Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharonX (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 12 June 2006 (Points of criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

From the Pump

copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

Other efforts having failed, we still face the need to build a workable UBX policy. With some trepidation I've posted a starting point for further work.

I should very much like users to edit the proposal directly rather than attempt to vote on it. This is a wiki; we can work it out. John Reid 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not bad; I like the writing. I think there are still basic philosophical divisions that need to be addressed, but, baring that, it looks good. 134.10.12.23 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (User:JesseW/not logged in)[reply]

I support this proposed policy. ericg 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have included some comments. Septentrionalis 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since comments should remain on the talk page, here's the diff with Pmanderson's (Septentrionalis's) comments. --AySz88^-^ 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. I just softened the tone on the "word to the wise" by using a statement from the Userboxes page banner and clarified that not all UBX need an exemption from the NPOV policy. Rfrisbietalk 04:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support - 100% backing this is exactly right. Hopefully we can solve this debacle once and for all. DJR (Talk) 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems to be a reasonable policy proposal that would go a long way toward settling some of the unnecessary conflicts that are currently raging. I commend you on the wording of items 10 and 11 ('When the purpose of a UBX is to declare a bias...' and 'UBX are not in any way part of the encyclopedia...'). Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less strict on meta templates?

Since WP:AUM was rejected, I don't think "UBX may not doubly transclude" needs to be very strict, within reason; maybe "User templates may not transclude other templates other than {{userbox}}"? --AySz88^-^ 23:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stand in your way on this but I suggest that this restriction appeals to those leaning away from UBX on technical grounds. The overhead involved may be trivial -- or it may not. I think of this as a compromise between unrestricted transclusion and subst-only UBX. John Reid 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed blasphemous

Having just read this excellent work, I removed the "blasphemous" criterion (and added a bit of punctuation thoughout). To many religions, including the one in which I was raised, the beliefs and mere existence of other adherents is often considered blasphemous. For example, Roman Catholic Saints, or prophets not mentioned in the "King James version" of the "Holy Bible". If we don't allow blasphemous statements as seen by one view or another, a fair amount of human history and science would not be in the encyclopedia.

--William Allen Simpson 15:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions

From the failed Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

  • "Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are [...] general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors."
  • "Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease, except as follows:
    1. Userboxes that are blatant infringements of applicable Wikipedia policy, such as No personal attacks, should be speedy deleted.
    2. Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should not be immediately deleted. These should be substituted onto user pages, or users notified to substitute them onto their user pages. These templates should be deleted after a period of four weeks grace or once all instances have been substituted.
    3. Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the project'.
    4. Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements may be copied onto some special pages, from which they may be cut and paste (hard-coded) onto userpages as desired."
  • "If Jimbo is in agreement, WP:CSD T1 (at least for userbox templates) might be replaced with userbox templates that obviously do not conform to the agreed userbox policy."

Do we want to add in any of these? In particular, the speedy deletion section. How is this policy to be implemented? TheJabberwʘck 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll:

  • "inclusion of userbox subpages of other users' is not allowed as it would permit factionalism through Special:Whatlinkshere."

TheJabberwʘck 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates has been working on a T2 that applies specifically to userboxes. Obviously, these two efforts need to be coordinated. At this point, they don't appear to me to be in agreement. The difference seems to be around whether userboxes on "controversial subjects" are inherently "divisive and inflammatory." Until established to be otherwise, the assume good faith policy requires an assumption they are not, particularly as related to speedy deletion criteria. Rfrisbietalk 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, CSD is not the place to create policy. CSD is a process by which existing policy is executed. John Reid 06:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community building vs. factionalism - the value of automated Wikipedian groupings

In relation to the assume good faith policy, community building and collaboration are very beneficial processes to the basic vision of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can. (Wikipedia:Userboxes)

This statement clearly puts the utilitarian benefits of userboxes to the forefront. They are useful for the online community because they help organize Wikipedians by topical interests, through such automated mechanisms as "What links here" and categories.

