I have wondered off and on if one or more of these might be of more use in some stages of WP collaborations. There can be a value to more realtime collaborations and discussions, and the internet offers many such options. The IRC provided here could be potentially useful, but I have not found it to be useful in the past. It is true that those in different time zones, or occupied at work might not be able to participate, but many of these other communication channels have facilities for recording the proceedings and making them available, if this is wanted and appropriate. Even currently, editors are free to collaborate by email out of community view on some issues, and then make their position more public here in the conventional WP venue. This is even partially true of collaborations on articles in WP sandboxes, where a small number of editors jointly edit an article's rough draft before inviting the rest of the community to contribute. Are there any relevant policies or discussions that I should be aware of in this regard? Do you have any comments?-- Filll 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If the only advantage of such things is speed, I question the value. We're not in a race, and the wiki works pretty fast anyway. The disadvantage of all such means of communication is that they leave no on-wiki record to refer to. Sure, as you point out, efforts can be made to make a record, but why make that extra effort when the wiki already does this so easily? Splitting up discussion into multiple places needlessly happens enough on the wiki without complicating matters further by encouraging alternate means of communication. Friday (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are sitting next to another person in the same room, there's all kinds of "human chemistry" that makes it possible to cooperate with them much more productively than if you were each working on your own. There are hundreds of tiny signals going between two people that smooth over differences, and give each other clues as to how to proceed. Modern communications systems are still a very poor substitute for that, but at least they help a little.

If you've ever tried editing an article while discussing details over irc, you'll know what I mean, things go so much more smoothly, just because on irc you actually take some time to send more social signals already :-) ;-) *demonstrates* <see what I mean?>.

And how about mediating a dispute over skype? One recent situation, I was in a dispute with someone; from typed information, I thought she was really angry at me, and would likely cause me a lot of trouble. But on skype I could hear by the tone of her voice that she was calm and even had a sense of humor about the issue. After that, solving the dispute was easy. :-)

All the really good mediators on en.wikipedia say that the best way to mediate a dispute is to go to the pub and have a glass of beer (or coffee) with both parties.

If coding gets tricky, Ward Cunningham recommends taking the code to a cafe and reading together with your friends. (Not to mention the whole concept of pair programming, for instance)

Why would the wiki be different?

Actually, hang on, that's not a bad idea at all! Perhaps we should organize real world editing parties? That might be great fun! (and get us more articles besides ;-) ) -- Kim Bruning 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any policy on that in particular. Who's going to make a rule against "conspiring with others to write a great article?" I see nothing wrong with using something a little more realtime to collaborate with someone (or someones), if that's what works best for everyone or it helps to settle a dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Precicely! So who's good at real world organizing today? -- Kim Bruning 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I may be the most oblivious person in the world to 'human chemistry', but this argument comes up online all the time and it never makes all that much sense. Time-delayed written communication is ideal for this sort of project, because it tends to be more precise, and allows each participant in the discussion enough time to think through his responses. Things like editing in a sandbox or even collaborating via email on an article are useful mainly as methods of improving the signal-to-noise ratio for work on often-trolled articles where you can't find your last post on the talk page in the midst of the latest pile of soapboxing junk. But hey, do whatever results in better articles. There was at one point an attempt to organize real-time editing collaborations on IRC, but I don't remember what it was called, and AFAIK it petered out pretty quickly. Opabinia regalis 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Largely it depends on the articles, although personally I'd prefer to see an audit trail. For fairly vanilla, uncontentious issues then I don't see any harm, although tbh it's not a race, but on conetntious articles then it strikes me as slightly dubious to go discussing things in back channels, unless there is a really good reason for doing so. Where content is contentious then it would seem quite inflammatory not to leave an audit trail.

ALR 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the above ways of working are undemocratic, and off-wiki methods ought to be saved for truly sensitive matters. When I first stated here I though off-wiki was a reasonable way to work, having been used to it in other settings, but I soon found I was wrong. I've noticed in passing that there are what appear to be private agreements among groups of editors, and they do serve to keep outsiders away as well as to settle disputes. They may be agreed on-wiki too, but going off-wiki is certainly a way of encouraging cliques. I'm sure it is mainly used for good purposes, but it gives the appearance of behind-the-scences dealing. As WP has frequently been accused of such practices, it's all the more important to avoid them. ) As a practical matter, I mention that WP editors are in every possible time zone, and there is no way to arrange a representative meeting. DGG 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In reality, though, you can't stop it. If I choose to communicate with someone via IRC, or email, or some other type of instant messaging, who can regulate that? Basically, it comes down to trust and common sense. If it becomes obvious that a group is owning an article, to the detriment of that article, the community should step in and tell them to knock it off, regardless of how that situation arose. On the other hand, this is a collaborative project, and part of that is, well, collaborating. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, A quick question, I'm guessing that I could be re-directed somewhere that would answer it quickly. A whole series of books was just put up for deletion for violation of WP:NOT#Indiscriminate sub-point 7. People are arguing back and forth for violates WP:NOT versus meets WP:BK/ WP:Notability. This point must have come up before, and I can't seem to find it. There must be many best-selling books out there that have little real-world context to apply, do they all need to be deleted? Is there a discussion or policy somewhere we could refer to? My head says the WP:NOT has a point, but my gut says there must be something else. If no-one wants to expand this on the Village Pump page, feel free to post on my talk page.

Thanks,

WLU 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Excessively detailed plot summary is bad, but in itself is not reason for deletion of the whole article. Even taking it away, you can still say it's a best selling book, published on such and such a day, recieved such and such reviews, etc. Wizard's_First_Rule#Success offers an example. Not the best quality, but it's of the right type. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just closed them as speedy keep, citing ignore all rules, as well as the merge outlined in the nomination and the fact that no other deletion comments have been made other than by the nominator. Relevant discussion on the nominator's talk page also leads me to believe speedy keep applies, [1], [2]. I do not believe the encyclopedia is best served in the deletion of these articles, but in the improving of them. Steve block Talk 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My general policy with overlong plot summaries is to (1) leave a note on the talk page noting the overly detailed summary and indicating an intention to make it more succinct; then (2) come back in a few days and (with no objections) edit it down myself.

I find that many wikipedians have got into the mindset of wanting to tag articles as "bad" or just delete them, rather than taking a half hour to fix them. In the long run, I think my approach will make Wikipedia a better resource. Dr Aaron 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I put up an Rfc in the wrong place. I read the guidelines and instructions, but still managed to foul it up. The question that arises here is that when you have an article that is of special interest to one or two, but is failing to follow a broader community trend, how do you build concensus when one or two enforce a de-facto ownership over the article? How do you get more people involved in the discussion of a broader community trend when the topic of RfCs is fixed to certain categories?-- Shakujo 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• What topic are you talking about that does not fit an RFC category? >Radiant< 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about a specific article. The problem is that if an RfC has a bigger impact, maybe the conflicting application of two different policies, where should we post it?-- Shakujo 07:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• On RFC, under the appropriate subject, and/or here. >Radiant< 12:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• If a subject doesn't exactly fit any RFC category, just file it under the one that seems to fit the most closely. The categorization is not to say that anything that falls outside those can't ever be filed there at all. As to the other issues, ownership issues can be frustrating, but my best advice there is to be patient. Discuss your point, don't start edit-warring, and eventually, if your point is valid, others will come along to help you in asserting it (or the editors who disagree may begin to see your position and be willing to work with you). If it's just one other editor that disagrees with you, you might consider using the third opinion process, this tends to be a pretty quick way to help break logjams between two users. The dispute resolution process, in my experience, does work, but it can take some time. And finally, we all get it wrong sometimes-if consensus really has swung against you, sometimes you just have to accept that and move along. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Being bold, why not merge AFD and RFC and create Articles for discussion? You get loads of people through afd, maybe getting thoe to comment on merges and redirects and content would help. Wikipedia is factionalising badly and we need to start pulling it all together. Steve block Talk 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see a lot of positive in that idea, but a lot of fragmentation too. It certainly would live up to "AfD is a discussion, not a vote" much better, and as it is, AfD is already de facto used when people are damn well aware that what they really want is a merge and redirect but a couple people are stubbornly standing in the way. On the other hand, AfD stuff tends to be pretty straightforward, and current RfC debates tend to be pretty thorny. I monitor RfC's periodically because I don't mind providing opinions in some more difficult cases, and having everything together like that may cause even more effect of people "piling on the easy ones" without taking the time to help break the really tough logjams that really need it. But...hrm, it's just so damn audacious you got to like it! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • AFD works for merging, but can't deal with content issues very well. Article RFCs do work reasonably well to my knowledge. >Radiant< 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written about Janne Corax here on Wikipedia but I have discovered that Herald Times, which owns AllExperts, has copied my text on wikipedia word by word, and then use it for selling ads. Is that ok to do? I don't think so. What does one do? I have mailed them and said I don't think it's ok, and they must rewrite it with their own words, but nothing has happened. I don't want a commercial site to use what I write for wikipedia, but I don't know what policy wikipedia has?

Link to the copied article: [3]

lolli Lolli 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it is ok to do so, provided that they mention the source. The site you mentioned does that, and even links to the original article, and also provide links to GFDL, mentioning all text is under GFDL. Plenty of other sites are doing it, and it is perfectly ok. If you do not want to have your content released under GFDL, you shouldn't add it to the articles. -- Ragib 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit-conflict] Yes, they can, but only if they follow certain procedures, because of the way Wikipedia is licensed. For example, notice at the very bottom of that page you link to, they have to link to the article here, as well as link to the license that it is being used under. For the full licensing information of Wikipedia articles, look at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. Prodego ^talk 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can republish it or modify it to make money. What they can't do is republish the original or even a modified copy without saying where it came from, and (here's the really important part) also publishing it under the GFDL (so anyone else can do the same thing with their copy). This is the concept of copyleft. What you write here is guaranteed, by it's copyright terms, to be permanently "free" (in the sense of "libre", see Gratis versus Libre). -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What they're doing is perfectly acceptable. When you submitted an edit here, you agreed to submit your contributions under the GFDL. (Look right under the edit box the next time you edit a page.) That means that, so long as others follow the terms of the GFDL, they can reuse the text for any purpose, including commercial purposes. That's true of everything you ever have contributed and will contribute in the future here, including your post on this noticeboard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Except for images contributed under a different license, but none can be less free, including that you can't prohibit commercial use of anything you contribute. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 10:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeking the answer to almost this same topic. Perhaps someone here can steer me right. I am in the process of building a commercial site for selling jewelry. I would like to help educate visitors before they buy, my question is--is it okay to quote entire articles and/or paragraphs word for word from contributors to this site and other sites like about.com, as long as I mention the source. I thought I had heard somewhere it is only okay to quote a sentence or two, not a whole paragraph or entire article. Any advice is apreciated. 74.130.178.253 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)West

Ok, so I was browsing through the backlog, and I came upon an article called "fanfiction.net." After attempting to find a few of the cites needed on the page, I quickly realized that I would have to create an account, which I have done. Sadly, it didn't come to mind that other people who hadn't created the account still couldn't see it even if I did post the right link - so I was wondering - if I take a screen shot of the needed cite (there's really only one page that needs to be seen) - and post a link to it or something - is that good enough for a cite - I first assumed no - but the problem is there's really no other way we can get those citations.Daniel()Folsom |\ ^T/|\ _C/|\ ^U/ 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought - the above stated wasa bad idea, screen shots could get messy - but either way, how do we cite a piece of information when the source is only accessible if you have an account?Daniel()Folsom |\ ^T/|\ _C/|\ ^U/|^{( Can you help me with this?)} 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The main question is, do you need to pay in order to create the account? If so, you definitely should not cite it at all (such sites are definitely frowned upon as links and citations). If you do not have to pay it becomes much more of a grey area... to find out whether to cite it, and how to do so, ask on the talk pages of WP:ATT Blueboar 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can cite the real source. You may wish to add a parenthetical note to the citation of the form "(requires a free account)" or "(must pay to view)" - but a source doesn't even have to be online at all. A screenshot is not a useful citation, but they can be helpful in discussing the content with other editors. GRBerry 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As a screenshot effectively reproduces text would there not be a question of copyright also? LessHeard vanU 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no big problem here. "Verifiability" means that somebody could in principle go and verify the information. It doesn't mean that verificaton needs to be effortless and free of cost. If I cite something from a rare book that's not in everybody's nearest public library, then somebody in order to verify the correctness of my quote might also have to spend money to buy the book. So what? - The copyright question: making that screenshot would be the fair use equivalent of making a photocopy from a single page of the book and showing it to your friends. Not for keeping around on Wikipedia as an image forever, but possibly helpful if as a provisional measure if the citation turns out to be contentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - but one must remember that screenshots can be easily doctored. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

During the AfD discussion for Timothy Noah, some important issues were raised about how the general notability guidelines apply to journalists. I have tried to address some of these concerns with a new proposal, Wikipedia:Notability (journalists). I would appreciate any changes or comments that could help this. Thank you. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 00:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with wikipedia is that "higher" educational institutions do not regard wikipedia as a credible source. We need to fix this, or else a lot of work is not going to reach its full potential. I propose that we come up with a system to article by article "Certify" everything being done here. Though this is a huge task, i think it is necessary for wikipedia to keep evolving. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?em&ex=1172466000&en=d1211c2d017e16b6&ei=5087%0A is a great article on the wiki movement, and at the end it mentions that Oberlin college in Ohio and University of East Anglia in England have classes where students must complete a page on wikipedia. I think that we could do something similar, but on a much grander scale.

