This section was last removed on September 19. The links below indicate the page to which the relevant discussion has been moved. They are removed every few days. Discussions that have not moved (such as announcements of new policy) can be removed completely, or summarised in this section. Bug reports and feature requests are replaced with a reminder that MediaZilla: should be used for these. If you want discussions to last more than a few days, start them elsewhere and just link to them here. Questions can be moved to the user talk page of the person who asked them without a link from this section. An example format for this section is
*Section header as it was before removal --> [[title of page the related discussion is on or has moved to]].
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS
For years the Fringe Theory Noticeboard has been a go-to for a lot of editors when it comes to soliciting help on religious topics. This has caused… problems. FTN seems bent towards a particular kind of skepticism which, while healthy for Wikipedia as a whole, leads to some serious issues with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVILITY, and on occasion WP:OUT on these topics. The most signifficant incident off the top of my head was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics. There’s also been some pretty big issues with FTN regulars editing religious articles not realizing when something is technical/academic terminology when it comes to religious topics, which is playing out right now in the discussion here and which got its start on FTN.
There seems to be this attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile. This definitely comes across as trying to right a great wrong with religion not being treated with appropriate intellectual derision. This is especially the case with New Religious Movements such as Mormonism, Falun Gong, etc.
My concern is that exclusively bringing these topics to WP:FTN and not, say, the religion wikiproject (or the appropriate wikiproject for a given religion) ends up feeling like a deliberate decision to exclude people who may be less hostile to a specific religion and comes across as WP:CANVAS, especially in light of how willing FTN regulars are to throw WP:CIVILITY out the window on religious topics to the point of multiple admin warnings and thread closures. My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low here considering the history of open hostility to (mainstream) religious/spiritual topics when they come up on FTN.
My fundamental question here as it relates to policy is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella? If so, should the appropriate wikiprojects be notified at the same time so as to not basically canvas people who have specific biases but not necessarily a useful working knowledge of a given topic? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation, ie. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Falun Gong, beyond the broader Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science. Canvassing specific wikiprojects or not doesn't really mean much in my opinion. There definitely are POV editors, but most editors in WikiProjects on religion are heterogeneous. I do think there are tensions in terms of whether Wikipedia exists to promote a religious movements viewpoint about its religion, especially theological summaries, but I don't agree a policy change is helpful or warranted here. If there's any policy to look at, it's about sourcing requirements and weighing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation
Keep in mind the incident I was referring to was FTN demanding Falun Gong editors out their religious affiliation when editing pages, which the admins in the discussion came down like a meteorite on. It's not just a question of "Is this religion fringe/y" but this sort of r/atheism open hostility to religious topics, especially when it gets into the theological weeds and not just something which is clearly fringe. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I do remember plenty of action in relation to the LDS/COI fracas, like an enormous amount of activity at ANI ending in sanctions.[1] and a WP:BUREAUCRAT losing their bits. But we're told here the multi-admin "meteor strike" was on FTN participants? Curious. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There can be 'fringe theories' about everything, including religious history and theology. It is trivial for wikiproject pages to transclude FTN if desired so as to provide notifications to followers. Feoffer (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue isn't other people transcluding FTN, it's FTN editors only pinging FTN on religious topics when the editing gets contentious, as opposed to anyone else regardless of their experience in the exact topic in question, which is why it feels pretty strongly like WP:CANVAS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again. This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance. The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes and I suggest Hitchen's razor is applied. But, to repeat what has often been said there: religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply; the religious aspect doesn't give nonsense some sort of Holy Shield from Wikipedia's NPOV policy by which it must be accurately described within a rational, knowledge-based context. Bon courage (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance.
What? I was told to bring this here during the last huge blowout about it and hadn't gotten around to it, the current spate of Mormon topics on FTN made me think it's finally time to get around to it. Beyond that I'm a regular at FTN? I'm not "popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance", I'm a regular contributor there who is bothered by the handling of a specific topic at FTN and this is a recurring and ongoing problem, who only brings it up when that problem comes to the forefront, which it has in two separate and ongoing threads.
The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes
I didn't provide specific examples because the main talk page of FTN is right there for all to see and I didn't want it to come across as airing grievances with specific individuals, or make the discussion about, say, Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement rather than the broader issue of FTN on religious topics.
religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply
I addressed this right away in the post you're replying to. The issue isn't the E-meter like content, which are absolutely fringe, but rather people treating core claims of theology as a fringe topic, when it may be a bit fuzzy in a Venn diagram between a fringe topic and a religious one, or even just blanket religious topics being treated as fringe despite them being wholly articles of faith. You've been around FTN long enough to know that there's a contingent that see religion as an inherent enemy and I'm very far from the only person to bring this up recently. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism. If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine. If they say it actually happened that's a problem. There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism.
As I'm far from the only one to raise this specific concern, that sure seems like a mass hallucination then. I (and others) use "r/atheism" as a shorthand for a specific form of "angry at religion" type of persona that pops up basically all over in bursts. It's a shorthand, and it's one where I'm far from the only person using it.
If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine.
What isn't fine is users not feeling that a topic is being treated with appropriate derision, as opposed to just WP:NPOV and addressing WP:PROFRINGE. This comes up a hell of a lot on religious topics on FTN, and while it's not exactly a majority stance it is a present one. A contingent of FTN basically likes viewing the Resurrection of Jesus and the Loch Ness monster as rhetorically equivalent and deserving of the same sort of treatment. Regardless of personal beliefs around either, Wikipedia is not the place to air personal grievances with religion.
There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal?
Well, seeing as FTN handles religious topics indelicately, inexpertly, and with a very gung-ho attitude I think that making sure the appropriate wikiproject is roped in on religious issues would probably do quite a lot. I think the current discussion on cunning folk is a pretty great example of FTN jumping the gun due to a lack of familiarity with the literature on a given topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects do not or should not create Wikipedia:Local consensus. You are welcome to add any relevant WikiProject banners on any talk pages, and notify any WikiProjects you want for broader discussions. It would not be seen as canvassing, because a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV (hopefully true for the WP:TERRORISM related ones). Sure, {{WikiProject Mormon}} likely has more adherents of LDS faith, but also more importantly, people with scholarly knowledge, whether as adherents, critics and other. If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with, but in of itself, notifying any WikiProject you want is fine. Admittedly some projects like WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE COULD be merged, but neither projects are in of themselves "canvassing" when being notified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with
This is what I think is happening with FTN, though not necessarily very explicitly. "Anti-religion" isn't a neutral point of view, and it can come across as canvasing to go to a place where that's a prevailing attitude while simply ignoring the other wikiprojects that may actually have more ability to contribute directly to the topics at hand.
Essentially I don't feel that
a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV
Anyways, your point begs what's considered neutral/default state, and when it comes to religion, is not an easy one. I find this essay helpful Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability. As someone who was raised extremely religious and now atheist, I am appreciative that Wikipedia has always been a decent source of summarizing the state of literature out there. In some cases, it was not as "comprehensive" as my specific religious theological education, because the sourcing requirements were not up-to par. There are better resources off-wiki if the goal is to provide a religious seminar. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bigger issue is where it relates to New religious movements like Falun Gong, Mormonism, the Moonies, etc. which have a lot less established literature around theology and people tend to be a lot more open about treating with derision. Hell, I've been accused of being crypto-Falun Gong on FTN and I'm an FTN regular... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose some notions are risible, and being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?) Thus yogic flying is as daft as perinium sunning: just because one has religious-y connections doesn't mean it isn't nonsense on toast. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful. Wikipedia editors are often inexpert; it is the basis of much discussion on every article ever. If anybody want to inform any WikiProject that a discussion at any noticeboard may be of interest they may do so. Indeed that is often useful. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful.
Not sure what the Cunning folk traditions thread has to do with anything. There were only 4 posts by 3 posters (including you and an IP). The initial post by @Feoffer: was clearly on the wrong board -- such a proposal if having too few people for consensus (or if too contentious) on an article Talk page is meant for an RfC on that Talk page, usually with notification of the relevant WikiProjects. The lack of replies on FTN suggests other watchers were generally aware this was misplaced. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the stated purpose of this noticeboard (top of page) is "to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines" and nothing of the sort is in evidence, I suggest this thread is closed as off-topic. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should probably be on one of the other Village Pump boards, since there's not really a P&G change or problem suggested here. It's not a huge deal either way, and the thread is already going, but the procedure to move a discussion thread is easy enough and can be done by anyone. Warrenmck, if you like, you can use the {{Moved discussion to}} template set and simply cut-and-paste this thread to a different pump. (But again, not a big deal either way.) SamuelRiv (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the rest, the question is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella. That's a fine policy question to ask here IMO as it's about WP:FRINGE. But the implied question here is actually "should religious topics be exempt from WP:FRINGE" and the answer is no. Not every aspect of religion has to do with WP:FRINGE, but some do. If someone is applying WP:FRINGE where it doesn't belong, that's the same as any user applying any other policy incorrectly and would have to be dealt with on the user level. If you think users are systematically misapplying policy at FTN, that's an issue for WP:AN and would need a lot of unambiguous diffs. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this could be done at WP:AN, because it’s more of a general attitude thing than a problem with specific users. Unambiguous diffs of FFN misapplying FTN are either easy or impossible, depending on what the remit of FTN is. I definitely agree that religion shouldn’t be exempt from fringe, but there’s a contingent that treat religion itself as fringe.
looking at the threads I’ve been involved in recently on religion:
1. The LDS and Cunning Folk thread, which seems to heavilystem from a misunderstanding that “cunning folk” is the specific applicable academic term which exists well beyond Mormon topics.
2. The Joseph Smith Golden Plates thread. It’s rife with calls that Wikipedia should be outright calling Joseph Smith an active fraud, sources not fully agreeing with that conclusion (though leaving the possibility open) be damned.
3. The Tukdam thread, which did actually call out some issues with that page but also didn’t grasp the language used by researchers working with minority religious communities (and fair enough, that’s esoteric)
Of twenty threads on FTN right now, nine are directly about religion (discounting the tenth which mentions religion but which is really just about racism). Most of these do actually belong at FTN, but the substance of the threads really highlights that “religion is not inherently fringe” seems to be openly ignored by a decent chunk of the involved parties. If half the content on FTN is going to be religious in nature, then it’s not really just about fringe theories anymore, is it? And the lack of civility or ability to handle sensitive topics becomes a prominent issue that could use guidelines for handling so we reduce the amount of inexpert sledgehammers wielded in the direction of religious topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying all the (what you term) 'religious' threads at FTN are there properly, but there is a problem with stuff being raised there improperly. Then there is the vague complaint that you think some people ignore the “religion is not inherently fringe” idea, but with not a diff in sight. This is bizarre. The supposed bombshell 'cunning folk' thread has only four mild-mannered posts (one of them yours) discussing a proposal.[2] Isn't that what noticeboards are for? Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so convinced there's nothing of merit here, why the WP:TEND? I think we're all fairly clear on your perspective that this is a nothing sandwich, but hell even in this thread:
being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?)
Feels sort of like the problem in a nutshell? Wikipedia's policies around civility and bigotry (not necessarily articles, just to pre-address that) absolutely does distinguish "religious belief" among other categories as deserving respect when it comes to civility. The point isn't respecting the beliefs, it's respecting that they are beliefs and mean a heck of a lot to some people, and while "some people" in this equation aren't entitled to ignore wikipedia policies around verifiability and neutrality in favour of their argument, that doesn't mean that they deserve to have their beliefs mocked and ridiculed in talk pages (but let's be real, the more fringe-y it gets the more that'll happen to a degree).
That we seem to have exempted NRMs from a need to handle the same way we do world religions is a genuine systemic failing of WP:NPOV. I can't for a second imagine someone who is committed to WP:NPOV and was themselves a Mormon wouldn't take more than a passing glance at the current state of FTN and instantly nope out due to the behaviour of editors in talk pages and noticeboards, and we need those editors to better address fringe relating to those topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance, FTN seems to have a large number of useful Mormon participants. If there are civility problems, raise them at ANI, AE or appropriate venues (but again, you have provided zero evidence). To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this discussion was a personal attack at you nor was it advocating for a diluting of Wikipedia’s stances around religion. I cannot begin to fathom the tone with which you’ve elected to engage here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a whole noticeboard (effectively hundreds of editors) saying things which are largely un-evidenced (no diffs given) or simply wrong (such as Mormons shunning FTN). You have attacked me with a "why the WP:TEND?" jibe. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you accuse Bon courage of disruptive editing (WP:TEND) without apparent grounds (or with really weak grounds that would equally apply to yourself) does appear to be a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to act in good faith here, it genuinely seemed Bon Courage was basically misrepresenting the initial argument while saying any discussion should be procedurally shut down. It was not intended as a personal attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics" did this actually happen? I remember we had a whole string of issues with Falun Gong members being disruptive but I don't remember admins sanctioning FTN or anything like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing I can find is this related AE request where the filer was TBanned, another editor who was seen as broadly pro-Falun Gong was indeffed, and "editors in the Falun Gong topic area" (not FTN regulars) were "warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views" (not against "insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics").
In the FTN thread linked by Warren, there is a comment by ScottishFinnishRadish that WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing. which isn't exactly "was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics". It's more "one admin saying that it isn't permitted to ask other editors whether they are Falun Gong adherents" which is... sort of close-ish? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just an admin saying that you're supposed to say "Do you have a COI with topic X" without any prompting as to what the COI is believed to be not "Are you a member of topic X? If so you have a COI" which is a pretty common note that admins give. Its certainly not giving COI editors a free pass on COI as long as their COI is personal info (it almost always is)... Which appears to be what the OP was suggesting. COI is not an excuse for outing, but outing can't be used as a shield against legitimate COI concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a lot easier if you refer us to specific example threads here. It's hardly throwing anyone under the bus to link to discussion threads instead of just implying them for us to find ourselves -- and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
Meanwhile, I believe what you have been referring to many times here is the Cargo cult thread (which is where the suggestion of canvassing and referral to VPP is made). I have two notes: first is that I agree that a P&G noticeboard should not be used for canvassing people back to an article Talk page or an RfC (per existing norms, RfC notifications are done on subject-matter WikiProjects, by subscription, etc). Generally with noticeboards like WP:RSN the scope is limited to resolving issues of the P&G, unless/until discussion goes into article content, at which point it is referred back to the article Talk page. The P&G noticeboards I've followed have been pretty disciplined about this, so I'm not sure whether that's one issue with FTN. On a similar note of scope, noticeboards can refer to superceding policy, and FT is pretty much made up entirely of superceding policies (it feels like it could be better as an explanatory essay more than a guideline imo). So if a post there is actually about a RS or OR dispute, maybe it should instead be referred to RSN or NORN? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
To the extent I regret raising this thread. I think this thread is itself a microcosm of my core issue: FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith. Not "FTN needs to treat religious claims as non-fringe" which is a honestly strange read multiple people here have had considering that my initial post specifically was narrowly focused on matters of theology and, as an example:
To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect.
How in any chosen diety's name does any of this have anything to do with a concern raised here? Not once did I call for Wikipedia to treat religious topics as hyper-credible per internal logic, nor did I express any concern about articles "offending religious sensibilities", nor did I make any sort of argument that'd exclude faith healing from the remit of FTN:
should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella?
Faith healing and every single example from Bon Voyage's reply above make specific empirical claims. All of them, without exception. So what I'm left with here is an FTN regular who came in extremely hot for some reason ignoring the fact that I'm also an FTN regular while pretending that my argument was an axe to grind, when my core argument is that FTN handling these topics alone without involving editors familiar with them has lead to some problematic editing, in addition to FTN basically openly vilifying NRMs on FTN. Not once in this entire thread have I said that FTN should leave all religious topics alone, nor, as some seem to imply, have I argued that religious claims should be treated with credulity and handled with kid gloves.
At this point to even engage with this thread I feel like I have to dedicate a fair amount of time to addressing arguments I never made. It feels like people are trying to read some kind of apologetics into my comments which I never intended, and if that's coming across to multiple people then that's a communication problem on my end, but I think that this thread right here has become a perfect example of how complex, loaded, nuanced topics which invoke strong emotions on all sides are not necessarily best handled in a vacuum by a noticeboard which, as much as we'd all love the policy-backed
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
to be true, it doesn't necessarily hold water in practice.
You made an erroneous distinction: "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim". These are not cleanly distinct things. Religious history and theology is rife with empirical claims (Lazarus e.g.), and these are not exempt from "fringe". Your argument is weirdly personifying a noticeboard of hundreds of people with statements as though it were an monolith, like "FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith", with zero evidence. Perhaps the reason you get a "hot" response is because you write accusatory, wrong and confused statements about "problems" which, without any evidence, come across as borderline trolling.This is all seems track back to when FTN addressed your own muddle over panspermia where,[4] instead of grappling with the problems at hand, you perceived some kind of problem with the noticeboard that was solving those content problems. There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others. Instead of taking on the chin, you insinuated there was some kind of issue with FTN ("I do think that there's something very problematic here going on"). As another user observed in that linked thread "Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not". And so we have this pattern here again. It is a time sink. (It should be noted, if this[5] is to believed, that the OP's editing has been to FTN and ANI hugely more than to anything else in the Project, which tells its own story. I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE.) Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others
Well, seeing as I’m a research meteoriticist (essjay aside) I’m pretty comfortable pointing to that specific example as “strong options, little expertise” on the point of FTN. In fact, I’m far more comfortable pointing to that one as an example of FTN inexpertly handling nuanced topics than I am around any of the religious ones. Theres a reason it was very easy for me to cite a pile of papers which make the case that researchers are using “panspermia” in a way that Wikipedia insists is only pseudo-panspermia. The distinction on Wikipedia cannot pass WP:VERIFY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at FTN aside, which is why I think the best proposal was bifurcating it to Panspermia (Astrobiology) and Panspermia (Fringe theory). FTN is extremely slow to acknowledge there may be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the noticeboard around a fringe topic. Of course, trying to bring in a bit of nuance with citations didn’t stop people from accusations of being WP:PROFRINGE and possessing a
lack of understanding of specialist terminology
I’m going to be very honest, since your first post here commenting you’ve been fully on the offensive insisting this is some kind of misguided personal crusade. Between assuming motivations/incompetence on my part and some shall we go with routinely characterful reimagining of the posts you’re responding to I think I’m at least going to bow out of engaging with your replies here, and suggest we consider that mutual to avoid gunking up discussions more. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Free energy, Kinesiology, Panspermia. All three have a scientific and a pseudoscientific meaning. One is a disambiguation page, one explains the scientific meaning and has a pointer to the pseudoscientific one, and one explains the pseudoscientific meaning and has a pointer to the scientific one. This is the result of applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You were unhappy with the solution in the third case (my take is that due to your field, availability bias leads you to think in WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT terms). [6] shows you that only a small percentage of readers of Panspermia move to the pseudo-panspermia page, showing that there is a good reason why it was done that way. You were wrong, and you have been blaming the people who were right since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect an article on a religion to describe, e.g., the foundational documents, the liturgy, the rituals, the tenets. Excluding believers would exclude the editors most likely to be familiar with the literature. As long as an editor is neither attacking nor proselytizing, I don't see a COI. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems to be an argument against the entire concept of regulating COI editing... COI in general applies to the editors most likely to be familiar with a topic, for example the editors most familiar with Edward P. Exemplar are likely Edward himself, his friends, and his family... But we absolutely do not want Edward himself, his friends, and his family writing that article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally thrill when people who are less hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN and I thrill when people who are more hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN. Generally, I thrill at anyone posting at WP:FTN. Though I may object (sometimes strenuously) to others' positions, I welcome their positions being aired as it helps clarify Wikipedia editorial praxis. I may be singular in this, I understand. Someone with sage observational skills pointed out that I may simply enjoy having arguments more than others. But I have learned things from such arguments and I do think that these discussions have helped clarify matters. Can't there be different strokes for different folks?
Maybe a resolution could be adding a request in the FTN boilerplate that when people start a thread that they notify relevant WikiProjects?
If they're notifying the WikiProjects, then it's a content dispute, and so it should be handled by the WikiProjects, or else RfC. If the intent is that FTN is a general-purpose board for fringe content, then that's the domain of a WikiProject, not a P&G noticeboard. (And just because FT has a separate guideline page, does not mean it automatically needs its own noticeboard; and in a separate point, I'd be interested if there's anything in FT that is not entirely redundant with the extensive RS and OR guidelines.) SamuelRiv (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? All noticeboards except ANI/AN are for content disputes. The stated purpose of FTN is to "help determine whether [a] topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially". There is quite a bit in WP:FRINGE which is distinct, for example WP:FRIND, WP:NFRINGE and WP:PARITY. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to propose FTN for deletion if you don't like the way it is set-up. Others have done so in the past.
I think the consensus has generally been that it's okay to have a centralized discussion board that brings together people who have a general interest in topics that are relevant to WP:FRINGE. WikiProjects have remits which go well beyond that sort of thing.
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing, and it's always possible to post to different noticeboards and projects if you feel that greater participation would help. So if something is posted to FTN there is nothing stopping you ftom adding notifications to projects that you feel are involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate is also relevant, but in a very different way. That's the case in which being the target of something like Death by a thousand cuts results in the community blaming the victim for not being able to tolerate even more "minor" annoyances.
I feel like there is some of that going on above. People aren't reacting here, as if from a tabula rasa, to the exact statements being made. They're reacting to long histories and perhaps what sounds like coded meanings or Dog whistle (politics). So, e.g., maybe you didn't directly say "having a religious belief is automatically a COI" – or at least not in this discussion – but other editors have said this, and you said something that reminded them of the overall climate on wiki. And now you're mad at them for noticing the overall climate, or for assuming that you agree with it, and anyway, how dare they be upset about something that upsets them?
If you haven't personally seen editors claiming that being religious is a problem, then I point out that there are l-o-n-g discussions open at ANI and COIN right now about whether being a member of a particular Christian denomination is a formal COI. Note that I'm not linking them because I think that having anyone in this discussion join them would be a bad idea – too much risk of us providing more heat than light, and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anyone say that having a religious belief is automatically a COI, I've seen people say that religious belief or affiliation can be a COI and people say that it can't be. Nothing in policy or guideline seems to support the "can't" side while the "can" side is currently consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember seeing anyone claim that all religious beliefs are always a COI. I have seen editors say that having specific, uncommon religious beliefs (e.g., anyone who belongs to this or that 'cult') is a COI for any articles related to that subject area.
ArbCom disagreed in 2010: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies."
Editors with a COI are not prohibited from editing pages regardless so not sure if there actually is any disagreement there. The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what context is a COI editor actually prohibited from making edits? Incorrect identification is not an outing concern, so not sure why you would worry more about that than legit outing but OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect identification is a Wikipedia:Harassment concern. Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in. This is bad for Wikipedia, and it is bad for the falsely accused editors. You shouldn't have done that. IMO editors should be strongly discouraged from following your example.
COI editors are officially not prohibited from making all edits, but COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions. However, in practice, WP:Nobody reads the directions, and many of them are told by well-meaning editors that they shouldn't make any edits at all, and some of them are also told that if they do, then they'll be dragged to ANI or COIN for a criticism and self-criticism session. See, e.g., fully disclosed paid editors being told that simple updates for outdated information should be handled through the edit request system because "it's best" if paid editors never touch the mainspace. It is best – if your personal values prioritize purity over up-to-date articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that suddenly took a person turn... These are serious aspersions and that is not my memory of what happened in what ways was the infomation incomplete? I would also note that those allegations turned out to be 100% valid, they were not in any way false. "COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions" doesn't appear to be true, as far as I can see they are not officially prohibited from making any type of contributions in particular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Casting wp:aspersions is "accus[ing an editor] of misbehavior without evidence". You were accused of misbehavior for a specific course of events. I was not a part of this, it was not linked, and I don't really care, but I found the narrative easy to enough to follow that it seems to me that if I asked you both to spell out in detail the factual series of events, you'd agree -- that's why it's not aspersions.
Since the topic of this sub-sub-thread is COI, and the editor brought up this sad tale because it directly relates to COI, I also see nothing personal or uncivil in it. You state there is a factual lie or inaccuracy in the narrative, so that probably should be hammered on your own respective talk pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV.
okay, but I’ve been accused of being Falun Gong for my comments on FTN, so maybe nobody should be trying to divine the religion of editors on the basis of their edits?
like don’t get me wrong, if someone is editing a JW article with watchtower talking points that’s definitely an issue, but there’s little value I can imagine in trying to “gotcha” an editor’s faith and if their editing is a COI issue or otherwise problematic that can be addressed. Someone may simply have bad information and be editing on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people's affiliation can be inferred from NPOV edits, then I'd say that's working-as-intended. People can be TBanned for repeated or blatant NPOV on contentious/vulnerable articles without any reference to COI -- that's the whole premise for TBans on stuff like Israel-Palestine (nobody would say that being a national from one or the other is a COI to edit respective articles). Political fervor is quite the driver of disruptive editing -- if that is regulated without COI then why are some here calling for COI for religion?
(fwiw, I'd argue "religious affiliation" is not usually the same as affiliation/membership in a specific church bureaucracy/org that is affiliated with that religion -- so for example one could argue CoS is a church-organization that is affiliated with dianetics philosophy/religion; then an employee of CoS has COI by existing policy. I realize that definition would put a monolithic-monocephalous church in a grey zone, but I'd again say NPOV is sufficient.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am 100% not endorsing any sort of on-wiki assertion or accusation of another editor's religion or political beliefs based on their editing habits (agreeing Warren above). I am saying such blatant NPOV edits can be called out for what they are, as they have been in every contentious topic area. (It's common also to call out poor or undue sourcing, synth, cherrypicking, etc. -- blatant bad behavior be blatant.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with COI editing is it's often not "blatant", but like "dirt in the gauge" of the fine instrument in consensus forming. A !vote in a RfC here, a change of emphasis in an article there, and hey presto! POV achieved! The basic truth is that Wikipedia fails to deal with COIs because of its emphasis on the primacy of anonymity. The two are irreconcilable. Thus: the shit-show continues, and will continue for ever until Wikipedia gets a grip and turns into a serious Project. Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI can be a subtle problem, but so can many other things. Someone attempting a subtle change in emphasis is not necessarily a bigger problem than editors who believe they're always right – and we have lots of those (including me, except that I really am always right!). If I have to choose between an editor who determines reliability on the basis of whether the source says the Right™ Thing and an editor with a secret COI who wants to slightly shift the emphasis of an article, I might not always think that the latter is the bigger problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be to misunderstand, fundamentally, the pernicious nature of COI. People may - on their own behalves - argue passionately in many directions. But when an external interest is exerting influence, the outcome of decision-making will depend of which interest has most sway. It is why serious consensus-making fora (i.e. not Wikipedia) tend to have stringent rules on COI transparency. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A subtle shift in article focus seems like a smaller problem than a big bias in source choice; ergo, I'd choose the editor who spends multiple years pushing for a small shift in focus over the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV and include weak sources with the 'right' POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Editors are wrong all the time, and preferring weak sources to strong ones is of course a common fault particularly in newbies. But here's the thing: editors with a brain and good faith will generally change their mind, modify their position or gracefully concede a point if they are presented with cogent opposition but have no skin in the game. They learn and grow. The COI editor will forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've been assigned, without deviation. I'd rather have an editor corps of messy but correctable human beings than apparatchiks dedicated to shaping content in some particular way so as to advance an outside interest. Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But editors who do have skin in the game, but not of the sort that 'counts' as a COI, don't generally change their minds. They forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've personally adopted, without deviation, exactly like that irritating family member that you never want to hear talking about politics at any family gathering.
Also, paid editors are often temporary: eventually, either we come to a plausible compromise (and sometimes that 'subtle shift in article focus' is actually warranted, though not generally with the wording that the marketing department suggests), or the payer decides to quit throwing good money after bad.
People who feel aggrieved about something will argue for decades about their pet thing. I know one who is still upset that his mother had to pay inheritance taxes half a century ago. I don't know if he would agree that he's a "messy" human being, but I am convinced that if he were editing Wikipedia, he would not be a "correctable" one.
Or we could just have neither editor... Thats clearly the best solution in terms of improving the encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both the tendentious editor and the COI editor who doesn't respect NPOV can be shown the door if they don't change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because sometimes figuring out whether Bad Thing #1 is better or worse than Bad Thing #2 is helpful to people. It can help people develop perspective and prioritize their efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effect seems to be to excuse one of the bad things, why can't we just say that both are bad and should result in full or partial seperation from the project and which is badder is up to context and personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I also agree that neither is best if possible, I am also always going to prefer an editor editing in good faith to an editor editing in bad faith. Loki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but few people, except blatant vandals, think they are deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. A paid agent may think they're making Wikipedia more accurate or fairer. A personal POV pusher may believe they're making Wikipedia better by giving a little more respect for an idea they believe. Even the parents who show up at Talk:Santa Claus every December, to ask that we not "ruin" Christmas by telling their kids that Santa Claus isn't a living, breathing magical person think they're trying to make Wikipedia better.
That's why the rule is Wikipedia:Assume good faith: assume that the other person – no matter how stupid, misguided, or wrong they may actually be – is actually trying to do something that in their opinion will make Wikipedia better. To put it more bluntly, when the white supremacists show up with their racist garbage, we assume that they're trying to make Wikipedia better according to their own way of thinking, even though we don't agree that their garbage actually makes it any better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I think COI editing is so egregious, because it's one of the few kinds of editing that is actually in bad faith. Loki (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, imagine that someone works for a big company. In the actual marketing department, no less. This person notices that the number of employees in {{infobox company}} is several years out of date. Imagine that the employee corrects the error.
You didn't provide the piece of information we would need to know in order to determine that... Their intention. It is most likely that their intention was to promote their company therefore their intention was to hurt wikipedia, but unless you provide that piece of the puzzle the question is (perhaps purposefully) unanswerable in a straight manner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The use of wikipedia for promotion unambigously hurts wikipedia, thats why we explicitly ban it (WP:PROMO). Anyone who intends to engage in promotion, advertising, or recruitment intends to hurt wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with him on many COI things, I'm behind HEB here. Correcting an error in order to promote an organization that is paying you to promote them is a bad faith edit and harms Wikipedia.
To see why, imagine that article has three estimates in it for number of employees: one that is too low, one that is correct, and one that is too high. The COI editor only corrects the one that is too low despite being aware of all of them. Is that a good faith edit? Loki (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, see the comment where I've already addressed the biased assumption that more employees is better for a company. (Hint: Layoffs usually result in stock prices going up, not down.)
Also, what if there aren't three estimates? What if it's just one wrong number in an infobox, and the COI editor is merely correcting a simple factual error?
Just because a person with a COI could make an edit that is intended to harm Wikipedia – or, more likely, that is intended to help the company and doesn't care whether Wikipedia is helped or harmed – doesn't mean that every single edit made by that person is inherently harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply replacing inaccurate or outdated information with accurate, up-to-date information unambiguously helps Wikipedia.
"As of 2012, the company had 190 employees" → "As of 2024, the company had 165 employees".
"As of 2012, Alice Expert was the CEO" → "As of 2024, Bob Business was the CEO".
Correcting a factual error is not inherently promotional.
Whether more or fewer employees is better (and therefore potentially promotional) depends on how you interpret that. For example, is having slightly fewer employees a sign of good management leading to greater efficiency and productivity, or is it a sign of a shrinking, struggling company that can barely make payroll?
Have you ever heard of a win–win scenario? On those occasions when what's best for Wikipedia happens to match what's best for the company, then Wikipedia is not actually harmed by the company getting what they want.
There are many circumstances in which what's good for the company is bad for Wikipedia, but there are also circumstances in which what's good for the company is also best for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In re Thats true , but every promotional edit they made would be inherently harmful. They could also make other edits but thats not really the point.
No, that really is the point. Exclusively promotional edits are harmful, no matter who makes them. A good edit made by a Bad™ person is still a good edit. A bad edit made by a Good™ person is still a bad edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The win-win scenario is when the COI editor makes an edit request like they're supposed to... If they make the edit directly thats a loss for wikipedia. We don't scrub the edits of confirmed COI editors, your argument would only make sense if we did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Break
the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV
I've definitely seen this habit at FTN, and it was one of the impulses for this thread. If FTN has decided their specific understanding of a topic, collectively, is the "correct" one then attempts to address that are often met with accusations of POV-pushing, attempts to introduce FUD for WP:PROFRINGE purposes, etc.
The example raised above is a pretty good one for this. Wikipedia has a hard deliniation between Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, but this hard deliniation doesn't exist in the literature and "panspermia" is regularly and routinely used to refer to what Wikipedia calls "Pseudo-panspermia". Note that this isn't "the scientific literature is actually down with the fringe theory" but rather "the specific terminalogical bifurcation that Wikipedia is using is an artifice of Wikipedia and risks confusing readers who come to Wikipedia on this topic from credible sources."
No amount of academic, primary, secondary, etc. sources that show that "Panspermia" can and is regularly used to refer to it landed with anything other than a wet thud and accusations from some of the FTN core. Even in the Tukdam thread that's on FTN right now there's a "Well we can't consider that credible source" (which is, to be fair, actually arguable on the sourcing, but not cut-and-dry per WP:RS). There seems to be this attitude of absolute certainty that arises from FTN which outpaces the ability of people whose personal expertise is more rooted around fringe theories to evaluate.
You asserted, with the "absolute certainty" you are projecting onto others It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory”. You were shown the sources to show why this was wrong and had to concede "The Science Direct link you provided is certainly evidence that both terms are used". In such cases Wikipedia need to manage the terminology and use hatnotes to guide the reader, and this is what happened. Consensus was achieved and things improved thanks to FTN. Yet here you are rewriting history and somehow it's the fault of "FTN" that you were in a muddle. It's all very odd. Have you considered the problem isn't with FTN at all, but somewhere else? Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with me personally take it to WP:ANI.
Here is the thread which is being very creatively represented above for anyone who'd like to evaluate it for themselves. FTN's "consensus" on this topic was exactly what @WhatamIdoing seemed to be worried about.
In fact the thread sprawled to here where the issue was resolved. If I took every editor that was wrong about something to ANI I'd never be out of the place (and would have to take myself there regularly!). I think we can all agree this thread has been a waste of time. It was always going to be since there was no evidence and no proposal. Perhaps this can - for all our sakes - be the last time this particular FTN complaint pony is taken round the park. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Religion is ubiquitous in most parts of the world. While many if not most of the various religions of the world hold beliefs that are not provable by science, they are just that beliefs. While all fringe theories could be categorized as beliefs, not all beliefs are fringe theories. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A religious belief that has no effect on the rest of scholarship is just that. For example, a claim that pure land exists is generally so far removed from physical reality as to be basically just worth documenting as a major belief in Buddhism. However, there are those Buddhists, some of which are more active than others, who claim that there exists a literal Mount Meru that one can actually discover here on Earth. That is a WP:FRINGE theory. jps (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Firstly, it's not true because the policy defines a fringe view as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", not according to whether the view is provable by science.
Secondly, it's not true because it's goes against common sense. Views in non-scientific fields (e.g., art criticism, history) are never provable by science and can still be classified as mainstream or fringe. It's nonsense to say that since, e.g., fictional characters can't be scientifically proven to exist, then all views about them are fringe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are never mainstream by definition, no single religion is that large and they don't generally agree on anything. The field of Religious Studies isn't some sort of free for all, even claims which are purely religious can be fringe. The belief that a fictional character was real would be fringe, the mainstream view is that fictional characters are not real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are certainly "prevailing views", since 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religious views. Those religious views include ideas that are very widely held (e.g., that humans are different from other animals in some important way; that justice and peace are desirable values; that long-term happiness is something people should seek; that there are good ways and bad ways to relate to others). The belief that justice is better than injustice is absolutely "not provable by science", but it's definitely mainstream. Science might help us understand what actions could achieve specific forms of justice, but science (i.e., excluding the quasi-religion of scientism) can't tell is that justice is good.
When considering not just "the prevailing views" but specifically the "mainstream views in its particular field", we prioritize scholarly sources. For example, most of the world believes in ghosts. The scholars in the relevant fields, using the methods of that field don't. Therefore, "ghosts are real" is WP:FRINGE and "ghosts are not real" is mainstream. There is no limitation here about the relevant field needing to be a scientific one.
Also, let's go back to that fictional character. Othello (character) is a fictional character. What was this fictional character's racial/ethnic background intended to be? There are two mainstream views. Neither are provable by science. Neither of them are WP:FRINGE. A view that "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" might say that Othello was Irish, and this would be FRINGE. A view that aligns with the mainstream views in the field might say that Othello was a brown-skinned Muslim from the Mediterranean coast, and this would not be FRINGE. But the relevant fields are literary studies, theatre studies, and history, none of which are science. Each view on that question is declared FRINGE or not FRINGE without any reference whatsoever to whether the view is "provable by science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been another exchange on FTN in the last few days that I think really highlights my issues here. A user (@ජපස:) removed the entire section on academic study from the Tukdam article. They removed a link to a UW-Madison research group publishing on this topic using brain scans and other methods. He dismissed their papers out of hand as not being justified in the article with
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.
Which is obviously not how any of this works. We cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university (not just religious scholars playing with brain scans for fun without any idea what they're doing) and an even passing knowledge of the field of Buddhist Studies will make it very clear that scholar-practitioners are the norm in the field. And this is why FTN should tread cautiously with assuming they know the fields they're editing in. "Well the author is a Buddhist and can't be trusted to write about Buddhism" is not a reasonable take, especially in the context of an academic field that both routinely stands up to outside scrutiny of their scholarship and which is typically rife with people who both practice their faith and publish on it in critical, objective ways.
Why are FTN regulars deciding that the religion of authors is enough to justify the removal of entire sections when we're talking about accepted peer-review publications in Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos? Why are we tolerating the dismissal of credible, non-Bealles-list peer-reviewd sources on the grounds of the religion of the author when there's zero evidence whatseover of wrongdoing that could have implicated the study in question or its authors? Wikipedia is worse for this type of editing, incredulity and personal (ir-)religious philosophy shouldn't be dictating the content of articles.
I feel it's an important detail here that the results of the studies in question didn't particularly support wild, fantastical conclusions that warrant incredulity. The claim was "Meditating dead monks are still somewhat alive" and the paper's conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." It feels like the religion of the authors is the whole basis for the objection of inclusion here, which is not at all how WP:NPOV and WP:RS work, but on FTN it can. This is, to me, simply open bigotry, which is something I've been expressing some frustration at here.
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
When a noticeboard starts having its own interpretation of the sites rules and it operates on those, and does so on obscure parts of Wikipeida that may not have many eyes on it, then yes, the official canvassing policy aside if can very much feel like "I want to bring this issue only to people who have the same interpretation of policy that I do." Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on community action earlier this year, Warrenmck is not the one with the heterodox interpretation. A thread at ANI a few months ago ended in a topic ban for a user who was rejecting citations to academically published material about Islam merely on the grounds that the academics were Muslims. Excluding content cited to academically published material about Buddhism merely because the academics were also Buddhists is the behavior and interpretation that's out of step with the community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I genuinely feel a little crazy with these exchanges here. Between this and the discussion above about how all religions are totally fringe I feel like some of FTN isn't engaging with, well, WP:FRINGE in good faith when it comes to topics of religion, which can result in article quality being reduced, which isn't what any of us want from noticeboards.
It's pretty clear that, while maybe not a huge systemic thing, several editors are using FTN to grind a particular axe. The is probably where things like attacking a credible scholar on the basis of their faith without any evidence whatsoever of impropriety comes from as far as I can tell, because it's certainly not coming from WP:FRINGE or WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years, I have rejected a variety of publications about Isra' and Mi'raj on the basis of the apologetics of the author. The fact that academics who are arguing in favor of the literal truth of that story are Islamic is absolutely relevant. It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. Not any that would pass WP:REDFLAG certainly. The article text just linked to their research group and press releases! The fact that this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation while claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead is WP:BOLLOCKS influenced by a blinkered religious devotion. It's the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Hindu astrology. jps (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead: Except that apparently isn't what the source claimed, or at least it isn't what was in the article text. The article text that you twiceremoved (wholesale, with no attempt at just trimming) stated that the study did not detect any brain activity in clinically dead tukdam (italics added). As Warrenmck said that the conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." What's so 'bollocks' about that? And what's so un-solid about the source, a research center at a secular state university (University of Wisconsin-Madison)? You pay no apparent notice to the secular university setting of the source nor to the utterly plausible results of the research (that no, there is no detectable brain activity from the dead monks); all you offer is your apparent revulsion that the researcher was a Buddhist. It's frankly bigotry, and the way you let it influence your editing is disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that jps has any "apparent revulsion" is unwarranted here. Are we reading the same source? This one appears problematic to me, and the article content being sourced to it should not have relied on such a source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that section should definitely be trimmed but obviously not removed. It's a real and secular study that didn't find anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so saying that it existed and didn't find any brain activity ought to be utterly uncontroversial. Loki (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EEG on a corpse was hardly the only thing they claimed to "test". The entire enterprise is an ideological juggernaut that includes things like asking the asinine question as to whether the corpses decay at different rates depending on their status as meditators -- claims which are so ridiculous as to be nearly impossible to operationalize. The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that. The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. jps (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that.
From the research group you removed from the article as a "shit" source:
it certainly looks like It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. may have been a bit off the mark? Thanks for accusing me of "whining" though.
C'mon. I see a list that includes predatory and pocket journals, FrotiersIn, MDPI, and moribund backdoors to avoid peer review by competent scholars. And you were already warned at WP:FTN about promoting Frontiers as a potential WP:RS. These are terrible sources for claims about corpses decaying. This is basically WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. Frontiers in Psychology is a highly rated journal.[7] Their WP:Impact factor is more than twice the average for the field. Beall's List said that "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine." WP:CITEWATCH says that these journals should be evaluated "case by case", which is significantly different from "anything and everything from MDPI is a terrible source" or "anything in MDPI is basically PROFRINGE". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry is ranked 90th percentile by Scopus[9] and is indexed by MEDLINE.[10] Their impact factor is high for "culture" and low for "psychiatry".
Ethnos is rated 93rd percentile[11] and has an impact factor a bit above average for anthropology.
Religions is rated 90th percentile[12] with an impact factor that would be typical for sociology (I don't have numbers for religious studies specifically).
Frontiers in Psychology is ranked at the 78th percentile[13] and has an impact factor that's double the typical level for psychology.
I would accept a recent review article, within the usual scope of their field, from any of these journals. I wonder if the problem here is less about the source and more about what the source is being used for. For example, the 1991(!) Cult Med Psy article might be more useful for "Some people have a different concept of death than modern medicine!" than for "It is a definite fact that even though his heart stopped beating last week and he hasn't moved or breathed since then, he's still alive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely get behind an argument that we need to look at what sources are used for. My main interest is preventing some sort of WP:PROFRINGE of the empirical claims associated with Tukdam. There is obvious interest in these subjects from a cultural studies, anthropological, sociological, and comparative religious perspective. The issue I have always had with this particular research group is the attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience, physiology, and even quantum physics(!). There is some shoehorning that I see by the group itself and even more that got laundered into previous versions of our own article text. jps (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I listed Tukdam at WP:FTN, it had been discussed at WT:DYK[14] and transcluded onto the talk page from Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam. Two editors other than myself had supported the removal of the "Scientific research" section. The primary author of the article restored it.[15] Above, it was mentioned that FTN discussions should be linked from relevant notice boards. Issues about Tukdam had already been raised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism weeks before hand.[16] I've added links to both this discussion and the one at FTN just now.[17] If I noticed a problem (a faith-based belief being misrepresented as an evidence-based hypothesis), but I "didn't grasp the language" used by a specialized field, I think posting to a relevant notice board was the correct thing to do. Despite conflicts, do you think that the changes made since the issue was raised improve or worsen the article, Warrenmck? Rjjiii (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the changes made so far have been good, and was quick myself to question Tricycle as a source being... not great in the context of that article. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on an editorial decision being presented as based on the faith of the author. An identical conclusion could have been arrived at in any other way, but it's not on me or other editors to discern if just open bigotry is actually masking an in-depth discussion which warrants consideration. If those points exist, then editors should cite them and not the religion of a given academic.
Even if I wholly agreed with every change made (which for the most part, minus the removal of the scientific studies section which I'm still unclear why you and others are calling for its removal, we do agree on) nothing would change in that lines like
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.
You're not going to stop my evaluations of religious nonsense by posting to village pump. I'm allowed to make judgement calls in the cause of protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims. jps (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Warrenmck here. Wikipedia isn't pro- or anti-anything, except pro-verifiability and neutrality. Everyone is allowed to make judgement calls within Wiki rules and consensus (which terms as hyperbolic and farcical do not imply). It's also worth examining what is actually notable about these beliefs; that they exist among a community, or that it wouldn't pass peer-review? A majority of the time with any movement/philosophy (religious or other), it's the former. We could do this about almost anything, like Jesus' resurrection or optimism/pessimism. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that often you want to say something like "Some of these people believe ____". Sometimes an article needs to say "____ is not factually true" (e.g., List of common misconceptions). And I would add a third category: "____ was sensationally claimed in the news/has become a common stereotype in popular culture/was a widespread internet meme in YYYY". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the imprimatur of a "research group" was being laundered as a way to claim that there was "serious investigation" into whether or not meditating champions would be able to continue meditating after death and thereby prevent their corpses from decaying. This is pretty WP:BLUESKY nonsense. I do not see how it is at all defensible. jps (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You again removed the section in question, with the edit comment of
Get better sources if you think there is anything here. These sources are shit.
There's a content dispute here, but also a fundamental behaviour and WP:OWN issue. At no level is how you're engaging with this appropriate. It feels like you have far more of an issue with the fact that the research group exists at all, rather than any substantive issue with their findings. UW Madison and their research group focused on this are credible, and they've published their results in journals like Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos. They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Ideologically driven editing has no place here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're turning this into a conduct discussion forum, I'd say the bigger problem is that you're supporting poor content based on a poor source. I don't think of this as being a common issue with your work, and my good-faith guess is that maybe your involvement in this conduct dispute is putting up some content blinkers. You've repeatedly restored, for example, a wiki-voice claim that a named individual "remained in tukdam for 13 days". That's obviously not appropriate. If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinions on the exact verbiage of the section before you changed it a lot recently. I have strong objections to the removal of the entire section on absurd grounds that the source isn't good. Not once have you actually raised a specific concern with the source other than what amounts to "C'mon, look at it" which several of us have and have seen no particular issue with.
If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples?
I frankly think the issues around the sources being rejected due to what appears to just be personal incredulity is pretty much is the cleanest possible example, here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while I also don't think that line is worth including:
a) I think the idea that a whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line is obviously absurd.
b) The source in question I also agree seems fine. Notably it does not endorse that line.
Like a lot of FTN content disputes I'm not entirely sure why it's even happening. It feels like the "skeptic" side, huge airquotes, has dug their heels into an aesthetic commitment so hard they haven't even actually bothered to look at the source. Loki (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly endorses that line, saying "Ling Rinpoche remained in the state for 13 days, exhibiting a fresh life-like appearance in the humid subtropical climate of Dharamsala until the thirteenth day when initial decompositional signs appeared." In context, "the state" unambiguously refers to the tukdam state. As for "whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line": what a weird and untrue guess at the motivation for the removal. Which edit summary hinted at anything of the sort? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sentence would benefit from a re-write. For example, consider "This study began in 1995 after a discussion between neuroscientist Richard Davidson and the Dalai Lama about the meditative death of Kyabje Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body did not show visible signs of decomposition until then." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go even further with who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body was said by monks and other believers to have not showndid not show visible signs of decomposition until then. jps (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source make that claim, or is that your editorialization? Because when I glanced through it I didn’t see the bifurcation in claims you’re making. I can imagine a whole bunch of environmental variables factoring in but you seem very hung up on a form split between what the source says and what you personally deem credible, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask editors to filter papers through your personal incredulity as a standard before editing.
