the hole? It's just reworded to reflect that the conversation isn't always about science/pseudoscience, case example astrology -- the article's not all about it being pseudoscience.
Regarding the ArbCom case, this is only a change to the second paragraph. The information about the ArbCom case in WP:PSCI remains intact. Regarding treating pseudoscientific views in the same way as scientific views, that's exactly what the wording is about. It says in no way, shape, or form should we do that, ever, and explains why. It further directs us to not only separate the pseudoscience from the science, but never present a pseudoscientific view alone sans-science. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the earlier wording of simply saying the majority (scientific) view as the majority view, by the way, is that the majority view about a topic isn't always the scientific view. As I pointed out on the NPOV talk page, according to polls in general culture over 50% of the US population supports creationism over evolution. A creationist can easily read the policy and think, "that's not correct, we have the majority, not science", and be correct from a cultural context... but not the science context. When the discussion turns to scientific origins of the human race, it is important for the credibility of Wikipedia that they do not come away thinking that their majority view in culture translates to an overall majority view in what should be a science discussion, where the prominent science view actually excludes creationism. That's what the new wording reflects. It first separates the context, and then clearly directs what editors need to do when the context is science... don't muck it up with pseudoscience. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This probably isn't the place for doing a rewrite, but taking out the second and third sentences would help. The gist of the third sentence already is covered in the first. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The third sentence isn't about the notability of the topic as a whole. It's about pseudoscientific topics having aspects that have nothing to do with it being science or pseudoscience. Astrology, example given, isn't just pseudoscience. It's also a historical cultural practice of divination dating back thousands of years and predating even the concept of science and pseudoscience, with the historical aspect needing to be covered in the article. That's what the third sentence is about. It's about separating the contexts and not mixing pseudoscience with science, and not making the whole article about science vs. pseudoscience. If that's not clear in the wording, it's not addressing the issue it was meant to address. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion still leaves out the problem that something like astrology needs to be fully described in it's own terms for an article about it to have any meaning at all. We cannot assume as an encyclopedia for all topics that the scientific point of view is in fact the mainstream view. There may be topics where a decidedly nonscientific view is the mainstream. All views get represented, and ascribed to those who hold them. DGG (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I see a fundamental mismatch between (1) what the above proposal says and (2) the "frequently asked question" this text is supposed to answer. To recap, the FAQ asked at Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience reads: How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
Now, the clause "Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned" does not make sense. Of course the pseudoscientific view will be have to be "mentioned" if the article is about this view. To take an example, an article about ancient astronaut theories cannot fail to mention the assertions of ancient astronaut theorists – they are, after all, the very topic of the article.
Now, how to write an article about something like ancient astronaut theories? I think we need a strong mention that editors should research and make use of such scholarly treatments of the pseudoscience as are available. If the claims of the pseudoscience are not discussed by mainstream "hard" science (ancient astronaut theories are not generally refuted or discussed in academic journals of archeology), they may still be discussed and researched by today's scientists of sociology, religion, history or psychology. For example, here is a scholarly article on Ancient astronaut theories: "Ancient Astronaut" Narrations: A Popular Discourse on Our Religious Past. Our articles on pseudoscientific topics should cite and summarise such scholarly source material. This way, we will get articles that do not just state that "these claims are incompatible with science", but also reflect the actual state of scientific research about why such pseudosciences exist, what their history is, which needs they fulfil for their proponents, etc. Jayen466 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can see that the proposal isn't going over well, but that editors seem to agree that the original wording is problematic as well. I tell you what, here is the original discussion [3] and we'll just consider this thread closed as "Opposed". Please feel free to offer rewording suggestions at the original thread and hammer out a new proposal. I'll sit back and let you guys come up with something and offer suggestions if I think of any. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've posted the following proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#New_proposal:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents, to separate science from pseudoscience and to explain the criteria for distinction. For example, if a pseudoscientific theory makes claims related to a field of natural science and these claims are not seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation should clearly state so. The theory may, however, be the subject of scholarly analysis in fields such as history, sociology, religion or psychology. Where this is the case, scholarly source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large.

Please add comments at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#New_proposal. Jayen466 12:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the correct unbiased version instead of being manipulated by gangs?

I like Jessica Alba. I like to read an overly positive piece of fluff. However, I recognize that WP is for an unbiased biography.

Recently, someone put some negative information. I did not remove it.

A possibility exists that gangs of fans will form a false consensus and remove it. So the Wikipedia idea of censensus is subject to bias. This is not just for Jessica Alba. Governor Bill Richardson, an article I also edit, is subject to the same pressure. I suppose that high profile people, such as George Bush, Richard Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and others also can be manipulated by gangs of fans claiming consensus.

How does one obtain objective editorial decisions? RFC doesn't always work.