Alternately, we could create a page which counters the arguments that wikipedia is often false and unusable. On the topic of history, for instance, no one truly knows what happened. We have a large collection of secondary sources, which are reviewed by "scholars", who then compile the aspects that they think are most true, and then publish it into a history book. To me, this is no different from wikipedia. I'm not going to say that wikipedia will be the ultimate end all be all for knowledge, I'm just saying that in retrospect, it's no more inaccurate than anything else we "know" anyway. It just has a larger diversity of competing ideas and thoughts, which I think are more valuable than someone only showing the one "right" side of the argument. 3th0s 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But WP is frequently false an unusable, there are a number of systemic and structural issues with respect to policy which render it thus; The quasi-democratic process with regard to content inclusion takes no account of ones expertise in a subject, the admin selection process discourages administrators with the gumption to actually make tough decisions, and whilst xFD is not a vote it frequently ends up as one, the policies and guidelines can change, indeed as noted above there is an effort to significantly change the direction on verifiability and original research without a significant level of debate or consensus, the understanding of consensus is flawed with most thinking that consensus means majority.

If I had a junior consultant (my profession) approach me with anything taken from WP and not otehrwise validated I'd bin the suggestion straght away.

It's not trustworthy and without significant change to the governance structure it never will be.

ALR 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you not even check the cited references (or at least how WP has peer reviewed the piece)? LessHeard vanU 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably take a glance, but the very fact that s/he has not gone further would leave significant alarm bells. My clients pay a lot of money for access to our experience and knowledge and they're not getting their moneys worth if juniors don't do the work properly. ALR 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the major problem you describe is with those "higher" educational institutions rather than Wikipedia, where verification and referencing (now WP:ATT I understand) is a requirement for articles to achieve good gradings. Wikipedia is a reference resource rather than a reporter of research, (nearly) everything is taken from a published source. It is in the nature of the beast that articles can be vandalised, but also can be more up to date that textbooks. How many Universities are now using texts on "Super String Theory" as draft excluders? I believe it is more a case of practice that Educational Institutions will rely on text rather than a wiki; as the 'net develops it may be that the electronic reference point will succeed the printed type. In short, we must teach the teachers (preferably by example). LessHeard vanU 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm never going to understand this argument no matter how many times it comes up. Someone posts 'oh no, universities won't let their students cite wikipeida because articles might be vandalized!' and someone responds 'but we have such high referencing standards! those silly behind-the-times professors...' and everybody misses the point that nobody in so-called 'higher' education should be citing any encyclopedia for anything anyway. It's been said before - Wikipedia is a great place to start research and a terrible place to end it. In academia, Wikipedia has two purposes: getting a general overview of a subject, and looking up specific bits of information that are easily forgotten (when was the Treaty of Ghent signed, who was the 11th US president, how much of the standard normal distribution is within +/- one standard deviation, etc.). Increasingly, it is also a good place to get an overview of the published literature on a subject, and to find pointers to the major relevant publications. Referencing encyclopedias in academic papers is amateurish and lame and generally discouraged by professors no matter which encyclopedia it is. Opabinia regalis 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its strengths and its weaknesses as far as accuracy ... it is VERY informative when it comes to pop culture. On detailed accademic subjects it is noticably less reliable... sure individual articles are excellent, but many are full of pseudo-accademic clap trap. That's what you get when you have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"... anyone can, whether they actually know anything about the subject or not. As long as they think they know something, they will want to add it. I see this in history articles all the time... a popular author writes a book that presents a "startelling new (psuedo-hostorical) theory", it becomes a best seller due to its sensational claims, lots of people read it and assume that the theory is true... so they want to include this theory in Wikipedia. No matter that the theory is considered absolute rubbish by every single accademic historian, (and most serious amatures as well). Our policies say that, given enough press (ie notability), even completely discounted theories have to be mentioned on an equal par with accepted theory and fact. To give just one example... look at any article written about the historical Knights Templar... you will find multiple references to the works of Robert Lomas and Christopher Knight. Their books are very popular, but are almost universally dismissed by professional medieval historians for poor research and faulty logic. But, because their books ARE best sellers, the theories that are presented must be included in the articles on the Knights Templar. This also happens with Science articles (although less often, thanks to vigilance by the Scientific community who edit here). As long as this continues, the accademic community will never allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference. Nor should they. Blueboar 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason many teachers (some of mine among them) do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source is the thing that it brags about. The "anyone can edit" phrase is the source of Wikipedia's content. It is also the source of its criticism. My teachers tell me that it is unreliable and should not be trusted. Unless Wikipedia is restricted so that not everyone can edit, people like them will not believe Wikipedia is trustworthy. Of course, I do not want Wikipedia to be restricted and I like the ability to edit articles. What I am saying is it will take a lot of work to make the educated see past the "anyone can edit" phrase. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Opabinia regalis, I will say that my teachers do not care about other encyclopedias. They only say "no Wikipedia". No comments on Brittanica. No thoughts on Encarta. Wikipedia is the only one targeted. Perhaps because I am in high school, the thoughts on encyclopedias are different. Still... Captain panda In vino veritas 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Masses of students aren't routinely turning in plagiarized Britannica articles, or uncritically cribbing its content to fluff up skimpy papers. But that's not the point. The point is that encyclopedias are not for citing in papers, whether it's Wikipedia or Britannica on trial. I'm not nearly old enough for a good kids-these-days rant, but any teacher who allows an encyclopedia to be cited in a research paper had better not be teaching children over 10, on pain of being whacked with the entirety of Wikipedia printed out. Same punishment for students who believe everything they read, no matter where they read it. Opabinia regalis 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My University accepts any form of peer reviewed source of information, including encyclopaedias. As long as you cite it, you aren't plagiarizing anyhow. However, they do not accept wikipedia, since, as said above, anyone can edit it. We've been told it's good for an overal outlook, and for it's good sources which we should look into ourselves. But since Joe Bloggs can log in (doesn't even need to do that) and change minor dates because they're bored, something which may not be picked up straight away, et al, our university doesn't accept it. I'm not too sure about peer reviewed versions of pages, but I'll have to check up on that... Jacobshaven3 12:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't just let this one go. Few if any general encyclopedias are peer-reviewed in the traditional sense; Britannica certainly isn't. And yes, you are still plagiarizing if you copy text from a source without explicitly noting it as a quotation, even if you cite the source. That's what got Stephen Ambrose in trouble. But the way you are using Wikipedia - to get a general overview and pointers to useful sources of information - is exactly how an encyclopedia ought to be used in an academic context. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Something to remember is that, as recently as 15 years ago, most Universities and High Schools did not allow citations to any on line source. They didn't even teach you how to cite such a source. If it wasn't in print, they didn't want to see it. Times change. Perhaps someday Wikiepdia will be more accepted - at least for certain topics (I doubt it will be any time soon, but it is possible). Blueboar 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember I heard on NPR sometime in the last couple of months a story about an accuracy review of Wikipedia compared to some major encyclopedia (like Britannica, I can't remember exactlly which one) in which a couple hundred articles about things considered important were pulled from both and submitted to experts in the respective fields that the stories dealt with. The outcome was that Wikipedia was more accurate in some areas and the encyclopedia was more accurate in some areas, but they averaged out about the same. Does anyone know about said review, and/or where we all coould find a published copy? It seems like that might be at least a step in convincing educators that for mainstream topics, Wikipedia is on average just as accurate as the published encyclopedia. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In December 2005, the magazine Nature published an extensive and scientific study about the accuracy of Wikipedia, which found the editable encyclopedia nearly as accurate as Britannica. - newkai t- c 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis is absolutely right. We should not worry whatsoever about whether or not teachers will allow wikipedia as a source for papers, because students should not be using it to any significant degree. Wikipedia combines the two laziest research tools in existence: the encyclopedia and the internet. Certainly no papers at the college level should be relyng substanitally on any encyclopedia, and one must be very careful when using any internet based source. If a teacher tells her class "write a 3 page paper on Philip of Macedonia", and a students thinks "Who the hell is Philip and where the hell is Macedonia", then wikipedia is a great place to have those questions answered, but he should be using what he learned to educate himself and create a base of understanding on the subject, not as a citation for a paper. Most articles have external links and references, which are usually quite useful, and can often make good references for citation, but wikipedia itself has the "written by anyone, no matter how misguided and ignorant" albatross it has to bear. In addition, it is in a constant state of change; an artiucle cited one day might be completely different the next. We needn't worry about this, really. - R. fiend 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Few notes: 1) students should learn Wikipedia:Academic use by heart. 2) Teachers should concentrate on doing activities with Wikipedia (and list them on WP:SUP) to benefit from Wiki opportunities rather than passivly try banning what they don't understand 3) "And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as supporting the Shimabara Rebellion." - of course, it was changed minutes after NYT was published, but shame on involved teachers (and students) who didn't change what they must have known was incorrect information for days.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE that Wikipedia:Verification and Wikipedia:No original research have been merged and replaced by Wikipedia:Attribution. This may come as a surprise to some, as this merger was not well advertized when in the proposal stage. From what I can tell, the folks who worked on this new Policy did a fairly good job (although I do wish they had announced their intentions sooner and more frequently). I do not see any substantive changes from what WP:V and WP:NOR had to say. Editors may also wish to note that several of the editors working on that page have expressed the intent to subsume the guideline: Wikipedia:Reliable sources into this new Policy and replaced with a FAQ.

While I actually approve of this merger (one Policy instead of two eliminates the potential for contraditary statements where they overlaped), I am not happy about how it was done. Policy changes should have broad community consensus, and I don't see how the editors who created WP:ATT can claim to have this when it comes as a bit of a surprise. The intent should have been shouted from the roof tops several weeks ago to give everyone LOTS of notice.

So... just so everyone understands, let me repeat this in loud voice: WP:V and WP:NOR ARE NO LONGER POLICY. They have been replaced by WP:ATT. ALSO - IT IS PROPOSED THAT WP:RS BE REPLACED with a combination of WP:ATT and a FAQ. (please don't kill the messenger.) Blueboar 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

None of these pages has ever had "broad" consensus. They've been written and decided upon by a small number of users who care a lot about the issues, and those who aren't interested in constant fighting and wikilawyering are outvoiced. WP:RS isn't that bad anymore, but I have yet to see it used for anything but abuse. — Omegatron 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

can't say I agree with that. Without WP:V or WP:NOR, Wikipedia would fall apart in a matter of weeks. It really all boils down to WP:ENC, but a lot of people do need this spelled out in greater detail. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

well, it is misleading to say that WP:V and WP:NOR are "no longer policy". They still are. They were just merged into a single page. It is an extremely bad idea to keep these pages around as "inactive", since they are not. If people feel they must be merged into a single page, make them redirects along the lines of WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged both of the pages back to policy status. Consensus indicates that they should be merged, but this doesn't mean they should be "rejected" as policies and no longer be in use. I concur with Dbachmann, please make them redirects instead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I did not mean to say that the concepts behind V and NOR were being rejected... Dbachmann is correct to say that is misleading. The point of this was really to draw attention to the merge, and to let editors know that the merge was a done deal. For instance, if an editor is in the midst of a content dispute or an AfD that centered on V or NOR, they need to know that they should point to ATT now instead of V or NOR. This post was really a "shout from the roof tops" to advertize the merge rather than a complaint about it. Blueboar 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for opinions on a matter that has sprung up on 2004 Palm Island death in custody.

For some indigenous Australian groups, it is considered culturally taboo to mention the name of an individual after their death. For instance, if an indigenous person named John Smith dies, he will be given an alternative name by his family which he should be addressed by instead. These traditions are in no way consistent across the Australian continent, as the following link which was provided to me by someone who disagrees with my stance has pointed out:

• http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/img/2005/ep07/mackinolty.pdf

My question is, given the lack of a consistent standard for this, the fact that calling the person by the honourific "Mulrunji" is hardly standardised even among the Australian media (here in Brisbane, he's commonly referred to on the TV news as "Doomadgee", not "Mulrunji". The user who is reverting me is from Townsville, which is much closer to the incident in question, so perhaps they have a different perspective from the media than I do), and the fact that the guidelines provided even state that calling the person by their surname is acceptable, so long as you don't use "personal names" (as shown when they refer to Charles Perkins as Kwementyaye Perkins), is in unreasonable that the person in question be referred to as "Doomadgee" instead of "Mulrunji"? The link provided also indicates that use of images is considered distasteful, if this person's name is removed in the interests of cultural sensitivity, then do we also need to delete every image of a recently deceased indigenous person on Wikipedia?

My other problem with use of these honourifics is that as the article above states, "after time a dead person's name and image will be allowed to be used again." At what time is it acceptable to go back and switch the person's name back to the conventional form? If an indigenous person dies, do we have to switch all references to their name to the honourific, and then change it back a couple of months later? This might cause a maintenance nightmare!

I think that, given these points, it's best that we use a neutral name like "Doomadgee", rather than a culturally insensitive name like "Cameron Doomadgee" or a temporary honourific like "Mulrunji". It seems to me from precedent that cultural sensitivity is considered important here, articles like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy show that it can take a back seat to accuracy and clarity. Still, given the sensitivity of the issue, I thought I'd ask here anyway, as I don't want this to develop into a flamewar that gets put on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever!

Lankiveil 06:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia is a repository of information, and to be valid it must be both accurate and available to the widest readership, it must be considered that yielding to considerations that adulterate the facts is a form of self censorship. This is against one of the principles of Wikipedia. The example given (Muhammad cartoons controversy) does indeed show a thumbnail of the cartoons, so it appears that Wikipedia has a precedent here. LessHeard vanU 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not an accuracy issue, the title is accurate, in fact it's the other way round, you seem to want us to deliberately include false information into wikipedia even when we know what's right for the sole reason of bringing it into line with the mass media. This is also not a censorship issue, I haven't said that the name "Cameron Doomadgee" should not be included, but it should only be in the overview section of both the Mulrunji article and the main article as a clarifier that Mulrunji is the name of the former Cameron Doomadgee (which is fact). The real issue is respect, should our articles be offensive to cultures when it can be easily avoided? If there is a choice between offending people and not offending people when it costs us nothing in encyclopedic terms then what is the problem?

