This idea is in the
brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas on the talk page. |
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is a proposal for resolving disputes on WP:BLP’s regarding WP:SPINOUT where a subsection of the article has
The case which brought about this proposal was the “Julian Assange sex charges.” However, allow me to use a more clear-cut example.
A search on Google for "Julian Assange sex" reports 10 million results, whereas a search for "Julian Assange" has 40 million. These numbers are of course entirely meaningless and have no guarantee of being accurate even within an order of magnitude, because of how Google works, and argument based upon them is wholly ill-founded. While a search on Google may not be the most reliable source. It IS an indicator of significance. It indicates that there are AT LEAST 10 million pages containing the words "Assange" and "sex". A significant proportion of the information available on Assange relates to his sex charges. But these charges may indeed not even be a significant part of his life.
We already have links to split articles on WikiLeaks, thus the Assange page has remained relatively short. The sex charges amount to a majority of the REMAINING information on Assange. A person does not go to the Julian Assange page expecting to find a majority of the text devoted to his sex charges. Yet, one may wish to read more about those charges if so desired.
This case was unresolved. So I decided to start brainstorming on how we can best resolve it. I came up with this 3 step process for controversial content splitting.
This idea is in the
brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas on the talk page. |
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is a proposal for resolving disputes on WP:BLP’s regarding WP:SPINOUT where a subsection of the article has
The case which brought about this proposal was the “Julian Assange sex charges.” However, allow me to use a more clear-cut example.
A search on Google for "Julian Assange sex" reports 10 million results, whereas a search for "Julian Assange" has 40 million. These numbers are of course entirely meaningless and have no guarantee of being accurate even within an order of magnitude, because of how Google works, and argument based upon them is wholly ill-founded. While a search on Google may not be the most reliable source. It IS an indicator of significance. It indicates that there are AT LEAST 10 million pages containing the words "Assange" and "sex". A significant proportion of the information available on Assange relates to his sex charges. But these charges may indeed not even be a significant part of his life.
We already have links to split articles on WikiLeaks, thus the Assange page has remained relatively short. The sex charges amount to a majority of the REMAINING information on Assange. A person does not go to the Julian Assange page expecting to find a majority of the text devoted to his sex charges. Yet, one may wish to read more about those charges if so desired.
This case was unresolved. So I decided to start brainstorming on how we can best resolve it. I came up with this 3 step process for controversial content splitting.