Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fan-1967 (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 18 July 2006 (→Cliffs Notes on works of literature - should we link them?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Trigger Happy

Dear Administrator:

I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert an article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With-Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. You've expressed very concisely my dissatisfaction with a number of editors over the past, not only administrators. Obviously the admin who is most guilty of this is Tony Sidaway. THE KING 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KING, consider this a warning: stop making personal attacks. Even when I'm not the subject myself,[1] I still get rather tired of seeing you wage your campaign against Tony every opportunity you have. You've had numerous people tell you your conduct along these lines is unacceptable; now knock it off or be blocked. Postdlf 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, in addressing administrators you are addressing the wrong people. Anyone can do the edits that you are upset about, not just administrators. Second, I've taken a brief look at some of the contributions that you feel have been unfairly removed. They tend to sit in the area of literary criticism and the counter-arguments to your contributions seem to be 'please don't add your personal critique' or 'please no essays' or 'POV', that type of thing. When I first read your post here I thought "gee, someone is doing deep research, dotting i's and crossing t's and getting dumped on". As it is, your additions are on the borderline of acceptable encyclopedic content, sometimes crossing over that border; the surest way of ensuring the content 'sticks' is to contribute content that is notable, verifiable and supported by citations/references. You'll find that additions which have those three properties are very seldom subject to questionable removal, though they will be 'dry' compared to essays and critiques more appropriate for other venues. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look mate, this Isnt just about me, and what I have done.you know nothing apart from what you have seen backlog through what I have done under this account. The issue here conserns everyone, or I wouldn't have posted it on a public page. Dfrg.msc 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • :If THE KING is guilty of making personal attacks here, then the arbcom is guilty of the same thing everytime they make a ruling of someone with bad behavioir. And everyone who has ever left a {{test2}} message on talk page is also guilty of personal attacks. Saying that someone is not behaving appropriately is not a personal attack, especially when there is merit to the claim. Please review WP:NPA before you make accusations. Ch u ck(contrib) 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::I agree with Chuck. Criticism of someone's actions, provided it remains civil, isn't a personal attack. Whether Tony is actually guilty of these offenses, I won't comment on. — Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Chuck, and I agree that there are many people who abuse the ability to revert. In my experience it is almost always admins, or people who have enough experience to be admins, who do it. In some cases I see people who have lots they want to do, and rather than take their time to do them well, quicken their pace to the point of incompetence. Editors, and especially admins, should be reminded that they are not wikigods, but are equal editors. I myself have been told that admins are above regular editors, with a note I believe was "don't kid yourself" or something to that effect. I won't mention names, cause I've done it in more appropriate places enough. Fresheneesz 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably didn't tell Fresheneesz that myself, but my own sentiments are close enough to it, that you may feel free to use me for a proponent of it. On this Animal Farm, editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others, and they've taken to standing up on hind legs and acting quite a lot like farmers, you know. And you know very well why *I* think that. I was indefinitely blocked not too long ago, and without warning, by an administrator who simply forgot WP:AGF, didn't read well, and was trigger-happy. Had it not been for another administrator who had better sense, I'd still be stuck there. This happens. When admins war with each other, generally the blocks are shorter (it's never banning, which is the death penalty punishment for peons, er, plain editors), but if you want a rather droll example of a wheel war with sysops blocking each other and deblocking each other like Wizards using spells and counterspells in a Harry Potter movie, I suggest perusal of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#SPUI. This one had to be stopped by the Deus Ex Machina hisself, pretty much making a mockery of the idea that WP is a community of high-minded types able to police itself.
Not that there was good reason ever to imagine it was, since no organization really is. The military has military police, who are there to see that high-ranking people don't simply do whatever they want (rank doth not have ANY privilege). In fact, the standard police in your city don't police themselves, drawing officer-volunteers occasionally out of the pool to do this out of love. (Like that would work-- and yet it's the WP model). Instead, they have something called "Internal Affairs," consisting of cops who are roundly disliked by their brethren, but who are absolutely necessary for the function of police departments. On Wikipedia, no such organization exists, except Deus Machina, who is usually too busy to do it (except for pedophilia wheel wars and lawsuits-- but this is extreme stuff). Meanwhile, if the average editor gets night-sticked by some administrator during a revert war, nobody notices.
A word about vandalism. I've heard much caterwauling about vandalism not drawing adequate penalties (and I've done some complaining about this myself), since most of it is ispso facto bad faith, res ipsa loquitur (it speaks for itself). So why isn't more of it indefinitely blocked? My own provisional answer: because actually, those who do the work of WP administration are only marginally concerned with vandalism. They are much more concerned with their own egos, and acting against those they perceive as defiant. The only real unforgivable crime in any organization, you see, is defiance-- failure to kow-tow. Which is what heresy is. Thus, you can see anonymous users, and even named users, getting warning after warning, or 24 blocks for adding scatological nonsense to encylcopedia pages--- but if you want to see somebody blocked forever, just take a look at what happens if don't follow the wrong administrators' feelings about userboxes or something. Or using a sockpuppet address to defy a one week block-- neener, neener! Then you'll find yourself out in the cold forever, unless you're an administrator yourself. In which case you get wheelwar, as above. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. It happens. These are my thoughts on WHY it happens. I would like to see some oversight on administrators to see that it doesn't happen as often. Warring among administrators is as rare as wars between feudal lords in armor. But when it happens, it points up the basic problem that Lords are no more likely to be gentlemen than anybody else. They just have a high horse.S B H arris 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to stay on topic here; it is quite easy to tumble off the reservation in short order. Being an avid contributor, I share the sentiments expressed by Dfrg.msc; as such, I would appreciate it if the conversation is centered around the initial concern which was expressed about a fortnight ago... --Folajimi 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instituting something like a three vote rule on reverts? That would prevent unilateral action, and bad edits would still get reverted soon enough. RandomIdiot 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A three-vote rule might work for other things, but that seems like a bit too much red tape for something as useful as a revert. For example, there are many people (I have been one) that did not understand the rules to Wikipedia and have made awful edits that simply needed to be removed immediately. If it had waited for three votes, some of the articles were sufficiently lacking in traffic that it would've taken weeks. Also revert wars would end with the side that had the most people on it, and just because more people argue for something doesn't mean it's correct. --Stellis 08:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truer words have never been spoken; there is a redirect which I wanted to remove so I could create an actual article from scratch. This was over four months ago, and nothing new has occured in the interim. The additional bureaucracy is unnecessary. Folajimi 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? Ian¹³ /t 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ask? --Folajimi 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because he wants to help? --cesarb 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking here for a moment as someone with the keys to the Admin janitor's closet, I actually find it quicker to revert an article the same way that anyone else would -- go to article history, click on the older version, edit then save -- rather than to find the secret link that lets me do this in one step. But, now speaking as just another user, I don't see the point of reverting any edits -- even if it's undeniably obvious that it was made by some looney under the influence of illicit pharmaceuticals -- without leaving some note about why the reversion was made. The point of having an encyclopedia anyone can edit is to discuss conflicting opinions on a subject & to seek a consensus; & the worst case in initiating a conversation is that the other parties talking prove that they are kooks, cranks or just unable to play nicely with other children. -- llywrch 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down with Trigger Happy Admins! Solution: allow for a special new type of user called a "sentinel" that is greater than a basic user in authority. This new sentinel is not an administrator, and cannot block other users, but cannot be blocked either. The sentinel only has the ability to make 60 edits per day. The primary advantage to a sentinel is that the sentinel cannot be blocked by radical fringe administrators. Yet the sentinel's power is restricted to only 60 edits per day. This idea was a result of the extreme blocking related to these links:

Sure, sometimes there will be linkspam, and some sentinels that abuse their power, but administrators are not immune from the tyranical tendencies of those in authority.Spicynugget 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, whatever, is the same.

Check the history tab on this page.

I don't think I agree with this asessment, that footnote is for the meaning of the reference in the whole article, not just that bit about spelling, also, it seems inconsistant (at least to me, I do have some knowledge in this area) to say that spelling is (*all*) the same within the Britsh Isles and within every English speaking country, but differs between each English speaking country beyond the British Isles (just becuase that's how it is "authorised"). Linguistic cirteria does not disinguish "dialects" and "languages." Can you tell me, for example, is there a definite border between US spelling conventions and Canadian spelling conventions. According to the laws of linguistis, there is no inherent reason why differences in vocabulary, word formation, and even spelling need to follow country borders, therefore just becuase dictionarys for a particular country have the same spelling for all places and groups, does not mean that spelling "beyond the dictionarys" is the same. Have you ever heard of Scots spelling, or Black English spelling? Consider dictionarys for a prarticular "national varietys" of a "language" that may provide two different spellings of a word, and consider the possiblity that local usage may favour one spelling over the other. Myrtone

I'm not sure of your point. Yes, linguistics need not follow national or political boundaries, but it may, especially when issues of pride are involved. SFAIK, much of Black English is a conscious protest against the majority culture. Where there is a large natural barrier (i.e. an Ocean), a linguistic divide has been historically inevitable. Whether telecommunications will alter that is speculation. Nevertheless, there is something called "Standard American English" that is taught (with little variation) in schools throughout the United States, and is expected of educated citizens. I assume that the "Queen's English" serves much the same purpose in the UK. Other variants are more problematic, since some are interintelligible only with difficulty. If we admit every local variation of spelling and usage into Wikipedia, then any illiterate, unintelligible scawl can be justified as a "dialect" and no one can contradict -- I've seen jarring constructs justified as "Indian English", which is news to the thirty or so natives of India with whom I work. If we admit only one version, we are being unreasonable. So, we make a practical compromise, as best we can. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the prescriptionist tradition of favouring some spellings over others is biased, but it's also widely accepted, and an encyclopedia written in a mishmash of dialects simply wouldn't be as comprehensible or taken as seriously - we should take advantage of the wide standardization of these spelling in writing to promote widespread comprehensibility of all our material. Many dialects don't even have an accepted orthography, which makes writing in them quite awkward. That said, quotes should reflect the original dialect, whether spoken or written; we should not "translate" dialects. Deco 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, linguistics need not follow national or political boundaries." Well, unfortuately, JackLumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to follow (exactly) these boundries, but yet claims to be a "linguist." Myrtone

Myrtone, please. Once again, you completely missed the point, ignoring the context. That was about Canadian English. Whenever Canadian spelling follows British spelling, that's because of historical, political, cultural ties between Canada and Britain, not because of Ireland or Scotland. However, the Irish and the Scots did heavily affect English as _spoken_ in Canada (and the United States too, for that matter), and this is duly noted in that article. Myrtone, when will you start thinking outside of the "boundaries" of the box? JackLumber. 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"historical, political, cultural ties between Canada and Britain" I'm not so sure about that historical, let alone, cultural ties with, say England, or what you even mean by the "boundries of the box." Believe me, even serious scholars do not neccasessarily *write* according to community consensus. Myrtone

There are two issues - the words used and the standard spellings. The early dictionary-makers in the USA chose to vary a few common words - honour and honor, for instance. This has remained fixed ever since. English-speakers within the British Empire and later the Commonwealth accepted the UK standard for spelling. Some extra words are used, not only in Scotland but also in English regions.

Microsoft Word 2002 offers English (Ireland) and also Gaelic (Scotland) along with Gaelic (Ireland). I wouldn't be surprised if this changed soon.

--GwydionM 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Jimbo makes mistakes

I have written this as an essay. If anyone thinks it should be something more, then edit it freely and mazel tov. Ashibaka tock 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Wikipedia thought police got to that one. Calsicol 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang! How do we read that article now to judge whether the deletion was justified? This is what I hate about deleted stuff - you can't read the damn things. Hopefully there is still a deletion debate somewhere. Carcharoth 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why concealing user's contributions to deleted pages? (repost)

Why is it still not possible to review my own deleted contributions? Not the content itself, but just the names of the articles the contributions were to?

I have already asked that in March, and received the answer that it's a technical issue, namely that reviewing deleted contibutions is an "everyone or noone" permission.

AFAICT, currently the fine-grained control over the permissions is implemented in MediaWiki and used on Japanese wikipedia.

So, why do you still conceal from users their own contributions? --tyomitch 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the fine-grained permissions just aren't that fine-grained - I don't know whether a particular user can be given access to deleted revisions of a particular article, and even if so, I don't know if that could be done automatically for articles they contributed to. Someone with more technical background might be able to give a better answer, but in short I think that would require modifications expressly for that purpose. Deco 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can permission be granted to everyone to view just editors' names in deleted articles' histories? If those names are insulting, then there's no big deal in exposing them anyway, as they are already visible on the block log. --tyomitch 10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The archived deleted pages are stored separately in the database. Since they're deleted, there is normally no good reason to view them. It is possible to view deleted edits on the tool server, and if there is sufficient demand I suppose the various edit counter tools may be adapted to show such data in a suitable form (usernames and timestamps, perhaps). --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the reason they are unavailable is that deleted edit summaries sometimes contain offensive content, personal information or stuff that could get Wikipedia sued, which is a good reason for hiding it. However, I have found it to be a hinderance in dealing with vandals because most or all of their past vandalism has sometimes been deleted by the time I investigate, so I cannot block or warn the editor. If I have the name of the article(s), I can check the deleted versions of the page, but that is usually not the case. -- Kjkolb 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"List of fictional..."