I repeat that in accordance with the beliefs of the Doomadgee family (different groups have different beliefs) the word "Doomadgee" in this context is still a word that identifies the individual by their living name and should be avoided where possible, it is in no way a neutral choice. Additionally in response to your query, the Doomadgee family will publicly identify the time when the person's name can be used again and that is when the community feels they have closure on the death itself, although the honorific does not discontinue to be appropriate so there would be no need for reversions if that would be a 'maintenance nightmare!'... although I fail to see the nightmare considering how easy it is to edit Wikipeadia...

Of course the cultural beliefs of Indigenous people are not the same across the continent... the fact that you would even make that a point shows your lack of general knowledge on Indigenous issues. Wikipedia does not enforce a 'consistent standard' on anything outside of the five pillars all the articles and policies change, and neither should it considering it is trying to be an encyclopaedia for everything of general interest across the whole world. In some cases honorifics would apply and in some they wouldn't, it is obvious which cases it does apply to, we should not use them where they impinge upon the legitimacy of the encyclopedia but there's no reason to deliberately set out to disrespect them.

and finally this matter only 'sprung up' on Lankiveil's insistence, none of the other editors who have worked on this page have had a problem with the individual being identified in a culturally respectful way. Alec ^{-( answering machine)} 14:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement with Alec. The page in question does, and has always, said in the lead that the person's name was Cameron Doomadgee and is now known as Mulrunji. I'm from Perth, the Nyungar/Noongar people here are exactly the same, they rename the person after their death. The issue here is not one of cultural sensitivity (although that does come into it) but indeed of accuracy. The ABC, our national broadcaster, refers to it as the "Mulrunji case". Mulrunji here is a single name, so "Mulrunji Doomadgee" for example would be totally incorrect - he was Cameron Doomadgee. The former is a case of mixing the dead with the living, much as you aren't supposed to put raw and cooked meat together in the same place as one will make the other go bad. An Aboriginal colleague of mine advises that it's a matter of land spirits, that those who are connected with the land spirits which have "taken" Doomadgee (i.e. broadly speaking anyone in the North Queensland Aboriginal groups) are not permitted to say his former name, but there's no prohibition on us using the name. In regard to the second person who replied, this is *only* regarding the name of the person - and their former name is still identified in the lead of the article. Orderinchaos78 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

After having a good look at the page in question and looking back at the history plus doing a Google search I find that the views of Alec are correct, im not going to write 30 or 40 lines here saying why he is correct, because I would be repeating everything that both Alec and Orderinchaos has said, but I felt that I needed to share my view on this matter so it could be resolved. thanks Thuringowacityrep 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a request on WT:U regarding a modification to a subclause of WP:U pertaining to 'obscene usernames' that I hope will foster a discussion. The discussion is available at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Suggested_modification. I've cross-posted it here as it pertains to modifying an official policy. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I gather that WP:ATT is now considered Policy... a merging of WP:V and WP:NOR. I have no problem with this, but I do have a concern with how this is being done. At the moment all three Policies are up and running... and this is going to lead to confusion and argument. The three policies do not completely agree with each other (or to put it more exactly, they agree with each other in surface substance, but they differ in greatly in tone and emphysis). This is especially noticable in the area of reliability of sources (especially Self-published sources - a frequent area of controversy) and how they are dealt with. Look at them side by side: WP:V#Sources, WP:NOR#Sources, WP:ATT#Reliable_sources. As a frequent contributer at WP:RS... a guideline that is supposed to help explain this particular aspect of Policy... I am seeing this conflict of tone writ large. Many of the questions we are asked involve parsing Policy statements and intent. Those of us at WP:RS agree that we need to conform what is said there to what is stated in Policy, but right now there is confusion as to which policy we should conform to. I would therefore request that, if WP:ATT is indeed confirmed as Policy, we redirect WP:V and WP:NOR to that page. If not, please move WP:ATT back to "proposed" status until the community can reach consensus. I don't care which, but we need clarity and not confusion. I have posted this request at the The relevant policy talk-pages as well. Thank you. Blueboar 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really annoyed by the self-declared policemen of this wiki. Every time I change something on the Metamath page and I forget to sign in I have a complete bus of sheriffs who arrive on the page to ask me my identity card and who remove my updates. I begin to find this inaccurate behaviour perfectly annoying. Apparently those moral men forget to read the page since they would notice the changements are meaningful. Could we moderate those brave guys and suggest them to try to understand the pages they try to protect so energically ? -- Frédéric Liné 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No one's touched that page in over a week, and now you're complaining? I'm not entirely sure what your complaint is, as I see no harsh edit summaries or notices on talk pages. How about this time, instead of flowery prose, you simply say what the problem is? -- Golbez 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see any reverts of the many, many IP edits on that page. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You might try remembering to sign in, and then the "policemen" would see your user page/talk page/contributions etc. before jumping on you. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Except, based on what I can tell, no one jumped on him. I dunno if he's a drama queen who just wants attention for his pet article, or what. -- Golbez 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the above remark. -- Golbez 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My god, the way you speak! Very sorry. I will no longer disturb your democratic staff. I apologize. Really. However the problem remains. And when I change the Metamath page or the discussion page without signing it (I feel so guilty. Such criminal a behaviour!) I have a very polite and kind sheriff who arrives to check everything in a really competent and amiable way. It's so nice. I really like this. Very, very nice men indeed. Those guys sign with really brilliant name that must belong to the most ancient families in the world (toto1245, pedzouille65, tartRRemp etc. ). And I understand that they are so fiercely proud of those name that they can't accept that a shy person like me prefers to hide his identity under an ip number. -- Frédéric Liné

Good to see everything's resolved. -- Thisisbossi 12:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could give a few more details about the specific edit(s) you're concerned about, it would be vastly easier to help understand the problem. Are you referring to this revert perhaps? -- Interiot 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is the latter visit of a sheriff but others had send me their "recommandations" on user pages as well. And at the end it is perfectly annoying. I don't really understand why people I never have never heard about before - and who apparently have no concern in logic - come to interfere or ask me questions without reading the page, trying to understand the debate and so on and apparently it is not an isolated behaviour, it's a frequent one. And I repeat it's not sound. I suppose they scrutinize the modifications made by an ip instead of a registered user. But it's not their business. Most of them hide their identity under a pseudo and I don't really understand where is the problem of an ip instead of a pseudo. If wikipedia wants that the contributors register it should be made clear otherwise the sheriffs should refrain themselves and stop their fly attacks. And for the moment as soon as I understand wikipedia doesn't prevent users from not registering themselves. Therefore the choice of not registering oneself should be respected. -- Frédéric Liné

Complaining about rehtoric with out actually saying what you're talking about is rather uneffective, as you've seen. If you have a legitimate complaint about a specific revert or user, then fine, feel free to tell someone about it and try to get it resolved, here or elsewhere (I'd suggest the article's talk page, as that's what it's there for). I'm not suggesting that you don't have the right to change the page under an IP, merely suggesting that there are options open to you to help avoid misunderstandings with other editors. If you have a complaint about something specific, lets discuss it. Otherwise, rehtoric about the wikipedia community in general is not only unfounded, but unnecessary. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

"...drama queen..."?!?

How does name calling help? LessHeard vanU 21:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that was unnecessary, but the editor was trying to make a valid point. The choice of words wasn't the best. It is my opinion that this discussion is completely moot and should be ignored until it gets archived unless the first contributing editor can produce some real evidence of actually being bullied and/or having his edits wrongfully deleted, instead of just throwing around rehtoric flavored all too abundantly with sarcasm. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 06:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although someone sensitive to perceived bullying is going to find at least a flavour of intimidation with such careless use of language. LessHeard vanU 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I gather the complainant's native language is not English, which likely contributes to the misunderstanding. In reading his original comment I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make and it's still not altogether clear. Either others have been reverting his edits (quelle impudence!), or complaining when he doesn't sign in, or something; in any event, it doesn't appear to be a matter that will bring the project to its knees. Raymond Arritt 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide
Social aspects ACEs Altruistic Bullying Copycat Dysfunctional family Epidemic Identity performance Legislation Philosophy Religious views Right to die School bullying Shame Social isolation Social media and suicide Social rejection Social support Toxic workplace Voluntary euthanasia Workplace bullying
Crisis Assessment of risk Crisis hotline ( list) Intervention Prevention Suicide attempt Suicide watch
Types Assisted Bullying and suicide ( list) Copycat Familicide Forced Honor Jauhar Mass Murder–suicide Prisoner suicide Rail Pact Internet Prayopavesa Sallekhana Sati Self-sacrifice Senicide Seppuku Sokushinbutsu Suicide attack Vatakkiruttal
Epidemiology Gender differences LGBT-related suicides Methods Rate by country Seasonal effects Suicidal person Youth suicide among LGBT youth
History List of suicides Suicide in antiquity List of suicides in the 21st century
In warfare Banzai charge Kamikaze Suicide mission
Related phenomena Anguish Alcoholism Anhedonia Anxiety disorder Autism spectrum Coping Coping planning Depression (mood) Diseases of despair Echo chamber Grief Ideation Locations Major depressive disorder Mental disorder Neurodevelopmental disorder Non-suicidal self-injury Perfectionism Schizophrenia Self-harm Self-hatred Substance abuse Suffering Suicidal ambivalence Suicide and the Internet Suicide and trauma Suicide awareness Suicide in colleges in the United States Suicide in music subcultures Suicide note Suicide survivor Suicide terminology Suicide tourism Suicidology Warning signs of suicide
By country Rate by country Afghanistan Australia Bangladesh Cameroon Canada China France Greenland India Iran Ireland Japan Lithuania Nepal Pakistan Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom United States
Organizations Compassion & Choices Death with Dignity National Center Dignitas Exit International Final Exit Network Hemlock Society
v t e

There's a debate underway concerning the order of presentation of topics on the suicide template ( see its talk page). One side is arguing that to place intervention links first biases the template towards trying to prevent suicides - they want the methods and types of suicides to go first. The other side points out that descriptions of suicide are tantamount to instructions on how to commit suicide, and that placing those at the top biases the template towards assisting or encouranging suicide.

The nature of the topic makes it impossible not to influence the outcome of crisis cases one way or the other. Which way should we be influencing readers who may be contemplating the unthinkable? Is it even possible to be neutral here?

I believe that the interests of public safety and the example set by other public service organizations and publications (such as the telephone book, where emergency response information is presented at the beginning of the book) should be applied here.

The question is, if a person in a medical emergency (someone in deep depression contemplating suicide, or a friend or relative trying to help) looks up suicide on Wikipedia, what should that person see first? Should we take the information's relevancy with respect to crisis cases into account when determining the order of presentation of the information in articles and templates? Should readers in crisis be given priority in determining the relavancy of information and the order in which it is presented? I believe that they should.

Your feedback on this debate would be most appreciated. The Transhumanist   23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there is any public resource that would describe in detail how to commit suicide before discussing intervention, and I think Wikipedia should conform to that standard. If someone is really determined to commit suicide, they probably won't look it up on Wikipedia, and if they're just contemplating it, the layout of the article might save a life or at least prolong it enough for intervention. Granted, I am not a mental health professional, so any more qualified input would be welcome in this discussion. I'm guessing that neither universal agreement nor compromise suitable to everyone will be reached on this issue, so I think the best idea is to reach a consensus in the community at large, and then inforce the decision on the page. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it's poorly formatted period. The trouble is that there's no strong main articles to put at the top. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 12:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reordered it. Wikipedia is not a howto guide anyway, and suicide is no different. We shouldn't tell people how to do it or how to stop it, that's just inappropriate tone period, but we can offer links to resources. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. What do yuo write about suicide if you say nothing about how it is usually commited and how it is prevented? I'm not saying that should be the point of the article, but its an aspect of the topic being discussed. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we just have to present the information encyclopedically. "Various organizations offer support, such as..." etc. Instead of "Go here for help." Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We're supposed to report, not instruct. Therefore 3rd-person descriptions of what standard convention is, rather than 1st-person instructions. Rather than advise directly, report what the experts advise. The Transhumanist   21:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the template heading Types and Methods it nevertheless has methods first and then types. I would consider that types are more notable, i.e. the perceived pressures are different for each type, generally effecting different segments of society whereas the methods may be considered any of the groupings (although some styles may be more prevalent within certain groups). I think methods should be placed toward the end of that section. Further, the ways and means are far less noteworthy than any other aspect of the subject; all of the histories, famous suicides, cultural/moral/religious considerations, advice centres, etc. have a lot more reference sources than a note of "take in great excess of recommended minimum dose". Whilst methods do have their place, it might be that they are one of the minor considerations of an encyclopedic entry. LessHeard vanU 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide methods was just moved there from the history section. That article has at least two types, suicide by cop and suicide attack, as direct subtopics, and all of the different types of suicides are done with a certain method, so placing it first seems pretty logical. Without methods, there would not be any suicides. Without "[some word here] suicide", there are still many other types and methods. Prolog 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that without the why the how becomes irrelevant. The methods are available to the entire human community but only a few individuals in a group, minorities within each society class, seek to use them. LessHeard vanU 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know where to post this, there are so many boards, but since I don't want to go in to diffs and specifics, I decided to post it here. In several instances I have seen valuable contributors turn into angry, frustrated and finally unproductive or former contributors, because what was originally a molehill of a disagreement turned into a mountain of anger and disgust. Here's why: The majority of the community disagree with something the user said or did and several editors let him know. If he doesn't immediately see his fault, the tone gets less friendly and more righteous. The user's arguments get more and more desperate and start including actions which, in turn, draw the attention of some administrators. Even if the user has cooled down a bit now, multiple editors, admins and not, are meanwhile following his/her contributions and piling "friendly advice" on his talk page, as soon as the user does or posts something they disagree with (whether it's related to the original disagreement or not). Subjectively - and I empathize, I'd feel the same way - the user senses that a hostile (and annoying) group is ganging up on him. As a result, the user will never be the same user and sometimes leaves in disgust. Please point me to the attempts, policies, essays for nipping this type of development in the bud.--- Sluzzelin 11.15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of policies which attempt to address just that: WP:EQ, WP:BOLD, WP:EP, WP:COOL, WP:CONS, WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and I'm sure there are many more. However, most users' natural instinct runs counter to what the policy says we should do. Sometimes it's tough, but keep in mind that Discussion pages are where the battles should take place; not by Undo / Reverts. Also, if a user is already getting frustrated, citing policies as "here's how you should behave" is likely going to do little more than upset them more. People generally tend to know how they are supposed to behave, it's just a matter of whether or not they will. If it's a battle that you can just walk away from: do so, and you'll feel a lot better by the next day. -- Thisisbossi 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you see a battle going on, drop a line on WP:RFPP. Protecting the page sometimes cools things down. >Radiant< 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another problem when similiar ganging up happens in discussions. I am involved in a discussion now, where a group of editors tried to justify their opinion and I provided a rational explanation of why those opinions weren't valid. These reasons have not been discussed further, instead the group of Editors started discussing how editing should take place and made various attempts to frustrate me, my viewpoint being that this was a deliberate attempt to flame me and discredit my argument that way. All of this because the group of Editors couldn't get their own way on the project page that the article is linked to, as suggested by various rambling statements about how the project might be wrong. It gets frustrating when editors don't wish to follow the community as a whole and as a group maintain an island of their favourite articles.-- Shakujo 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's an ArbCom proceeding right now, where I'm trying to get the issue of "gang tactics" recognized as a problem area. If you're interested, have a look here. You may wish to contribute. Dino 05:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently, the Powers That Be of Wikipedia have decided to purge several unnotable webcomic articles from Wikipedia's database. While I agree on this point of view in principle (after all, just because some Bob Smith makes a webcomic, doesnt mean there should be a Wikipedia page about it), it seems the editor(s) in question does not know a fair lot concerning what makes a webcomic notable.