My feeling is that when there is a dispute between positive and negative information, there should be some allowance of negative information if it is written in as neutral a fashion as possible. My feeling is that the gang of fans should not have the power to overrun the article. Can this be a guideline for wikipedia? As much as I like Jessica Alba, I think that some well written negative information is very wikipedian. Spevw (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP. If it's negative and has no source, it's got to go. If it's negative but have adequate coverage in indpendent media, then it can stay. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is more appropriate to say that if it (a fact in a biography of a living person) is not sourced, then it has to go. "Positive" and "negative" are subjective terms and different peope will ascribe different interpretations of things. For instance, if someone posted "Such and such a celebrity was known for sucking twenty cocks at a party," a great number would find that "negative" information, but a not insignificant number (like me) would find it to be "positive." JeanLatore (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that's negative. If that's unsourced, it must be immediately removed, as it's possible libel, which can possibly open the Foundation up to legal issues. Also note that all information must be presented via a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV, and reported in an objective fashion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Simply follow the core policies of neutral point of view and verifiability for all articles, whether the subject is alive or not. I can't agree with your idea about favoring positive information over negative information. If it is unsourced and positive, it should be removed with just as much fervor as something unsourced and negative. However, NPOV and V mean that you don't have to worry about the distinction. If it can be reasonably sourced and you can write about it in a neutral point of view, then stick it in. Otherwise, don't; let someone else work out how to write it to be POV-neutral or where to find appropriate sources. Celarnor Talk to me 01:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Bio Policy: 'Sir'/'Dame' usage inline

There has been a recurring debate on the use of honorific prefixes inline (e.g. "Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee" in Tim Berners-Lee). Current policy at MoS-bio says "The honorifics Sir and Dame should be included in the text inline for baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity" Several editors including myself believe this policy violates NPOV. Others disagree. I opened a policy RFC but I would like as wide an audience as possible so am posting it here also. If interested, please read the existing discussion & add your thoughts to the MoS-bio talk pages rather than here. The most recent iteration of the debate is here. A debate from a few months prior is the section above that here. Ripe (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussions

What are the policies/guidelines/etc. that cover merge discussions, which occur on the Talk page of one of the affected articles? In particular, I am interested in the proper procedure for closing a merge discussion. I've read Help:Merging and moving pages#Closing/archive a proposed merger (vague), as well as Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Template:Discussion top, but I have not found anything directly helpful.

For XfDs, the closing editor must be uninvolved and may be a non-admin when admin tools are not required to implement the decision. Some merges may require history merges, while others can be done with cut-and-paste. Should an uninvolved editor be requested at WP:EAR, WP:AN, or elsewhere, or should the merge tags and their associated categories be relied on to attract this uninvolved editor?

Is it ever acceptable for an involved editor to close a merge discussion as no consensus following an extended period (1-2 months) with no new discussion, or does this involved closing always constitute a conflict of interest, as it would in the WP:Deletion process? If it may be acceptable, what constitutes a reasonable "extended period"? Flatscan (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mergers are generally done by someone who has an interest in the topic. Deletion requires distance, but mergers require knowledge of the subject in some manner to have an idea of what needs to be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll cross-post my question once this is archived. Flatscan (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)?
I believe the question is not who actually carries out the merger but who determines whether or not there is a consensus when there is no unanimity? I believe that it's been the practice in the past to request on WP:AN that an uninvolved admin determine consensus when it is unclear. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 May 24 to Help talk:Merging and moving pages, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Why does Wikipedia has a 3rr policy?

The rule can be strict and many users make mistakes reverting. I could revert a mistake and get blocked. Jet (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the three revert rule is that editors would often just revert each other instead of discussing what should be done. Captain panda 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Note the "3" in 3RR, you have to make more than 3 reverts and a warning is generally required as well. Note also it only applies to reverts to the same page in a 1 day period. After 3 reverts and a warning in 1 day to the same article, I wouldn't believe that its still a mistake. There's also exceptions for reverting vandalism, spam, or copyright violations or if you realize your mistake and revert yourself. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Administrators treat WP:3RR violations with a touch of common sense. We would rather you discuss the issue than mull about it on your 24 hour block. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Picture a world where content is decided not by consensus or even discussion of any sort, but by the amount of time one determined person is willing to dedicate to sitting around hitting the revert button all day -- that's the sort of nightmare 3RR is designed to prevent. Mistakes do happen, but three or four "mistakes" in a row? As mentioned, hefty doses of common sense and a carefully crafted list of exceptions to the rule can carry the day often enough. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to what others have noted above, I will also point out that before any block is considered, the 3RR noticeboard requires that an editor have first received a warning indicating that they are about to break the three-revert rule, and that the editor have reverted the page in question four times in 24 hours. If someone were to revert an article three times, receive a 3RR warning, and then ignore that warning in order to revert the page again, the editor can hardly pretend to be surprised by the consequences of their choice. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, 3RR is not required to be blocked. If it is determined that a user is still edit warring (i.e. carefully avoiding making more than 3 reverts in a day, or otherwise gaming the system) one can be blocked for disruption even if one has never techincally violated 3RR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article series#Merge proposals

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Article series#Merge proposals? Essentially, I think that "article series" is somewhat different entity than WP:Summary style article groups. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK and the First Amendment

