This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
Questions strictly concerning the Universal Code of Conduct may be severed and appealed to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, which shall decide to hear it or not.
Prior to publishing a decision, the Committee may refer questions of policy solely regarding the Universal Code of Conduct to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, which shall be required to answer, unanimously or by majority, in a reasonable timeframe.
I am petitioning these amendments in preparation for the upcoming U4C elections, which will establish the U4C. Part of their charter includes the option for projects to submit appeals concerning the UCoC, so I thought that might be helpful to add to ARBPOL.
These amendments are severable and may be adopted by themselves, so I have separated them into A and B.
These proposals misunderstand what the U4C was created to do, and I hope they'll be withdrawn. The charter is very clear that the U4C doesn't generally have jurisdiction "when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists", and on en-wiki that's ArbCom. ArbCom should be interpreting the UCOC on its own (if necessary, which it rarely is), and the UCOC couldn't even hear appeals from those decisions if it wanted to except in extraordinary cases of "systemic failure". Anything else would be at odds with both the charter and this project's independence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: I understand that the U4C doesn't already constitutionally have jurisdiction over appeals. If there already was, this petitioned amendment would be moot (see above). I think the UCoC involves more disputes than it's chalked up to be. For example, the only open case right now is centered around a UCoC issue (What constitutes paid editing?). Love your name, by the way. :) signed, SpringProoftalk 07:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Expanding the U4C's jurisdiction is even more problematic, I think. Even if it could be done without amending the U4C charter (which I doubt), giving the U4C additional authority over ArbCom would be a serious blow to this project's self-governance, and I think it's very unlikely that you'll find 100 editors who'll support doing so. (Paid editing is a Terms of Use issue, not a UCOC issue, by the way.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: You're right, I apologize. Nevertheless, the case also includes an issue of alleged doxing, which is further part of the UCoC. signed, SpringProoftalk 05:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This proposal misses the entire point of the UCOC, which is to provide a method of dispute resolution on projects that don't already have methods; in particular, smaller and newer projects. I fully expect to see medium- to large-sized projects without an arbitration committee creating one so that they don't have to deal with the U4C. Keep in mind that the UCoC itself is largely adapted from English Wikipedia policies and their corollaries on other large projects. This seems like massive overreach. Risker (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That's what I would like the UCoC to be. However, UCoC is more ambitious about its scope. Its main page claims that it may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by ... local policies of any Wikimedia project. It dictates that all who participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces will: [list of demands] and that it applies equally to all Wikimedians without any exceptions. Of course, any attempt to enact such arrogance may see significant numbers of us advise the WMF where to stick its encyclopedia, but those who wrote that text don't seem to be here to play second fiddle to ArbCom. Certes (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose this per others above: this is just more WMF stuff encroaching on enWP's jurisdiction. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I also oppose. UCoC may claim precedence over ArbCom, the laws of physics and all major deities, but U4C doesn't and shouldn't. Let us continue to answer to locally elected representatives rather than our new global overlords who have parachuted in uninvited. Certes (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This isn't useful. For (A) if something is within the scope of UCOC review it doesn't require a local policy to make it as such. For (B) local polices can't make global bodies act. — xaosfluxTalk 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be suggesting that ArbCom defer to the U4C, which I suppose ArbCom could do if it wished, but it certainly isn't obliged to and I'd rather it didn't. Certes (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
If I've understood correctly, then (A) would allow users to appeal some arbcom decisions to the U4C, whether to do so would not be a decision arbcom could make. If so then this is pointless as the UCOC and U4C determine whether the latter can hear appeals of ArbCom decisions, not local policy. It also attempts to mandate the U4C making a decision on whether to hear a specific appeal or not - legalistically it can't do that, but in practice the only other option is to ignore the request which I would sincerely hope they wouldn't do.
(B) is really in two parts. The first part allows (but doesn't require) ArbCom to refer UCOC policy questions to the U4C if they want to. I don't have a problem with this in principle, but whether answering such questions is a function of the U4C is a matter for the UCOC and U4C to decide not en.wp policy, and I also don't think it is something that needs a policy amendment to allow given that ARBPOL doesn't restrict who the committee can consult. The second part attempts to require the U4C to answer arbcom's questions and to answer them in a "reasonable timeframe". English Wikipedia policy has no more ability to do this than it has to require the US Congress to answer arbcom's questions.
Together that makes this whole thing a mixture of pointless and moot. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It's credibly claimed above that in practice, our ArbCom disapplies the UCOC to en.wiki. If so, then we should make a clear declaration of this in a prominent place.—S MarshallT/C 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@S Marshall what doesn't apply to English Wikipedia is the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The community has never been given a chance to ratify the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) itself. This has always struck me as a mistake, though the WMF Board does seem to have the power to make it policy anyway. Either way, the UCoC is a set of minimums and it is my firm judgement that enwiki policies often go far above those minimums and in no place are our policies less than the UCoC. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
On the basis of your last sentence, I modify my previous position to: "On en.wiki, our governance and policies make the UCOC nugatory." If that's right, it's rather important, and I do think we should say so.—S MarshallT/C 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This isn't useful. ArbCom is ArbCom. U4C has no supervisory jurisdiction over ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Bus routes and notability
Is there a notability guideline for transport routes? I have spotted a number of recent creations in Category:Brighton & Hove bus routes and they don't look particularly notable to me, but didn't want to jump the gun and nom them for deletion withut checking first. --woodensuperman 09:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I would think GNG and common sense covers it… if we have reliable sources that discuss the route in reasonable depth, the route is notable enough for a stand alone article. If not, see if there are sources covering the entire system… write about the system (and mention the individual routes in that). Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I would note that while train and highway routes tend to be notable, this is becuase they are fixed elements. Bus routes, and similarly ferry and airplane routes, I think require a much higher level to demonstrate them to be notable, since these can be adjusted on the fly. — Masem (t) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
As noted by others it's all about sourcing. Precent is that some bus routes are notable, but they are few and far between and are almost exclusively ones with a long history (typically decades, but exceptions are possible). Lists of bus routes on a given system can go either way depending on who shows up to the AfD. Summaries of a route network, especially in historical context, are encyclopaedic in my book but there isn't much precedent that I know of. Where an individual route is mentioned in a list or similar article, a redirect is appropriate, where it isn't it normally isn't.