While Penny Arcade and User Friendly were left up, for example, several other award-winning webcomics were taken down and senselessly deleted, including those that receive a fair amount of traffic, I might add. edit: User Friendly was nominated as having insufficient 3rd-party sources as well, so I redact my earlier comment

Even if one does not know which webcomics are notable, one could numerically experiment by seeing how many other pages link to a given article, the kinds of articles that appear in its 'related links' section (such as awards it has won), and how many people search for an article over a given period of time.

I, among others, might suggest that someone or some people have been overbroad in the deletion of webcomics, as similar low-audience activities have not been deleted, which seems to myself to show a definate bias.

I have "been bold" and taken the action of recreating a few of the webcomics that seem, to me, to be the most gevious examples, however, I am sure I missed some, and would like to ensure such actions are not taken in the future. Sim 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulties believing that they were "senselessly" deleted. They would have gone through AfD, no? And unless the comic is utterly, utterly unnotable, the worst outcome of such an AfD would have been "merge into some list of webcomics" rather than "eradicate from the database"? dab (𒁳) 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics experts have different definitions of "notable" than wikipedia does. They're often rather surprised to discover comics they think are unremarkable get kept, and other comics which have some kind of significance or influence get deleted. -- Kim Bruning 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that popularity != notability, I also think that AfD bears a remarkable resemblance to a random-number generator when anything borderline goes before it. Having seen a few of the webcomic AfDs, I find it hard to draw any specific standards from the results of the AfDs, either those which the webcomic experts would like, or those which Wikipedian policy experts would find reasonable. Argyriou (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sim. It is always good to give examples of the deleted articles, if possible. Also, articles should not just be recreated. Instead, the matter should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Besides being better than having people continually writing and deleting articles, it allows the original article to be undeleted if the case is decided in your favor, which saves a lot of work, if the article is any good. An exception to having to go to deletion review is if it would be possible to write a new article that does not have the same problems that were given as reasons to delete the first one. For example, if an article is truly non-notable, that cannot be fixed by a new article. However, if the article was just a copyright violation or very poorly written and was deleted for that reason, it can be rewritten without going to deletion review. -- Kjkolb 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you seem to be confusing notability with popularity. There are indeed popular things that don't warrant articles, due to a total lack of secondarily sourced information that would make it pass the verifiability policy. Certain variations of drinking games, for example, don't receive coverage in reliable sources, so it would be impossible to write an article that isn't original research. However, without examples, it's hard to determine whether the deletion was correct. The best way is to ensure the articles have reliable sources (ie not blogs, not forums, not personal websites) mention them. ColourBurst 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The one that really got to me was Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures. I moved a lot of things around and added a lot of data about awards it has won, influence, etc. to compliment the old mostly-list format, creating what should be a better article, per guidelines.

Almost a year ago it had maybe 30 other pages linking to it, When I went to source it, I found that many of THOSE articles had also been deleted, and this is what got me posting here. I can understand some fudge room on one or two individual articles, but this included a long-term deletion of a whole series of articles on an entire dicipline, and I thought that warranted a policy request.

Additionally, the original RfD had a large, unanimous keep vote except for the original nominator and the final entry. The administrator even commented how well-thought out the argumens for keeping it were, and then deleted it anyway, which I found extremely odd, to the point where it might even have been some kind of mistake. Sim 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The arguments hinged on an aspect of WP:WEB - whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards were "significant" enough an award to grant notability (there's also the other point of whether an article that satisfies WP:N, a guideline, but violates WP:V and WP:OR, both policies, can be kept.) Unfortunately, no consensus has ever been made. ColourBurst 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The debate seems to revolve around the idea that web comics (in and of themselves) are not notable. The benchmark for notability seems to be weither a topic has gained recognition outside the the realm of the internet. The logic being if a subject is notable, then printed newspapers or television will have made mention of it. This is flawed logic. Some indistries rely almost exclusivly on the internet for distribution of news. Many trade papers and peer reviewed journals have significant internet presence and often significantly more content on their websites. One of the strengths of the Wikipedia is that wikis can keep up with the rapid changing pace of the internet much better than print can. Many of the best sources of news about the internet are (surprise!) on the internet. By the current measure of notability, these sources (however relyable, widly read or highly regarded) will never be notable. For example, if Gabe from Penny Arcade mentions something in his Rant, then that is immediatly read by more than four million people.

Web comics are a recent phonominon and have found a social niche. Lots of readers are realising that many sindicated comic strips are crap. Webcomics cost nothing and some of them are much better than the print alternitives. If the Wikipedia Notability policy defines this very valad and recent form of art, enjoyed by millions, as non-notable, then it is the policy that is at fault not the Webcomic indistry.

Guys, get a clue. This jihad against webcomics is splashed all over the net. Hundreds of thousands of people are taking notice of this. This axe-grinding crap is making the whole project look bad. Figure out what changes need to be made and get them done. When there are 86 _thousand_ unique hits on google about a subject, most of which are from blogs and independant reviews, then people have officialy noticed it. It is of note. Dan.Montgomery 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You make several reasonable point (that dead trees aren't everything, that many syndicated dead-trees comics are crap), but you overdo it. I find it hard to believe any claim that such and such a page (other perhaps than the main page of a notable newspaper) is immediately read by X million people. If it isn't "axe-grinding crap" [excrement as an abrasive, a wonderful metaphor!) at WP it'll be something else: people will always find plenty to hate at Wikipedia (notably the deletion of articles about them and their friends). Just what is it that gets 86,000 unique hits? How is the routine mention in a routine blog of any significance? (I for one don't even read blogs by my own real-world friends unless they're accompanied by particularly good photos.) What can it mean to say that people have "officially" noticed something? -- Hoary 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the "plenty to hate" statement. My experience is that people don't care unless you throw it in their face. I see no reason to be deliberatly antagonistic, which is how this recent behavior comes across. The reference to google hits was to a point brought up in the spirited debate over the deletion of the webcomic Ugly Hill. I may have exagerated the exact number (I quoted from memory), but the point is that the number of hits was many thousands. Individually each blog entry may be without merit, but taken together they work as a pretty good barometer of what people on the net are or are not talking about. Don't forget that the rest of the world defines "Notable" very differently. You sir, may disagree that there is any agenda behind these systamatic deletions. Frankly, I don't really care if there is or isn't. I'll read my comics every day regardless of their WP presence or lack there of. But please be aware that this could spill over to the actual print media. Webcomics have a wide enough readership and enough human-interest to make this story newsworthy. It would be very ironic if the notability that you demand were to come about from news stories reporting the bloody-minded burocratic removal of the aforementioned webcomics.

A deeper issue, I feel, is the fact that by definition any new media is Non-Notable. This is, frankly, shooting ourselves in the foot. Dan.Montgomery 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is to Wikipedia's credit that it's trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Webcomics are a recent phenomena and it will take some time to establish the critical review process necessary to establish that a particular webcomic as "notable".

What webcomic supports don't understand is that popularity does not confer notability. Also, they don't understand that the internet is a "low-trust environment", to use the words of Glenn Reynolds. This makes the fact that internet websites are not viewed as reliable as their print counterparts. Though this will change as online publications establish their reputations, but that will take time. -- Farix ( Talk) 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mate, reliability of sources is not the issue. Notability and relability are not the same. Saying "Yeah, we are wrong and in the fullness of time we'll get our shit together" is pretty cold comfort. The idea that all of print media is valid and all of new media is not is deeply flawed. Exactly the same skills are used to determine the quality of information, regardless of the presence (or not) of slain vegatables. The independence of information from the method of delivery is a fundamental. These issues with webcomics are symptomatic and, I beleive, just the tip of the iceberg. Dan.Montgomery 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability must be verifiable. To be verifiable, you need reliable sources. Thus reliable sources is very much at the heart of the matter. -- Farix ( Talk) 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, are you familiar with the difference between fact and opinion? I'm kind of hazy on this myself, could you explain it to me? Dan.Montgomery 11:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your statement is relevant to the discussion about the need for reliable sources to verify the notability of a webcomic. -- Farix ( Talk) 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss the difference between subjective and objective using the Socratic method. If you will ponder for a second, you will notice that weither or not a item is Notable is an Opinion and thus subjective. Verification may work well for facts, but verifing the existance of an opinion does not in any way reflect on the comparitive worth or merit of that opionion. Of the top of my head I can think of three better ways to gain usful opinions on notability than the one enshrined in your method. Want to discuss them? 150.101.101.115 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit old fashioned method eh? But, go ahead? -- Kim Bruning 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that notability must be evaluated on objective rather then subjective criteria. That is why we have established the notability guidelines. The need for reliable sources it so that we can verify that the objective criteria have been meet. If you like to propose additional objective criteria for webcomics, then please do so. But so far, you've only complained about the general lack of reliable sources or that no one considered blogs as reliable. -- Farix ( Talk) 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I find that the Socratic method is excelent when one wishes to engage in a dialog rather than just pontificate. I can see that this discussion is uphill work though, so I will be more direct.

TheFarix if you examine my comments, you'll discover what I've actually said is that the criteria for Notability is seriously flawed. I have given specific, concrete examples of how the subject of an article might have been noticed and talked about by thousands of people yet fail the (very specific) Wikipedia criteria for Notability. The current reliance on Print Media inherits all the bias of the Print Media Industry.

You will also, after a moments thought, realize that Notability is a value judgement. The world is divided into two categories: Notable and Non-Notable. Which goes in which category is a matter of opinion. This is why we have found the issue to be so hotly contested.

All opinions are not equal. Some are more deeply considered and informed than others. Since we are seeking an informed opinion, there are a few ways to get one. The first would be from a panel of experts. One to five people who are well respected in an associated field. For example, Notability of Web comics might be decided by a person holding a recognized qualification (Ma Fine Arts, B. Design etc) a member of the publishing industry (editor or publisher of a comic) a critic and perhaps a published or acclaimed cartoonist. While this panel would be biased, it would be easy enough to make the process transparent. A short paragraph from each member on every Notable/Non-Notable decision would be sufficient. Items might be resubmitted periodically (after a minimum period), who knows, perhaps the WP item has become notable since the last review. Particularly large fields of endeavor might have more than one panel to spread the work load.

A second method might be Peer Review. Ad hock groups of a particular discipline might discuss the work of their peers and arrive at a decision. This would be an invitational position, and I (imagine) would carry something of the benefit of being recognized as an authority on a particular subject. Positions could expire periodically, and new nominations would be put forward. Larger disciplines would have access to more members.