Type in "List of fictional" in the search function. You will get a bewildering number of inane lists such as List of fictional chimpanzees, List of Fictional Nurses, List of fictional cigarettes, etc. Three questions:

  • Are these lists maintainable? Are we saddling future generations of Wikipedians with the burden of keeping these lists updated everytime a new movie, book, sitcom, cartoon, or comic is released?
  • Are these lists relevant? Will people need to research "Fictional chimpanzees", for example?
  • Are these lists essentially encyclopedic?

I've just AfD'd one such list, List of fictional military organizations, only to discover the true extent of these... Your thoughts? Thanks- --Cheese Sandwich 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason these can't just be categories? Luna Santin 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that it would require having an actual article on every fictional thing that is mentioned in one of these lists. Tupsharru 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. With a closer look, I realize my previous question was... well, obviously uninformed (read: stupid). My thoughts on the articles are actually significantly more favorable, now that I've had a few closer looks. I'll admit I'm not sure if they're encyclopedic or sourced, but they made for an interesting read and I don't see any other way to get the content out there effectively; in that, they have some value. Luna Santin 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Often when I use Wikipedia as a reader, and not a contributor, I find such lists to be very useful navigational aids in the searching. A category is unable to sort in any other way the the alphabetical, and cannot contain annotations. The lists on the other hand often have the clues needed to guide me to the article which I'm searching for. Since WP:FICT calls for a lot of topics on fiction to be covered in Wikipedia, I don't see a problem with giving the readers the tools to find what they're looking for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this discussion. To address your points: 1. Regarding maintainability, these lists are very easy to update and edit, no great writing/editing skills are required to add an item, so it's hardly a burden. As I said in the AfD for "...fictional military organizations" I don't understand the criteria often cited by listcruft deletionists that the list must be "complete", "completable" or "maintainable", as if missing out a fictional pig from List of fictional pigs somehow invalidates the whole list as it currently stands and makes it useless. 2. Are they relevant? The example you cite, List of fictional chimpanzees, is actually List of fictional apes which has a much broader scope and does not really illustrate that it is useless minutae. I certainly don't think you can rule out someone needing to research such a list, even if it's just for a quiz question and not academic research. If I was asked the name of Cartman's pet pig (in South Park), typing "Cartman's pet pot-bellied pig" into Google brings up the list in second place (the episode article on Wikipedia is first). 3. Are the lists encyclopedic? This could be debated all day depending on your definition of "encyclopedic". I've seen some ridiculous lists on Wikipedia of course, and am happy to vote Delete or Keep based on the merits and notability of each, but I don't think they should be deleted as a general principle. --Canley 03:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to come to a debate and already see my opinion brushed off as that of a "listcruft deletionist".

The problem with many of these lists is that they illustrate no topic; instead, they're merely a list of things that share an attribute. In the case of List of fictional military organizations, there's nothing you can really say about these things other than that they're fictional military organizations. The list is so broad as to include warrior castes and defense forces and police forces and terrorist groups and individual army companies and espionage cells and...well, you get the idea.

Likewise the list of pigs; that list has such inane criteria that it includes Porky Pig, a character anthropomorphized to the point where his porcine nature is almost never referred to in the context of the fictional works (and this is in something like 60 or 70 years of fiction from many disparate sources!), to Cartman's pot-bellied pig, who is clearly a mundane pet whose only attribute of note is completely unrelated to being a pig to characters who are greedy or fat or have other typically piggish attributes.

What possible trend are these articles illustrating? What can you say about them other than "These are things that are foo"? How are they not idiosyncratic non-topics, per the deletion policy? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I wanted to research the use of cigarettes in film; that seems like a perfectly reasonable search, to me. And where else would I find such content, if not at List of fictional cigarettes? Anything like Category:List of films with cigarettes will be deleted the moment it sets foot on Wikipedia, and it would make even less sense to create a few dozen articles just to mention each use of a cigarette. I'm not the biggest fan of lists, in general, but to me some of this content seems useful, and I really see no other way to effectively get it out there. Luna Santin 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't the place to do research, though. It's a reference, but not a source, and Wikipedia cannot and indeed should not include every single thing that might be useful in research.
Additionally, just because something is useful or interesting doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" are specifically called out in WP:NOT.
Have you considered why that category would be deleted on sight? Why should a list be treated any differently? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase the list takes up only one article, instead of clogging up several dozen articles? As I mentioned, I'm unsure on the content but think the method is good. If it is done, this is quite probably the way to do it... whether it should be done or not becomes the question. And I think we already know where the posters here stand. You do bring up some very good points, but to be honest I'm not passionate enough to think out a rebuttal (in no small part because I can't think of anything much better than "But I don't think so," or "NUH-UH"). The main standard I'm looking at is, "Is Wikipedia better or worse, for having this content?" but I don't think we'll agree on that count. Thanks for your time, seriously. Luna Santin 10:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MIB, my apologies if I pre-emptively offended you with the term "listcruft deletionist" - I certainly did not mean you specifically, or to brush off your opinion. I think your opinion and arguments are very valid and convincing, you make some really good points. The military AfD is exactly 50/50 at the moment so I think this one's gonna go down as "no consensus". I've seen this happen with quite a few list AfDs, and there seems to be a pretty even split each time unless the list is REALLY crufty, so there's some level of support for both sides out there. I also think that WP:NOT, WP:LIST and WP:INTEREST can be interpreted to support both sides, so this is a tricky one and comes down to personal opinion. Excellent point, Luna Santin, if a list is NPOV, verifiable and Not Original Research in addition to being useful, interesting or helpful, then is it really doing any harm to Wikipedia? --Canley 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it this way: is Wikipedia better for expending a portion of its finite editorial resources (disk space and server resources aren't infinite, but they won't run out before interest runs out) maintaining these lists? Is it worth cluttering otherwise useful categories (and similar tools, such as Whatlinkshere and Recentchanges and such)? When you're talking about a list with no topic (something called out in deletion policy, as an "idiosyncratic non-topic" and in What Wikipedia Is Not as an "indiscriminate collection of information"), I don't think the answer can be anything but no.

That isn't to say every "List of fictional foo" is necessarily topicless, but when a list is so broad that you can't say anything about everything (or even most things) other than what's in the title, it's probably less "List of Communist-themed antagonists from Silver-Age superhero comics" and more "List of things that are blue." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My view is that if the subject is encyclopaedic then the list is probably defensible, but if there is no conceivable encyclopaedic utility to the topic itself (which in my view would certianly fit fictional tobacco products) then the list seems pointless. Wikinfo could probably tolerate these things, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. There is a vast gulf between a list of US Presidents (which you'd find in an encyclopaedia) and a list of fictional pigs. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still see shared attributes vs. actual topics as being a problem; after all, Blue is certainly encyclopedic. Does that make List of things that are blue encyclopedic? (Clearly not, but it's a simplistic example of the evaluation.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your three questions:

1) As to maintainability, "Lists of fictional X," are no more or less maintainable than any "List of real X." Just as fictional lists have to be updated as new fiction appears, list of real things have to be updated as thing happen in the real world. THus "Lists of fictional X" require new more effort than any other article, list or not. Further, Wikipedia editors come in all stripes - including those that prefer to edit articles on fictional topics; no special effort by uninterested Wikipedians should be required.

2) This, I think, would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I can see many lists of fictional things having useful research applications, not just for traditional academic writing (which can at times focus on esoteric topics of popular culture), but also for people interested in writing original fiction (especially Wold Newton style hybrids) or simply casual browsers interested in some book, show, game or movie they like. Some lists of fictional things, however, are too broad, limited, obscure, or otherwise flawed to support.

3) This one is the sticky one. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. On the other, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In many cases, the fate of an individual "List of fictional X" is going to come down to which of these principals various editors feel is more important.

Further, it should be noted that lists are not interchangable with categories. Lists offer the possibility of arranging information in ways other than strictly alphabetical, and allow for annotation and commentary not possible in tha category.

My recommendation is that each "List of fictional X" be carefully examined and only AfDed if there is a critical flaw, essentially maintaining the current system, rather that taking any kind of blanket action. - CNichols 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrations with editing

Hello,

I would like to open this issue for discussion.

I’ve been working in the field of Clinical Psychology for 40+ years. In Wikipedia, I was working on a technical Article concerning the psychological & physical components of chemical dependency. Almost from my first edit, I was reverted by a User whose only entry on their User Page was “OK, so I finally got a User Page. Satisfied?” This is moronic!! Because I refused to engage in what surely would have deteriorated into a mindless edit war, I finally gave up on editing the Article all together.

Surely there is something that can be done here.

I would propose this: If a User is going to make edits to an Article, particularly a technical or scientific one, that the person be willing to state their expertise in the given field on their User Page, or at least something more than a glib remark.

Wikipedia is losing good, highly motivated, professionals as editors because they have experienced what I described happened with me.

If something is not done, I’m afraid Wikipedia will soon need to carry a disclaimer at the top of its Main Page: “This encyclopedia is strictly for amusement, and should not be regarded as factual.”

Frustrated, Michael David 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your frustration is understandable; however, it seems that there is an undercurrent of Anti-elitism within the project. This stance is probably an attempt to prevent the perception of some users being "more equal than others."
At any rate all hope is not lost; there are ways for resolving such issues:
  1. Present your case to WP:3RR; this perhaps will be the most apropos option, as it is meant to resolve edit wars.
  2. Depending on the quality of the edits from the miscreant (which, as you have described it, appears to be vandalism) another option may be WP:AIV.
  3. If you are unsatisfied with the responses produced from the aformentioned channels, perhaps WP:MEDCOM may be in order.
  4. Worst case, if all other options fail, there is always WP:ARB. This is option is not one to be taken lightly; however, it perhaps may be the last opportunity to resolve the matter amicably, without departing from the project in disgust.
With any luck, one of these options will provide a satisfactory resolution to the matter.
Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:57, Sunday, November 10, 2024 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
I'm not sute that this will help you, but recognition of expertise in Wikipedia is a complicated issue. Most editors do not reveal their real identity, so it is impossible to verify any claims of expertise they may make. While I have been open about my real identity, it has its drawbacks. I've had another editor threaten to sue me, and other editors have withdrawn from Wikipedia after unknown persons complained to their employers about their Wikipedia activities (I'm retired, so I'm not worried about that).
In another vein, I have a PhD in Linguistics and 25 years experience working with computers, but I don't edit articles in either field. Both fields have a lot active Wikipedians, and it's not as much fun as working on history, biology and local topics. Experience in a field helps you sort through the chaff, but everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be from reliable published sources, and non-experts can contribute to articles as long as they do their research and cite their sources.
As for dealing with disputes in an article you're working on, please see the section #Resolving content disputes above on this page. Wikipedia works best when several editors contribute to an article, and can reach consensus on content and style.
-- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. Perhaps I should take your lead and stay away from Articles in my field. It actually could be refreshing to break from work sometimes. Sincerely. Michael David 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one owns articles, regardless of claimed or real expertise in the field, I personally don't think experts should get automatic veto power or whatever over non-experts. This stance is also partially about keeping "experts" from being able to push their POVs (which may be financially tied to their careers) and no one being able to stop them. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal or anything, we are (at least, we're supposed to be) just summarizing published sources on topics, and non-experts can do that just as well as experts, ultimately. Experts are great at doing original research, but obviously that's not what we do on Wikipedia.
My suggestion is to just learn to deal with people who disagree with you... after all by submitting anything you're agreeing to let other people edit it. If someone reverts a claim that's correct, re-add it with a source. If they revert that, discuss it with them on the talk page. If they're pushing a POV or otherwise being unreasonable, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --W.marsh 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, the replies above are useless bordering on the impertinent. "I personally don't think experts should get automatic veto power or whatever over non-experts"? Good for you, but how is this supposed to help Michael David? Did he inquire for "automatic veto power"? give us a break. "My suggestion is to just learn to deal with people who disagree with you"? Is this seriously the advice you have to offer to someone who has been into psychology for 40 years? (Have you even been into being alive that long?) Even bored gestures towards dispute resolution are not helpful here. The case described by the original poster is typical. A user having “OK, so I finally got a User Page. Satisfied?” has the only content on his user page is almost infallibly a sock puppet or a troll. Which means that smart assed remarks about how Wikipedia gives power to the people are entirely beside the point. My answer to this inquiry would be, 'drop me a line, and I'll look into the case and help you revert any trolling, thank you for helping improve Wikipedia'. You can save your generic wisdom for people who come here complaining about genuine editing dispute. Just being reverted by a stubborn sock is not an editing dispute, and any expert of any field experiencing this deserves some help from the community. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 17:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if he (or any expert or good faith editor) came to me and said the same thing, I'd investigate and block the sockpuppet, if that was the case. We all need to play by the same rules... that's all I'm saying. Resolve disputes, report trolls, whatever as they come up, if you need help doing that, ask an admin or experienced editor for that help... I don't see how requiring people to disclose their credentials is going to help any of this. A lot of people would prefer to stay anonymous, for reasons that have been touched on above. And not having a meaningful userpage doesn't mean you're "almost infallibly a sock puppet or a troll" - that statement describes me and lots of other good faith edtiors. --W.marsh 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the edits of Michael David (talk · contribs) is worthwhile. Most of the edits are to biographical articles of dead people. Many of those edits involve noting that someone died by suicide. See