When writing about transport services and networks it's always advisable to start with the broadest article (e.g. transport in country) then gradually work your way down (e.g. write "transport in region" before "transport in city" before "buses in city" before "list of bus routes in city" before "bus route in city") Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Not always. Suppose you were trying to write the article on Transport in London from scratch and none of the child articles existed. The task would be enormously difficult, and getting the article through GA or FA more so, with people constantly asking for or adding more material. Which is why so many top level articles are in such poor shape. Whereas if the child articles were there first, you could construct the parent from the leads of the children like History of transport in London, London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, Buses in London, Cycling in London etc where there is already consensus on what goes in a summary. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm in general in favor of it, though it'll probably need some eyes going over it before going to guideline status, especially on cautions about using primary sources. Obviously a little more relaxed than WP:MEDRS, but not carte blanche use or outright encouraging primary sources either.
I have some guidance on my user page in the sourcing section that might be helpful there. In short, primary journal articles have their own mini-literature reviews in the intro and to some degree discussion/conclusions. When you are in a field that doesn't have many literature reviews, etc. those parts of sources can be very useful (e.g., entomology topics for me) for things like basic life cycle or species information. It's a good idea to avoid using a primary article for sourcing content on the findings of the study itself since it's not independent coverage though. That's not meant to be strict bright lines if it becomes guideline, but give guidance on how primary sources are best used if they are being used. If someone wants to use/tweak language from my page for updates, they'd be welcome to. KoA (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we could say that in that circumstance, such as a paper is both a secondary source (in its discussion of other literature) and a primary source (in its results). I agree that the section on primary sources could be fleshed out, but I don't think it should be a blocker to giving it guideline status now (guidelines are never complete). – Joe (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly too in that it's an improvement that can be made independent of guideline or not. It would be a simple addition like you put, but it would also preempt concerns that sourcing would somehow be severely limited, which it functionally would not be.
If anything, much of what I mentioned here or at my userpage already addresses what has been brought up in a few opposes below. KoA (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Maybe it's stable because we are free to ignore it. Maybe any useful advice in it is just what's already in other PAGs. Maybe we already have enough guidelines. WP:MEDRS was a bad idea too but at least had the excuse that dispensing bad health advice could cause legal problems; outdated cosmological theory has a somewhat smaller effect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Support. This is necessary due to the huge and growing problem of the flood of unreliable research. As an engineer I edit scientific WP articles, and I waste an enormous amount of time dealing with noobs who come across some unsupported claim in a paper or sensationalist "science" website and are determined to put it in WP. And more time on pseudoscience advocates who dig up obscure papers that support their delusions. And more time on researchers trying to promote their careers by inserting cites to their own research papers in WP. In science today primary sources (research papers) are worthless, due to p-hacking the vast majority in even top journals are never confirmed. This needs to be reflected in our guidelines. --ChetvornoTALK 20:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Support but... So unlike wp:ver & wp:rs (which require certain trappings and not actual reliability) we're going to require actual reliability for science articles? Requiring actual reliability puts it in conflict with wp:Ver and wp:RS. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not my understanding that guidelines create "requirements", just offer best practices supported by consensus (WP:GUIDES). – Joe (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Support. Many longtime editors do not realize or refuse to acknowledge that primary sources should only ever comprise a small fraction of sourcing for an article. We also regularly have editors insisting various basic biology topics "aren't governed by MEDRS" because they don't have an immediate clinical relevance, and therefore the findings of primary research papers are acceptable. Having an actual guideline to point to that is more explicit on this would be helpful. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This is also what I've found WP:SCIRS most useful for over the years. WP:PSTS is established policy, but it's not immediately obvious how to apply it to scientific topics without the extra guidance in WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS. We end up with sections that are just runs of "A 2017 study found, ..." then "A 2020 study found, ..." with no information on if any of those findings have achieved scientific consensus, because people see a journal article and assume that because it's reliable you can use it without qualification. WP:SCIRS clarifies which types of journal article are primary and which are secondary, and therefore how we should be using each type. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Contra Joe Roe above, I think that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) isn't an useful guidance on how to use primary vs secondary. In natural sciences, you tend to have articles that include a summary or review of existing science, followed by a paper's own conclusion - which by its very nature cannot say whether its findings have been widely accepted or not. That is, the same source is both primary and secondary, depending on which information you take from it. The essay isn't aware of this point. The problem with popular press isn't secondary/primary, either; rather that it tends to exaggerate and oversimplify i.e a reliability issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
We could just add that point? – Joe (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be a root-and-branch rewrite, as the idea of them being two separate kinds of sources is woven in its entire structure. In general, I think that WP:PSTS is a problem as it takes a concept mostly from history and tries to extrapolate it to other kinds of sources which often don't neatly map on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