The final method I might suggest today is by survey. The object is to discover what people have noted. The more specific and targeted the survey the more valuable the opinion generated. This has the advantage of being very scalable, but I can see that it would be considerable work to maintain. Dan.Montgomery 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find that WP:N works just fine. Otherwise, we end up with nothing more then a popularity contest. Reliability has nothing to do with a source's presence online, offline, or both. If a source undergoes editorial control and fact-checking, and is unaffiliated with the subject about which it writes, it is reliable. If it is affiliated with the subject, undergoes no fact-checking, or is anonymous, it's not (at that point, we may as well just let editors put in their own opinions here, which we don't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The last thing Wikipedia needs is to set up a "cabal" of editors or recognize an external cabal to determine which webcomics are or are not notable. And as I said before, notability of pop culture items should be based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors. -- Farix ( Talk) 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the complaint being brought. The idea that print media has to mention an item numerous times for it then pass WP:V and WP:RS is quite silly. For those who have been in for instance the gaming community, knew the notability of "Leon" long before any media decided to pick it up. The problem with notability is it rests on a type of media that is being left behind because of its ability to report everything, and do it fast enough. I think the idea here is not that WP:N is to be thrown away, but that WP:WEB is to be refined to understand that its "reliable sources" would usually not be print media. For instance right now the article YTMND can be deleted for failing WP:RS. However if you attempted to have it deleted you would be met with many people who say its "obviously notable" however cannot produce a WP:RS source. The arguement being made above is echoed here, how many "non-reliable sources" have to mention something for it to be obviously notable? The counter arguement of 1 blog doesnt look at the larger picture, yes 1 blog does not make an item notable, however if 80,000 blogs are mentioning it ... its obviously notable. I think anyone who has watched the news in the morning when they mention web based items and though to themselves "they are just finding that out?" would understand the problem with print media.

There are some alternatives however for many subjects, such as web based news sites that are respected by WP:RS, however web comics is a niche subject. The problem is the experts in the field who would write about them, are doing so on blogs, whereas blogs are only acceptable if the person is a journalist ... journalist to what degree? I believe the Supreme Court ruled that blogs were actually legit forms of journalism and granted the same protection over sources, or were at least hearing the case. Anyway, niche groups seem to be over ridden by people who simply follow the guideline criteria, instead of measuring notability on common sense instead of letter of WP:WEB. I think this is why WP:WEB and the other notability guidelines are just that, guidelines and specifically mention that "common sense" may over rule, its just not exercized in that matter. So how many individuals have to write about something for it to be equal to one BBC? While a blog may not be WP:RS, wouldnt 10,000 blogs meet WP:N? -- Nuclear Zer0 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The only ones who are saying that coverage must be in printed media are the webcomics themselves. The criteria only specifies reliable sources and WP:RS gives some guidance on how to determine a reliable source. But there is no "paper-factor" involved. For example Slate is a reliable source, even though it has no print version. The same goes for CNET's news.com and IGN. -- Farix ( Talk) 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well two things, you only really addressed the print media and not the rest of the items, such as the closing questions even. The other point is that there is no site that reviews "web comics", and the only noted "web comic award" is being regarding as not notable since it too does not have an article here, which would probably only be covered by again, the web comic authors. There really is no beginning point in a sense. Who reviews art? I do not know of a single online site that would review this type of media and yet still pass most of the scrutiny of WP:RS. Notability is as noted above, being based on a slow type of media. Would you state YTMND is an article that should be deleted for failing WP:RS? Again I think a major problem is WP:WEB is a guideline, many people do not cite it as such, nor seem to ever notice the "common sense clause" associated with it. So again, while (1) blog may not be notable, how many blogs do we need before someone or something does become notable? Again I want to find an answer, but weren't blogs given equal protection to hide their sources as print media? -- Nuclear Zer0 13:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kristopher Straub's recent experament in getting his own Web Comic Starslip_Crisis deleted [4] has highlighted the ease (and no doubt, regularity) with which the WP:N is used to manipulate article deletion. I think Kris has highlighted the Pathos inherent in the Articles for Deletion process.

Some of us seem to think that we have been building a shining monument to rational objectivity, however I question if this is even slightly true. Subjective decisions are made at every level in the creation of a Wikipedia article. How can the result then be considered objective? The views of the editors have left ther stamp writ large all over this project, Webcomics is just the most recent case.

At this point we are offered an opportunity to recognise the failings of our community and our process. We can inovate and find solutions. I must be frank, I expect the community here at Wikipedia will live up to my expectations. Dan.Montgomery 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree in principle with the idea of a mass purge in Wikipedia, and more than the significance of any individual article or articles, I'm more concerned with the idea that someone out there thinks this kind of thing is a good concept. Sim 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, requiring any subject at all to have hundreds of referrences, that must come specifically from newspapers, is quite simply buffoonery. Almost nothing in the universe generates hundreds of newspaper articles about itself. Do we require television shows to be referenced in hundreds of newspapers before gaining an article? If so, you probaly wouldn't get any but Sienfeld and Survivor. Do movies require hundreds of print sources to get an article? Plays? Video games? Famous Authors? How are you going to define notable, then? It seems, to me, to be a notable subject if there are a large number of people looking it up on wikipedia! Why delete the very answer to a commonly-asked question? Heck, random towns in Idaho get articles about them, even though they're not mentioned anywhere at all except the state database! Are not these notable? This all seems, to me, an obvious double-standard that applies only to webcomics. If we've somehow come to the idea that webcomics, as a "new medium", only lasting about a decade, is somehow less notable by definition, requiring such a higher bar so as to require it to be a print comic, then the logical course of action is to simply delete all the webcomic entries and be done with it, instead of nominating them all one by one in an obvious Catch-22, as I honestly cannot think of any that would otherwise meet this definition. Sim 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, no one has ever required a subject to have hundreds of references that must come specifically from newspapers. So, who's the buffoon? zadignose 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the deleted comics had been profesionally published or been mentioned in Time Mazazine blurbs/Comedy Central (TV Channel)/Sci-fi Magazines, etc, but they were called "trivial" in that they were not "recognised print sources" and/or there weren't "enough of them" and deleted anyway. This supposes that only print media sources are "good enough" and, of the subset of print medeia sources, there must be more than a dozen or so (merely two or three isn't "good enough" to be notable, apparently.) This is quite frankly silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sim ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Will you please clarify if UNESCO scientific publications and their components are copyrighted? I did not see UNESCO publications with copyright notice, but neither I saw a disclaimer about public domain. By its nature UNESCO is a most public entity around, but the PD tag does not specifically list UNESCO as a public domain source. Barefact 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. government is somewhat unique in making all its publications public domain. Even most governments within the U.S. maintain copyrights. Anyway, the relevant UNESCO policy is found at the disclaimer page, and says

“

All rights reserved. This information may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any reproduction of data be accompanied by an acknowledgement of UNESCO as the source ( © UNESCO ). This does not apply to the pages and images with explicitely reserved reproduction right : © followed by the right owner and the year of first circulation. Reproduction of the latter requires prior authorization from the author.

”

That looks like it fails Wikipedia requirements for direct quotations to me. Αργυριου (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Non-commercial use only" licenses are never acceptable per WP:C, but we still could use short quotations with proper attribution in a normal scholarly style. We just wouldn't be able to copy the material wholesale or large parts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit unfair that IP addresses don't get the same box that says, "You have new messages," when someone leaves a message on their user talk page? I tried it out with my school's IP, and no message came. However, it works every time with a registered user. It especially becomes disadvantageous when someone leaves a warning on the talk page. The IP user never receives the warning, until he/she is blocked. By then it's too late. Why can't they receive the message that says "You have new messages"? Diez2 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They do get a message box. If you left the message yourself, it may be why you didn't get one on your school IP. Trebor 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IPs do get the box. I've been too lazy to log in and gotten it from people who see my benifical changes and welcome me, and I got it one time at home when my IP address changed and there was a several-month-old vandalism warning. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrm? I tagged my college's IP with {{ SharedIPEDU}}, one time, and every pageload for any computer in the school would show the orange bar until somebody "checked" their new messages. The flag is only set until someone views the talk page, IIRC. AOL and other situations where your IP address may suddenly change can complicate this, of course. – Luna Santin ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, I must be mistaken. Trebor 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of these two templates is that {{ copyvio}} is for instances where the copyvio needs some investigation, or a chance to resolve itself. {{ db-copyvio}} is for instances where the copyvio is unambiguous and should be deleted immediately.

Lately, I've noticed people going around and changing {{ copyvio}} to {{ db-copyvio}}. This activity strikes me as harmful and disruptive, especially since it's not unusual for admins to then speedy the page in the middle of several editors colaberating to try to resolve the issue.

Why do people do this? ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the history. If there is a clean version in the history, then it should be {{ copyvio}} (just to make sure the information is retained, but not on public display). If there is no clean version in the history, and the copies are verbatim literatim, or the content cannot possibly be clean (e.g. a dump of song lyrics) - in both cases only if the copyvio is obvious - it should be speedied. Of course, admins are supposed to check the history before they speedy, but then there are some 10,000 items in the queue (lots of images). As for people changing from one to the other, if a clean version is being worked on it shouldn't be a problem (the clean version gets moved out of userspace or from /Clean to main title). Do you have a specific example in mind so we can better see what the specific problem is? Chris cheese whine 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got several. The most recent one is Anna Rae-Kelly. I found it on AFD, and was cleaning it up and following links to try to figure out if it was notable or deletion-worthy when I discovered that it was taken verbatim from Anna's personal website, which has a clear copyright notice to the effect of "we respect the intellectual property rights of others and expect you to respect ours". I tagged it with {{ copyvio}} and mentioned that fact on the AFD. Besides notability, another concern with that article was that it may be autobiographical. It was. The article author said that she was Anna, and the website was hers, and she was the author of all its contents - hence it couldn't be a copyvio. Someone changed the tag to {{ db-copyvio}}; but that's not correct. If she wants to release the information under the GFDL she has a right to have explained to her what that means and then make that decision. Of course, the article still has a boat-load of problems and might be deleted regardless, but changing the copyvio tag to a speedy one doesn't seem right in a situation where someone is asserting ownership of the source text.

Another situation is the one I posted about a few days ago, with Quest magazine. An IP changed all of those {{ copyvio}} tags to {{ db-copyvio}}. Some of the articles had clean revisions in their history - others did not. Seems to me that, between that fact and the fact that the source text had an unclear license which (debateably) could be interpreted as compatable with GFDL, it was not right for the IP to make that change. (Though concensus was leaning towards that license being too unclear to allow the material to remain - the admin should have made that call).~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation of Anna Rae-Kelly was definitely wrong. That should have stayed at {{ copyvio}}. If User:Raekelly is the author, they should ideally go through m:OTRS, or post an explicit notice somewhere outside of Wikipedia granting a release under GFDL. You did the right thing in changing the tag back. I suppose this means we'll need people to patrol {{ db-copyvio}}'s category to make sure of this. Chris cheese whine 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. To be fair, you did vote "speedy delete as copyvio" in the afd. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True. That was before User:Raekelly asserted ownership. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What the section title says - something analogous to {{ tfd}} that says "A category or set of categories added by this template has been proposed for (deletion/merge/renaming)". -- Random832 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppose Albert Einstein were alive today, but nearing the end of his life, and decided that as a final record of his achievements, he would write the definitive encyclopedia article on General Relativity for Wikipedia (assuming an article didn't already exist on the subject). Oh, but that wouldn't have been permitted: he'd have been writing on his original research, which violates WP:OR.

So suppose instead a top scholar in the field of General Relativity, perhaps one who studied under Einstein himself, set out to write the definitive encyclopedia article on General Relativity. Since the scholar is an expert on the subject, he's able to write the entire article out of his head, without needing to look anything up anywhere, and therefore has no sources to cite. Suppose that later somebody considers some of what the scholar wrote to be untrue and deletes it. Now the scholar has to cite a reference in order to restore the material. Of course, the scholar probably learned what he knows thirty years ago from Einstein himself, or from books whose titles and authors he no longer remembers. He could find a current book that says the same thing just for the purpose of referencing it, but that seems silly: such a book could well be written by someone with fewer credentials than the scholar himself.

In short, despite efforts to entice people to write on topics in which they already have deep and broad knowledge, some of the basic principles of Wikipedia practice reveal a preference for articles written by people with a sketchy knowledge of the topic who have to rely on written references for much of the material they contribute so that they can then cite it.

Seems fallacious to me. — Largo Plazo 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so. You start from an fallacious premise.

First, any "scholar" would routinely check a publication's "instructions for contributors" before attempting to write an article for that publication. Your hypothetical "top scholar" would look for Wikipedia's instructions for contributors, find the verifiability policy, and would understand that Wikipedia has different rules from Encarta.

Second, any "scholar" is familiar with the concept of citing sources, and any review article published in an academic journal would cite sources to the hilt, even in an area where the author has broad and deep expertise. So, Wikipedia's policies would be much closer and more familiar to what a scholar does normally than Encarta's. For your "top scholar," citing sources is just doin' what comes natur'ly.

Therefore, a top scholar writing for Wikipedia would almost certainly have cited sources in the first place, just as he would for any professional scholarly publications. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Before stating my opinion on this matter, I would like to clear up something. Say, for example, you have a paper published in a credible scientific journal, or have a book published by a reputable publisher. If you yourself were to write or edit an article about one of the topics discussed in one of your hypothetical works, would it still be banned under the no original research policy to cite one of your own works? SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No. There is a conflict of interest policy WP:COI that prohibits self-promotion, but neither that nor the OR policy prevents an editor from writing an article that references a reliable source authored by the same editor. This is already described both in the OR policy and in the COI guideline. CMummert · talk 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason wikipedia has the preferences for sources is because we have no way to verify whether anyone is albert einstein or steven hawking or joe blow off the street. We can't rely on our reputations and credibility, all we can lean on is the sources we can cite. Otherwise, any crank could claim to be an expert and add any crap they thought of to wikipedia. Further, even experts are wrong sometimes. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that one can cite one's own work—this just can't be the place of first publication. But as for the part about "we can't rely on our reputations and credibility, all we can lean on is the sources we can cite." Such sources, of course, can be just as deceptive as the editor! Combining the two thoughts: I'm remembering the time I read a newsletter by Lyndon LaRouche that was replete with footnotes—all to his own writings or those of his closest followers. Well, OK, I know there's never any way to guarantee that someone is telling the absolute truth. One does the best one can. — Largo Plazo 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

At least then you could look to the footnotes and see "Ah hah, he's only citing himself, this is bullcrap." References aren't a total solution in themselves, but if we don't have any references at all, it's even harder to check. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone is an expert, then they will be able to easily find sources for their statements. Science Papers quote prior work all of the time. If they wish to cite on of their own papers, that is fine, provided that it has been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed manner. Bluap 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Today (february 21, 2007), I've checked the sources given on Hungarian people about the numbers of them living in a coutry/continent. Previously I've added some facts, but only now had the idea, to check those, which were already given. Well, there was a nice falsification about the brazilian-hungarians. Their real number, by the source is abt 150,000. In the article, it was exactly 1 million. Not to mention the weird "Russia" part, wich I've put into comment, since I was unable to find anything about that on internet (maybe I was not persistent enough).