That's just the past two days. Several hundred other edits by this editor show a fascination, if not obsession, with suicidal depression. There's no major technical article by this editor that I can find. --John Nagle 18:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heeey, Michael. First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for your valuable contributions; Wikipedia simply wouldn't be the website it is today without all the help it's received from diligent volunteers. We need people who are dedicated to the project, so please don't let random content disputes get you down; at the end of the day, good editors are very much appreciated by the community. That said, however, I need to ask that you bear with me in understanding a thing or two: first, of course, expertise is very difficult to really establish in an anonymous, online community, and second, while a user's page (or lack thereof) may be an indication of a few things, I wouldn't say the general editorial consensus is that it's the primary factor in decision-making regarding any user. Now, though, you seemed to be referring to a particular article; could you provide us with a link to the article(s), or to the diffs in question, so that we can develop a better feel for the situation and take a more direct role in helping you out if necessary? Luna Santin 18:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a general point about expert v non-expert editors, it's too facile to say that because of WP:V any editor is as good as another in technical areas. If we want a good, trustworthy article, letting someone who knows little of the subject quote a newspaper article or a popular book is no substitute for someone who really knows the sources, is probably more up-to-date than the popular items and can sort the wheat from the chaff.--Brownlee 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can feel the frustration. I have been reverted quite a few times on articles in my field of expertise, and have sometimes received vandalism warnings from other editors even when my changes are WP:CITE'd (I'd pull out the diffs, most of them are utterly ludicrous). Just last week, I spent an hour convincing a patient of mine with metastatic breast cancer to allow her CT head to be placed "on the internet", only to have the caption reverted by another administrator who didn't know what the word metastasis meant, and who thought my addition was vandalism because it had the word "breast" in it. I can absolutely see how this would keep specialist editors away. It's not about veto power; it's about having too many policemen on this project, and about many of them having no clue about the articles that they are policing. Michael David, we appreciate your expertise and your specialist contributions -- Samir धर्म 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Did You Know

The policy of only including facts form new articles has lead DYK to be comprised of uninteresting, obscure and very locale-specific facts. I think it is important to keep in mind that the general knowledge of the average administrator is on completely different level to that of the average main page reader.

I would suggest that we change DYK to have the first bullet be on "middle school level", the next two on high school level and leave the fourth and fifth to come from new articles.

The following is an example of what the first three bullets could look like:

- sYndicate talk

I like that idea a lot. The DYK feature is one of my favorite Wikipedia entry methods, so expanding it a bit sure sounds good to me. Spalding 11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of DYK isn't to rehash widely-known facts from old articles. It gives exposure to the best new articles so that they are edited and refined. Sure, sometimes there's an entry or two I'm not interested in, but that's life. --Oldak Quill 08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the purpose of "DYK isn't ro rehash widely-known facts". I am saying the purpose should be to provide information that will be interesting to the largest possible audience and this layered approach which include a portion of what Wikipedia veterans will call widely-known facts is one way of doing that. -  sYndicate talk  23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, even with changing the articles every day, DYK gets more acceptable articles than it can show. Increasing the space available to DYK would mean taking it away from some other part of the Main Page, which I doubt will happen. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the size should be increased. I'm saying the level of obscurity of the first three points should be toned down so that more people (especially younger people) will find them interesting. -  sYndicate talk  12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have replied to the wrong sub-thread. My apologies. However, more on point on your comment, while we should avoid obscurity and too much technicality in articles, we are not writing an encyclopedia for children. I would be opposed to writing any part of the encyclopedia at a less than adult level. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am not saying we should change the articles to a "less than adult level". I am saying we should include some facts in DYK that some people would actually be able to respond 'yes' to. The average main page reader will not know '..that there is a pattern to the names of the class of medications called "monoclonal antibodies"', but more importantly, (s)he will not care. By having different tiers in DYK, the section can appeal to both the average reader and people who will find the above mentioned example interesting. -  sYndicate talk  13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the "Al-Quds" (Jerusalem) entry in Arabic Wikipedia

Dear administrator,

Lately I have noticed an error in the Arabic entry for Jerusalem (القدس). It was said that (free translation:) "Jerusalem is one of the greatest cities of Palestine, and its capital". This is, of course, not true: Palestine has no capital, for it is not even a state yet; Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I think correction is nessecary.

Thanks.

See: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.165.209 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-10 10:23:08 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, you need to take up your concerns on the Arabic Wikipedia... Or better yet just be bold and edit the article. Thanks/wangi 10:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I did just that; I changed it in proper Arabic from "Palestine" to "Israel". But they changed it back to the way it was. I ask myself whether higher interference is requirred or not. Although it is indeed a problematic and disputed issue, one should remember that the Israeli Knesset and gouvernment are located in Jerusalem, while no official capital-worthy Palestinian institution dwells within the city (the village of Abu-Dis is not a part of Jerusalem, and the "Orient House" has been shut down years ago). Palestine isn't a state for now, and it has no capital - its institutions are spread throughout the territories. So with all due to political disputes, I think Arabic Wikipedia must face the reality. Defacto, Jerusalem isn't the capital of Palestine. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.143.165.209 (talk • contribs) .

But again, that is a the Arab Wikipedia. The different language editions are essentially independent, and few here on the English encyclopedia have the ability or inclination to edit an Arab language website. You must take this problem up there. And this is by no means a trivial topic - as far as I know the status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not internationally recognized (and, as you rightly point out, neither is the status as capital of Palestine (whatever status that has)). --Stephan Schulz 07:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how to define a capital. Defacto, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Although many countries does not accept this, and keep their embassies outside, the city still functions as the Israeli capital - in aspects of government, judicial system (the High Court) etc. This status of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital defacto, is confirmed, by the way, in the English Wikipedia entry for "Israel" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel ). So, if you examine the state as it is now, Jerusalem functions as the Israeli capital, and definatly not as the Palestinian one.

I know Arabic, and I can edit Arab Wikipedia entries. I did that. But the problem is, that they changed it back. This is where I wonder: Doesn't Wikipedia has basic standarts? How come the International English Version regard Jerusalem as the Israeli capital (like man other version of Wikipedia), while the Arabic version doesn't? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.143.165.209 (talk • contribs) .

That's the Wiki way. Everybody can edit articles. The way to reach a stable article is via discussion and consensus building. But that has to happen on the Arab Wikipedia. We here have no influence over there. There is no global truth verification task force. Bring your arguments up on the proper talk page, cite verifyable sources, and be prepared to live with the fact that you still may end up with a minority position. The English Wikipedia also qualifies the status of Jerusalem via a footnote, you might try that. And please sign your discussion contributions using 4 tildes (--~~~~). --Stephan Schulz 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turning WIkipedia into a Political Debate - Multiple articles on one Political POV

Could someone help me understand if there is any policy about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for political POV? Multiiple articles have been created for the sole purpose of pushing a tort reform POV. There is already a long article on tort reform, and it just links to a multitude of other 'articles' (rants is more like it) on tort reform, under the guise of separate topics. I don't care what the personal POV is, a political debate has no place on Wikipedia, does it? It certainly is inconsistent with a *regular* encyclopedia. I have changed one article to turn it into a legimate article, which warrants an entry. However, the trend just propagates. I checked Encyclopedia Britannica online, and there is no article on 'tort reform' for good reason. The only references that are cited - both pro and against - almost all violate the guidelines of Reliable Resources. They are almost all political sites, either for or against tort reform. One 'reference' frequently cited on these articles is Tillinghast/Towers Perrin which is an interested party in the politics of tort reform with its operations as a major consultant to the insurance industry and as an insurance company itself with its reinsurance business. There are also lobbying groups (for and against) tort reform that are used as 'references'. This is not encyclopedic. THe nature of an article on a political agenda precludes neutral point of view references and invites polemic sources.

I am asking about this here, because this is not an isolated example, but a consistent pattern. Here is one example of an article that was originally created for the clear purpose of advancing a tort reform agenda, and not to discuss the actual topic itself:

Medical Malpractice -- The article previously had a very short 'explanation' of the elements of the claim (which were misstatements of law), with the rest of the paper a tirade about tort reform. I made corrections to the misstatements of law, and added a discussion on the incidents and types of medical malpractice -- citing both a medical journal and the Institute of Medicine. I also suggested that 'tort reform' not be included here. Below is a quote of what one editor added just today. However, he is not alone among a small group of political activists pushing this agenda. This is under the heading "Malpractice Settlement Alternatives" (which makes no sense in itself since this proposal is not this at all) --

The group, Common Good has proposed creating specialized medical courts to improve the American system where almost 60% of all plaintif judgments are now consumed by attorney fees & court costs. These specialty "Health Courts" (similar to existing administrative tax or workmen's comp court proceedings)whose hallmark would be medically-trained, full-time judges making precedent-setting decisions about proper standards of care, would remedy the unreliability of our current system.

Proponents believe that giving up jury trials and scheduling noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering would lead to more people being compensated, and to their receiving their money sooner. Support for this alternative comes from sources ranging from The National Law Journal 1,the USA Today editorial page 2, The Wall Street Journal 3, Forbes magazine, the AMA, and the American College of Surgeons. The Harvard School of Public Health has been working with the Common Good initiative4in conducting research to answer unresolved health court policy questions by analyzing individual state constitutional impediments to health courts, doing projected cost analyses, developing a tiered schedule for noneconomic damages-which would have upper limits-and working out the standards for compensation.

Opponents of tort reform object to the idea.5

The entire paragraph is pro 'tort reform' with one sentence that "Opponents of tort reform object to the idea." Can ANYONE explain how this is NPOV? Also, the 60% reference is from an uncited report and the 60% is incorrectly reported and out of context. The actual report concluded that there was no effect on the cost of health care.

This is what these multiple tirades on tort reform end up looking like:

"Proponents of tort refom argue (fill in the blank)". -- then a long tirade

"Critics of tort reform argue (fill in the blank)" -- and inevitably a rebuttal tirade

Then there is a vicious edit war, with no real resolution because the article by nature is a political debate.

First none of these anonymous groups of 'critics and proponents' are sourced, but broad agendas are nonetheless attributed to them. Then the argument devolves into the tirade (on either side) with polemic references. The articles become so unreadable and so argumentative that any iota of encyclopedic content is lost. Is there any policy at all on this kind of thing? Why is WIkipedia even including entries on purely political debates? jgwlaw 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that since I started editing this article I've only included one citation, as follows...
Tort reform supporters argue that lawsuits over socially beneficial practices increase the costs of those practices, and thus improperly deter innovation and other economically desirable activity. An example often cited is the medical insurance industry, where some governmental studies have shown a link between the rising costs of medical malpractice premiums and reduced access to health care[2].
The citation is a link to a 2002 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It was deleted in the course of a collaborative re-structuring of the article by jglaw and I, and no explanation was ever given as to why. Maybe the problem is that valid secondary-sourcing is being lost in edit wars, while leaving a lot of partisan detrius on board.
Certainly, "tort reform" is a political movement with social aims and contending factions, but so was the abolition movement, the prohibition / temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the affirmative action movement, the Whiskey Rebellion, etc. All were (and some still are) contentious political issues, but that does not make them "unencyclopedic." It just means we have to work harder.--HelloDali 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is covered at WP:NPOV, specifically the issue of undue weight. If an article is biased (and stacks of 'em are, Wikipedia, she ain't finished) then take action on it - if there are problems, there are plenty of places to find help about, such as request for comment if you need that as well. Most wikipedia editors are helpful people, but POV pushers are about. You'll find that most are well meaning, and that if you keep the faith, you can make the article work. WilyD 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor of the Tort Reform article, I'd like to pose a few examples of the items in question. These were originally posted under the heading "The Tort Reform Agenda" (which I take to mean "list of stated purposes")
  • Caps on non-economic damages (e.g., monetary compensation for pain and suffering), punitive damages;
  • Limiting or eliminating the collateral source doctrine
  • Use of court-appointed expert witnesses and elimination of elections for judges (In other words, mandatory appointment for both judges and expert witnesses) ;
  • Limiting the applicability of joint and several liability in favor of proportional liability;
  • Reducing appeal bond requirements for defendants who file appeals when faced with potentially bankrupting judgments;
  • Adopting the English rule of "loser pays";
  • Limits on contingency fees;
  • Requirement that class actions that have a nationwide class of plaintiffs be tried in federal courts.
    • This list was deleted for the reasons jglaw describes above. However, when you click on each of the links in the above list, you'll notice that only two of the linked articles even make a passing reference to tort reform, and none contain NPOV tags. The list was intended to extend the primary definition to include a description of the most commonly proposed tort reforms, which I thought - and still believe - it did.
    Clearly, it was not intended to "propagandize" anyone. Unless we can agree that most readers instinctively know what "collateral source doctrine" means, than we must try to inform readers about the meaning of the term. Anything less seems like censorship, in its most odious form. My suggestion would be (if jglaw still believes these linked articles to be polemical) to edit the articles in question, as the notion that tort reform advocates support the listed changes doesn't appear to be in question by either of us.--HelloDali 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Derogatory terms for people as encyclopedic?