If a primary source has a "summary or review of existing science", that existing science will be available in secondary sources, which are what we should use.--ChetvornoTALK 07:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything in WP:SCIRS or WP:PSTS that precludes a source being primary in some parts and secondary in others?WP:PSTS explicitly acknowledges that a source can be both primary and secondary at the same time: A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement.. KoA observed the same thing above. It's a good point, and worth noting, but I think it can be easily achieved with an extra paragraph in WP:SCIRS#Basic advice, no rewrite needed. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Only in well-covered fields. In less well covered ones like remote volcanoes, you often have one research paper that summarizes the existing knowledge before introducing its own point. But this guideline would apply to every field, not just the well-covered ones. ^It's not enough for the guideline to acknowledge the existence of "hybrid" sources; that's still assuming that most aren't hybrids and will mislead people into trying to incorrectly categorize sources. It's an undue weight issue, except with a guidance page rather than an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I'm fully understanding you. A volcanology paper that summarizes the existing knowledge before introducing its own point is both a secondary source (in the first part) and a primary source (in the second part). How is this different from other fields? – Joe (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, that was addressing Chetvorno. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the vast majority of people citing primary sources are citing them for their research findings, not their background sections. In the rare cases where they are citing the latter, if the material is contested on SCIRS/PSTS grounds then the editor can just point to where we say otherwise-primary sources can contain secondary info and say that's what they're citing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The trouble with the 'secondary' material in primary sources, is that the authors almost invariably spin it to align with their (primary) research conclusions. It should generally be avoided in favour of dedicated secondary sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit short on time until next week, but I'd be willing to draft something based on my userpage (though a bit more flexible/advisory) if someone else doesn't get to it. KoA (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. <rant>The essay is an example of the primary vs secondary fetish that pollutes much of our policy. Actually there are very few things disallowed for primary sources that are not also disallowed for secondary sources. The rule should be "use the most reliable source you can find and refrain from original research". Instead, endless argument over whether something is primary or secondary replaces rather than informs discussion of actual reliability. So we get editors arguing that a newspaper report of a peer-reviewed journal article is better than the journal article itself, favoring the least reliable source for no good reason. Secondary reports of research are useful, for example they may contain interviews with experts other than the authors, but they are not more reliable than the original on what the research results were. Review articles are great, but rarely available. It is also not true that the existence of secondary reports helps to protect us from false/fake results; actually is the opposite because newspapers and magazines are more likely to report exceptional claims than ordinary claims.</rant> Zerotalk 10:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, it seems this is a common bugbear. Personally I've found the primary vs. secondary distinction very useful in doing exactly that, avoiding original research, but clearly others' mileage vary. Although it should be pointed out that, apart from discussing primary and secondary sources, WP:SCIRS strongly discourages using media coverage of scientific results (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press), so someone arguing that a newspaper report of a peer-reviewed journal article is better than the journal article itself would not find support in this essay.
In any case, isn't the objection you and Jo-Jo Eumerus are articulating really against WP:PSTS, not WP:SCIRS? Not recognising a guideline because it fails to deviate from a policy would be... odd. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
If the policy is questionable, making a guideline that emphasizes the problematic aspects in a field where the problematic aspects are particularly problematic is making a problem worse. FWIW, while newspapers aren't my issue with SCIRS, I've certainly seen people claiming that news reports on a finding are secondary and thus to be preferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
And they cite SCIRS for that? It says the opposite. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Joe, you are correct that my main beef is not with SCIRS. I haven't paid much attention to it, though I'd have to if it became a guideline. Mainly I severely dislike PSTS, which is full of nonsense, and I don't want more like it. Almost every word in the "primary source" section of PSTS is also the case for secondary sources. For example, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself" — since when are we allowed to do any of those things to a secondary source? And the only good thing about rule #3 is that it is largely ignored (unless "any educated person" knows mathematics, organic chemistry and Japanese). I could go on....I've been arguing this case for about 20 years so I don't expect to get anywhere. Zerotalk 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Zero0000 re: "...newspapers and magazines are more likely to report exceptional claims than ordinary claims". That is a different problem: what constitutes a reliable secondary source for a given field. SCIRS says: "Although popular-press news articles and press releases may tout the latest experiments, they often exaggerate or speak of 'revolutionary' results" So for scientific topics general newspapers and newsmagazines should not be considered reliable sources on a par with scientific journal reviews. WP:PSTS does not mention this issue; another reason SCIRS should be a guideline. --ChetvornoTALK 23:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Upgrading the "Identifying Reliable Sources (Science)" (SCIRS) to guideline status risks imposing unnecessary rigidity on topics that straddle the science and non-science boundary, and I believe that WP:MEDRS needs to be downgraded to an essay due to its frequent misapplication to part-biomedical topics, sometimes even in bad faith. As an essay, SCIRS provides useful advice without enforcing a strict approach that may not be suitable for all topics. By making it a guideline, we risk encouraging an overly simplistic distinction between primary and secondary sources, which may not always reflect the complexities and nuances of scientific inquiry, especially in interdisciplinary fields, or in burgeoning areas of research where established secondary sources may not yet exist. Furthermore, this rigidity could be abused, potentially serving as a gatekeeping tool rather than as a guide, particularly in contentious areas that intersect science with social or political dimensions, as seen with MEDRS in various topics. Maintaining the current flexibility that allows for context-sensitive application of source reliability is essential to ensure that Wikipedia continues to be a diverse and adaptable repository of knowledge. FailedMusician (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