It’s not like the implication in any of these papers is “a specific theology is true!” and in your race to editorialize you’re possibly inventing caveats and conclusions not in the papers in question.
The source begins the narrative with the phrase 'The Dalai Lama described' and follows that description for a while, so jps's paraphrase would seem to be a fair summary and not editorialization. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source: Journals aren't primary/secondary/tertiary sources per se; they're publications in which multiple individual primary/secondary/tertiary sources are published.
All first-time reports of scientific research are primary sources for the results of that research. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good. An article that provides comments on the research would be a secondary source, even if those comments say something like "Look at this huge waste of research money" or "All the experts we contacted thought this was a huge joke" or "Here's more proof that peer review doesn't indicate importance, and journal editors aren't immune to clickbait fodder", and even if that commentary is in a popular/non-academic publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo you in emphasizing that a single research paper is a primary source -- if there's no other research coming out, then I'd be very cautious about mentioning such a paper at all or its conclusions (and especially not summarize them more than they choose to summarize themselves in their own abstract and conclusions sections).
U:jps had an odd comment about the credibility of the UWisc group (with sentiment echoed by others) that included The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. This seems odd in that one of the issues of wp:Parity is the relative lack of typical RS that challenge fringe claims; so here a typical RS is critically assessing fringe Tukdam claims, yet therefore this becomes in itself a reason for prejudice against the RS's reliability?
I don't see that objective scientific inquiry needs to be defended (even if the investigator has personal biases, which we all do). Nonetheless, as the EEG paper outlines (as have a couple more I've seen investigating similar stuff), investigating this sort of thing raises all sorts of interesting methodological questions in several fields. Usually the conclusions of these sorts of papers is not the most important part. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evaluation of a claim should be contextual and methodological, absolutely, and that's also why the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me. To take another example, there are a number of null-result papers published in Journal of Scientific Exploration that would otherwise be used to prove certain wacky ideas "taken seriously" which, y'know, isn't true because even those WP:BLUESKY conclusions don't receive notice. To behave otherwise risks us becoming cherry-pickers. I take WP:REDFLAG to be my lodestar. The idea is that you want multiple serious, independent relevant researchers arguing there is a there there before Wikipedia should be going on and on about that kind of "they take us seriously argument".
Shroudies are another good example of this. The amount of ink spilled about what is obviously a medieval forgery is absurd, but the faithful will point to the ludicrous number of "investigations" that start from square one and apply yet another test to the thing as evidence that science takes them seriously. It doesn't.
I feel that this reaction is a degree of defensiveness that is not compatible with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia goes by the sources and not whether the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Like, the thing you are describing is just not a thing that Wikipedia can or should consider at all. Loki (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are tasked with deciding whether a source is reliable for the claim it is making. If there are few to no citations that notice a WP:PRIMARY source, we typically do not lean heavily on it. jps (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who this is directed towards, but I think this is something of an inversion of my point. The "righting of great wrongs" is typically what I see being pushed by those who are arguing, "hey, this WP:FRINGE idea deserves more consideration." jps (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pack's comment sounds fair to me. We see editors in some areas trying to make sure that readers are "protected from" certain ideas. We're happy to invoke NOTCENSORED for (e.g.) sexual content, or whether Santa Claus exists, but we are less inclined to expose readers to POVs that we don't agree with and that we believe should be considered a "scientific fact/falsehood".
In such cases, saying "This idea exists" is interpreted by editors as "This idea deserves more consideration". In this case, you can look at the facts and come up with several responses: "Huh, those people think meditation happens in the heart, so it was stupid of them to test the brain". Or "Look at the stupid research ideas people spend money on". Or "I wonder why they tried to apply medical technology to their spiritual practice". But the worry from the RGW-ish editors is that somebody might read it and say "Wow, finding out whether dead bodies can still meditate must be a worthy scientific endeavor instead of a candidate for the BMJ's Christmas edition. I believe in science, so now I believe in meditation after death!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as concerned with reader reaction as I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here. I am hoping to evaluate the worthiness of article text on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. I argue that the proper amount to include for many claims that strain credulity on the basis of a WP:Notability vs. prominence basis is zero. jps (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here
There very clearly is, though. This isn't the only neuroscience group doing work with Buddhist monks, and that doesn't mean that the researchers involved in those research groups are making, laundering, or even agreeing with any theological claims. This isn't a particularly unknown thing among neuroscientists as far as I know, and it speaks a lot more to "interesting brains" than validating any kind of theology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ19:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to go down the hall and knock on the doors of a few neuroscientists and ask what if they have heard about performing EEGs on corpses on the basis of tukdam and whether there is a legitimate research question to answer by doing so. I'll do the same. Then we can report back. jps (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is following the logic. You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. (Various reasons for this -- but even those who consider fringe theories in themselves worth their time may decide ignoring them is a good strategy; others feel they should be positively debunked; afaik there is not an objectively "correct" position given basically identical goals.) That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory. Whether you feel that, ethically or whatever, any scientists should investigate fringe theories ever, is your own thing, but it has and will occasionally happen, and scientists will do it in a certain way, and I don't know how you would expect it to be done differently. And without those occasional RS, the only source of parity (or parody) on fringe topics is from snarky self-qualified skeptic bloggers. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this. We're obligated to use the WP:BESTSOURCES on a topic, and clearly a study saying "he's dead Jim" is a stronger source than a science blogger snarkily conjecturing "he's dead Jim", regardless of what you feel about the beliefs of the people who did the study or if it was worthwhile to do it in the first place. Loki (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, remembering one particularly well-written informal review, Andrade and Radhakrishnan 2009 made a point that there are very good theological and philosophical reasons for rejecting or debunking claims of empirically-testable spiritual intervention on Earth. (Indeed, once the spiritual becomes scientifically empirical, it by definition is no longer spiritual.) A number of religious authorities have learned this lesson, as have religious scientists. A faithful Buddhist may (or may not) have every reason than any skeptic to want to see the empirical claims of Tukdam disproven. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I think that providing facts (including facts about opinions, spiritual beliefs, perspectives, and errors) is an important service to the world. I do not subscribe to the belief that all publicity is good publicity or that describing the wide diversity of people's beliefs is promoting fringe subjects. I also don't believe that it's Wikipedia's job decide which beliefs are worthy of being learned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at slight differences of opinions about where we draw the line for WP:NFRINGE. I am just less of an inclusionist and like to be dragged kicking and screaming over the line to articlespace presentation. jps (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more odd to me in this whole mess of a discussion is that a lot of the research motivations are clearly independent of the religious or fringe-adjascent claims; it's just a desire for more data on the state of the brain at the moments around death. Couple that with a population eager to probe that specific thing and you have a basis for a fairly ethical approach to a very sticky study subject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all convinced that these are the motivations, but I also don't think the motivations ultimately matter. What does matter is the lack of third-party notice. jps (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like the goalposts keep moving. We can't say this; there's no scientific research. Oh, there's scientific research, but we still can't say this, because we need someone to comment on the research. Oh, there was a television program commenting directly on the research? Well, we still can't say it, because the television program isn't truly independent. Oh, now you've got an article in a reputable daily newspaper analyzing the television program's analysis of the scientific research and that doesn't appear to be written by someone with any personal connections to this subject and which also didn't interview anyone even remotely involved in this? Well, that still won't do, because, um, I'll think of something, but a self-self-published website like Quackwatch would be infinitely preferable to whatever sources actually exist.
A documentary called Tukdam: Point of Death, apparently. The newspaper describes it as "The strangest programme of this week — or of any week for a long time" and provided some analytical commentary (e.g., comparisons to the popular Christian tradition of ascribing saintly values to physical Incorruptibility). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to watch this documentary, but have failed. Maybe because it only appeared on Irish TV? Unclear. If you know how I can watch it, I would be grateful. jps (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't attempted to watch the documentary. I think the newspaper article provides enough information about it to give me an idea of its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely true that one of the biggest complaints of WP:PROFRINGE is that Wikipedians dismiss their proposed sourcing as unreliable. To wit, I don't think I've seen much in the way of reliable sourcing that post-death brain activity is a hot topic except among those religious believers who, as part of their faith, believe that this is a possibility. jps (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability isn't about whether it's "a hot topic". Reliability is whether we trust (aka are willing to "rely on") a source for a given statement. Whether something's a hot topic is a matter for NPOV rather than reliability.
We see this all the time in medical topics. A loussy primary source actually is reliable for a statement like "In YYYY, one study found that pouring gasoline on cancer cells reliably killed them". The problem is that the space in an article should be focused on less stupid forms of cancer research (because even if Wikipedia has an infinite supply of pixels, reader attention does not have a correspondingly infinite number of minutes to spend on reading the article). In this case, if you put "tukdam" into your favorite news search engine, basically all the sources are trying to explain whether it can be proven to exist via modern technology. Ergo it is DUE for the article mention something about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the model of "putting tukdam in your favorite search engine" to test for whether a perspective on a topic deserves inclusion is valid. I think WP:FRIND asks us to consider broader impacts. jps (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: You should put "tukdam" in your favorite search engine and see which independent sources you can find. If your favorite search engine happens to be news.google.com, you should find a couple dozen sources that were not written by any of the authors of the EEG study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is all that I find when I do that:
Big Think starts out with "It’s definitely happening, and it’s definitely weird. After the apparent death of some monks, their bodies remain in a meditating position without decaying for an extraordinary length of time, often as long as two or three weeks." [18]
The only other article is from mindmatters.ai which is a publication by the Discovery Institute(!) I beg your forgiveness that I stop right there.
So one article that starts out pretty miserably is all that I'm seeing, but maybe you're getting better results than I.
So it feels like, unintentionally, the exact situation I’m griping about has played out at full volume here. A subset of FTN regulars has shown up first attempting to shut down any discussion (I can’t help but notice I’ve been told I’ve been “warned” for citing a source someone here didn’t like, and told I’m being WP:PROFRINGE for the same) and refusing to avoid strawmanning, expounded on personal extra-policy values of “not accidentally giving a topic credibility” when the entire argument around that is something failing a vibe check (rather than anything to do with WP:RS) and in general just engaging in WP:RGW behaviour.
The editorial standards several users here advocate for are patently absurd. We are not qualified to evaluate if peer-reviewed publications have subtle implicit biases that poison the data in a way that the referees, with their actual qualifications, at various journals weren’t able to spot. We are being told that any scientific investigation into religious claims must be treated as fringe, even when the results are exactly what would be expected and make no extraordinary claims. We are meant to take it on face value that this entire endeavour is an attempt to legitimize a religion using science, and we must ignore specific and reasonable claims as to why scientists might actually be interested in this and must instead condemn academics for even daring to look at this.
This isn’t policy, this isn’t how Wikipedia works, and this is actively worsening articles. Editors in here have made it abundantly clear that they’re explicitly and openly not engaging with these topics in good faith, which goes back to my entire point posting this here where active derision of topics relating to religions seems to be the only acceptable approach to much of FTN. Given that this has come up with multiple editors, it does seem like there’s possibly a culture problem at FTN that warrants addressing and possibly greater oversight.
I’ve seen this come up time and time again when the actual understanding of a topic differs from the popular understanding of FTN. We saw it at panspermia, where a segment of FTN decided that plain as day sources right in front of them were secondary to their personal understanding of a topic. We’ve seen it at the Cunning folk and Mormonism thread, where editors viewed “cunning folk” as an attempt to whitewash magic and no amount of “this is the term used in academia” seemed to counter those laundering concerns. We see it here again, where the personal incredulity of editors who cannot begin to believe that neuroscientists may have a secular, academic interest in a specific type of brain activity. I can’t help but notice how much of the arguments here hinge on “this research group is taking something seriously that they shouldn’t be” without a single actual substantive argument to back that up. We’re being expected to take those arguments as serious and meaningful when they’re merely an opinion of an editor. In all cases WP:RS instantly caves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is made pretty explicitly with
Do I want to have an article on a fringe topic? I'm not sure I do?
This isn’t improving Wikipedia. It’s making certain topics a nightmare to edit on because as it stands FTN cannot be wrong and FTN users are never wrong in their understanding of fringe. Evidence of a misunderstand is always just another WP:PROFRINGE user trying to concern-troll away good articles with PROFRINGE content and anyone who disagrees is, well, see the first large reply this post elicited.
To me, it seems pretty arrogant to declare that a slightly contrary WikiPhilosophy of your fellow Wikipedians "isn't improving Wikipedia". This is the kind of rhetoric I see in radical inclusionist spaces often, and it strikes me as inflammatory at best and toxic at worst, which feels like a bit of WP:KETTLE irony considering your complaint is largely that you (or those who follow closer to your editing philosophy) are feeling put upon. I should hope that people advocate for approaches because they think they are right. Differences of opinion are likely to occur, and the solution doesn't have to be thesis/antithesis. If you think that you aren't being heard, then maybe consider the massive length of this discussion. jps (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 90% of this is just common content dispute, with the added complication that Warren keeps describing the policy-based objections to his proposed content as IDONTLIKEIT or "merely an opinion" or lacking in substance. That's pretty typical as well, though it is exhausting. If our goal is to get back to the core concern, which I understand to be allegations of a systemic conduct problem at FTN, I'd suggest that identifying examples where Warren isn't personally part of the dispute might get us some distance from the common content disputes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the policy-based objections to his proposed content—When the purportedly policy-based objection in a particular case was 'the sources were created by Buddhists' and ignores all other context (that the research was conducted through a research center at a secular university, that the reported result was the rather normal 'the dead monk is dead'), and when the general concern is said to be with patterns of objections that on examination boil down to 'the source/author can be connected to religion', I am hard-pressed to see the substance or policy basis of the objection. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries at Tukdam don't seem to haven't gotten much beyond claims like "get better sources" and "This is all WP:FRINGE nonsense claims. Unless non-believers find it worthy of notice, it is not worthy" (the nonsense claim that dead brains don't give off brain activity?). And in this discussion, comments like describing the author as "this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation" and must therefore be unsuitably "influenced by a blinkered religious devotion", or saying that he (JPS) is protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims (the unblinkered, religiously devoted act of saying that... dead brains gave off no brain activity?) For where JPS hasn't hammered at the religious connections of an author, I think Loki has described the situation well in saying JPS seems to say that the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously and that this, somehow, makes the sources unusable for our purposes on Wikipedia. To quote another editor from a recent discussion, JPS continues to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary; the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel becomes a reason to consider the whole enterprise, seculary university and all, as untrustworthy, and this despite our community having a guideline that reminds us that a reliable source can be biased; we just try not to reproduce the bias.Add to that the expressions of pride in being uncooperative with other editors (preferring "to be dragged kicking and screaming", professing to "enjoy having arguments", and taking on a brusque, short tone that doesn't strike me as treating other editors as respected colleagues rather than as ideological enemies), an attitude of behavior that's explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's expectation that we be reasonably cooperative, and Warrenmck's exhaustion seems pretty understandable. All this time and energy gets put into trying to assuage JPS's concern (except JPS is not interested in being assuaged; JPS explicitly would apparently rather have arguments and be dragged kicking and screaming) instead of getting put into doing as Loki brought up: trimming the content to be its best and most relevant, neutral version. Instead, by repeatedly pushing total exclusion of even the notion that anyone checked for brain activity (and found none!), we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel
It’s worth pointing out this sort of conciliatory tone is pretty common when working with minority ethnic/faith groups. It’s a bad look for researchers to get permission to study a topic within a minority community and turn around and (from the perspective of the community you’re working in) insulting them. “Yeah, their religious belief is wrong” isn’t exactly a shining example of research ethics.
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general. Researchers tend not only to take a neutral tone, but I've often seen that if they're in a paper that's going to objectively demonstrate not-X, they will take a tone that is generous and often deferent to the position of X (among other reasons to indicate that they investigated any alternative hypotheses). (My favorite example of this is from papers on dog and cat cognition, which the authors typically introduce with something along the lines of 'It is scientifically obvious that cats are reproduction machines motivated solely by food, with never any objective evidence of emotion', and the paper proceeds to prove that cats do love their owners. 'Further research is recommended.') SamuelRiv (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general
oh, for sure. Just when it comes to minority groups, especially those who have faced substantial hardship, that tone goes into overdrive. When it comes to scientific investigations of spiritual practices, especially when done in cooperation with monastic/preistly/ordained communities it’s best not to make them feel that working with you is directly undermining their own faith/beliefs/identity (etc.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ03:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for better sources and reverting because content violates FRINGE are both good moves. The sourcing was poor, and FRINGE was being violated. JPS clearly articulated at the FTN discussion and at the talk page at least one way in which the content violated FRINGE, and it had nothing to do with anyone being a believer. Warren reverted to restore the content saying that JPS's reason was just "not liking the research group". I raised REDFLAG concerns, which Warren dismissed as "personal incredulity". I'm not saying anyone's conduct here was perfect, but I have an extremely difficult time seeing W's action as clearing the "reasonably cooperative" bar you mention. Incidentally, "we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle" isn't true for the "checked for brain activity (and found none!)" part of the disputed content. It's been sitting in the article for a few days now with at least rough talk page consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My current opinion is that WP:Fringe itself may be better placed as an explanatory essay, with original P&G sections woven back into their core P&G: Parity under NPOV/DUE, NFringe under Notability, etc.. The role of FTN is overlapped by existing noticeboards, which handle fringe theories and editors regularly without much issue. As a cultural matter, it may be that the referral of editors to FTN, the labelling of their content as "fringe" as opposed to a violation of general policy, itself invites the long often-heated content debates that seem to most often characterize the board.
Closing a noticeboard is a big step, (as would be rearranging a P&G page, but that's the lesser one), and I'd like to spend more time watching there before making a definitive judgement on my own part, but I do see the problems identified, and this is a possible way to try to address them. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if closing FTN would actually help. When a group of editors feels like their interests are served by working together, then it's pretty difficult to get them to stop. We could close FTN and discover that Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism becomes a lot busier, or that coordination is happening off wiki.
What I find strange is that this stems from the Tukdam article saying in wikivoice that individuals where still alive after they had died. No-one should be disrespecting religious beliefs, but the context for such things should be that they are beliefs.
If editors have been making uncivil or disrespectful remarks that should be rectified, editors shouldn't interject their own opinions on other people's beliefs it's not helpful or constructive. Equally editors shouldn't be stating beliefs as if they were factually true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, at no point have I objected to removing that line. The only thing I objected to was a total section blanking. Me undoing the blanking wasn't a tacit endorsement of the whole text that was there before and I agree that religious beliefs shouldn't be presented in wikivoice and that line was inappropriate there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors restoring content are endorsing it, by restoring it you are taking responsibility for it. Any section with that in was inappropriate, if it had been restored after improvements that would have been another matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a section blanking and immediately took it to the talk page as clearly it was contentious. That's not out of line. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The section was blanked with "removing WP:FRINGE claims" as the sole edit comment. It is very clear that the entire section isn't just fringe claims and it's very clear that the user in question who blanked it has a significant ideological axe to grind they seem unable to leave out of their editing. Here's the diff. Considering how very blatant the bigotry motivating these edits has been, a revert and the comment on the talk page was appropriate. Re-reading this to pull the diff I actually think an ANI would have been appropriate a while ago for some of the open bigotry and how absurd the WP:OWN situation has gotten but by now I think it'd just be rehashing this argument and go nowhere. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it may be warranted, but I’m holding off. We have here two issues:
1) a possible systemic issue with FTN and religious topics
2) an editor who is openly editing with prejudice as a base, flinging around accusations, and inventing new site policies to get their way in a content dispute
at this point this whole thing feels… weird. One editor is blanking sections they ideologically disagree with, attacking a source for the source’s religion which has nothing to do with the results, going around “warning” editors for citing sources they don’t like, and just moving goalposts over and over to create a specific interpretation of policy that by all appearances is designed to arrive at a specific foregone conclusion.
But the discussion has become “Why didn’t you remove that one line when you restored the article? You restored bad faith page blanking so now you’re responsible for it.” and broader discussions around the article. The problem is so much time has been spent discussing the behaviour of one (or two, to include me in fairness) editors that the entire point has either been lost or poisoned, because whatever issue with FTN I was bringing up here never got to this extreme with “no they’ve got religion so we can’t trust them” as a basis for editing that people mostly just seem fine glossing over?
If I’m the wrong here I’ll own up to it, but “I don’t see a reliable source for the claim that there’s academic interest in this topic” in response to a research group and a half dozen peer reviewed papers is cut and dry not engaging in good faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ00:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that other editors are mystified how you think it is a problem to say that these REDFLAG claims have been debunked. Compare:
Homeopathy repeatedly says there's scientific evidence against it.
Hoxsey Therapy says there's scientific evidence against it.
Faith healing says there's scientific evidence against it.
But Tukdam – Whoa, we can't say there's scientific evidence against that. That might make people think this religious belief was a valid subject of scientific inquiry!
I know you support the first three. What's so wildly different about someone claiming that a special person can channel divine powers vs someone claiming that an equally special person can meditate after their physical death? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One very small part of what jps removed was about scientific evidence against tukdam, sort of. That brief bit was outweighed by caveats about the research barriers, wikivoice claims that tukdam is real, and promotional content about the research team. The article is better off now that we briefly summarize a published study, but removing the problematic content was an incremental improvement over the status quo ante. Any supporter of the good bits of the content could have partially restored the good bits, just as jps could have partially removed the bad bits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Comments from jps say all of this content is an attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever and an attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience. He objects to providing information that someone could use as a "they take us seriously argument". He does not want Wikipedia to say anything that supports any claims that there is scientific endeavor found here. He does not believe that there is a legitimate research question to answer, so he does not want Wikipedia to report that people have done the research. He opposes having Wikipedia acknowledge the verifiable fact that these studies were done, regardless of their outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed content started with "Western scientific interest has grown", cited to the self-published website of the research group in question, so many of those concerns are well-founded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my impression that except in the case of violations of copyright or BLP, leaving a page in the status quo ante state is considered reasonable during content disputes. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think it's not a bad call, and I'm a regular at FTN. There's too much of a power user concern, and it either needs to not be a full on noticeboard or it needs to be diluted with people who share a goal of improving wikipedia and addressing WP:NPOV concerns but who can do so without a personal religious views very explicitly dictating their editing. Its function is better served as a noticeboard but the commitment to Wikipedia policies is not as strict as it should be for a noticeboard. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what's being done here is exclusively slandering scholarship as pseudo-scholarship, purely on the basis of the topic and the faith of the author, despite results which are 0% unexpected or WP:PROFRINGE. @SamuelRiv summarized how I see this whole situation best:
You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. [...] That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory.
I think they're meant to be concerned with Pseudo-scholarship, but what we're seeing here is a: at times a majority of FTN is about religious pages and b: FTN is inventing their own conception of pseudo-scholarship and declaring perfectly reasonable academics guilty of it.
See also: the whole panspermia thing
I think there's a lot of "FTN is ____" in here which is a nice ideal but doesn't actually pan out to the experience of FTN. Note I'm not calling for getting rid of it, I just think that FTN by its very nature attracts people who are more on the militant side of skeptic in a way that gets disruptive. I've left it pretty well alone but scroll up and look at the "warning" I received for citing Frontier, then go look at FTN at the context of the "warning" I received coupled with how many times here I've been accused of being WP:PROFRINGE for not damnatio memoriae-ing a peer-reviewed source and tell me if this behaviour is compatible with the norms of Wikipedia or building a better encyclopedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenmck, i can't help but recall this thread from more than a year ago. I could not care less whether otherkin are viewed as a religion or not, but am just hanging out to find sources for a hard-working group who make a positive impact on the project. If you are at such a hair trigger and on such a mission to get others to conform to your worldview then no wonder you are finding it "exhausting".Looking at some of the threads you've pointed to i would probably agree that Stapley shouldn't be dismissed so readily and to take a closer look at the content. But i would probably say that content does not justify keeping the current title and it should probably move to 'folk magic' or similar. I disagree with "the regulars" at FTN sometimes, no big deal.As far as getting Egon Spengler and his UW Madison group's research into the article, well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious. A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis. Maybe try something different because that tactic is one seen probably 2-3 times a day by "the regulars". I shudder to think what some of the content would look like if there wasn't opposition to that view. The test here for such speculative (admittedly so in the papers) is whether or not other researchers take notice. That's pretty objective and from what i've seen mostly applied across the board on a wide variety of topics by "the regulars", but of course no one gets everything right all the time.fiveby(zero) 04:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I’ve also basically been working on rewriting the entire Otherkin article in that time, feel free to check its edit history. Like I said, I’m a regular at FTN and I try tackling a lot of the faith-centric stuff that comes up at FTN because I’ve got a bit of a formal background in religious studies. I may as well edit in a broad area I know, though I do mostly stay out of Mormonism threads since I don’t know it as well.
I’m not just complaining, I’m actively putting in the work to improve these articles. Let me be a little more clear about my frustration with this: I think FTN has one tool, a hammer, and has decided that they’re collective experts on identifying nails. It can simply result in worse quality articles, the reason I’ve brought up the Panspermia example here is it’s a very cut and dry non-fringe case of FTN just deciding that evidence cannot be allowed to counter their understanding.
well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious.
I agree! But what’s happening here isn’t caution, it’s bigotry. It’s very clearly bigotry. I don’t see the benefit to sanitizing accusations of bigotry, because “these aren’t academics, they’re religious believers and we should ignore their output” is bigotry.
FTN is great with quack medicine, UFOs, etc. but the second the Venn diagram overlaps with spirituality or faith there’s this sort of gleeful attitude of taking the religious down a peg, and not just when it comes to editors but apparently authors of research papers. We have an editor in here accusing authors, baselessly, of academic impropriety, using that accusation to edit articles on the basis of open bigotry, and and I don’t know why we’re tolerating that. We’ve seen recent topic bans for that exact behaviour recently.
A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis.
You do realize the source being argued about here rejects Tukdam, yes? It’s at no level pro-fringe, an editor just doesn’t like the religion of the author and is just being disruptive on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly bigotry? That is rather strong don't you think? Wikipedia's purpose concerns readers, information, and knowledge. I take these arguments expressed in opposition to your to be just that: views concerning readers, information, and knowledge; and how WP should work towards achieving that purpose. I have certain opinions concerning these matters which generate a negative reaction to, for instance, new-agers, postmodernists, evolutionary psychologists, and Canadians.Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam? Applying that standard i would feel would lack objectivity and be a little dishonest. I try to be objective and honest but am probably as full of shit as the next editor.I'm sure "the regulars" would benefit from hearing about and adapting to my views on how they should edit, but somehow image that preaching to them about it would likely be an unproductive use of everyone's time. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhists make great academics up to the point they argue in favor of dogmatic religious positions in ways that WP:REDFLAG. Arguing that Tukdam is a physical or biological state is a common position of a very particular set of religious believers and, to my knowledge, exactly one American academic group housed at a secular institution is led by such a religious believer. To be clear, I find it admirable that he is open about his belief in contrast to the mess that we are in when trying to consider Ian Stevenson's undercover connections to theosophy. By the way, there is another research group in St. Petersburg, Russia -- but I haven't figured out what they are all about as the sourcing for their stuff is very obscure. jps (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam?
Because that’s the sourcing standard we actively want on potentially fringe topics? This is the only instance I can think of with FTN actively calling for the removal of evidence against a fringe stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been around enough, then. We have removed loving debunkings (and accounts) of lots of extreme fringe positions on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. Just off the top of my head, editors gutted the article on modern geocentrism and replaced it with an economic redirect. jps (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn’t a debunking paper. There were perfectly valid secular motivations. That you don’t accept them as truthful is a personal thing and not relevant to Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the example, but WP:AGF would be gaslighting myself here, at this point. You’ve made it excruciating clear you’ve got a serious prejudice here and you’re using it to inform your editing and I’m afraid I’m tired of pretending otherwise. As other editors have pointed out, it seems like you’re engaging in WP:WGR and accusing academics of impropriety on the basis of their religion in they absence of any actual evidence and constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repeatedly in the face of secular interest in this topic.
If you can’t maintain WP:NPOV on these topics you can’t demand other editors treat your POV as neutral in the face of very direct and explicit claims from you to the contrary, and I’m far from the only person interpreting your statements as bigotry. I’m happy enough to just not engage with you at all if you’d prefer, but I’m done pretending there’s been a fruitful endeavour here (seriously, how many times have you directly accused me of being WP:PROFRINGE now? Or playing admin and “warning” me for citing a source you didn’t like?) or that this hasn’t just been you refusing to hear what people are saying about your behaviour here and pretending it’s just just me with an issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful."
This is measured according to their own (probably wrong) idea of what would help Wikipedia. That means that if an editor believes (however wrongly) that applying a religious litmus test to sources would help Wikipedia, and so they apply such a test, then that editor is acting in good faith. (It does not matter whether the test is pro- or anti-religious.) You might call it "screwing up in good faith", but it's still good faith. Good-faith actions can be harmful.
The opposite of "acting in good faith" is "deliberately screwing up for the actual, direct purpose of hurting Wikipedia". The opposite is not "holds POVs that I find reprehensible" or "espouses views that, if expressed during a job interview, would constitute discrimination against a protected class in my country". That latter point is for Wikipedia:Civility, not for AGF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of FTN’s favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind and openly explicitly running away editors who engage in ideologically driven fringe editing. Yeah, at some point it’s possible to just lose sight of being able to see how someone is viewing their own behaviour, sincerely, as helping build an encyclopedia. I’m only human.
The fact that an admin is cheerleading this bigotry to an extent is appalling, in my time here I’ve come to expect much better from Wikipedia. Maybe I’m just wrong here but I’ve firmly hit a brick wall here and should probably disengage and take a wikibreak. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's precisely correct. FTN probably does run some editors off. (I've run a couple off myself; discouraging would-be contributors who are net harmful to Wikipedia is not an inherently bad thing.) I don't think FTN is known for saying that these editors intend to be harmful; instead, they're known for saying that editors actually are harmful. AGF only requires us to acknowledge that most harm is a misguided attempt to help.
Compliance with AGF means "I reverted that because it's wrong" or "That's not appropriate content for Wikipedia" instead of starting it with "You intentionally vandalized Wikipedia on purpose!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, bad faith is a very rare problem on Wikipedia. In the context of FRINGE, far more harmful would be (say) a true believer, desperate that the world should be exposed through Wikipedia to their discovery that energy can be derived from a perpetual motion machine. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the work in question is a primary research result, it shouldn't get more than a passing mention, regardless of its outcome. The only reason we might give it more attention is for FRINGE parity purposes -- if it is the best source we have to contextualize a pseudoscientific claim that is otherwise DUE in the article, it can be used even if it's not at the quality level we normally expect for scientific topics. However, what I suspect @ජපස is concerned about is that this research article really isn't the best way to contextualize pseudoscientific claims because a) it is at least partly sponsored by adherents, and such sources are directly discouraged in several places of WP:FRINGE; and b) using that source actually introduces pseudoscientific claims about tukdam that otherwise wouldn't be in our article, since it actively pierces the veil between religious belief and science that had been maintained up to that point (or at least would be easily achieved by simply removing the in-universe language, without needing any additional sources). By discussing scientific investigation of a religious belief, we're also presenting the pro-fringe position that the belief has any scientific basis at all; if we're going to do this, that position should either already be DUE (i.e. it has had significant secondary discussion by RS that don't debunk it themselves) or the study garnered enough secondary attention itself. But neither of those conditions is the case here, and furthermore the study has a clear conflict of interest in its partnership and predictably tries very hard to legitimize its (pseudo)scientific rationale. That its outcome rejects the fringe stance is irrelevant since the fringe stance apparently isn't even published reliably elsewhere and so doesn't need to be debunked. Also, to address something raised upthread, the "secularity" of UW-Madison is completely irrelevant when the authors themselves are obviously biased -- it's not like academic research on a drug sponsored by its parent pharma company becomes independent just because it's conducted by an unaffiliated university and published in an independent journal. We are contractually obligated to disclose that CoI for a reason. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this response makes more sense to me than JPS's, I also think that it shows the blindspots of Wikipedians in this area pretty clearly.
Specifically: what "veil between religious belief and science"? The religious claim is that a bunch of people who are clearly dead right now are not dead. When people make clearly false claims in matters other than religion it doesn't suffice for us to say that "Some people believe [clearly false thing]" without also saying "but [clearly false thing] is false". I believe that what you're advocating for is in fact WP:PROFRINGE in the guise of anti-fringe. Loki (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is a "veil between religious belief and science" is a Western viewpoint. It's like the one that says it's perfectly normal and desirable for people to separate their personal beliefs from their professional actions (think "acting in my role as a corporate officer, I say let's raise the food prices after the hurricane, because price gouging will make the stockholders rich" vs "in my role as a member of the community, I say let's keep the prices for necessities as low as we realistically can").
Well, maybe it isn't appropriate – at least not in every article – but we're always going to have editors who prefer WP:SPOV over NPOV, and many of them don't even know that's what they're doing. The thing about a worldview is that it's so all-encompassing and all-consuming that you don't even know how it affects you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicitly discussed in FRINGE. Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects.This article should be primarily covered as a religious belief, except where it makes claims about scientific phenomena. If the Wisconsin study is the only source putting forth the idea that tukdam is a scientifically testable phenomenon, that position is probably too minor for us to cover in detail. And we should especially not amplify the opinion of an adherent regarding its scientific potential, which is what that study does even if its results are negative. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand: the problem with "debunking" a scientific claim about tukdam is that we only have the one study doing that, and that study is clearly non-neutral and presents tukdam as sympathetically as possible. That is not a good source for disabusing people of the idea -- which we introduce by discussing the study -- that tukdam might have scientific grounding or that the topic is even remotely debatable in science. Non-adherent readers could come away thinking that tukdam is scientifically plausible and "just needs more research done", rather than regarding it in the same way they would transubstantiation: as a purely spiritual concept that has no basis in physical reality. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that someone who is dead isn't really dead is transparently a scientifically testable phenomenon in a way that "Moses split the Red Sea thousands of years ago" is not. Loki (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Vajrayana system itself doesn't actually claim a person is "still alive" or suggest that there is brain activity when in tukdam -- those are positions introduced by the study to rationalize it with science. The aspects of tukdam that should actually be disputed in our article are the claims of delayed decomposition, and yet the study doesn't actually address that and instead assumes the bodies they examined really had attenuated decay. They even credulously propose additional research is warranted:
It is important to note that even if tukdam is mediated by residual electrical activity in the brainstem, this activity may generate signals that are too weak to be detected on the scalp surface or not possible to resolve owing to the limitations of our field equipment. If signal were detected, we would still need other types of data to shed light on the possible mechanisms that link brain activity and external signs of tukdam. Alternatively, if activity (or in this case, lack of activity) in the brain postmortem is not a mediator of the reported lack of decomposition, other biological mechanisms could be responsible. In both cases, we believe that—in addition to lifestyle, medical, and practice history—collecting blood, saliva, and tissue to investigate other potential mechanisms is key. When such fluids and tissues become available, discovery-based science with large-scale metabolomics and whole epigenome arrays can be examined.
Is it really worth diving into the possibility that tukdam is scientifically plausible if our only source for contextualizing its plausibility is one primary study, published in a low-quality journal, by people with a CoI, that uses "brain activity" as its sole proxy for postmortem meditative state and heavily couches its negative findings by noting the study limitations (like that they couldn't even evaluate anyone sooner than 26 hours after death)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that someone who is dead isn't really dead is transparently a scientifically testable phenomenon in a way that "Moses split the Red Sea thousands of years ago" is not They are both empirical claims. I don't understand the distinction unless you adopt the creationist canard, "where you there?" as a means to distinguish between "experimental" and "historical" science -- something which is so outside of the mainstream understanding of these epistemological endeavors as to be WP:BLUESKY pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to the dead body and test if its dead, which is a very simple test to do.
Conversely, while it's unlikely that a miracle happened in the distant past, it's hard to actually prove that scientifically. Loki (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm all on board for debunking pseudoscience, including religious pseudoscience. I just do not think a weak study sponsored by adherents disproving a single claim that the belief system doesn't even make itself warrants more than the handful of sentences it already has in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, while it's unlikely that a miracle happened in the distant past, it's hard to actually prove that scientifically. This is actually a pretty good object lesson for why experience dealing with fringe theories may help in providing context for how we might treat such things at Wikipedia. There is no evidence for any miracle happening in the distant past or right now. It is not "easier" to "prove" (a concept that itself is not exactly a way we approach topics in science) dead bodies are dead than there was no supernatural splitting of the Red Sea. They are both facilely the null hypotheses, and arguments to the tune of differentiating between one flavor of incredulity versus another is what we end up dealing with all the time at FTN even as fringe theories are, by definition, those ideas which are on the borders of plausibility and there is no consistent metric for demarcating which tests are easier or harder to show that.
We often get that kind of Russell's teapot argument in the service of WP:PROFRINGE that says because all that matters is the evidence, if there is no evidence then there is nothing that we can say about whether an idea is plausible. This just is not how the corpus of scientific knowledge works. You don't get to have easy versus hard tests. All are equally unlikely and all suffer from the same problem of being outside the realm of possibility when it comes to the sum-total of our worldview. You don't get meditation after death. You don't get a split Red Sea.
I see a lot of "FTN" being used as a collective noun, as in "one of FTN's favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind". As someone who sometimes uses that noticeboard, I guess that's directed at me, too? Because otherwise why not specify who you're talking about? And if you're talking about one or more specific people, that's a matter for ANI, not VPP. Almost 2500 people have edited that page, with nearly 1200 watchers. There are some heavy users, but the top 10 editors have only made about a quarter of all edits. At the end of the day, there's gray area where people may disagree whether something deals with purely theological beliefs or whether it touches on something empirical/falsifiable/scientific. If someone is repeatedly bringing topics to FTN that fall squarely on the theological side, beyond the gray area, then deal with that person. I could be wrong, but I just don't see a consensus to get rid of WP:FRINGE or WP:FTN happening any time soon. Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should have been an ANI. As I said above, what I came here to raise has never gotten to the extreme it has in this instance, and that’s derailed any fruitful discussion of wider systematic issues.
We both know well enough there’s a cadre of regulars, but the situation in the case that’s come up here has basically removed all ability to look at a wider issue with nuance, though the behaviour of some of the other regulars in here did help make that case a bit. After this situation I’m now of the opinion that FTN should be merged with WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recognizable tactic to attack a personified "FTN" as a proxy for this OP's perceived enemies. Textbook WP:ASPERSIONS. So yeah, this may be better at ANI but not for the reason the OP thinks. This quixotic campaign has been going on for too long across too many areas to be ignorable for much longer. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ANI me if you sincerely believe that, since you’re just teasing threats of it anyways. If my behaviour is out of line here let’s evaluate it and if sanctions are warranted they’re warranted. That’s sincere, I know my utter exasperation with you and jps hasn’t lead to my finest edits. You’ve been nothing but openly hostile and dismissive from your first reply here and your insistence that I’m on some kind of quixotic crusade falls flat in the face of me not being the only one seeing the problem here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to "ANI you", but might contribute if you end up there. Nobody else is seeing "the problem" here because there is no "the problem" stated, just a vague meta-complaint about "FTN" (initially framed as a question about religion and scope) that has valency for a small number of other users' various stances. What your basic complaint seems to boil down to is that one or two editors disagree with you on various points and have the temerity to argue their case, perhaps forcefully! There is a fairly broad spectrum of approaches to editing Wikipedia you know, and it is really not an issue if some editors fall outside the narrow band other editors prefer so long as they remain within the broad spectrum of the community as a whole. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're one of the editors who's bound your own take onto the meta-complaint. Hence your statement of "the issue" is different to anything the OP has stated. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Warrenmck saidWe cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university, I don't see how I'm as far off the mark of anything the OP has stated you claim. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A problematic campaign has gone on for too long across too many areas, but it's not Warrenmck's. The troubling campaign is the effort by a small number of editors to decide whether or not to cite sources by applying religious tests to the authors. Moving into the realm of the hypothetical, it could be right to not cite X source; it could be right to leave out Y content; but it isn't right to do so for the reason that Z credentialed scholar operating in an academic setting is [insert personal attribute, e. g. a certain race, religion, gender, nationality, etc.]. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:ASPERSIONS ("a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence"). It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption? Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not 'classic aspersions'. You have not included in consideration quotations provided elsewhere in this thread that constitute evidence and posts that explain the evidence.An author's context includes things like academic training and university posting, and members of the community seemed to arrive at a relatively strong consensus in an ANI thread from this year that considering a relevantly-trained and university-posted author uncitable for [topics related to X religion] solely because of being an adherent of [X religion] was disruptive to the point of being a reason to topic-ban an editor who applied that train of thought to Islam, removing and objecting to citations of university-press-published content about Islam solely because the content was written by Muslims. I think it'd be safe to guess that Warrenmck would agree with me that we're not lining up to defend a proselytizing or devotional publisher like Chick Tracts; the goal isn't to say that no scrutiny should be applied to books printed by "Convert People to X Religion Press". Rather, the concern is with saying that academics don't count as academics if they have a religious background, as in the example It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers, when the religious believers were also trained, credentialed, and posted at a research center of a secular state-run university. I wouldn't consider that a "religious exemption" to the necessary consideration of record and context so much as "it seems bigoted to say Muslims can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Islam even when they have academic postings at universities or that Buddhists can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Buddhism even when they have academic postings at universities". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
jps makes an interesting point. Referring to religious researchers into a fringe/religious topic as just "academics" would be a kind of POV omission in many circumstances no? Devout Catholics on the Turin Shroud? Scientologists on e-meters? Mormons on Joseph Smith? Christian Scientists on animal magnetism? Fundamentalists on the age of the Earth? All seems fair play for concern especially where WP:FRINGE claims are in play. And I agree it's not simple, all kinds of contexts for a source apply too. The "problem" here seems rather the push to deny that Wikipedia editors can raise these concerns and argue their case. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where WP:FRINGE claims are in play: And when fringe claims are not in play? The report at issue concluded that despite what some Buddhists believed, no, monks who try to meditate while dying don't display any post-mortem brain activity—dead monks, in fact, exhibit all signs of being dead. It is one thing to discount, say, a Catholic historian who says 'the Turin Shroud is definitely authentic'. It's quite another to discount a Catholic historian saying things like 'X traditional belief about the Shroud of Turin is false' Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue. But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN. In general claims of something require better sourcing than claims of nothing, if that 'nothing' is just the default null hypothesis. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue: That's good advice.But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN.: Is it? This has been a thread that is, at least in the OP, about worries of there being an attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile without necessarily having regard for whether content is actually 'fringe'. After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents ('dead monks mediate, their brains still work') was not empirically endorsed by the researchers. The source instead concluded 'when he died his brain stopped doing anything'. And yet an editor explicitly considered that non-fringe-ness irrelevant to deciding to regard it as suspect and unciteable (the words used being the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents
I think it’s also fair to point out that in contrast to many articles like this FTN gets involved in, not one editor here is taking a WP:PROFRINGE stance (accusations aside) on the content of the articles, so I’m hard pressed to actually see any fringe editing here beyond what was there at the start with editors uninvolved in this entire process.
I think raising Tukdam as it was written at FTN was reasonable, the article had some sources and phrasing which were inappropriate and I was the first editor to remove some of that content and raise Tricycle as biased in FTN. What follows wasn’t just fixing the article, but the open hostility to the article topic we’ve seen time and time again.
For what it’s worth (for Bon), I don’t see where we’re disagreeing at all and think you’re actually managing to articulate my perspectives a bit better than I can filtered through exasperation Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption?
If I may, "context" bears much weight here. Just like any other argument you can make in this vein, there is a fine line between analyzing the reliability of individual authors based on their work and what their peers have to say about it, following a complete chain of logical inferences—and skipping that work, going with the latent "vibe" based on the intersection of categories visible about the author (independently if in tandem with the reputation of the relevant institutions). The latter approach amounts to bigotry. Remsense ‥ 论06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree; it's complicated. And at the other (wrong) extreme I can remember a push at one time to ban any research on COVID-19 if the authors had a Chinese-sounding name. Generally there are factors suggesting a source is reliable that can outweigh any reputation an author might have, but at the same time there are entire large fields of "medical" evidential research Wikipedia puts in the bin no matter how esteemed the publisher or how peer-reviewed the paper because of the field itself (e.g. homeopathy). WP:ECREE is also a factor in this; and the idea that dead people meditate is rather ... exceptional. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that dead people have been scientifically or technologically proven to meditate would indeed be exceptional. A claim that a religion says that a few dead people meditate, OTOH, is no more exceptional than when a religion says that people are mere manifestations of the universe, or that people are being reincarnated through the millennia on a path towards enlightenment, or that people have immortal souls.
AFAICT though, the the objection isn't to the religious claim, but to mentioning that science says that these people are just plain dead, according to every physical measurement they've tried so far. We've got a 526-word-long article that contains only a single sentence about modern scientific research, and even that was removed at one point. These are not difficult claims that require special skills. The religion says part of the body stays warm, so stick a thermometer on it and see if that claim matches reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them.
Look at how my interactions have gone so far in here with the user’s I’m concerned about the behaviour of and ask yourself for a half second why I’d open myself up to more of this. I’m already at the point of a wiki break and am just sticking around now in case Bon decides to ANI me so I don’t get accused of simply not responding to that.
It doesn’t appear to matter what I actually say, what a few people want me to have said gets hot replies and derails any possible discussion, and this entire thread gets derailed. And that’s not in my head. Scroll back up to the top and look at the fixation on faith healing and other things that make empirical claims when my entire thesis was very explicitly about pure theology and a secondary thing of religious intolerance. I don’t thinks it’s even possible to go back to the first point here and the second point I believe has become self evident. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the distinction was as clean as you thought there wouldn't be all this fuss about Tukdam, right? Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy. You can't expect other editors to use it a basis for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tukdam article wasn’t posted when this thread went live and I raised it as an example of the intolerance issue, not the pure-theology issue, though did mention it in the context of FTN being tactless and inexpert.
Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy.
You added the word history there, as history is most certainly not theology. And in what possible way is a belief in something utterly unfalsifiable the same as a claim that can be measured and analyzed? It’s a perfectly reasonable distinction. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added nothing, but copy and pasted the bold bit of your first post to this thread, which I assume was intended to be the main thing you were raising. So all this time you've been complaining editors aren't engaging with your post when you aren't even aware what you wrote? Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the user’s [sic] I’m concerned about the behaviour of ← and here we have it at last. You're concerned about particular user behaviour. So why is that being raised in an opaque way at VPP? Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m genuinely unsure what gotcha you think you just stumbled across. I think you’re so caught up with seeing me as some kind of enemy that you’re not taking the time to read what you’re replying to, a pattern that seems to go quite a ways back in this thread. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of you as an "enemy" at all. But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors (maybe me? I don't know) risks exhausting the community. I really really don't think you should accuse anybody of not reading what they're responding to with quite so much 'egg on your face' (above)! Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors
What? Have you considered exactly how many of the things you’ve been at me for in this thread are utter products of your imagination? You pointed out where I made an embarrassing mistake and I immediately owned up to it, but you’ve constantly represented arguments I’ve made any way except by actually assuming I’m not hiding my real motivations. Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith, trying to stop disruptive editing, and dealing with a fair amount of direct and baseless accusations because of that? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean (which might be that you think a "cadre" of users A, B and C are problematic and need to be sanctioned).
Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith ← of for sure you are. But I also think you're wrong. Wrong about how the WP:PAGs apply and wrong about how the community operates. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean
I think it's important to remember that, in the big picture, Wikipedia's handling of fringe theories is working appropriately; see [20] in particular, which goes into depth on how good our handling of fringe topics is. (See also [21][22] for coverage.) I can understand that it is sometimes frustrating or that WP:FRINGEN can sometimes be overbearing, but I'd be strenuously opposed to any significant changes to how it operates when it is, largely, working. Dealing with the flood of fringe material on the internet is difficult, and Wikipedia is one of the few places that has coverage saying we've managed it properly despite being open for everyone to contribute; WP:FRINGEN is an important part of that. (Also, just from a skim, huge swaths of the above seem to be about disputes between a few specific editors who believe each other guilty of misconduct; that's not an issue for WP:VPP at all, and shouldn't be turned into a discussion of FRINGEN as a whole. Conduct issues with individual editors should be taken to either WP:AE or WP:ANI as appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point we're making is that we tackle fringe topics well enough, or even in the majority of the cases, without or in spite of FTN and/or WP:Fringe. And at least one of your citations cut to the point:
Steinsson 2023 makes zero mention of FTN (talks about "noticeboards that are frequented by large numbers of Wikipedians" and specifically AN, NPOVN, and BLPN), and only a cursory mention of WP:Fringe, but the bulk of the paper talks about core policies, with NPOV being central -- this may be a methodological choice.
Matsakis 2018 Wired is about Gerbic's Guerilla Skepticism, which has come under ANI scrutiny in recent years. I'm not sure if anyone should go down this rabbithole of stupid internet drama, but here is one dumb blog link. The article also makes no mention of FTN or WP:Fringe, or of any noticeboard or P&G (i.e. the role that noticeboards and policies play in general -- it's essentially praising the administrative supereffectiveness of an off-wiki cabal). My main point is that I'm not going to put much consideration into a puff piece about an off-wiki coordinating group compared to a more objective reading from the previous paper.
Cooke 2020 Wired talks neither about WP:Fringe nor FTN nor any noticeboards.
To continue on FTN, a snapshot of the noticeboard front page: I make the following measurement of its behavior as a content-conflict resolution noticeboard, versus a WP:Canvassing board as OP suggests in the title. Currently, I count 6 threads in which editors on all sides of the dispute were notified of the FTN posting/discussion in a timely manner, versus 4 threads in which they were not, and 4 additional threads which could not be evaluated in this manner. You can check my work on my sandbox. Additionally, in my opinion, on threads in which all participants were not notified and were not present, there was insufficient (i.e. nonexistent) encouragement by other editors on FTN on threads to ping them.
While this is a very small manual survey (slow as I have to check the discussion pages on the individual articles), I believe it reflects poorly on FTN compared to other noticeboards, and lends some support to OP's accusation that FTN is being used a great deal, but not exclusively, for canvassing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many noticeboards (e.g. BLPN, NORN), FTN does not have a requirement for notification in all cases, though editors are required to notify others if they mention them specifically. If there's appetite for strengthening the requirement, we should probably discuss at WT:FTN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I think, that people are far less emotionally invested in BLPN, NORM, etc. A lot of skeptic editing comes from people who, understandably, view themselves as skeptics in their everyday life. That’s to say it can be a part of someone’s identity in a way that we see with other POV editing but don’t tend to see with more policy-centric noticeboards. This can especially bleed into religion articles as a lot of self-identified skeptics are a little militant in their dislike of religion. I think this is why there’s so much pushback to the notion that a: WP:FRINGE cannot be applied in an openly hostile way to religion (not just religious content being added to articles, which obviously axe) and b: this sort of head-in-the-sand WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT if it turns out some long-held anti-fringe stance is actually more nuanced than originally thought.
Basically FTN isn’t acting like a noticeboard for policy issues, but a wikiproject for people with strong skeptic stances. Therefore I don’t see how strengthening the notification requirement solves the issue of what can beer into POV editing, because I suspect that notifying would just result in business as usual, plus notifications. People can seem to be unmoved by evidence and are quick to throw out accusations of WP:PROFRINGE (see above) for dissent. It’s better off merged into NPOVN, imo. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ17:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv, when you looked down the page, did you get a sense for the proportion of topics that were:
Move the dispute to the noticeboard to be settled there (typical for, e.g., RSN),
Requests that page watchers go to the talk page (typical for most WikiProjects), or
Questions more in the "background information" range (typical for a village pump post)?
As far as I can tell looking now, none are about relocating or centralizing discussion, except the UAPDA thread is interesting where the editor challenged with WP:fringe goes themselves to FTN for advice on how to address it; a lot of the comments there seemed counterproductive until people finally got to the point (it had zero to do with any fringe policies from what I can tell). There are a couple that seemed to try to want to fork a discussion onto FTN, rather than redirect it.
It appears the majority of threats are requesting people comment on existing article discussions (in two cases, the condition of an entire article or AfD).
It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject: a centralized page to seek help from people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. That's not inherently bad; it's good for editors to bring their health-related article disputes to WT:MED and their stats/math questions to WT:MATH. I'm not sure that I'd recommend merging that to a more traditional noticeboard, though, as it's quite a different style of interaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject
I am less convinced than they are that Wikipedia's handling of fringe topics is working appropriately. I see at least two issues:
1. On issues FTN (one could argue, the greater skeptic movement) doesn't see as its targets, it doesn't do anything, and as a result there's lots of articles on minor religious topics that have wild supernatural claims in them. For instance, see Oven of Akhnai, which repeats a story from the Talmud verbatim in Wikivoice that basically treats rabbis as wizards. Or the recently fixed poor state of Tukdam was also due to this.
2. On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support. The recent arguments over Tukdam are also a clear case of this, as an example of what happens when FTN suddenly discovers something it believes to be woo-y. My other example is EMDR, which claims a therapy that has been recommended by a huge list of WP:MEDORGsremains controversial within the psychological community per an article from 25 years ago and an article that specifically claims there is no controversy that it does work, because it's on the list of skeptic targets, because when it was initially formulated many psychologists were very skeptical of it to the point of calling it pseudoscience.
In a lot of ways FTN operates as Wikipedia's immune system, and in this capacity Wikipedia clearly has an autoimmune disorder. It doesn't react to most things it should, and when it does react it way overreacts. The mere fact that most of the things skeptics look out for are not present on Wikipedia is not by itself sufficient evidence that it's actually working as desired. Loki (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support
This is the biggest issue I can see. It feels like people view themselves as WP:SMEs in “fringe” when that’s not exactly a thing, and sometimes editors assume their own read on complex topics is arrived at from a place of perfect understanding. Panspermia (discussed above) is still the most galling example of this to me, where source after source after source after source was met with “nuh uh” and the way it’s set up on Wikipedia is still potentially actively misreading to readers.
It seems like there's been enough back-and-forth with a bit of analysis in there to boot. I plan to start an RfC in a few hours, maybe attract a wider community input, and just let's close out this discussion for the year or so. The questions I intend to put forward: Close (and move) FTN (to where is at discretion of regulars), and close (and move or downgrade) WP:Fringe (with suboptions by vote). Venue will be here for maximum participation and referral back to this thread, unless people think it is more appropriate instead to be at Wikipedia Talk:FRINGE. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that community consensus is not necessary to decide, should FTN be closed, whether its function be placed into a wikiproject or merged into another noticeboard. I think such a thing can just be done. Although perhaps, to avoid having to do a separate straw poll (should closure be the result of the RfC), they'd want people to give their opinions in !votes here. (Maybe if FTN is decided to be closed but WP:Fringe remains, they'd want policies within WP:Fringe to get handled mostly at a NPOVN rather than at NORN, and that's worth saying, I dunno.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting rid of WP:FRINGE would be a mistake, especially considering how much fringe stuff makes its way here. I do think FTN’s remit already falls under NPOVN, and given that there seems to be a sort of consensus on FTN to (sometimes) creatively interpret the policies of Wikipedia in a way that we really should be able to rely on each other as experienced editors to prevent. I’m happy enough to vote, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think it's worth asking just because it's up here, and it closes it out. A RfC can ask two questions. I'll post it in a few minutes. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: @Warrenmck: please stop doing weird extra indentation to partially quote people. It's going to be an accessibilty problem for various users (they may be used to our talk pages formatted unhelpfully as description/association/definition lists, but your behavior is signaling to them that some unknown party has injected a comment before yours, between whoever you are replying to and you), and it's visually confusing for everyone else. No one – literally no one, ever – writes the way you want to on Wikipedia, so please just format your comments intelligibly like everyone else. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not my intent to cause accessibility issues, so I’ll stop, but I’ll die on the hill that indenting quotes generally improves legibility. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the main topic here: After plowing through a lot of this, I find myself generally in agreement with those that do not find there to be a policy or practices issue at stake here. Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism, skepticism, fact-checking, or even basic neutrality with regard to their beliefs is an affront, a wrong, an evil, yet we have to do it anyway. Hand-waving with emotive references to reddit and atheism groups does not demonstrate any kind of actual bias problem on Wikipedia or any bad-acting by anyone in particular, and this is not the venue for that anyway. I see a lot of repetitive complaint and vague accusation or "the sky is falling" stuff from a particular party (who others indicate has been beating this drum for a long time across multiple venues), but there is no concrete problem to solve. Bon)scourage near the top of this over-long thread has it right: when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world ... then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply.
I spend a considerable amount of time in "religion" articles broadly speaking, from ancient mythology and folklore to modern Christian denominations and their organizational history, and there simply isn't a problem of WP leaping onto and bashing theological claims. However, there is a common problem of proselytizers of particular faiths, especially but not exclusively new relgious movements [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism], making claims that amount to some element of their dogma being verifiable fact when it is not, or various purported miracles or powers being demonstrably true when they are not, or extremely dubious mytho-history found in scriptures being verifiable history when it is not, or a particular figure or group being the "one true [whatever]" when others in other denominations make competing claims, and so on. All of this sort of stuff is clearly subject to WP:FRINGE. The fact of whether or not a particular Christian denomination treats veneration of saints as idolatry or not and what arguments their "divines" have put forth pro or con such a viewpoint, is not a FRINGE matter, but simply a matter of reliable sourcing. What we don't have any kind of problem with is WP articles on religious matters being written something like "According to the Church of Utter Salvation, the one true path to enlightenment is through omphaloskepsis, but this idea is wrong because [whatever]." In NRM-related articles with too few watchlisters, we do often have a countervailing problem of cult leaders being claimed to have worked miracles, but this stuff does not last long in our content.
This thread has the same feel as all those perennial complaints along the lines "Wikipedia is doing it all wrong because it won't let me promote [insert outlandish viewpoint here]". The fact is that verifiable reality leans heavily in certain directions (e.g. against "climate change is a hoax", against racial supremacy of any sort, against claims of miracles ever being verifiable, etc.). Wikipedia is not doing it all wrong, and is not broken. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism
Ah, yes, the old promontionalism of “arguing that we should keep in academic sources discrediting a religious belief”. Of course. How silly of me.
Seriously, it feels like half this entire discussion descended into some kind of wild strawmanning where I was arguing to keep WP:PROFRINGE content in instead of objecting to the removal of anti-fringe content. I’ve been accused of everything from being butthurt to summarily described as a WP:PROFRINGE religious believer objecting to the removal of fringe content when that’s clearly not what happened, and I’m very low on faith from a lot of these accusations that many people have actually taken time to read the core arguments and discussions. The status quo of the Tukdam article, which met the satisfaction of many editors I was butting heads with elsewhere, was written in large part by me, and if you look through the article’s history and when it was first brought up at FTN I was quick to remove in-universe language and call out a cited Buddhist magazine as a bad source there. Your accusations are uncalled for.
The fact that this game of telephone has transformed from me objecting to applying religious tests to credible academics publishing utterly mundane anti-fringe findings into me objecting to the removal of fringe content is exactly why I raised this topic here in the first place: an utter lack of ability to assume good faith (in the typical sense, not specific wikiparlance WP:AGF) and nuance around these topics.
My capitalization of NRM, which I typically do so that I can switch to using the initialism further down for people unfamiliar with the term, isn’t evidence of some kind of nefarious pro-fringe stance. If you want to accuse me of promotional/POV editing I suggest you bring receipts. A fundamental issue with how many on FTN engage with religious topics doesn’t mean I’m a bad actor here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish, can we talk about this a bit more? I'm seeing phrases like Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism...is an affront and when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world and thinking the first is an anti-religious stereotype and the second expresses an anti-religious sentiment.
To claim that "religious believers pretty much always" anything is a stereotype. 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religion. If 85% of humans are "pretty much always" like that, then that's normal human behavior. I doubt that if you chatted up your religious neighbors, you'd find that they're "pretty much always" affronted by criticism. My Catholic neighbors have quite a lot of criticism about their church, and they don't seem the least bit offended if people disagree with their religion. OTOH I have seen a couple atheists who were terribly upset about people not sharing their views – but I've only seen this in university students, and I assume they grow out of it.
Who says that religion is forcing itself onto the real world? Religion is a human behavior. 85% of humans engage in this set of behaviors. Religion is part of the real world. Religion should not be treated as some sort of minority or deviant behavior, nor as something separate from the human world. Spirits/angels/ghosts/whatever are not part of the physical world, but religion seems to me to be a human institution. (Believers are cheerfully invited to disagree with me, in whatever ways happen to align with your own beliefs, or to add a caveat like "at least to a significant extent", but I will point out that a List of oldest continuously operated bureaucracies would include the Roman Catholic Church.)
So phrase it more senstively, but the central point remains sound. Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious subjects see continual attempts to promote religious dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof. Observing this set of problems and being critical with regard to it is not "anti-relgion", it's simply encyclopedist realism/practicality. What percentage of the world believes in a particular category of something isn't really pertinent. A much higher percentage than the religious faithful are those who believe in one urban legend or another (probably more like 99.9%), but this doesn't have any implications for how WP should approach writing about that category of subject. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. For example, Santa Claus intersects with religious subjects, and it isn't subject to continual attempts to promote religious dogmas and stories as established fact.
But I think we could write the same sentence about other subjects, e.g.:
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiousright-wing political subjects see continual attempts to promote religiousright-wing political dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithright-wing politics is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiouscryptocurrency subjects see continual attempts to promote religiouscryptocurrency dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithfinancial bubbles is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiousgeopolitical subjects see continual attempts to promote religiousgeopolitical dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithgeopolitical disputes is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiousgender and sexuality subjects see continual attempts to promote religiousgender and sexuality dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithgender and sexuality viewpoints is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Taking these points in order: No one (least of all me) said that every fringe, religious, or related topic attracted pro-fringe PoV-pushing equally. Your Santa Claus bit is what's called reductio ad absurdum, admixed with some appeal to ridicule and straw man. Your point about right-wing politics is entirely correct, but has no implications for this discussion. A large segment of the far-right overlaps with a large segment of religious extremists, and a great deal of what the far-right promotes as "truth" is fringe nonsense. That doesn't somehow translate into a permissive attitude (actual or desirable) at WP toward far-right claims and publishers. If anything, we need an elevated level of alterness with regard to it. But it is largely also covered by WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN, as are religio-spiritual claims being advanced as if proven facts, and this is not "broken". Much of that also applies to cryptocurrency, and outlandish claims in that area are aready addressed by FRINGE/FTN. I don't know what you mean in this context by "geopolitical" (a vague term), and it seems to fail as an analogy; there don't appear to be any such things as "geopolitical dogmas". G/S: those areas are very, very well-studied so it also analogically fails. The assertion-and-tradition and burden-inversion involved appear to come from – surprise! – far-right religious quarters; claims from the opposite side usually have a stockpile of reliable research sources behind them, so this is again another area where FRINGE/FTN is doing its job. Really, you're kind of making my point for me: when religion/spirituality veer into making claims that purport to be factual but are not verifiable, then it is in FRINGE/FTN's scope, and is not distinct from any other topic in that regard. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About this discussion
Until a few minutes ago, this page was above 600K in size, which is about three or four times the maximum size that seems to work for people on mobile devices. I split off an RFC a few minutes ago, which shrank the page by a third, but this discussion is almost as big. There also seem to only be a few of us still active in it. I'd like to suggest either:
just stopping and letting this discussion be archived, in which case you're all welcome to leave a note about any last thoughts on my User_talk: page.
If you want the first, then please say so. If you want the second, then no response is necessary (actually, no response would be critically important). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have run its course, but considering how weirdly comfortable people have been in accusing me of being a POV fringe-pushing religious editor I would like to note, in bold, for anyone referencing this thread in the future that much of the meat of this thread was me disagreeing with the removal of an anti-fringe source on the grounds of religious tests for the author despite their being academics at a secular institution and finding utterly unremarkable, anti-fringe results. A few editors (most recently @SMcCandlish, directly above) definitely owe striking some of their comments which contain some pretty baseless accusations, and the voting thread was a mess of people misrepresenting the entire discussion as somehow raised by a religious POV pusher for, again, adding anti-fringe material back into an article. People are of course free to feel however they like about the issue at hand, but people aren’t entitled to construct narratives about other editors and abandon civility in their quest to hunt the perfect strawman.
The aspersions cast here feel pretty significant and I don’t want to be batting off a reputation as a pro-fringe editor for anti-fringe edits. How I (and to a lesser extent @Hydrangeans and @SamuelRiv [seriously, a WP:NOTHERE accusation for a well known and established editor?]) were treated here for dissent feels like a black mark on Wikipedia’s handling of contentious topics with civility.
In the WP:SNOW-opposed RfC growing out of this trainwreck, Warrenmck also urged disbanding WP:FTN. One does not get to (in this thread) support actions that would release a flood of fringe nonsense on WP by demonizing fringe-watching editors as a pack of bigots and undercutting the guidelines and processes they rely on, and (in the RfC thread) try to nuke the venue by which the community handles this, yet then claim that one is really an anti-fringe editor simply because there's a diff somewhere of one supporting removal of a fringe thing. Not all fringe material is created equal, and it's common to scoff at various fringe things while believing or being undecided about others. E.g., I can't count the number of people I know who think anti-vaxxers are nuts but who also believe in astrology, or who think that the idea of space aliens abducting people is nonsense but who believe climate-change is fake and that the 2020 US election was stolen. If one is taking a position that would harm our ability to police the encyclopedia for fringe claims, then one is, as a practical matter, a pro-fringe editor whether or not one is engaging in self-denial about it. It doesn't matter in the least whether one disbelieves in a particular bit of fringe material under discussion in a particular thread, or pays lipservice to WP not promoting fringe material. Actions matter more than words. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how any of this relates to accusing me of WP:PROMOTIONAL, which you did above, and it’s wildly disingenuous to accuse me of wanting to get rid of Wikipedia’s anti-fringe immune system when what I proposed was a merger with NPOVN and I actively opposed the dilution of WP:FRINGE. You’re free to not like that, but this rhetoric that it somehow turns me into a WP:PROFRINGE crusader is absurd and I expect better from a seasoned editor. This complete inability to recognize that we’re discussing a policy difference and not fundamental ideological enemies is sort of speaking to the exact problem I’ve been concerned with in the first place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ03:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been treated poorly at times by a small minority of the regulars at FTN... But jumping from there to throwing the baby out with the bathwater is another thing (I also doubt that simply changing the venue the discussions take place in will decrease the historical conflict between the small s skeptics and the large s Skeptics who frequent it, they're/we're at almost all at the alternative venues as well) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator Recall
Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The consensus reached there established recall with the following process:
Petition
Cannot be launched until 12 months have passed since the user has successfully requested adminship or bureaucratship, re-requested adminship, or become an arbitrator.
25 editors must support the petition to trigger the re-request for adminship process.
The format allows for discussion and reasoning to be explained.
To support a petition, you must meet the criteria to participate in a request for adminship. You must not support more than 5 open petitions. There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition.
If a petition for a given admin fails to gain the required support, another petition for that admin cannot be launched for six months.
Support statements can be stricken based on the same criteria as for requests for adminship.
Re-request process
A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
The re-request can also take the form of participating in an admin election. (Not clear what the consensus is regarding the need for the election to fall within the 30-day window).
For either a re-request or an election, the following thresholds apply:
below 50%: fail
50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus
60% and above: pass
Background
During phase 1 of WP:RFA2024Joe Roe closed two proposals for recall with the following close (in part with emphasis in the original):
Considering § Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs, § Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki, § Proposal 16d: Community recall process initiated by consensus (withdrawn), in parallel, there is a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) in order to retain their administrator rights. However, there is also a consensus that the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented. Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. The dewiki-inspired process suggested in Proposal 16c was well-supported and should be a starting point for these discussions.
When the second phase began the process was, after 3 days, structured in a way that took Proposal 16c and offered alternative options for certain criteria. This was done in good faith by Soni who had originally proposed 16c. Some editors objected to this structuring at the time and/or suggested that a 3rd RfC would be needed to confirm consensus; Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. Post-close discussion among editors has failed to achieve any kind of consensus (including whether there needs to be an RfC like this). As an editor uninvolved in the current discussions about Admin recall until now, it seemed to me that the clearest way to figure out if this recall process has consensus or not is to ask the community here rather than have this discussion in parallel with an attempt to recall someone. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Survey (administrator recall)
(involved) The question here is simple: did a two-phase discussion that reached consensus in both phases also achieve an overall consensus to implement? The answer is equally simple: yes, it did. The current strongest argument against this idea seems to be that Phase II's formatting didn't give enough leeway for someone to propose a recall system distinct from the dewiki process (while still using that as a starting point). But there was an open discussion, and I don't recall seeing a different idea gain any significant amount of traction. If we really need to go through an entirely new RfC to double-confirm a proposal we've already accepted in principle and fine-tuned, fine, let's do it, but it seems like a waste of community time to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite this, people added additional proposals, and additional options to existing proposals, and nobody complained about the open discussion section being closed, for months thereafter. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) Yes consensus was reached. Naturally new tweaks/discussions will come along. Let's have specific RfCs on those. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a consensus (uninvolved). A legitimate objection is that the process of managing the second RfC may have stymied other possible outcomes beyond a de wiki style process, and this may have been the case. However, RfCs with perceived flaws tend to generate lots of comments pointing this out (as we can already see below) and I'm just not seeing that that in the 2nd phase RfC. The 1st phase confirmed that the community wanted a recall process, the 2nd phase asked for proposals to be developed for implementation and there was a consensus found within that discussion for a specific variant. In the interest of not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, I believe there is sufficient support for the admin policy to be updated based in this outcome, with further adjustments being made as required (or indeed removing it entirely should a subsequent consensus determine that it should). Scribolt (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely-worded question. No, there isn't currently a consensus for this proposal; but yes, I think we should reach consensus for it at this RfC.—S MarshallT/C16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A key challenge in trying to reach agreement by consensus is that interest tends to wane as discussion moves from higher-level concepts to more fine details. One way to address this is to get consensus for a general initiative, obtain consensus for key aspects to incorporate, then work on implementation details. For this specific situation, I think the phase 2 discussion did a sufficient job at taking the support shown during phase 1 and working out agreement on the broad-stroke steps for a recall process. As always, because it's hard to get people to pay enough attention to reconcile specific wording, part of working out the implementation means finding a working procedure that is the central object illuminated from different directions by people's statements. I feel the phase 2 results reveals enough scaffolding to proceed with implementation. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(involved) Yes. There is consensus per my comments in the post-close discussion, as well as per leeky and Scribolt above. Those editors raising objections to the idea of admin recall or the proposals that gained consensus, but who did not participate in the earlier RfCs, should have participated; phases I and II were both widely advertised (I remember them being posted at T:CENT, VPP, AN, AN/I, etc.). I worry that a third RfC will fatigue the community and disproportionately draw the most vocal opponents to the process, resulting in a small group of people overriding a consensus already twice-determined by the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in both Phase I and Phase II. I believe the results of Phase II achieved consensus and should be implemented. I do not see how this contradicts the results of Phase I. As others have pointed out, an actual policy page is still being drafted and might have to go through yet another RfC. Having an RfC on the validity of each step seems like a waste of time. Toadspike[Talk]07:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your question answers itself. "Was there consensus for the consensus"? The answer is obviously yes. Now, if you want to ask a different question, open a different RFC. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't consensus for the recall process proposed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. I'll reiterate a comment I made on the Phase II talk page: taking the mini-consensuses from that phase, then using them to cobble together a process, doesn't translate into a solid policy with broad community consensus. The fact that various aspects of the proposal, even now, are up in the air disproves the notion that "the consensus already exists". Those who are advocating for Wikipedia:Administrator recall need to finalise that page, then present it for a simple yes/no RfC, so that the consensus (or lack thereof) on the policy as a whole is beyond question. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus for this, and I've explained why on the pages where the proposal is being developed. But I think it's unfair to ask this question now, because the editors who support the proposal are still working on it. I therefore think this RfC should be closed as premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that this RfC would be withdrawn, but it appears that it won't, so I feel the need to say why this RfC cannot establish consensus for the policy change.
First, Barkeep49 gets the facts wrong in the statement of this RfC. He says: Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. In fact, he said more than that: I'm really sorry to say this, but reading it all through now, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has trainwrecked... I just cannot see how a genuine consensus can be said to come from a process like this... The only way I can see of salvaging this is to take whatever precise version of 16C got the most support and present it as a straight support/oppose RfC.[23]. Barkeep49 goes on to quote Voorts as having determined that phase 2 established consensus: Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. But in fact, Voorts drew a clear distinction between his close of individual sections, as an uninvolved closer, and his personal opinions about overall consensus, which were separate from the close: [24], [25].
And the bullet-list summary differs in some substantive ways from what appears to be the proposed policy. 25 editors must support the petition. Isn't it 25 extended confirmed editors? Who closes the petition? In fact, this is still being discussed: [26].
Since when are policy pages simply a bullet-list? Are we being asked to establish the bullet-list as a policy page, or are we being asked about Wikipedia:Administrator recall? The latter is beyond any question a work-in-progress. So if it needs to be changed as the editing process there continues, are we establishing consensus for the current version, or for some indeterminate version that will emerge in the future? And if the real purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus against, is that a fair process?
Phase 1 established consensus for some form of process. Phase 2 established consensus for some particular forms of the process, but did not establish whether those forms are actually to be implemented as policy, or whether those forms are the best version to be submitted as a policy proposal. This RfC muddles two different questions: whether the process so far has already established consensus, or whether the proposal summarized in bullet points should now be adopted as policy. And some editors here have been answering the first question, whereas others have been answering the second.
No one has answered the question of what is inadequate with the status quo, with ArbCom handling desysop requests.
The bullet-list proposal would be a disaster for Wikipedia if enacted here. It can't even be launched within the first year after the successful RfA? What happens if an admin does objectional things before then? More importantly, we are in a time when many members of the community are deeply concerned that we do not have enough new admins emerging from RfA, and that we are starting to see backlogs. Many members of the community regard RfA as being unattractive to well-qualified candidates, too stressful, not worth the aggravation. So if any random group of 25 users can force a recall, and just a few can start the petition process, how will that affect administrator morale? Will even more qualified RfA candidates decide against applying? Will current admins become too fearful of angering 25 disruptive editors, and hold back from dealing with contentious tasks, such as AE?
At least we should have a fully-developed proposal for the community to evaluate. Given that there are editors who are working on just that, it seems foolish to demand an up-or-down RfC now, before they have finished, on the theory that this would save them the trouble of working on something that will fail. Plenty of editors want the proposal to succeed, so they are not being imposed upon by giving them the time to finish. And the proposal here isn't ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (uninvolved) - There is a super clear consensus to have an administrator recall. Still work to be done om the actual policy page. But to the question of this RFC, Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during the last review? Yes clearly, otherwise the right next step would be to challenge that close. This is not the place to relitigate the RFC or how the policy page is being created. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No IMO the question is unclear but I think interpreted as "was it decided that the deWiki version be adopted?". In shorthand, the main close was a general consensus that there should be a recall process, with the related verbiage in essence implicitly saying that it needed to be developed and then approved. The close on adopting the deWiki version was that there was insufficient participation (in this context) to consider it to be a decision either way. So the next step is to develop a proposal that can get wide support and get it approved. While keeping in mind that the first close says that it's already decided that "we want something like this" and so that question should not be revisited, and "There should not be any such recall process" is not a valid argument at this point. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If this discussion is "Should Wikipedia:Administrator recall be implemented?", my answer is yes. That is effectively what the list of points above effectively are. If this question is "Is there consensus already to implement Wikipedia:Administrator recall?" then my answer is also Yes. I think there was consensus via Phase II to do this. If people believe there isn't, then I strongly prefer resolving the first question right now instead of bunting this entire thing to a second RFC further down the line. I also personally would have preferred a week while editors already discussing the matter at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall could resolve this. But the cat's out of the bag, and nobody seems to actually close this as premature. So I would prefer going through with this RFC instead of alternatives that draw this out for everyone. Soni (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Soni's first question, my answer is unreservedly Yes. Regarding Soni's second question, my answer is a Very Weak Yes. Also, this RfC is a premature mess. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We do not need an RfC to answer the question "Did the previous discussion, with a consensus close, actually close with a consensus?" Just get it done. Details will, as usual, be refined as we go along. If the entire thing turns out, after post-implementation experience, to be a bad idea, then it can be undone later. PS: If there is doubt whether a close of an RfC or other discussion actually reached the consensus claimed by the closer, the place to hash that out is WP:AN (unless it's subject to a more specific review process like WP:MRV for move disputes, and WP:DRV for deletion ones). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The partial trainwreck of the discussion that happened at the Phase II RfC meant that consensus for several critical aspects of the recall proposal did not gain sufficient consensus to enact such a significant change to a core policy (WP:ADMIN). And for my own part I failed to see a consensus on some matters at all, though I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on the matter. JavaHurricane10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the question here is whether there is consensus for some future version, in which the details will have been finalized. It's whether there is consensus for what it says at the top of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And my position is that there is (or at least it should be established here) consensus for the form of recall described in the 14 bullet points listed above. Some people in this discussion have queried the precise interpretation of some of the points, so another round of workshopping precise language would not be amiss, but the proposal should continue to move forward on this basis without "going back to the drawing board" because of concerns about a previous RFC. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is consensus to adopt an administrator recall process that includes the characteristics that achieved consensus in RFA2024 Phase II. To my eye, the proposal here successfully reflects that consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"25 editors" is much too vague. Could be 25 IPs? Only logged in editors with some experience should be allowed, and the simplest way is to require EC. Zerotalk02:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. The suffrage requirements for recall petitions are "same as RFA". That was one of the Phase 2 consensuses (consensi?). Phase 1 consensus set RFA suffrage to EC. Levivich (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, confirm consensus. The weight of community involvement and the clear consensus close are sufficient to grant this process the effect of policy immediately. I will say this: I am absolutely shocked that the second phase of the discussion was not better advertised; given the long-anticipated nature of this process and the importance to community functions moving forward, it should have been better attended. And yet, the dozens of editors that did participate came to reasonable and clear consensus conclusions on various facets of the process. Beyond that, we are years deep into repeated derailing of the creation of this function, despite clear community support for some sort of process. There is absolutely no reason why further discussion to clarify, alter, or amend any provision of the process cannot take place after the process is codified in its namespace. But the time has come for the process to exist, and there is nothing egregiously problematic in what was decided upon in the foregoing discussion. With the caveat that, no matter what the community decided upon for the initial procedure, there are bound to be things we can only think to address and adjust after the first community RRfA discussions take place. SnowRise let's rap10:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough, if it was posted on CD, which is arguably the single best thing you can do to promote an issue. But I do think spaces like VP are a vastly more reasonable place for posting a notice intended to draw in general community input about the recall of admins, compared to AN, with it's limited traffic mostly constrained to admin activity (or at least as much constrained as any open space on the project). In fact, some may argue (though I'm certain it was lack of forethought rather than intent) that the only noticeboard to receive a notice of the discussion being the one noticeboard with the highest admin-to-non-admin activity ratio is maybe the least optimal way to advertise a discussion that would seek to create the community's first direct means for recalling admins. The CD link seems to have been the only notice well-calculated to reach an average community member: the mass mailer, the discussion link in the closure of phase I, and the watchlist notice, all of those were only ever going to reach those who participated in Phase I. Which is good, but again, probably a lot less than this discussion warranted. SnowRise let's rap17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there appears to be community consensus to implement an Administrator Recall process as described. I think some of the concerns raised are genuine, especially the potential for abuse... But I doubt the community would look kindly on editors who chose to WP:GAME this new system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (involved). The existence of the pre-voting "open discussion" section, as well as the widespread "find a consensus" sentiment was enough for the consensus found to be valid. Mach6114:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (involved). From the get-go, the purpose of WP:RFA2024 was to reach consensus -- not to workshop a proposal for later ratification, but to workshop proposals and approve/deny them in the same RFA2024 process. In Phase I, Proposals 16 and 16c, the overall proposal for a community-based recall system (#16) reached consensus. On the numbers, 65 editors voted, and it was 43-22. On the proposal for a specific dewiki-like system (#16c), 34 editors voted, it was a 25-9 majority, but this was determined to not be consensus because of the (relatively) lower participation.
We went on to Phase II, where specific proposals for details of the recall system were made. The purpose of Phase II was, clearly, to iron the details from Phase I #16c, not to draft a proposal for submission to the community, but to decide the details, in Phase II. This is evidenced by the many "find a consensus" votes in Phase II (the phrase appears 27 times on the page, in addition to which there are various variations on the theme), which were editors expressly saying they'd rather have a recall system in place with any of the proposed details, than have the proposal for recall fail due to disagreement about some of its details. It was clear that the participants wanted Phase II to end with a consensus for an actual system, not a proposal for a third round of RFC. 93 editors participated in Phase II [27], which is even more than in Phase I.
Both Phase I and II were widely advertised, tagged with the RFC template, advertised on watchlists, and posted on WP:CENT -- they more than complied with WP:PGCHANGE. They had broad participation, and the fact that Phase II ended with a system very similar to dewiki only confirms the budding consensus from Phase I. The fact that the "open discussion" section of Phase II was closed after a few days does not undermine the consensus-forming process in my view; discussion continued, new proposals continued to be made, and some voted against the entire idea of recall. Nevertheless, consensus was formed on various proposals, leading to the system that is now well-documented at WP:RECALL.
So, yes, this months-long process confirmed what we all already knew was global consensus (to have a community-decided involuntary recall system, and to have it be modeled on dewiki's successful system); this RFC will be the third time in a single year that this global consensus will be confirmed. When this RFC is closed as "yes," as I believe it will be, we should put the policy template on WP:RECALL and that should dispel any and all doubts as to whether WP:RECALL has consensus. 100+ editors in 3 rounds of voting is more than enough to establish global consensus. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No. It appears that Wikipedia:Administrator recall is still being developed and that these dot points are the basis for that development. There is a consensus for a recall policy according to these dot points but as has been pointed out above these dot points are not a policy in and of themselves so cannot be adopted immediately. When there is consensus for a barebones policy (the dot points) it is then developed into an actual policy page before a final RfC to adopt it. That's the normal process and should be followed here. So, yes there is a consensus to have a recall process along the lines of the dot points and that is correctly being developed into a policy before final adoption so, no, there is not yet a consensus to turn the wordy version at Wikipedia:Administrator recall into policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it's ready for an RfC for formal adoption as a policy then? I don't think it's appropriate to merge this RfC into that given that the proposal here is a series of dot points that is different to what's at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. For example, I wouldn't support 25 editors as listed in this proposal but would support 25 extended confirmed editors. Other questions have been raised above (for example what if there's a concurrent ArbCom case) and I would encourage editors who have raised those concerns here to take them to Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall for a further discussion and whether or not they should be incorporated into that proposal before it is put forward for adoption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have expressed agreement with this sentiment before, I am also a firm believer of not putting everyone through additional WP:BURO after this. So I'd rather User: Barkeep49 or someone else add a link to WP:Administrator recall to the topic above instead of trying to wrangle a 4th RFC. I'd phrased my !vote above to answer the question I think we should be asking anyway. Soni (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Callanecc and Dilettante's points are accurate and well taken, but this really does come down to a more direct call on community will and BURO. I think the obvious emerging consensus here is that if a version of the policy language has already been rendered which includes all of the consensus elements agreed to for the process, without any glaring contraventions or other issues, then as soon as this discussion closes with a consensus in the affirmative, that version of the guideline becomes policy immediately. Repeating the process yet again for purely pro forma reasons is not necessary, appropriate, or a reasonable use of community time. Let's remember that any version validated can thereafter be reasonably expected to be subject to discussion and further tweaking, particularly in its first months. EDIT: Though I do think one reasonable thing that could be done thereafter would be to advertise every major disputed discussion on the guideline talk page at VPP for the next six months (and having a tendency to do so thereafter, really). It is, after all, a new process that has non-trivial consequence to our administrative operations, so continuing to have heavy community input in its initial evolution here can only be regarded as a good thing. SnowRise let's rap03:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to the pile that says that we've already gone through so much bureaucracy at this point that any more after this would be really out of the norm. If there's consensus here, mark it as policy and work out fine details as they are brought up. If there's not consensus, let's find out right now, and not after more formal RFC cycles. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on principle, but some points still need to be workshopped. How does 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus work for an election? Is it split in the middle? This kind of details should've been made clear before putting the proposal up to a vote. (Edit: looking at the comments below, this appears to have already been discussed) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as the proposal is still being developed. A draft of a full proposal is being discussed at WP:Administrator recall that refines and adds clarification to the closes at WP:RFA2024. All editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. I do anticipate that this proposal will come back for community discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted when this was raised on my talk page, the work there appears procedural. There is no agreement even there about whether or not this is already policy or not. Having editors spend time developing something in detail when the core policy doesn't have consensus is a poor use of time in my opinion. If it does have consensus the details can be worked out and will be made to happen. We have seen that happen with Admin elections coming out of the RFA2024 process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but the detailed efforts identified a couple challenges with how to implement the close, and I wouldn't suggest that the policy described above is the exact proposal coming from those efforts (although it is in harmony with the closes in WP:RFA2024). While every policy could be further refined, I am of the belief that our community is best served by bringing forward a more complete proposal for community discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be closed. For most people, whether they support admin recall depends very much on the details of the proposed mechanism. For a sensible RfC, the mechanism has to be spelled out (as above) but must not change for 30 days. That does not match reality at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I oppose the proposal, but I think you should withdraw this RfC for now. What people still need (or at least should be entitled to) is to see a full proposal, a proposed policy page, not the bullet list summary you posted here, and to see a rationale for adopting the proposal, prepared by its supporters. And editors are working on those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I long ago tuned this out as a TL;DR waste of my time. But curious, is there a consensus that the current Arbitration Committee-led "recall procedure" is not up to the task, and should be discontinued? Or, rather, is there a consensus that both procedures may be used. Can an admin be subject to both an Arbcom case *and* a "community recall procedure" at the same time? Is there a consensus for that? To be clear, I oppose the possibility of simultaneous, competing recall procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058 Nothing in this above would prevent someone from becoming a party to an arbcom case, or from arbcom issuing any remedy. How would you like a blocking condition to work? Perhaps a prohibition on community recall rrfa launching while the admin is a party to an arbcom case? — xaosfluxTalk10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If stripping the Arbitration Committee of the power to desysop isn't part of the package, this whole "recall procedure" strikes me as highly problematic. Imagine an Admin suffering through a month-long Arbitration Commmittee proceeding, ending with an "admonishment" to the administrator, followed hours later by the opening of a "community recall procedure". – wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be consensus for 55%. Option C stated the midpoint of whatever passed in the other discussion. Option C won there, which was 50-60%, so the midpoint is 55% which is explicitly called out in the first discussion. Pinging @Voorts: in case I'm completely misreading something here. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside everything else, this part is confusing: A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats. Is this implying that if the admin requests a delay then the admin is responsible for creating it? Why not have the 'crat create it after the delay, same as they would for no-delay? Anomie⚔14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that part at all. I'd rather see the admin start their own RRFA within some short deadline (7 days - with possibly the option for asking for the 30 day extension) -- and if they don't start it anyone can ask at BN to process the desysop. Crats never have to edit, so requiring the crats to create a pageto move the process forward gives them a pocket veto. — xaosfluxTalk14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this RFC's summary of that part of the proposal. As I read it, an admin chooses whether to start an RFA (or stand for election), which must be done within 30 days, and if it's not done within 30 days, crats desysop with discretion ("discretion" such as taking into account whether the petition was entirely signed by obvious sock puppets or had the requisite number of qualified signatories, or to extend the period to 32 or 33 days instead of 30 due to the admin's RL schedule, things of that nature). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option E there is where it says the 'crat should open create the discussion. The other options had the admin being required to say "come attack me" within a certain period of time. The combination of E+A is where we got the confusion here, since E didn't explicitly say what should happen if a delay is requested. Anomie⚔15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, looks like only 9 of those 30+ voted after E was added. That part, at least, seems like it could use further discussion by people who care. Anomie⚔15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would ever happen, but in theory the crats could just wait 30 days and then decide to revoke privileges without any community input, which seems like a flaw, that part should be reworded to clarify who is responsible for starting the process in each situation. ASUKITE17:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as premature. The page is a mess right now, as several people have posted above. It isn't anywhere near finalized so of course there will be holes and parts where it doesn't judge consensus. When I said "What we need is an RFC to decide whether or not we need another RFC", I didn't expect anyone to actually do it.Sincerely, Dilettante15:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to what is being asked here: is this a request for approval of a process? Or are we judging whether consensus was previously formed for it? The latter does not seem to me a good question to ask, as it is sending us further into the weeds of a proposal that has already gotten out of hand with respect to creation and approval procedure. But that's how I read my colleagues' !votes above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need another bureaucratic mess that is another RfC? I think the last one had enough consensus. Ping me if there's anything in particular we're trying to work out and I'm not getting the point of this. I'm trying to take a step back from the more complicated aspects of the project right now but this is important. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a confusing, duplicative mess. The specific question in this RFC, as far as I can make out, is asking whether the previous discussion had consensus to implement something following discussion, or whether the outcome of that further discussion needs to be subject to an RFC. I don't think it's sensible to even ask that until that further discussion is complete and we can see the differences between it and the consensus outcome. However, above there appears to be discussion of things other than that question, and no clear agreement about what the consensus of the last RFC was (with the consensus as determined by the closer having changed at least once since the initial close) - other than more discussion of the details was needed (which seems to be happening in two places). I don't think it's possible for this discussion to be useful in any way so it should be closed before it creates even more confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think there might be some confusion about what this discussion is for – it would definitely be silly if it was trying to ask people to assess the consensus of the post-close discussion on talk. This RfC asks the same question the post-close discussion has been focused on: did the Phase I and Phase II RfCs result in a consensus to implement? That, I think, is worth discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "25 editors" figure in the initial proposal was qualified as being extended confirmed. Definitely not supporting a process whereby any 25 editors, over the course of a full month, can start this process. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a consensus ... but whether there is or isn't, "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition." needs to be clarified. You can't support more than five open petitions, but then the next sentence says you can initiate a petition without limit. Those two statements need to be harmonized. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition" is entirely accurate. There are limitations on how often someone can initiate a petition (there are cooling off periods, plus the 5-petitions-at-once limit), limitations that were decided in Phase II and are specified at WP:Administrator recall § Petition. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Close as premature comments, I said my piece above and on my talk page about why I thought (and think) it appropriate. I also don't think I hold any particular status other than being UNINVOLVED in this process. So if some other UNINVOLVED editor wants to close this as premature, I'm certainly not going to push back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further background, see wp:Administrators_open_to_recall and the associated categories and pages. (including pages related to some actual recalls) When we came up with this back in the Jurassic Era, we intended it to be voluntary. It's interesting to see that there appears to be consensus that some kind of mandatory process be implemented. ++Lar: t/c15:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a revert?
There is a long-simmering issue when dealing with 1RR, namely there is no policy that covers what a revert is. WP:REVERT which defines a revert as reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. is an essay, and Help:Revert, which is an information page, uses undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version.
First issue is that these two definitions contradict each other. ...typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously and ...which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version are mutually exclusive. Something can typically result or result, and there is a large space between them. Secondly, undoing the effects of one or more edits and otherwise negating the effects is a hole wide enough to drive an article about an 80s cartoon character through.
Normally, this type of ambiguity is par for the course, but we have multiple policies, bright-line rules, and arbitration sanctionsWP:3RR, WP:1RR, WP:CTOP#Standard_set that call out reverts, and can be grounds for immediate blocking and sanctioning.
So I ask, what is a revert? When does something become the WP:STATUSQUO so that changing or removing it is BOLD and not a revert? Where is the line on undoing the effects or negating the effects? If someone adds bananas are good to an article and someone changes that to bananas are not good has the previous edit been reverted, as the effect was negated, or should the banana-hater have the first mover advantage? Should we have an actual policy defining a revert if we're going to have arbitration sanctions and bright-line blocked if you break 'em rules about reverting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A revert is changing anything I don't want changed. Seriously tho, since changing anything is technically a revert, one is forced into examining the exact circumstances, how long since content was added, intent, etc. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rules should be interpretted according to their purpose, which isn't always clear from their literal wording. The purpose of classifying edits as reverts is to identify edit-warring in a semi-rigorous way. It isn't to catch editors out for cooperative editing. If Selfstudier writes "The population of XYZ is 10,000", and I remove it with the comment "I don't like that source", then that's a revert. However, if I remove it with the comment "That's a different place called XYZ, see page 23 for our XYZ", that's cooperative editing. The difference is that in the first instance I was opposing Selfstudier's intention, and in the second case I was assisting with it. Something likely to please the editor whose edit is being changed shouldn't be called edit-warring, ergo not a revert. Encoding this principle in a way that everyone can understand might be tall order, and in my current covid-ridden-and-sleep-deprived state I won't try. Zerotalk15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR is correct to highlight the "restored to a previous version" aspect, which was always broken. Consider add A, add B, delete A, add C, delete B. Possibly two reverts in there but no two versions of the page are the same. Zerotalk15:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be able to point to an edit that was reversed. Removal is basically always a revert, restoring what was removed is almost always a revert, rewording? Depends, but in the case of "A is true" edited to "A is not true", one of those editors is doing something more important than reverting anyway. nableezy - 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there can be a hard rule on when edit B negates the effects of edit A, because there are lots of ways to reword edits, all functionally equivalent to a revert. Unfortunately for the enforcement of the one-revert rule, I think it's also difficult to have blanket rules on when some content has achieved default consensus agreement status, as it's highly dependent on factors such as how many editors regularly review changes to an article. As per English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, the way forward is to have a discussion about what is the current consensus, halting any changes on the contested content in the meantime. I appreciate, though, that has high overhead. The community has been unable to agree upon less costly ways to resolve disagreements. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a constructive and reasonable clarification. I would say that if you can no longer see the edit you're supposedly reverting in the first 50 or 100 page revisions, and there's good faith reason to believe that the editor was no longer aware that they were reverting, it's no longer a revert. Wikipedia:Reverting: Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.Andre🚐22:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some essays on this might be a good idea (then we can figure out which one is most accurate, refine it over time, and gradually push it towards policy, or at least towards being a highly-respected essay with nearly the weight of policy.) Having hard-and-fast rules risks people gaming them, and I'm not sure it's possible, but there's some definite guidelines that could be helpful. I threw together a quick-and-dirty User:Aquillion/What_is_a_revert with my thoughts - note the two questions at the end, which are the points I'm uncertain about (I definitely saw a dispute recently about the "removal -> restore -> add text downplaying the disputed material" sequence somewhere recently, so it ought to be nailed down.) My opinion is that it isn't a revert - this interprets negating the effects too broadly. As the second example on my essay shows, that logic could be used to argue that once I've made an edit to an article, almost any edit made by anyone in a dispute with me anywhere in the article at all is now a revert, because any addition of other information that potentially contradicts or even just waters down the WP:WEIGHT of my addition could reasonably be framed as undoing the intent of my edit. I add something saying "X is true"; someone in a dispute with me then makes a large addition to the article, of stuff that was never there before but which represents a position that broadly diverges from what I added. I accuse them of trying to water down my statement that "X is true" by making it less of the article by percentage and otherwise shifting the balance I established, effectively reverting me. This may even actually be their intent! It's a common situation! But it's not, I think, an actual revert. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your discussion of how things become a lot less clear with 1RR vs 3RR is worth noting. A lot of things become more clear with the repetition, but it's pretty blurry with 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, an observation: the community has imposed a 0RR sanction before, which is not intended to be a complete ban on editing. Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Therefore, a revert is not simply undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits and so either that definition is wrong or the qualifier which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version is important.