    And while I am at this, there is an article called "ambulance chaser". Is it WIkipedia style to have a derogatory term for a group of professionals as an entry? Should we also include 'greedy insurance companies' or 'medical hacks' or 'bean-counters' (for accountants)? Is this what we want for Wikipedia? I heard (but do not know for sure) that the "ambulance chaser" article was initially created by creating the name and placing an image of John Edwards as the sole content of the article. Now the article at least has some attempt to create a NPOV article, but you really can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. And why would we want to try?

    I admit I am only a few months into editing Wikipedia, although I have read it for awhile - but generally on topics of interest that are well written. But when I started editing, I looked up something which led me to the 'tort reform' and then I realized that there were webs of subarticles branching out all focusing on the same political agenda - favorites are tort reform and lawyer bashing, but I'm sure there are others. I was appalled at the 'ambulance chaser' article. I am an attorney, but not a personal injury lawyer. I still find this highly offensive, both personally and as a WIkipedia editor. What kind of encyclopedia is this? THere is nothing encyclopedic about these aricles, unless you want to have a separate dictionary of derogatory terms and epithets. Then we could add 'medical hacks', 'greedy corporations', and soon devolve further into 'dirty nigger', 'jewboy', 'kikes', and the like. We could make a name for ourselves for being the encyclopedia that is an equal opportunity offendor and the baddest of bad taste. I think this paints the picture?

    So the question here, is please help me understand what policies address this, if any, and if there aren't any, why aren't there?jgwlaw 04:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You could just go to Talk:Ambulance chaser and propose a move. Seriously, I don't think there's a larger policy issue here. Deco 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And the article in question (mostly) describes the term and its use, not lawyers (or even personal injury lawyers). Just as we indeed (and rightly) have articles on nigger and kike without condoning the use of this words to denigrate people. There is no question that these terms exist and are used. We document this fact.--Stephan Schulz 07:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after I edited it. But okay. I'll just have to keep an eye on it. It started out as a bashing of lawyers and a tort reform diatribe. (See above). jgwlaw 11:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important for all sides of an issue that is subject to POV to participate :), so that the related article finds a neutral equilibrium. For this particular issue, there are likely well-paid & full-time PR professionals maintaining anti-litigation POVs here & elsewhere. --Cheese Sandwich 12:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Wikipedia a "How To" Guide?

    As I'm very new to Wikipedia, I just wanted to check what the policy is regarding information containted in articles that seems to be a guide of the "how to" sort. When I first started using Wikipedia, there was a fierce debate on the suicide page about information that some felt was listing methods along with their pros and cons. However, of particular note to myself is the page on surveillance. There is an extremely lengthy sub-section on counter-surveillance, including lists of methods for performing it. Is this what Wikipedia is? It doesn't seem appropriate to an encyclopaedia (in my opinion), as there are ample "How To" guides available for any given subject, it would seem risky for Wikipedia to offer "advice" on such sensitive issues and it would seem highly difficult (again in my humble opinion) to maintain NPOV while telling people the right way of doing things. I would like to suggest and possibly make changes to this page, but wanted to check the relevent policies before doing so. Blaise Joshua 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think, but am not sure, that "how-to" guides are meant to be on our sister project, Wikibooks, rather than here. Nevertheless, you are correct in your observation that Wikipedia does have a tendency to have things that print encyclopedias don't (how-to guides just isn't one of them).
    Or wikiHow (not operated by Wikimedia, but takes how-tos). Invitatious (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, I would agree with your opinion that Wikipedia should not be offering advice. The article on surveillance should not be in the second person (last time I checked, there was a guideline against the second person but these things are volatile), so feel free to rewrite the article accordingly. However, be careful to distinguish advice from information: simply stating what the methods are (big big subjective grey area here) is not necessarily a how-to, and could be just the presentation of fact. Neonumbers 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia is definitely not a how-to guide.--Brownlee 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider your re-write/removal carefully, the information can be rewrote. Also source it, if that is original research it should be removed.--I'll bring the food 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I often wonder how many of these folks have ever actually seen an encyclopedia? OF COURSE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA HAS DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS.

    My grandfather's encyclopedia circa 1915 had pages of details about building steam engines, radios, and making batteries for your radio using (then) common household chemicals, such as borax. It was fascinating reading as I was growing up.

    --William Allen Simpson 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you, William. Of course, most people could find encylopaedias to support their particular idea of what Wikipedia should and shouldn't be, including encyclopaedias that contain biased, incorrect or selective information on a given subject. Besides, it would seem way beyond the scope to have such information in every articles. Where would you stop? What about articles on surgery or dental work? The fact is, there are books and courses out there to instruct people on how to do things if they want to learn how to do something. Generally, it's not in the remit of an encyclopaedia to provide such instructions. Lastly, please don't shout by using caps. Your opinion and input is just as valuable without doing so and it just comes across a lot nicer : o ) Blaise Joshua 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple IP addresses

    Hello. Could anyone elaborate on the protocol for coping with disruptive users that utilise multiple roving IP addresses? Meaning that almost each edit is under a different IP address so warning and then blocking a user is of no use, as they simply pop up to vandalise and disrupt elsewhere with a different address.--Zleitzen 08:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's really nothing we can do, from what I understand, because for anonymous users, I read earlier, their IP address changes for every page they visit... MichaelZ526 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some folks experimenting with contacting ISPs, please see Wikipedia:Abuse reports. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Heritage categories

    I've spent some time trying to draft clear, neutral, and specific language to cover the recent debates. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage. Note that I'm deliberately using a very broad umbrella term, rather than a list of "ancestry, class, culture, ethnicity, national origin, race, religion, or previous condition of servitude".

    I believe that there is general agreement on how to label them, and specific agreement on the use of hyphenation, supported by numerous debates at Categories for Discussion.

    Remember, these are Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and need to be concise. The detailed guidelines for inclusion and interpretation will be at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, where we can worry about other issues.

    --William Allen Simpson 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A "jury duty" rule of thumb for AFD

    Opened at WT:AFD, a dual proposal for:

    • A volontary form of "jury duty" (once someone engages in an AFD, he should try and stay to its end).
    • Documenting suggestions about "how to close an AFD" for admins (with respect to discounting early votes of people who didn't come back after evidence was provided).

    -- 62.147.38.70 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Too much attention to vandals?

    I hope this is an adequate place to post this. I'm not an expert user, so bear with me. I might be completely mistaken, but I have the impression that some vandals might get too much attention here. I realize it is easier to ban someone if their actions are known, but pages like this one almost seem to pay tribute to these users (I also realize some of their edits can be amusing, etc. but there are other places on the internet for that). I'm of the opinion that vandalism is fairly easy to spot and control and that these imbeciles will leave if they are ignored. I know the issue is much more complex, but I just wanted to share my thoughts. ChaChaFut 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some have said that pages like that are the ultimate goal of a vandal. They can show it to their firends and say "Yep, I'm that annoying." I'm neutral on the matter. Such pages can be helpful in keeping tabs on known vandals. Frankly, it surprises me that he's even still a problem. In any case, such pages are probably a necessary evil. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry protocol

    Suppose one had solid evidence of an editor's systematic use of multiple socks for the purpose of intimidation, false consensus building, 3RR aversion, etc. What is the best way to present said evidence, given the fact that doing so would likely allow the objective observer to surmise the identity of the puppeteer? Is there an "off-line" alternative to how I see it attempted so clumsily so often? Wikipalooza2006 07:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The main place right now would be Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. If you don't feel you have quite enough evidence for that and want some more technical checks, try Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. --Aquillion 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims?

    It appears that editors are now selecting portals for possible deletion on the grounds that a portal has not been given prior approval: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking. Concern has been raised that this portal approval process does not have the wide consensus it appears to claim, and that it runs counter to the principles of Wikipedia - the essence of which is that this is a wiki which enables users to get involved immediately without registration or prior review. Tiresome though it is to tidy up vandalism and to correct mistakes, that is the price we have to pay for having a wiki. This portal approval process appears to be an example of creeping bureaucratic authority. If people feel that editors who are unsure if their portal is a good idea need somewhere to for for advice, perhaps the page could be renamed Wikipedia:Portal/Advice, and it made explicit and clear that there is no need to wait a week for approval. SilkTork 08:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If we don't require community approval to create Portals, we should, because something like Portal:Humor (full of empty links and with no constructive edits since January) is an embarassment! While I think the process should be explicitly stated, it is not counter to Wikipedia's aims any more than restricting edits to MediaWiki pages to admins. Articles can be of slight significance, but Portals must be broad introductions into broad topics, and the topics must demonstrate a community of interest willing to do the work of keeping the Portal fresh and up to date. bd2412 T 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your points are valid, and apply to many aspects of Wikipedia. The current process is that something is created, be it article, category, WikiProject or Portal. It is given reasonable time to develop and show potential, then if some editors feel that it is doing more harm than good, a notice is put up and editors gather to see if a consensus of editors agree that the article/category should be deleted or renamed. The process here is that there is no notice given. Somebody applies, and those few people who are aware this process exists then decide among themselves. It is not a clear, open and democratic process. It is not policy. However, I understand the points you are making, which is why I suggest this process be named Portal/Advice. In the meantime, if you are unhappy with an existing Portal and feel that it is beyond hope, put it forward for deletion. SilkTork 15:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Above all, Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, and is not a free web host. The proposal process was developed, to help deal with the creation of so many portals which then are disregarded, unmaintained, in some cases half-created. The bigger issue is shortage of portal maintenance (e.g. Portal:Fire, with news not updated since last December, Portal:Archaeology, Portal:Netherlands, Portal:Dogs, Portal:Industrial Design ...). The proposal process not only helps evaluate if the topic is broad enough, but also consider prospects for portal maintenance. -Aude (talk contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Portal process is no different to the Category or Article or WikiProject process. The same policies regarding Wikipedia not being a free web host apply. Once we get into the area of waiting a week for a self-elected group to decide if someone can proceed with developing one area of Wikipedia, then it opens the door a little for other areas to have approval rules. The essence of Wikipedia is that it is wiki - otherwise we might rename it ApprovalBySelfAppointedGroupPedia. SilkTork 15:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree a process is needed for portal approval. If editors make lots of overlapping portals, lots of portals with little or no content, or lots of portals lacking conceptual coherence, then readers will find them discouraging and frustrating. This could lead readers to give up trying to use Wiki portals. High quality portals that overlap as little as possible will be most helpful to readers, and that requires a minimal management process (e.g., a proposal-approval process). kc62301
    I also think it's a good thing that new portals go through an approval process. This way they gain visibility and more users are interested in maintaining them, since it will be their creation. Pre-approval isn't a new thing, stubs and their categories go through similar process since 2005. feydey 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I somewhat agree with your arguments, that portals should just be created and then if something is problematic, to put it up for deletion. The problem with that is the sheer number of poorly maintained portals that get created. Even major topics like Portal:History are being neglected. I have tried (unsuccessfully) reaching out to Wikipedia:WikiProject History for help with Portal:History. I wouldn't suggest deleting portals covering such key topics, but some better way of dealing with this is needed. The proposal process was intended to help do that by stemming the portel creation, en masse. -Aude (talk contribs) 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a pre-approval process will not prevent a Portal falling into disuse. Nor will it ensure a brilliant Portal is created. If you are concerned about the state of some Portals, couldn't you put a message on the Portal suggesting it needs some TLC - perhaps, as the Portal/Advice group, making some helpful suggestions. I could see a Portal/Advice group being very useful in encouraging and developing Portals in a friendly and supportive manner. SilkTork 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is a good idea at all; if the page is neglected or half-done, MFD it. However, forcing users to get a rubber stamp to get a portal will make active users more reluctant to create them. Tito xd(?!?) 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Here are my thoughts on the portal approval page:

    Below I've transposed the Miscellany for Deletion nomination for the Portal Approval page. To participate in that discussion, click the edit button below and to the right: --Transhumanist 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need to transclude a debate from elsewhere here. A link suffices. I've removed the transclusion. Worldtraveller 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (You may want to go to the MfD and restate that.) --Transhumanist 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is continued on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals, which includes my original reply to this forum.

    Categories by ethnicity - what's wrong with having them for British people?

    Today's Gretzky FA on the frontpage has him categorized as Belarusian Canadian and Polish Canadian among other things. Innumerable US personalities are similarly categorized by ethnicity.

    I tried to categorize British people of Bengali origin similarly with the category British-Bengalis. There are, to my knowledge, 11 such people articles on WP so far, all of which I tagged - Eenasul Fateh, Iqbal Ahmed, the two girls on Harry Potter, etc etc.

    But for some reason, this was put to a VfD along with several others, and then deleted after a vote that barely recorded 10 votes in total - with at least 3 for. The deletionist gave all sorts of strange reasons for not categorizing British people by their ethnicity, few of which made much sense.