We already have flexibility in assessing secondary vs primary coverage within a source, per PSTS. Can you link some examples of MEDRS being misapplied? And if a topic has no secondary coverage at all, whether in review articles/books or in background sections of primary research papers, it certainly should not have its own article and likely isn't BALASP anywhere else either. JoelleJay (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe you are aware of cases where MEDRS has been misapplied. There are instances where primary sources, extensively covered in mainstream media, are challenged by misconstrued higher-quality sources, often to remove contentious content or editors. Introducing a new policy for scientific sources could further stratify our community, complicating contributions and inhibiting constructive dialogue. FailedMusician (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Where are these cases and why would you think I was aware of them? We haven't edited any of the same mainspace or talk pages or the same topics of any wikipedia- or user-space pages, so I don't know how you would get that impression. The only time I've seen editors claiming primary biomed sources need to be pushed into articles is in support of fringe views like the lab leak conspiracies. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Scientific topics often cross multiple disciplines or emerge in fields where extensive secondary sources are scarce. Elevating SCIRS from an essay to a formal guideline could inadvertently restrict the integration of innovative or complex scientific information, making source verification a restrictive rather than supportive process, like in the example you cite. FailedMusician (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Other disciplines also need secondary sources to comply with NPOV and OR, so I don't see how SCIRS would affect such content negatively. Can you link some examples of disciplines where secondary sources are scarce but which still have DUE content? The example I cite is evidence in support of SCIRS as it would discourage use of unvalidated, potentially fringe research findings outside of medicine. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Large parts of SCIRS are copy-pasted from (an old version of) WP:MEDRS, but with some words changed. There may be a place for a SCIRS but it would need to be more specific and content-appropriate than this. Bon courage (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could support if retitled. I find SCIRS is very useful. In my experience, when articles or sections are rewritten to use mostly SCIRS sources, they get considerably better. I've thought of proposing that this be retitled to "Identifying 'high-quality reliable sources (science)" and then made a guideline. With its current title, I have two concerns. One is the large grey area around what “science” is, which would need to be clarified. Another is the exclusion of factual encyclopedic content that is too new or too obscure to have been covered in secondary sources. Here’s a simple example from Orca: “A 2024 study supported the elevation of Eastern North American resident and transient orcas as distinct species, O. ater and O. rectipinnus respectively.[1]”
I’m very concerned that a guideline would be used to revert any and all additions of content that “fails SCIRS” which is highly discouraging to newbies and would result in the rejection of a lot of good information along with bad.
The value of SCIRS sources is that they indicate the level of acceptance that claims have in the science community. This is useful for assessing controversial claims and for filtering out noise in fields where there are a lot of early-stage technologies clamoring for attention. Secondary sources are invaluable for ensuring NPOV in broad and/or controversial areas. However, I have never bought into the idea that secondary sources are essential for ensuring NOR in the sciences. A primary source in history is by definition written by a non-historian and requires a researcher to interpret it. A primary source in science is usually written by a scientist and summarizing it is not original research. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but deciding a piece of primary research is worthy of encyclopedic content (i.e. is 'accepted knowledge') is OR. Primary research is really an interchange among researchers, and much of it is faulty/wrong/fraudulent. Wikipedia editors are in no position to pick and chose what's good and what's not. Bon courage (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Clayoquot makes an important point about the uncertainty over what is the "science" as that can be exploited by advocates of certain issues to misrepresent emerging or part scientific topics as being on the fringe. This can impact the reliability and representation of such topics on Wikipedia, potentially either overstating or undervaluing their scientific validity. Therefore, clear guidelines are crucial to prevent the misuse of these definitions. FailedMusician (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't just apply to "science", however it is defined. In the humanities the secondary/primary considerations are completely different in any case (you don't get a systematic review of who wrote the works of Shakespeare!). Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
How scientific aspects of topics are defined is important, especially in the face of editors engaging in strong advocacy on issues, and worse. That's why we need to exercise caution here. FailedMusician (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
FYI, SCIRS already addresses the scope in the lead The scope of this page includes the natural, social and formal sciences.
As for something being too obscure, that would indicate a WP:WEIGHT issue with inclusion. If it's too new, weight issues come into play too. For MEDRS topics, that means waiting to see if sources indicate the results are due to include or not, and that's worked well in practice. We don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to decide what new or late-breaking news (i.e., WP:RECENTISM) should be included. Generally our WP:PAG have us being behind the ball on new information like that. WP:NOTJOURNAL policy comes into play here too where an encyclopedia is not where we have essentially recent news on primary research like us scientists are used to writing in real life.
Point is, a lot of things being brought up are things we are supposed to be avoiding in existing policy/guideline. SCIRS is just explaining why (or intended to) and how to navigate that with relative flexibility compared to something like MEDRS. KoA (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Like @Clayoquot, I am an active contributor to WikiProject Climate change, and I can say with confidence that certain scientific subjects, such as, in fact, climate change, are so fast-moving that an application of this policy would cripple most of our articles on this topic. Even the primary peer-reviewed papers are, by necessity, several years behind the real-world processes due to the time it takes to first analyze the climate data, and then to get the paper through peer review. To give an example I have had to deal with recently - a research paper (i.e. a primary source) on trends in oceanic carbon storage published in August 2023 was only able to cover trends up to 2014! Yet, if SCIRS were to become a guideline, we would need to exclude it and rely on even older data!