In the history, I found this, wich later grew up to 1,000,000 [5]. Two anonim edits, one in sept, 2006 the other in oct 2006. First is four ( 4 ) the second is five ( 5 ) month old. Noone was intrested in checking sources, since there was an external link, as reference. I've had many similar disputes on enwiki before, mainly with established users using non verifiable sources, such as books with no ISBN or online edition. Some of these sources are (unnaturally) very universal, and can almost cite evrything abt a given topic, even when the given source is about the (main) topic's sub-topic's sup topic or an even smaller circle (yes, sub-sub-sub-etc.) Well, my point is that some of the sources are simply faked, to prove a POV, (or simply for fun/vandalism). By my previous experiments, I put the rate of faked sources per article from 1% to up to 60% (!), depending on the topic. Higher numbers occuring in political articles, for example magyarization. I was every time turned down. Well, this is an easy to prove situation, this is why I chose this, instead of some longer.

Also a great problem - also relating to the article mentioned above - (especially with slavic and pro-slavic central-european political writers/historians), that even if the artice and the source are matching, the source itself can be a book or webpage, which itself does not "intrested in reality", or to say exacty: politically motivated. In wiki language: (ultra-)POV.

I've had disputes abt users here, who's sources many times failed WP:Verify, but noone was intrested in it. I was turned down always, and/or asked to "believe". Well, I'm sceptical :)

What to do with this tendency? I see more and more falsified sources (98% of them are absolutely unreachable-via-internet books), as time goes forward, and I can't prevent them to be in articles with their lies/falsifications/etc. No one will believe if I say "I've read it, and there was nothing like that in it." No, I've to prove it, that it is falsified, not the other, that it is not a fake. In my opinion, if something is accused as being fake, the thing, wich should be proved, that it is not. -- Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

At least there's a source to check and provide the real answer. Stable versions or some sort of assurance system will help this in the future, but for now all you can do is double check the sources when you want to be sure whether something is true. Falsified sources suck and when used dishonestly should be grounds for serious suspicion on anything the user writes, if not further consequences, but at least they can be caught in a lie with a single book, instead of sending other editors on a wild goose chase to prove things either way. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I've fallen into that mistake before. But, what to do when this comes with an extreme agressivity/hostility? -- Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Falsification of information from sources, followed by hostility of the type that violates WP:NPA, probably justifies reporting at WP:AN/I. Do remember that your goal is to notify an editor of a problem, not to get him/her to admit that he/she deliberately lied (nor even to get him/her to apologize). The purpose of notification is to start to build a record, so that if the problem occurs again, an admin has a basis for stronger action. If you get brushed off or ignored, that's still okay; the record has been made, and your notice probably will make the editor a bit more hesitant to stray (or careful not to). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right, I've started a list, but you know, these are not online things, this problem is 95% about books. If X wrotes "A" and cites it with a ref in fact saying "B" (or else) and I point it out, I still can not prove it, and in fact the ref will be used against me nevertheless, it is a fake. -- Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And if one is cleared, than there's another 1 million articles, wich should be checked, and than, there's no guarantee, that the "cleared" ones will remain clear. -- Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a "marked as checked" bit, (and an ability for anyone to review the last checked revision) but who to trust with such a power? -- Kim Bruning 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this would end up working a bit like the unstable version / stable version system typically used for linux distributions. If you want to have the latest information and gossip (or all the newest toys in your distro) you get the unchecked/unstable version. If you want reliable information (or a system that just works) you get the checked/stable version.

Once again, how do we know which checkers to trust? Hmmm! -- Kim Bruning 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, we need stable versions badly. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ISBN or online edition needed?

I was bit worried when I saw the complaint that there were "non verifiable sources, such as books with no ISBN or online edition" being used, becuase a lot of the older literature does not have this. When I wrote the initioal versions of Battle of Vågen my main source was the Norwegian history book of Bergen, "Bergen - Byen mellom fjellene". This book was published in 1969 and has no sources, nor an online edition, yet I would hardly call the book "unverifiable". Anyone with access to a Norwegian public library would be able to find the book (or at least order it), if you see for example its entry in Bergen's public library, [6] you will see that it's available in many places. Why should a source like that be called invalid just because it does not have an ISBN? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I research how candidates and people use the Internet for political and social activism. I've noticed that most of the candidates have bio pages. This is fine.

I am curious.

• Do you believe that these pages are created by the candidates' teams?
• Are these pages checked for facts vs propaganda?
• Are there "Wiki Wars" with different candidate teams "attacking" the opponent's wiki page?
• Should there be a special section for campaign pages?

Sincerely, Alan acohen843@hotmail.com

• My answers: Yes, surely, at least in part; yes, to the same extent that any other Wikipedia articles are, based on our requirements for neutrality and attribution to reliable sources; probably so, although there are hopefully also third party, neutral editors who can moderate any such conflicts; no, they fit in well enough with the rest of the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (politicians). Brief answer to your questions: 1) sometimes, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-21/Congress again 2) We try 3) Sure 4) Wikipedia:Candidates and elections was marked as historical, see that page for details.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do note that most political candidate articles are not originally created by the candidates team, but what the above mean is that sometimes they change or add to them. — Centrx→ talk • 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about this too much. Even if an article on a candidate for office were written by his/her campaign team, you can be sure that his/her opponent also has a campaign team that will fact check and edit it. Between these two (admittedly) partisan groups - and with truly neutral editors adding their two cents, we will quickly achieve a balanced NPOV article on the candidate. At least that is the theory... reality is that we will have a series of edit wars and content disputes as each side trys to spin the article to reflect their POV. Blueboar 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some recent AfDs have illuminated a need for Wikipedia:Notability (artists). The proposal has been created yesterday and is being discussed at that page (after the discussion that started at WP:BIO. More comments are appreciated.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can text from the book Mitcham Common Ecology Trail be added to Wikipedia if it contains the following notice:

Crown Copyright 1988, This publication may be freely reproduced in part or full, other than for the purposes of commercial reproduction. Think outside the box 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. All text must under a license compatible with the GFDL. For example, commercial reproduction must be allowed. — Centrx→ talk • 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians born in (YEAR), as the existing actions have been inconsistent and ad-hoc, and recently prone to wheel-warring and POINT. I think the time has come to seek an overarching consensus on this issue. Crossposted to VPR. -- Random832 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a photo of Chao for an article I'm working on, Gwoyeu Romatzyh (a Chinese writing system devised by Chao). Having found a suitable picture online at pinyin.info, I contacted the webmaster, who replied:

" I scanned the photo from Chao's wife's book Autobiography of a Chinese Woman (1947). And since my copy of this is signed by both Yang Buwei and Chao himself in both Hanzi and romanization, I scanned in one of his signatures and superimposed it on the photo."

So the book was published 60 years ago, & the photo's a composite! Where does that leave me from the point of view of copyright? Ie can I use it in the article? -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

According to {{ PD-China}}, Chinese copyright expires after 50 years, so you should be in the clear. However, does it really add that much to the article, though? Given that what the guy looked like is pretty irrelevant to the writing system he developed, you'd be using it for decorative purposes and it'd fail our fair use criteria. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 10:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the book was published by The John Day Company, New York, 1947. So US c/r applies.

The irrelevance of this "guy's" looks applies to almost every person in WP, apart from film stars etc. Pictures of both Darwin & Mendel appear in the article on Evolution, for example.

In any case a photo is certainly needed for the article on the guy himself. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The darwin/mendel photos are unencumbered by copyright. I'm talking about fair use rules, which are stricter than what's editorially good. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it effective or not? Many of the sections created are archived without any admin response. Are frivolous reports not worth responding? Do only frivolous reports not get any response? Should admins at lease acknowledge that they have read the report and give a brief summary why no action is required? Any other suggestions to make it better? See also: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_Comment Lukas19 05:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. No. No. No. Your questions seem to have been answer at WT:AN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Lukas19 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have read the recent debates on unsourced articles. I propose a idea that if some user is trying to argue that something is "unveribiable," he should do so only after 1) delcaring himself to have attemted to find sources for it, and 2) that he checked for book or other library sources, not just having looked at some internet sites. Most of the primary historical sources and newer academic publications are not available on-line just yet, and hearing one say something is "unverifiable" carried so much more weight when that person has actually looked for the information in the library. Spintasser 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In theory, a good idea. In practice, people will just say that they checked at the library and didn't find anything; when in fact they still stuck with an internet-only approach. I agree that with highly technical issues, the internet is lacking; but by and large the Google Test works quite well. -- Thisisbossi 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got another idea! How about the person who creates the article finds sources for it, instead of expecting someone else to? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is: would the loss of all the bad info be worth the loss of good info? The article on Vehicle Infrastructure Integration will help reinforce this: I wrote the original incarnation of the article and subsequently added in the Unreferenced tag, quite simply because I'm too lazy to bother with the nitty gritty of finding each and every item and then figuring out the Wikipedia syntax of getting the references in. The info is out there, but laziness prevails on my part. Such a policy might cost us a lot of good info posted by people whom don't care much for those minute (albeit admittedly important) details. -- Thisisbossi 06:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, much like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, is not a "minute but important" detail. It is one of the five pillars, a non-negotiable core policy. And for a very frank assessment, that article does cite five external links (so it's not unreferenced, and I correspondingly removed the tag), but has a lot of problems common to unsourced articles. There's a lot of use of weasel words ("common criticisms" and the like without saying who offers that criticism), and much of it appears to be based on either personal knowledge or "synthesis" of existing information. That article would benefit greatly from proper source citations and unsourced information being removed. But it's not totally unreferenced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but not all of us view each pillar equally. However, this is not a review of that article; rather I am using it as an example of information which would otherwise be immediately deleted if a strict reference policy were in effect. -- Thisisbossi 06:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article would be deleted. A lot of its content might be, but like I said, five sources are cited for the article. Five is more than zero, so under WP:PRODUS, sourceless wouldn't apply. (And the content can be deleted right now, per WP:V). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles not giving good sources is one of the reasons my teachers won't allow me to use Wikipedia as a source. When people just make up stuff, they prove those teachers right. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also the point of horses for courses; some editors write prose beautifully, but are unable to master the placing of inline citations. Others have the clunky writing style of someone steeped in the methods of clunky writing, yet are extremely proficient at placing references into someone elses beautiful/clunky text. As long as the Pillars are understood to be the foundations of an article, any editor is free to concentrate on those that they are most skilled at. A poorly written article with great citations and a enjoyably written piece with a lack of references is better than a mediocre example with some indifferent sources; the first two can be improved considerably when the poor relation is addressed, the last requires a lot of work to bring it up to standard. LessHeard vanU 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to know any special syntax, or even proper citation formatting. Even if all you had was a book title or URL, you can just throw that in the references section and let other people format them, instead of forcing them to find the specific resources that you used all over again. Further, articles should be created with sources already at hand, because as lazy as you were in writing it, you could have added something wrong mistakenly, and no one, even you, would know without the sources to check. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This should be official policy. It should be self-evident. Let's talk about it. Dino 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those who commented

... in the discussion about " Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? Please add your comments to the existing discussion on this page or this page. Dino 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a style guideline anywhere that addresses the use of feminine vs. neuter pronouns for ships or countries, or is this like the question of American vs. British spellings where in most cases contributors can use what they like as long as different styles don't get mixed? 207.176.159.90 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