    I also pointed out the policy of targetting small categories (although with 11 members, British-Bengalis was larger than most). The deletionist cleverly left out British Asians which is truly a large category, and which will have many backers if anyone ever puts it to the vote.

    I have therefore two questions:

    1. Why one policy for American/Canadian articles and a different policy for British articles?
    2. Why delete small categories, and leave out larger categories, when the argument for deletion is essentially the same?

    If anyone can clarify, I will be most grateful. I would like to know what official WP policy is, before a useful category dies a needless death.

    -- Peripatetic 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy for category deletion is at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. The CFD page itself lists reasons to nominate a category, and refers to Wikipedia:Categorization of people which only says that all such categorization schemes "may be problematic". Answers to your specific questions: 1) there is no differential policy for American/Canadian vs. British categories, 2) because one CFD outcome has no binding influence on any other. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, kinda puts that position in a tight squeeze with systemic bias though. Steve block Talk 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where can I review the CFD for this categorisation - on the face of it, it does seem an odd idea to delete such a category where we have "fictional armies" and the like roaming around. --Charlesknight 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard to know which CfD you're talking about. There have been at least 4 repeated debates about British bazians. Virtually all of them have been deleted for improper categorization.
    For example, well-known people like Cat Stevens have been variously categorized as "Swedish-British" -- very American-style -- and the British say, We don't call people that! So, somebody tried "British Swedish", and more folks said, We don't call people that, either! And other person tried "Category:List of British people of Swedish descent", which is just excrable, and doesn't fit any category naming convention -- although that could be an article where folks could add references for verifiability.
    Moreover, it turns out the he never calls himself Swedish anything, and apparently was never a Swedish citizen, although he lived in Sweden 4 years as a child ("sometime after" 8 years old). Now that's just silly!
    It all comes down to listing heritages by 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, or non-notable temporary residency. And after many such CfD debates, and additional debates here, we now have a clear and concise policy.
    I'm sure folks will be cleaning up Americans, Canadians, and others, but it will take time. They'll be deleted as they are emptied of the non-notable, non-verifiable ethnicruft (to coin a phrase).
    --William Allen Simpson 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may take a while, although we can try to clean up the sillier stuff. A while back the article on Lhasa de Sela, who has Mexican and Jewish ancestry, was born in the U.S., grew up there and in Mexico, and has lived in Canada and now France, had the following categories:
    Category:Jewish Canadians
    Category:Jewish Mexicans
    Category:Mexican-French people
    Category:Canadians in France
    Category:Jewish-Frenches
    -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Redux

    This is the one I am talking about

    Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 23#British "ethnic" categories again

    I will also give the full list of 11 here - at least 10 of them (I'm not fully certain of Monica Ali) are 100% of Bengali parentage on both sides of the family, so no dilution there as occurs frequently in the US: Konnie Huq - Rupa Huq - Iqbal Ahmed - Afshan Azad - Shefali Chowdhury - Muhammad Abdul Bari - Pola Uddin, Baroness Uddin - Akram Khan (dancer) - Eenasul Fateh - Shami Chakrabarti - Monica Ali

    I've given further reasons, such as self-identification, strong community identity and homogeneity, etc etc as valid reasons for having this category. But these reasons were all ignored. I repeat, British Bengalis are on a different order of identification compared to something like Swedish Brits.

    Finally there is Category:British Asians. If British-Bengalis have no valid reason to exist, I can hardly think of a valid reason for British Asians which is a specifically British construct, and even more artificial at that! --Peripatetic 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's interesting you should mention "asians" as I read this article today (based upon the findings of a report) -
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/faisal_bodi/2006/07/whats_in_a_name.html
    --Charlesknight 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Peripatetic, you probably should take a look again, as I was the nominator of that CfD, not against it.
    I'll note that you are re-populating these (11?) with the recently deleted category. That's a speedy deletion for re-created content. Stop doing that!
    I've only checked a few of these, and so far none of them fit such a category. The Baroness Uddin may have been "born in Bangladesh" (although there is no verifiable reference, and it certainly wasn't under that name, as that is her husband's surname), but "grew up in London ... educated at the University of North London" according to the article. She is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She is a British Baroness raised to life peer. There is no verifiable statement that she considers herself Bengali, nor Bangladeshi.
    The Harry Potter actors were born and raised English and Welsh, respectively. Again, there are no verifiable self-identifications as any other heritage. They are not from the same community, although they may have become friends due to their professional life.
    The policy seems clear and explicit:
    • In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
      • Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
      • The place of birth is rarely notable.
    Finally, as you have come forward here and cited the log, I will quote your own words:
    No African or Caribbean or Asian or Indian immigrant is referred to as "English", no matter how long they or their generations have lived here.
    That racist comment was soundly rejected. We don't practice ethnic cleansing here.
    --William Allen Simpson 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Detailed response

    Once again, I am going to ignore your malicious remark. Something about personal attacks comes to mind.
    I am going to refocus on the issue of Bengalis. Bengalis are an ethnic group who originate in South Asia, in the region adjoining the bay of Bengal. Their main distinguishing characteristic is the Bengali language. They may be of several religions - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. They are distributed mainly across two countries - Bangladesh and India (particularly West Bengal). Again, the majority ethnic group in this region is known as "Bengalis".
    For various economic reasons, people have migrated from this area for decades. There are large Bengali diaspora in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, mainland Europe and the Middle East.
    Bengali people who arrive in the West do not automatically lose their Bengali ethnicity. They may have a different passport, but that is not the issue. Similarly, children of Bengali immigrants who are born and raised abroad are also referred to as Bengalis. I refer you again to the websites of British Bengali groups - BBPA [3], Bob Network [4] among others. These are all second-generation associations.
    Seems to me you are mixing up ethnicity with nationality, either wilfully or for whatever reason. Baroness Uddin is Bengali in the same way that Jack Kennedy was Irish American. If British Asian is applicable, then so is British Bengali - as Bengali is no more than a subset of Asian. Unless you are planning to delete British Asian as well. We have not seen evidence of that so far.
    I will try and bring up evidence of Bengali ethnicity for each of my cases. You can refer to them as English or Welsh as much as you like. That is not my remit. My remit is to prove that these people are demonstrably of Bengali ethnic identity.
    1. Konnie Huq [5] - quote: Born to Bangladeshi parents and graduated from Cambridge University. Evidence of Konnie playing UP her Bengali roots when she filmed Blue Peter in Bangladesh. [6]
    2. Rupa Huq is Konnie's sister. Similar.
    3. Baroness Uddin [7] - quote: Baroness Manzila Pola Uddin was born in Bangladesh and brought up in London and Baroness Uddin is proud to support BritBangla. I am pleased to be associated with BritBangla and give my support; and with worthwhile charity initiatives. See Baroness Uddin identifying with fellow Bengalis at launch event - see picture [8], or do you need her to actually SAY so in that many words?
    4. Afshan Azad [9] See Afshan's quote: I hope they are glad to see a Bengali girl in a Hollywood film. I want them to see my talent and see me as an individual.
    5. Shefali Chowdhury [10] quote: Shefali Chowdhury, a second-generation Bangladeshi based in London, who plays Parvati Patil in the latest Harry Potter film
    5 down, 6 to go. Rest assured, I shall find evidence for the others as well. Regards. -- Peripatetic 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Just out of curiosity, why the rank inconsistency wrt British Asians? Why are you sparing British Asians from the cull? How come there is no demand for SELF-IDENTIFICATION evidence for every person listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Asians. How come you haven't gone on a cleanup drive? Is it because of the size or popularity of the category? This inconsistency needs to be discussed openly. Regards.[reply]
    The main thing that leaps out at me is the vital importance of having clear definitions for each of these categories, and judging strictly by those definitions. To be encyclopedic, a category must have a definition which means it is possible to make an entirely objective determination of whether someone fits into it, based on reliable published sources. If we need to go around gathering "evidence" of someone's Bangladesh-iness, then the category is insufficiently well-defined, and we are engaging in original research.
    I don't personally see a problem with a "British Bengalis" category defined as EITHER:
    - "This category contains British citizens with known Bengali ancestry"; OR
    - "This category contains British citizens who have identified themselves as Bengali"
    (not both) and including ONLY people identified by reliable sources as fitting those criteria.
    However, if we need to go around deciding whether people count or not based on what charities they support, or where they have presented reports from, then that is utterly unencyclopedic original research. TSP 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Further response

    Something else I should have made clear at the outset. Bengali immigration to the West on a large scale - and more broadly, south Asian immigration - is a relatively new phenomenon, beginning in the 60s and increasing in the 70s, 80s and 90s. What this means is that the current generation of Western Bengalis is only the second generation, with the vast majority of them having parents who are both Bengalis, who were originally inhabitants of the home country and who were the original immigrants. This is the case with all 11 in the list.
    In sum, it is relatively simple to trace Bengali ancestry for second-generation Brit Bengalis or Bengali Americans, etc etc. It is several orders of magnitude easier compared to Europeans in the US. As a rule, intermarriage with other ethnic groups gives rise to multiple ethnic identities. This has happened to most Europeans in the US, e.g. Italians or Poles or Swedes, etc. For example, not many people today can claim to have exclusively Swedish parentage all the way back to Ellis Island a century years ago.
    This is not the case with the Bengali diaspora, simply because there hasn't been enough time for that to happen so far. I'm sure within a couple of decades, as a result of increasing intermarriage, ethnic identity will become more heterogeneous. That is the nature of immigration. However, for the moment, tracing Bengali ancestry remains a quite straightforward matter.
    The remaining 6:
    6. Iqbal Ahmed [11] - article refers to original homeland Bangladesh.
    7. Akram Khan the dancer [12]. One of Akram's most popular dance performances is based on his experiences of visiting his ancestral country [13]
    8. Eenasul Fateh [14] - aka the magician Aladin, whose father was a Bengali diplomat.
    9. Monica Ali [15] - passim.
    10. Shami Chakrabarti [16] - whose parents came from the western half of Bengal (West Bengal in India). The daughter of Bengali immigrants, she and her younger brother grew up in "semi-detached suburbia" in north-west London, etc etc.
    11. Muhammad Abdul Bari [17] - the BBC profile of the new MCB head identifies him as a Bangladeshi.
    I hope all this explanation suffices.
    I still don't get why British Asian is kosher but British Bengali is not. There are literally dozens of references to British Asians - what standards of proof are given for members of this list? As it is, Asian happens to be a sociological construct, meaning entirely different things in the UK (south Asian) and in the US (oriental Asians)! Bengali, on the other hand, is a recognized ethnic group, and with 230 million people [18], it is one of the bigger ethnic groups in the world.
    I see there is even a list of Pakistani British people [19], existing as a subset of British Asians. As mentioned before, British Bengalis are another subset of British Asians in the same way. Asian in this context is no more than a catch-all term; it is not an identifiable ethnic group in itself.
    Regards. -- Peripatetic 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not had a reply on this from any concerned. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated the Bengali ancestry of the above 11. Given so, what is the policy regarding a Category called "British people of Bengali ancestry"? Such naming is both clear and accurate. I am not particularly worried about what the specific category is called, as long as it correctly identifies ethnic origins. Whether a person wants to self-identify or not is immaterial in this case.
    I await responses. --Peripatetic 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely agree that, if British Asians is a valid category, so should be British Bengalis as a subcategory of "British Asians". Already there are Category:British Parsis and Category:Pakistani British people. So, I don't see any reason not to have British Bengalis as a category. Thanks. --Ragib 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sub-pages in entertainment entries - are these relevant?

    I would love to contribute to some of the stubs floating around wikipedia, but one thing bothers me:

    In entertainment articles (particularly those about a particular show, anime or videogame), there are often a slew of sub-pages which seem to probe every facet of said show etc. Is this what wikipedia is actually aiming for?

    One example is 'Cultural references and innuendo in Rocko's Modern Life'. It's a list of innuendos and product references from a cartoon show. I can't for the life of me see how it's relevant in an encyclopedia.

    Other examples would be anime which focusses on combat - often every minor character is listed somewhere with a list of who they fought, when and where. This is often all there is to these characters anyway, since they're very minor. It seems like a boatload of fancruft.

    Not only does it pad out the encyclopedia with fluff, but it distracts contributors from filling out numerous stubs because they're so busy listing the many 'Mr X's and how many times they kicked 'Character Z' in the face.

    Is there a rule or assertion somewhere which discourages this kind of page? I'm aware that unsubstantiated fancruft is discouraged, but is there a rule implying that articles should remain to-the-point and not shatter into a thousand sub-pages with useless information for the info-seeker?