As @Bon courage points out, much of SCIRS stems off MEDRS. Primary research in climate science is in a very different position to primary medical research. It's one thing to p-hack an observational study among a few dozen patients. It's quite another when you have to reserve months of computing time from room-scale supercomputers (lead image here shows what a typical climate model looks like nowadays, for reference) - often multiple ones in different research institutions across the world - in order to be in a position to even test your hypothesis in the first place. Likewise when your primary research involves field work like sending robotic submarines underneath glaciers.
It is actually a lot easier to write a review in climate science if you don't mind about the journal which would accept it - and the current guideline text has very little to say about differences between journals, even ones as obvious as those between Nature and Science vs. MDPI and Frontiers. As best as I can tell, this notorious piece from MDPI would be accepted for inclusion due to being a secondary source, while a paper in Naturelike this one would be rejected, if going off SCIRS as currently written. Even if this were amended, a lot of primary climate research is unlikely to make it into reviews for reasons that have nothing to do with reliability. I.e. it's not really realistic to expect that scientific reviews, or even the ~4000-page IPCC reports (published in 7-year intervals) would include every good paper about climate impact on every species that could be studied, or about every geographic locale. For lesser-known species/areas in particular, it would often be primary research or nothing.
Finally, I can only assume that if this guideline were to be applied consistently, then graphics taken from primary sources would be affected as well, wouldn't they? That would be a disaster for so many of our articles, which would stand to lose dozens of illustrations. This is because only a handful of reliable climate journals use the licensing compatible with Wikipedia terms, and those overwhelmingly publish primary research. Secondary scientific reviews tend to either lack suitable illustrations in the first place, or to have incompatible licensing (i.e. the graphics in the IPCC reports). The precious exceptions are nowhere near enough. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
As someone who works in the climate change research realm IRL, this doesn't seem like a very accurate description of the literature in terms of how SCIRS would work in practice. If a late-breaking primary study is important and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, other papers will cite it, even primary ones, and establish due weight for us as well as give us a summary we could use. Climate change is one of the more well published fields, so that won't really be a problem. Even in my main area of entomology, there's a lot of variation, but even the "slower" fields really wouldn't have issues with this. SCIRS is not the same as MEDRS, though like I mentioned above, the essay would benefit from some tightening up I hope to do soon that would make it redundantly clear. At least the intent behind SCIRS really isn't being reflected in the oppose !votes so far, so there's a disconnect somewhere. KoA (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
If the intent behind a policy/guideline/essay isn't being reflected in people's comments about it then it's likely that the intent isn't being well communicated, which is an argument against formalising it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a part of it I mentioned early on where some reworks are likely needed. The other concern I have of that coin is that people are assuming things about MEDRS and applying that to SCIRS rather than focusing on specific parts of what SCIRS actually does say. There's a point where an ungrounded oppose really isn't even opposition to SCIRS.
I was getting a hint of the latter in ITK's comment where they said Yet, if SCIRS were to become a guideline, we would need to exclude it and rely on even older data! in reference to this primary source. Nothing is mentioned about SCIRS specifically there that's at issue though. Normally you'd want to stay away from the results section of such a paper outside of very limited use, but in the absence of full secondary publications, using the introduction there absolutely would not be a problem in a limited fashion. I also see at least 15 papers citing it if you wanted to include WP:DUE information about the results of that paper. There's a lot of flexibility in terms of what SCIRS says right now for that example, so that's why I'm asking for specifics to see where the disconnect is.
I'm personally more interested in fine-tuning SCIRS than guideline promotion right now, so I'm trying to sort out what concrete concerns there may be (that could potentially be worked on) versus assumption. If there's something specifically in SCIRS that's at issue, this would be the place to iron that out, so I'd ask folks to point out specifics in SCIRS. If it's something someone thinks is in SCIRS but isn't, then I don't know what to say. When I see some comments here that basically amount to saying they wouldn't be allowed to do what SCIRS specifically gives guidance on and allows, I have to wonder if it was something they skimmed over, something that needs to be outlined better, etc. rather than jumping to a more extreme conclusion that someone didn't really read SCIRS. Tl;dr, I'd like to see specifics to work on. KoA (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
At least the intent behind SCIRS really isn't being reflected in the oppose !votes so far, so there's a disconnect somewhere. - Well, nobody reasonable opposes the intent to make scientific citations more reliable. That does not indicate agreement with the methods used to get there.
There's a lot of flexibility in terms of what SCIRS says right now for that example, so that's why I'm asking for specifics to see where the disconnect is.
Well, here's an example. I also see at least 15 papers citing it if you wanted to include WP:DUE information about the results of that paper. - Firstly, the paper, which I'll link to again only has 5 citations according to CrossRef, which is directly integrated into the journal page itself. Needless to say, SCIRS most definitely does not say anywhere "You should choose Google Scholar over the papers' own preferred citation tools when it comes to assessing notability."