My general inclination, separate from that observation, is to construe "revert" narrowly. An edit is a revert if it returns the page to a prior state and it's not if not, even if it's intended to contradict or downplay other information in the article. I agree with Aquillion that the cyclic nature of an edit war is an important piece of the puzzle, and therefore am inclined to say that editing disputes that progress rather than cycle are not edit warring even if they don't usually feel great from the inside. Loki (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea of their being a contradiction and a lack of clarity is illusory, and caused by trying to approach this question as if interpreting a legal statute instead of a WP community body of practice. It is entirely reasonable to state that a revert "typically results" in content being restored to a previous version; the point is that the attempt to change it has been undone. This wording short-circuits a WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:GAMING loophole. For example, if the article says that what today is western Scotland "was settled from Ulster by Gaels of Dál Riata starting at least as early as the 5th century AD", and you change this to say it was the Vikings, and I then, instead of a straitforward automated revert, have it say "was settled by Dalriadic Gaels from Ulster starting in the 5th century AD or earlier", I have definitely reverted your incorrect change [the Vikings arrived in the late 8th century], to exactly equivalent meaning as the original, but not actually restored the article to a previous version of the relevant content. This is important. And everyone already seems to understand it (or will be induced to understand it quite quickly if they try to skirt 3RR or otherwise engage in editwarring by making reverts that are not to exact versions of older content).
Whether a page has a template on it that says it is an essay or information page (a sub-type of essay) is pretty much meaningless (except when an essay conflicts irresolvably with a policy or guideline, in which case the essay should be revised or deleted, or an essay advises something that the community otherwise does not support, in which case it should be revised, userspaced, or deleted). Various essays have the force of at least guidelines, they simply don't happen to be written in guideline language and don't quite serve the function of guidelines (which is circumstantially applying policy through best practices). Essays of the sort that the community takes seriously, and treats as operational, are often describing patterns of reasoning or behavior rather than outlining a rule or how to put that rule into practice. This reasonably enough can include definitions of WP jargon. (Some examples of WP essays that have enforcable levels of community buy-in are WP:5PILLARS, which doesn't even have an essay tag on it, WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:CIR, WP:ROPE, WP:NONAZIS, and WP:DUCK, and there are many others, especially those with the "supplement" tag, another specific type of essay.)
To the extent there is an actual wording problem between the two essays listed at the top of this thread, it is simply that Help:Revert says "results in ... restor[ation] to a previous version", without "results" being qualified in any way. The fix is just basic, noncontroverial copyediting: Help:Revert simply should be edited to agree with WP:REVERT's "typically results". However, a "Help:" page's purpose is to act as a practical instructional summary, mostly for noobs. It is not a definitional document, but a how-to. As such, it is not possible for imperfectly precise wording (pretty typical in "Help:" pages) at the former to magically shortcircuit the higher precision of the latter; WP:REVERT clearly is a defining document, making it clear that a revert need not precisely restore previous content in order to qualify as a revert, but simply undo or otherwise thwart the intent of the change being reverted – to restore the prior meaning.
This is also, obviously, the resolution of the "Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits" pseduo-problem of 0RR. Any time a policy or procedure interpretation results in an impossible scenario, it means you are misinterpreting the policy or procedure. If you improve confusing old language in article, it might technically "undo" or "negate" a poor semantic choice by an earlier editor, but it is not a revert, because it is not attempting to thwart the intent and meaning of that other editor's input. I.e., your innocent copyediting is not a form of dispute, so it's not relevant to reversion and its place in our dispute-resolution system. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this interpretation but disagree with it. I don't like this because this causes the exact problem we're all here about. I would rather have a rigid definition that can be gamed than a vague one that can still be gamed by WP:WIKILAWYERing a vague wording, and wasting all our time in the bargain. Loki (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewers
Hi. I thought I ask the question here regarding policy on New Page Reviewers. The current tutorial states "The purpose of new pages patrol is equally to identify pages which cannot meet this standard, and so should be deleted, and to support the improvement of those that can. Pages that pass new pages patrol don't have to be perfect, just not entirely unsuitable for inclusion." On several occasions I have noted that new page reviewers have marked pages as reviewed, but for other editors to then go in another as not meeting notability rules. If this is the case is there not a mechanism that the new page reviewers can be reported as not meeting the "just not entirely unsuitable for inclusion" criteria? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are saying that there are 2 editors A and B. A reviews the page, marks it as reviewed, then B marks it as not meeting notability rules. And the question is whether there is a way to report this inconsistency based on the premise that B is correct, and A made an error. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's common for editors to disagree on notability, as is clear in a number of AfD nominations, so a reviewer passing a new page that is subsequently nominated for deletion isn't necessarily a problem. If, however, you see it happening frequently with the same reviewer, you should discuss your concerns with that editor on their talk page. Schazjmd(talk)14:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't have to be unquestionably notable to pass NPP patrol. It just needs to be "not entirely unsuitable". Some NPPers will only mark at patrolled when they're very, very sure a topic is notable; others will mark it as patrolled so long as it doesn't meet some of the WP:CSD criteria, most reviewers are somewhere in between the two. Also, many people use the notability tag not to mean "this isn't notable" (really, if you're sure, you should probably start a deletion discussion), but "I don't know if this is notable, can someone who knows more about this kind of thing come check?" So even if two different reviewers might both agree that a page should be marked as patrolled, that doesn't mean that one reviewer might want to leave a notability tag where the other wouldn't. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard anybody object to them? No doubt you've amassed a considerable knowledge of the spectrum of opinions on new page reviewing since I granted you the right six months ago, though. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that sarcasm? I also think that essay contains some controversial points. Don't worry about notability seems a little extreme for me. Cremastra (u — c) 16:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who does make significant use of draftification and probably has stronger opinions on notability of the articles I usually review, I review very differently but I don't actually disagree with that essay in that it represents a valid way of review. Just my two cents. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template protection for DYK queues?
For those not familiar with the DYK workflow, its basically anybody can review a submission, anybody can promote a reviewed submission to a prep area, but then we need an admin to move that into a queue, because the queues are fully (i.e. admin only) protected. Once in a queue, an admin bot moves things to {{Did you know}} which is transcluded onto the main page. DYK is chronically short of admins to perform the last step. That's probably the single biggest roadblock to the smooth operation of DYK, and has been for a long time.
There are a number of DYK regulars who are highly skilled and trustworthy, but for all the usual reasons don't want to subject themselves to RfA hell. I started a conversation at WT:DYK#Giving queues template instead of full protection? about the possibility of changing the full protection of the queues to template protection, and making a limited number of DYK regulars template editors. This was met with positive response, so I'm coming here to find out how the broader community would feel about this.
I know it's policy that the main page is fully protected (but I don't know where that's written down). It's unclear to me how much of the DYK queues being fully protected is baked into policy. The Template Editor capability only goes back to 2013, much newer than DYK, so I suspect it's mostly a case of "we've always done it this way". Assuming DYK could agree on the implementation details, would I be within my remit as an admin to change the protection level on the DYK queues and start handing out template editor bits? Or does that require some community-wide approval process? RoySmith(talk)17:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal (and suggest that DYK regular admins just hand out the bit as needed). In case anyone is wondering, the DYK template on the Main Page and the next DYK update would continue to be fully protected via cascading protection, so the proposal would not allow template editors to vandalise the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't favour expanding the role of template editors simply because the permission may be easier to grant. I would prefer creating a new permission tailored for the role, such as DYK-editor or main-page-editor, which can be assigned to a corresponding user group. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I agree that a finer-grained permission system would be a good thing. In practice, I suspect it would be near impossible to make that happen. In the meantime, we've got zero filled queues because no admins want to do the work, and the people who want to do the work aren't admins and don't want to be. RoySmith(talk)00:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it would be impossible to gain consensus for a protection level for, say, main page maintenance. If I understand the documentation correctly, only configuration changes are needed. I just don't see template editor as a good fit: I think it requires a much higher degree of trust than editing main page components. isaacl (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. As far as I can tell from that, what we'd need to do is not just create a new user group, but also create a new restriction level. That all seems excessively complicated. RoySmith(talk)11:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said. Creating the permission level is one line in the configuration, and is necessary to be able to designate which pages can be edited by the new role. Procedurally, it's the equivalent amount of work as designating a page that can only be edited by those with the template editor role, and then assigning users to the corresponding template editor group. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the English Wikipedia configuration was modified to implement the template editor role. The change allowed admins to select the template editor permission level when protecting a page, created a template editor user group, and assigned the permission to the new template editor group and the sysop group. The same would have to be done to create a main page editor permission and a corresponding role. The new permission level is needed so specific pages can be designated as limited to main page editors. A corresponding group is needed so main page editors can be assigned to the group. The permission is also assigned to the sysop group so admins can also edit the pages in question. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to going this route, but I'm not confident enough that I understand the details to tackle it myself. If you're willing to take on getting this created, I'll be happy to use it in lieu of my current plan. RoySmith(talk)17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Template editor user right/Archive 2 § Next steps is where the work to implement the template editor role was discussed. Roughly speaking, it seems to consist of configuration changes, MediaWiki message changes, English Wikipedia page protection process changes, and English Wikipedia icon changes. I'm only tangentially familiar with most of these, so I think a better bet would be to crowdsource volunteers to help out. Hopefully an RfC would find enough interested helpers (as seems to have been the case with the template editor role, but then again, by the nature of that role it was probably more likely to do so). I was mainly thinking of what it took to implement the role in the configuration, rather than how to update English Wikipedia's procedures, so I appreciate now that it's more upfront work than re-using an existing permission level. However I think it pays off by making it easier to replenish a pool of editors able to edit the main page, since they won't have to meet the higher requirements for the template editor role. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fine grained permissions are a good thing. Everybody who can be trusted to edit templates or to decide what should be on the Main Page should be made an admin. The only reason we need extra permissions at all is that we do not have a working method to make new admins. —Kusma (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in the interest of getting results, I would suggest to go ahead with changing the queue protection to "template protection" and assigning the template editor bit to a couple of people now. A separate permission could be a later second step that we should take if we need it. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My read on this is that they may say they want to do the work, but they don't think they'd be trusted to. And in that case, why should we trust them to? RFA is still thataway, and we're not doing anybody - not the reluctant candidates, not the current admins, not the DYK process - any favors by bypassing it. —Cryptic13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By bypassing RfA we do almost everyone a favour. The exception is future admins who will have higher workloads because we aren't promoting enough of them. But as long as RfA is so hurtful that failed RfAs have a high chance of putting off people from editing altogether (or at least from running ever again), we need to care for other processes like DYK by finding solutions for their problems without involving RfA. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have important work that isn't getting done. We have people with the skills and desire to do that work. The only reason we can't draw a line between point A and point B is because RFA is totally broken. RoySmith(talk)15:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have the ability to draw a line between point A and point B without making it go through point C (whether that's the admin role or the template editor role). We bundle the lines together to try to avoid overhead in managing the lines. But in this case, where drawing the line would be easy given the existence of a pool of editors with the required skills and interest, I think it's less overhead to draw a direct line, rather than routing it through a different point that requires a larger set of skills. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your read on this is wrong. I don't need everything about me to be vetted by voters who can be very rude for no reason, especially when the only thing I would do if I was an admin would be to update DYK. I don't want to ban editors, delete articles, or do any of that stuff. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bizarre thing about all this is that one of the abilities I have as an admin is being able to edit template-protected pages. Which is stupid because my understanding of non-trivial template syntax is essentially zero. The only thing I know how to #invoke is sheer terror about anything that has more than one pair of curly braces. And of all the stupid things I've seen asked at RfA, never once have I seen anybody quizzed on their understanding of template syntax. RoySmith(talk)00:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably trusted with the mop. We'd now be potentially extending that same level of trust to some DYK editors who probably won't have any template coding experience either. —Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I can break any template the first time I use it, and I won't go near editing most except for things like adding an entry in a navigation template. I think what we need to consider is whether an editor can be trusted to know what they don't know. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK queue editors would likely not have the "real" template coding experience typically expected by WP:TPEGRANT. They basically are just editing text. But if given the right, they would then have access to other highly-sensitive templates and their actual code. —Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested As long as they meet the first 4 criteria of WP:TPEGRANT I don't seen how they'd be more likely to break every page than any other template editor (and in reality, I think the worst a template editor could do is break a little under 20% of pages), and anything they put on the main page would have to sit in the queue first where it could be reverted before hitting the main page. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other 3 criteria aren't you meant to meet all four of them? Also doesn't the main page directly transclude templates? If so the TPE right could be abused to push anything to it. As to how many pages could be effect I'm not sure how many pages something like {{cite web}} or {{short description}} is transcluded to, but I'd bet it's more than 20%. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While these are technically templates, these aren't really templates. Granting template editor rights to editors who have no experience working with templates is completely the wrong way of doing things. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, what I'm seeking here is clarification on why the queues are fully protected. Is there some specific established policy which requires that because they feed into the main page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK queues might be a good use case for pending changes level 2 (disabled for the better part of a decade), or heck, even level 1. The admin bot could be changed to copy over only the most recent approved revision. IznoPublic (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this change was made a few days ago. So far, the world has not come to an end, so let's see how things go. If there's problems, we can always revisit this to see if a different solution would work better. RoySmith(talk)20:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should either of the following proposals to amend the criteria for In the news be adopted?
Proposal 1: Amend the ITN significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) to state: The significance criteria are met if an event is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries (examples of websites hosting front pages: [28] and [29]).
Proposal 2: Abolish ITNSIGNIF and amend the ITN update requirement (WP:ITNUPDATE) to state that a sufficient update is one that adds substantial due coverage of an event (at least two paragraphs or five sentences) to an article about a notable subject.
Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia.
Adding for the record Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the kind of thing to suggest on Talk:2017 edition of the Samsung Galaxy A series. Because the respective sections are so small, you should give substantial reasons for separate articles: either that you would have substantial amounts of content to add separately to each, or that they are such substantially different entities covering different topics to have separate discussions. (An example of the latter would be if the A5, and only the A5, had extensive controversy on launch and massive explosions and lawsuits, a significant digression from the flow of the main A Series article -- that would warrant a separate article for the A5.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Indic transliteration and WP:INDICSCRIPT
I know this is biased but I find it to be really unfair that we cannot use the scripts that were written Indian languages all because of one user did something back in 2012. Like, we could have use the scripts for cities for example. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that WP:IndicScript, for the lede and infobox, has been discussed several times from 2012 thru 2017. Since we're past 7 years from the previous discussion (at least as listed on the policy page), it's probably time to have another discussion, to get the beat from editors as to where ethnonationalist edit-warring on this is at nowadays, and consider a new RfC (even if just to reaffirm the old policy). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close or move to some other forum or talk page. No substantive reason to change anything has been expressed. There's no clear proposal either. "Not fair", "one user did something" and "7-year-old RFC" are not actionable items on which it is possible to form a consensus. —Alalch E.13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest starting a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles. It looks like the issue has been brought up before, but there's been no updated information on vandalism posted, which is the key consideration. Maybe you'll want to solicit such information first by announcing your intentions beforehand, and post a notice on WP:Wikiproject India.
Anecdotally, I tried to propose a relatively small exception to the current guideline a year ago or so and was met with pretty significant pushback, so I'd expect a similar response to any suggestion along SpinnerLaserz's lines, despite being sympathetic to it myself. signed, Rosguilltalk16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What might be practical is a change to permit especially pertient scripts (e.g. of top 2 or 3 official and majority languages in a relevant location, or those most culturally appopriate with regard to some historical person or event). The central issue is that there are dozens of writing systems extant in and around India. This "it's all because of one user" stuff is nonsense; WP:INDICSCRIPT exists to address a practicality issue. But it may need revision, to not take a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same problems exist in many parts of the world other than South Asia. It has always struck me as rather odd that we single out Indic scripts in such a way. One by-product of this is that it can be difficult to find sources for subjects that do not have a fixed Roman transcription. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to suggest default unban appeal terms. Namely to incorporate WP:SO into it. Something along the lines of this:
Unless stated otherwise in the ban, a community ban may be appealed not less than six months from the enactment, or six months after the last declined (or inappropriate) appeal. This includes bans as a result of repeated block evasion, bans as a result of a block review by the community, and bans occurring de facto. This does not apply if there are serious doubts about the validity of the closure of the ban discussion. A ban from the Arbitration Committee may be appealed not less than 12 months from the enactment, or 12 months after the last declined (or inappropriate) appeal. None of these appeal provisions apply to arbitration enforcement blocks, such as blocks enforcing contentious topic restrictions, or community sanction blocks.
I am pretty sure that this is sensible for most bans. While the ArbCom part will require an ArbCom motion, the community part could happen almost immediately. AwesomeAasim02:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating this in VPPL to get further input. I think this should be added to the Banning policy. We can further refine it to get the right wording that can then be added in one swift edit. AwesomeAasim22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more to codify what is already standard practice. Community bans are rare, but ArbCom bans are rarer. Although blocks are much more common, though. AwesomeAasim04:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from people who don't know much about Korea or Korean history, but are familiar with Wikipedia style as a whole. This is a pretty major topic that would affect thousands of articles.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Its existing functions may be moved elsewhere, at the discretion of editors. Examples: FTN function could be moved to a WikiProject discussion page; it could handled by other policy noticeboards (namely RSN, NPOVN, NORN, BLPN, and AN).
Question 2: Should the Wikipedia guideline WP:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) be disbanded? You may give specific options for resolving guideline sections, including:
2A. Downgrade WP:FRINGE from a guideline to an explanatory essay;
2B. Deprecate and archive WP:FRINGE guidelines altogether;
2C. Merge sections of WP:FRINGE into the larger guidelines that refer to them:
Option 2C examples (this is a partial attempt at a comprehensive list): WP:V section REDFLAG cites FRINGE as main article; WP:RS has a "Fringe" section that cites PARITY; WP:N has a "Fringe" section citing NFRINGE; WP:NPOV has a "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" section as well as scattered citations to FRINGE and its various sections; WP:BLP does not cite WP:FRINGEBLP, but FRINGEBLP cites BLP and NPOV.
Affirm or reject either, both, none, with any number of suboptions (nothing must be mutually exclusive).
Reject both, WP:FRINGE has no need for any such changes. The fact is that this all arose because FRINGE POV-pushers of religious topics got angry that their pseudoscience claims were being appropriately described in our articles as pseudoscience. It's ridiculous we're even entertaining this RfC at all when that's the background context and reason for it. SilverserenC00:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that this all arose because FRINGE POV-pushers of religious topics got angry that their pseudoscience claims were being appropriately described in our articles as pseudoscience.
What!?’ With all due respect this is wholly divorced from the reason this came up. The specific issue was removing a peer-reviewed study demonstrating a fringe topic was not real, because that user rejected that academics at a secular university could be trusted because they were themselves Buddhist. As the person you’re accusing of being a “FRINGE POV-pusher” here I’d appreciate that struck, it’s uncalled for. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, and No.WP:FTN fulfils a necessary function on Wikipedia, and has done for many years. A centralised noticeboard is far better placed to tackle issues which very frequently involve multiple factors when considering such disputes. They are very rarely just about sourcing, just about NPOV etc. As for the guideline, it is just that - a summary of policy etc laid out elsewhere, emphasising the relevant parts of such material. There are certainly sometimes issues with the noticeboard, and quite possibly the guideline needs improvement in places to more accurately reflect policy, but the alternatives offered here seem to be based around the premise that the noticeboard is the root cause of 'fringe material' problems, rather than the material itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. Just seems like unhelpful process-ology, with no rationale give. NPOVN and FTN and both busy enough, so making a mega-board would just create something unwieldy. WP:FRINGE is a well-established guideline and Wikipedia's handling of fringe content is one of the conspicuous successes of the Project according to academic assessments (though not, of course, according to advocates of fringe idea who are frustrated by Wikipedia's standards). The world of sources 'out there' is not becoming less contaminated by pseudoscience, misinformation and conspiracy theories. If anything, the opposite is true. So weakening Wikipedia's defences in this area would seem most unwise if the Project is to continue a knowledge-based mission. Bon courage (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No Those thinking the anti-fringe group sometimes overdo it might be right, but downgrading FRINGE would give much worse results. Woo nonsense attracts a lot of followers and they can swamp a topic. Ensuring that articles reflect reality is necessary for an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 1; Yes 2C else 2A. From our previous discussion, it took me a while before I came to this point. But I feel like WP:FTN see WP:FRINGE as a hammer and everything around them as a nail. The other noticeboards (RSN etc) handle fringe topics and fringe editors fairly regularly without a problem (and usually without bringing up any FRINGE guideline), and per the preamble the FRINGE guideline is already a patchwork of cross-references from existing guidelines. FTN moving to a WikiProject will likely change very little, which is a major part of the point -- the noticeboard does not really function like other P&G noticeboards. And back-merging FRINGE will change no policy too, which is also pretty much the point. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes/No: There's IMO no serious problems with WP:FRINGE, though I'd like some expansion of WP:FRINGE/QS and WP:FRINGE/ALT, and generally more clarification when something is not fringe. However, I feel like FTN behaves in a way that pushes a very particular hyperskeptic POV over the sources when they contradict, and that it often overfocuses on pseudoscience and woo to the point that it usually misses even obviously supernatural claims outside those domains. For this reason, I'd like it to be merged into WP:NPOVN, which currently is pretty slow and which behaves much more normally in these situations. Loki (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. FTN is and has been a valuable platform for discussing how fringe topics and POVs should, and should not, be presented in Wikipedia articles. If enacted, these proposals would considerably weaken the project by making it easier for fringe-POV pushers to populate WP articles with all sorts of unreliably-sourced, non-encyclopedic nonsense. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reject both (Linked from NPOVN) This idea seems pretty out there. With all due respect and good faith, why is this even an RfC? Seems like an obvious waste of time to suggest we remove one of the most important safe-guards Wikipedia offers, one that sets it apart from any other platform. I have also noticed increases in the amount of new users and editors doing what some may consider POV pushing (of Fringe) over the last year. Maybe due to the elections in the US, but it is noticeable. DN (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total rejection of both: One of the most ridiculous and even outright insulting proposals I've ever seen on this site and that's saying something. A complete and total waste of time for everyone verging on the point of violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Wikipedia is under constant, relentless attack by fringe proponents and any attempt at weakening our safeguards instead of further strengthening them should be considered extremely suspicious. If you've ever been physically threatened or witnessed attempted outing on this site by fringe groups, you'll know how outrageous this proposal is. These groups range from confused and well-meaning to organized and outright dangerous. They are not something to fetishize or give an inch. We are extremely lucky to have the editors that we do who are willing to deal with fringe topics. I personally think it is time for us to start pushing back on the lack of support or appreciation Wikipedia shows for this small group of specialized editors who do so much for the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, Wikipedia keeps becoming a bigger target for special interests, and if it's going to survive into the next decade it needs to be much less open to bad actors. Ask any admin. The firehose of misinformation and stoking of bad behavior is beyond overwhelming by design, and it's only going to get much worse unless those in charge do something about it. On a lighter note, if the project wasn't working then they wouldn't even bother with us. Cheers to success. DN (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No: It seems fringe theories requires folks well-versed in combatting fringe theory proponents and how to deal with them. It's not a huge lift to make a separate space for fringe theory discussion, or to have the fringe theory guidelines. I see no good reason to get rid of either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. WP:FRINGE is a subset of WP:NPOV that helps ensure our articles on conspiracy theories, woo science, and religion remain empirical and evidence-based. These folks do great work keeping our encyclopedia free of junk. There's absolutely no way the encyclopedia would be better off without this work. comes across as WP:CANVAS. The correct way to deal with someone notifying a noticeboard that has a POV you disagree with is to do your own notifications, such as to notify a WikiProject talk page. Notifying noticeboards, article talk pages, and WikiProject talk pages is (in my opinion) never canvassing. This kind of looks like a case of an editor trying to change the entire system, instead of learning how the system works and the good reasons why it works that way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. The guideline and the noticeboard are extremely important in helping maintain neutrality and high quality referencing in topic areas that are susceptible to POV pushing. I oppose any effort to carve out a toehold that legitimizes crank theories. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes/2C - effectively merging FTN with other existing noticeboards like NPOVN and RSN will have the double benefit of putting more eyes on fringe issues and also breaking up the hyperskeptic cabal issues mentioned by other supporters above. Merging the guideline will have the benefit of fewer policies/guidelines. WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN are duplicative of NPOV/NPOVN. (I'd also support merging NORN for the same reasons.) Levivich (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that when fringe topics end up at WP:NPOV it just leads to confusion from editors with little experience in the topic, sometimes even leading to confused editors siding with the fringe proponents, wasting volunteer time all around. These aren't just NPOV concerns but often intentionally obfuscating, often organized attempts at gaming the site. We need a specialized board for these specialized matters that includes editors who are willing to do the research and the work necessary to keep the site from becoming just another fringe platform. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so now we can look at this claim. There's not a lot of fringe stuff on the NPOVN front page, but there are several on the most recent archive (113), from late August to late September. It seems like 'Myers-Briggs' and 'Muslim gangs' were resolved pretty well at NPOVN, while I'm not sure if 'WPATH' ever got resolved in its article. Would you have something to compare from FTN discussion resolutions? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not playing this game. There is no question that we need specialized support for the unique needs that come with editing fringe topics and your apparent goal of removing what little support we have for this on the site raises a parade of red flags. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No to both. I do understand and respect the canvassing/'cabal' concerns, and FTN is very useful to me for finding and rehabilitating articles of fringe topics that need improvement. We definitely want more eyes on the FTN, but just merging the boards would just make things more difficult for everyone. Feoffer (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, No. WP:FRINGE as guideline is fine, FTN should be merged with NPOVN. In practice, FTN is WikiProject Skepticism- it doesn't really function like a notice board. In theory it could be something else, but it is not. This lends itself to a type of editing that while occasionally good constantly causes problems with some topics. In my experience, I often have thoughts on the topics raised at that board, but it's difficult and hostile to contribute to as it is far more insular and WikiProject-esque than any other noticeboard, even when I largely agree with what they're saying. As someone with an interest in "fringe topics", even when it would be extremely helpful to get other eyes on a topic from people who aren't pushing fringe (what a "fringe noticeboard" should hopefully be good for) I don't even bother due to how exhausting it seems to have to deal with the very specific hyperskeptic pov some people there push. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No no. I just wasted two hours on reading a thread that only exists because an article contained something amounting to "he's really not dead, Jim! Although a study said he is." Someone deleted it, which was an improvement, someone reverted that deletion. And now the reverter is butthurt and says the deleter is a bigot, and the idea came up of nuking the place where those two clash sometimes, and someone else started this farce just for the fun of it although everybody including the reverter said it will not fly, but everybody needs to read the thread. And it did not fly. Yeah, let's make a study to find out whether a dead person is dead, and let's start a survey to find out whether a waste of time is a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a study showing that people alleged to be in a state of Tukdam were in fact dead. The line adding this study got reverted, which I would normally associate with WP:PROFRINGE since it's removing evidence against a supernatural claim, but in fact was from an FTN regular who apparently objected to even the idea that one might be able to study this.
This is what I mean when I say FTN is both overactive and underactive: in its pursuit of a hyperskeptical POV it's actually caused its participants to make WP:PROFRINGE edits in this case. Loki (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I'm not an involved editor but I have read this and the previous discussions with interest. I conclude that the FTN regulars deserve all the thanks and Wikilove we can send their way. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, no: per PARAKANYAA primarily, although i sympathize with those who disagree with the premise of this RfC in the first place. ... sawyer * he/they * talk09:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: i think the comments here and elsewhere characterizing those critical of FTN as fringe POV-pushers kind of proves the point ... sawyer * he/they * talk10:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m surprised to learn I’m just butthurt and a POV FRINGE-pusher. It’s amazing how far the game of telephone has gone considering how easy it is to scroll up and see the actual points raised. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. WP:FTN has functioned as a successful and essential forum for applying WP:CONSENSUS in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming yet another online source of misinformation and disinformation. Of course, POV-pushers of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories don't like it. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe and No. Largely per PARAKANYAA. There are problems at FTN, and some editors there confuse anti-FRINGE with NPOV when they are not the same (the former is just as much a POV as pro-FRINGE) and with seeing bad-faith and/or pseudoscience when it isn't there (it's not pseudoscience if it doesn't claim to be scientific; there is a difference between "proven wrong", "unproven" and "unstudied"). These problems are largely behavioural rather than structural, but perhaps the structure is enabling the behavioural problems? I think a better first approach would be a detailed, structured, independent review of the behaviour at FTN (perhaps by arbcom). There is far too much wailing and gnashing of teeth that Wikipedia will be overrun by pseudoscience and "woo" if we even consider that something about how we currently deal with the topic area might not be 100% perfect, and that needs to stop - as does the automatic assumption that anyone who isn't actively against saying anything remotely positive about something that is even arguably FRINGE is a pov-pushing and trying to defend or include pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. Remember the N in NPOV means neutral not anti. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think FTN is incredibly useful and want to keep it, but it definitely needs more eyeballs and review. There's truth in the basic realization that anti-FRINGE is an important facet of NPOV, but NPOV isn't synonymous with anti-FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes The Guerrilla Skeptics are explicitly organised as an off-site cabal to push their POV on Wikipedia. They have a point but are so dogmatic in their pursuit of it that they come across as a fringe religion themselves. They seem to have a specific agenda as they constantly go after particular soft targets rather than being skeptical about the large amounts of other BS that's out there. The obsessive labelling of topics as fringe and pseudoscience is itself pseudoscientific and is so preachy and proselytising that it is counter-productive. The fringe noticeboard is clearly used to canvass by this cabal and so should be shut down. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) there was an arbcom case about gorilla skeptics a few years ago, and they were pretty much acquitted of all wrongdoing. 2) it became clear during the arbcom case that gorilla skeptics organizes off-site, and does not really use ftn or a wiki project, 3) I remember not recognizing most of the publicly identified gorilla skeptic members, whereas I recognize most of the ftn regulars –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to establish even a prima facie case that there have been conduct issues involving multiple users, much less that it is systemic, around FTN as a nexus, or that removal of the board would make a meaningful improvement. I would suggest that if this is proposed again for the same reason, a review in line with what Thryduulf proposes be conducted beforehand. Such a review could also submit evidence in the interim to boards such as AN. I doubt Arbcom would chose to take it up at this point, as community resolution methods have not been exhausted, but if they eventually do, they could simply implement as a remedy what resolutions they see fit, making the community proposal redundant. I would not be opposed to revisiting this proposal should a community review find both the requisite evidence and a need for action without ending up involving Arbcom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh; no. I don't have strong feelings either way about FTN, though it looks to me that the issue that prompted this is really the alleged misbehaviour of a relatively small number of individual editors rather than FTN as a whole being irrepairably flawed. Even if there is a systemic issue with FTN, I'm not seeing from reading this proposal or the above discussion any sort of argument for getting rid of or downgrading WP:FRINGE. Indeed, the people arguing for that outcome are specifically saying that it won't change policy, so... why bother? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and NoWP:FRINGE is an extension of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and its status as a policy does a lot if heavy lifting to help prevent fringe POV pushers from spreading junk science, misinformation and fraudulent research. And, most importantly, it helps editors in general to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. WP:FTN does a lot of the hard work to enforce this and the idea of disbanding it is absurd. If there are instances when FTN is used in a questionable way (I don't think there are many, if at all), then people should let those editors know what they are doing wrong, not disband a place where a LOT of important work is done. (Oh, and anyone who brings up GSoW in this discussion has no idea what they're talking about, are getting their information from cranks and frauds, and deserves to be WP:TROUTed.) VdSV9•♫12:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point, in short, is this: very few of the active editors in FTN are part of GSoW. The Arbcom case has nothing to do with what people do at FTN. VdSV9•♫13:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No/No while the board occasional gets it wrong from because of hyper hatred of anything fringe, resulting in normal dispassionate treatment of some subjects being considered too friendly because they aren't hostile enough, abolishing the noticeboard or downgrading the policies/guidelines/whatever will cause much more frequent problems that are much worse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that some editors at FTN have trouble distinguishing those trying to achieve NPOV from those promoting a pro-FRINGE POV, labelling them all as lunatic charlatans, which doesn't help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That comment demonstrates you've completely missed the point. The failure to distinguish between NPOV and pro-FRINGE POV actively harms the encyclopaedia, and hinders the cause of NPOV and those seeking it while doing absolutely nothing to the goal of those pushing conspiracy theories that restricting the aspersions to them would not. Ideally there would be no name-calling or aspersion-casting at all, but one step at a time. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. As others have said in other ways, WP:FTN has been successful to the point where there is a lot of questioning around if it is needed are not. It continues to act as a bulwark against a significant number of groups trying to get their unproven/random musings in what should be a encyclopedic work. There is enough volume that having its own separate policy and noticeboard continues to be needed. spryde | talk12:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. While I am cognizant of the concern expressed by Andrew Davidson of off-site organization intending to push a POV, getting rid of a particular noticeboard does nothing to prevent things from happening off-site, the activities of which will likely then just move to other Wikipedia noticeboards. The discussion that we are having here is likely sufficient to bring additional attention to WP:FRINGE, so that a broader slice of the community is involved in its discussions. BD2412T12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No/No In agreement with the above, where it appears there's more a problem that is beyond FRINGE, which is how we label those that are promoting fringe theories, which falls under NPOV and BLP concerns. As long as fringe concepts have been readily disproven by reliable sources, there's zero harm in making sure they are labeled as such, but it is a problem to further that labeling onto those that promote them without significantly strong backing to get around the POV issue. Other issues like offsite canvassing are those that are not a specific issue to FTN but misuse of WP in general, and have other remedies available to handle than to shut down a key noticeboard. --Masem (t) 13:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. Per WP:PROJGUIDE, A WikiProject is a group of editors interested in collaborating on a specific topic within Wikipedia. A WikiProject is a group of people, not a set of pages, a subject area, a list of tasks, or a category. I think the same applies to a noticeboard; functionally noticeboards and WikiProject talk pages often differ only in name. Shutting down an active noticeboard is therefore primarily a question of taking administrative action against those editors, to stop them from collaborating. That sort of action should be reserved for WP:ARBCOM. Deleting the pages and moving the functions elsewhere does not seem like it would achieve anything meaningful. WP:FRINGE is a logical extension of core policies and demoting it would be taken as an invitation to promote theories that do not align with NPOV or V.--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and no. Wikipedia is a bright spot on the Interent at least in part because we really do try to comprehensively get things right, even if we often fail. Part of "getting things right" is keeping out material that is well outside what is mainstream, as represented by reliable sources. I see some comments that FTN, or some participants at FTN, are hyper-skeptical. My impression is that charge is coming in part from the failure of FTN to be sufficiently differential to extraordinary claims made by some groups. - Donald Albury15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. Disbanding the noticeboard would have no effect other than to move discussion elsewhere, so why bother. Anyone can view or comment on the noticeboard so how would having the same discussions elsewhere make any difference. As to the idea of disbanding or downgrading FRINGE it is patently ridiculous. If editors have issues with other editors they should take it to ANI or ARBCom, rather than tilting at windmills. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No. I don't think our policies and guidelines are what's in need of revision right now. The matter of concern is, to borrow Loki's words a pattern of behavior enabled by the structure in which a 'hyperskeptical' POV is pushed over and against sources and often using bigoted reasoning. When academically trained and university-associated scholars get treated by FTN participants as uncitable 'woo' again and again, , with no regard for the training of the authors or even the content of their findings, the attempt to achieve NPOV is inhibited, not helped. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb Yes, if the discipline is itself fringe, but scholarship is not made unreliable in and of itself by the scholar being a member of a particular religion, which is something people at FTN often argue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Bob believes that magical dwarves live at the center of Jupiter, and goes "Trust me, I'm an astrophysicist, I wrote papers on the topic, I'm the foremost expert on this, magical dwarves do live at the center of Jupiter", Bob is a nutjob and their paper support Jovian magical dwarves is equally vapid and devoid of validity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim in question is clearly out of step with other literature, of course. But that is not what the issue is. Someone being a member of a particular religion does not make their scholarship inherently fringe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What Bob does or does not believe has absolutely no relevance to whether their paper supporting Jovian magical dwarves is valid. Whether the paper is or not valid depends entirely on how reliable sources rate the content of the paper, particularly the methodology and whether the conclusions match the evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Bob is a member of the Church of Jove and manages to publish an article in the Journal of Vaguely Related Engineering about the striking evidence for the existence of magical dwarves, there is at least an itty bitty amount relevance that his membership in the church could serve as a WP:REDFLAG. Agreed that one might come to this conclusion anyway through source evaluation, and I absolutely accept that church membership is in princinple compatible with WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship. But there are enough examples I have seen of poor scholarship following that model that I think a complete taboo of such a heuristic is just as problematic as someone who outright dismisses a source based on the religious affiliation of the author. jps (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...but what if Bob, a member of the Church of Jove, is a respected expert who publishes research suggesting that magical dwarves do not exist? Because that's the actual analogy for the situation you're talking about. Loki (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I know that is the argument that was leveled, but this isn't the full story. There was, in fact, only a claim that one means of trying to measure some phenomenon came up with a predictable null result. jps (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bob's membership of the church would still not be relevant. We judge how extraordinary claims are by how much they differ from the prevailing consensus of opinion in reliable sources, not by who makes them. We judge whether the claims are supported by sufficiently strong evidence based on how reliable sources report on them. If claims are noteworthy but have not been assessed in reliable sources then the article must express no opinion on their veracity in Wikipedia's voice (if the claims are not noteworthy we don't mention them at all). Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We judge how extraordinary claims are by how much they differ from the prevailing consensus of opinion in reliable sources, not by who makes them. This isn't strictly true. I can think of many instances where we do not use sources precisely because of who is making the claim even if the claim being made is in-line with prevailing understanding. And I'm not even arguing for this kind of strict excising. I'm just saying that we can use the identity of an author as a datapoint when evaluating the source. jps (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No. I didn't expect to end up !voting in this way - I was really surprised to see the headline of the RfC notice, and immediately thought "are you kidding me?!" But having read through these discussions and thought about it for a little while, I do agree that it would be best to merge this together into the npov board. The arguments in favour of ending the noticeboard articulate something I had observed for some time but not really thought through myself. I disagree that this would have no effect except to move the discussion elsewhere. (If the discussion is moved to npov and the fringe regulars immediately overpower the npov regulars such that there really is no effect on the fringe discussions, well, that's not really an outcome that looks good on the fringe regulars trying to argue that they're not part of a hyperskeptic bloc.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and No I have often found the fringe theories noticeboard to be helpful when dealing with fringe topics and ideas, but I agree that the purpose of the board heavily overlaps with NPOVN, and there is a evident lack of interest/activity at NPOVN (I have had several posts on NPOVN that I thought were significant issues not generate any real noticeable reponse), and perhaps merging FTN with NPOVN could sort this issue. The fringe guideline is itself good though and I see no real good reason to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and no. I see a lot of vague claims of FTN being abused by individual editors acting as an organized hyperskeptic bloc, biased FTN editors holding a hatred of anything fringe, fringe subjects being unfairly treated with hostility, etc. We would need evidence in the form of diffs to evaluate the need for actions suggested by the survey. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and Maybe 2A. Thryduulf pretty much covers it. The problem isnt FTN or FRINGE. Most of the editors there do good work and are a net positive for Wikipedia. The problem is that a handful of editors that hang out there also routinely ignore NPOV and CIVIL and, because they otherwise do good work, the system gives them a pass. Bonewah (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No I clearly think FTN has issues, and I think the sheer volume of WP:PROFRINGE accusations being thrown out here and above, in the absence of any PROFRINGE actions or statements from any user should show that there’s a problem. This has gone way beyond civil in places and an inability to actually have a nuanced discussion around FTN is a symptom of the wider problem.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Sorta/no’. I've long thought that the lower traffic content noticeboards, FTN, NPOVN, and NOORN would be more effective merged into a single noticeboard. Fringe is part of NPOV already, and combining the eyes from those noticeboards would address concerns about canvassing to a particular group and draw attention to discussions that generally have too few participants. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. This seems a drastic measure when no fringe policy and noticeboard serve a useful purpose and have been relied upon. Other available options include suggesting specific changes or clarifications to WP:NOFRINGE and editors productively trying to engage content experts in religious topics that have garnered the attention of FTN.MYCETEAE 🍄🟫— talk01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No and No. Neither the noticeboard nor the guideline are broken. Both are necessary. Scattering the discussions from FTN across other boards would just invite forum-shopping and general confusion. If there's a conduct problem with one or more editors, take them to ANI or ArbCom. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note regarding some of the comments about FTN being an important safeguard, some of the last bit of our discussion above was about precisely this point. Does FTN really mitigate against fringe edits and editors? Does having a separate FRINGE guideline page mitigate similarly? Is there evidence of this in our experience? SamuelRiv (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's the sort of question to be asking before launching a waste-of-time RfC? There was no traction for your odd ideas and you were advised they were pointless. But here we are. Bon courage (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody at all agreed with your idea to ditch the FRINGE guideline (you were told it would be a waste of time to ask). You also seemed not to understand basic things about how noticeboards work, saying for example they should not be used for content issues. This RfC just looks like a pointless way to preside over process and stoke up drama, rather than build an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my post history for that entire discussion, including the very last posts where I state my reasons for starting the RfC, I strongly ask that you strike this comment. I really should not have to take this. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing, dealing with, and reporting on fringe groups require specialized editors with expertise in their topic areas. Fringe-specific boards allow for the cultivation of such editors. Additionally, fringe groups very frequently organize and brigade the site, requiring a counter-response from Wikipedia editors, for which our fringe boards and fringe guidelines allow. Given the repeated attempts at systemic gaming of the site we've seen from extremely well-funded and well-organized fringe groups, especially new religious movements, Wikipedia needs far, far, more fringe-specialized editors and it is quite frustrating to see attempts at reducing what little safeguards we have. To put it frankly, we are very lucky to have the few editors we do willing to put up with the abuse, harassment, and outright death threats that come with editing in what is by far the most stressful and outright dangerous part of Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point: I think this association is double-edged. This stuff isn't usually the most stimulating to think about—never mind to have to fight with bad- and gray-faith strangers about else we allow the wiki to get blatantly worse before our very eyes. Not speaking about anyone or anything in particular, I'm serious, but in the broadest possible terms—I think in certain moments that dynamic can lead to a negative connotation for editors that do put up with it, something like "they like to fight" or "they're always talking about wiki detritus". Sometimes, the exhaustion shows on my conduct, and I'm not a member of this class even. Remsense ‥ 论02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's time to start showing appreciation for these volunteers—they are by far putting up with the worst that the project offers and if even a single one of them sticks around, they need spines of steel. Editors who deal with the unecessary bullshit that comes with editing fringe topics need better support. It's obviously not coming from the WMF but it needs to come from somewhere. Debating removing what little support we have for them is unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing with you, I'm just elaborating on some of the possible reasons I think the dynamic takes the shape that it does. Reflection is worthwhile. Remsense ‥ 论02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire impetus for the discussion above was the problem of FTN having non-specialist editors claiming authority on specialist science topics, in several FTN threads on the current board page. Is there a specialist in fringe theories that would be better equipped than experienced editors at RSN, NPOVN, etc? When it comes to WP, what additional skills would they have? If it's dealing with problematic fringe editors, then my challenge again is to look at the results (which we do in the prior discussion). SamuelRiv (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) : Is there evidence of this in our experience? In my experience, yes. In yours? Well, with all due respect, perhaps you should have reviewed the current FTN topics and, of course, the FTN archives, sufficiently to answer those questions yourself prior to initiating this RfC. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we run the RfC for at least a day so we can see the opinion of the broader Wikipedia community who are not FTN regulars. I agree that if the writing is on the wall then there's no reason to drag it out any longer than few days rather than a week or a month Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Does FTN really mitigate against fringe edits and editors?" Yes. I would also note that from my personal experience in the realm of rhetoric, the phrase “is it really?” is often employed in the dissemination of Fringe as a persuasive device.
Does having a separate FRINGE guideline page mitigate similarly? As a matter of personal opinion, yes.