Resolved
 – Wikipedia is not congress 1 != 2 20:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So why is a policy like WP:ATTACK not challenged for violating our First Amendment rights? I know you might say "no governmental action," but someone could claim as the most important and biggest forum on the internet (which is the most important, indispensable medium), such restrictions on speech leave the party with no other reasonably similar outlet for his expression. I also am not talking about obscene speech either, but then again I hardly think that calling user XYZ a "nincompoop" would be construed as obscene. JeanLatore (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably in the first place because this is not a forum. This is a project. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is a forum, or soon will be, due to its near omnipresence on the internet. JeanLatore (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not relevant. The American First Amendment does not extend to non-governmental organizations, no matter how influential they might be. Simply put, you have no constitutional right to "free speech" on Wikipedia, or the internet. Resolute 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And also, a lot of us aren't Americans! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Darkspots (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. --Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The First amendment has to do with congress restricting your speech. Congress didn't write WP:ATTACK. --Kbdank71 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a very narrow reading of the First Amendment, and not the way it is construed in American jurisprudence. But Guido is correct; this is a project, not a democracy, and the people that set the project up and make sure that it gets paid for get to make the rules. If you go to Network Solutions and register your own domain, then you have free speech. Not here. Darkspots (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, not there either, if they don't like what you've registered, or what you're doing with the domain enough. SQLQuery me! 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The First Amendment only covers the government restricting the free speech of private citizens. It is in absolutely no way, shape, or form applicable to WP:ATTACK, or indeed anything on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is not (try insulting your potential employer during a job interview referring to the first amendment ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not applicable -- there are many other forums for insulting your employer. The First Amendment in fact does give you the RIGHT to insult your employer, unless you use "fighting words." You just have the pay the consequences of said speech, but you are free to do it. The First Amendment thus gives us the right to make personal attacks on Wikipedia too. JeanLatore (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, there is free speech on Wikipedia, as you will not be prosecuted, locked up, tortured or killed, or denied any other civil rights (edting Wiki is not one of them) for anything you say on Wiki. You may be kicked off the project; but quaoting JeanLatore "You just have the pay the consequences of said speech, but you are free to do it." Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Or you could try spray painting graffiti on your neighbour's wall and threatening to sue him for violating your right to free speech if he scrubs it off. Hut 8.5 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The point still stands. Suppose you did something legal - put a sign on his front lawn. It's his property and he has every right to determine what is and is not on it, just as Wikipedia has every right to determine what they do and do not host. --Hut 8.5 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Putting a sign on his front lawn w/o his permission is illegal -- it's tresspass. I don't know what country you live in where they don't consider that wrong! JeanLatore (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You are dodging the question. My point is that the owner of private property has the right to regulate what is or is not displayed on that property, regardless of how it got there. Therefore Wikipedia has every right to remove personal attacks as it is private property. Hut 8.5 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not dodging the question. If you have a point to make just make it without resorting to unclear and inapposite analogy. JeanLatore (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Say your neighbor gave his permission for signs to be put on his lawn. Now it's legal. If you put a sign he doesn't like and removes it, that's his right. It's still his property, and he can do what he wants with it. --Kbdank71 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And in a more positive vain, it means you can kick your friend out of your house when he bad-mouths your favorite sports team. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it is; your house, your rules. There's no law saying you have to house someone against your will. Kicking your friend out when they have nowhere else to go may make you a total jackass, but it isn't illegal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and free speech is irrelevant to your argument anyway. Anyone can say whatever they want whenever they want. Sometimes it's just stupid to exercise that right because it'll bite you in the ass. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, 'free speech' does not give you the right to insult people. What it does (one of the things that it does) is make you accountable to the other if you do, as opposed to non-free speech where you are accountable to the authorities. It is a right, but also a great responsibility. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not even do that. It guarantees American citizens the right to public speech without government interference. (At least, in the context I think this is used in, I'm not sure about the irish one... That's what happens when you link to things you haven't read, I spose.) SQLQuery me! 