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing in the current text of SCIRS which suggests that ~15 citations is the magic number which would satisfy the "widely cited" part of In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources. It is left wholly ambiguous what "widely cited" should mean. Who says it's not 30 citations or 50, or perhaps even more? (Papers on certain subjects in climate science can hit such numbers very quickly - here is a research paper which got to 604 citations in less than two years, for example).
At the same time, I think that even if SCIRS did codify the recommended number of citations + the recommended citation tool, that would not be much of a step forward on its own. You may say that SCIRS would allow that AGU Advances paper, for instance, but you seem to concede my other example: As best as I can tell, this notorious piece from MDPI would be accepted for inclusion due to being a secondary source, while a paper in Nature like this one would be rejected, if going off SCIRS as currently written. I don't think it's good practice to effectively say we know better than the editors of Nature flagship journal and effectively impose a freeze on citing their latest research (which, in this case, operates with decades of data and has very important implications for a range of ecosystems) until an arbitrary number of other publishing researchers end up citing it as well.
I'll give one more example of personal relevance for me. This January, I have put a lot of work into cleaning up and generally expanding the Southern Ocean overturning circulation article. It is still far from perfect, but I hope nobody will object to the idea that it is now MUCH better than what it used to be. Yet, the research on ocean circulation is overwhelmingly focused on the Northern Hemisphere, particularly on the AMOC (also rewritten by yours truly the other week, for that matter.) There has been a drought of research on this southern counterpart to AMOC until very, very recently (literally the last couple of years), and the research which is now coming out still has a (relative) difficulty getting cited, because again, AMOC is a much "sexier" research topic. I have a concern that a not-inconsiderable number of papers I used for that article would be considered "insufficiently cited" if the current text of SCIRS were elevated to guideline status, and I really struggle to see how excluding them, even temporarily (but potentially for years) would improve that article.
If I were to name one modification to SCIRS I would want to see the most, it would be de-emphasizing the number of citations of individual papers and emphasizing CiteScore/Impact Factor of the journals which published them. For the flagship journals with absolute highest Impact factors, I don't think any number of citations should be demanded. In contrast, the number of required citations would scale as the impact factor/journal reliability decreases: I might well oppose citing anything from MDPI/Frontiers that has not hit ~50 citations in general and/or a citation in something like an IPCC report or a flagship journal publication. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I interpreted I also see at least 15 papers citing it if you wanted to include WP:DUE information about the results of that paper as a suggestion to use those citations' descriptions of the paper's results, as those would be secondary. JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct, the whole point was that there were plenty of citing papers to potentially use as a secondary sourced content about that example study. Following citations is almost exactly what we do in MEDRS topics too looking for papers that cite a primary research article if someone initially wanted to try to add it, except there we're limited to full secondary sources like lit. reviews or meta-analyses. For a SCIRS topic though, it's much more relaxed. This is illustrating some of my caution I just mentioned about reading what's actually in SCIRS because I'm not aware of anything about citation counts, and that's rightfully left out of both this and MEDRS. As far as I'm aware, only WP:NPROF does anything like that, which isn't without controversy. KoA (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This is illustrating some of my caution I just mentioned about reading what's actually in SCIRS - Have you considered that maybe SCIRS is just poorly written? Reams and reams of passive-voice text, often chock-full of equivocations and qualifiers, and frequently packed into 8-12 line paragraphs that make it hard to pick out the important from the self-explanatory at a glance. SCIRS makes the actual literature reviews look positively exciting and easy-to-read.
Correct, the whole point was that there were plenty of citing papers to potentially use as a secondary sourced content about that example study. Following citations is almost exactly what we do in MEDRS topics too looking for papers that cite a primary research article if someone initially wanted to try to add it, except there we're limited to full secondary sources like lit. reviews or meta-analyses.
So...how do you functionally tell apart an otherwise primary source being used a secondary source for another primary source... from simply a primary source being used as a primary source, when you are an editor reviewing another's edit? This idea seems to fall apart if you think about it for a minute.
In fact, after taking a second look...
what we do in MEDRS topics too looking for papers that cite a primary research article if someone initially wanted to try to add it
So, if applied wiki-wide, that would seem to translate to baby-sitting every single attempt to add a primary paper reference and demand either proof it's an indirect citation for something else or a citation hunt to cite that paper indirectly? All while we still have enormous issues with both unreferenced passages and those relying on deeply obsolete references? That would seem to be incredibly counterproductive.
I'm going to concur with a quote from Peter Gulutzan up above: WP:MEDRS was a bad idea too but at least had the excuse that dispensing bad health advice could cause legal problems I don't see the justification for this additional, stifling layer of Wikibureaucracy where that risk does not exist, and where there is a much greater chance of important context being lost in translation from a full study to a citing sentence. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
So...how do you functionally tell apart an otherwise primary source being used a secondary source for another primary source... Well, you go look at the source of course. That's normally what most of us editors do when we're reviewing any article. If someone isn't checking sources when they make a citation or are verifying content, that's a problem in terms of existing WP:PAG, which is what we based WP:CONSENSUS on. KoA (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
In the MEDRS context, it's usually pretty easy to tell when a primary source (e.g., a journal article whose primary purpose is to report the results of a randomized controlled trial) is being used as a secondary source. The first thing to look for is whether the content comes from an "introduction" or "background" section. Those sections take information from previously published sources, and are selected and combined to present a new(ish) way of looking at the information. So that part of the paper is usually secondary, and the thing for editors to remember is that "Secondary" does not mean "good". Even though there are secondary, they can be somewhat biased (the authors present only the background information that is relevant to or supportive of their specific research, rather than trying to write an unbiased and comprehensive overview – for example, the surgeons only talk about surgery, the drug companies only talk about drugs, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I interpreted "I also see at least 15 papers citing it if you wanted to include WP:DUE information about the results of that paper" as a suggestion to use those citations' descriptions of the paper's results, as those would be secondary.