Is there evidence of this in our experience? Yes, and while examples may be given, it's important to frame the terms of what is considered acceptable evidence. DN (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is clearly placed in direct reference to the discussion at the top of VPP, this page, linked at the top and bottom of the RfC. ("some of the last bit of our discussion above...") The question is asked and analyzed in detail in that discussion. I am not trying to persuade anyone by asking a question. But I do expect people who respond to an RfC to at least take a moment to glance at the preceding discussion when the RfC says that it is the culmination of that discussion. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do expect people who respond to an RfC to at least take a moment to glance at the preceding discussion There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the people who have responded to this RfC have failed to do that. That comment is a borderline, if not actual, violation of WP:AGF. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how someone may see my reply as somewhat pointy, but for the record I don't take offense. I would guess they may be frustrated at the results they are getting and trying to make sense of why some editors are not reacting as positively as they might have hoped. DN (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. I made clear above before starting the RfC the extent of my expectations. Responses I have gotten here have been borderline, tangential, or directly insulting to my character as a person and an editor. I'm becoming short because nobody, not an IP, not me, deserves that shit. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want pushback, you might have tried showing the slightest ounce of concern or respect for the handful of editors who actually deal with the threats, attempts at outing, and harassment that come with editing in fringe spaces. It gets so bad in these areas that it's amazing no one has been hurt yet: I know I have personally been repeatedly threatened and you can easily find attempts at outing me and I am just one editor. Without question, the small group of volunteers who gather at the fringe noticeboard and apply Wikipedia's fringe policies are the only thing keeping the website from being overrun from unrelenting, well-funded, and organized attempts at converting it into a fringe platform. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think personal dangers experienced by editors, however important, are not relevant to this particular discussion (and oddly the one credible RL threat I've had on Wikipedia has been as a result of editing a NRM topic). What is concerning is the aspersions and othering in these VPP discussions, with "FTN" being used collective noun and proxy for casting aspersions. Warrenmck's continued use of this tactic is particularly shabby, but they are not alone. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is relevant because it is apparently something we have to put up with as fringe topics editors and nobody seems to be discussing the real world danger. Without going into too much detail, I dealt with a group of editors who attempted to stalk and potentially harm me, hunting down some poor individual (who wasn't even me) at his workplace, among a few other instances. Editing non-fringe topics isn't likely to trigger this kind of thing — this is one of the reasons I think we need unique support systems and forums for editing on fringe topics. After nearly 20 years of this, I have no shortage of horror stories. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise, but surely you can see that if we extend special treatment to editors because of things that heppen (or which they say happen) in RL then ... that way madness lies. I can think of non-fringe topics that are also fraught if one's real life identity is known (abortion, organized crime, espionage ...) Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some type of support system needs to exist, or at least a true zero-tolerance policy, but I don't see that happening as long as the site remains little more than a cash cow for the Wikimedia Foundation. In any case, it was foolish of me to edit in these spaces to begin with, I initially followed the breadcrumbs from hijacked folklore-related articles, and these kind of discussions just make it more obvious to me that I should much more narrowly focus what little time I have for Wikipedia these days on non-fringe matters. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m actually not okay with you continually referring to my real concerns as a “tactic”, you’ve done nothing but assume an underlying agenda or crusade on my part here and your inability to actually even acknowledge that the concerns and criticisms raised may be legitimate and being raised in good faith is pretty much exactly one of the problems I see with FTN. I wasn’t even engaging yo, here. If you can’t assume good faith, then that’s not on me. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion/catalyst for the RfC, it did not look like there was a consensus for it, but you seemed to take it upon yourself to do it anyway. Are the reactions all that surprising? DN (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not go in depth, but I would say I looked it over. I give you points for courage and assume you are acting in good faith. I had no involvement there so my opinions on the legitimacy of this endeavor are strictly based on face-value. Best of luck. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true there are problem editors in this space, just not in the way some editors seem to think. If you're unaware of how Wikipedia noticeboards work, or how FRINGE is generally handled on Wikipedia, you might get the idea from these VPP discussions there was some kind of problem with WP:FRINGE, rather than a quixotic campaign from one or two editors with bees in their bonnets. Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rather than a quixotic campaign from one or two editors with bees in their bonnets
and yet other editors see a problem, and when they point this out you’ve disagreed that they see the same problem as I do over their objections. You need to knock off the aspersions yesterday. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how not editing the article when what I was proposing was a contentious move is an issue. Editing an article isn’t the only way to work on an article. Talk and noticeboard discussions prior to sweeping changes are perfectly reasonable, and the only way to disagree that “Panspermia” is still used widely to refer to what Wikipedia calls Paeudo-panspermia is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, not any kind of reasoned position, because it’s clearly true. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your dogmatic position was "It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory”. It took a lot of discussion to get you to recognize this was wrong. Bon courage (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not wrong, and the “convincing” was people saying “it’s wrong” and providing no comment whatsoever on the evidence provided. For anyone reading a long, my argument was not that the fringe theory panspermia is anything other than a fringe theory, just that the same term is used in the literature for the one that isn’t a fringe theory, which is demonstrably true. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were shown a load of journal sources and had to concede it's not "absolutely erroneous" to say panspermia is a fringe theory but that both terms are used, seemingly with panspermia being the most common term for the fringe theory. Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
both terms are used
this was the claim.If both terms are used in the literature to refer to the non-front theory then “panspermia is a fringe theory” is misleading, rather a specific fringe as hell theory which is also referred to as “panspermia” is distinct from the “panspermia” used by scientists, which is why my proposal was “Panspermia (astrobiology)” and “Panspermia (fringe theory)”, not making some case that the fringe theory isn’t a fringe theory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pointless to continue, so you can have the WP:LASTWORD if you want. Editors can see what actually transpired if they wish, and see the consensus crystalized in the relevant articles. Per the sources, panspermia is the fringe theory and pseudo-panspermia the non-fringe one. If this turned your prior understanding on its head, that's not a problem with FTN but with published knowledge itself. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources, panspermia is the fringe theory and pseudo-panspermia the non-fringe one. If this turned your prior understanding on its head, that's not a problem with FTN
I’m a WP:SME in meteorites. There’s a reason I was easily able to provide a huge pile of sources disagreeing with the characterization on Wikipedia, and it’s not because I’m WP:PROFRINGE trying to pick sources to soften the stance on the absurd panspermia fringe theory.
At no level do I expect anyone here to take my SME perspective on this (hello, Essjay controversy), but I do expect self-described skeptics to re-evaluate a previously held stance in the face of evidence, which didn’t happen and that’s one of the issues I see with FTN. FTN is mistaken in their assessment of this and I was able to provide plenty of sources, but that didn’t matter, which strongly informs my perspective of FTN as engaged in WP:POV editing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, without me even commenting on this vote going on, it keeps getting presented as an unsubstantiated personal crusade on my part rather than any sort of genuine concern and good faith attempt to address that, and the above example is a pretty good one for FTN rejecting sources that counter a specific anti-fringe POV being used to edit even when nobody, at all, is taking a WP:PROFRINGE perspective.
But broadly you’re right, and it’s clear this proposal is going nowhere. I hope that nobody’s taking some of the above characterizations uncritically at face value. I’m going to make a sincere effort to disengage here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been loosely following the discussion and have reread it, I'm not ready to enter a comment yet but my initial impression is that there isn't a sufficient case for such a drastic action. I'm not really seeing much evidence that this is definitely a systemic issue vs one of a few users, if any. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coherent case. As the OP admitted, this should have been at WP:ANI because it's really a complaint about users. Just not delivered in an up-front way. This ruse is probably the root of this entire mess because some users have become confused into believing it was ever about genuine issues with FTN/FRINGE themselves. Bon courage (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this ruse
You seem incapable of engaging with this thread, from the start, without accusing me of a secret agenda, engaging in ruses, having an axe to grind with specific editors, and engaging in WP:PROFRINGE behaviour. You’re beyond out of line here, Bon, and if you’re not actually going to read the discussion you’re engaging with without passing it through a conspiratorial lens then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your own approach. You’ve constantly misrepresented arguments, decided it’s acceptable to cast me as some lying pro-fringe editor trying to sidestep normal pathways of dealing with issues, and engaged in strawman after strawman. The reason this entire thread has been derailed away from any discussion about the topic raised is partially because you showed up accusing me of an agenda from the very first reply you made and wildly misrepresented the entire thing from that first post, and you continue to do so.
It's not an aspersion. I'm criticising you specifically for couching what you have admitted is an ANI/user issue in opaque complaints about an entire noticeboard. Predictably, this has caused a big old mess. Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said specific behavior, which is recurring from a large number of users, was the impulse for a policy discussion about something that was leading to those behaviours. As @Hydrangeans agreed, it’s reasonable to want to seek a resolution outside of sanctions. You then extrapolated the discussion to be “that’s what this is exclusively about” and have refused to budge from a position of accusing me of lying about my motivations for the VPP thread repeatedly, ignoring the entire context of the statement you’re repeating like some kind of spell that shows I’m engaging with this whole process nefariously. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "lying". I think you're wrong on the facts and damagingly oblique and confusing in your approach. Anyway, we shall see from the RfC how convinced the community is. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the discussion you're referencing is difficult to parse in terms of understanding why this RfC is up. Your last comment there was..."Eh, I think it's worth asking just because it's up here, and it closes it out. A RfC can ask two questions. I'll post it in a few minutes."DN (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious problem with noticeboards is canvassing, where members feel emboldened to skirt civility because there is a group of like minded supporters to dog whistle for help. The noticeboard should be held to higher standards of civility, and have a lower bar for sanctions. Society works this way, positions of public trust (politicians, police, teachers) can get hit hard when they cross a line. The fringe group have a responsibility to behave well, or else; just because the other person has a fringe view is not a reason to act like a jerk. What we need is a noticeboard guideline and set of rules so members understand the issues with noticeboards and best practices. -- GreenC06:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's practically impossible to WP:CANVAS at noticeboards, as they are so well watched. Calling for assistance is often the point. BLP questions? Ask at BLPN; original research issues? NORN; questions of FRINGE? FTN. Most fringe topics are WP:CTOPS so realistically editors are already on notice to be on best behaviour. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for assistance is often the point, you can call that canvassing, or "assistance", whatever you like. Noticeboards can and often do become a place to "call for assistance" ie. getting like-minded people to help you in a dispute. Anyone who denies that is not being honest. I've done it, I've seen others do it, it's very common. Since we believe we are doing it for a higher cause, and believe we are right, most people won't even recognize it as a problem, rather see it as doing the right thing. It's human nature to collaborate towards a goal, it should not be avoided. But it can be regulated through guidelines. Noticeboards are different from normal random editor involvement in a page. -- GreenC14:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Getting more eyes via an appropriate noticeboard is a way to widen and deepen consensus and helps the Project. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant and all that. Of course editors hate in when they "lose" because of extra transparency over a particular point of contention. Some of them might even bear grudges: some people hate "FTN"; some people hate admins; some people even hate Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is how neutral the notice is, not the notice itself. Otherwise notification of any project (literally a group of editors all interested in the same subject) would be canvassing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above, people accuse FTN of being Wikiproject Skepticism. But I'm more religious studies and anthropology, and I find articles I can improve and expand via FTN. Just merging it into NPOVN would make it harder for me to spot where I can be of use. Isn't there some technical way we can keep FTN separate, but also transclude it on to NPOVN so people there see it? Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "merge noticeboards" idea just sounds like a kind of punishment beating fantasy to teach "FTN" a lesson. It wouldn't achieve anything to change the work being done, just make a bigger more unwieldy noticeboard with editors being bothered with more threads they aren't interested in (already a problem when watching most noticeboards). Hell - why not merge all the noticeboards into one? Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Feoffer Well people and sources that are related to "skepticism" (the community/discipline/whathaveyou, not the general concept of skepticism) have been interested in topics that relate to anthropology and religion, so I don't really think that defeats the charge of being more-or-less WikiProject Skepticism. I understand its usefulness - despite almost never contributing, I find it to be an interesting place to find topics I would want to work on/would be able to improve - once it's been a month and the topic has been archived so I don't have to deal with what comes with posting on the noticeboard. The problem is the board shares a very specific hyperskeptic POV that conflicts badly with many topics and is often unnecessarily hostile, which leads to canvassing. When raising an article there the problem is often solved, and several more are introduced. Or at least how that's how I feel from lurking on the board.
I'm well aware that merging into NPOVN won't actually happen despite voting for it, but I considered saying that less waffling then hey, it probably shouldn't be deleted but something has to be done about how this works in practice but I know nothing will ever be donePARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස I mean people who take a hardline stance on many of the issues and interests associated with "skepticism", to the point of being hostile/aggressive and accusing people of pushing fringe when they are not, or labeling things as fringe or debunked more aggressively than they are in the actual literature (someone made a very good post about this before but I cannot find it).
Often, people are actually pushing fringe and it's fine but sometimes an issue is not so clear cut and everyone has blown it up out of proportion and then the article is unbalanced. In fairness that is not exclusive to the fringe board. I was not using the word "hyperskeptic" as a conscious neologism, merely referring to people who are well, hyper-skeptical. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "accusing people of pushing fringe when they are not" mean? How does one objectively determine that this has happened? I, for one, have always argued that people can be WP:PROFRINGE without necessarily believing the fringe theory being promoted. Devil's advocates exist, for example, and if the actions of an account are functionally equivalent to promoting a fringe theory, I do not shy away from pointing that out. Does that make me a hyperskeptic? If so, where do you draw the line? jps (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස "Pushing fringe when they are not" means, to me, accusing someone of pushing fringe when the relevant consensus is not actually deeming that belief fringe; being the minority view, for example, is not strictly fringe. Over correction. As to how one can tell I don't know, I'm not pointing out any individual's behavior (or I would have taken it to ANI), more the pattern I have noticed over time looking at the noticeboard. I don't know you or the way you edit, as I have not watched your edits.
Also why would someone promote a theory they themself do not believe in/get material gain from? I don't get what you mean in that sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the attempt to decide whether a belief is "strictly fringe" or not is perhaps taking Wikipedianisms too far. Surely there is a spectrum of consensus understanding and there is also a contextual basis for an argument. Trying to decide that an idea is being called fringe when it isn't strikes me as an endeavor that is just not well-posed.
The reason people do it can be for a lot of reasons, but out of a sort of sense of justice or support for the underdog, I have seen people make arguments here that Wikipedia has been overly mean to this-or-that fringe group. What sticks most in my head were some now long-gone admins who policed the biographies of climate change deniers some 15 years ago or so. jps (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a spectrum of consensus, so it doesn't have to be 100% declared that as long as it is generally accepted to be, but the problem I find is that the board sometimes overreacts and declares things much more fringe than they actually are, out of proportion. If it is in proportion it is fine.
The trouble I have with this kind of complaint about "out of proportion" reactions is that it requires judging what exactly that "proportion" should be. That's where WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA come into play, but this seems a more behavioral/cultural matter that is unrelated to the existence of a noticeboard or a content guideline. jps (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think it's fair to judge if posting things on a noticeboard often gives a result that has a specific tilt one way, that posting your concern somewhere else would not have. You could take the same exact issue to NPOVN or FTN - as it is in the scope of both, and have two completely contradictory proposed solutions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the board sometimes overreacts and declares things much more fringe than they actually are, out of proportion Not to be overly dense, but do you have any specific examples of that behavior from FTN that you can share here? Any diffs? If fringe claims are supported by independent, reliable, secondary sources but are nonetheless dismissed as a matter of course at that noticeboard, then a broad-stroke criticism about "out of proportion reactions" might have merit. But without such evidence... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In sceptic discourse elsewhere I've seen people accused of "promoting pseudoscience" because they wished to discuss something (reflexology in this instance) with more nuance than ridiculing the whole thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing that some people are willing to throw around the word 'hyperskeptical' but as yet the concept of 'hypercredulous' hasn't been put on the table in this discussion. Bon courage (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people accused of "promoting pseudoscience" because they wished to discuss something (reflexology in this instance) with more nuance Because we are still discussing FTN (I think), I do not recall any such discussion there, but my memory is not exactly fabulous. In any case, I am unaware of any discussions - or sceptic discourse if you prefer - at FTN where "nuance," if supported by independent, secondary sources, has resulted in people being accused of "promoting pseudoscience." Perhaps some diffs would be in order, as I might be wrong about that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reflexology discussion was several years ago not on Wikipedia so I cannot give you diffs of it. From memory the nuance sought was something along the lines that the act of massaging the feet can have benefits to the feet and things that help you relax can be good for overall health so even if the claims about massaging a specific part of the foot curing an ailment in some other part of the body are rubbish (my gut feeling is they probably are, but I've not looked), ridiculing the whole thing as useless/harmful (I can't remember which it was) was too blunt. They were accused of trying to promote reflexology, of believing in pseudoscience, etc. for those comments. I've seen similar sorts of attitudes from some editors at FTN in the past (not related to Reflexology, I don't think I've ever read a discussion about that on Wikipedia, it's been a good couple of years at least since I've even read our article about it). I can't point to anything specific without doing research I haven't got time to do right now, but I'm clearly not alone in getting these sorts of feelings about the noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will freely admit that people have less than warm feelings about the noticeboard. But I'm not convinced that this is necessarily a bad thing.
What you have reminded me of is a similar slate of complaints about the way certain subjects were described. The argument goes, "Even if proponents sometimes employ pseudoscientific arguments and the system itself lacks evidence for efficacy, if the practice or belief is mostly harmless, then why beat people over the head with the lack of evidence or labeling it with derisive labels?"
I think the problem with this kind of accommodationist approach is that it can easily slip into a kind of dishonesty in presentation. This is the fundamental friction that happens with the question of how one approaches these subjects stylistically.
As someone who occasionally reads and comments on the board I'm not a 'skeptic', let alone a 'hyperskeptic'. This again appears to be about individual behaviour not the board, behavioural issues should be handled at ANI or ARBCom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying everyone who has ever posted there has that point of view, but relative to other places on the project it is tilted a certain way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, do you have any actual evidence (that is, diffs) to support your broad - and vaguely aspersional - claim that "[FTN and editors who comment therein are] tilted a certain way," a "tilt" that makes it unworthy of retention? Anything at all? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the endless "notifying projects is canvassing" discussions (it's not). A noticeboard isn't a private off-site group, anyone can post there or watchlist it, so closing it wouldn't change the behaviour you're concerned about. There are routes for dealing with behavioural issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problems with 'reliable sources' and 'original research'
Dear Editors, I have not posted here before but have been advised to do so by your volunteer Responder.
I wish to request some flexibility in the No original research' policy.
We were recently working on a 19th century lady who has a Wiki page, but about whom only one book has, I think, been published and that book has her date of birth incorrect along with a few other aspects of her life.
But when we tried to change the birth date as we have her birth and baptism registrations from expert genealogists, WIki told us that constituted 'original research' and as the book was published it must be deemed to be a 'reliable source'.
Sorry but I am astonished.
So many publications contain inaccurate material (not deliberately) and if there is only one published source one apparnetly cannot refute it without another. This doesn't seem workable.
The whole matter reminds me of my school history teacher who asked us for one lesson to bring into school different newspapers all published on a certain day. We then had to read the same item of news in all the different newspapers to show us how very different they were according apparnet sources and statements of 'facts'; political leaning; the experience and background of the journalist authors and their own opinions, etc. Specifically the teacher wanted to emphasise that just because it is published and in print - it does not mean that it is true and accurate !
I see that you have tried to address this under your 'reliable sources' heading, and I am not suggesting that the published book deliberately made errors.
However surely there must be provision in WIki for correcting entries which were made in good faith at the time but can now be shown to be incorrect. And if it is a birth and parentage then usually the 'proof' lies in the birth records of the state or country in which they were born and not in another publication. I hope you see what I mean. Stiperstones (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered having an expert publish a paper or article on the subject with the correct information? That is generally the most straightforward way to address this sort of thing, especially so far in the past. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that there may also be a way to use the birth and baptism registrations directly as primary sources, but that is much more context dependent. The birth and baptism registrations might also not be accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another concern, is that the person mentioned in a set of birth and baptism registrations might possibly be a different person with the same name and an explanation is needed as to why they are same person.
Given that you have expert genealogists willing to sign off on the change of birthdates, could the error be noted in a footnote to article saying this problem exists, even if is not suffcient for changing the text of article?
As far as getting it published, an expert might be able to publish the correct information as a short letter or report in an regional journal. They might be able to use the incoorect information in book leading to errors in Wikipedia and other articles using it as source as a justification for publishing the short letter or report as a formal publications.
The advice given at the essay Wikipedia:When sources are wrong is sound, and the specifics of proceeding will probably be best worked out on the talk page.
Sometimes a little IAR can be appropriate in borderline cases, as just one example see the discussion of fumarolic activity in Copiapó (volcano), but that really only holds when there is no opposition to the proposed content.
As an amusing little historical tidbit, in the late 00s there still was still limited sourcing available for Jimmy Wales, and those that mentioned his birthdate simply got it wrong. As a result he spent a good deal of time arguing with other editors over his birthdate no joke.
There have actually been a couple of similar issues involving birthdates over the years, made all the more tedious to work through by periodic WP:CITOGENESIS.
To get a deeper picture of the knots this kind of stuff has twisted normally reasonable people into over the years, and why things are the way they are, you can try to muddle your way through this discussion and this rfc. And if you have an absolute surfeit of time and can tolerate reading lengthy disjointed and circuitous discussions of varying intelligibility you can help yourself to the 81 and counting archives over at WT:V. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical
I dislike the visual changes to Mobile Wikipedia
I havent used the community pool before so Im sorry if this isnt in the right village. mobile wikipedia starting today as for some reason started auto directing me to en.m.wikipedia.org instead of the regular en.wikipedia.org. even if i directly remove the ".m" or "m.", it will just autodirect to it again. I really hate it, and find it unbearable to use and love the regular english language wikipedia much more. I dont know what is causing this problem. I havent seen anyone discussing this on either the wikipedia subreddit (where usually any updates are discussed) or on Wikipedia:News. I greatly appreciate any help with this, thank you! 92.236.211.53 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response! I already tried this and it unfortunately results in it providing the literal desktop version of the website, resulting in large amounts of negative space and awkward text placement next to images due to website trying to work for the horizontal mobile. the site worked perfectly for mobile prior. is this happening on your phone too? 92.236.211.53 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im typing from desktop as i also learned today that my phone's ip (this same ip) was caught up in a rangeblock to block a specific user(but is now resolved?). i thought just now that this might be whats causing this but i just made account on mobile and it still autodirects to en.m.wikipedia. i have no idea what to do 92.236.211.53 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior you're experiencing is how it has always worked. The "workaround" Primehunter provided is working how it has always worked. There isn't a way to "fix it". The closest thing you can do is have an account, change the account's skin preference, and then use the "use desktop" link when you are logged in and end up on the mobile website. Perhaps this is sufficient for you. Izno (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back through screenshots I took and saw that you and Primehunter were right, it has always been "en.m.wikipedia". I think there's been an update to mobile Wikipedia's base, light colour scheme that caused the add-on I was using, darkreader to render it differently.
I do notice that the text on tables is larger, and colours are in my opinion not working well together either in the official dark mode or using my add-on on light mode.
Previous mobile Wikipedia colour scheme (lightmode+darkreader), from 28th of April: https://imgur.com/a/up24a8G
Is there anyway to go back to how it was previously because I really do prefer how it was literally just yesterday? I'm sincerely sorry for the misunderstandings 92.236.211.53 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a higher contrast between the letters and the dark background, the purple that lists clicked-on links is a lighter purple so you have to strain your eyes more to discern it, the text on tables is larger than it needs to be while the text on the rest of the articles is currently still at their previous very good and readable size (shown in the imgur comparison linked above), and I dont get how that happened.
I dont know how else to describe it, but it looks like there is a white or blue filter over the articles that makes my eyes hurt. I can make another imgur comparison if that would help explain what im reffering to (just two image links this time tho). 92.236.211.53 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ive made an account and it hasn't reverted the UI to how it previously was sorry.
?useskin=timeless is working very well thank you. It's a hassle to paste it to the URL for each new article I click on since it resets to the awful default on every new link or page loaded or when the editl is opened. Is there anyway to make it the default, since it will also be bad for when I'm reading with mobile data, having to load the site twice. Thank you very much regardless! 92.236.211.53 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You can make it the default by creating an account, logging in with it, then going to your Preferences, and under "Appearance" select the Timeless skin, then Save. But that's what Izno told you five days ago. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I've logged into this account and and selected timeless in appearance but despite that it's still not automatically going through! Also. I apologize to inzo, I don't think I understood what they are saying then. AssanEcho (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late reply, about auto directing me to en.m.wikipedia.org instead of the regular en.wikipedia.org: It might've occurred due to a recent update to chrome and other chromium browsers. After this update, browser will always try to give you the mobile view, only way avoid it is to turn on the "desktop view by default" option in the browser settings. Vestrian24Bio (TALK)12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its perfectly fine, The main issue now is me trying to find a way to get timeless skin to be the default on mobile as it still autodefaults to the standard, large text on tables and brightercontrast that i dislike. i used firefox on my mobile device as the default and primary browser. thank you very much for the help regardless! 92.236.211.53 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This script doesn't work on chromium mobile browsers with mobile view (at leasts not anymore), just tried it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK)09:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past few weeks I've been occasionally getting logged out unexpectedly, despite ticking the "remember me" option every time. Most recently it's happened twice in the past ~24 hours. It always happens when I've been idle for a while, but only on the order of hours not days. I'm not aware that I've changed any of my settings recently. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this sequence of actions has a trigger in it.
explicitly log out on one machine (this invalidates all login cookies on all devices)
log in to en.wp on a different device, selecting "Keep me logged in (for up to one year)". I now have a fresh new login cookie
Microsoft informs me that updates require installation, so I finish what I am doing ...
... close Firefox, go for "Start"→"Power"→"Update and restart", wait an age. Make coffee. Clear a pile of snailmail. Open Firefox ...
... and back to my watchlist. One edit adds an image to an article, which I am suspicious about, so:
visit Commons. It says I am not logged in and should reload the page. In my experience, this never works, but following a different commons link does; so I go to the page history. I am now shown as logged in.
Still on Commons, I follow a link to en.wp - I am not logged in
Return to commons, visit another page, still logged in
Not getting automatically logged in on some wikis sounds like some sort of anti-tracking protection in your browser. Commons and Meta share the same parent domain with login.wikimedia.org where the central session cookie is stored so browser restrictions on cross-wiki cookie access are more relaxed.
@Tgr (WMF): I think you missed something - my proper login (asking me to enter name and password) was on English Wikipedia. When I went to Commons and logged in there, I became logged out on Wikipedia, but remained logged in on Commons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the logged out part is the bug Matma Rex linked. I'm just saying Commons and Meta login being more "sticky" on some browsers is expected - your enwiki session somehow went missing, your central session on login.wikimedia.org remained, and then other wikimedia.org wikis can recover the session from there but wikis on other domains can't. Tgr (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK it's not random but it is replicable:
On en.wp, log in (full login using Special:UserLogin, with Username/Password)
Click this link: commons: - observe that you are logged in
Use the browser's "back" button to return to en.wp
Press F5 to reload the page - observe that you are not logged in
Click this link: commons: - observe that you are still logged in at Commons
I'm not sure how this could be connected, but I've noticed recently (a few weeks?) that sometimes when I go back to my watchlist after looking at/editing a linked page, I get an earlier version of the watchlist. I've just assumed it has something to do with caching, as clearing the cache brings up the most recent version of the watchlist. Donald Albury19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with cite web
There appears to be a problem with {{cite web}} and related templates on some pages - see, for example, Beroidae, where all the references display "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index a boolean value." rather than the reference. The references are displayed correctly in preview mode, with no template errors shown in the editor. I'm using Firefox with the Monobook skin. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is usually caused when the Citation Style 1 module components used by the cite templates are updated and are out of sync for a few moments. Some pages are re-rendered and cached during that short time, and they can throw errors when new code tries to call older code and fails in some way. With so many millions of pages, it is inevitable that at least a few pages will be affected. Null-editing affected articles re-renders them with all of the updated module components. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The code that is emitting that error message was first added at the 23 March 2024 module-suite update. There was another update 17 August 2024. I do not recall seeing this error message before the 17 August update. It is possible that Editor Jonesey95 is correct. Still, I wonder because that particular bit of code does not rely on any other cs1|2 module. It should work so long as there is a MediaWiki connection between commons and en.wiki.
The code uses tabular data stored at commons (c:Data:CS1/Identifier limits.tab). The data in that table are supposed to be returned by mw.ext.data.get() in a Lua sequence of sequences. The error message suggests that the call to mw.ext.data.get() is returning a boolean value; could be true, could be false. Don't know; a boolean return is not described in any of the (very limited) documentation that I can find about the function. Does anyone here know? If a boolean is a proper return, what does it mean?
If this persists, I'm afeared that I will need to revert the code that fetches the data from commons. Disappointing that. I prefer updating that small data table when necessary rather than editing both the sandbox and live cs1|2 modules...
Thanks for that. I suspect that you are correct. Alas, I don't speak .php but it seems that at line 45 an attempt is made to fetch the raw page content from the local cache. Failing that, an attempt is made to query the database. If that too fails, I think that $result is set to false which is the return value that Scributo is complaining about. But, clearly, in this case, the page (and therefore its content) exists so JCLuaLibrary::get() should never return false, right?
I also can't write php but getcontent appears to try to get the stuff from local cache again, then if that fails parses the title and then tries to retrieve the content from the database, setting the content to false if parsing the title fails?
I do see a comment in the parsetitle function about things being null in "wierd cases" followed by variables being set to false, so there might be some edge cases where the table data fails to show up even though the table exists? Either way it seems that there is some undocumented behaviour in that false is a valid output from mw.ext.data.get(), seemingly in the event of an error.
As far as fixing this goes I think the citation module would need to check if the result of mw.ext.data.get() is false and if so so just skip doing the bound checks? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not just a server side connection issue though? English and Russian Wikipedia are not in the same server cluster as Wikimedia Commons. Snævar (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just a server side connection issue? (emphasis added) I would think that that is not something trivial. If the problem is a connection issue, wouldn't we be seeing some sort of failure when attempting to fetch images from commons?
In this case, JCLuaLibrary::get() apparently knows that the tabular data page exists – try this in the Debug console:
=mw.ext.data.get ("CS1/Identifier limits.ta") → Lua error: bad argument #1 to "get" (not a valid title).
I have not seen any of those error messages and, so far as I know, none have been reported. This suggests to me that there is something other than a connection issue that is causing =mw.ext.data.get() to return false.
I mean an temporary connecting issue, as the cache of the article has expired, the pages are fetched again and just happen to stumble on an temp connection issue, which is then fixed minutes later, but by then it is too late. That is also why an purge/null edit works, because minutes or hours have allready passed and the connection is fine by that point. Checking the connection now would not tell me anything. I think only a WMF dev can be absolutely sure, users do not have the tools to check this.
If I search for "Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083" 70 results are returned. If I purge the first entry and update the search there are 57 results. If I purge the first entry and update the search it goes back to 70 results, and purging and refreshing makes it 57 again. I can just keep repeating this, the same articles appear at the top of the search results (different articles for each set of search results). Without performing a purge or dummy edit the results stay the same. The entries also don't update, very few of the entries actually had the error message and those were corrected by purging. This doesn't change the result. I thought this was just the search being slow to update, but this issue has been reported a couple of times previously at Help talk:Citation Style 1. So I've been searching and purging any I find. Some of the entries in the search haven't had this error in weeks. I don't know if this relates to the 2083 error, or a separate issue with search but it's repeatable and weird. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need an advice how to split rows/lines in a wiki-userbox
I have been getting the same problem with the HT sources for a few months now, although every other sources seem to work fine. Vestrian24Bio (TALK)12:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infinite JS errors?
I happened to disable pop-ups on a Wikipedia page, using some unintended key combination. I now get an infinite number of the following pop-up messages
Thanks, that really wasn't my point. I know where the error is coming from, more or less, and it is not an issue for me as I only had one page in this odd state. However the situation where the gadget "Show an alert when you encounter JavaScript errors" is popping up perpetually is indicative of some underlying design issues. Whether they should be addressed is up to anyone who thinks it's worth doing and has the ability, desire and time. Feel free to discuss. All the best: RichFarmbrough14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Polygnotus The reply tool is not designed to be easily customizable by the end user. If you wish to request a new feature for everyone, you can do so at mw:Extension talk:DiscussionTools. If you're trying to write your own WP:USERSCRIPT to modify the reply tool, you'd need to do something like $('.oo-ui-toolbar-tools:not(.oo-ui-toolbar-after)').append(CODE_FOR_YOUR_NEW_BUTTON) . --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)17:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: Thank you. I would've written my own userscript but they use some kinda weird dummy textarea while the real thing is actually a bunch of divs. Terribly confusing for a techdinosaur like myself. I would have to dive in the code to figure out a way to add my own buttons. I have posted a request on mediawiki.org. Polygnotus (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Achmad Rachmani According to our uptime stats, the last outage was on September 17, so I think it may be an issue on your end. This is assuming you're talking about xtools: as a whole, and not statistics for a specific user/page. Sometimes queries time out when you look up stats for a very prolific user, but I don't think that is what you're referring to. — MusikAnimaltalk16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this came up a year or two back, but I can't find it. I can't even remember if it's a browser-specific thing or a website-specific thing, but it's to help you find the right place on the page when there are no handy anchors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be Chrome-specific (introduced in 2020), but Safari and Firefox have added support for it recently too (in 2022 and just this month, respectively). [33]Matma Rextalk15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
URL fragment text directives are defined by a W3C draft. As noted by Matma Rex, it does seem to be supported by the newer versions of many browsers (though Safari lacks CSS styling support, except in a prelease version on the desktop). isaacl (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is usually a good idea ;). My personal opinion is that it adds little value to the URL, especially above and beyond a quote in the relevant citation template where actually necessary. And that way we have a permanent record locally rather than relying on text which might change externally. Izno (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to remove these, should we also remove traditional URL fragments that can only target either an id= attribute, or the name= attribute of an <a> tag? I don't see the point: both are harmless, both aid in reaching the appropriate part of a web page, neither of them is connected with tracking. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My why align with that of Izno :) I don't see text fragments as being stable over longer periods of time unlike anchors. I'm also unsure if they can be technically considered to be leaking identifiable information (since you could potentially reverse engineer what a person was searching for by looking at the highlighted text?) Sohom (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a target to support an URI fragment is an intentional act to define an addressable subordinate resource, so I agree that is a more stable reference. I can see situations where using a text fragment may be helpful (say, to the specific text in a versioned legal document). I think for many cases, though, the advantages of a concise URI are, on balance, a higher priority than a less stable targeted destination. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WantedCategories has, not for the first time, a redlinked category populated solely by a user's .js settings page. The category is Category:New Pages — but obviously .js pages aren't supposed to be categorized at all, and there'd be no call for "creating" that category to serve any other purpose. So the category needs to come off the page, but I don't have the necessary privileges to edit other people's .js pages, and the user is a brand-new editor who so far has only edited their own .js and .css pages with absolutely no edits to anything else.
This is User:Coderreyansh/vector-2022.js and you should make a request at WP:IAN. If they don't know what to do, they should (i) insert one line at the very top:
This isn't uncommon. Search works by fragmenting itself over multiple nodes (and a result can be on multiple of those nodes), and then pulling in the results of those multiple nodes. It also works on a long delay in terms of updating. These features make it fast (faster then doing the same search on the main database) and it is why search uses a separate database, but they also can cause minor inconsistencies like these for fragments of time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so when its done, it will be like: every page that has this template which include this navbox get automatically added to that category. it would be nice if the category entering option was as in "asbox" so we can enter respective category to respective navboxs in templates. or is there and easy way to do this without editing the modules? VihirLak007hmu!/duh.22:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
inside the english wikipedia we are able to use several other types of fonts for userpage editings. in the si:wikipedia.org(sinhala wikipedia project) we only have one default font. is there someone who can make it so we can use other few famous free licensed sinhala fonts inside sinhala wikipedia?
i did ask the one and only most active admin in that project here, he says he dont have the technical knowledge for this, hence im seeking help here.
The proper way is to ask on phabricator for those fonts to be added to "Universial Language Selector". Also, try to use the gear icon next to the "languages" heading in the left sidebar on old vector. If you are on new vector, then it is under languages next to the page title and then the gear icon. Sometimes people ask for fonts that are present, they might just not be the default font. Snævar (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been something that has been bugging me for a while. I know that it is possible to match emails with just a bit of regex, namely (.*)?@(.*)?(\ |$), but is escaping with nospam actually reducing spam? My concern is really with OCR because although the literal character @ is escaped, it only takes a bit of OCR, which is at this point much, much better than a human, in order to get all the emails and continue sending that same spam.
I wonder if maybe the best solution for this would be to have another CAPTCHA before a person is able to view an email or all the emails on the page. This is done on YouTube and more. This could be done for all mailto: links, etc. AwesomeAasim18:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is really with OCR because although the literal character @ is escaped, it only takes a bit of OCR
I am not thinking there should be one of those text CAPTCHAs. There are much smarter ones like GeeTest and ReCaptcha and etc. The reason we do not use one of these is that we are really, really concerned about privacy.
The text CAPTCHA was defeated over a decade ago, thanks to OCR. The current trend in CAPTCHAs I am seeing are those where one clicks on sliders. We unfortunately will have to collect more data to tell if someone isn't a human.
For example, YouTube's CAPTCHA to view a business email address on a channel is the standard "I'm not a robot" CAPTCHA.
If we do not want to go the CAPTCHA rabbit hole, we can rate limit. Rate limiting effectively stops spam, and we can go a step further by preventing people from viewing email addresses when using an open proxy or Tor. AwesomeAasim21:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably works at least some of the time. I doubt that it's cost-effective to even parse HTML correctly to harvest email addresses, much less render the whole page and run OCR on it. Here's an article by someone who tried a few simple techniques and found that some of them indeed work: https://spencermortensen.com/articles/email-obfuscation/ (although he didn't try the specific thing this template does). It'd be easy enough to test it yourself, if you don't mind waiting a few months for results: just create two unique email addresses and post them somewhere, one with this template's obfuscation, one without; then wait for the spam to arrive (or not). Matma Rextalk19:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that could be tried is replacing each of the characters with their Unicode/ASCII values. It probably would make it even more confusing, while still allowing linked email addresses and the like. AwesomeAasim20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An email link needs the literal email to be present in the link, so it can be passed to the email client. It can be obscured in the HTML source by rendering it with Javascript, but it's still going to be in the resulting page, and with the widespread prevelance of dynamic web pages nowadays, it's common for web crawlers to process retrieved pages after running any Javascript code on them. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for OCR, there is a way to run browsers in headless mode; in other words, render the page without showing anything to the user. There are utilities that also can take scrolling screenshots of pages. With OCR so ubiquitous I doubt it wouldn't be hard to set up something that reads webpages like that. AwesomeAasim20:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're referring to headless browsers? Anyone harvesting email links isn't likely to be using a browser per se. (What might help deter some harvesters is including some obscured text on every page that is designed to produce a huge amount of back-tracking in typical email regexes, and perhaps causing memory overflow... except that it would confound uses by good-faith users, too.) Implementing an effective CAPTCHA system that is accessible and preserves user privacy is a challenge that the WMF has not resolved for many years now (see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 56 § Captchas for some discussion). isaacl (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it something that the WMF alone could solve? We can just have a CAPTCHA system that is FOSS and that can be hosted on Wikimedia be done with it. Or choose one of the proprietary options that may or may not be the best (like GeeTest or reCAPTCHA or uCAPTCHA or etc.), although they technically collect more data, and be done. Maxmind (which is being used for IP information) is proprietary, as are all the other WHOIS sites. Don't those sites and "whatsmybrowser" and etc. collect browsing data? Even Wikipedia has some tracking used by the WMF.
The fundamental problem with data and privacy is a CAPTCHA has two opposing forces: On one side you need to collect as much data as possible to assess whether one is a human or not. On the other side you do not want to store that data indefinitely. There is not a good easy way to balance this. AwesomeAasim23:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a good free, open source implementation in mind, please do go to the appropriate Phabricator ticket mentioned in the other thread and let the WMF know about it. Yes, the tension between keeping personal data private and using it as an identity check is why expanding the use of CAPTCHA may not be the best approach. isaacl (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember of course the principle that spam only works on the gullible, and those using techniques to hide their email address from spammers are likely to be the least gullible, so there's is surprisingly little incentive to circumvent such techniques. * Pppery *it has begun...23:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "gullible" include "those who naively think replacing characters with images to try to deter spam"?
BTW I actually think that a lot of the spammers have moved onto something else like impersonating Amazon or Google or Microsoft or whatever to do a phishing attack. I think they get these emails from actual data breaches, not just from random parts of the web. For phone numbers those are consecutive, so it isn't too hard to send spam via text. Nonetheless, we can all fall for phishing attacks. Where they somehow get email addresses is anyone's guess. AwesomeAasim23:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spammers don't generally use OCR because it adds processing time and cost. They get plenty of addresses to spam with simple web crawling. Captcha systems are either not accessible (for the blind for example), or they contribute to commercial AI-training (reCAPTCHA, others) that a free encyclopedia should not be involved with. And spammers have no problem getting captcha solutions. Many 'free' sites that show a captcha are really forwarding queries for a spammer who will use the solution on their real target. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images looping
When I'm viewing images with the mediaviewer in any article, I often navigate to the next image using the arrows. And when I get to the end, there are no more arrows. This makes sense. But for the past few days, the images have been looping, which is especially confusing when there's only one image. How can this be fixed? Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c19:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to disable it for myself? I find it somewhat annoying to be flicking through a picture gallery and thinking there's more and then ending up back at the start. It's confusing and disorienting, as was pointed out on the phab ticket. Cremastra — talk — c21:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On some websites with photo loops, it shows "1 of 6", etc. somewhere on the screen (top right on IMDb), so you know how far through you are, and if you have cycled to the start. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jdlrobson has replied on the ticket that they intend to add such numbering at the top right and will add CSS classes so users can disable the behaviour. — Jts1882 | talk07:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Middot
OK, this is something that may be an issue that needs looking into (probably not by me) or it may not be important.
When I look at the source code of, for example Talk:Interpunct, using Chrome, and try to validate it at Free Formatter it finds invalid characters such as b7 (interpunct) - despite the fact that HTML clearly says <meta charset="UTF-8">. It could of course be Chrome's fault or Windows not letting me cut and paste UTF8, but both seem unlikely. Are we putting out illegal UTF8? All the best: RichFarmbrough23:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
H<span style="font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;">ELLO</span>. renders as HELLO.
H<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant-caps: all-small-caps;">ELLO</span>. renders as HELLO.
In the second version, which is used in {{LORD}} (which renders as LORD), Safari 17.6 on MacOS creates extraneous whitespace after the end of the word. The first version is fine. Is there a good reason not to switch to the first one in templates like {{LORD}} and {{Kangxi radical}}? —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is going on. I've only noticed this since yesterday (Oct 18). I have installed User:Anomie/linkclassifier from long time back. The code I use is updated to place the link in the sidebar/toolbox. When I click that link on any page, it appears to force the page to reload and does not highlight any of the links as it used to. I've tried using the current instructions for loading, but with no difference. I use Vector 2022 skin and I also checked in monobook; the reload still happens there, although it looks like at least some of the links get highlighted. Any help would be appreciated. older ≠ wiser15:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The manual says it's the last time the user logged in. That's private data. Fields like this are redacted from the Toolforge replicas, so they appear null. – SD0001 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Is there a list somewhere of redacted fields? It would be really nice if was visible in the "Database tables" menu of Quarry :-) RoySmith(talk)23:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Here's the code that controls what gets copied to the toolforge replicas:
user: source: user view: > select user_id, user_name, user_real_name, NULL as user_password, NULL as user_newpassword, NULL as user_email, NULL as user_options, NULL as user_touched, NULL as user_token, NULL as user_email_authenticated, NULL as user_email_token, NULL as user_email_token_expires, user_registration, NULL as user_newpass_time, user_editcount, NULL as user_password_expires
If I'm understanding mw:Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions correctly, it's an optional field for users to configure (and one that seems to be disabled on English Wikipedia), to be displayed in place of their user name, so by design it's intended to be known openly (and could be just another alias). isaacl (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to set user_real_name on Wikimedia wikis, so there is no need to redact it. It is disabled as to not encourage people to disclose more information than needed. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
map embedded with maplink-road doesn't show fill colors even tho expanded map does
The map was successfully embedded, however, the "fill" color (eg. data.features.0.properties.fill) is being ignored. At least in the embedded version. When I click on the map in the article the expanded map shows the filled color. So why doesn't the embedded map show the "fill" color and what can I do to fix that? TerraFrost (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a global way to display a logo based on Wikidata information? Should there be? Can it be made dark mode aware?
Sorry if this sounds like a strange or even stupid question, but please read to the end if it doesn't make sense, I promise you it does.
I can access Wikidata via e.g. {{Infobox company| homepage = {{Official URL}}}}. This is nice and it saves time.
There doesn't appear to be a way to access Wikidata's logo image (P154) property[α] in an Infobox template in a similar named fashion.
I know {{Infobox company}} will "fall back" to P154 if it's defined
Other infoboxes like {{infobox hospital}} don't seem to be able to do the same thing.
I might be a dummy that just hasn't found that yet, but I don't think I've seen any examples in the wild like I have for {{Official URL}}
If there is and I just haven't been able to find it, is Wikipedia's dark mode smart enough to check for the for color scheme (P8798) property?
The only two values are dark-on-light color scheme and light-on-dark color scheme
i.e. P8798 is basically designed for this already
Being able to pull something like {{logo image}} without needing each infobox to implement it directly might be useful, and having it adapt to users' dark mode preferences would be pretty cool. I'm not entirely sure if there's even a way for MediaWiki to "check" if a user is using Dark Mode and "reply" with some kind of variable that could be used here.
Reading about Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia got me thinking about far simpler things that might already be common elsewhere online but not implemented here yet. Checking if a user's browser reports "preferring dark mode" is becoming more ubiquitous.
Just to make sure I wasn't being extra stupid,[β] I tested with Vector (2022), and it looks like some pages try and account for it. For example, Apple Inc.'s logo is black, so an editor used [[File:Apple logo black.svg|frameless|upright=0.4|class=skin-invert]] in their infobox - emphasis on class=skin-invert - but that really only works with Vector (2022)'s dark mode. Dark Reader doesn't pick up on it, and I imagine that one Chromium about:flags option to force dark mode everywhere doesn't either.
Footnotes
^As in quickly via a named template like {{Official URL}}.
The following code isn't exactly easy for a layman to parse: {{#invoke:InfoboxImage |InfoboxImage |image={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}} | yes | {{{logo|{{{company_logo|}}}}}} |{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |rank=best |P154 |name=logo |qid={{{qid|}}} |fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}} |suppressfields={{{suppressfields|}}} |onlysourced=no |noicon=yes |maxvals=1 |{{{logo|{{{company_logo|}}}}}} }} }} |size={{{logo_size|}}} |sizedefault=frameless |upright={{{logo_upright|1}}} |alt={{{logo_alt|{{{alt|}}}}}} }}
and that code is specific to (and pasted directly from){{infobox company}}
^Wikipedia:Things that should not be surprisingMiscellaneous - 2. The MediaWiki software can be fucking weird sometimes. 8. Wikipedia exists and is currently working (otherwise how are you here?) And finally - 1. A page documenting obvious facts exists somewhere. 2. People will actually look up and read a page documenting obvious facts, just like you are right now.
I am writing articles on astronomical subjects on Danish Wikipedia and am missing the possibility of inserting proper symbols representing degrees (°), arc minutes (′) and arc seconds (″) inside <nowiki><math></math></nowiki> (outside is no problem as you can see).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Mobile Apps team has released an update to the iOS app's navigation, and it is now available in the latest App store version. The team added a new Profile menu that allows for easy access to editor features like Notifications and Watchlist from the Article view, and brings the "Donate" button into a more accessible place for users who are reading an article. This is the first phase of a larger planned navigation refresh to help the iOS app transition from a primarily reader-focused app, to an app that fully supports reading and editing. The Wikimedia Foundation has added more editing features and support for on-wiki communication based on volunteer requests in recent years.
iOS Wikipedia App's profile menu and contents
Updates for editors
Wikipedia readers can now download a browser extension to experiment with some early ideas on potential features that recommend articles for further reading, automatically summarize articles, and improve search functionality. For more details and to stay updated, check out the Web team's Content Discovery Experiments page and subscribe to their newsletter.
Later this month, logged-out editors of these 12 wikis will start to have temporary accounts created. The list may slightly change - some wikis may be removed but none will be added. Temporary account is a new type of user account. It enhances the logged-out editors' privacy and makes it easier for community members to communicate with them. If you maintain any tools, bots, or gadgets on these 12 wikis, and your software is using data about IP addresses or is available for logged-out users, please check if it needs to be updated to work with temporary accounts. Guidance on how to update the code is available. Read more about the deployment plan across all wikis.
It is now possible to create functions on Wikifunctions using Wikidata lexemes, through the new Wikidata lexeme type launched last week. When you go to one of these functions, the user interface provides a lexeme selector that helps you pick a lexeme from Wikidata that matches the word you type. After hitting run, your selected lexeme is retrieved from Wikidata, transformed into a Wikidata lexeme type, and passed into the selected function. Read more about this in the latest Wikifunctions newsletter.
Updates for technical contributors
Users of the Wikimedia sites can now format dates more easily in different languages with the new {{#timef:…}} parser function. For example, {{#timef:now|date|en}} will show as "22 October 2024". Previously, {{#time:…}} could be used to format dates, but this required knowledge of the order of the time and date components and their intervening punctuation. #timef (or #timefl for local time) provides access to the standard date formats that MediaWiki uses in its user interface. This may help to simplify some templates on multi-lingual wikis like Commons and Meta. [39][40]
Commons and Meta users can now efficiently retrieve the user's language using {{USERLANGUAGE}} instead of using {{int:lang}}. [41]
The Product and Tech Advisory Council (PTAC) now has its pilot members with representation across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America. They will work to address the Movement Strategy's Technology Council initiative of having a co-defined and more resilient technological platform. [42]
In depth
The latest quarterly Growth newsletter is available. It includes: an upcoming Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module, new Community Configuration options, and details on new projects.
The Wikimedia Foundation is now an official partner of the CVE program, which is an international effort to catalog publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities. This partnership will allow the Security Team to instantly publish common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVE) records that are affecting MediaWiki core, extensions, and skins, along with any other code the Foundation is a steward of.