On the other hand, factionalism that introduces bias into articles is counterproductive to the encyclopedia writing process. However, "an article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy." (Wikipedia:Describing points of view}

When it comes to userboxes, I believe the potential benefits of community building far outweigh the potential costs of factionalism. Because of this, I strongly support the use of templates for userboxes and imbedded categories for grouping Wikipedians by topical interests communicated by the userboxes. Consquently...

Alternative proposals

See Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal.

Appearing on Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal: The statement "Shouldn't all of this discussion go on WP:UBP WP:UPP WP:UUB Wikipedia:Userbox policy or User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll or Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals? Kotepho 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)" was met with the response "No, I think this is the place. This is where people will see it. If a critical mass develops I'll write it up someplace else. Those who are interested in this topic will see it here and hopefully contribute. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)".

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At 61%, the last poll on this fell slightly short of the supermajority necessary. Clearly, most agree that this is a reasonable policy and that a policy is needed to end the war. To all those who were in favour of it at the last poll and would vote for it again, thank you. To any who voted against, this is my question: What is the least that would have to change in the policy, whether adding, taking away, or modifying, in order for you to accept it? My hope is that over the next few days this input can be used to adjust the policy until it is acceptable to the requisite supermajority, hold a new poll, and end the war before the week is out. All in a day's work. D. G. 07:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What poll? I'm almost sure Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll has nothing to do with this proposal. To answer your question, I would suggest taking a look at WP:MACK, which is where most of the discussion is happening now. Personally, I much prefer this proposal, but Mack's poll is getting a lot of attention. TheJabberwʘck 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MACK is neither a policy proposal nor a compromise. Is is a draft of the terms of surrender for all Wikipedians who use userboxes, dressed up in sheep's clothing. D. G. 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree about the wolf analogy. So far, Mack has been very honest about his intentions, at least on the poll page. And regardless, Wikipedia:Mackensen's_Proposal/Straw_Poll is doing an excellent job of clarifying the multiple issues involved. As I said, I don't support Mack's proposal either, but I like the kind of conversation that's going on there. TheJabberwʘck 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked a bit more and participated in the discussion, and I think you have a point. I may have been quick to judge Mackensen's intentions. I still think the initial proposal blows, but it seems there is a frank effort going on there, which is terribly good news. We must fight for order. D. G. 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a perfect policy. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "this" do you mean? Rfrisbietalk 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no heartburn with this proposal, unlike WP:MACK. Unfortunately, I don't think anything like this will win the favor of the admins who have been opposing WP:MACK as too lenient. I'm not sure there is a bridge across this divide. Jay Maynard 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the poll that got 61%, just a little bit short of the necessary supermajority, actually had quite a few who opposed because it was not lenient enough towards userboxes. D. G. 21:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work together. Edit this policy as you see fit. John Reid 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lets work together and do it my way. Ansell Review my progress! 23:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think John's looking for people to edit this policy to make it acceptable to them. What changes would you make to it? Jay Maynard 23:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would try to put rationales down for each one. And I don't doubt that he is acting in good faith, however, m:MPOV may be a problem as he totally ignored the amount of discussion that was happening at WP:MACK. Ansell Review my progress! 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did he ignore it, or did he conclude there was no way WP:MACK would be transformed into something he would accept? (Why am I asking this? John, which is it? Or is it something else?) Jay Maynard 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This policy proposes somewhat arbitrary guidelines about the whole issue. The reason currently that a policy does not exist is not because of differences in opinion about the size of userboxes, or the number (of which 64 is a very random number). Currently I disagree with 2,4,6,8,9,10,11 in their current wording. The reasons for not disagreing with some of the others is that they are obvious, or arbitrary, therefore. I don't see myself giving a large contribution to this policy. It in no way attempts to get at the issues I have put down on other pages. Ansell Review my progress! 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or was it simply that WP:MACK came along in May 2006 after this proposal, which was started in early March 2006? Jay Maynard 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this policy were created by the community, and focused on solving issues instead of simply laying down the law because a new class of objects have appeared, I may have focused on improving it. The attitude of the creator in this does not enthuse me to work on it to make it better. Ansell Review my progress! 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry to hear that, because I think this is a great proposal, along with TheTrueSora's. John, I think you should stop trying to forcibly convert people - you can see the results here. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had been strolling around the Pump, sneaking up on users unaware, bashing in their heads with a blunt instrument, and dragging them here. Sorry; I'll stop doing that. :)