I have already written my objections to this idea in the other reply, but I decided I might as well humour this suggestion and see where it takes us. I'll begin with the 5 citations you actually see on the journal page itself, since people will almost certainly do that first, and pull up Google Scholar second (if ever).
Citation 1: Shares some of the same authors - according to the current SCIRS text, that seems to be allowed? (Unless I missed a line tucked away within one of those huge paragraphs which accounts for that.) If it is, that kinda makes one wonder what the purpose of this whole rigmarole is, if the researchers citing their previous work somehow immediately makes it more reliable. Anyway, it cites the study in question (Müller et al., 2023) four times:
Currently, the global ocean takes up 25%–30% of all human-made CO2 emissions (DeVries, 2014; Friedlingstein et al., 2022; Gruber, Clement, et al., 2019; Gruber et al., 2023; Khatiwala et al., 2009; Müller et al., 2023; Terhaar et al., 2022)
Although they contain data from similar GOBMs and pCO2 products, the compiled database of RECCAP2 (Müller, 2023) goes well beyond that used in the framework of the Global Carbon Budget (Friedlingstein et al., 2022).
The RECCAP2 database (Müller, 2023) provides model output from 1980 to 2018 from four simulations (called simulations A, B, C and D) that aim to quantify the different components of the oceanic CO2 flux. (A bunch of equations follows.)
To compare the net sea-air CO2 fluxes from the GOBMs with observation-based estimates, we utilize the RECCAP2 data set of pCO2 products (Müller, 2023), including AOML_EXTRAT, CMEMS-LSCE-FFNN, CSIR-ML6, JenaMLS, JMA-MLR, MPI-SOMFFN, OceanSODA-ETHZ, UOEX_Wat20, and NIES-MLR3 (see Supplementary Table 2 in DeVries et al. (2023) for references and further details).
Multiple lines of observation-based evidence support climate-change effects on the ocean carbon sink (Keppler et al., 2023; Mignot et al., 2022; Müller et al., 2023)
It is unambiguous that the ocean carbon sink has increased over recent decades in line with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels as its primary driver (Ballantyne et al., 2012; DeVries et al., 2023; Gruber et al., 2023; Müller et al., 2023).
This finding agrees with previous studies that find an important role for Pinatubo in preindustrial carbon variability (Eddebbar et al., 2019; Fay et al., 2023; McKinley et al., 2020), and gives us additional confidence that observation-based estimates of changing anthropogenic carbon distribution (e.g., Gruber et al., 2019; Müller et al., 2023); (also Müller, Jens Daniel, Gruber, Nicolas, Carter, Brendan R., Feely et al., Decadal Trends in the Oceanic Storage of Anthropogenic Carbon from 1994 to 2014, in preparation for Authorea) are relatively unaffected by the Pinatubo climate perturbation.
Citation 4 (also involves some of the same authors as the original study)
How is the ocean carbon cycle changing as a consequence of sustained increases in emissions of carbon to the atmosphere? Important steps toward answering this question over the last several decades have been provided via estimates of ocean carbon uptake from both interior hydrographic measurements (Gruber et al., 2019; Müller et al., 2023; Sabine et al., 2004),...
For all of the oceanic studies within RECCAP2, a discrete number of ocean biomes based on Fay and McKinley (2014) are used to facilitate consistent intercomparison between regions (described in the supplement to the Müller (2023) publication of the RECCAP2 data).
Thus, our six aggregated biomes (Table 1 and Figure 1) (their precise boundaries given in Supporting Information S1 of the RECCAP2 data release of Müller, 2023) consist of
Citation 5 (also involves some of the same authors as the original study)
A recent update of the eMLR(C*) results by Müller et al. (2023) resolves decadal trends in the anthropogenic carbon accumulation from 1994 to 2014, but was published after the completion of this study and could thus not be considered here.
Nevertheless, a recent update of the eMLR-C* estimates by Müller et al. (2023) also suggests substantial climate-driven variability in the oceanic storage of anthropogenic carbon similar to that shown in Figure 7f.
None of these citations mention the finding of the original study where carbon storage in the North Atlantic specifically had declined by 20% (at most, you can kinda sorta see a decline in Figure 1 of Citation 4, but you can't really get the specific percentage from there), which is the whole reason why I cited that study in the first place. For that matter, the additional citations from Google Scholar (some of which are either preprints or paywalled) do not do that either. So, if SCIRS were to become a guideline, that specific finding, which, lest we forget, was derived from
the JGOFS/WOCE global CO2 survey conducted in the 1980s and 1990s (Key et al., 2004; Wallace, 1995), the repeat hydrography program GO-SHIP that began in 2003 and is now completing its second cycle (Sloyan et al., 2019; Talley et al., 2016), as well as a number of additional programs, including INDIGO, SAVE, TTO, JOIS, and GEOSECS (Key et al., 2004, and references therein).
Would somehow become too unreliable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, purely because no other article felt the need mention this particular detail yet, even as they cited the study itself? REALLY?