The Community Wishlist is now testing machine translations for Wishlist content. Volunteers can now read machine-translated versions of wishes and dive into discussions even before translators arrive to translate content.
20–22 December 2024 - Indic Wikimedia Hackathon Bhubaneswar 2024 in Odisha, India. A hackathon for community members, including developers, designers and content editors, to build technical solutions that improve contributors' experiences.
So... why is this page suddenly squeezed into the header?
Checked previous revisions and it happens there too. Also can't click reply, the script gets confused. This is not happening with any of the other village pumps, is it something from the updates above(tech news)?
In case you don't see it, for me the div with id "villagepumpfaq", which is added manually in this page, is consuming the entire page. – 2804:F1...96:C2CF (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was vandalism... of course it was (not even the first time). I went looking up the complete wrong tree thinking it was a template change, should have read Template:FAQ more carefully (or I guess just noticed there is a 'view' and an 'edit' button). Thank you for fixing it. – 2804:F1...96:C2CF (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to temporarily turn off a style?
At IUCN Red List endangered species (Animalia), most of the list text is in italics using {{columns-list|style=font-style:italic; as they are scientific names, but some text should not be, "(Kootenai River subpopulation)" for example. How do I change that back to roman text without messing up the existing pattern? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I previously wrote on the 27th September to advise that the Wikidata item sitelink will change places in the sidebar menu, moving from the General section into the In Other Projects section. The scheduled rollout date of 04.10.2024 was delayed due to a necessary request for Mobile/MinervaNeue skin. I am happy to inform that the global rollout can now proceed and will occur later today, 22.10.2024 at 15:00 UTC-2. Please let us know if you notice any problems or bugs after this change. There should be no need for null-edits or purging cache for the changes to occur. Kind regards, -Danny Benjafield (WMDE)11:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current system is very convoluted. Being on a fourth level subpage on a different wiki with 90% of the comments not being signed, and using an emoji system for distinguishing resolved/unresolved issues makes it a nightmare for a) finding issues, b) responding, and c) asking for more details. It would be easier to have a page like Wikipedia:Dark mode reports so more editors could help fix issues. We should import the page here and archive the MediaWiki wiki page. Thoughts? @SCP-2000, FeRDNYC, and I Am Andumé: as editors involved there on fixing issues (if I've missed someone feel free to ping them). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These may be localized by changing these interface messages. However, if we don't have it reported to the page it is being reported to on mediawikiwiki, we should not expect that the software developers and project team will monitor the reports. — xaosfluxTalk23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ This. Think about whether it's more important to you to have the page structured your way, or more important to have the dev team look at the feedback. Tradeoffs are a fact of life. It's IMO likely that they'd appreciate some improvements to the format, but it's also possible that this is what works best for them (e.g., perhaps omitting sigs solves them a privacy hassle if they import the feedback to a different system? I doubt it, but Chesterton's fence suggests that we shouldn't assume that there is no reason for the unusual format). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I don't think the software team has looked at any of the reports in a while anyway. It looks to be mostly left up to the community. They did some at the start of the dark mode beta, but as the most important features were taken care of, the more minor templates and pages were left to the community. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the reports from all the wikis should end up in one centralised place so the developers only have to look at one wiki, but I'm not so sure about the status icons. Developers have to be able to read English to make sense of the reports, so can't their status be in English too? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dark mode isn't just for English Wikipedia, so archiving the page on the Mediawiki wiki and making the communities of all other wikis come to English Wikipedia to make reports isn't ideal. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl if we changed the report link here, it would only be for users of enwiki - anyone on the hundreds of other projects would still go to mediawikiwiki unless their project also overrode the default. — xaosfluxTalk02:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with the others who have expressed a preference for a centralized location for error reporting. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of the early visual editor rollout where there were some editors (including at least one WMF employee) spent some considerable time and effort translating user reports left on a page on en.wp into phabricator tickets, often after more testing to verify reports and give details more useful to developers. I'm not involved in the dark mode at all (and I don't personally use it) but if there are volunteers to do something similar then giving people the option of reporting locally with those reports being copied over might work. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fundamentally different situation in that, while any Visual Editor issues would generally manifest everywhere, no matter which installation reported the problem, with dark-mode issues the overwhelming majority of cases are addressed by making local content changes (to a specific article or template). A vanishingly small percentage of the reported problems are in any way generalizable beyond the immediate context of the initial report. (So, I agree, it's a bit odd to exfiltrate the reports to a different wiki in the first place; issues with local content — which these are — need to be, and ultimately will end up being, handled locally.) FeRDNYC (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone - wanted to a give a quick reply from the team's perspective. In short - this is totally up to whatever the community finds easier/more comfortable. We had initially set up the system to be more centralized as we did not want to presume which local page each wiki would find more comfortable. That said, we have no concerns with wikis making the change to a local page if preferred, and a few wikis have so far chosen to do this with good results. Some more information on how to do this is available at the top of our general reporting page. Hope this is helpful! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the response from WMF, I think it's a good idea for a survey to check if we want to proceed further.
@Xaosflux, FeRDNYC, SCP-2000, Isaacl, Phil Bridger, WhatamIdoing, and Thryduulf: and any other people, please state your position briefly:
Support as proposer: Most of the people actually tackling dark mode issues aren't WMF developers now, but volunteers. Dark mode issues are a local issue per FeRDNYC and therefore should be handled locally on this wiki for best results. We can also change the system to something better in the process (including signatures, using archive templates instead of emojis, etc.). —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: It is broken though - the page has no archiving, there are no signatures so replying is slow, the current emoji system for responding to issues is substandard, and it's hidden in an obscure location so no one can find it to help fix issues. Also, since there are no signatures, it's a nightmare chasing people to get further details of issues. What part of that isn't broken? —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because issues are getting fixed, doesn't mean it's happening efficiently. The current system is very inefficient, even if issues are getting fixed. It is still creating lots of friction preventing new users from fixing issues. —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation
Okay, the consensus is the people fixing dark mode issues can decide the location, and FeRDNYC has also expressed the current issues with the current system. Dark mode issues are ultimately usually a local problem, and WMF has also said this is technically possible. We would need to do a few things:
Import the MediaWiki page to enwiki with the options "Copy all the revisions for this page" and "Assign edits to local users where the named user exists locally" (this is important for archiving later).
I'm fine doing the transwiki import for this when ready, but I'm not seeing a consensus in the discussion above yet. The "assign local" part is not needed; I doubt anyone at mwwiki will care about that page, we're not going to delete anything there but can just slap a cross-wiki redirect on it. So what next? Someone that hasn't !voted on this above should eventually close this discussion with a result. For the xmlimport part, feel free to ping me at that time. — xaosfluxTalk11:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for trial: assignment to a small random group of editors to elevated permissions for a fixed short term by sortition.
Test 1: Selected extended-confirmed editors, who have edited in the past 100 days, get AfC and/or new page reviewer, which have backlogs. They still have to read the instructions. (PCR is too weak for a practical experiment imo.)
Test 2: Selected auto/confirmed editors, who edited recently, get bumped into extended-confirmed.
Rules: Any admin can strike for any behavior at any time; one strike and you're out; no extension of term; no exceptions. Also: you cannot refuse permissions, and your editing or sanction history (but not block history) has no bearing on whether you get or don't get permissions. Every admin and editor with equal permissions capable of oversight will have a readily-accessible list of test editors. (It's not difficult to deduce otherwise.)
Numbers: As a conservative estimate for a first experiment, maybe 200 editors on both tests simultaneously for 6 months, depending on the activity level of those in the sample -- if 20 editors substantially increase their activity in response, that's measurable and manageable.
The purpose is to increase engagement by somewhat active editors across the spectrum, and perhaps even motivate requests for permanent permissions and adminship down the line. In that spirit, if a test editor loses permissions in the one-strike rule, it should have minimal or zero bearing on requesting permissions in future. This is a learning and motivational experience. That permissions here are ultimately reversible and have oversight means that, on balance, if an ill-behaved editor now ends up being able to credibly seek permissions in future, this model, should it be causative, was indeed a success.
A high barrier to entry of WP adminship and some permissions, combined with thanklessness of tasks and relatively low social prestige, means that we are probably below rate-of-replacement on adminship, and there are backlogs for areas needing permissions. Sortition, if it results in participation, relieves this burden. It also increases representative fairness and ideological diversity to those who would handle the content and administrative backlogs. (Afaik this is a WP-unique issue.) In Polish Wikipedia the exclusionary effect on new candidates of acquaintancy among admins was studied (Spychała et al 2014 "Does the Administrator Community ... Acquaintance Relation?"); so if a similar phenomenon exists in all permissions then sortition would help disrupt it.
On the effects of granting priveliges/power: In (Sassenberg et al 2014 "Power corrupts: revisited"), the relationship of elevated power and a sense of communal responsibility vs individual corruption (whether one is elevated as opposed to the other) is complex with contradictory results in the literature. In general, if people are in a socially-oriented environment and goals, which I'd suggest epitomizes WP editing, then power would orient them toward the former. However, the review also suggests that the perception of power as an increase opportunity or promtion, rather than just increased responsibility, is a big part of the increased motivational effects, which would suggest that since sortition may lower the prestige of elevated priveliges, it would have a negative effect on motivation; but this seems again highly social-context- and goal-dependent in the literature.
I have trouble imagining us (i.e., those of us who have achieved a measure of power and control in the current system) being willing to give up control over permissions, no matter how slight this might be.
That said, I think that both Test 1 and Test 2 would be worthwhile experiments, and I specifically suggest considering selecting candidates for Test 2 from among those who are nearly EXTCONF anyway (e.g., they have the time but they're short 100–200 edits, or they have the edits, but they're short 1–2 months).
Even if there's an element of power and status to them, the vast majority of what people with advanced permissions do is just drudgery. It seems really unlikely to me that somebody randomly assigned NPP or even admin is actually going to want to use them. And one of the main functions of the perm system is to reduce the attack surface these rights offer by only giving them to people motivated enough to ask for it.
Also, yes AfC and NPP are backlogged, but 'reviewing the reviewers' is also work and there are very few admins doing it. This would massively increase that workload - who's going to pick up the slack? – Joe (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that an editor who receives a note saying something like "You've been given this permission temporarily. Please read up and use it if you want" might use it a few times, at least to try it out. If they have a positive experience, they might request to the perm later through the usual channels.
Giving a perm only to those motivated enough to ask means that a higher percentage of the requesters is improperly motivated. Undeclared paid editors will be more motivated to ask for the permission than an ordinary volunteer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite a fan of sortition for filling real-world positions, both where it is used in many countries (mainly for selecting juries) and for some other positions. A few thoughts on its applicability to Wikipedia:
I doubt that many people would devote much time to the task, because they have to earn a living, and paying the people selected would cause many other issues.
Many people would try out their new permissions, but most would drop out.
There need to be clear success/failure criteria. Too many things are tried here, then clearly fail, but continue to be used because of the sunken cost fallacy (I know this is controversial, but I would class draft space as being one of these).
Clear criteria are highly desirable. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that a single metric works (e.g., we don't want to lose these randomly selected editors and we don't want WP:UGLY articles in the mainspace), and it's entirely possible that doing the jobs correctly would result in the selected editors quitting. For example:
Existing AFC promotions have a very low rate of deletion at AFD. (I believe that the normal rate is about 75%.) Given that they're supposed to promote articles that are likely (i.e., 51%, not 90%) to survive AFD, this means that they are underpromoting and overrestricting.
If the new AFC people collectively promote articles that get deleted only 40% of the time, that's a sign that they're doing it correctly (still underpromoting, actually), even though theirs are getting deleted more often than older AFC folks. Thie AFD metric would show success.
But: if each AFD, or the run up to those AFDs, comes with recriminations and complaints about how they're being too "lenient", then the yelled-at editors might quit. The editor-retention metric would show failure.
If the new AFC people collectively promote articles that get deleted only 40% of the time, that's a sign that they're doing it correctly (still underpromoting, actually)Not necessarily. If they promote articles with a chance to survive AfD above 50%, and we assume they are uniformly distributed in probability, the average promoted article would have 75% of chance to survive AfD, or in other words get deleted 25% of the time. If they get deleted 40% of the time, there might be a level of overpromotion going on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I love people who can math.)
I think it depends on your underlying assumptions about the distribution. If you have 10 articles, each with a 51% chance of surviving AFD, and you promote them all, and all 10 get sent to AFD, then you'd expect five to get deleted – and they were all still correct promotions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely depends on our hypotheses about the distribution, indeed. If the 10 articles range from 51%, 56%, ... up to 96%, then you'd have a lower expectation of deleted articles (2.65 if I mathed correctly). But there's also a hidden assumption in here, in that an article with 96% chances of surviving an AfD will probably not be sent there to begin with, meaning the deletion rate of articles being sent at AfD will naturally be higher than the total deletion rate.All in all, it would be interesting to have more statistics about both the deletion chance of AfC articles at AfD, and how much AfC articles are underrepresented at AfD to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion stats are difficult to measure retrospectively. It might be something that we need to study prospectively. There's also the complication of experience: people submitting articles through AFC are not going to have the same deletion rate as people like you and me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also while it's tempting to consider, if this experiment is successful, a radical future proposed sortition of admins, akin to the admin-for-a-day proposed in 2012, but per WMF this is not legally doable, the prohibitive priveliges being rollback and deleted material. That doesn't necessarily have to prevent it; the WMF doesn't set an actual bar for the community review. Therefore, we could have a much lower-pressure, lower-stakes community review of every editor who meets a certain threshold of edits and age to determine eligibility for one day obtaining those rights via sortation, with the sole focus being "is this person likely to abuse rollback or access to deleted material?" (which would almost always lean towards acceptance, since it is automatic, done for everyone, and doesn't directly grant adminship.) Only arguments and rationales specifically related to that question would be allowed and considered by closers when closing such discussions, not general discussions of whether they'd make a good admin in other ways; and they wouldn't require bcrat closures or anything. This would then allow admin status to be granted to those editors via sortition because they'd previously passed a community review on the aspects the WMF cares about. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the prohibitive priveliges being rollback and. Rollback doesn't seem very dangerous. I doubt wmf would put their foot down about handing out that one too easily. Agree that wmf would object to handing out view deleted though for legal reasons. This has been well discussed before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the WMF cares about Wikipedia:Rollback (which doesn't even get used much, because Twinkle and other scripts can mimic the same effect). The legal problem is viewdeleted. They have consistently said that they want proof that the community trusts the people who have that particular right (e.g., we trust them not to restore copyvios or re-post uploaded revenge porn to another site). The process of community vetting can change, but there must be a community vetting process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(e.g., we trust them not to restore copyvios or re-post uploaded revenge porn to another site). I've never heard that. WMF's stated reason for viewdeleted being sensitive is that they want to be able to say in court that when something is deleted, it is well and truly deleted, and that only vetted individuals will have access to it, rather than it being easily accessible. The vibe I'm getting is to make sure BLP, libel and defamation, etc. stays deleted and that they can argue it is truly deleted in court. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is restoring the inappropriate here or posting it on other websites, then that's not "staying deleted", and nobody could argue that it is, even around the dinner table. We need to be able to trust that admins won't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, though, my point is that we can have a more lightweight vetting process focused specifically and exclusively on whether someone is likely to abuse the specific tools the WMF is worried about. Whenever alternative approaches to adminship come up, people bring up that WMF concern, and it's easily addressed. The WMF isn't worried about people abusing blocks, or unblocks, or weighing in at WP:AE, or AE enforcement actions; and the (perceived, at least) high risk associated with those things under the current system is what actually makes people reluctant to promote admins and which therefore makes RFAs hard. This is also self-perpetuating in that the fewer admins there are the more impact each one has, raising the stakes of RFA in a way that risks breaking it. The community and the WMF are worried about different things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is a solvable problem. Also, it doesn't have to be solved in the first iteration. We could test the system on a couple of other userrights, and circle back to test some others later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF doesn't care about rollback. We could even auto-promote users to some "been around a while" group that includes all of Autopatrolled, New page reviewer, Page mover, Pending changes reviewer, Rollback and they wouldn't care. — xaosfluxTalk13:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-instating this proposal, I want to make the icons look more clear and sleek; I will eventually add on more to the icons (such as good articles, audio articles, etc.) I also want to add region-based letter shackles, so for example 拡 (拡張, Kakuchō) would be the Japanese extended-protection icon, same with 満 (満杯, Manpai) for full-protection.
Agree with others that these new icons look dated. However, if we are discussing changes to lock icons, then I must say the the purple for upload protected is incongruously gaudy. Cremastra — talk — c20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty strong oppose trying to run a geolocation script on every load to try to make dynamic labels here. If anything (which I also don't like) labels should follow user interface language. — xaosfluxTalk17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the differences, I was just suggesting (because I don't really speak any other language you could propose a specific version) Also, I will later add the letters on the shackles.
Oppose making the primary (only) differentiation be color, as that gives out less information then the current scheme and is useless for those without color viewing abilities. — xaosfluxTalk17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xaosflux on this one. Furthermore, the two issues of the old icon scheme (color and "realistic" shading that doesn't look great on small icons), which were the reasons for the change to begin with, are present on this one too.Regarding the region-based symbols, it would make more sense to display them based on the language edition, and, since each language edition already sets its own standards for this stuff, there isn't much more we can do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs(converse)(hedgehogs)14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIKICLICHE we've been asked to not say this quite as much, due to supply chain issues – if we use them too much we could see a huge shortage down the road. But I hope I'm not generating more heat than light with this comment, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cremastra — talk — c20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never throw the baby out with the bathwater. This will contaminate your greywater collection system. Like other meats, babies are not compostable, so they should be sorted into the landfill waste stream unless otherwise advised by your municipal waste management authority. Folly Mox (talk) Folly Mox (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pseudo-3D shading looks dated compared to the current flat icons. Most modern design systems (including codex, which is the new design system for Wikimedia wikis) are built around flat icons. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for funStill feel like a step backwards. The current "Good article" icon, on top of having less of a distracting shading and being more readable, is in a consistent style with a lot of our other icons. The current "Featured article" icon, although not consistent with the others, is pretty unique and recognizable in design, while this one looks like a generic star.Just for fun, I did once make a "Good article" star in the style of the FA one – not meant for any official implementation beyond my personal script of course, but it's neat to see how it would look like. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not visual improvements whatsoever, unfortunately. They are clear regressions in design, and the current icons are fine. Our system is particular to the English Wikipedia, so it's perfectly appropriate for their design to be relative to the English language.Remsense ‥ 论19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Color me baffled. By starting with Re-instating this proposal, you make me think you want to reinvigorate some failed proposal. But then I follow your link and see that the proposal led to the implementation of new padlock icons, which; I guess, you mean to reverse. I also fail to understand what you mean by region-based letter shackles; do you mean for articles about, e.g., Japan? Or articles viewed by somebody we're supposed to have guessed might be in Japan? Or somebody with the Japanese language listed in a userbox on their User page? It's English Wikipedia, so I can't see the last two being useful options, and the first one will only lead to arguments and confusion and we've got that already. The current icons seem clear enough to me, although I don't know how to measure "sleek", I guess. In summary: baffled. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)12:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean region-based letter shackles basically like the letters on shackles but different regional translations. (This'll probably not work because of @Chaotic Enby's post.)
So (just to see if I understand it finally), you're proposing on English Wikipedia that Japanese Wikipedia use icons with Japanese symbology, and Spanish Wikipedia use some Spanish-language indicator on the padlock, etc. Yes? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! My name is Joe Sutherland and I'm on the Trust and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation. In the past, your community has shown interest in holding elections with SecurePoll — perhaps you already have through votewiki. We are now looking into making this available to local communities to run elections themselves. This will require the "electionadmin" right to be enabled on your project, which is a right that allows access to sensitive information.
As such, it is likely that you will need to run a Request for Comment (or similar process) to ascertain consensus for the implementation of this feature. To help guide such a discussion, we've put together a Meta-Wiki page with more information about what enabling the right will mean for your community.
If your community does discuss and decides to move forward with this, T&S would like to support you — please let us know via email ( ca@wikimedia.org ) if and when consensus is reached. Thank you!
Sorry, I wasn't totally clear - this would be for future (admin/ArbCom) elections that the community would like to run. The elections scheduled to start soon will use the existing votewiki system. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't a requirement holding for admin elections, arbcom elections (or any other type of elections) but (if I've understood correctly) it will reduce the amount of support we need from the WMF when we do hold them. I agree completely with Sdkb's last sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would help us host local administrator elections and arbitration committee elecitons that aren't so dependent on the limited bandwidth of the stewards (scrutineers) and WMF T&S (for vote.wikimedia.org setup). By the way, are electionadmins basically checkusers within the SecurePoll tool (being able to see IP information for voters)? So we'd need to make sure that folks that receive that permission are a functionary and/or sign an NDA? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there a ticket on Phab to separate election checkuser capabilities from election creation/editing capabilities? This might be worth looking into. The person that sets up polls doesn't necessarily need to be the same person that checks all the voters. And it may make sense to have a division here. For example, someone technical can set up SecurePoll, and existing checkusers could do the scrutineering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and it looks like any admin can create a poll, but only electionadmins (scrutineers) can edit a poll or view checkuser-like data on voters. This split is a bit odd, as I think it'd be better if admins could also edit polls that they were added to when the polls were created, so I've filed phab:T377531 to explore that idea a bit further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support to help us implement administrator elections in a more practical way for both us and the WMF. However, will electionadmins be a new user group? They seem to combine characteristics of checkusers and bureaucrats, and I'm not sure whether it would work to bundle the right into either by default. On the other hand, Novem Linguae's proposal of splitting the user right could work better, with a technical-minded crat setting up the poll, while checkusers get the scrutineering right. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the code right... yes, electionadmin would either need to be a new user group, or the permissions for it (securepoll-create-poll, securepoll-view-voter-pii) added to an existing user group such as the checkusers. The latter might be simpler than creating a whole new appointment process for electionadmins.
At first glance, I don't see a relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins. Electionadmins can't grant any user groups, unlike bureaucrats. Again, if I'm reading the code right, any admin can create a poll. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins, it's more to have the same group in charge of regular RfAs and admin elections, and to decouple checkusers from this additional responsibility. But that might be too redundant, and having any technical-minded admin able to do it could be enough, although it would be a major responsibility to give to any admin and might make it more difficult for potential candidates to gain the voters' trust. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technical village pump is for questions about how to do X, whereas how to grant the electionadmin right requires a proposal for a policy, so this page is the appropriate place. Since the right provides access to voter information (as per meta:SecurePoll/Local elections § What does the electionadmin right do?), a process is needed to establish who is trusted with this access. The options I can think of are by consensus discussion, by election, or by appointment (which would push the question up one level on how to decide what group does the appointing). Being part of an existing trusted group, such as those with the oversight right or the checkuser right, could be a requirement to become an election admin. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be simplest to grant the permissions securepoll-create-poll and securepoll-view-voter-pii to the checkusers. That way we don't need the overhead of a separate user group or separate appointment process. I think you have to specifically be added to a poll by the poll creator to see its PII, so there shouldn't be any security risk from giving all the checkusers the ability to be added to polls by the poll creator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a major oversight. The admin elections are modeled after WP:ACE but apparently nobody thought about the scrutineers that need to be approved and tooled up each year for ACE. I'm presuming this means the elections are on hold until we clear this up? Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Locally, we have a few options that we could consider if we decide to do polls. First, we don't HAVE to encrypt the database, it doesn't make the votes readily available - but a developer could access them, so that is something to consider (also means not having to deal with key escrow to finalize the election). Additionaly, we don't have to let SP collect private info. We would still have the usernames - it would just prevent using the checkuser info on the securepoll votes. These are all just things to consider if we set up polls - point is that there are options. — xaosfluxTalk13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Local communities should have the autonomy to conduct elections when they see fit, and not be so dependent on a certain WMF team that has a tight calendar. Also, the inability to conduct separate elections on multiple sites at the same time is a big limitation of the current system that would be addressed by this. – SD0001 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per SD and Xaos above, I think deploying SecurePoll locally so that individual communities can conduct elections in a autonomous and decentralized manner at the tradeoff of some confidentiality is a good idea in general. Sohom (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, Bunnypranav, wish to create a bot that intends to fix Check Wiki errors on the affected pages. For now, I consider focusing only on CW Error #3: Reference list missing, but later am willing to expand on to other errors, especially High Priority errors which can be fixed automatically using AWB. A majority of my AWB edits were fixing this error, and I did not find a single wrong suggestion by AWB
I intend to keep Auto Tagging and RegexTypoFixing on, but OK with turning it off if consensus says so.
I know that there are couple other bots fixing Check Wiki errors (Yobot, MenoBot), but I feel the project can do with another bot. I request everyone to give their opinion on my proposal, and I am willing to accept any feedback (including about my readiness of being a bot operator). Bunnypranav (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf I have posted this here to gain some consensus about my proposal. Also, as some might see me, I can be considered a not ready to be a bot op. I personally think I am capable, but please place your opinions.
@Sdkb I plan to enable Skip if only cosmetic in AWB, so as to skip any edits which are only cosmetic as the ref list has been added, but CheckWiki reports it as not fixed. Bunnypranav (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous
Military equipment naming convention
Is there currently any convention on which of the many names of various bits of military equipment to use?
For instance we currently have a page on 88mm gun referring to the family of models of that cailbre used by Germany in World War II. However, Anti-aircraft lists the same things as [[8.8
cm Flak 18]].
Is there or should there be a policy on which of various alternative names to use and help stop different contributors missing one anothers' work with slightly different names?
Just £0.02.
Good question. I noticed that anomaly and would be interested in clearing it up. The convention today is certainly to use mm rather than cm. For example, see 30 mm (note the recommended space between the digits and the unit symbol). There are examples of people at the time talking about 'eighty eights'. It is possible that cm values were valid in some way in the past. It might even be that both terms were in parallel use. A brief Google frequency search does not have a persuasive majority for either. I use mm by default unless there is a strong case for cm. Bobblewik(talk) 10:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I added a redirect to the current article title. Rmhermen 13:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Articles in need of formatting
User:Guanabot has made some automated fixes recently that brought some formatting issues to my attention, most of which were due to some old automated-conversion imports back in February 2002. The articles in question are the "Communications in...", "Politics of...", "Geography of..." sort. I don't know how many of these there are, but the old versions all suffer from some poor formatting. If anyone could pitch in to help reformat these, that'd be splendid. For examples of how I think they should be formatted: [43], [44], [45], [46]. Most of these could use some additional wikification, i.e. links on km and m, headings stating what the article is about, more correct degree/min/sec on the geographical coordinates, etc. I've been following in the trail of Guanabot, to make these articles easier to find. -- Wapcaplet 19:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention updating with more recent data. -- User:Docu
I've continued to format and wikify these, finding more small things in need of improvement along the way. Currently I'm concentrating on the "Geography by..." articles. In those, "sq km" should become "km²" with a wikilink to square kilometre. "m" and "nm" should become wikilinks. There are probably a dozen other recurring phrases that could become wikilinks, but I haven't bothered with them. I've added Category:Geography by country to those I find without it. My changes haven't been completely consistent from article to article, but if you want to see what I'm doing, look at my contribs. Help on this would be greatly appreciated :-) -- Wapcaplet 02:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Copyrighted Art
Which tag is preferable for images of copyrighted works of visual art? I'm not very good with legalese, so I would also like a very plain explanation of what would be involved in using such a license? I would also like to know if there are any special stipulations for photographs of sculptures and buildings? Justin Foote 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted. →Raul654 03:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
First thing to say is that if the work of art is sufficiently old it will have passed into the public domain (q.v. that article for the details of what "sufficiently old" means). As for works of art that actually are copyrighted, the same goes as for any other image — the copyright holder has to license them for use, and then on the image description page you need to state this license. As for your other question, displaying a photo of a sculpture or building doesn't violate the "copyright" of that sculpture or building. (Warning, entirely irrelevant fact: in North Korea if you take a picture of a statue it has to be from the front and include the entire body in the frame). If you took the photo you can choose to license it as you see fit. Are there any particular scenarios you have in mind that prompted you to ask the question? If you give the details someone may be able to offer better advice. Thanks. — Trilobite(Talk) 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We're generally not interested in images of copyrighted works of visual art. If the copyright holder has decided to release those copyrighted works under a free license, then you'd tag the image with the tag for that license. Otherwise, we don't want it. anthony(see warning) 13:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Category help
I've got a question with categories. We have Category:Montreal Expo players, but we also have Category:Los Angeles Dodgers players. Since the teams themselves are almost always referred to in a plural form (i.e. Montreal Expos) shouldn't the teams, when named in category, reflect this? It seems very inconsistent. Anybody want to take a stab? Rhymeless 05:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would go for Montreal Expos rather than Montreal Expo. Looking around the web references are almost entirely to Expos rather than Expo. I find it easier to think about a name such as 'Anaheim Angels'. In this case the single form would be 'Anaheim Angel Players' which seems to suggest there is a single angel. Angels feels more like a club, which is mainly a collection of players. I would though definitely prefer a single standard rather than inconsistency. MarkS 12:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure under which category to request an article
I would like to request an article about Jasper Holmes but can't decide which heading to put him under on the request page. Just before the WW11 Battle of Midway, the US had no cryptographic way of determining Japan's code name for Midway. They had cracked Japan's JN-25 code and knew the target was AF, but didn't know where AF was located. Holmes, a young US naval officer, very cunningly tricked the Japanese into revealing that AF was Midway. Anyone got a suggestion on what category to use? (When I say category I don't mean category. Moriori 22:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
When did World War 11 occur? ;-) func(talk) 16:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
History I guess...but you seem to know enough about him to write an article yourself (or at least a stub). Adam Bishop 00:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I guess you're right. Stub it is. Cheers. Moriori 00:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
This information, including the offcer's name, is already at Battle of Midway#US Intelligence, I suppose you are aware of that. Andrewa 12:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course. But if any codebreaker deserves his own page, it is Holmes. His lateral thinking did much to win the naval war in the Pacific. I'm looking for material. E-mailed the US Navy yesterday, but no reply yet. Cheers. Moriori 20:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Million-article press release distribution
For everyone who is planning to help distribute the press release, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has asked that we delay the official announcement until Monday, September 20. This will allow us to work on translating the Foundation's website into other languages, to take advantage of the publicity.
In the meantime, please plan ahead in terms of where you want to send the press release. This would be a good time to start contacting media organizations so that you can determine the right contact person to send the press release to. --Michael Snow 04:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Encylopedia that Slashdot Built Awards
A periodic award given to pairs of articles that typify this acusation. This month we have two art related articles:
. Mona Lisa (often described as the most famous work in art history) - our article is 2255 words (excluding links) with two pictures.
. OS-tan a (small internet phenomenon on Futaba Channel) we give 2706 words and 19 pictures. Admitedly, this article describes a number of individual works.
This is a Slashdot Ratio of 1.2, not a startlingly high ratio, but an interesting reflection on our art history coverage! Mark Richards 17:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mark, could it be that some art pages suffer because some wikipedians are being overly cautious? I pondered adding a second pic to Michelangelo's David, because the current illustration does not illustrate scale/proportion, although it is a truly superb photo. I have a pic I took myself that does illustrate the very large scale of the work, because there are people in it, but it's of slightly lower quality. Be(ing) Bold around here lately has caused little except hassles, so I decided to give it a miss. I can just imagine having to justify having two similar-ish pics in the same article, or, to justify using only my photo because it is the better illustration. Oh my. Moriori 21:12, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Please, I think you should be bold on this! I think a famous artwork like that could do with two pictures! Mark Richards 21:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
MOD PARENT UP. (Just kidding.) Seriously, I agree that we need more info in our Mona Lisa article. However, Moriori has some very good points. To expand on them, from my POV: First, legally acquiring images for GFDL use is often a difficult task, especially for works of art. Second, Mona Lisa is a developing article — it's grown by 6kb (from 11kb) just the past three weeks [47]! If you want an unbiased selection, pick articles that don't have dozens of edits within the past few weeks. Third, we will never need 19 different pictures of the Mona Lisa. That would be redundantly redundant.
In conclusion: the "text-to-pictures" ratio is an invalid metric for judging how "Slashdotty" the Wikipedia is, especially for art. (Disclaimer: I'm among the contributors to the Mona Lisa article, so take that for what you will.) Okay, I've spent enough time defending our articles; I'm off to resume actually improving them. :-) • Benc • 02:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I must confess that when I read "Mona Lisa...2255 words (excluding links) with two pictures," my thought was "wow! what's the second picture!?" And upon checking, I was most amused. I suggest that anyone who hasn't looked at the Mona Lisa article do so now.
p.s. NAACP is still wending its way through the Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week process after being nominated for a previous "Encylopedia that Slashdot Built" award. —Stormie 03:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
My first reaction was 'Surely you can't find more than one relevant picture for the Mona Lisa'. However, on further thought you probably could do more. Here are some ideas;
A photograph showing the tight knot of tourists standing in front on the painting trying to squint through the glass - also showing painting in gallery context
An oblique photograph of the frame illustrating the tripple layered bullet-proof glass
A close up showing surface crakling of the paint
A detail showing the painting techniques, such as sfumato
A photograph of the back showing the condition of the wood and any other identifying marks
A shot of one of the towns where the painting was stored during WW I and WW II
A historical photograph showing the acid damage in 1956, or its restoration
A historical photograph showing the painting on tour or being transported
A historical photograph of Vincenzo Perugia, who once stole the painting
One of the X-rays of the painting showing the underpainting (another X-ray was being taken this year).
The merchandising shot could be replaced with a photo showing a wider range of merchandise
Of course the real problem, as User:Benc says, is that many of these picture would be very difficult to obtain under GFDL. I'm not sure what the current situation in the Louvre is, but many galleries don't allow photography. It is also worth noting that few of the pictures in the OS-tan article have source, attribution or licensing information. -- Solipsist
Collation primarily discusses the topic as it pertains to computer science. While collation is well-known in computer science, it predates the field by several centuries, and is more commonly known as "alphabetical order". Though a stub, Alphabetical order more directly describes what alphabetization actually is, whereas collation is long, rambling, and sometimes cryptic. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 21:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Problem pictures
Certain articles contain pictures that are causing problems. These pictures not only wont load, but also stop all other pictures on other pages from loading after the problem picture has failed to load.
There is one on Earth. (The second picture down I think). Now I have gone there and I can't load any pictures (even outside of Wikipedia). If I reboot I will be able to again.
Bensaccount 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am not having the same problem. What's your browser and connection? (Mine's Mozilla 1.7.2 on Win2K on an SDSL line behind a NAT/firewall.) - jredmond 20:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe a browser problem? I've never experienced anything like this (Firething), though I occasionally encounter an invisible image, or one that won't display (usually just a missing thumbnail); the Earth page all loads fine for me. -- Wapcaplet 20:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That page is fine for me as well. Have you changed anything in your browser settings that could have caused it? Have you tried using a different browser? If it's an ongoing problem, please report it at MediaZilla:. Angela. 21:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I have a (unfortunately very vague) recollection of someone somewhere (I think here) stating some versions of MS-IE have a bug related to trying to display multiple JPEGs that sounded very similar to what you are describing. It also may be related to this[48]. Either way, I believe the answer is to update IE to the latest version (for the security fixes, if nothing else), and/or switch to one of the solid IE alternatives, such as Opera or Mozilla. I am able to more or less duplicate the problem on an NT box using IE 5.0, but don't have any problems with more up-to-date configs or alternate browsers. Niteowlneils 23:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is 200kb
As a solution to this page regularly being 200kb or more, I propose a trial of splitting the pump into different areas. The five proposed sections are at Wikipedia:Village pump sections. If people want to still post here, they can, but they find it easier to find replies to their questions on a more focused page. Please put replies on the proposals section of the village pump. Thanks. Angela. 22:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Well, you may use Firefox. Next to Firefox's address bar, there is a customizable search bar that lets you add search engines. You can add Wikipedia too. -- Etz Haim 00:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia often disables full-text search to keep the servers running, a toolbar search interface to Wikipedia isn't quite as useful as it could be. :-/ Good idea, though. And thanks for the Firefox tip; I'll have to try it out. • Benc • 01:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One option is to add a bookmark in Mozilla (likely works in Firefox as well) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s&go=Go and put w in the keyword field of the bookmark property (Bookmarks->Manage Bookmarks...). To go to an article in Wikipedia, type w Article Name in the address box of Mozilla to go directly to that article. Replace fulltext=Search instead of go=Go in the bookmark URL to do full text searching, if available. Al guy 01:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I think you don't want a search bar but HTML for a search box you can place on your own website. I don't know of any "standard" box, but here's one I just whipped up (just for you):
They may still be there, it's just that for some reason they got a leading space in the page title. Not quite sure how to fix this. cur_id of the pages in the database: 215128, 215431, 215831, 229086. -- User:Docu
I think it's possible for someone with shell access to the server to move problem titles like this with a manual SQL command. If somebody does, I guess they should really be at Talk:China/Archive 1 etc. - IMSoP 16:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who owns web page summaries?
This might be nitpicking at copyright law, but I noticed that the first sentence of Array DVD magazine comes from the site's summary. Who owns the summary displayed? Is that considered public domain or copyrighted? SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is not the case. Short quotes are permissable, with attribution, but we cannot take any portion of their work which is not a common word or phrase and use it as our own. Such portions should either be quoted and attribution added (Blah describes their stuff as follows:), or be paraphrased or rewritten. Derrick Coetzee 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From a legal perspective, that's wrong. Quotations are a well known form of fair use, and protected by the Bern treaty (which applies in virtually every country). We are under no obligation to cite them. However, from an academic point, yes, it is good to cite sources. →Raul654 19:37, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
They come from book/journal publishing. Sections of a journal that are the same in every issue (editorial board, instructions to authors, that sort of thing) and the text on inside and outside of the front and back cover. Filiocht 07:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Random page meanderings
I've just done a quick 50-page survey using the random page link. The results are at User:TPK/Random. I have to say they're not very encouraging... though I'll do a larger survey eventually of course, (50 pages doesn't give a proper indication of WP as a whole), but the numbers I got here still aren't that great. Essentially, half of the 50 pages were stubs or sub-stubs (and half of those again lacked {{stub}} or {{substub}}), 2/3 lacked at least one category, only 3 had a see also section, only 16 had any external links, only 6 had an image or diagram... though 44 were properly wikified, if that's any consolation. Not that we didn't already know, but these few numbers show how far WP has to go. Also, for the record, the majority of the articles were either biographical or 'other'.
I know some other people have done surveys like this, so are there any other results to share? Also, if there are other things I should be looking for in my next random meander, do tell.
Were all the so-called stubs really stubs? I personally find it annoying and counter-productive when stub templates are placed on perfectly good short articles. Yes, many short articles could be expanded, but many don't especially need it compared to many longer articles which are more incomplete in respect to what they ought to cover. A short article is often quite adequate as is, in which case absence of a stub template is a good thing. As to a "see also" section, that's often not necessary either if there are well-chosen links within the article. External links are also not needed for many articles. Pictures and diagrams are nice, but not as important as basic accuracy which you, understandably, don't get into.
Agree that the stub notice is often wrongly added to an article just because it is short. This makes the notice far less useful than it would otherwise be. Andrewa 07:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, not being able to tell immediately whether a given article could have been longer or not, I took any short article (i.e. less than one paragraph) as a stub. I agree that some articles simply can't be made very long, but I tend to think that a single paragraph can always be expanded in some way or another. Also, as no-one can immediately tell if an article is expandable (unless it happens to be a topic they know about), a stub needs to be brought to the attention of others, and if it is as long as it's going to get, then someone who knows can remove the tag. (Problem being someone else might replace it - prehaps this is a deeper problem with the whole stub/article length subject). External links - given the nebulousness of the web, there's bound to be at least one decent link for practically ever article, so I believe that xlinks should be more common than they are; see-alsos though, might not be neccessary, as you said if there are good internal links, as well as categories. TPK 10:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are more short articles, whether marked stub or not, than anyone can deal with in any reasonable time. And they keep increasing. Random marking of some of these for expansion helps no-one. My experience is that articles marked for expansion are in fact often better served not by expansion but by having content merged with another article and being changed into redirects. Or just left alone. But someone who knows nothing about the topic ignorantly stamps them with the information that they need expansion because it is easy to do. Yet articles unmarked are just as likely on the average to need expansion as articles marked, or just as unlikely. Indiscriminate labelling of short articles by editors who know nothing about the topics of the articles has destroyed any usefulness that stub marking might have had. And I disagree that it is more necessary to bring the fact that an article is short to people's attention than any other supposed defect in an article. Anyone can see that an article is short. Shortness doesn't need to be labeled. But because it is so easy to see, it is shortness that is labeled, by labelling the article as a stub for expansion, whether an article especially needs expansion or not. And far more serious defects are not noticed at all. Stub labelling as implimented in Wikipedia is, in my opinion, more harmful than good.
You got me thinking - yes, the way stubs are marked isn't really that useful in that an article might never be expandable (though I still think most stubs could be expanded by a sentence here or there, but some articles will just always hover at the stub limit). The first problem is that everyone has a different idea of how long a "stub" is: either it's 1 paragraph or less, or 2 or less, or anything under 300 words, or 200, or 100, or a certain number of lines or sentences or an exact number of characters (exluding spaces and punctuation) if you're especially anally-retentive. Anyway, stubs are subjective. That's Problem 1 with the current stub system. Secondly, as some articles might never expand, the problem of stubs is more of "is the article structually, informatively, content-wise, complete" (or near-to), rather than "is the article longer than xyz characters". Problem 2. So for stubs to be useful, we need to move away from counting characters, and move towards finding an objective way to tell if an article is hopelessly short for it's subject, or if it's as long as it's going to get. That's nigh on impossible to do though. Problem 3. Prehaps the stub system is useful in that it brings short articles to the attention of others, who might be able to expand them. But if they can't be expanded, they will remain as a perpetual stub, even if they're effectively complete. Problem the Fourth. Prehaps the stub system, for that reason and those above, needs to be completely overhauled. Either way, it needs to be looked at more closely, rather than being taken for granted. TPK 22:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've also created and expanded many articles with no external links. The links were all in related articles. Or the subject was not covered decently on the web in a form that fitted a distinct link or not decently covered at all on the web. For example, in an article about a Greek mythological figure, one should provide sources, many of which are found on the web. But normally in such an article the first mention of a particular source is also an internal link to another Wikipedia article about the source itself. It is the Wikipedia article about the source that contains the external links to sites on the webs where those sources can be found. The article on the mythological figure is likely to contain no external links at all. Maintaining a set of external links that are balanced and valid is difficult enough without attempting needlessly to maintain many of the same links in forty or fifty different articles. If a new translation of the Aeneid appears on the web or a site that once had such a translation has vanished, one doesn't want to have to update thirty or forty articles to update Wikipedia. One fix in one article should be sufficient.
OK, well external links don't need to be duplicated across a number of crosslinked articles, but what I would like to see is xlinks placed on standalone articles - pages that don't link through a see-also to another page that does contain the relevant xlink(s). But where a page is a standalone, I think more of them ought to have some link or another. Yes, a lot of topics will be so obscure the only info on the web will be: A) imaginary, B) a copy of what's already on the page in question, or C) otherwise worthless. But I still think there are a lot of articles that could benefit from external linking - WP isn't and never will be a one-stop shop for information on every topic. More xlinks are needed, in some places, but not all, I'll give you that. TPK 22:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am in total agreement. My argument was really against the criteria being used to judge the 50 articles in question, that they weren't sufficient. There seemed to be an assumption that lack of a stub template on a short article was bad. Not always, especially considering the indiscriminate labelling of articles as stubs that need explansion. There seemed to be an assumption that lack of external references was a defect. That is not always true. A better experiement might be for someone to randomly select 100 articles and put them on a special page for comment. Not fixup. The copies would be protected during the length of the experiment. (The actual articles, could still be fixed up or changed according to normal Wikipedia procedure.) After comments had been made on the copies, perhaps after two weeks, people could rate the articles in different ways, e.g. from 1 to 10 for accuracy, from 1 to 10 for formatting, from 1 to 10 for attaining NPOV, from 1 to 10 for excellence of the writing, from 1 to 10 for use of links and so forth. Then we might get a better true picture of how Wikipedia rates. I'd rather have in Wikipedia, for example, 100 short stubs needing expansion that are accurate and well written and balanced as they stand than 100 long articles that are untrustworthy in terms of factual accuracy or POV, which are more serious but less easily spotted flaws than simply being brief. Jallan 14:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I went through about 50 random articles myself yesterday and found one obvious copyvio that has been hanging around since January 2003 though edited 12 times since, one speedy deletion candidate (a short article about a high school supposedly founded last year with a list of about five notable people who had attended it: obvious joke vanity), and a badly disguised advertisment article that I placed on VfD.
Categories are new enough that the lack of them should be no surprise at all.
So did you add stub labels to the previously unmarked stubs? -- Jmabel 03:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I did say the numbers show how far WP has to go, not that it was a suprise. As for editing, I only made changes to pages that absolutely needed them. I didn't add stub tags, no. TPK 10:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have repeated TPK's experiment: see User:Stormie/Random for my results. —Stormie 05:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
As an aside, how many pages do most people think would be enough for a properly representative survey? I think 50 was too few; prehaps 100? More? TPK 10:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It depends on what margin of error you are willing to accept. A sample size of 50 will give about +/- 14%. 100 is +/- 10%. 500 at +/- 4% would be good, but would take a long time. It should be easy enough to calculate the number of tagged stubs as a % of total articles. Problem is that not all tagged stubs are stubs and not all genuine stubs are tagged. Filiocht 10:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some time ago I did a 250 page sample: User:Pjacobi/Random. I'd suggest someone using a bot a having a local copy would produce a list 500 or 1000 random page titles, perhaps with some info (Categories?) already extracted. This sample can be devided betwen collaborators and a previously agreed on breakdown be done. Pjacobi 14:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have statistics about the 'average' Wikipedia article. For example, how many links does it contain? What is the proportion of live links to non-existent links that it contains? For the statistically minded, I think it would be useful to know the 5th, 50th and 95th percentile values in each case. On the specific point of stubs, I hope that you have all seen the topbanana reports:
Yes, seeing some percentiles or better a cumulative graph on some measures would be a very enlightening information. My favorite ones are number of edits and time since last non-minor edit. The weekly stats give about 14 (?) edits per artcle but I fear this average is composed of some articles with 300 edits and a large number of articles with less than five edits. -- Pjacobi 20:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On the articles I checked, they are complying with the GFDL, so I don't think theres any problem. We don't use invariant sections, so they're allowed to change the text, and elect to remove any articles they want to. —siroχo 01:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Certainly. It is, however, extremely weird. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 02:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you can call them a verbatim copy, in which case they're not complying with the GFDL (for example, they don't list the authors at all, and certainly not on the title page). As for changing "Wikipedia" to "Encyclopedia", does anyone know if they were accused of trademark infringement? I know there was talk of this with some of the other forks/mirrors. anthony(see warning) 04:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been looking at this -- if you want a real laugh checkout http://www.namweb.com.na/mwk/ and click on the GFDL link!
TheFreeDictionary.com are not in compliance and you can find more about it [here] Davelane 23:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What Should I do with the book I wrote?
A couple of ten years ago, I wrote a book, Codeword Dictionary. No need to ask, it was a real book, they paid me, I did not pay them.
Anyway, I have the copyright and was wondering what I should do with it, now that the Dead Tree edition is out of print and will probably not inspire a second edition.
Make about a thousand entries to the page mentioned above.
Enter the whole thing as a WikiBook.
Something else.