    Any input appreciated,

    QuagmireDog 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For a discussion (not policy, not guideline) about this, see Wikipedia:Fancruft. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I must hold my hand up, it's there in black and white on the fancruft page *rolls eyes*, my apologies. Between that and the 'pokemon test', it seems worrying about these things is self-defeating, so I'll see about brushing up on wiki editting and add to some other pages. QuagmireDog 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion

    I have for the past hour been doing Status Quo articles. I have done most of the albums. I am going to make a Status Quo template. I make a page about Matt Letley. I add in some information, not wanting to create a worthless article. Then, some admin goes ahead and deletes it within three minutes with no reason given, just deletes it. I appreciate the right of Admin's to delete it, but give me a reason, I have feelings to you know. I had a much more strongly worded letter drafted berfore this. Hol e in the wall 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For more information on circumstances where articles may be speedily deleted without discussion, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked there and there's no sodding information on it... I am really getting annoyed now. Hol e in the wall 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the article. It was deleted as having "no assertion of notability," per WP:CSD criterion A7, but I think that was an error. The drummer for a band we have an article on is not obviously non-notable in any way. In the future, if you have trouble with such things, you should take it up with the closing admin or bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks SCZenz! Just for future reference, where can I go to see reasons for deletion? Hol e in the wall 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For valid reasons for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There are also systems of deletion without such concrete rules: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion can be used if someone suggests deletion and nobody objects, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion makes decisions about deleting articles based on community discussion. Speedy deletion is a rigid system designed to be used only for things that are entirely non-controversial, AfD is for things that some users may disagree with, and PROD is for stuff inbetween. -- SCZenz 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientific American linking

    Hi everyone. A representative of Scientific American recently began posting external links to online articles from the magazine. There has been much dispute about whether this is a good thing or not. On the pro side, Sci Am is a highly-reputable popular science magazine, and the links are all relevant and may very well provide useful information on the topic for users who want to learn more than our article has. On the con side, the Sci Am online articles have ads, so they are making money off the links, and the linking is massive and systematic. The representative recently posted the following text on the subject:

    Hello, I represent Scientific American and I am responsible for the insertion of the new external links on Wikipedia to SciAm. I don't believe what we are doing is wrong but we have stopped inserting links at this time. Also, I want to clarify what we're doing and why. We are not using a spambot. A person is manually entering the links to the Wikipedia articles and we are not inserting articles just for the sake of spam or search optimization. We're only adding an external link when we believe it would contribute by providing additional information on the topic. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for many people and we would like to contribute by adding our content. Yes we acknowledge that by adding the links it will probably benefit us but that is not the reason we're doing it. The articles that we link to are all completely free and the user is not required to pay or register to view them. The ad unit several people have mentioned does promote a subscription but the viewer has the option to immediately close the ad. Visitors to our web site will view ads since it is partially advertising supported and we must do this to operate and continue to provide content to our readers. This is a user experience that is similar to visiting most other content web sites and blogs on the Internet. We are not trying to mislead anyone and have been completely transparent in our actions by not masking our IP and by using the user ID - Scientific American. We believe we are providing additional content on the topic, which I believe is valuable to Wikipedia users. We are not inserting links indiscriminately. We add external links at the bottom of the list not the top. We do not modify other links. We make the copy straightforward by just placing our publication name, issue date and title. We do not reinsert other links that have been removed by others who may view it as inappropriate. Also the next phase was to to add actual content to Wikipedia in topics lacking any substantial content. But at this time, we will not do that since it may be viewed as inappropriate. I hope I have been clear in our motivations and intentions. Finally, if many Wikipedia community members views what we're doing is inappropriate we will stop. Thank you --Scientific American 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from this edit)

    I think we should discuss whether we find such linking desirable, and get back to the Scientific American representative only once we have consensus to avoid confusion (which there was some of in our earlier response). Previous discussions can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Massive insertion of Scientific American links and WP:AN/I#Apparent SEO/Linkspam to Scientific American articles. -- SCZenz 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To start of the discussion, here's my own personal opinion. While this is arguably linkspam, and certainly does make Scientific American money, I do not think either of these reasons to reject such links is compelling. On the contrary, we should encourage them to add more links if they want to, because Scientific American articles are good. Links to good, relevant external pages improve the encyclopedia, so I think Scientific American deserves an exception to our usual mode of linkspam enforcement. Ultimately, whether the encyclopedia is made better is the only thing that's important. -- SCZenz 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Don't these links fail criterion 1 of WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided": "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." In other words, aren't these the sort of links that would make fine references (if the articles were updated to include info from them) but are inappropriate as external links? — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Often the articles' info is more specific than I imagine being in the article; they're really "more information," I think. Anyway, don't we usually link to our references? If nothing else, having these links will let us use the material to improve the articles more easily. -- SCZenz 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If Amazon started posting links to there products, evry Wikipedian would be up in arms. How is this any differant. And why do the need a 'team' to ad links? Surely, if their articles were so relavent people would be doing it allready and SA wouldn;t need to do it. This looks super fishy to me. Hol e in the wall 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They are unquestionably trying to make money off of us and promote themselves. I claim, however, that their effort will be mutually beneficial. -- SCZenz 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To see what kind of links they're posting, see Special:Contributions/208.241.19.100. -- SCZenz 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the person at SciAm is editting the articles, it seems to me that using the ref tag would be a better use of the time. However, we often have external links to nytimes, guardian, and other on-line articles supported by advertising. AND we all love Google, a service supported by advertising, to verify references and notability. Quite different from Amazon, where a link doesn't actually contain information.

    --William Allen Simpson 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazon contains Discographies, album covers, album reviews and information on the album. Yet I see no links of Amazon. Hol e in the wall 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that this is a good thing. Most of the links are certainly good links on an individual basis, but it continues systematically, we're going to end up with every single one of our higher-profile articles on science linking to Scientific American. Remember, we try to keep the number of external links on our articles within a reasonable limit, so that means one less link devoted to someone else, too. I'm worried that this will, in effect, make Scientific American look like a sort of unofficial Wikipedia affiliate... No matter how good they are, I think we should avoid that. --Aquillion 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That just means we have to deal with each link added on a case-by-case basis (which we ought to be doing for every link anyway). I think it's clear that if the editors of a given article decide against keeping a given link, Scientific American isn't going to keep on reverting the decision to remove it. We don't have to officially sanction the process en mass, we can look at each link as it comes.--ragesoss 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. What I kind of meant to say was that even if the individual links could pass on a one-by-one bases, the effect of having the overwhelming majority of science articles on Wikipedia link to Scientific American might be something we want to consider. --Aquillion 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comparison to Amazon.com is a red herring -- we can use product identification numbers and link through a counterpart to the ISBN-book links that are already being used if we're concerned about vendor neutrality. That would not solve what's a crucial difference between products and articles -- mp3 players, software, golf carts, and virtually everything else Amazon sells is not itself really properly encyclopedic, and we would risk looking like a sales directory if we had articles and links for all that stuff on Wikipedia. Scientific American's content is, by contrast, by nature almost always encyclopedic -- scientific discoveries are about the world around us, and they are the historical core of what encyclopedias are about. To reiterate, a lot of links to amazon makes us a product directory, but a lot of links to SciAm makes us well plugged in to science. I would be tempted to say that the SciAm articles are unqualifiedly a good thing, my only reservation being that we might want to be cautious about covering research that is too new. If those who add the links take great care to deal with this latter issue sensitively, I see no issue with this kind of linking going on. --Improv 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Their explanation is much appreciated. But I can't say it makes me like any better that a commercial entity is adding links to their own site. Who will be the next? Wikipedia does not let affiliate programs determine its content — and links aren't even content. It'd actually be preferable they'd skip the links and start directly adding the relevant content to the articles. Links would neither be necessary nor appropriate then — not even for reference, when the creator of the referenced content itself adds it, think about it! Why would anybody with a financial responsibility to their shareholders bother to do such a thing? It still stinks of bargaining for advertising space, in their own interest they should refrain. Femto 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    VERY nice point Femto! I think that defeats SA's point completely. Hol e in the wall 20:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Femto, you seem to be saying that if an editor adds his own work, it doesn't have to be referenced. That doesn't work. If anyone, the author of an article in Scientific American, a staff member at the magazine, or a reader, adds material from an article, it must be cited as a reference. The issue here is not (or should not be) about using Scientific American articles as references. The issue is about external links.
    I do have to say that external links to Scientific American articles will almost certainly be more relevant and useful than 95% of the external links we currently have, but that is more of an argument for agressively cleaning out poor external links than for letting Scientific American add their links. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean that a company only has to be the first to include some fact from their site into an article, and Wikipedia must provide a free link to them for all eternity? That doesn't work either. References are a help to the reader and an academic courtesy to the original source. But the facts are free, especially if chosen to be added by the source itself. Femto 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for all eternity, no - it could be replaced by a different source later. But yes, every fact added to any Wikipedia article should be accompanied by a reference to a source, as per the Verifiability and Original Research policies. This applies even when they're added by someone with sufficient authority to make a statement, because we only have their word for it that they are that person or group.
    As a separate issue, yes, we do undertake to credit every contributor for providing the information for all eternity, under the GFDL - that's one of the things that the History function is there for. TSP 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for all eternity perhaps, but long enough for adding linked facts to Wikipedia becoming a lucrative business model! Other sites will be less reserved than SciAm. I also agree with below that the reference argument is rather moot at this point, as all we've got is links so far. Femto 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The facts may be free, but they have to be sourced. If anyone, including an employee of Scientific American, adds new material to a Wikipedia article based on an article from the magazine, then they need to reference the source. Again, this is a different issue from the one which was originally raised here, which is whether we want employees of online sources adding "external links" which are not direct sources for information in an article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, they need to reference the source. The fact remains that except for the few cases regulated by WP:OR, an editor of Wikipedia should never cite themself as source of the content which they add.
    Say I wrote an essay on the history of bark beetles breeding in bohemian birches. I put it on my website. If you add the information from there to Wikipedia, you may add a cite as a courtesy to me, and as a help for the reader to determine the reliability of the information. This is the purpose of Wikipedia's references.
    But I can add my knowledge to Wikipedia regardless of whether my site existed or not. Citing myself does not make me a proper source or increases my encyclopedic verifiability. Neither is it a courtesy to myself, it's a promotion. This holds true even moreso for publishers of franchised content from other writers. A link to their site, a secondary source, would neither be necessary nor appropriate, when they own the added content and have access to its primary references. Femto 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your argument very confusing. If a magazine article is used as the source for material in a Wikipedia article, then the magazine article must be cited no matter who adds the material to Wikipedia. You seem to be saying that if an employee of Scientific American should add material from an article in that magazine, he or she could not cite the article, but would have to cite the references listed in that article. That would be wrong. References in Wikipedia should only be to sources actually consulted by the editor adding or verifying the material. Citing indirect sources that the editor has not consulted would be wrong. Note that most articles in Scientific American are commissioned from experts in a particular field, and are not written by employees of the magazine. And this is all still hypothetical, anyway. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that, so long as the links are relevant to the article, and go into more depth than the wikipedia article, they can only be benificial. Ideally, the relevant content from the SA articles would be merged into the WP article, with the SA article then used as a reference - but failing that, pointing readers to a useful article to read next is the next best thing. With luck, it will prompt people to add content from that page back into the WP article (with appropriate references). I recognise that there is a money-making and publicity side to this, but I tend to focus more on the quality of WP articles than that. Responding to the external links point above: yes, it's nice to keep them down to a reasonable number, but if the external articles/websites will be of use to the reader wanting to go into more depth, then they should be added regardless of how many are currently there. Or will WP abruptly run out of space / words if we do that? Mike Peel 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I like Femto's points. Realistically, I'm not too worried; there are not all that many sites on te net that provide science content: one is lucky to find one or two for the obscure topics, maybe half-a-dozen for the more well-known topics. My goal is to have good information that is accessible, ad can be cross checked. This seems to fulfil that purpose. linas 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree entirely with Femto and agree with Donald Albury. I also think that it is a red herring to think about the scale of the thing: if each individual edit is good (according to the categorical imperative) then the sum of the edits ought to be good as well. The guideline WP:EL for links normally to be avoided seems a little odd to me: if the encyclopedia reaches a point where the articles it links to are superceded, then the links ought to be removed, provided they are not being used as references. In the meantime, if you can direct readers to another source, or even another approach, then so much the better. Let the individual editors (i.e. people with the article on their watchlist) make the call. There is no need for an overarching deicision about whether the links are a good thing or a bad thing.
    Finally, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Scientific American is not. They take different approaches to things; Scientific American tries to write entertaining articles and we are trying to be an useful work of reference. Narrative is more important to them than to us, and it can only help to give Wikipedia readers the option of consulting their articles (provided, of course, they are relevant and the links section doesn't get too bloated). – Joke 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing the high quality of Scientific American, I'm very happy to have external links to their articles in ours. They will only add to the value of our 'pedia. And I'm really glad that they are doing the work. Saves me from having to do it ;-). That this may also help them, is no skin off our collective noses. Paul August ☎ 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Allowing any organization to add self-links in articles' external links sections sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. At the very least it shows a blatent disregard for WP:SPAM, one of the few tools we have in the fight against the rising tide of spam here. What motivation does said organization have to spend time adding their links as proper citations when they can get away with simply dumping them en-masse, especially if someone is doing it "on the clock"? Ok, so Sci Am articles are often relevant and useful - but would it be so bad to request that Sci Am either add their links to the articles' talk pages (to allow other neutral editors to determine their worth), or add them as citiations? --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full ack. Allow it just once, and I foresee thousands of articles, each with highly relevant links to dozens of magazines. If relevant external content improves Wikipedia, the more the better? Where's the limit to relevance? Why bother with internal content in the first place? The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to create internal content, not to be a directory to that of others, even if someone might use it as a source at some indefinite future. Femto 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, there's the rub. Scientific American is close to a best case for allowing an entity to add many external links back to itself. The problem would be in drawing the line between Scientific American and Weekly World News. So, I'm all for anyone citing any reliable, published source as a reference for material in an article. I think we need to tighten up on external links in general, however. I like your suggestion of asking SciAm to post the links to the talk pages and let the editors familiar with the page decide if they belong on the article page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not discourage Scientific American. It is a good source and their links would benefit WP. Putting the links on talk pages could be a good compromise. Maurreen 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the fact that it is Scientific American doing the edits should not be an issue, nor should their external motives. It shouldn't matter who is doing the editing, as long as the edits are good: that seems to be one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Since the links have generally been relevant, unobtrusive, free and useful, I say let them continue adding them, but ask them to ensure that they don't reinsert links that other editors have decided to remove. – Joke 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a link to any relevant Scientific American article would improve our encyclopedia. Can anyone point to a single inapproprate link to any article, added by Scientific American? If not, then having them add the link to the talk page is just unnecessary extra work, for no gain. If they start making inappropriate links, then we can take action. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to add links to articles, which we all agree are useful, is just silly. Paul August ☎ 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've come a bit late to this discussion, but my suggestion is that we let SciAm add all the relevant link they can come up with, and that we, as Wikipedia editors, then form a WikiProject to tidy up after them and turn the "external links" into chunks of readable prose summarising the relevant points of the article, and that have a link to the article as a reference for the information. In other words, they link to what could be useful content, and we then edit the articles to add any missing information from those article, and reference those articles if we judge them to be appropriate references for the new information. Does that sound acceptable? Or would that be too much like hard work? Carcharoth 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Truth and opinions