Seriously, I think we all need to stay cool and work together. It doesn't really matter what we start with; I'm not even so sure it matters what we end up with. What's important is that we all sit down together on one page and hash it out. It's entirely possible for four competing proposals each to acquire the semblance of community consensus as various editors support their chosen strains. It's more likely that four, five, or six competing proposals will all fail and we'll be left with antagonism and cowboyism. Our best chance for peace lies in a moderate proposal well edited by all sides.

Let's work together and stay cool. John Reid 09:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 6

This policy looks good to me, however point 6 (the one about falsly claiming to be a member of a group e.g. medical practicioners) strikes me as being impossible to enforce - for the most part it is impossible to determine someone's occupation/hobbies/interests in the real world unless they choose to disclose them. I agree in principle that people should not deliberately mislead, but in the end, participation in Wikipedia is anonymous, so it's possible to invent any back-story. The only way you'd find out that someone wasn't, in fact, a medical practitioner (to continue the example), would be if they started making blatantly erroneous edits to related articles, in effect blowing their own cover. Chrisd87 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cartoons of the Prophet"

The rule about no offensive images mentions "cartoons of the Prophet" without naiming which prophet is meant, and says that further concerns are outlined below, yet I can't see that there are indeed any such. I fear to clarify myself without seeking some sort of consensus, but this needs to be clarified. Jay Maynard 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'cartoons of the prophet'

As the template suggested, I edited the proposal to reflect my concerns (and those of others, as seen above). There are (imho) a couple of reasons why 'cartoons of the prophet' should not be included specifically in the policy:

  • What is sacred to one religion is not sacred to everyone else. Religious opinions deserve no more protection than political opinions or secular moral opinions. (for those who might wonder, I am not an anti-religion fanatic, I am actually religious myself)
  • The Jyllands-Posten cartoons (sorry if I misspelled that), which is what I presume this mention was aimed at, would already be covered by the 'non-free images'-type prohibition.

Cynical 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable/Unacceptable uses?

I think we should include language specifying the acceptable uses of userboxes for members with a shared goal (such as Babel) and the unacceptable uses (such as soliciting outside support for a position on deletion-related matters). It'd be helpful to have these things explicitly stated somewhere. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limited number of userboxes?

I wanted to voice my strong support for the general tenor of the policy as currently [1] written. The limit of 64 seems to be a new addition but I think is a good idea. I pretty much overdosed on Userboxes when I created my user page and only have about 34. Eluchil404 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each user is free to place any number of UBX on his or her own user page or subpage, up to a hard limit of 64 per page. Question: Why 64? Why not 10? Or 600? Why is this considered the limit?) It is established (Question: By Whom? What is their evidence that this has been established? ) that displaying large numbers of UBX is a waste of human and computer time (Question: How was it determined that this is a waste? What is the standard used to determine this? ), although the exact extent of the waste is disputed. No penalty results from excessive UBX display (Question: Then why even have a policy in the first place? ), but users are warned that their reputation in the community may be diminished.

copy of policy with questions before I rewrote it. I prefer to keep discussion on the talk page. 64 is the right order of magnitude, but it is nonobvious to those of us who don't think in binary. Maybe 50 would be a better base 10 solution? Eluchil404 14:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64 = four cubed. For those of us who choose to count with only the fingers on one hand. John Reid 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question time

I'm sorely tempted to edit this page but I've already had enough direct input. I would like to answer some of the questions raised here and some currently mixed in with the policy itself; then I'd like to hope that some good editor will rm those questions from the policy text -- since I'm not sure how helpful it is for any policy to question itself.