Your thoughts, please.[[PaulinSaudi 11:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)]]
If you want to include it there, Wikibooks sounds like the most reasonable place to me. In the format you describe, it sounds more like a complete reference work than an encyclopedia article, so it would be appropriate for Wikibooks. As a complete text, it's probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia itself, though of course pieces of individual information can be added to individual articles as you've been doing. --Michael Snow 15:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you put it in Wikibooks, perhaps others can pull out the parts that are useful into individual Wikipedia entries, saving you the work. I might do a few. – Quadell(talk) (quiz)[[]] 16:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Another option might be to put it all into user subpages. Wikibooks seems an uncomfortable match to me, and Wikisource is out according to their current policy. I think you're doing the right thing raising it here for discussion. It's an excellent offer, and might also be a significant precedent.
How do you feel about breaking it into sensible 32k chunks and putting them all up as user subpages? Wikilinks to these from articles would be inappropriate, but wikilinks from talk pages would make the material available to other Wikipedia editors. It seems to me that's exactly the sort of thing the user namespace is here for.
That's my best initial thought. But interested in other views. Andrewa 16:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am unclear on what breaking it into userspace article entails. Can you point me to an example? Would a person looking at The War in Italy still find a link to Operation Soandso? We could chop it into a million little bits, each entry is a stand-alone. Still, giving it to WikiBook seems to be the low-work option. I am leaving in a few days for vacation. I will do nothing until Ramadan, when I return. [[PaulinSaudi 16:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)]]
I assume it's alphabetical, so the first thing would probably be to break it into 27 or 28 pages, one for each initial letter, plus one for an index and one for non-alphabetic initial characters if needed. This is just to get the page size down. You might want then to break some of the larger pages down further, say BAA-BON and BOO-BZZ instead of B, for example, if this split cuts it roughly in half. That's where the index becomes important. This shouldn't be too much work.
So far as the War in Italy goes, at least the more prominent operations and perhaps even all of them would be mentioned, bolded, in the text of a larger article, and these could have redirects or disambiguations pointing to them. This is a lot of work obviously, but putting the material in the user namespace means that other editors can do some of it. Andrewa 12:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It would be good to see it, then we could see whether having thousands of articles on it would be good. My gut feeling is that yes, it could be. Intrigue 18:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Independently of whatever you may decide to do vis-a-vis Wikibooks, have you considered giving it to Project Gutenberg? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith(talk)]] 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree it's a generous offer, and thank you. One concern I have is whether it might be a little too generous. Even though you have the copyright, and could presumably prevent the publisher from re-issuing the book without cutting a deal with you, the contract might give the publisher some rights. At a minimum, it might restrain you from taking any action that kills the market for a possible reprint, by giving the same text away for free. Before you elect any of the options discussed here, you should probably speak with your publisher and/or your lawyer. JamesMLane 01:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Prison project
I am a warden at the maximum security Leavenworth Penitentiary and am involved in working with inmates on a range of education programs including basic literacy, GED, parenting programs and trying to offer opportunities for inmates who want to improve themselves to collaborate on constructive and educational projects. I found your site and was excited to see an article on our prison (United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth).
I would like to set a project for some of the more advanced inmates working on an information technology class (mostly lifers with a history of violent crime) to expose them to real-world, collaborative writing. I feel this might help them to interact more constructively.
I am suggesting to them to read about the site and the rules, and contribute to asrticles that they have experience with. Please let me know if there are any specific rules on this. Thank you, L. John
Hmmm, will we be seeing any articles on 'How to make a leathal weapon with a toothbrush and a razor blade'? I'm being silly of course. That would belong in Wikibooks :-P Darksun 22:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, this will blow every school project in the history of the Wikipedia, past or future, straight out of the water. It sounds like an awesome idea. --Ardonik.talk() 23:24, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
This sounds good to me -- so good that I have to wonder if it's for real. L. John, if you happen actually to be the warden at Leavenworth, one change I'd make to your idea is that inmates aren't limited to "articles that they have experience with". Quite a few articles have been written by people who knew nothing about the subject until they started researching it. Another issue to consider is that some Wikipedians have some anger management issues themselves. How will the inmate-editor react when someone writes "How did you get to be such a complete moron?" Such things shouldn't happen but, alas, they do. JamesMLane 00:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How Things Can Be Misconstrued 1.01. James, L.John didn't say he was the warden ):-. No matter. His aim to involve inmates in a collaborative task can only benefit them, and us. You are correct that they should not be limited to only their own experiences, and hey, regarding anger managament, maybe they can drop a few valuable tips to some wikipedians too..Moriori 03:20, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith. It's an exciting idea IMO. But James makes two very important points. Firstly, encourage the guys to contribute about things that they know about or are prepared to learn about. This could be a very valuable experience. Secondly, the anger management is certainly something to consider. Again, it could be a very valuable experience both for the guys and for the rest of us. I've been a bit disappointed at the trend towards needless agro in some discussions lately, and even more disappointed that this agro draws so little constructive criticism. Sometimes it degenerates to just plain bullying. Perhaps if some of our more volatile contributors knew that some of their fellow Wikipedians were doing time in maximum, but not which ones and what for and when they'd be out, there would be a little cooling off. I think that would be good. And I'm not joking. Andrewa 00:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sort of like Wikipedia's own version of a concealed weapons law? :-) —Mike 03:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think it is a great idea. I can't see any particular problems. Note that Wikipedia does not just need authors, it also needs editing, formatting, the addition of metric units, and translating. So there are many ways of making a positive contribution. I think the best way to find if it works well is to try it. Bobblewik(talk) 15:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some of my best friends are felons. No joke. I'd be much more worried if we were adding a group of 20 prison guards to the pool than 20 incarcerated felons. Again, no joke. -- Jmabel 21:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I, too, think this is a great idea. My only concerns are:
In a virtual (but very real) sense, you're giving these inmates parole. Online crimes (death threats, libel, ...) are real crimes. OTOH, it is generally harder to commit felonies online, and I can't imagine inmates being quick to violate their virtual paroles. I'm all for parole, but keep a close eye (at least initially, with random spot checks later on), realizing that this is, in fact, a form of parole.
Side issue: should all inmates be forced to identify themselves as Leavenworth inmates, either on their user pages or on m:Wikipedians with criminal records, or should this remain voluntary? This is, of course, a decision to be made by the warden and/or a parole board. (My opinion: make it voluntary, but keep an eye out for abuses.)
A lesser concern: bad apple syndrome. If one inmate wants to ruin it for the rest of his peers, he can act like an ass in general until the IP is hard-banned. I'm assuming, of course, that you'd be going through a router and that inmates would have the opportunity and the inclination to act maliciously. Hopefully I'm wrong on at least one of those counts.
Regards online parole, I'm sure the web access of inmates would be strictly monitored, just as with real parole, where a parole officer would frequently check up on the parole-e (or is that just Law & Order? :) ). I strongly think that disclosure of the person's prisoner status should be entirely voluntary. Although we'd like for it not to happen, discrimination exists everywhere. They may not be treated fairly, or be allowed to contribute fully, if they were forced to broadcast they're current living arrangements. Thirdly, regards blocking, prehaps the owner of the IP in question should be known to someone or other, who could make sure it isn't banned. Whoever is monitoring the inmates at the other end would have to be in charge of removing the person's access to WP if they vandalise it, in which case it would be safe to continue to allow the IP access for all the rest. TPK 09:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ballot-Stuffing
I was involved in a vote where everyone on both sides encourage friends to join the vote by registering just for voting. It was ugly. I am not proud of it. I suggest that only people registered before a vote, can vote on an issue. If such a policy came up for vote, I would encourage all of my friends to register, after the vote began, just to vote "Yes" on not letting people vote on issues who were not registered before the pole began. ;-)
P.S.
So that who I am will not influence your judgment, I logged out before writing this. If you feel that who I am truly is germane, the logs will reveal that this IP was used by a user who logged out just before posting this and then logged back in on the same IP after posting this.
Anonymous Coward
Wouldn't this be impossible to check and/or eat up far too much server power? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 05:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
A simple check of the user registration timestamp against the time the vote was posted is just integer subtraction, but the wiki style of putting an issue to vote by editing the page means that a vote is just text on a page, which the software doesn't treat as special. It probably wouldn't be hard to make votes special and allow this kind of checking if someone wanted that. -- Zwilson 16:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I whole heartedly agree with that... a requirement of Wikipedia voting should be registration prior to the start of the vote. It sounds like a really good idea to me. (The sock puppets and the people who suddenly show up out of nowhere only for the vote are a serious problem). Since I am also a coward, I will only sign with an x. 05:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In previous cases where this has happened (the naming policy poll comes to mind), the votes of brand-new users were moved to their own section and (more or less) ignored as obvious ballot stuffing. →Raul654 05:49, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
That's some previous cases, Raul: sometimes it's done that way and sometimes it isn't. A notable case of ballot-stuffing on VfD in August also comes to mind, where the admin counted new-minted voters just the same as established users (apparently so; when his count was challenged he didn't choose to comment on this aspect of it) and declared himself forced to keep the article. I think your example and mine, placed side by side, illustrate completely unacceptable variation in sysop vote counting practice, and that's why we need a specific rule. Bishonen 02:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P. S., adding figures: there was a lot of interest and strong feelings in this VfD case. By my count 50 pre-existing users voted: 15 to Keep and 35 to Delete. Don't remember exactly how many new-created accounts there were — can't face spending any more time in the tangle of that record — but those voted overwhelmingly to Keep. Bishonen 08:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, right. But here's what I like about it: when the brand-new voters show up, all that can currently be said to them is "the admins are not amused", where as with a rule in place, one can actually say "your vote is in violation of policy... now go away", (or something with a little more WikiLove). func(talk) 19:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, you can do what we did before - make a section called ballot stuffing (or something with more wikilove) and move their votes there (don't delete them). →Raul654 19:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Better to have an unequivocal policy than leave the determination to whichever sysop counts the votes. That's too open to mistakes, or abuse. -- orthogonal 20:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Occasionally comments from new or unregistered users can be very useful (as was the case recently on Peter Weibel). It's their votes that don't count. -- Jmabel 22:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I kind of like the Anonymous Coward's recommendation: Your account must have been created before the deliberation began to count. That won't touch the long standing sock puppets, of course. Geogre 00:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've always interpreted Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus to mean the same thing as this suggestion, but it would certainly be nice to have it stated more formally somewhere, and to be clear that it applies to all polls that are closed to IPs. Not only should voters have created their account before the poll began, but they should have made some good edits with that account as well. (I don't know that we want to get into the minutiae of defining "some", but I'm okay with it being a small number.) —Triskaideka 22:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to reiterate it: IP's and nonce registrations cannot be counted in a vote. When I said that the "exist before opening of debate" won't stop sock-puppets, I meant that some regular Wikipedians have more than one account. The people who have done this know how hard it is for them to be caught. In fact, it's very difficult to catch them, and I'm a little tired of our pretending that it isn't. To me, the multiple accounts per Wikipedian is a really wretched phenomenon. "Wikipedia, where all animals are equal, and some are more equal than others." I'm going to look at the article Bishonen links to and see if it should have been deleted or not. I understand when people get afraid to step into really hot debates, but consensus must be our only rule. Consensus of users, that is, and not consensus of the interested. Geogre 00:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Standing and nomination
The above thread about ballot-stuffing got me thinking:
For September tenth, on redirects for deletion, an anonymous contributer listed two of three of the redirects for deletion that day. ¿Should people with no standing to vote, be allowed to nominate? It seems like a trouble-making troll with a floating IP could really wreck havoc by randomly nominating all sorts of things to all sorts of things.
I must confess that I participate in the discussion for the redirect male genital mutilation. I feel that either both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation or neither both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation and either both should stay or leave. I believe that both should stay. Keeping one while deleting the other is sexist. In other words, I believe that, now, after disclosing my involvement, I should abstain from the debate about anonymous contributers nominating things to things.
I believe it's been the longstanding policy on the VFD to ignore anon votes. I don't think RFD should be any different in that respect. →Raul654 05:50, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Since I am a partisan, I shall not debate but merely clarify:
An Anonymous Contributer Nominated Several Of The Redirects For Deletion. Someone with no standing to vote started a vote.
Some time ago I raised exactly this issue on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, that discussion is now archived but the rough consensus was that anons have every right to list on VfD, but not to vote. I was the dissenting voice, IMO if you can't vote you shouldn't list either. I guess we'd want the same policy on RfD, etc.. It sounds like there might be more to say on this. In the interests of not reinventing the wheel, should I try to find the original discussion? Andrewa 11:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard the term "standing [to vote]" being used in the way, but I see if there's consensus, there's consensus, regardless of whether or not the nominator was an anon. I could see the appropriateness of deleting a nomination made by an anon, if no one agrees with it, but once an eligible voter agrees that voter could be considered the nominator if you really care about such issues. anthony(see warning) 12:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See my comment in previous section re: Peter Weibel. -- Jmabel 22:02, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
The right to propose something and the right to vote on it aren't necessarily coupled. The only question to ask is whether dissallowing anons list pages on VfD and RfD brings more good or harm. Now, anybody who wants to disrupt VfD and RfD could get around a rule like that it just by register a user name. OTOH, throwing policy at well meaning newbies and telling them that their attempts at contribution are worthless might lose us some potentially good editors. I see no justification to prevent anons from listing pages on VfD and RfD. Zocky 02:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ITToolbox spam
Anonymous users are spamming links to a site called ittoolbox.com, which is basically a link/ad farm for IT articles. Could an admin please revert contributions by User:66.208.231.42? User:67.109.36.158 has also spammed a couple of links. Rhobite 13:04, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
I'm working on him, but he's pretty persistent. He's started adding the link back to articles to which it has already been removed, which probably means he knows the link is spam and he doesn't care. He has already been told on his talk page. I'll add to WP:VIP. -- Chuq 13:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What format?
What format do I use for screenshots, and would it be a bad idea to use Paint to convert to that format? --Sgeo | Talk 13:19, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
PNG is the recommended format for screenshots, and it would not be a bad idea to use Paint if you have Windows XP. I don't believe earlier versions could save PNG files. Rhobite 13:28, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) edit: please don't edit my commentsRhobite 17:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think it depends on what the screenshot consists of. If it is something like a text editor, PNG would probably be the preferred format. But if it was a photorealistic screenshot from an FPS, JPG would probably be a better format (for its better compression of photographic images).
I don't think Paint supports PNG, but it'd probably work for JPG images. Personally, I prefere Paint Shop Pro, but that's just me. There are probably several free utilities available that convert image formats. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Paint does support .PNG in Windows XP. In any case, there are many graphic file converters out there. GIF is arguably okay. Whatever you do, do not use BMP!Derrick Coetzee 14:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just uploaded Image:BabasChess.PNG which was converted with Paint on WinXP. --Sgeo | Talk 15:11, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
And I just recompressed it to knock a third off the file size. Ain't collaboration fun? -- Cyrius|✎ 15:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And I just converted it to indexed color to knock another ~50% of the filesize off. PNGs can fairly often be indexed for big space savings. This is unfortunately something that pngcrush can't do at this time... -- Wapcaplet 22:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have noticed that some programs are less than ideal for compressing PNG. Maybe Windows XP paint doesn't compress it at all. Rhobite 17:16, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
pngcrush -brute oldfile.png newfile.png does a better job than anything else I can think of, image editor or otherwise. It's cross-platform, too. --Ardonik.talk() 17:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
pngcrush is awesome! I have a list of .pngs extracted from a recent database dump. I should have a bot go through and pngcrush all the ones that gain significantly from it. Potentially this could be done as part of the upload for new images. Derrick Coetzee 18:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I edited a page before I logged in
Is there some way to put that edit under my userId? Gold Dragon 19:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I went through the list of 200 articles shown at Wikipedia:Offline reports/This page links many times to the same article and removed the repeated links that causing the article to be noted. Now Rmhermen has drawn my attention to something that I was not aware of, i.e. that Wikipedia looks at two different links to construct a date. Thus a link can have an effect beyond the link itself. I am no longer able to maintain my concept of links as individual entities. It may be that this is an exception for handling dates but it may also be a precedent.
I am asking for two things:
A bot that would sort out multiple links to the same page. Having several 100 links to the same article is silly. I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Feel free to make your views known there.
A debate about the concept of links as individual entities rather than parts of pairs, triplets etc and how that is made explicit to editors. I was quite surprised that I am no longer able to look at the text in the edit window and predict what will happen to each link bounded by [[ and ]].
I don't have anything like the knowledge of law to create it, but I was thinking that a Litigious society article would be an interesting addition. It is mentioned briefly in lawsuit (Some countries, especially the USA suffer from a very large number of lawsuits per capita per year, while people in many other cultures (most notably Japan) tend to avoid bringing their disputes to the courthouse) but I'm sure there must be more to be said. Perhaps mentioning landmark cases (some about people suing tobacco and fast food companies, perhaps) and the constant "accident claim" adverts. Apologies if this is covered elsewhere - I've not come across anything yet. violet/riga(t) 21:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to be helpful but there was a reason I posted here. I was trying to ascertain if there was already an article with similar content and if people thought that it would be a worthwhile addition with enough potential to become a decent article. I also wanted to write some sort of description rather than just post a link. violet/riga(t) 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think such an article would be needlessly POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Managed Delete
A new policy proposal is in the tweaking stages. Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Managed_Deletion for the details. Note that this is a modification of the Speedy Delete process only. If you disagree with the policy entirely, please wait for voting to cast your vote. If you can think of ways to improve the policy, please contribute constructive criticism on the Discussion page. The proposal is aimed primarily at administrators who perform speedy deletes, but all will no doubt have some interest in it. I anticipate voting beginning one week from today. Geogre 00:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) I posted this in the Policy link off Village Pump, but I figured, since that's new, I'd post it here, too. Geogre 00:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sir Frank Williams
Would an admin be so kind as to move Frank Williams (Formula One) to Frank Williams, which was lately a disambig page of dubious value and is now a redirect to the F1 Frank Williams? (The other people on the disambig page were Frank Abagnale, the guy in Catch Me If You Can whose alias was Frank Williams, and a redlink to Frank Williams (actor), an actor in a British sitcom. I mentioned them at the top of the article.) Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If anyone feels so inclined and wants to create lots of new pages, here is an available database of 13th century theologians that is available in the PD:
Each theologian contains brief bio, works and bibliography. Nice resource that would fill out a lot of names for European Middle Ages history. I did not write it but the author just requests "Please give a reference to the Guide in any published work just as you would to any other source." .. which would go under the ==Sources== header.
That's ==References==, actually. The reference looks excellent, although info on each person is rather limited. It'll help fill out some stubs at least, in a lacking area. Derrick Coetzee 17:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Article about saving documents in computing?
After looking around for an appropriate link for the word save in a computing-related article (thus, save as in save my document), I'm wondering whether there's any Wikipedia article about the entire phenomenon of saving and loading documents (and auto-saving, etc.) in computing and how there has been a shift away from that model in user interface design. Seems like it could be an interesting article if someone could start it (I couldn't say much more about it than I have here). - dcljr 05:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's been a shift away from that? --Golbez 08:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, with applications like Microsoft OneNote, the user never has to save, they simply make a change, and it "saves as they go": they can close the program, not be prompted, start it again later, and it will return to where they were with everything still in place. Argument goes that the user wouldn't go and make a document, then not want to save it (at least most of the time), and that the undo function means you don't have to worry about making a change you regret, and wanting to discard the changes and open the old version of the file. Programs already auto-save changes every few minutes, why not save the main file? I agree that things like saving/loading a file are concepts independent from any one program, and as such deserve an article. TPK 09:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Like, with database applications and data-bindings? These aren't anything really new, (if that's what you're referring to). However, an article on the act of opening a file, editing it, and saving it, as well as discussing bindings, sounds like a good idea to me. Er, to use an example of someone who would find this useful: my mother is often confused about such things. She will open a document, inadvertantly make a change, and then she will try to close the document. When she does, she gets a dialog asking if she wants to save... which worries her, because she believes that if she doesn't save, the document might somehow get deleted. ;-) func(talk) 08:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to mention this when I wrote it, but after reading this comment previously and checking Save, I was surprised that it wasn't a disambiguation page. See my comments at Talk:Save. -- Chuq 08:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So what about an article called File management (computer)? How a user works with files with regard to opening and closing them could be handled in such an article, along with other things, like creating directories/folders, etc. func(talk) 14:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How can I best release all my contributions to Wikipedia from any kind of copyright control or licensing restrictions? As I understand it, articles that I've started can be released into the public domain, even though subsequent versions after editing on Wikipedia will be (presumably) licensed under the GFDL. What about individual edits to GFDL articles — can the edit itself be released into the public domain, even though the resultant article is GFDL? Also, I've heard rumours that the idea of the public domain doesn't exist in Japan — is this true? (Public domain doesn't mention it). If this is the case, what can I do to make sure that my contributions are available for use with as few a restrictions as possible in Japan? — Matt 10:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You definitely can commit your individual edits to the public domain, and other Wikipedians have done this (see User:Eloquence for example). To commit to the public domain, I believe all you have to do is make an "overt act of relinquishment". Putting a notice on your user page would most likely qualify, at least for works which were already created in the past. http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2 provides a somewhat more formal way to do this. I've never used it so I can't really tell you what to expect. You may also want to look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license and/or talk to some of the users in that last category (public domain). anthony(see warning) 12:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! — Matt 18:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ugly Klingon InterWiki
Does anyone know what caused Klingon to be forced to polute the article text with their Interwiki on other Wikipediae? Aliter 13:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
They're not forced to do any such thing. The idea was that Klingon articles would not be linked to from en. -- Tim Starling 14:10, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Then why does this link tlh:Sol Hovtay' show up in-text in all Wikipedia? Not linking from a specific Wikipedia I can understand. It would mean informing the programmers of most Interwiki-bots, but it would be that specific Wikipedia's choice. But that's not what happens.
What happens is that there is InterWiki for Klingon, but accross all Wikipediae it's not regarded as an other-language version of the article. That I don't understand, and I would like to know what's causing it. Aliter 14:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See [49] and associated posts. -- Tim Starling 14:53, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Can we fix this now? It seems stupid, and messes up pages to have the links at the bottom. Even Deutche Velle has a Klingon Language edition now anyway. Flapflap 16:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, is there any way to open up this discussion? It seems pretty ridiculous not to allow proper language linking. Intrigue 23:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fundraising drive
This is advance notice that a Fundraising drive will begin on Monday and the following message will be displayed across all wikis (it can be translated in MediaWiki:Sitenotice on non-English wikis).
Wikimedia Fundraising Drive. Help us raise $50,000. See our fundraising page for details.
If deductions were tax-deductible this would probably help a lot. How goes the progress on achieving this legal status? Derrick Coetzee 17:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The forms have been filed for this, but the IRS can take up to six months to decide. However, it should be retroactive, so you may be able to reclaim tax later on donations you make now, assuming the status will be granted. See Deductibility of donations on the new Foundation site for details. Angela. 22:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
I recommend the Cafe Press stuff. I got myself a T-shirt and got some positive remarks in public. Double bonus! ;-) Awolf002 18:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're too late. It's been done twice at the meet ups- 1, 2. →Raul654 18:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily exclude a more public quiz for the entire community. Also, many of the questions on those pages are very dated or very difficult. Perhaps a more organized quiz could have varying levels of difficulty. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 19:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Would a good choice be to start with easy ones and put difficult ones later?? 66.245.80.45 19:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hm... maybe some limits are needed to prevent a few people from dominating the quiz? Would "one answer per person per day" work better? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 23:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gmail Invites
I currently have 6 Gmail invites, and I want to give 3 away to some Wikipedia members (mostly because half my friends have no clue what gmail is ;). Anyways, if you would like one...please post on my User talk page. — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 20:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You might want to think about the gmail invite spooler just send your invites to gmail@isnoop.net and they will be made available to people that want them. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 21:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Any reason why it has 0 invites currently available? — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 02:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the number fluctuates as people add new invites and people request them, that big graph shows the in/outs over time, if you want an invite you put your email in that box and it will send you one, when it gets some if it doesn't have any right away. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 05:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have three to give out, leave a note on my talk if you want one. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 06:25, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
I have six; send me an email if you want one. Thue | talk 08:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Has this gmail invite spooler worked for anyone else? I've made two requests already—one yesterday, and one a few minutes ago when about a dozen invites were supposedly available—and I still haven't received anything. Are we sure it isn't just an elaborate email harvester? --dreish 13:10, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
The image to the right needs a bit of touchup, since i do not have any image manipulation program ( or am able to install one, student machine ) would somebody mind:
<- making this red where it currently is black.
put that where the x = |x| text is now ( the current one is too raugh and un-anti-alised)
At the moment Skald leads to a disambiguation page, and the main meaning of skald is at Skald (poet). Since the other article in question is about a Norwegian publishing firm which is only a secondary meaning, I'd like to move Skald (poet) to Skald and have a note on the top of the article that there is a publishing firm using the name as well. This move should very uncontroversial since the basic and prestigious name for a viking poet is the reason why the firm has chosen the name. Keeping the meanings equal is publicity.--Wiglaf 07:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree completely. I guess an admin would have to move them... --Golbez 07:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Following on from Jallan's idea in Random page meanderings above, as well as earlier, simpler random page surveys, I have created a quick proposal/mockup/brainstorm of a large-scale random page experiment at User:TPK/Drafts/RPE. The gist of the proposal is that x randomly-selected articles (where x was proposed at 100, but that may be too many – or too few) are copied into (presumably my) User: space, or into some Wikipedia: space, and left in situ for a month or so. On the "clone" article's talk pages, there are a number of topics, such as Formatting, Length, Content, Spelling and Grammer, POV, et cetera, and users are invited to look at the clone article, then give it a score from 0 to 10 for each topic. During all this, the original pages will remain untouched, and can be edited as usual (although a link would be left on the talk page to the scoring page of the clone). Given enough time (and ratings), each article would be given a final "Wikiscore" from 0 to 10, which would rate how "perfect" the community perceives that article to be. This would give us some ideas about paradigm articles – the best and the worst – as well as giving us an idea of the state of WP's "average article". I don't know what else could be gained from the experience, or if it's really that useful at all. It's only a vague idea at this stage (and again I give credit to Jallan). Have a look at the draft, suggest what topics you would use for scoring, how the results might be used or collated, whether this is all a waste of time, how the articles might be selected other than randomly (prehaps some previous featured articles should be randomly selected and included to see how they score), and anything else, including whether this is all a waste of time. Thankyou for your time. T.P.K. 07:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe that's the use of the 'validate' function in 1.4 (see Testwiki) — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 14:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Before writing this message, I have browsed through a few Wikipedia: series page to see what was already written on this topic ; I found nothing. More surprisingly, I found very little on the general theme of Wikipedia pollution by unfair use of its articles for Google ranking promotion. This does not seem a "hot" issue, but I fear it could become in a near future as long as Wikipedia gets better known and gets higher (together with its clones) on Google.
Then I have kept looking for similar abuse. Watch out this interesting one (I link to a diff page, since I removed it) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tourism&diff=5861245&oldid=5802398
An anonymous user adds two links ; the first one is irrelevant but not shocking ; the second one is blatant self-promotion. Probably naive from a good-faith editor (he also wrote a "real" sentence on a talk page), and not too dangerous (though the links remained more than one week with nobody noticing the problem).
Now, browse through the various links in the "Commercial travel sites" of Tourism. Some are indeed relevant, like http://www.letsgo.com/ . A few others are self-promotion of sites which are in no way nasty, but not remarkable enough to justify a link from a very general encyclopedy page, e.g. http://www.luggage-life.com/. Lastly and more annoyingly, some are simply there to help link farms sucking Google ranking, see http://www.asinah.net/ (the WP clone which made me conscious of the problem) or http://www.insidetraveltips.com/, still more blatant.
What should be done ? Nothing, hoping that I overestimate the danger and that this kind of parasiting can be contained by the editors as teenager vandalism is effectively contained ? Listing offender domaine names and forbidding external links towards them ? Adding a "nofollow" tag in WK pages, finding another way to have our articles archived ? Something else ? --French Tourist 12:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We already, controversially, ban links to a number of locations where active link-farmers were hitting us. It's controversial because it causes problems when editing some real pages and because it's easy to work around it. Wikipedia is an effective device for artifically raising page rank, but is also an important source for Google of authoritative links. At this point, we pretty much hope that the usual wiki process will take care of such links (often, once such a user is noticed once, their other contributions will be checked and all their changes are then easy to revert.) Derrick Coetzee 23:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Possible Michael sighting
User:69.111.161.32 may be Michael editing anonymously. I already reverted a few dates that he incorrectly changed on album pages. These are articles that Michael has touched in the past. Rhobite 15:05, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, not again. After everyone went through hell and high water to give this guy a second chance. I don't know anything about albums, but I'll be watching Special:Contributions/User:69.111.161.32 more closely today (assuming that's the only IP.) --Ardonik.talk() 15:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
See also User:205.188.117.7, an apparently run-of-the-mill vandal who blanked Iron Curtain, but a brief look at their contributions revealed this: [50][51]. I have no idea whether these edits were correct or not, but a change of date by one year made by someone who has vandalised elsewhere makes me suspicious. I reverted these, but someone may wish to check for similar edits by this user. The IP is in AOL's range, making me even more suspicious. — Trilobite(Talk) 20:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Note that Michael has not edited with his probationary User:Mike Garcia account since early September. --Michael Snow 20:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Current events#too much analysis. A discussion has cropped up as to how much information is being included in Current events listings. RickK 18:24, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
A now-blocked vandal, User:EDGE, moved User:Jongarrettuk to Yellow mustard rabbit, which he then proceeded to blank. I didn't realize that this was a move, and I deleted it as patent nonsense and blanked patent nonsense at that. When I discovered what EDGE had done, I restored Yellow mustard rabbit so I could move it back to User:Jongarrettuk, but the unblanked version is, for some reason, not available to restore to its proper place. Can somebody help me? RickK 20:27, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to you and the others dealing with EDGE. I didn't have a userpage to begin with though - am a new wikipedian and haven't gotten round to writing it yet - so there's nothing to restore. Jongarrettuk 21:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Password keeps dumping into wikipedia verbose articles from everywhere. Typical examples are Snake teeth and Flora and fauna of Guantanamo Bay. Praise to him, he gives proper references. Many of them are .gov texts; public domain, but way too verbose for encyclopedia IMO. Not to say that many articles are orphans. Also, I stumbled upon him when detecting a possible copyvio of Butterfly odor. Please, some of vikipedia veterans, talk to this guy. Mikkalai 21:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let us nudge him gently in the direction of Wikisource. --Ardonik.talk()* 22:47, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to be stopping... contributions by Password - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
These will make fine articles after the usual adaptation process. Copyvio is a definite concern though — not even all .gov sources are public domain. Derrick Coetzee 16:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"dumping" is a good term because the articles are raw dumps basically. There are procedures and methods for example on how to deal with 1911 articles. He has not even corrected the scanning errors in them (probably copyvio from an online source).Stbalbach 08:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The original text is in the public domain, however all changes, formatting and presentation of thisPublication are copyrighted by the current publisher.
ISBN 1-930585-09-08
If the text is being scanned from an actual old copy of the work than there should be no copyright problem. Otherwise Arment may have included purposeful changes, that is rephrasing, changes in punctuation, spelling, and so forth as a method of detection of coyright violation of their text. It is dubious that such things actually do provide copyright protection. Personally, I have no problem with such content being included. I'd much, much rather see this than a short stub that explains that snakes have teeth that are called snake teeth, even if it perhaps better belongs in Wikisource. This excerpt is almost like a genuine encyclopedia article. But the source should be given, especially when it is an excellent and authoritative source. Put lots and lots of old material into Wikipedia when it is in public domain and still excellent material. But sources so used should be cited. And external links should be given to full web editions if they exist.
Flora and fauna of Guantanamo Bay is from Appendix B of a work appearing at Life in Guantanamo Bay. This might be public domain. As far as I can tell, it seems to have been originally something like an unofficial publication of the US navy or maybe a vanity publication by an officer (though an excellent one). But source again is not listed in the article. That's not right when you are taking it word for word.
Can someone clue me in on why the boxes templated in at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music aren't displaying right? (I use Mozilla on a Mac) They work fine in the articles they're in, individually, but not there. Tuf-Kat 04:18, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a bug. Adding returns instead of spaces causes the boxes to appear (In Firefox 1.0PR on W2K). Take a look at it now. --Rossumcapek 04:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tested in Mozilla PC, works there too, terrible black lines in the boxes, though. I like the clean, borderless look of rendered by IE. -- user:zanimum
Benzite / Benzites
The article Benzites should really be moved to the singular noun, Benzite, but the latter has an edit history and so the former can't be moved. Can anyone help? --Arteitle 06:40, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that, if there were a clear method of desysopping, we'd get ortho's vote to change, maybe even one more. The problem is, until we have a clear policy for dealing with disruptive editors, there's a lot of guesswork for sysops concerning how they're supposed to behave, which makes most of them resist a clear desysopping policy, IMO. So we may be at an impasse. Can we somehow roll them both together and try and pass a double barreled policy? Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My objection was mainly based on the fact that we were been asked to give people powers to deal with a problem without any real idea of how big the problem is. Answer that question and then a sensible debate on what needs to be done can begin. Meanwhile, how can anyone judge what the best course of action might be? Filiocht 07:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you want 'real' facts, look no further than user:Raul654/Plautus to see the timeline of the most disruptive user ever. →Raul654 07:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, this is one kind of fact, but what I really mean is how many users like this are there as a % of the total community. I suspect it is a tiny number, but have no way of knowing just now. If we legislate on the basis of hard cases, we'll make bad laws. Filiocht 08:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I had to guess, at any given time, there are probably no more than 4-6 users who are so disruptive that they are ban-worthy. The problem is, new ones appear as fast as we get rid of the older ones. →Raul654 08:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
There are many more who are disruptive in a small way, often restricting their activities to particular small parts of Wikipedia which they hold on to viciously. I've encountered users who have wasted days of my time. Their only interest in Wikipedia may be to sustain a particular point of view in one or two articles. Eventually, I walked away. They won. There's so many other articles in Wikipedia that need work that one might as well let them have their say when their are worse articles around. Current dispute resolution process seems almost purposely clumsy, designed only for those who like nagivating legal procedures and are good at it. Meanwhile, the supposed Wikipedia policies are lies. They aren't enforced, and if you look closely at may of them, they seem to disappear. No personal attacks? They happen all the time. No POV supposedly. Supposedly a rule of only three reverts in 24 hours, but that's now vanished, maybe, sort of. Try to to cite supposed Wikipedia policy to stop someone who is stubborn and where it is in a minor article of little interest to most, but of great interest to two users to whose only regard for Wikipedia is as a platform for a particular, unnotable, fringe theory in one article. Filiocht's concern with numbers seems to me moot. If only a few people are being raped, then rape doesn't matter? What harm does anyone but a troll find in this proposed quick-alarm system that at least gives some substance to supposed policies that increasingly don't guide Wikipedia. No. I can't measure this. But either can Filiocht. With a two month trial we could perhaps measure it. What other way? Jallan 18:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think comparing this to rape is a little hysterical. You seem to be making the case that anyone who holds an opinion that is different to yours and whom you are unable to persuade is automatically 'disruptive'. Perhaps the cases that you are thinking of are, but you can perhaps see why some people are worried about where this kind of logic leads.
However, I do totally agree that we need to strengthen sanctions against personal attacks, they are perhaps the single most damaging type of anti-social behavior we have, along with witch-hunting. Mark Richards 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comparison to rape hysterical? No. I am pointing out that numbers should not be an issue. We supposedly have a policy of personal attacks being totally forbidden. It is not enforced. You know this. Currently, the de facto practice is that personal attacks are quite acceptable here, as long as someone doesn't make too many personal attacks, and doen't make them against the wrong people, or both. The case I "seem to be making" is your strawman argument not mine. I am talking about obvious breaking of supposed rules. Yes, in some cases, I or someone else might be in error, the person in the wrong, or there may be no wrong. Fine. Under the proposed policy I would be quickly disabused. Case closed! I can't see why "some people are worried about where this kind of logic leads". Jallan 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The comparison to rape is frankly insulting to rape victims. I still say that hard cases make bad laws and Jallan's intervention has reinforced my opinion. And yes, Mark Richards, there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would
allow. Filiocht 11:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The comparison was intended to be overstrong to indicate how bogus it is to be concerned only with numbers. Can you quantify your contention that "there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow"? The policy as proposed would seem to me to be equally effective against fuggheadedness of a witch-hunter type where that exists. Do you not want witch-hunting to be cut down if you believe it is a problem? Jallan 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I voted against the proposal. Let's just imagine its Chriatmas and very few people are working here. Just me and three admins, in fact. They're all working on an article together and I stumble in. I find their version horribly POV and try to edit it, they label me disruptive and ultimately ban me before the holiday is over. Overstated, too, I admit, but if you can overstate, so can I. This is part of why this person is "worried about where this kind of logic leads". My concern with numbers is because they bring some objectivity and reduce the likelyhood of a bad knee-jerk reaction or the pushing through of something that serves the interests of a minority only. We have quite a good article on Internet trolls. It contains this sentence, which I think is worth pondering: However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict not emerge at all. My view is simple; don't feed them. Maybe there is no quick-hit solution. Filiocht 14:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You provided no numbers for your somewhat weasel-worded claim that "there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow". A concern with objectivity isn't apparent.
As to the horrid case you postulate, it is impossible. Even three rogue sysops at a time when no-one else is around would not be able to ban you. Please read the proposal that you have voted against. The most rogue admins could do would be a short term block of 24-hours, no worse than many users suffer now though no wrong-doing when a range-block is in effect or through the occasional wrongful blocking that occurs now for claimed vandalism which is later determined to be unjustified. But the reasons for this block would appear openly on the appropriate page, providing documentation for you or anyone to use to show that the sysops were acting against policy. You don't have such full protection now if a single sysop now blocks you for sneaky vandalism.
Not feeding trolls has some success on open web forums, but the usenet is a now a shadow of what it once was. On managed forums trolls are more often simply banned. If not feeding trolls is good, starving trolls is better. But if ignoring disruptors and pushers of crank POV is an option in web forum, it is not an option in Wikipedia where we are trying to build an encyclopedia and trying to maintain and improve the information here. Ignoring the content placed in articles by people intent only on pushing their own POV is not a valid long-term option. Ignoring those interested in sneaky vandalism for the fun of it is not an option. Making it easier to oppose such activities should better Wikipedia.
Here is a classic case of the ground shifting under you in a discussion like this. We go from the ill defined 'troll', to 'pushers of crank POVs', to people 'intent on pushing their own POV' to 'sneaky vandals', as if these were the same thing. Not feeding the trolls does not mean not reverting vandalism. To try to characterise it in this way is just muddying the waters and making discussion more difficult. Mark Richards 23:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1 million wikipedia articles
Everyone give yourself a big pat on the back for making wikipedia what it is! :) Darksun 18:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Congrats to all the fellow wikipedians! BACbKA 19:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And there was much rejoicing! :) -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 19:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(news)? When did this happen? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does that include redirects? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith(talk)]] 20:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK, no redirects, no Wikipedia:, no talk:, no user:, no user_talk:, no category:, no templates, or thing like that. Old article counts also excluded stubs, then defined as an article without a comma (unless there is no comma equivilent in the language). -- user:zanimum
Would it be appropriate to mention the one-million-article milestone on the date page September 20? —Etaoin 20:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No.
I thought it violated Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but then I checked Wikipedia Day -- it is linked to from January 15. Not that such a link is definitive, but it suggests we may have decided in the past that it was acceptable. Important question -- would we note the date that Brittanica hit its millionth article? If so, I think we can add it. If not, however, I think we leave it alone. Jwrosenzweig 20:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There is no definitive date for that. Unless they keep detailed records of when articles are paid for, you'd have only the option of mentioning when the first edition of Britannica with 1m went to print. Does anyone else think Wikipedia:September 20, etc. would be advisable. Essentially an alternative archive to Wikipedia:Announcements. -- user:zanimum
It doesn't really violation Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, which says that "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." In this case I think it's in bad taste, though, as Wikipedia hitting one million articles has too low an impact on the world to be chosen as one of the fewer than 100 events in the last 2000 years which gets put on that page. anthony(see warning) 21:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That puts things into the appropriate perspective. --Ardonik.talk()* 21:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony about the big picture. The appropriate place to put this is generally on Meta (remember, this milestone is all Wikipedias, not just the English one). Pages there include Wikipedia timeline and Milestones. I find that better than Wikipedia:September 20. --Michael Snow 21:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony also, though I will note that some events make it onto dates without meeting quite so strict a criterion. And I want to note also for anyone's benefit that a fairly decent list of important Wikipedia dates is at History of Wikipedia -- since the days are wikified, a what links here from a given day (say, September 20) will note it's linked to from History of Wikipedia. I don't know how useful that is, given the number of articles linking to days. But I thought it worth mentioning. Jwrosenzweig 21:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Generally the process is to merge and turn one into a redirect. No admin support needed, but definitely talk about it with the editors of those pages. There should be some relevant Wikipedia namespace page on merging. Derrick Coetzee 22:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From what I can gather, from both alternative and normal methods, the average Wikipedia article is around 340 words in length and 2.25kb in size. Since I am committed to the quality of the articles I create and modify over the long term, I am aiming for a personal goal of at least three times the average. ie around 1100 words and about 7Kb of readable text.
So far, the only method of finding out this information is to place the article name in the search box and press "search". That has given me the kb size of the article - but I am wondering how much of that size is text and how much are images. Lately, whenever I have tried to find the size of an article I get Wikipedia search is disabled for performance reasons. You can search via Google or Yahoo! in the meantime. which is really quite annoying. Since Google haven't yet discovered the pages I have updated, any Google search ends up with no article.
Is it possible to create a special webpage (not a Wiki) where you can type in the Wikipedia article location (eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College), and then get the following statistics:
Total size of article (in kb)
Total size of text (in kb)
Total size of readable text (in kb)
Total size of all images in article (in kb)
Readable Word Count (excluding headings etc as per definitions of article count - alternative)
Amount of internal links
Amount of external links
As well as up-to-date information on the page which shows what the average Wikipedia article is like in comparison to the article, plus additional information on the language version. (eg Average Wikipedia article size is 2078 bytes, compared to English language article size of 2315 bytes)
I realise that quantity is not always the best indicator - however I have no doubt about my own personal skills in writing over 1000 words of decent quality prose.
I don't know a great deal about programming and web pages - but I am assuming that the actual software that is required for this sort of activity can be embedded into the actual webpage itself. This means that when the person hits "go", all the processing power to work out the information is done by his own PC rather than the Wiki CPUs.
This sort of thing would really help me to create nice big articles. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is excellent in quantity but is growing in quality. This sort of thing should help us all make better articles. What do you think?
You say you're not a programmer, so this might not help you too much, but are you aware that the entire Wikipedia database can be downloaded and that individual pages can be exported? anthony(see warning) 13:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
However, Special:Export returns raw Wiki code, which must be parsed somehow. Downloading every image to determine their sizes is awkward, and downloading the entire database is either impractical or infeasible. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 14:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Caw! I beat you to it, mate. Better luck at two million (at this rate, that'll be around Saturday or so.) --Ardonik.talk()* 07:30, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Wow! Hey... if we got rid of WP:VFD, we could probably hit 3 mil by, oh, let's say 7 pm. ;-) func(talk) 15:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ERROR ON FRONT PAGE
The link to the community portal points to the edit link, not the page link.--Etaonish 02:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Note to admins: You may consider using plain HTML instead of wiki markup to fix the link temporarily, if there isn't any faster solution. Etz Haim 03:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out what exactly was wrong, but for now i replaced the link with a HTML link as you suggested. Thanks for picking that up. -- Chris 73Talk 04:35, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Red links where there should be blue ones instead; This has happened before and I've posted something on the pump too. I'm not a wiki, database, or CMS expert, but this might have to do something with not updating cached content on the server. Etz Haim 04:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
WikiProject namespace
Discussion is now live on whether or not to establish a separate WikiProject namespace! Let your opinions be known at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject! Let the Spirit of Consensus-Based Decision Making move you to form a few coherent thoughts! Doing so will make you popular, and more attractive to one or more sexes! Act now! Tuf-Kat 07:23, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
The problem is there is no single date. The first (Havell) edition was published in sets of 5 followed by a four volume complete betewwn 1826 and 1838. Hope this helps. Filiocht 14:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For those who care, ShawnMikula has posted babelfished stubs to non-english wikipedias (de, es, fr, it).
Added a note on de:. andy 16:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Article Titles
There's obviously a great deal of emphasis placed on ensuring similar articles follow a template; wickifying. However, what about article titles? This seems to be a problem widespread across Wikipedia, usually on lists of... articles, for example, the following all exist for the National Park articles:
List of National Parks in country
List of National Parks of country
National Parks of country
Country's National Parks
The same is true for football teams, rivers, and many more. This means for that many people assume a page doesnt exist because nothing appears when they type in the title that is used on other similar articles.
At the very least we should be activly encouraging users to insert redirects, but should be looking to wickify article titles.
Sorry to go on! rant over :P Grunners 14:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've hacked up a script to select random articles with probability proportional to their popularity, measured by raw hit counts. The difference in quality between a 100 articles selected using the "Random Page" link, and 100 articles selected using the script is striking — and, I guess, obvious. In particular, I would emphasise caution with "Random Page" surveys — they don't accurately represent the Wikipedia that our readers are encountering. — Matt 15:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Excellent work! That is striking, indeed. Fredrik | talk 15:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I often use random page and I frequently notice that when I do some minor edit on a long unedited page, it frequently gets several additional edits or expansions after it appears on recent changes. So I am not sure that ranking random choices by popularity is necessarily a good choice. Rmhermen 18:20, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
The weighting was done based on number of hits, not number of edits. Remember that only a very, very small fraction of all Wikipedia readers are Wikipedians and engage in editing. And out of those, only a fraction have made a habit of checking recent changes. I think that the exposure created by RC virtually disappears in the noise of regular Wikipedia readers' activities. — David Remahl 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed exactly the same thing. But that's really a separate issue - if anyone wants to work on some random pages, looking for things to improve, but also wants to have a reasonable chance that their improvements will end up being seen by a reasonable number of viewers, Matt's script is an excellent starting point. —Stormie 06:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
CD-ROM version of Wikipedia
I will not donate money to the Wikipedia project because I am waiting for the CD-ROM version of the database. I will almost certainly buy it. Stop begging for money. Wikipedia has a great product (database) that many people will gladly buy. Failure to pounce on this opportunity is one of the shortfalls of Wikipedia and open source projects in general: a horde of talented people will sooner spend hours arguying about some minutae on some dusty old article before doing something practical that will ensure a long-term source of funding for Wikipedia. Get to it. EDGE 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Actually plans are afoot to produce a cd rom. There are also discussions about a printed version. The foundation can't stop begging for money. It needs it! You don't have to donate any money if you don't want to though, although many people do. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. You say we have a great product, and you then order us to abandon the very principles that have produced it.
The GFDL greatly limits our ability to make a lot of money out of the CD-ROM, as you seem to suppose we could. I hope you do buy a copy, I hope many will. But we will buy it partly as a donation, that is to say, we'll buy it from the Wikimedia Foundation rather than a third party (who is equally entitled to produce one under the GFDL) because we want to support Wikipedia and copyleft.
That raises a good point. I think we are both assuming here that there will be a first-world edition of the CD-ROM. I don't know whether that has even been discussed (Wikipedia is a big place). I think that there should be, but my suggestion is that the only difference should be the price, and that if first-world users decide to buy a third-world edition, there's no point in trying to stop them. Buying the first-world edition would be a moral decision, or if you like a thinly disguised donation.