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the amendment. I'm talking about freedom of speech itself now, which user apparently also doesn't understand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the text of the First Amendment before continuing to comment. Until Wikipedia becomes a branch of the government with rules formed by Congress, it doesn't apply. Wikipedia is a private website governed by a board of trustees, though most power is delegated to the community. As a private website, the foundation and the community have just as much of a right to regulate speech as someone may do in their own home or in an office they manage. Mr.Z-man 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, No, they dont! The owner can regulate speech within the area under his control, that is true, but not when that area is so broad as to there not be any other feasible locations for the speech. There are 2 Supreme Court cases right on this point, something about how a "company town" could not regulate speech within the town it owned, and other about a shopping mall. Wikipedia is like the "company town." JeanLatore (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean to tell me there are no other feasible locations on the internet for you to make such statements? Resolute 01:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a "company town." Wikipedia is an internet establishment whose avenues for communication amount to little more than your run of the mill forum, BLP issues notwithstanding. It has the right to regulate speech as it sees fit. You might as well drop this, because you're never going to successfully argue that everyone should have the right to call the other side some terribly obscene name in place of actual discussion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is nothing like the company town. The company town is when one entity owns so much of an area and regulates speech within it that in effect there is nowhere else to go to speak freely. This is nothing like that. You can go somewhere else just by moving your mouse up and clicking elsewhere. Celarnor Talk to me 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The text of the first amendment starts out with: "Congress shall make no law"... That seems pretty clear as to why it's not applicable here. SQLQuery me! 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that constitutional law and interpretation only done through United States Supreme Court cases involving the text. Not all it takes to understand constitutional law is to memorize the text of the constitution and its amendments. JeanLatore (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you would interpert Congress some other way, to mean Wikipedia? SQLQuery me! 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, read the first string of posts, its explained up there. Look for the "company town" stuff... JeanLatore (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And this is an article that also advances this argument: [4]
this is another one dealing with the First Amendment consequences of MMPORGs. [5]. And the company town supreme court case was Marsh v. Alabama. JeanLatore (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What geographical area does Wikipedia own and govern? Have you or anyone else been imprisoned for making edits that are not in line with WP:ATTACK somehow? SQLQuery me! 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does the law say that one can only make a first amendment claim if he was imprisoned first? The mere fact that a user is threatened with some sanction, that is to say, banning from wikipedia, is all you need to make a claim.
And who said anything about geographic area? Wikipedia owns a LOT of information-area. That also is sufficient to make it subject to a Marsh-like claim of a first amendment violation. JeanLatore (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)What? Now I can't interpret it however I see fit? :) SQLQuery me! 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You've yet to address the issue of how this applies to Wikipedia. You've thrown around "company town", which doesn't apply, and posted two papers which likewise don't apply. Wikipedia isn't a public forum and your assertions don't have merit until it is ruled to be as such. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)Since we're citing opinion papers, there's also Wikipedia:Free_speech, probably explains things a little better than I have. SQLQuery me! 01:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am curious here. What percentage of the internet must Wikipedia "own" in order for a "Marsh-like" claim to exist in your opinion? What percentage of the internet do you think Wikipedia owns? Also, please get in contact with the ACLU. I would love to hear their take on your complaint. Resolute 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean, a couple of your recent article contributions: Anal Sex with Sluts and Small Sluts, Nice Butts make me question your understanding of our project, not to mention your mention above of WP as a "forum". You seem to confuse us with You Tube, MySpace, or a blog space. The point here is that we are writing an encyclopedia in cooperation, like a work environment. It is incumbent on the project to provide a reasonable and comfortable work environment free from sexual harassment and incivility. You are trying to pushing rope uphill with your debate here. Why are you here? Are you just trying to get attention by making noise? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the content, not the contributor, man. Everything was going fine until you started to troll the thread... and why am i here, man? Just check out these gems: Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, United States v. Williams, United States v. Dixon. Yeah man, that's it baby. JeanLatore (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions do have merit to this very pointless discussion. You seem to think that Wikipedia works in a way contrary to reality, and won't let that belief go despite the obvious. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of the biggest supporters of free speech around here, but I'd never be silly enough to claim that the First Amendment is directly applicable to the policies of a worldwide, privately operated site like this. (And I don't see how the cases you cited here are relevant.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to free speech? Resolute 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, did you read them? I'm thinking about when wikipedia becomes all powerful, all encompassing. Read that case about AOL that's mentioned at the bottom of the marsh v. alabama article...the next time the court might rule against the internet on the same grounds, esp. as it grows stronger.JeanLatore (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One item that has been dropped from this discussion is Freedom of association. Wikipedia has the right to restrict who it associates with when such associations do not conform with Wikipedia's stated goals. Another way to view this is that the right to a free press does not mean that you can force someone else to buy you a printing press. --Allen3 talk 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The first amendment right in question here is not free speech. It's freedom of the press. That belongs to the guy who owns the printing presses and the barrels of ink. The WP analogy is the servers and the software. The Foundation has this right, delegated in large measure to contributors within a set of rules prescribed, ultimately, by the Foundation. Jean, you have no right of free speech here. The Foundation has a right of unfettered freedom of the press. If you want to exercise that kind of freedom, buy yourself a bunch of servers and buy, develop or license the software (some you can find as "freeware"). Then you can exercise your freedom of speech and your freedom of the press (at least here in the U.S.) You have no such right here on WP. David in DC (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Careful, David - the Foundation will have section 230 issues if you keep likening it to a newspaper publisher (emoticon would go here if I used the things). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All analogies are imperfect. :) <----(I use them)David in DC (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, IANAL, but here's my basic understanding of free speech issues. First, the First Amendment only applies to Congress; private organizations are not required to provide anyone a forum for their speech. The closest any law comes to requiring that would be common carrier laws, which require all common carriers to carry any and all legal traffic that's willing to pay the service fee. Wikipedia is not a common carrier. A railroad is a common carrier, as is a phone company or internet service provider, but Wikipedia is not, and thus isn't legally required to provide anyone with a forum to express their opinions. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that's my understanding of it. And I just got this information from someone I know who IS a lawyer regarding it: "Succinctly: Wikipedia is not the government. The Bill of Rights involves actions by the government, or a subdivision thereof." Rdfox 76 (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Amendment is on Wikipedia's side. The group can have First Amendment rights against the individual (see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale). --SMP0328. (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was a First Amendment case because of a law, not private action. Quote: "...overturning the New Jersey Supreme Court's application of the New Jersey public accommodations law, which had forced the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale." That was an application of law, not simply a group/organization making a decision about a user. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The point was that the law infringed upon the private organization's First Amendment right to make such decisions regarding members/personnel. But this whole discussion thread is silly. Postdlf (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but these are my thoughts: WP:ATTACK is itself an exercise of free speech on the part of its author. The Marsh case, on the other hand, involved a governmental action. Somehow I think that "no governmental action" is dispositive. Marsh might, or might not, be applicable if somebody were to be prosecuted for unauthorized use of Wikipedia's services. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Marsh case did NOT involve governmental action..are you nuts? Did you even read the case? It was about a private company regulating speech on the property it owned... Come on, let's tighten up, here man!! JeanLatore (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
IANAL, but I'm pretty certain cyberspace is not tangible property; thus the Marsh case applies here about as much as house deeds apply to stock holdings. The key word here is "property", which I'm pretty certain means tangible items (i.e. land, buildings) legally. As Wikipedia is not (a) tangible, (b) land, or (c) a building, it it therefore immune to the Marsh decision.
And before you make your argument again, consider these articles: chilling effect and defamation. Telling us to abide by the First Amendment (even if it doesn't apply to us) gives us the right to call people names you would personally not want to hear - freedom of speech cuts both ways, and if you can call someone an idiot, then I can call you someone who loves chukawk. By the same token, however, freedom of speech also does not allow libel (which is the deliberate publishing of falsehoods to defame someone; see the Seigenthaler incident), and such speech would still be removed on here per WP:BLP due to legal ramifications for the Foundation. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has the right to do anything on Wikipedia. The servers are the property of the Wikimedia Foundation, who can do whatever the fuck they want with them. It's basically the same as having a notebook. It's not your legal right to write "Marvin sucks" in my notebook (or anything else for that matter), so why should you have the same right on Wikipedia? If anybody gets to say whatever they want on Wikipedia, then it should be illegal to block anyone, or have protected pages. IPs should be able to edit the Main Page. But of course, that's the most idiotic idea in the history of man. Ziggy Sawdust 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not just Wikipedia. I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to claim free speech on privately-owned websites. I occasionally post on a few messageboards, and if someone is cautioned or suspended for making personal attacks, they unfailingly resort to "You're suppressing my right to free speech!" Even if the entire world subscribed to American law, that fails. You do not have the right to free speech on someone else's property/website. They make the rules. If you don't like it, there are many other websites which may not care what you say or how you say it. Enigma message 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I lost track of how many times I was called a "nazi" back when I was a mod at Fanhome. People need to realize that private enterprise is not held to the same restrictions as the government is. And despite Jean Latore's repeated misguided complaints, Wikipedia is in no danger whatsoever of becoming so "gargantuan" that no alternative avenues for free speech exist. The internet is a hell of a lot bigger than one website. Resolute 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, I might not know you are or what you stand for, but you are right. You are right given that the website does not control so many of the avenues of internet speech as to be able to shut out a person's avenues to make that speech. However, Wikipedia, perhaps not now, but soon will reach that gargantuan and powerful mass. That is when the First Amendment a la the Marsh case would apply to Wikipedia, even though it is not a government entity. JeanLatore (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so please stop wasting our time with fruitless what-ifs about Wikipedia possibly infringing on free speech. It's not going to happen. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize how generous Wikipedia is?