    If a certain point of view on a particular issue can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false (as is the case with some pseudosciences), do they require a mention? If something is proven, it holds true to all, so can a false point of view still be considered valid? --81.156.50.151 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is valid for us to report that, for example, some people believe in astrology — whether astrology is real or not. It's not our place to determine 'truth'; we just report on the major schools of thought on a given issue. It's certainly appropriate for us to note when a particular opinion is 'fringe' or 'mainstream', but we can't and shouldn't decide on the 'truth' of an issue. (We can apply some editorial judgement. If an opinion is in sufficient minority and far enough out on the fringe, it may not warrant inclusion. Obviously this has to be approached on a case-by-case basis.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Books in Wikipedia

    Is there a policy or guideline about articles about books in Wikipedia? Any notability or any other criterion for inclusion of books? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. There is a proposed guideline though at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Deco 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SNOW would preclude the addition of articles about self-published books and authors. They will almost assuredly be deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:libel

    Does the wikipedia:Libel policy apply to statements of opinion on talk pages? For example, if I say on a talk page that in my opinion, a person (not a wikipedia editor) lied when s/he made a certain claim, may that statement be deleted as libel? Anonymous44 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a lawyer but I know that a level of malice would need to be proven. If you think that a person lied because you have discovered some conflicting information from another source and are trying to put the most accurate information in the Wiki entry, then it would be difficult to prove there was malice in your assumption that they lied. Of course, if you then go on a tangent about how someone is this horrible person who always lies...etc... then you maybe in more troubled waters Agne27 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP states "unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages" should be removed. If you are merely offering your opinion, that also isn't really in keeping with the original research policy. When discussing issues you need to be able to source any claims you make, whether that is in the article or on a talk page. If you can't source your claim that a person lied, your claim should be removed. If you wish to get recognition for such a claim, I would suggest you contact the media, who can afford to employ people to decide whether to publish such a claim. Your opinion that someone may have lied has no bearing on an article's content, it is extraneous and has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a message board. Steve block Talk 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages - see WP:OR#On_talk_pages_and_project_pages. And I'm not talking about a biography either. --Anonymous44 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No malice is needed if the individual is not a public figure and the libel is not on a matter of public concern (e.g., an article statement about a professor's personal life rather than his academics); a negligence standard then applies under many state laws. Our notability standards fall short of what it takes to be a "public figure," btw. Postdlf 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In my case, the person has claimed to be a vampire hunter and to have staked dozens of actual vampires. If I were to mention that I consider this to be an invention, would it be subject to wikipedia:libel?
    --Anonymous44 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It wouldn't be libel under U.S. law, because you have a reasonable belief that that statement true, and the truth cannot be libel. --Aquillion 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree wtih Acquillion. Of note here is the standard is 'negligence' not 'malice' for a private individual, and again, the truth cannot be libel (or the truth is an absolute defense). And opinion is not, of course, defamatory. It may be tacky, but not defamatory (see libel and slander for the two types of defamation).
    Legal libel is rarely an issue. More often incivil conduct is a breach of either Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Civility. But it's not a problem as long as you attack the statements made by the person and not their character. Deco 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto Deco (? !) I couldn't resist.jgwlaw 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protecting one's own page

    I really would like a new policy in which the non-administrator user can protect his userspace (main userpage, talk, subpages, etc) from any potential vandalism, but wouldn't be able to protect any other pages on Wikipedia. Is this feasible? --Revolución hablar ver 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would guess you mean semi-protection, as otherwise the user could not edit their own pages. The talk page would have to be exempt from this, as anon's are entitled to communicate with a user via their talk page. Alternatively, you may mean full protection, but want the user to be able to edit even protected pages within their own user space.
    I doubt it would be difficult to program, but it would require a change to the software, which makes it unlikely to be implemented as we have a shortage of developers. It also seems rather unwiki-like, as we try to keep almost all pages editable by anyone.
    If you have a problem with a particular page of your being regularly vandalised, then Requests for Page Protection is the place to go.-gadfium 05:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, "your" userpages are part of the wiki, which means that in theory anyone is entitled to edit them, odd as that might sound. In practice changing someone's userpage without their permission is Very Bad Form and you're allowed to revert them. Unless the userpage is disruptive to Wikipedia's mission in some way, in which case, the fact that they are part of the wiki is indeed called into play. Anyway, many of us have gotten someone or other cross with us enough to vandalize our userpages. Usually they get tired of it pretty soon, if not there are the various procedures for bringing them to account. Herostratus 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Allowing a user to protect their talk page, thus blocking comments/warnings/etc., would seem particularly problematic. Dragons flight 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedying cut+paste copyvios from sites other than commercial content providers

    (From WT:CSD) I am thinking that it might be best to amend A8 and remove the requirement "Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service)." Currently, pages that are copyvios of materials from non-profit organizations take too long to process. People have to check if the article is a copyvio, blank the article, insert the {{copyvio}} template, and list the page on WP:CP. Then, a week later, somebody else has to verify that it is a copyvio and then speedy it. Given that there are an astronomical amount of copyvios, this can cause a lot of wasted time. Thoughts? -- Where 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree 100%. Martin 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncertain. Nonprofit sites might be more willing to give permission for the material to be used. I also would like to see concrete evidence of the large number of such copyvios. Deco 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of willingness, we can't just copy their material. For concrete evidence see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Martin 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Bluemoose (who really should change their signature) - I think it'd be a good thing to do as Where suggests. On Wikipedia, WRT legal issues, it's better to ask permission than forgiveness. --Improv 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I am misinterpreting the proposal, he seems to be suggesting that we delete the content without ever seeking permission to use it. Why wouldn't we want to ask permission? Deco 18:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If permission is granted it can be put back. The obligation of action should be on those who want to license the content, not on those who are ensuring propriety. --Improv 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes the editors who cut-n-paste from non-commercial sites and blogs are the copyright owners. If spooked by deletion they could not come back. Often somebody is willing to "retell" the copyrighted story. They might need a copyvioed piece to retell. abakharev 08:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe but most stuff coppied from elsewhere needs heavy modification to fit with wikipedia in any case.Geni 15:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remove a cut & paste copyvio, I tend to leave a message on the original author's talk page — often something based around the {{nothanks}} template. It gives a legitimate author/owner an explanation of what happened. Even if the editor inserting the material is doing so deliberately and works for the organization in question, that person may not have the authority to release material under the GFDL or realize the consequences of that.
    Per Geni, it's almost always as much work to wikify, restructure, and rewrite copy & paste stuff to fit encylopedic and house style as it is to write an article from scratch. Alex, above, overlooks the fact that most copyvios are found and verified through a Google search anyway — so we don't need to copy a local copy of the document; it's readily available as a reference on the net. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Archival policy for articles transwikied to wikibooks

    I'd like to propose a change in policy for articles that are transwikied to wikibooks. Currently, articles that are transwikied from wikipedia are simply deleted, which has the unfortunate effect of also deleting the history of contributors (the history of a transwikied article on the WB side starts with the person who did the transwiking).

    It seems to me that these histories should be preserved, both as a way of acknowledging the contributions, and perhaps to give WB editors a way to find source material if the article on WP lacked citations (i.e., we would at least know who to ask). I don't think this would cause much of a problem on the WP side, because very few articles are successfully transwikied to WB, though this may be in part because the contributors to the article don't realize that it has been transwikied (and articles that are transwikied and "abandoned" at wikibooks are soon deleted).

    So I propose the following:

    1. Transwikied articles should not be deleted, but rather "blanked", and then have a template that informs interested editors that the article has been moved to WB.
    2. Transwikis to WB should alway be titled "Transwiki:ARTICLENAME", so that those of us on the WB side interested in finding a home for these articles will know what to look for.
    3. If an article "finds a home" at wikibooks, the article space on WP should be blocked from any editing, preserving the message that it was transwikied, and where the tw'd article (now a chapter or book) can be found.

    SB Johnny 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree. There are lots of places we transwiki to which are not even Wikimedia projects. We don't allow redirects across namespaces even, why should we keep nonexistant articles just to point to somewhere outside of Wikipedia? That would make us more like a search engine than an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the hell is transwikiing taking place without preserving the article history? The article history should be transwikied as well! Carcharoth 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:hotu

    Template:Hotu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - A template to link articles to Home of the Underdogs. A legitimate site, perhaps, and contains lots of information - but it also contains copyrighted material, abandonware versions of games. Now, the site is no secret - and if the companies wanted their work pulled, I'm sure it would have been already. But the question remains, should we be linking to these so people can download them? --Golbez 06:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    At first glance, one would immediately assume copyvio if it were linked anywhere else than on its own page. In that regard, it might be copyvio just linking to it. I'm no expert. Generally, however, I would think that Wikipedia would want to discourage editors from distributing copyrighted material. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to copyright violating sites is strongly discouraged. At WP:EL we say, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations). . User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They've got abandonware games (technical copyright violations), but they've also got a large archive of freeware games, including a number of well-known commercial games that were re-released as freeware. Links to games in the "freeware" section of the site should be fine. --Carnildo 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "List of " suburbs" articles

    I just started an AfD on List of Logan City suburbs. This is simply a list of the suburbs of Logan City, Queensland. What's policy on this? A list of suburbs seems the wrong tool for the job. And it would take tens of thousands of articles like this to cover the world.

    How should atlas data like that be represented? We really need more map support ("Wikipedia Earth?") for this kind of thing. --John Nagle 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD vs PROD

    Do we need both of these systems. They do the same thing, and having two only serves to confuse. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 09:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes we do. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is for generally uncontroversial deletion candidates. For the rest there is AFD. Prod removes a lot of useless workload on WP:AFD. Garion96 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Impressions from a new(ish) editor good and bad.

    I have been editing Wikipedia for about a year (I think!), and until a fortnight ago all I ever did was add and modify articles and surf it for info. Up to that point I had nothing negative to say about Wikipedia. I still think it's a marvellous concept and an extremely useful reference tool, far superior than any other encyclopedia. Best of all, it's free at the point of use, so knowledge is not limited by budget. I have every intention of carrying on playing a part in it, as the free proliferation and preservation of knowledge is a cause I am deeply committed to.

    There is however another side, one of which I was blissfully ignorant until one day I visited my Sharon Janis article and found it vanished. Since then I have been learning fast about policies, administrators, AfD's, deletion reviews, and the inner workings of Wikipedia generally. It has been a profoundly upsetting stressful and time-consuming experience. I never expected to end up fighting a crusade against a massive bureaucracy.

    Whilst I've had other articles removed, I could see good reasoning behind them. With the Sharon Janis article, I found myself having to fight hard to justify the blatantly justifiable, whereas some of my other articles about far more obscure subjects have never been questioned. Whilst this is undoubtedly the encyclopedia everyone can edit, it's also the encyclopedia where at any time, anyone's prejudice can strike out information someone else gave up time and energy to contribute. I am not convinced that reality matches policy. The policy is sound, but what happens in practice is that ego, personal prejudices, feelings pride and emotions inevitably come into play. What is happening in reality is that articles that are rubbish but no one cares about could survive indefinitely, but those where someone has a personal dislike or pejudice get nominated for the chop. The victims in this are articles which whilst not perfect have merit but have the misfortune to be read by someone with a bee in their bonnet. Fortunately, those curious enough about deleted articles can often go to Google and find out about the subject that way, but I don't think they should have to.