I encourage you to remain radical. Lateral thinking is precious, and I think you are good at it. But I recommend you also respect those of us who are a little more conservative. We have a valid filtering role. We should challenge and inspire each other. Somewhere in between is a direction that is both idealistic and workable, which I will call good.
One of Wikipedia's principles has been to encourage Wikilove. Some of our regular contributors have yet to get the idea, and that's fine, respect for another person is a decision, not a contract. I encourage you to turn your idealism and lateral thinking to this sometime. What characterises good discussion? Some stress is good. Is some conflict good? Andrewa 18:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The idea of a CD-ROM version, with the attendant problem of what to include in such a static "snapshot" of the Wikipedia content, is discussed at User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. JamesMLane 12:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Image upload problem
I'm have a spot of bother uploading a revised version of a Jpeg image. I'm trying to upload it onto the same name as the original file. I get the file overwrite warning, but when I proceed anyway with the 'Save File' button, I get the error message
The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo in the file name. Please check whether you really want to upload this file.
Is there a problem today, or am I doing something wrong? -- Solipsist 16:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Must be a problem of some sort. I now see that if I force a refresh, the file has actually changed to the new image, despite the error message. However the 'File History' section remains unchanged. -- Solipsist 16:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Systemic bias in Wikipedia
Wikipedia's own page on Wikipedia states that "Wikipedia is committed to making its articles as unbiased as possible." However, there is still no mechanism for removing the systemic bias present in Wikipedia. I'm talking about the bias caused mainly by Wikipedia's demographic make-up (mainly North American computer literate types). Pages such as Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week, Wikipedia:Requested articles etc don't specifically attack the problem, and often serve to perpetuate it. An example of this problem is that even after 1 million articles have been written, the article on the Congo Civil War, possibly the largest war since World War 2 (and which resulted in over 3 million deaths), have much less information than articles such as Babylon 5, Languages_of_Middle-earth, Slackware etc which appear to fit into the Wikipedia demographic. I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this issue.--Xed 18:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's a very easy fix for this: Get more people involved who aren't North Americans. I hereby assign you to the job. - DavidWBrooks 18:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The above response sadly demonstrates the self-satisfied attitude of many Wikipedians to this problem--Xed 18:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is your "someone else should fix it" attitude an improvement? Regardless, an imbalance in article quantity is not a "bias". --P3d0 03:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I guess the only way to stop this is expanding the Wikipedia user base with more people from different backgrounds. If it bothers you, I'd suggest you specialize in promoting wikipedia to as much people as you can to solve the problem. MGM 19:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not Superman. I can only do so much. With 1 million articles, this problem needs to be addressed in a more organized way.--Xed 19:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As I said I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
When the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the World Book, were written, what order did they go in? Did they start with World War II, or did they start alphabetically, perhaps with aardvark? Did they start with countries, or with people? The fact is, Wikipedia is, and will always be, a work in progress. If you want more coverage of the Congo Civil War, by all means, add it, and try to get others to help you. But the fact there is more information on Babylon 5 than the Congo Civil War does not mean there's a bias. If a writer of Britannica got writer's block while drafting the World War II article, should they not let others proceed with articles on other, less important subjects? It may just mean we haven't gotten around to it.
Furthermore, if there IS such a bias (and I will agree with you, en: is mostly computer literate English-speaking North Americans and Britons), ... there's really not much we can do about that, is there. You say, "do something." I say, "like what?" --Golbez 19:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
As I said I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What can we do? All I can think of is (1) Spread knowledge of Wikipedia as far as we can, in the hope of attracting as diverse an editor pool as we can; (2) make some effort at identifying areas of poor coverage, to guide editors who might be looking for something to research. —Morven 19:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
So quit bitching and do something about it already. Make the list of articles that you think would help counteract the systemic bias; start it at User:Xed/Anti-Systemic-bias list and see if you can get consensus for including it on the community portal. Then go work on the articles yourself. —No-OneJones(m) 19:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Smugness about this problem, and its size, seems to be common among some people. If there's over 1 million articles I can hardly do it all myself. Furthermore, it's not up to me to make this list. Which is why I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 20:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You may not be able to do it all yourself but you can at least make a start. If you aren't willing to put forth even that minimal effort then I suggest you quit your whinging. —No-OneJones(m) 20:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are starting to sound like a troll, Xed. If you want to help, it is up to you to create this list. If you only want to interfere with what other people are working on, go somewhere else. Awolf002 20:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A troll is someone who wants to improve Wikipedia?--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"You are starting to sound like a troll, Xed" - BWAHAHAHA! RickK 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Morven's idea is interesting - has there been any serious attempt to map the areas that have the least coverage? Mark Richards 20:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Xed, the part of Wikipedia you wan't to be more important, is growing. But it won't outgrow the Slackware+Babylon 5 part for some time, I guess. But IMHO, there is no conflict between these parts. Anyway, you can't transform a good contributor on Slackware into a good contributor on Congo Civil War, most of the time. But the growth of Wikipedia will give more public visibility, which will result in new contributors. Think of the North American computer literate types as the first wave of contributors with more waves rolling in.
Perhaps the most important point in making this concept work, is to ensure that Wikipedia is a friendly environment for new contributors.
Pjacobi 20:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The response here isn't too friendly. See No-one's comment above.--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The response would be a lot friendlier if you'd quit whinging, quit trying to pick fights, and get to work on the problem. Obviously. —No-OneJones(m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The bias discussed here is present in the range of existing articles, not in the text of any one article. An important distinction, imho. In the latter case, an active effort would be required to remove the bias from the text. As it is, we can just wait for WP to outgrow the bias. And if there is a decent article on the war in the Congo, it is not degraded by any number of geeky articles that may exist beside it. Yes, we are a long way from WP 1.0. But as long as nobody claims that WP is a valid replacement for the Britannica yet, this is a non-issue. dab 20:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The 'geeky articles' will continue to grow, so I don't see how 'serious' articles have a chance to catch up without any organized effort--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it would help to add a new template stating something in this direction: "This article needs attention, for a encyclopedia of Wikipedia's size and stature it is highly undeveloped, considering the relative importance of the subject". This allows easy categorization, and allows people interested in filling the gaps in Wikipedia knowledge, that are caused by WP demographics to be, to find these articles easily. -- Solitude 20:59, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
That is a possibility.--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, while en: is the largest wikipedia, it is not the only one. IIRC, it makes up only 1/3 of the articles on Wikipedia. es:, de: and jp: are all much more likely to have articles on Spanish/Latin American, German and Japanese interests, just as en: is more likely to have articles on Anglo-Australian interests. These will outgrow with time, but we only have a million articles. ;) --Golbez 21:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
For a few articles which you most care about expanding, why not nominate them for Collaboration of the Week, at WP:COTW?-gadfium 22:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you can find, say, half a dozen others who want to work with you on this, you could start a project group. They don't all have to be on subject matter areas. Xed, there isn't a someone else who needs to start this, you have to decide what is important and start building, or find a group of people who want to work with you on it. It's unlikely that you will get consensus to go straight to the Community Portal without demonstrating some smaller-scale success first, and it may turn out that Community Portal is irrelevant (but do start making nominations for Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week: in my experience, a cluster of related articles tend to get written. -- Jmabel 23:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I cannot help but feel that the premise of Xed's argument is a little shaky. A pejoritive accusation of systematic bias is at best a value judgement. What underpins it? Why is a war in the Congo worth more wiki-inches than Babylon 5? Who decides these things, and who is able to make apple versus orang-utan comparisons? Whereas I tend to share what I assume is Xed's opinion, that it would be more worthy to read about or even write about the Congolese civil war than Bablylon 5, I note that we already have a number of Wikipedia:Requested articles pages which go some way to address/answer Xed's call for action; and also have Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics. In what way do these differ from Xed's section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal suggestion? Beyond that, his/her argument seems to be a good example of the best driving out the good. --Tagishsimon
'Why is a war in the Congo worth more wiki-inches than Babylon 5?' - because the Congo Civil War resulted in 3 million deaths and is possibly the largest war since WW2. Surely it can't be difficult to see why it needs more coverage. Look how much coverage 9/11 has on Wikipedia, and that was only 3 thousand deaths. The Wikipedia:Requested articles page does not deal specifically with the issue of systemic bias.--Xed 00:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You should also complain to EB then. Their article on it is even shorter than ours. -- Wapcaplet 02:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If it is "not difficult to see", then why are you unable to explain why it is more important? If you are unable to explain why, then perhaps it is just a value judgement on your part. Waving the magnitude of the death toll does not amount to an argument. --Tagishsimon
I have explained. Your arguments would only make sense coming from a robot or a lawyer--Xed 00:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There I must beg to differ: you have not explained. You have articulated a value judgement with no explanation whatsoever, and you do not eecognise your judgement for what it is. Your premise is indeed flawed, and I submit that any resolution based on a flawed premise will itself be flawed. Neither have you explained by what mechanism will be determined the actions that must be taken to correct the supposed systematic bias. All in all, much heat but not very much light. --Tagishsimon
It should be exceedingly obvious that a war affecting the lives of millions of real people and having a profound impact on the politics of several nations is far more important than a television program which cannot reasonably be said to have significantly affected the lives of anyone. See abstraction, problem of universals, phenomenology, abstract structure, and reification. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 01:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Doubtless it should be but it isn't. It depends upon your frame of reference, and of necessity is a value judgement. That is the way of these things; all else is little more than hysteria. But you made a slightly better stab at it than did Xed. --Tagishsimon
01010110100100110111010100011 beep beep. Would you regard the Holocaust article more or less important than Babylon 5? Or would that be a value judgement?--Xed 01:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that you consider the comparitive quality of, say, Holocaust and Babylon 5 to be an issue. I think this is the sticking point in this disagreement.
In other words, you say "It's a disgrace that we have an excellent article on X but a bad one on Y." But why does the quality of article X matter? It's like you feel it's an insult to "worthy topics" to have so many good articles on "trivial topics". —Morven 01:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
The quality of X certainly doesn't matter. Your straw man is getting taller and taller--Xed 01:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I'm an editor who knows more about Babylon 5 than the Holocaust, should I be encouraged to contribute to the article that I know, or the one that is deemed more important? (To forestall any baseless accusations right away, I am not trying to diminish the significance of the Holocaust. But this question is important to me, and I'd like to read your answer.) --Ardonik.talk()* 01:40, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about what you know, or indeed edit. Edit what you want. I'm talking about the character of Wikipedia, and how people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias can be given more oppurtunities to do so - hence a list on the Community Portal page.--Xed 01:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should be noted that most of the above discussion only strengthens Xed's position. From the crude sample here, it would appear that most Wikipedians hold a blind faith in the infallibility of community editing, minds closed to any suggestion otherwise. The community does have a systemic bias, supported by sheeplikeherd behavior when anything appears that threatens the status quo. Musk oxen may be more apt: Wikipedian protectionism is generally predictably odious, mindlessly guarding of its central beliefs, and too stubborn and dense to usefully argue with. At least sheep are polite. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Community editing isn't infallible, but it is all we have. You'll note that some people are A) acknowledging that the problem exists and B) making suggestions on how to fix it. You could too, instead of flinging insults. —No-OneJones(m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's not blind faith, for most of us. Community editing has its problems, but it also has its strengths. Most of us consider the latter to very much outweigh the former. Suggestions of how to mitigate the weaknesses are always appreciated, at least by me. —Morven 00:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Note: User 'Neutrality' vandalised this page, before it was fixed by User Eequor.--Xed 00:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Check the history. [52]--Xed 00:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Xed, I don't think that's vandalism. I think you're trolling, too. --Ardonik.talk()* 01:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Xed, there are two possible routes to choose when you notice something wrong with Wikipedia. They are:
Say "Wikipedia's broken. You guys should fix it."
Say "Wikipedia's broken. Here's my proposal for fixing it. Anyone want to help?"
Oddly enough, option 2 is appreciated much more than option 1. If a problem is not important enough for you to wish to be part of the solution to it, of course everyone will conclude you're whining -- or just intent on arguing. —Morven 01:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
That's why I chose option 2, suggesting a section on the Community Portal page, which of course I would be willing to help with.--Xed 01:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why not knock together a page inside the Wikipedia namespace, as a few people have suggested, and let people see what they think of the idea, then? —Morven 01:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Right, hang on, let me summarise this discussion so far:
Xed "There is systemic bias in Wikipedia (and nobody appears to mind)"
Everyone else (with varying amounts of civility): "What is your proposed remedy / action?"
Xed "We could have a list of articles that need creating or expanding for this reason"
(Nearly) everyone else: "Can we have a demonstration?"
Repeat
More like:
Xed "There is systemic bias in Wikipedia, here is my suggestion - put a section on the Community portal page"
Others - we agree.
Wikiclique - do it yourself and stop being lazy.
User:Neutrality - 3 million dead is funny, I will vandalise the page
Xed, grow the hell up and stop calling us names like "wikiclique." I don't think you even want to be taken seriously. --Ardonik.talk()* 02:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Stop lying. I never "vandalized this page," nor did I say 3 million dead is funny. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
So, instead of trading insults, let's look at the deatils and feasibility of this suggestion:
relatedly, how can we ensure that each of these pages retains its usefulness as others spring up with overlapping roles; or have we got too many and need to rethink how we organise them?
do existing pages address the issue of systemic bias simply through "the community process"?
if not, why not, and is there a way we can change this? (e.g. some kind of rules for Requested articles that tend towards correcting rather than increasing the "lean"?)
Discuss. - IMSoP 01:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) [Typed simultaneous to Morven's comment above; perhaps these questions could form the basis of such a page.]
There's an option 2a, and that is "Wikipedia could be improved, and there are several ways of doing it. Here's the one I'll work on".
I can't see any prospect of eliminating systemic bias from Wikipedia, but I can see several ways of trying to reduce it.
Sticking to these policies will reduce systemic bias by broadening our contributor base. Or, to put it another way, every time we condone violations we are increasing the bias, because the presence of rudeness, aggro and even rhetoric in our discussion pages is a far greater obstacle to the participation of minority-view editors than to others. Andrewa 01:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is the one long-term solution to the problem that will work. Committing a group of interested people to go and help is laudable, but in the long term, expanding the contributor base will have a far more powerful effect. Tempshill 17:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Surely the Congo War is an extreme case. By the argument of deaths alone, articles on Starvation, Old age, Heart Disease should be far far longer and more detailed than everything else. Surely importance is something decided by the reader - in the end, wikipedia has a target audience, and the expansion of articles is almost directly based on the level of interest this audience has for the various subjects. If no one searches wikipedia for the Congo War (possibly because despite the death toll, the war has very little global impact, unlike 9/11, and because little information is available for it from base sources), then harsh as it may be, it is not important to the average reader. So, your ire is misdirected. I wouldn't call it bias. Rather, its reflecting western culture.
On the contrary, the Congo War has had massive global impact – nine different countries ahve been involved. Just because they don't happen to be in your part of the globe shows your own bias. Secondly, I didn't make the argument by deaths alone. Thirdly, a subjet shouldn't be avoided simply because it is a difficult one to comprehend or far away--Xed 02:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So basically, what you are really proposing is to deploy WP as a tool to change the minds of the populace, to open their eyes. To become much less an encyclopedia, but more a source of investigative journalism. The argument then is whether wikipedia can, and should fulfill that aim.
Again, someone is putting words into my mouth. I'm talking about the character of Wikipedia, and how people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So do something already. Every second you spend picking fights here is one second less for counteracting the systemic bias of Wikipedia—and yet you continue trolling rather than making a single constructive edit. —No-OneJones(m) 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is disappointing. Did you even read the comments by IMSoP and Andrewa? No biting. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]]
(I hence wouldn't term it 'removing systematic bias', since bias is pretty vague and subjective. Its more coverage of events outside the public awareness. If this is to work at all, we need to construct a highly visible way of showcasing such content.)--Fangz 02:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments like Xed's come along from time to time, but the underlying message I always get is "you should stop working on you want to work on, and work on what I want you to work on instead, because I think it's more important". Browbeating people with charges of "systemic bias" or whatever is just a technique to try to make us feel guilty, but you know what? This is a hobby, not a job, and no one is going to push me into doing anything that I don't want to do. Stan 02:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good for you. No one is pushing you to do anything. You have misread what I have said. Again and again I have said - edit what you want. DON'T STOP WORKING ON WHAT YOU WANT TO. I'm talking about people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias and how they can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Raul's law of Wikipedia #3 - "You cannot motivate people on a large scale to write about something they don't want to write about". →Raul654 02:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well Xed, there's already nothing to stop random people from working energetically to "counter-act the systemic bias" that they perceive. Ergo, I conclude that you're wanting people to do something different than what they're doing now. If you don't want anybody to do anything different, then what's the point of telling us that we're not working on the right subjects? It doesn't make any sense. Stan 04:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community_Portal is not locked. Xed can go there and start eliminating bias, as he has suggested here seven times without bothering to do so. Does he expect ... what? acclaim for his suggestion? Actions speak louder, you know, than those other things. Ortolan88 02:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to bed.
If anyone is willing to help me produce a beta version of section I sketched out above, please sign your name below. For Popperian reasons, I would prefer to have people critical of the idea as well as supporters.--Xed 03:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Xed is referring to "systemic bias" and a lot of you are responding as if he had referred to "systematic bias". The latter basically just means thoroughgoing bias. That's not what he is saying. Although he's not being terribly articulate about the matter, and I think he is being unnecessarily abrasive, "systemic bias" means that there are structural issues in Wikipedia that tend strongly towards certain topics getting much better coverage than others. I think that is clearly true. I also think there is a lot of reason for us, if we are trying to produce a quality work, to consider seriously what biases are built into the system and which of these can be addressed. I'm not sure if Xed's approach here is constructive, but I am sure he is describing a real problem.
Examples of systemic bias:
Because so many Wikipedians do their research on line, topics not already well covered on the Internet tend to be under-covered in Wikipedia.
Because so many English-language Wikipedians live in a very small number of countries, topics pertaining strongly to those countries are disproportionately covered.
Because so many Wikipedians are interested in technology, technological topics are disproportionately well covered. Ditto science fiction. Ditto libertarianism. Conversely, and presumably for parallel reasons, there is very little on (as Xed points out) contemporary events in Africa or (as I'd point out) even on African-American history or Native American history: most of our articles on Native Americans are written from an anthropoligist's point of view, whereas our articles on (for example) punk rock or grunge rock or the science fiction fandom are consistently written with insider's knowledge.
This list is, at best, illustrative. I do think we would do well to look at the systematic biases in the Wikipedia. I think some of them can be covered by adding to the efforts at translation from other languages. Others really would require recruitment to correct, and that recruitment may depend in part on a positive community decision that the recruitment is importans, accompanied by a long, hard look at what aspects of our internal culture are not seen as welcoming by certain groups. Wikipedia is disproportionately white and male, and I don't think that is good. There are probably other similar issues that don't leap out at me as readily.
Systemic biases are not easily addressed. One of the biggest factors here is a (generally commendable) tendency to write about what one already knows about. Frankly, it's a lot easier for me to write a decent encyclopedia article on a subject where, in examining sources (or looking at other people's edits), I can look at some of them and just go "this person doesn't know his/her stuff, useless." For example, I simply don't have the knowledge to know whom to believe when two well-read Slavs are arguing over the history of Carpathian Ruthenia, but I have plenty of ability to judge whether someone is talking sense about Jorge Luis Borges. Therefore, I am a lot more likely to focus on writing about the latter. And would you really want me writing extensively about the former? In other words, some of this can only be adddressed either by recruitment and/or a serious self-educational undertaking by some of our participants.
So, Xed, sign me on to participate somewhat in your project, probably more in terms of helping strategize this than in further stretching myself as to which topics I write about.
Any other takers? Because I, for one, won't do this with less than five people involved. -- Jmabel 05:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
It's something that I personally recognise as a problem and something that I'd be willing, within my personal limitations, to work on and help with.
Note that, in my opinion, every time you go to an off-line source for Wikipedia articles you are helping with Wikipedia's systemic bias -- at least, the bias to write about only the stuff the Web already has information on. Every time you refer to a book, magazine, journal, or whatever, you are adding a dash of another viewpoint to the online store of knowledge. I think we should all try a little to stretch ourselves beyond our comfort zones of what we already know; and that doesn't mean one can't have fun. Find some topic you wish you knew about, go to the library or somewhere and research it, and write what you learned. Even if it's not perfect, it's better than we had. —Morven 05:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I think some of the things Jmabel talking about are already happening - for instance, as WP gets more complete in certain areas, there is simply no online source to raid for additional material. Most of my content additions these days are from books, and I see a bunch of other people doing the same. (A visit to a university library really makes clear just how much is not on the net anywhere.) Likewise, we see that now that every imaginable Tolkien-related topic has an article :-), interest drops off and the action moves elsewhere. I think the most important thing to do is recruitment - everybody should try their hand at WPing, but only a subset will enjoy it enough to keep at it. Stan 06:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm in. The more I think about it, the more enthousiastic I become about it. One is easily tempted to write only about topics that you're already familiar with, as long as your contributing, thats marvelous. But I think a section for discussion and categorising articles that really need work for Wikipedia to be taken seriously would motivate people to expand their horizon and learn about those topics, I think it could work, but giving it a proper place with current categories like cleanup, attention, expand, collaboration article, etc. could be a challenge. -- Solitude 07:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Me too. How it would differ from existing pages like cleanup, attention, expand, collaboration article, etc. is that those pages exemplify the bias to some degree or another. As I read it, this proposal entails looking at all the things an encyclopaedia needs that nothing here is addressing. @Thinking outside the Wikibox', so to speak. Filiocht 09:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have to say I'm not particularly enthused about writing stuff which is likely to engender responses along the lines of "what do you know about XYZ, you don't even live there" which I have seen elsewhere in Wikipedia. I tend to dabble in areas where I do have knowledge, and ask impertinent questions where I don't (in the hope of obtaining a pertinent answer, obviously :-) --Phil | Talk 11:01, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Count me in. I have just had this discussion brought to my attention, read through it all, and was a little taken aback by the way Xed, who I genuinely believe to have good intentions for Wikipedia, was immediately denounced as a troll. The fact is that Wikipedia is massively biased towards certain countries and certain subcultures, and while some of us are able to see that and realise that we are a part of it (I know far more about what goes on in Birmingham than what goes on in Kinshasa), there seem to be a worrying number of people who are blind to Wikipedia's bias and are unwilling to do anything about it. I agree though with much of what's been said here, specifically that in the long term only recruitment will solve our problems. Personally I don't mind that we have lengthy articles on obscure Tolkein and Star Trek characters, but I do mind that we have next to nothing on the Congo Civil War. We can only cure Wikipedia of its systemic bias if people appreciate the problem. Why the hell does www.wikipedia.org redirect to en.wikipedia.org as if English takes precedence over all other languages? Why the hell is the article on Georgia located at Georgia (country) so as to avoid confusion with an administrative subdivision of the USA? I could go on but I'll spare you the moralising. I hope we can all see that Wikipedia is undoubtedly biased — embarrassingly so — and we should be doing our best to make it as international and as neutral as possible. Please don't be complacent about this wonderful thing we are creating for the world. It is currently full of flaws. — Trilobite(Talk) 12:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you care to take a look at Georgia there are at least 10 articles which a user might expect to find under that name: it therefore makes sense for the disambiguation page to live there and the different pages to be distinguished with suffices of appropriate type. I would be a lot more impressed with the arguments being presented if one single complainer said anything like "hey, I know an awful lot about the Congo Civil War, I'll write it up", rather than expecting everybody else to go away and find out about it. If one is so damn interested in a subject, one is behoven to write an article on it oneself. --Phil | Talk 14:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
(note: reinserted comment in order to reply to it--Xed 14:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))(1. Georgia is not an administrative subdivision of the U.S. 2. When multiple articles with significant numbers of hits (i.e., 75%/25%) have the same name, it makes sense to have a dab page, though it would also make sense to put the country at "Georgia" and have a link to the state at the top. 3. But there's no compelling reason to change the status quo. Wikipedia articles aren't an honor, they're a means of disseminating information. 4. The horse is dead. Please stop beating it.) --dreish 13:35, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
Jiang's comments on Talk:Georgia are hilarious. What strange company you keep.--Xed 14:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is the perfect illustraton, Xed, of why people are having a problem with you. If you disagree with what someone said, respond to their argument. Instead, you have a tendency to ridicule or otherwise not address the issue. Here, you're casting aspersions on Driesh's arguments based not on their own merit, but rather on who else agrees with them. Yes, Jiang said some pretty outlandish things on that page (though I suspect they were not said with a straight face), but that fact doesn't alter the truth/falsehood of the argument, does it? —Morven 15:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure there was an argument to respond to, which is probably Dreish originally deleted his post. Hope to see you on CROSSBOW. Love, Xed 16:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also wanted to congratulate Xed on making a stand. One area where systemic bias is particularly worrying are borderline inclusion debates. Borderline techie/geeky topics are routinely kept as there is sufficient critical mass saying keep, whereas borderline articles in other areas get deleted. This systematic problem is not easy to resolve by just saying "so fix it then". It would require forcing people to think more deeply before editing vfd - a near impossible task. Pcb21|Pete 12:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we can see a new law emerge here: 'The quantity of systemic bias in a system is directly proportional to the amount of bile raised in denying its existence.' Filiocht 13:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually eliminating systemic bias in Wikipedia is impossible. There will always be considerable systemic bias in any compendium.
Attempting to alleviate such bias is a meritorious task.
Broadening the demographic involved in editing Wikipedia is an ideal approach.
Actually achieving such a broadening is extremely difficult; it requires some sort of affirmative action program -- perhaps ambassadors to online or off-line systems with different demographics might be helpful.
Determing which articles (or which absent articles) reflect a system bias in itself carries a systemic bias.
Words are critical. As mentioned above, at least some of the argumentation in this discussion stems from the confusion between "systemic" and "systematic"; the latter implies deliberate or negligent action or inaction, while the former is a general statement of the shortcomings of the system per se. This reminds me of heated discussions in another venue (The Well, where I was a conference host for many years) where a fellow with a particular hobby horse would every couple of years come out with a strong declaration of opposition to "bastardy", one meaning of which -- the meaning intended by the author -- is "begetting of illegitimate children"; but most readers reacted strongly to his proposals, conflating "bastardy" with "bastardry", "being an illegitimate child". One little letter. Now, the author knew full well such a confusion would ensue, and he was a bit of a troll at heart (as well as being CEO of Network Solutions), so presented the argument with language that he knew would cause excessive annoyance. I don't think Xed was deliberately trying to agitate with his choice of words, but it worked. I guess the message is "pay careful attention to the words being used" for the reader, and "pay attention to how people might incorrectly perceive your words" for the writer.
Some people are just too good at annoying other people. I'm reminded of the old Fidonet rule: "Don't be excessively annoying. Don't be too easily annoyed."
A few thoughts from a very new visitor to wikipedia.
I agree that there will always be some bias in this or any other encyclopedia.
This is a self-organising system: as it grows it will become more and more difficult to shift it in any particular direction. It'll go where it goes.
Having said that, as a frequent visitor to Africa I think there's a lot to be said for taking steps to increase coverage from that continent - and from developing/emerging nations in general.
I like the idea of on-line and off-line ambassadors - is there anything like this now?
I suggest approaching people like librarians at the major universities in each 'under represented' country and that they be asked to recruit undegrads (or anyone else who can find the time) to help augment the coverage for their country.
other government organisations - like tourism authorities - could also be approached but may be more biased.
I'm happy to try to get the ball running in Tanzania - a country I visit from time to time.
I'd also be happy to attempt to write an outline, and informal job description for the 'ambassador' role - generally speaking their job would be to raise the profile of Wiki in their country and to encourage people to contribute. (I'd add that I'm from the UK, am not a 'techie' and have only just heard about the wikipedia - likewise most of the colleagues, relatives and friends I've just told about it!)
Britannica exists to support a particular canon, that being, the British and now American concept of "what history is." It is, for instance, light on the History of India, China, Africa, Latin America and figures of those cultures - one way Wikipedia can differentiate itself is to say that it is less Anglo-centric than Britannica. Build up an audience in developing nations who can really benefit from having a neutral encyclopedia — like in China where Wikipedia.org is banned, but they won't be able to keep all the CD-ROMs out. It may thus make sense to *focus on Chinese figures and history* deliberately. How can they keep out the only encyclopedia that does their history justice?
I think it's around here somewhere but I can't find it.. is there a guide to usage of &ndash and &mdash entities? When should each of these be used as opposed to a hyphen? Double-hyphen? Thanks. Rhobite 19:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Quick reference, in addition to the link above: endash between dates for date ranges (unspaced; i.e. no space between the dates and the dash), emdash for open ranges (i.e. "2002—). I never use dashes in the text of an article, so that's as far as I can help. :) --Golbez 19:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC) (and yes, i use two hyphens for my signature. :P)
I thought we were supposed to refrain from using &ndash and &mdash in articles as they made articles harder to edit? I got yelled at a while back from using them and was told to stick to using the ugly double dashes. The yeller said there is some s/w feature that will convert all --'s to — someday. I haven't seen this feature yet, but I've been using double dashes since to avoid getting yelled at again. :-S —
I'll yell at you if you use hyphens as dashes. Some people get too caught up in the wiki thing, forgetting it is purely a means to an end. Chameleon 20:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That might have been me. :/ I used to swear by the --, but then I learned that – looks better. And if and when this vaporware ever appears, we can then change all the endashes back to regular dashes. But til then, endashes are prettier. :) --Golbez 20:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I am having a frustrating time explaining why commercial rights are important for material used in Wikipedia and licensed under the GFDL. Two weeks ago I started a discussion with a user who was copying copyrighted text into Wikipedia relying on a non-commercial-use-only license. After a discussion we agreed that the text would have to be rewritten. But last week the user was again copying non-commercial-use-only material (images this time) into Wikipedia. I brought up the issue again but the user still does not see why the non-commercial use license is a problem (the user blanked the original discussion [53] on the talk page). Any thoughts or good explanations on the subject would be appreciated either here or in the discussion. Al guy 20:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Because it's illegal" wasn't a good enough explanation, eh? — Gwalla | Talk 21:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The response in both discussions I had with this user is that since this user is not doing anything commercial and Wikipedia is non-profit, the non-commercial license is sufficient. The added complication is that this user is a sysop. Al guy 22:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo is keen for wikipedia to reach the third world. He hopes that publishers will eventually produce book versions of the wikimedia projects. Now since Wikipedia is free, they will not have exclusive rights. So competition between rivals should bring the cost down to barely above the actual cost of printing. This is good becasue many people are very poor and do not have the access to knowledge that we all take for granted. Non commercial licences are not free. Therefore they are damaging to the long term goals of wikimedia. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 22:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention that all text in the Wikipedia is and must be GFDL, and the submitter did not have the right to relicense the material he had a license to use non-commercialy, under GFDL. — David Remahl 22:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk page with no history except nonsense
Talk:Wombat contains nonsense as its only contribution. With nothing to revert to, what is the best action? dramatic 20:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Either of these will work, of course, although blanking it can be done by anyone, does not need an extra step, and does not make that high pitched screeaaching noise that those whose ears are atuned to the spirtual way of the wiki hate to hear ;) Mark Richards 20:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What the hell is going on on the VfD page? Without discussion, SOMEBODY has changed the page to change the way it's to be edited, and now I can't add new entries. Is this a not-so-subtle way of sabotaging VfD? RickK 22:13, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
While I certainly don't think it's sabotage, if you make a major change to how an important project page works, you should (a) tell people and (b) document it. —Morven 22:44, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Evidently someone's removing the "add to this discussion" links? I can't tell who it is from the history, but whoever you are, it's disrupting things, so a revert of your VfD mods would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance is a better proposal for managing the size of VfD. --Ardonik.talk()* 22:49, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand the system (basically, the "add to this discussion" links are being replaced with section edit links), but I don't see what makes it better than the old way of doing things. The same number of templates are still being expanded, and the change isn't going to reduce the size of the VfD page down noticeably. I guess I'm not opposed to it, but I don't understand what benefits we're supposed to reap by following it. --Ardonik.talk()* 22:55, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Well, from my understanding, the new procedure places a link to the article on the subpage automatically, so that's one benefit. - RedWordSmith 23:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Section edit links now work on sections in transcluded pages ({{these things}}). This allows us to just use the regular section editing feature (the [edit] links attached to each section header) in order to edit the individual VfD subsections -- the [edit] link automatically "knows" that it has to load the content from the transcluded page.
This has various benefits:
the VfD page no longer has to use a nonstandard format to achieve the desired effect
adding pages is easier - no need to create the "Add to this discussion" link on your own
the [edit] link goes directly to the edit view for the desired subpage
the actual VfD wikisource gets a lot cleaner and easier to refactor
you can enable right-click editing in your preference (then you just have to right-click a section title to edit that section)
you get auto-summaries (which is useful here, because the auto-summary will include a link to the page that is supposed to be deleted, so that you can directly jump to it from RecentChanges)
you can edit individual subsections.
Not all the old-style entries have been switched to the new format yet, so please help in doing that.--Eloquence*
I should add:
no more need for the "you are about to edit the main VfD page" comment.
Lol, Rick made almost exactly the same {comment,paranoid rant about sabotage} the last time VfD structure was improved. Pcb21|Pete 08:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with being paranoid. Are you accusing me of being paranoid?! Curse you and the rest of your co-conspirators!
Seriously, RickK is just making sure that VfD is, in fact, being improved rather than vandalized. He's looking out to make sure the whole thing runs as smoothly as possible, so please avoid calling anyone's concerns a "paranoid rant". I'm sure you meant no offense, but remember WikiLove, and all that. :-) • Benc • 21:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since the change, my browser (Safari) loads the last-viewed cached page of VFD, rather than the current one. Is anyone else experiencing this? Joyous 23:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've experienced it using MSIE and Firefox, both before and after the change. It's a caching issue... see Wikipedia:Clear your cache. • Benc • 00:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Licensing
Is there a way to find out which licenses an image on the internet has been released under? I would also like to know if using an image that has been licensed to me by permission inhibits the rights of others to use the article it is linked to as a free document? Thanks. Justin Foote 23:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Though question. About licensed to you: This depends on the exact type of license. Often this is licensed only for a certain use, i.e. only your personal website. Ask the original owner again. About pictures on the internet: This is usually tough to find out. Most pages have a copyright notice somewhere. However, an absence does not mean no copyright. You basically have to search the page for a statement. If there is none, then assume it is copyrighted. Government sites often say Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated , is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as is permitted by the law. or similar in their disclaimer/privacy statement, then you can use it unless there is a special notice. Old 2D images or scans/photos thereof may have expired copyrights. See also Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial, Category:Wikipedia:Copyright -- Chris 73Talk 06:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is addictive. I should have gone to sleep 3 hours ago.
I must wake up early tomorrow morning. This is a bad omen.
Welcome to the club, son. →Raul654 05:25, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Oh my gosh , seek help before it s too late..!!
1.We admitted we were powerless over alcohol wikipedia -- that our lives had become unmanageable.
2.Came to believe that a Power greater ...... :)--Jondel 06:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, just do an all nighter, no problem. I do it all the ti.... zzzzzzzzzz -- Chris 73Talk 06:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Geee, another one who didn't read Wikipedia:Wikipediholic early enough. The next meeting of the Wikipediholic Anonymous is next Monday :-) andy 08:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
... I'm still here. No point in going to sleep now; I must wake up in 2 hours. EDGE 08:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Here in Tokyo, I'm going home. (Yes I've been drinking editing wikipedia at work.-- Help I can't stop --)I have a badminton game. I wish I could attend the Wikiholics Anonymous meeting but its a bit far and probably expensive (coming from Tokyo) . Need to read that 12 step program for wikipediolics.(finally a program for us!)--Jondel 08:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
has it occurred to anyone else that, while reading an online newspaper, when I come across a typo or a badly written bit, I instinctively want to reach for the "edit" link, before realising I can't? I spent far oo much time here, recently... dab 12:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, that happens to me too. I think sites like this one and some other forums I visit spoil me, now I am confused when I cannot change a (paper) magazine for everyone to see, or even provide feedback. I firmly believe that this is a new paradigm, for once using that word in a meaningful way. The Internet allows people to collaborate and interact in a two-way medium, instead of the traditional one-way of television and print publications. That is its greatest strength and one of its weaknesses, witness the rise of trolls, spam, and flamebait. Anyway, I am happy to be a part of the community and contribute in ways impossible even ten years ago. John Gaughan 16:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I once dreamed about editing an article. My dream was the screen. It scared the hell out of me, and I went on a brief wikivacation shortly afterwards. — Gwalla | Talk 17:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Categorization
Is there any reason against making and using a template like the one created at Template:Cat? It's convenient for me anyway, but I don't know if there will be any unforeseen problems. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:04, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
One problem (Bug 31) is that you cannot provide sorting that way. I am not sure if the other problem still exists as several template bugs were fixed last weekend - but earlier any change on the category in the template only led to update the article in the category after the article was editing again next time. If it's just to save typing egory, I don't think the obfuscation is worth the saving of 4 keyboard hits (5 letters less, but you have to type one | for the template). Yet categories are used in templates, especially the navigational ones, thus all articles having the navigational box are member of the category. andy 09:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the fast reply, won't be using it based on those reasons. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
If you are talking about the "references" section, better leave it where it is. Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources suggests that you give details about sources of information, and the references section is there for that purpose. Kosebamse 15:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Category creation
In keeping with the category creation for other notable families, I inserted "Category:The Delanos". However, I have no idea how to create the file. Could someone who knows what to do, create this. Thanks. JillandJack 17:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The category is just as much there as any other red link. It's only red because you haven't added any text to it, or included it in any other categories. --Golbez 17:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Point system idea
Seeing the number of proposals begin thrown around to combat vandalism and such, I'll just throw in something I wrote a couple of days ago concerning contributors giving ratings to other users. See User:Alerante/Point system. Discussion should go to the talk page. [ alerante | “” 18:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) ]
I know I could redirect Frequency division multiple access to FDMA, but judging by CDMA and TDMA (The other technologies in the same class as FDMA), the full title is the original name of the article, and the abberviation is a redirect; so for the sake of consistency, I believe FDMA should be moved to Frequency division multiple access, and it should redirect to it.
Can someone with the power to do so change that? Thanks! --Khalid 21:49, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Done. Mostly for the sake of consistency. zoney ♣ talk 00:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Project Gutenberg Template
Would it make sense to provide a template for Project Gutenberg books, so as to provide a common means of linking in the public domain digital literature from that source? (So as to make it easy to identify, as well as globally modify the links as needed.) Or perhaps a meta-template for digital literature sources that includes Project Gutenberg? Thanks. RJH
Do you need a template or just a special word like is done with ISBN's? Rmhermen 23:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
You want a template for making a single external link? Why? Seems a bit unnecessary, and wouldn't work very well anyway because you'd have to go to their site to figure out what to link to in the first place. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you mean something like Template:imdb name and Template:imdb title which provide a method of standardising the format of links to the IMDb. If links to PG can be formulated in a dependable way, this woud likely be a good idea. --Phil | Talk 10:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yes something like that would be good for starters. I'm not sure if you can convert the book #ID into a URL, as is used in Gutenberg. But if Gutenberg revised their URL scheme in the future, I think it would make a mass transition easier. That way we can reliably include a Gutenberg link on all pages for the appropriate books. Thanks! — RJH 19:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've just finished scanning through titles and descriptions of almost 19,000 unused images at Wikipedia, working forward from 20 July 2002 to date, and I found dozens and dozens of fine to excellent images without obvious copyright issues, which I was able to identify, with the aid of some Googling (set at "Images" sometimes), and work into entries. Other Wikipedians with other interests and expertise would find more unused images suited to other entries. But how often is this huge file refreshed? Wetman 04:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
At the last server crash the link table to images was lost, thus all images became "unused". All articles edited since then will get the images "used" again. And just last weekend a bug with images in templates was fixed, earlier images only used via a template parameter were "unused" as well. So probably a lot of those images are used somewhere already, it's only difficult to find as google seem to have left out indexing of many articles. andy 11:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm wondering how worried we have to be about server crashes wiping more than just a link table? -- Solitude 13:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't a server crash that caused all images to be unused, it was the upgrade to 1.3.
Hmm. I did notice that some images, when I went to the most obvious entry, were in fact being used, but I attributed this to the section not having been recently refreshed. Many images did prove to be unused, though. Often an image can be reused effectively in an entry that is secondary to its original purpose. See Romanticism for a nice example. Wetman 19:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also thought it was the 1.3 update, but Tim Starling corrected me last time I told it that way :-) But it's a moot point, we just need to remember that currently the Unused Image list has lots of false positives. But yes, there are probably many images not used now, maybe superceeded by a new image, maybe removed accidentally, maybe uploaded but failed to include it into an article. Or it's thumbnails not used anymore since MediaWiki can resize images by itself now. If you want to weed the list you'll have a lot of work to do - but someone must do it someday anyway. BTW: If you find good pictures which are clearly OK by copyright, but don't have any article in which they can be included, you can also upload them to Commons]. andy 08:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"It should be noted..."
Do phrases like "It should be noted that..." or "An interesting note is..." have a place in encyclopedia articles? I see them all over the place. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:41, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
This reminds me of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. If "it should be noted that...something", or "something" is an "interesting note" then that's why it's been included in an encyclopedia, and the reader doesn't need to have this fact spelled out. — Trilobite(Talk)
I kill them on sight, with the comment "POV phrase removed". -- Jmabel 17:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I try to reword these wherever I see them. The same goes for any "As you can see..." or "We now have..." -- Wapcaplet 19:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would also suggest only cautious use of the phrase "of course", and a virtual ban on the obscene adverb "obviously". — Jeff Q 04:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
When a good writer inserts "clearly," it serves as a marker to the reader, to look again at what might in fact not have been perfectly obvious at the first skim, but at second look is an utterly logical and natural consequence. Don't remove expressions simply because you don't like them. A good general rule: Avoid unnecessary interference. Wetman 06:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find that, in practice, "It should be noted, however..." is often the introduction to unsourced POV material. -- Jmabel 06:49, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
In which case, the problem is not the phrase, it's what follows. Remove POV material, but none of these phrases is POV in itself. Filiocht 07:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank goodness this is not just me! I find these phrases pretty irritating, and they rarely add informational content. "It is important to remember that.." is another pet peeve. To express this type of information, it's much better to present facts that clearly indicate the importance or interest; it's just bad form to push your own evaluation of interesting on the reader, or to tell him what he ought to think. — Matt 08:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BBC World Service: Interviewee required
BBC's Go Digital radio programme have contacted me about doing an interview for them. They would also like to speak to someone outside of Europe or the US. The interview will be focusing on the fact Wikipedia has just reached one million articles, and will have a global slant since the World Service program goes out worldwide. The interview could be by phone, or, preferably, in a studio if someone who lives near a BBC studio could be found. They are particularly looking for someone who is able to talk about the use of Wikipedia in their country, not only the editing of it.
The exact date this will happen is not known, but they are phoning me tomorrow (24 September) hoping for a contact for the other part of the report.
If anyone would be interested in being interviewed for this, please contact me as soon as possible. Thanks. Angela. 17:56, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Possible?
Is it possible to see all User talk: pages that haven't been edited for over 6 months? Specifically anon IP's? I want to do a little janitorial work there... — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 23:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you have the cur table you could use a query like SELECT cur_title FROM cur WHERE cur_namespace = 3 AND cur_timestamp < 20040323000000 . You could also add cur_title LIKE '%.%.%.%' to filter out most non-IPs. Goplat 01:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks...but I bet SQL queries are currently blocked on the live database (and I'm sure as heck not downloading 1.6 GB of sheer database power). — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 03:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Or at least, it doesn't work for me (see This page at the bottom). — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 03:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The live db is blocked to SQL analysis at present, or was the last time I looked. This actually makes trawling for vandalism quite difficult; time was when you could pick up trends of vandalism from studying the db. NOw there is no smart method rather than constant vigilance :( Sjc 04:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Download a dump and perform local SQL queries on it. It's not up-to-date, but you don't really think all vandalism from the last dump has already been erased, do you? Derrick Coetzee 06:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ahh, the things one obsesses himself with. Anyway, here's a few things I want community approval on:
In the successor tables (best example: Bill Clinton), should it say "Succeeded by" or "Followed by"?
How about Next and Previous? --Phil | Talk 08:19, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Looking at Slick Willy's article again, should the multi-term offices be split into a single line for each office, or be combined like they are in Clinton's page? It can seem to give some offices that someone held multiple times more weight than a more major office (as easily seen in Clinton's case).
Should such things be in chronological order, or in order of office importance? Both have advantages... with more than two or so offices, I'd say stick with chronological, but then you run into some being chrono and some being importance (Like, again, Clinton's - it's in order of importance.) And if you stick with importance, you run into the problem of figuring out just which offices are more important than others.
I'd like some opinions on this before I proceed further with these. Thanks! --Golbez 01:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
I suggest using Template:Sequence for succession tables. Some lists like the Roman Emperors have their own versions. It's a shame the Wikipedia does not support <link> tags... <link rel="next">/<link rel="prev"> would be great here! {Ανάριον} 08:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Donation
I seriously would make a donation to Wikipedia, it is such a good project -- but I am only 13 :(. — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ) 03:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I assume your problem is that you are not able to make a credit card payment. You could either pursuade someone with a credit card to pay for you, or possibly pay via money order, wikimedia foundation probably accept them. Or, you could get a debit card, since you don't have to be over 18 to get one. Darksun 10:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Edits I've Made... How many?
I have seen people post that they have x edits, and their nth edit was y.
I would like to figure out how many edits I have without setting the thing to a large number (or small number) and trying to get to the last page, figure out the offset (which isnt too incredibly difficult), then figure out if i'm supposed to start on 200 or 201 when i count, and count up and know it's either one or two things. I've looked in statistics and other possible places and I have no real idea, whatsoever. I did actually try the method once but wasn't sure if I was starting count on edit xx0 or xx1. --TIB(talk) 04:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
As you say, use your contributions page, then hit (next 50), and edit the URL with a likely number in the "offset" part until you find the end. I make your edit count just over 440. If you're in the top 1000 contributors, you can get a recent count from List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You'll need more than 690 edits before you get on this list, and that number is rising all the time.-gadfium 04:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this is obvious, but considering how often people want to know this, it'd be great if it were more easily available. That said, our tendancy to judge contributors by their edit count is a bad idea — a contributor that writes 100 articles from scratch and uses preview might have only 100 edits but have made a stronger contribution than many of us. Perhaps we should be supplied a whole list of statistics judging the total value of our contributions. This would be especially useful in Wikipedia: Requests for adminship. Derrick Coetzee 04:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A developer or anyone with sql access can run a query to find your edit count on request. There is no feature to automatically do this in the current MediaWiki and I don't think there will be due to database strain. There is, however, the csv, a raw-data list of all users' edits from all wikis. See here for instructions on how to interpret the csv. It's updated weekly. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would think such a feature would be relatively easy to implement if the user's edit count is stored (redundantly) in the user table, incremented whenever the user makes an edit. Then again, I haven't really looked at the code in much detail. And redundancy is generally bad within a single database copy. And we don't need to encourage edit counting. • Benc • 06:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On a tangential note, edit counting is generally a bad thing. No one (ideally) should judge you by your number of edits, so don't worry about what and when your nth edit was unless you're simply curious. :-) • Benc • 06:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done [3] jps (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Banning policy
MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Users of the Wikimedia sites can now format dates more easily in different languages with the new 
White
Silver
Blue
Pink
Gold
Red
Green
Skyblue
Purple
Turquoise
Black
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
.gif?lang=en){kind=small}
υωρ]] 21:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
υωρ]] 14:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)