I've started this new subsection so that I'm not quite keeping this silly discussion going. Only one person here is honestly arguing that WP:NPA violates the First Amendment, and I humbly suggest that he take this discussion to his own talk page if he doesn't know it might possibly be time to give it a rest. However, I think there's a valid point that needs to be made: Do you realize how amazingly generous Wikipedia is on "free speech" issues? In many Internet communities, they can block or ban you just for saying something negative about the website. Here, we won't ban you just for criticizing Wikipedia. Anyway, if you honestly believe WP:NPA violates U.S. law, feel free to take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. If he feels your argument has merit, he'll be happy to strike down the policy... szyslak (t) 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, really, please don't bother the counselor. Surely he has real work to do. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone should bother the counsellor. There's a "reasonable accommodation" issue lurking in the background that a U.S. lawyer looking after the Foundation's interests ought to look at. David in DC (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, the First Amendment limits what the US Congress can do, it does not stop a private publisher from deciding what is and what is not allowed in their publication. I am Canadian and even I know that. 1 != 2 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, don't encourage people to waste other people's time. I was gunna suggest someone write an essay for this, but there's already Wikipedia:Free speech. Friday (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, Congress shall make no law. Wikipedia isn't Congress. Can we resolve this? --Kbdank71 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
According to my lawyer friend who I quoted above, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment also extends to state governments, and private organizations operating with an authorization from the US Government. For example, WXYZ-TV has a certain level of First Amendment obligations due to the fact that it operates with the permission of the US Government, in the form of the station's operating license from the FCC. Of course, this means nothing to Wikipedia, which has no such government license. Rdfox 76 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The government also allows me to live in the state of Michigan, and that still doesn't mean I have to let people into my house to write things in my books. Ziggy Sawdust 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Some clarifications: The First Amendment, notwithstanding its specific reference to Congress, has been applied to state governments and subdivisions thereof (counties, cities) under the Fourteenth Amendment, by what is called the Incorporation doctrine. A private organization acting pursuant to governmental authority (basically when governmental functions are outsourced to private commercial ventures, such as a private contractor running a prison) can be considered a state actor, under civil rights laws that allow individuals to bring suit for violations of their constitutional rights. Radio stations are given licenses by the FCC to broadcast on frequencies that are considered public property; the station's obligations to serve the public good are conditions of the license. All of which is interesting but of course completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Postdlf (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My earlier comment may have been too obscure. When I say I think a Foundation lawyer should look at this, because of a "reasonable accommodation" issue lurking in the background, I'm not talking about the 1st amendment. I'm talking about the ADA. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ADA???? Darkspots (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we're expected to make reasonable accommodations for people psychologically incapable of not making personal attacks? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we are, in the U.S., if the editor is a member of a protected class under the ADA. Please read the first line of Jean's User page. David in DC (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd do better to read the actual text of the law. Wikipedia is not a public accommodation. It's simply outside the scope of the ADA. Postdlf (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm well-familiar with the ADA's text. It reaches waaaaaaaay beyond public accommodations. It requires an extraordinary array of institutions and individuals to make reasonable accommodations for people in protected classes. The meaning of the word "accommodation" in the phrase "reasonable accommodation" has nothing to do with the very different term "public accommodation." But as I said above, it's not the commenters here who need to take a close look at this, it's the Foundation's counsel. The very first line of Jean's User page puts us on notice that he's a member of protected class. David in DC (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
He would be treated the same as any other user, regardless of his disabilities, if he were to persist in his silly belief that he has some kind of immunity from WP:ATTACK. His contributions are judged the same as anyone else's. In other words, there is no discrimination going on, unless we use his claim of being autistic to change how we treat him. The ADA angle isn't nearly the red-herring as the First Ammendment claim was, but it is equally as frivolous. Resolute 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Public accommodations" are the primary private entities that are within the ADA's scope (Title III of the ADA). As that term is defined by the statute at 42 U.S.C. § 12181, it clearly refers to enumerated physical places such as restaurants, hotels, etc. If you didn't think Wikipedia was a "public accommodation," under what category of covered entities did you think Wikipedia was included, such that it would be subject to ADA requirements? Postdlf (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If ADA does apply, then I can, should I have had a bad day, be immune to punishment for calling people names and being a general c*** because I'm an Aspie and have a temper problem? -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what's being implied here. But y'know, someone will be arrested for standing in a public place screaming obscenities regardless of whether or not they have Tourette's syndrome. What the law chooses to do afterwards is a different issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting because of uncountable colons and arguably separate issue) I'm fairly sure the ban on "legal threats" would actually pose more of a constitutional issue in the U.S., but as szyslak points out, individual websites generally aren't required to let everyone day whatever they want to anyone they want. In fact, the English Wikipedia is far more tolerant of such things than most other foundation wikis (IME, at least). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Small fonts