I've noticed some editors referring to policy points by number; this fails if points are added or removed.

  • No false membership claims -- I agree that in many cases it will be difficult or impossible to prove a violation of this point. I still feel it may be wise to set the rule. Perhaps I'm wrong. IANAL.
  • Cartoons of the Prophet (peace on him) -- There are many prophets but only one is frequently referred to in this way. It's difficult for non-Muslims to understand what exceptional offense some Muslims take at any depiction of the Prophet, even a serious, respectful one. Some things are magical and powerful in some cultures that have no importance in another. It's been said that some people fear and hate cameras, for they obviously steal men's souls and imprison them in a square of paper. I don't believe this but I'm courteous enough to refrain from photographing and offending those who do. Likewise, I refrain from hanging pictures of the Prophet in my office -- let alone cartoons. This is an example of a restriction on UBX content, not article content -- where I support the display of the topic.
If you disagree, rm the restriction. It's your fatwa.
{{User Totalbox}}
W This user is a Wikipedian.
This is the only userbox.
  • Acceptable uses -- It may be unwise to attempt to restrict uses of UBX (as opposed to content and form). Both content and form are at least somewhat objective. Intention and use is not so clear. The UBX shown here (an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own) has acceptable form and content; it's intention is quite confrontational: a wry comment on the totalitarian nature of attempts to suppress diversity of expression. My experience has been that my wit was either too weak or too dry; other editors have not correctly inferred my intent. And that's okay, too.
  • Hard limit (64) -- Why 64? Why not? Sixty-four UBX should be enough to cover all serious memberships and biases, with quite a few left over for humor and silliness. If you feel 10 or 600 is a more appropriate hard limit then edit this page.
This was originally written to say No penalty results from excessive UBX display under the hard limit. This qualification was rm, indeed making the entire policy point meaningless. I suggest either restoring the teeth or rm the whole point.
Absolutely everything done consumes resources. This is a hard fact of life, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Whether you consider UBX wasteful depends entirely on your point of view: Is the value obtained worth the cost expended? I suggest that community consensus (not universal agreement) has emerged on this point: As the number of UBX increases, their individual value decreases. Factions at either extreme believe that all UBX have zero (or negative) value or some undefined but constant and important value. The hard limit represents the moderate view.
  • UBX placed by other users -- Truly, I did not think about the possibility that anyone would ask others to populate their own user pages. If someone should make such request, then I can't imagine why anyone would object.

Well, that's already more than 2¢. I definitely don't feel any need to impose my views on the community; I only want those who raise issues to get answers, for whatever they're worth. I'm delighted that so many editors have taken an interest and participated by remolding this policy nearer their heart's desire. If we continue to work together on this, I'm sure we'll arrive at something we can all accept. Then, we can move on. John Reid 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points of criticism

UBX may not be constructed to be deliberately inflammatory, destructive, or obscene. This clause is to be interpreted liberally Opens floodgates of abuse. We saw the turmoil what happened when T1 was interpreted liberally. Adding a clause that actually encourages that will only make things works.

Also what kind of userbox should be in templatespace, what in userspace? Or does this ruleset just equalize both. That also improves nothing.

The hard limit of 64 userboxes per page is, honestly said, dumb. Some will feel restricted by it, some will critcise the number and some will feel that it says "have up to 64 userboxes on your page".

Finally the entire suggestion reads somewhat vague. Which is exactly what we do not need for a such hotly debated issue. Relying in WP:SENSE is fine if people agree what common sense is regarding a subject. A vague ruleset will only result in additional discussion whether rule this or that applies or not, and make things even worse than compared to the discussions regarding T1 we had. CharonX/talk 00:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]