Wikipedia talk:Read the archives

While this suggestion makes a lot of sense, I'm afraid that saying it won't make people do it. Several talk pages have hundreds of kilobytes of archive, and people simply aren't going to read through them before making the point they wish to make. That's one of the reasons why the village pump has a "perennial proposals" section. Bottom line - if there's anything relevant in the archives, provide a diff or a link. Radiant_>|< 13:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

From a practical, pragmatic standpoint, your concern rings true. But I don't see how reminding them they have that responsibility can hurt. The convention at the better run, heavily-used discussion forums and usenet groups is that new arrivals need to educate and familiar themselves with the state of the current debate if they are to participate, and especially if they want be taken seriously early on. It's not the responsibility of the longer-term editors to educate every new user who thinks they've got the killer new argument, which usually proves in the end to be something seen many times before (and just copied from some other website). If it were the regular's responsibility to educate each new arrival, no progress would ever be made as the same issues will be repeated re-hashed again and again until the newbie understands (or gives up), which is something we're already seeing at some articles and that needs to be addressed. You're also right about the daunting size of some archives discouraging new editors from reading them. This is why I included the suggestion that it's up to long-term editors to cull from the a FAQ to point new users to; I feel that's more than meeting the newbies half way, and if they can't be bothered to do that, then they have no basis for complaints, right? FeloniousMonk 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Adrigo 20:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC): Any editor pointing out any valid points to be found in the archives is fine, but how can anyone ever state, "This is a settled issue" concerning anything in Wikipedia? Wouldn't any such statement be ignoring the already adopted policy, Wikipedia:No binding decisions?

Wikipedia strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia. Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding. It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we didn't have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.

By the way, kudos for the way you handled the Atheism article mess. Cheers, Adrigo 20:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Resolved disputes over verifiable facts (not opinions) could be considered "settled issues" in my opinion. When a fact has already been established by credible evidence, there's little to no benefit in further discussion, barring new evidence of course. New evidence should always be considered and folded into any collective understanding of what constitutes credible and compelling evidence sufficient for content justification.

It's been my experience that new editors arriving at hotly contested articles often feel they have devastating new evidence which they are eager to invoke as justification for removing existing content, only to find that other editors have presented the same evidence in months previous, and it was found to not be credible and compelling. Had they first read the archive they would be spared some frustration, and all participants would be be able to spend their time on article enhancements, not responding once again to previous arguments. The constant resurrecting and rehashing of content disputes in which there has been no change in the particulars is distracting and disruptive; suggesting new editors review the archives first respects everyone's time, theirs and long-term editors. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)