Looking at one of today's articles in the news, Union of South American Nations, I find some of the text in small fonts to be hard to read. Not all of us have those new sharp digital monitors, and I'm sure many people have smaller monitors than mine. Yes I know there are ways to increase the size of text on the screen, but I'm not vision impaired, and have no problem with average font sizes. Look especially at the section with a map of South America halfway down the screen, or the bottom of the big table further down. I can make out the small text with a little difficulty, but the big problem is the superscripted reference numbers (1, 2, 3) - I'm having trouble seeing which is which. These numbers seem to be smaller, or at least harder to read, than the usual blue superscripted reference numbers in square brackets.

Why do we need small font text in Wikipedia articles, anyway? I think of small font as being appropriate for legal text, where a large block of text that most people don't care to read is crammed into a small space. Even then, I suspect legal text is printed small in a deliberate attempt to hide it, but that's getting off topic. The small text, as used in this article, is not overly wordy, nor is it something that is so trivial that it needs to be tucked away for the sake of appearance. I suspect the writers are just copying style they've seen used elsewhere, such as in printed books.

Do we have a policy discouraging small fonts? Do you think we should have one? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir I think you are right! We should have some standardisation of fonts and sizes on here. I don't like the current default font myself -- for a while I was signing my name in Edwardian script font, perhaps the site should use something like that a bit catchier. JeanLatore (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plug for a wikiproject: Wikipedia:Accessibility. Which does not recommend small small fonts. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
A few notes... WP:ACCESS is the guideline, Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility is the wikiproject. WP:ACCESS discourages the use of small fonts, but since it's not a policy it's not technically required for fonts to be standardized, simply recommended although I doubt you would run into much objection if you started making fonts larger, Ni. In a related story, I've been toying around with the idea of using {{hidden}} around the references section on articles in order to justify increasing the size of ref fonts. I've hit a few snags (namely the problem that when the ref section is hidden you cannot jump to it from the markers in the article) but you can see my example here if you're interested. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the inability to jump to the references section is a deal-breaker. If you can't easily access the references, what's the point of having them? --Carnildo (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I absolutely agree. Right now I'm trying to figure out if there's a way I can code it so that when one clicks on the inline markers it sets the hidden template to show. I need to take a look at the {{hidden}} syntax- just haven't gotten around to it yet. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes! I was thinking of the very same idea. It seems the reason why people put the references in multiple columns is to have them take up less space (vertically) and then the fontsize has been reduced so that they actually fit in narrow columns, making them even harder to read. So hiding them seems like a much better alternative, as you say getting the inline links to work should only be a minor scripting issue.
As for font sizes, good luck with that, I support larger fonts, but I think it will be hard to get support for any change of the base font size (and such). The graphical design of wikipedia is generally really, really awful. But whenever you suggest a improvement, someone is bound to come around and say "I don't care about your reasons, I like it better the way it is, go away you #@¤!" and most other people don't care enough to say anything. Since a change of the design is going to affect every user on the site, it requires serious consensus, and unless it is something that attract enough attention, that will never happen. So the result is this crappy design. It's sad, because the site could benefit tremendously (from a usability perspective at least) from some very small changes.
—Apis (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, the size and format of refs has been a recurring problem that we [the accessibility team] have been dealing with. The multiple columns present both an aesthetic and coding problem and even people with fairly good vision are reporting troubles reading the eensie-weensie font. The hidden template, if we could get it to work, would be an ideal solution. I took a look at the source code of {{hidden}}- it's not nearly as complex as I thought for the simple reason that it is almost completely composed of other templates. I have a fairly good grasp of wikimarkup, but looking at it I just don't see the parts that make it do what it does. According to the template history, it was originally written by User:Azatoth. I have left a message on his talk page to see if he can offer some insight.
One last thing: I assume in your second paragraph you are referring to the discussion over at template talk:reflist about multicolumn support? I just read that, and I got to say, strange stuff. I believe that if we really want to incite change, we have to get people interested in it. Show that this is a real problem that can't just be blamed on a minority of people with buggy browsers. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sort of a different issue, but having larger fonts in the edit window would be a great help to older editors like me :). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No that wasn't what I was referring to, it was more of a general observation. How long did it take to get an error in the logo fixed for example. And that was a glaring error that ought to be obvious to anyone. I think more people would care about the multicolumn stuff if more than a minority of browsers supported it, as it is now it's only visible to a minority anyway. There are some valid uses for it, but the way it's generally used is more or less evil imo ;). I agree with the last part, but personally I'm not very good at getting people interested in stuff :/ I've seen several people complaining about small fonts but everyone just shudder at the thought of trying to change it. Still I can't think of any particularly good reason why we should use the smallest font possible we can cram in here. Computer monitors have really crappy resolution compared to printed media so they can get away with much smaller fonts. Maybe working more on wp:access to get it upgraded to policy could be a way forward? Anyway, hopefully the collapsible reference list can be made to work because that should make everyone happy without sacrificing usability. =)
—Apis (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, working at getting people interested in making wp:access a policy has been an ongoing process, with not a lot of support from the wider public. It seems that there is a (usually mistaken) belief that accessible pages are ugly and difficult to use for the rest of us, which is pure... well, you know. If we want to get WP:ACCESS to a policy we are going to have to show that accessibility helps everyone- not just people with screen readers, not just people with old computers, not just colorblind people: but everyone. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fricking awesome news, everybody! Just like Archimedes in his bathtub (well, maybe not that great, but at the very least extremely good) I do believe I have figured it out! I was almost about to give up, because the hidden template was going nowhere, when, suddenly, it occured to me... why not put in a scrollbar, like this:

this is a test
this is a test
this is a test
this is a test
this is a test
this is a test
this is a test
this is a test
this is a test

Sure enough, it works swimmingly. Cuts down on space significantly, but easy to read. If you click an inline marker it takes you directly to the corresponding reference, no scrolling required! Check out my new and improved test model, now live at User:L'Aquatique/Template Box.
The only thing left is to test is accessibility. I'm particularly interested in how it works with screen readers, so I'm going to get in contact with our screen reader expert and beg him to be my guinea pig for this little experiment... mwahahaha... L'Aquatique[talk] 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, putting refs in scroll boxes was shot down last year. Of course, consensus may have changed since then. I would think the better solution here would be to package your desires in a userscript. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Check out User_talk:L'Aquatique#Re: your idea for the references section for some comments on the accessibility of using a scrollbar. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a text-based recreation of a logo be illegal?