'She' for a ship is colloquial rather than encyclopaedic, even in British usage.-- Doc^g 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be argumentative, but is that a policy/guideline or an opinion? 207.176.159.90 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen anything to contradict the use for a ship. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 04:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a universal usage, though. If I remember correctly, Russians use the masculine pronoun. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am more concerned with what English languages use. I'd say that other languages be left up to their respective Wikipedias. As best I am aware, all English languages refer to ships and countries as feminine. -- Thisisbossi 06:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) uses "she" without explicitly addressing the matter. I'm not aware of any other place this is addressed. It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships had a discussion a while back here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive04#"She", "Her" (referring to ships as feminine). - SpuriousQ ( talk) 07:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's the sort of answer I was looking for. Reading the "naming conventions" article, I see that it actually uses "it" once, but it uses "she/her" about 8 times. Oh, by the way, I'm an "it"-ist on this. 207.176.159.90 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, ships have been considered female in English forever, and in all dialects I'm aware of. Using "it" marks you a landlubber ;-). I'm not aware of a similar convention for countries, but I'm hard-pressed to even construct a non-contrieved example where it matters. -- Stephan Schulz 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I nthink this is covered in the Economist Style guide, but it's not in the online version so I'll need to track down my hard copy. Ships are feminine by tradition (and behaviour tbh). ALR 11:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the British Government now officially uses "it" for ships to avoid offending women. However, most people with anything to do with the sea still use "she". Indeed, in Britain it's fairly common (although not universal) practice to use "she" for any vehicle. Usage re countries varies immensely. "She" has always been common in English, where we also tend to say "motherland" and "mother country". However, in other languages (e.g. German, Latin), it's the "fatherland". -- Necrothesp 14:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, and while trying to edit i went to the sandbox where i found an offensive article posted. where do you draw the line? how do i find that user so i can tell him he's an asshole? 24.247.133.124 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, don't call other users assholes. If you disagree with someone's actions, let them know civilly. If someone makes a gratuitous sexually-explicit edit, such as to the sandbox, you're welcome to remove it-just edit the page and take it out! On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored, and in articles such as sexual intercourse and pornography, we do provide a frank and encyclopedic overview of sexual topics. If a sexually-explicit edit is appropriate to the article it's placed in, and is not gratuitous, it is acceptable. As to your question, you can look at a page's history (the history tab at the top) to see who made an edit, and leave a message on a user's talk page. However, just to reiterate, do not be rude or use profanity in communication with other editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. You may find sexually explicit material in an encyclopedia. Don't call people assholes. See also WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For background and full disclosure, the conversation that provoke this discussion is at Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation). In my time at Wikipedia, I have never cease to be amazed at the contentions and emotions involved in article titles. From the Cork debates, to the City, State convention, to the highways, to TV shows, etc. Part of it is because the guidelines COMMONNAMES and Precision are written in ways that seem equal yet diametrically oppose to each other. But another part is the crowning designation of Primary Topic. It seems that a lot of editorss view the designation of Primary Topic as a trophy, or crown that only one article can have. It maybe a dink in pride or an insult for an article to be "downgraded" in favor of a disambig page being the primary topic. Primary Topic debates seem to feel like the news conference of a prize boxing fight where you have to size up the measurements of all the "contenders" and see who talks the best talk to win. Sure, there is always the "losers" solace in that there could be a link to the disambig page on topic of the article that has been crowned "King/Primary". These arguments just seem absurd. Now there are cases where there is a clear primary-like Prague the city over the other entries in Prague (disambiguation) but in a large number of cases there are times when there is fair and sizable consideration to multiple topics and no one contender stands over them all-in cases where there is no clear argument that the vast majority of readers will be searching for this one singular topic over all other alternative titles. In those cases, it seems logical that a disambig page should be the "primary topic". That way when a reader goes searching they will be directed to the exact topic they are looking for. Even more beneficial is the ease of directing links to the right article versus having them buried on the "primary article" page.I suppose the fundamental question is, who are we titling our articles for? The readers or the editors who want this or that to be crowned "Primary"? Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this on WT:D, and then the discussion was shifted over here because there was apparently insufficient opposition to the suggestion to strengthen the wording. If this confuses you, it didn't make sense to me, either. I say just strengthen the wording. It already says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic", so the debates should, in a way, be self-limiting. I have always favored setting the bar quite high for making any article the primary topic when there are any others with the same natural title. Prague is a no-brainer, and probably only no-brainers should be primary topics. Chris the speller 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a recent tendency of some people of removing {{ rejected}} from old proposals that they like, and replace it by {{ essay}}. Apparently the latter sounds less negative or offensive to some. However, is this appropriate? If you make a proposal to the community, and the community doesn't like it, it's obviously rejected - so should you then step back and say, wait, it wasn't actually a proposal, it's just my opinion? On the one hand, who cares? On the other hand, it is essentially misleading. Comments please? >Radiant< 13:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to this on AN. Can we have this discussion in one place?-- Doc^g 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well a ridiculous essay is far less bad that a ridiculous proposal. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh trust me, we have quite a lot of ridiculous essays :) >Radiant< 12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's to stop some malicious bot from running unchecked on here, deleting articles, user pages and images? Is there a safety system in place here? Spintasser 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BOT and WP:BLOCK. Furthermore to delete things they need to be given sysop rights, which is very rarely done. - SpuriousQ ( talk) 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but can a sysop create his own bot with sysop rights? Spintasser 03:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, all bots have to be bureaucrat approved. semper fictilis 04:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sysop tools or rights if you will, have to be given by a b-crat after a RfA. So no, an administrator probably can't give a bot their sysop tools. If I am mistaken somebody please correct me. Darth griz ⁹⁸ 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bots can be run under whatever identity the bot operator chooses (and has access to), so it would be possible for a sysop to run a bot under his or her own sysop account. No sysop would do this, but anyone who did would be blocked very quickly and the deleted pages would be restored. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears I am wrong about the bots, but I agree that most admins would NOT do that. Darth griz ⁹⁸ 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything deleted can be undeleted, unless it's deleted under WP:OFFICE auspices. Corvus cornix 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I read that Wikipedia is in need of more money. They are having fund-raisers now and again and also encourage donations. So I thought of an idea that will help Wikipedia raise money. They could auction off admin rights a la an internet bidding process. I am sure that people are willing to pay to become admins. Especially as standards for admins are rising and people might not want to put in the time and effort to make 3500+ edits, etc. It's just a proposal at this time but I know its good and I feel that it has a good chance of being adopted. Thank you. Spintasser 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will quit Wikipedia if they impose simony like that. Buying adminship??? That would be total bribery and completely destroy the purpose of Wikipedia. I am sorry for these harsh words, but the purpose of getting 3500+ edits is so you have the experience to be an admin. Please reconsider your words. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If a person is not willing to go the extra mile to work for admin tools then they probably do not need them. Even so, an administrator should be able to show to the Wikipedia community that they are trustworthy and ready for the tools, something that buying, which would ultimately lead to bribery and a cabal, could never show. Darth griz ⁹⁸ 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How will it destroy the purpose of Wikipedia? The purpose of this is to write a verfiable encyclopedia. This reasearch and writing has nothing to do with who are admins. And if anyone is willing to pay upwards of $1000 for the rights, why not? Snowboarder77 04:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody could buy the right to be an administrator, which includes the blocking and unblocking of users, it could cause a serious vandal and abuse problem. It would be an open door for people who come to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of messing around with people and vandalizing. Darth griz ⁹⁸ 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That's what you get for using numerical standards, and making adminship a big deal.

Alright, once I recover from laughing, I'd better explain:

Spintasser: Your view of adminship is very acute. Some people see it as a kind of cool reward badge, and it would indeed be very valuable to third parties.

However, the original admin role was simply envisioned as a means of giving extra tools to users who could be trusted to apply them correctly.

For now, I'll leave it up to others to determine which view is closer to the truth, and which approach is wisest.

In the mean time, does anyone here regularly scan E-bay?

-- Kim Bruning 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Are admin badges being sold on eBay? ( SEWilco 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

That's what I'd like to find out. -- Kim Bruning 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be weary of such an arrangement. I foresee biased editors purchasing such administrative privileges. What is to stop a national government from purchasing an admin badge and then continuing to censor or propagandise as desired? Your averaged Joe Schmo biased editor could make the bad edits; and the appearance of approval from admins (whom could block the opposition) would, at first glance, seem to make everything seem A-OK. Smart admins would not only block, but would completely squelch the competition such that they can't even cry out on their talk pages. An extensive Terms of Use would be required, which would surely be challenged in courts within the first week. -- Thisisbossi 06:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I said. Buying adminship destroys the purpose of adminship. If it is purchased, it is so much easier to abuse. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It actually takes work to become an admin. So why not pay to get out of the work right? Wrong. The time it take to become an admin teaches users how they should act, and how admins should use their additional abilities. It is not mindless work, it allows the community to judge the candidate, and decide if they are trustworthy. Removing this step would cause huge POV problems, huge COI problems, huge CIVIL problems, an additional load for stewards, who would have to desysop all the vandals, problems with admins not understanding policy, ect, ect. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the webcomic warriors have taken to modifying the guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) by changing the phrase "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." to "The content itself has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I would like to see a discussion to form a broad consensus before such a change is made to any of the notability guidelines. -- Farix ( Talk) 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the change needs discussion. "Multiple" in this context means n or more, where n is some value deemed by an editor to be acceptable in a specific case. There's no need to go and define n strictly. Chris cheese whine 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. By setting a number like this in stone, all you are doing is creating more conflict in the future, as people will be able to say "I can find two sources, so this must be notable". I also think this edit was made in bad faith, as a way for the web-comics fans to save their treasured pages, disregarding community consensus on the issue. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are you seriously going to stop calling people webcomic warriors? Or am I going to have to offer you out into a pub somewhere? Do people really want to label my edit in bad faith? Is this the road we want to go down. Should I revert every edit I have made to WP:WEB? Or is it just the ones you don't like that were in bad faith? At the moment, let's not forget, we already have people saying that two isn't actually multiple. Steve block Talk 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had no part in this whole webcomic debate, and frankly, I have very little interest in it either way. All I was saying is that the policy seemed to have been changed in order to help one side of this particular debate, and I don't think that's reasonable until some consensus has been formed. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. That's just creating more opportunity for lawyering in poor articles ("Well technically I found two sources so we've got to keep this thing that can never be more then a stub without OR!"). It depends on the comprehensiveness of the sources (two whole books that cover totally different aspects of the subject are obviously enough, two newspaper blurbs that say pretty much the same thing as each other are not). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So as long as we're clear. We want no part in the debate, but we can't let multiple = 2 if that helps one side over another in a debate, even if we want no part in that debate, and we'll lablel edits we haven't researched as bad faith even though we want no part in a debate. And to clarify again, 2 does not equal multiple. Can we just define multiple so I can get a handle on what ot means, because I always thought it meant more than one. Like, um, two or more. Where's the lawyering? Is the lawyering when we argue that in some cases multiple is two and in some cases it is three, or is it where we say any edit we don't agree with is bad faith even though we have no idea what we are talking about? Just curious. Do we know which case it was this was amended to help? Anyone? Steve block Talk 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, "multiple sources" could have a lot of different permutations. For example, let's say an AP story was purchased and reprinted by ten different newspapers. Has this subject been covered in multiple reliable sources? The knee-jerk might be "Of course, ten of them!" But really, the issue was covered in only one source-the original AP report. Similarly, what counts as "multiple" and what editors find an acceptable level of coverage might be far different in different cases. If the article subject has been the subject of two whole books, that would likely do it. If it's the subject of five newspaper blurbs, that still might not. We can't just define one number here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's a different can of worms. Two or more would cover that as much as multiple. That's not the point at issue. Steve block Talk 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That still leaves the question of depth of sourcing. Two very in-depth sources would satisfy that. Two very cursory (but just past trivial) mentions would not. That's not something we can nail a single number to, and not something we should. Basically, the amount of source material should be sufficient to one day write a GA and/or FA from. If that amount of sourcing isn't out there, it's probably not an encyclopedically appropriate subject. But how many sources it takes depends on how thorough, in-depth, and comprehensive they are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you've seen Spoo, right? And can you show me where two or more nails a number? Are you also suggesting Wikipedia should have no stubs? Steve block Talk 23:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Aribtrary de-indent. I'm not so sure that the village pump is the best place to have the debate. That being said, the idea behind using "multiple" instead of "two or more" is that, as couter-intuitive as this may sound, flexibility in guidelines (and to a lesser extent policy) is desirable. When we try to write guidelines as texts of law, bickering about precise formulation (which of course is already an issue) becomes unmanageable. More flexibility means that more importance is actually given to AfD debates which makes it easier to form consensus on a case-by-case basis. Pascal.Tesson 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote the guideline, cut me some slack here. We're bickering regardless of what it says. What I'm currently bickering about is how to stop the bickering. Am I the only one to have heard of the phrase "moving the goalposts"? It's all well and good to say case by case basis, but that isn't working, because the bar is going up way too high. People are suggesting multiple is "a large enough number of sources to attest to notability". Now okay, if that's how it is, that's how it is, but then right over here, at WP:NOTE, we've got a section stating notability is not subjective. Now if notability is defining how many sources we use to define what constitutes notability, what exactly is notability, and how is that not subjective. Something has got to give. Steve block Talk 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoo, if it's anything, is an excellent example of systemic bias here. There's no way that should have an article, all of those sources are either primary or absolutely unreliable. As to "should have no stubs", absolutely not, we'll always have stubs. What I'm saying is that we should have no permastubs, that can't realistically ever be expanded past a stub from currently available source material, no, those should be merged or deleted. Pretty much all articles start as stubs, but no article should ever end as one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I know you participated quite a bit in the writing and I certainly don't want you to think I'm blaming you in any way. I'm simply saying that in my humble opinion keeping the "multiple" terminology is wiser. Now it may become a problem if too many voters on AfD start systematically interpreting "multiple" as 20 or more NYTimes articles but I'm not convinced that this is currently the case and in the event that people do, one can always politely recall the meaning of multiple. The problem I see with "two or more" is that it puts an unnecessary focus on a magic number whereas the intent is clearly more subtle. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. if you say "two or more", people aren't going to see the "or more", they're just going to see the "two". Editors will assume that all they need is two references to gain notability - and that's not always the case. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While not fully baked, User:Trialsanderrors/On notability#Definition is an attempt to reword that avoids the numeric thershold implication of multiple. The gist, relevant to this discussion is that what "multiple" really means is "enough that we can cover the topic neutrally and comprehensively". This is also the approach advocated by the essay Wikipedia:Amnesia test - if you can't create an article using only those published reliable sources that are independent of the topic (and its owners, those seeking to make money from it, or its family (for biographys)), then there isn't enough sourcing around to have an article at all. GRBerry 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was my reason for writing Independent sources. I don't disagree there are problems with any form of using numbers, or any form of specificity, but there's also an issue with not being specific enough. It's a huge grey area and I think we kid ourselves if we pretend otherwise. To me, if someone can write an article like Spoo and stay within WP:NPOV then I'm happy to see it stay. But I suppose the problem is when I started here that was all we had in the way of policy. The intent is to say: If you can't build something then don't. The amnesia test has it about right. But to me, perma stubs are fine. But then we did used to guide that a longer article may be a stub if the topic is complex enough - conversely, a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub. I guess Wikipedia has moved on without me. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking: arbcom handles some cases where an RFAR is filed against an administrator and that admin, either during the course of the case or before the case is even accepted. In these cases, arbcom usually have to make it clear that the person is not to be resysopped without an RFA. The idea here is that some of the admin's actions were unpopular at minimum and they might not have the full confidence of the community, right? This implies that people who request desysopping because, say, they're going to be gone for a month or two, still are pretty ok in the community. Right now, jpgordon is proposing on the workshop page a new alternative for arbitrators in accepting/rejecting a case: rejecting, but also acknowledging that a person's desyopping is formalized. This seems a little "instruction creep" to me, and I think a simpler policy would be more helpful.