    I see from the forums I have visited that I have become just another aggrieved editor who has seen hard work removed without a full reasonable and justifiable explanation. It is a lot easier to remove an article than defend one, as I have painfully discovered, and that is not right. I have far better things to do with my precious time than spend countless hours on procedures, forums and jargon, but so deep is my passion for what I believe that I have gritted my teeth and waded headlong into this bewildering cyberworld.

    To sum up, Wikipedia is a marvellous creation which I'm glad I discovered, but it is far too easy for articles to be removed. I don't mind anyone appealing for a deletion, but an editor or administrator should have to work at least as hard in removing an article as I've had to in defending one. The power to delete is too widely spread amongst God knows how many administrators and therefore too easily the cause of micarriages of justice. As for the deletion review, it is a lottery depending on who reads your article and the review. The power to delete should instead be concentrated into a panel of ten highly experienced committed users who require a minimum 8-2 verdict to remove an article with a full given reasoning from each member. Above them should be a tribunal with powers to overturn in the light of fresh evidence. Even then articles should be re-admitted anyway if suitably modified in a way dictated by the tribunal.

    I will go on using, contributing and (very reluctantly) participating in discussions on Wikipedia, but after the last fortnight I will do so with a heavier heart. Headshaker 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis for the AfD discussion on the Sharon Janis article. Apparently it failed WP:BIO and contained misinformation. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sigh" which I then modified and am in the process of modifying further to fully justify what is clearly justifiable anyway. My whole point is that the onus should be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an article is unworthy, not for the defence to prove worth as I'm having to.
    Headshaker 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of your post above seems to be related primarily to the removal of content to begin with, per "it is far too easy for articles to be removed" and "an editor or administrator should have to work at least as hard in removing an article as I've had to in defending one" As such, the AfD appears to have proven that the article didn't meet WP criteria for retention at that time and was removed fairly. Deletion review can be a bit challenging, yes, but if an article is deleted fairly, there really needs to be a compelling reason to restore it --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look at this edit. A basic and easily checkable fact in the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article (the salary) was not updated. This is the sort of thing that justifiably gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. What is the point of saying that our articles can be more up-to-date than others, when no-one checks to see if they are up-to-date? This was all the worst for appearing in a featured article linked from the Main Page. Can processes please be put in place to stop this happening again? Carcharoth 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the fact checking is suppose to take part in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates nomination and selection process as was the Peer Review. Several editors took part in both processes. It just looks like that one fact slipped by. Agne27 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? From what I see of the Peer Review and WP:FAC processes, they don't involve much fact-checking, and concentrate more on the style, layout, balance and references of an article. Maybe I passed by in an off-week. Regardless, I've now found a WikiProject devoted to fact checking, so that is good. Carcharoth 09:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No Original Research - queries

    I'm not quite clear on what the difference is between Original Research and Rephrasing or Reasoning something. My example is slightly obscure, but is the best I can come up with at the moment. If say, no-one anywhere had published something saying that the District Line had the most number of stations on the London Underground (this 'factoid' has been published, but for the sake of argument let's say that only the number of stations on each line had been published). Would it then be Original Research to look at a list of the number of stations on each line and say "The District Line has the most number of stations". To me this is similar to the "deductive reasoning" section above (which concerned deducing people's nationality), but this is a clearer case of deductive reasoning. Other cases I can think of include saying things like "team Y is the first team to have won trophy X by this scoreline since 1860". This sort of thing is verifiable, but if it hasn't been published elsewhere, the only way to verify it is for the reader to go and check various lists and see if this is true. So where is the line drawn between rephrasing and representing a set of facts and maybe adding some obvious deductive reasoning, and this process becoming Original Research? A similar process would be seen for the process of rewriting and rephrasing things from a source. Where is the line drawn between summarising several sources (which is one of the prime purposes of a tertiary source like an encyclopedia), and synthesising those sources in such a way that (maybe accidentally) new connections and insights are revealed about the topic? Carcharoth 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There does seem to be a bit of gray area about how literal one interprets WP:OR. With your "direct line" example, I can see both sides one can take. A strong benchmark for me is whether or not this interpretation advances any particular position--especially one relevant to the articles NPOV. In your direct line example, a particular POV is not being advance so I would personally feel comfortable with that addition. However, I see with deducing nationality--like what happened with the Copernicus article--more room for crossing over the WP:OR line. Agne27 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see endless scope for arguments about whether something is an obvious and trivial deduction from published facts (when it would be silly to call it NOR) or not. To me, the District Line example is a trivial deduction, and I would accept it even if there were controversy; others would disagree. Almost certainly, it will often come down to whether it offends someone's POV.--Brownlee 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tor blocks

    I didn't receive a response to my ANI post about this, so I've decided to post here. I'm after community support to run a script to convert tor blocks to AnonOnly NoCreate. The source code of this script, which has worked as expected on my own wiki (see [20]), will be available on request. I would suggest that this script run on a botflagged account, as it will otherwise flood recent changes with 250-odd block and unblock combinations at a rate of approximately ten unblock/block combinations per minute. I do not currently have a sysop bit, so the account would need to be hit with a sysop bit. Issues to be resolved:

    • Whether the script should work on commuting the blocks to Anon-only / No account creation, or simply update the current blocks to mark them as Tor blocks, and to block new exit nodes.
    • Whether or not the script should run on a separate, botflagged account.
    • Whether or not I, a non-admin, should maintain the script (I'm aware that some are uncomfortable with this).
    • Whether the script should run one-off, or regularly in order to keep the blocks up to date.
    • Whether a script should be used to execute the blocks, or if there are admins willing to update these blocks manually.

    Input is welcome. Werdna (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to have left out the part of the argument explaining why we would want to have Tor proxies be blocked in that way? Dragons flight 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting/keeping articles on micronations

    Does WP need separate standards on when to delete articles about micronations or are WP:ORG and WP:WEB good enough? Micronations are defined in the WP article on them as "eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group" and thus seem to be by definition, without anything else, non-notable. Anyone can start one by declaration and most of them do not exist outside of one person's website. The ones that are mentioned in the article were mostly notable as part of a political movement. What should the standards be for retaining such articles? It seems that at a minimum the micronation should have some sort of significance outside of the political movement to which it is related. Also, is there any way to speedy delete these? Forming a micronation is like forming a band (easier in fact, as you don't have to be able to play an instrument), but without more, why do we care? JChap (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "An article about a real person, group of people ... that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" is the sentence you're looking for, I think... if it appears to have some kind of significance, fine, but otherwise it's inherently non-notable. Shimgray | talk | 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the one. Although, it perhaps needs to be made clearer that these would qualify as (presumably) organizations. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the ones I've seen should be speediable, as there generally doesn't even seem to be a claim beyond "We've got a freewebs page so we're a nation." The question is, if some are notable, how do you assert notability for a nation that, after all, doesn't actually exist? Fan-1967 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Placement of categories and stubs

    It seems to be general practice to put stubs and cats at the end of articles, but is there any rule about which comes first? I notice that bots often swap them round, but with no clear preference as to order.--Runcorn 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there's a preference to put all the stuff that doesn't actually appear on the article page at the very end of the article—that is, stub notices would go ahead of categories and before the interwiki links (which are invariably last). I'm not sure if this has been clearly written out in any policy, however. In any case, it's one of those things that ultimately shouldn't make a difference, just because stub tags should only be on an article temporarily. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cliffs Notes on works of literature - should we link them?

    WileyPublishing (talk · contribs), who has identified on the User Talk page as a summer intern for Wiley Publishing company, which publishes the Cliffs Notes, made edits to numerous articles for classic novels to add a link to a Cliffs Notes page for that work. The edits have been reverted as linkspam and the user has been blocked from posting.

    The content at each page seems to be, for free, the full contents of the Cliffs Notes that many of us paid money for in high school when we hadn't read the book. These were not generic linkspam, but were specific links to the notes for each novel.

    The suggestion has been made that there may be some value in allowing these links to stay as a useful resource relevant to each book. On the other hand, this is a commercial site and the pages do have some advertising content on them, so these links would help draw viewers to these pages and these ads. On the other hand (yep, a lot of hands here) we do direct people to other sites (IMDB, for example) which have some advertising content, though maybe not as much.

    There is some discussion of the issue on the user talk page.

    Could people take a look at some of the content referenced by the links (see: Special:Contributions/WileyPublishing)? What do people think? Are these links we should allow, or should it be forbidden as linkspam? Fan-1967 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While as a general rule I believe anyone who is paid to post their employer's links should be dealt with sternly, I'd say links such as these are positive contributions, because they provide a good degree of substantive content not elsewhere found, and from an established source. Mere naked advertisements for a product should of course merit removal and blocking. Postdlf 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to allow this as well. The editor has been completely up-front, and the content is good. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The encyclopedia article is supposed to provide a summary of the book and appropriate commentary/context. I don't think it really makes sense for an encyclopedia to systematically link to someone else's commercial product that basically just does the same thing. As such I am opposed to linking to Cliff's Notes, even while admittedly being pleased that Wiley Publishing was upfront about their activities. Dragons flight 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliff's go well beyond the scope of the encyclopaedia, though, in that they provide plot summaries and the like. Just zis Guy you know? 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably our articles have some plot summaries (or should), so I assume you just mean they have more? That would be a matter of degree, and I feel that we can reasonably add everything of encyclopedic interest without appealing to Cliff Notes. Besides which, why Cliffs and not Barron's Notes or Literature Made Easy. This is a slippery slope. Why link one online commercially based summary and ignore others? We are developing a reference work providing summary and context for the book, and for that reason it doesn't make sense to link to other competitive and commercial reference works even if they are arguably better at the present time. It would be like linking to Encarta at the bottom of articles if their coverage of a topic happens to be better. Admittedly, Cliffs Note is also something of a study guide, but I don't think people ought to expect that an encyclopedia is where you go to find study guides. Dragons flight 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliff's Notes also have literary analysis essays that go beyond the descriptive reporting we do here. As for "slippery slope," if there are multiple online summaries of quality and independent merit, why not link to them all? Or just allow each article's editors to decide how many is too many, or which ones don't provide anything new or different.
    I also have to really take issue with your comment about not linking to "better" reference works that compete with Wikipedia. Our goal isn't simply to outcompete other reference works by traffic count. Our goal is to inform readers, so if there is a resource out there that is more substantive than our article, we should provide it (and that itself will increase traffic count anyway, because knowing such links are going to be in articles will cause more people to start their research here, even if they finish it elsewhere). Also, such links inevitably lead to the improvement of the articles themselves by organizing available information for future contributors. Postdlf 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if there is a more substantive source out there we should use it to improve our article and when appropriate reference it. I wouldn't mind referencing Cliffs Note (though referencing a reference work is not great form in itself), but mere systematic linking to them is fatalistic. It amounts to saying: "This other project which also summarizes and discusses the book is better than us, so everyone should go use them instead." We could have a bot go through and link all these articles. We could even have a bot go through and add thousands of links to Encarta on any corresponding article. But I do not believe that the way to write an encyclopedia is to merely link to other reference works that are expected the rehash much of the same content. In my opinion, the value added is small, and the slippery slope for allowing systematic commercial spamming is large. Those factors together make this a bad idea in my mind. By the way, for anyone who hasn't noticed it, just up the page is a section, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Scientific_American_linking, dealing with many of the same issues in a somewhat different context. Dragons flight 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This really does violate WP:EL, as it was added by an (unpaid) employee of Wiley presumably acting on their behalf (because of the user name), and I would normally say delete such links on sight. However, the quality and usefulness of what was added is so great that I would be tempted to go back and add them myself if they were deleted. In at least one instance, using WP to promote a company you were connected to got someone indefinitely blocked, [21] however there does not seem to be a specific policy on this. Plus, there were obvious differences in the facts between that incident and this one. JChap (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't these specifically to be avoided under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point #1 (and perhaps #4)? It sounds like folks are saying commercial spam is OK if it's really good spam. Would links to Britannica be OK? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Would links to IMDB be OK? Fan-1967 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User was blocked for an inappropriate username, not for adding the links. He had already added them as 12.149.50.2 (talk · contribs) and they had been reverted, but he was not given a warning. He then registered as WileyPublishing and added them again. The 12.149.50.2 address is registered to John Wiley in New Jersey, according to this. User was warned with {{spam}} at 16:09 (UTC),[22] and ignored the message and posted four more links [23] [24] [25] [26]. Only after he was blocked did he say he was working for Wiley and Sons.[27] AnnH ♫ 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are cliff notes annotated texts? If so, remove the links in favour of links to Wikibooks, where the cliff notes could probably be useful as references. I'd certainly say the links should be removed per WP:EL. If they are useful, they will be added in due course by independent editors. Steve block Talk 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-productive debate on talk pages

    What's the best thing to do with debate on talk pages which is not about page content and is clearly not productive (e.g. a debate on Talk:Roman Catholic Church based on an anonymous assertion that the Roman Catholic Church isn't Christian)? While it's there it attracts responses and distracts from the purpose of the page; but I've been a bit loath to just delete sections of talk pages. Should it just be deleted? Left alone? Marked as 'closed' in some way (like how debates which have reached a concensus are marked as closed)? TSP 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd archive it out. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=64379863"