I know we can't do it as an image, but what what about as HTML or LaTeX? The logo in this case is the STL version of the St. Louis Cardinals logo. That has several overlapping letters. I don't care if the font or colors are correct as long as the letters end up in the correct position. I was thinking of use that for {{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/MLB-Cardinals}}. Currently, that has just "STL". Will (Talk - contribs) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're fine. Such simple text can't be copyrighted. The specific style, bordering, font type, etc of the logo can be, but colored initials are fine. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if you're speaking of mimicking the exact style of this, it would be a different story. You can use the initials, but copying the logo exactly, regardless of how, who be considered a derivative work. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer but I doubt it would be possible to mimic the exact style, aside from doing some elaborate ASCII art. I doubt simply overlapping the letters could be considered copyright infringement. — CharlotteWebb 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories/nationality

Bohemia is the old name of the territory of today's Czech Republic. Look at this edit. Goethe is also called "german writer" and today's Germany was not called "Germany" when Goethe was living. And as we call Michelangelo as an "italian" artist and not "Holy Roman Empire" artist, we call Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer "czech" architect, don't we?--  LYKANTROP  20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GFDL question

What is this Wacklepedia thing? It seems to include stuff from here, say that its contents are licensed under GFDL, but I don't see where it gives credit where credit is due.... but maybe that might be a browser compatibility issue or an oversight on my part (e.g., the history link is there but I can't see it. Or does GFDL not require a history link on mirror sites?)

It does. You're supposed to somehow include the names of the five principal authors. Usually that's done with an edit history. Celarnor Talk to me
I've seen no Wikipedia mirror that links to page history. Answers.com, for example, seems reputable (it also includes content licensed from commercial encyclopædias, typically displayed above the corresponding Wikipedia entry – great for verification), and it has no page-history link. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different question, what's the meaning of the term "title page" as mentioned in GFDL? Is that the Wikipedia main page, or is it something else?

For us, it's the title; i.e, what appears before the beginning of the text. It varies from project to project using the GFDL. Celarnor Talk to me 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another GFDL question

What is the proper way to copy text from one Wikipedia article into another? For example, linker and static build contain duplicative text; supposing that the text was written by the same author in both articles, that is clearly not a problem, but suppose that they are by two different authors. What would be the proper way for the author of the newer article to comply with GFDL when copying text from the older? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In my edit summaries, I usually say something like "Incorporating text from this article". Provides a link to the history of the text. Resolute 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the most common solution, indeed (the linked page effectively includes "attached" authorship history by virtue of being a MediaWiki page, and all pages on Wikipedia include a link to the GFDL). If it's practical or there's concern one page might be deleted, naming author(s) or copy-pasting history to an article's talk page may also work out okay. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hidden" Wikipedia mirrors?

So I found an excellent article that I wished to nominate for WP:GA. In order to avoid opening a hornet's nest of liability, I googled a phrase from the article, and found that it duplicates exactly the text of several websites. Some of the websites were clearly irrelevant, as the matches went away when I added words to the query. And most of the remaining websites were clearly Wikipedia mirrors.

However, I found the specific creative content that I thought merited "good article" consideration on not one but two websites that have the same "look and feel" as Wikipedia, but do not license their work pursuant to GFDL, and do not credit Wikipedia. One of these sites I was able to determine to be a Wikipedia mirror by chopping off the end of the URL, but the other seems to be a technical site, so I sent a polite note to their webmaster asking them whether we infringe their copyright. (I worded it this way because I felt that asking it differently would seem hostile or at least, uncivil.)

Now, what shall I do if their webmaster does not respond? (Their "contact" page specifically tells people not  to "call" them about their "resource library," implying that such contacts may be ignored.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Check archive.org and see which one is older. Odds are, they're copying from Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles on VDF

What kind of articles has the most fights during the discussions during Vdf? --DimaG (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure if I follow; what's VDF? VDF and WP:VDF are both redlinks. My only guess is that you're referring to the old votes for deletion process, maybe? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean VfD? now WP:Articles for Deletion? Resolute 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of the news?

Are there any guidelines for when an event should be considered "no longer current"? Having some discussion about this on the Cyclone Nargis page. Also, are there any guidelines for using the "current event" article tag in a main article? (i.e. section vs. top of article). I've poked around, but can't find these policies (they may not exist, and that's fine).Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

where the template is placed is a matter of discretion. An article may not necessarily discuss an event exclusively, so it would be appropriate to limit it to a section. As for out of the news, that would be case by case. Cyclones, hurricanes, etc, tend to stay newsworthy for at least one month, so its appropriate. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hard to make a firm rule, here, yeah. I guess I'd say while sudden changes in circumstances and coverage continue to be likely, there's a case to be made that whatever event is "current." It may be worthwhile to distinguish between an event itself (a storm is currently ravaging cities) and its aftermath (relief efforts are ongoing), when it comes to disasters in particular -- {{current section}}, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_47&oldid=217308427"