Well, why not just make a policy saying "Desysopped admins, including those who voluntarily desysop for any reason, must go through an RFA to be resysopped"? Call it Wikipedia:Return of access levels if you will. It would make arbcom's job somewhat a little easier - the Konstable and Philwelch cases would probably have just gone "away" if this sort of thing was in place. If someone who desysopped under non-controversial circumstances wanted their tools back, they should have no problem passing an RFA (could you imagine Kim Bruning failing one? Me neither.).

The only difference in practice there would be in practice is that a user who self-desysopped under light circumstances might not get their tools back... but I don't see the problem with that, seeing as how an admin should have the community at there back during normal times without any particular controversy anyway - that is to say, an admin who is not in any unusual mess right now who has a lot of people who would oppose his/her adminship, maybe shouldn't be resysopped just because they passed one before? The discretion would remain with the b'crats to decide on resysoppings anyway, in case there is some extenuating circumstance.

This may seem a little bureaucratic, but I think it actual lessens the buruacracy by making a blanket statement regarding desysopped users. If the idea is that certain people don't need an RFA because they will surely pass, let's just run them through RFA anyway and make arbcom's case load a little lighter. If there are no outrageous objections here or someone pointing out any obvious, crippling flaws, I think I'll write it up and tag it with {{ proposed}}. Milto LOL pia 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds awfully like one of our perennial proposals to me. In cases where someone is forcibly stripped of their bit, it's typically the ArbCom's fault, and they generally decide at the same time whether or not the ex-admin will have to reapply. As for folk who have voluntarily relinquished the mop, unless they really have jumped before they are pushed it is probably a sign of integrity that they have recognised the need to put it away. Take a look at things such as Wikipedia:Administrator recall and WP:RFDA before you start, just to see what has been proposed in the past. Chris cheese whine 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are policy proposals for forcibly removing adminship from an admin, I'm talking about determining what happens to a user who is already desysopped. Milto LOL pia 06:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There were tons of pages of discussion about this after Sean Black's RFA and during the Giano RFAR. You may like to dig through the RFA talk page archives before making the proposal — Lost ^(talk) 06:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Giano case and similar cases is what inspired this - users who surrender sysophood under controversial circumstances already get their access removal "officialized" by arbcom. This policy would make that unnecessary, and though there were many, many other issues in RFAR/Giano, this proposal would have made the Konstable (and probably Phiwelch, due to a lack of major conflict otherwise) cases unnecessary. Milto LOL pia 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"If someone who desysopped under non-controversial circumstances wanted their tools back, they should have no problem passing an RFA?" I think they definitely might, especially if they took a couple months break or something like that. The fact that the community probably can't be trusted to reaffirm admins is a major reason why the general reconfirmation proposal is in the perennial listing; I see no reason that objection would not apply equally here. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the major problem with those was that there were too many admins or something? So it would be unrealistic to reconfirm. That's what the one under the perennial listing says anyway. Milto LOL pia 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the other main reason; it would be less of a problem here. The PP page alludes to what I am speaking of: "Good administrators aren't necessarily popular ones." Nor, one could add, do they necessarily meet the arbitrary requirements imposed at RfA. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with this. Any active admin who blocks members and IP addresses and does article deletions and moves is going to rack up some enemies eventually. Even ordinary editors can get a few enemies despite impeccable behavior. Some of the kindest, most polite people on Wikipedia have enemies. I've seen some bizarre situations on Wikipedia and elsewhere online where people take extreme offense at innocuous things. Much of it has to do with the fact that there are no visual (facial expressions, body language) or auditory (tone, volume, speed) clues to meaning and intent with written communication. One of the most common effects is that people do not know when you are joking or being sarcastic. Most of the rest can be chalked up to the fact that some people are hot heads, some people are assholes, and some people are hot asshole headed... I mean hot headed assholes.

If a reconfirmation system is setup, I think that the standard should be made lower than an initial RFA to account for enemies acquired in the course of duty without due cause. I think that a 70 percent standard would be about right. Bureaucrats could be given some discretion, but they should be absolutely prohibited from reconfirming someone below a certain point, like 60 percent.

I think there are several ways to deal with admin problems. First, keep RFA nominations strict, but be fair and do not be too unforgiving. A willingness to compromise and to reconsider his or her opinions and actions should be given more importance. Other than that, I think that the qualities that have been considered important, such as politeness and good judgment, are appropriate. Second, when you have a problem with something that an admin has done, talk to him or her about it in as friendly a manner as possible. This applies whether the person is a problem admin, good admin or regular editor. Try to persuade and/or inform rather than to complain, warn or threaten. Third, an efficient, yet fair, way to deal with problem admins should be found. As I have not been keeping up with ArbCom cases or the Administrators Noticeboard, I do not know if ArbCom has become that "way", but in the past, I do not think that it was. This was not the fault of the arbitrators. The system just did not deal with the problem well due to its design and mandate. Finally, a way should be found to deal with problem admins who have become hated by the community but have enough powerful friends to avoid being desysopped through ArbCom, the Foundation, community ban or whatever new oversight is created to deal with problem admins (if it is also vulnerable to this situation). -- Kjkolb 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental flaw with this idea. Editors try to temporarily leave the project all the time, whether in frustration or because they feel it is taking too much of their time or real life stress. Some users will scramble their password, some will get themselves blocked to prevent their editing, some will post departure messages on their user pages. Those who are admins may get themselves desysopped. I don't encourage people to do these things (see User:NoSeptember/Leaving), but in the moment you never know what someone will do. When the editor comes back, most of these steps can be and are quickly reversed, at the worst you may have to start using a new account - but you can get right back to editing. That is not true about helping out with the admin functions - if you have desysopped yourself you can't help out until you are resysopped. Just because you got stressed one night is no reason to impose strict requirements on people. We don't say if you post a "I've left" message on your page we're going to block you from editing again if you decide to return. We should welcome good editors back. And we should welcome good admins back, whether they left for a while completely, or just gave up their tools for a while. Making these admins undergo a trial by fire because they have come back is very unwelcoming and does nothing to help the project. NoSeptember 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that "the community probably can't be trusted to reaffirm admins", per the evidence I've written down here. >Radiant< 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, you point to a good example of exactly the problem I'm talking about. In Guanaco's third nomination he was opposed largely for recent inactivity. This seems bad to me; people should be able to take several months off and come back to the full set of tools, even if they had themselves temporarily desysopped. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Small clarification

Sorry to smoosh this in on top of the subheading below, which was first, but this is more related to the above discussion: I just want to clarify that the policy I'm talking about would have nothing to do with "problem administrators" or "admin problems" or "abusive sysops" or any other such things, it's purely about users who have already been desysopped by other means, such as by arbcom (where, of course, they must re-apply in an RFA anyway) and by self-request at meta. This would deal largely with the second group, obviously. This policy would have zero effect on users with the sysop flag, even if they are inactive. Milto LOL pia 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A new admin interface option?

There is one proposal related to this that might be useful. Give admin users the option in their "my preferences" to change their interface to a non-admin interface (with none of the extra buttons or links displayed). While you can get around this interface if you know the right special pages to go to, having no admin buttons showing is a good way to help yourself focus on normal editing for a while. Actually I'd set up a third option too, show rollback but hide the other functions, since rollback is a common editing function mirrored by many scripts anyway. If admins had the option to set preferences like this whenever they wanted, many would not feel the need to desysop themselves in order to temporarily refocus on editing tasks. NoSeptember 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to mimic this with a custom skin? Kusma (討論) 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't have to make a custum skin. "Just" create a javascript that will hide all admin related features and put it in your User:<username>/monobook.js page (asuming you use the monobook skin). -- Sherool (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the purpose of this is. What you're basically saying is that a person who is an admin and doesn't want to be an admin any more can't trust themself not to use the admin tools? Corvus cornix 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them have to go? I tried asking on Arbcom Enforcement page, but was told it was not the best place and their didnt seem to be any place for it. I guess I am opening the floor to a discussion on creating a place for that, similar to Arbcom Enforcement, but where those with sanctions against them can go if they feel they are being harrassed, directly to the ear of Arbcom, so it is equal to those complaining at Arbcom Enforcement. -- Nuclear Zer0 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• You can appeal sanctions to either the ArbCom or to Jimbo. I've not heard of any succesful appeal to the latter, but the ArbCom has in some cases removed their earlier sanction. I suppose the best place to bring up abuse of the sanctions would be the admin noticeboard. >Radiant< 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, what I am asking for is a place like Arbcom Enforcement for those with enforcements on them. What you reccomend is having Arbcom remove the sanctions which I do not feel is the same thing. I am not asking for removal of my sanctions, but a place equal for people with them, to complain of harrassment directly to Arbcom because of those sanctions. I guess the difference is that in some cases the sanctions may be appropriate, however the harassment that comes from having them may not be. -- Nuclear Zer0 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest bringing this up on WP:ANI. Try to avoid being accusatory, and be prepared to consider that you may in fact be wrong. >Radiant< 09:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I still am not sure what you are talking about. This isnt about a specific point. Is this not a place to discuss policy? -- Nuclear Zer0 11:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the demand for such a place for the sole purpose being discussed here would be so low so as not to even warrant its creation. I mean, no offense, but how many other editors are in your shoes? It seems there would be relatively few. I think you should pursue your case through the channels suggested above, and if it comes to someone's attention that there are a large number of editors in a similar situation, we can have this discussion again. SpadePrince Talk ^{Contributions} 18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry, saw I forgot my sig)

I think that {{ disputedtag}} should not be removed if there is an ongoing serious dispute about the guideline, and that removing it should be considered vandalism. -- Random832( t c) 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I think common sense covers that pretty well, though; no need to make a whole policy about it – Qxz 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to avoid situations where guidelines which have previously been accepted are then disrupted by one or more people who argue against them and then get them overturned on the basis that they don't agree with them. It becomes a bit self-fullfilling.

If a guideline has been adopted then there should be a higher threshold needed for someone to reopen the debate. AndrewRT( Talk) 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that {{ disputedtag}} is reasonably often misused, either by someone who just doesn't like a guideline (note that a small amount of dissent does not equate to a dispute), or for disagreement over the wording (dissent over content does not imply dissent over whether or not it's a guideline). >Radiant< 12:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• So you don't think this is an appropriate tag to use for when changes have been made to the guideline without getting a consensus? -- Random832( t c) 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• My own view is that the disputed tag is widely abused on guidelines/policies, it still has valid uses in those contexts. It is generally better to revert a bad change and copy it out for discussion on the talk page than sticking a disputed tag on the page and thereby slander the entire document. As far as calling it vandalism: Thats silly.. such actions are almost always done by someone who really believes they are doing good. Bad actions shouldn't be done so we don't need to call everything vandalism in order to ask people not to do it... To me, if someone accused me of vandalism for such a change I'd counter that they were just looking for an excuse to whine at me because their actual complaint was without substance. -- Gmaxwell 15:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So you don't think there's a parallel between removing this and removing a cleanup tag or a speedy deletion tag from an article? -- Random832( t c) 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag is ridiculously abused. And usually the editor slapping it on insists there's no consensus (even if there is) and that there's a huge dispute (even if the tagging editor is the only one disputing it). It should only really be used when both sides come to an impasse and agree to put it up until they figure something out. -- Milo H Minderbinder 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the tag if it were mostly used for something other than objecting to statements along the lines of "grass is usually green", saying that there was no consensus to support such a statement (I choose this example particularly because it is evidently acceptable given our article on grass says as much). Chris cheese whine 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• To answer your question, Random, changes are being made to policy/guideline pages all the time, by a lot of people, and quite often without proposing them first on the talk page. This is known as the "wiki process", and it works because our policy/guidelines are not a book of law. Nearly all policy/guideline pages are also heavily watched by experienced users, who can and will undo changes that they believe to be detrimental. Generally this results in (1) successive partial-reverts to reach a compromise, (2) debate on the talk page, and/or (3) getting outside opinion. None of the three particularly requires this kind of tag. If there are no objections to an edit, it can be assumed to be consensual for the time being; if the only objection to an edit is that it is "made out of process", that doesn't count; we're talking content, not bureaucracy. >Radiant< 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that if there _are_ other objections, there ends up being a lengthy discussion, during which the wrong version is left up and people are going to make decisions based on it. A tag to indicate that there are current or potential changes being discussed and that the page might change soon would mitigate that. -- Random832( t c) 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been the subject of edit warring and almost led to an ArbCom case-is WP:N the central guideline, for which WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, and the like just provide suggestions when something probably will pass it? Or should we consider the criteria there to be exceptions to WP:N? To centralize discussion, I think this entire discussion should take place at WT:N, and I'm going to post it to all the "secondary" guidelines. One way or the other, this needs solved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, WP:MUSIC, BIO, FICT and WEB predate WP:N. >Radiant< 12:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a new policy extending the 4-day restriction on new users editing semi-protected pages to creating pages as well. See Wikipedia:New users Mr.Z-man talk 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:New users. >Radiant< 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)