So, I once again don't understand what this is meant to achieve. If poorly reviewed papers attempting to overturn academic consensus are supposedly the problem, then an Impact Factor bar set at the right level would efficiently block basically all of them without forcing this onerous rigmarole whenever attempting to cite valuable research findings. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The idea that prestigious journals are more likely to be correct is debatable. See The Economist which explains that there's a winner's curse effect. Prestigious journals like Nature have the most choice and and may publish the papers which are most sensational rather than those which are most accurate. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If no academic sources are discussing that particular finding, then neither should Wikipedia. If it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in other studies then it's certainly not at the level of accepted knowledge we need in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll echo that too. If someone is opposed to a potential guideline because it won't let them add something that all signs are pointing to not currently being WP:DUE, that's not a good reason to oppose a guideline.
I'm seeing a lot of potential introductions to pull from in general in that little exercise above though. KoA (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The only reason that finding wasn't "due" in those citations is because all those citations to date were focused on the entire World Ocean, so citing certain text about a specific ocean region certainly wasn't relevant in the context of their research - as opposed to our wiki pages on the North Atlantic region or the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation specifically.
The idea that how often a certain paper is cited in general (let alone the general reputation of its publisher and/or research team) does not matter, and specific findings only "become" reliable once another paper happens to have enough overlap with a certain topic to cite not just the paper as a whole, but that specific phrase, is unintuitive and counterproductive and is likely to remain so.
I am still not seeing a good reason for why a combination of (independent) citation count and journal metrics like Impact factor would not be a better alternative for assessing WP:DUE than this proposal. The only counterargument I have seen so far is "big journals make mistakes too" - which is easily countered by how often papers, particularly at bad journals, can be found to mangle their citations, saying something subtly yet significantly different from the original text. At least, when the major journals screw up, it is reasonably likely that there would be pushback in WP:RS, which we can then mention to place the work in context. In fact, it is many times more likely than to see criticism of bad referencing post-publication, so I remain unconvinced this suggestion adds, rather than removes, reliability. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
How would your proposed citation+prestige system work for a paper like the MMR fraud perpetrated by Andrew Wakefield? I'd think it would rate quite highly, even though nearly all of the sources citing it have done so to say that it's a disgraceful fraud. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is a very relevant example, for several reasons.
That paper had been thankfully retracted for a while.
Even if it were hypothetically published now, it would be covered by MEDRS, no? (Almost) nobody here is proposing to overturn MEDRS, so can we stick to non-medical examples?
I already wrote the following: At least, when the major journals screw up, it is reasonably likely that there would be pushback in WP:RS, which we can then mention to place the work in context. That would be my preferred approach.
In fact, I'll give a fairly recent example where I have had to make a decision on a similar subject. In July, a paper on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation came out in the reasonably respected Nature Communications, and made a dramatic claim that the AMOC is likely to collapse in the very near future. It predictably received a lot of coverage (here is one of the more breathless examples), yet many experts were highly critical. The paper was already cited in the article by another editor, and I chose to keep its mention, yet also feature some of the most comprehensive criticism.
Now, would the article have been better off by completely ignoring a publication which had been seen nearly half a million times on its own and whose results were reported in almost 1,000 news articles to date (i.e. to tens of millions more readers), mostly uncritically? I really do not think so: and the fact that one of the paper's two authors ended up attempting to personally whitewash the coverage of the paper in the article (and receiving a topic ban for it) suggests that this decision mattered, and was the right approach to take. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
InformationToKnowledge raises crucial points about the practical implications of applying SCIRS as a guideline to rapidly evolving fields like climate science, especially for non-controversial facts. The concern about excluding valuable primary research due to the proposed guidelines' stringent requirements is well-founded, especially when considering the time lag in publishing comprehensive secondary sources in such dynamic areas. This emphasizes the need for SCIRS to accommodate the unique challenges of different scientific disciplines, ensuring that Wikipedia remains an up-to-date and reliable resource without unnecessarily excluding relevant and recent research findings, observations and commentary. FailedMusician (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we're looking at two different problems:
Primary vs secondary sources: Secondary is not another way to spell "good", and primary is not a fancy way to spell "bad". A source can be primary and be a good source. Whether it's a good source depends partly on the source itself (e.g., is it self-published?), but it also depends significantly on the WP:RSCONTEXT. For example, editors will probably want a secondary source for a statement like "Wonderpam cures _____", but a primary source might be accepted for a statement like "Wonderpam was the first drug in its class" or "Wonderpam has a shorter shelf life than other treatments".
Strong vs weak sources: Sources need to be strong enough to bear the weight of the claim they're being cited for. Wikipedia:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lightweight claims don't. If a claim is truly non-controversial, then we don't really need a strong source at the end of the sentence. For example, MEDRS accepts WebMD for non-controversial content. It's a secondary source, but it's not a strong source.
The more controversial the claim, the better the source(s) we should be citing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly FailedMusician, I've read your statement several times now but I can't quite understand what you're trying to say here. I'm sorry if I'm missing something. Are you just repeating what InformationToKnowledge said, but in your own words, so to speak? Again, sorry if I missed something obvious. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP. There's no simple algorithm for determining The Truth and complex advice tends to be so equivocal that it is no help and just results in endless Wikilawyering. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I feel like the various subject-specific RS essays are more in-line with supplement, but I'm not sure it would make much of a difference either way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose; people have given a pretty broad range of rationales for opposing this, so not sure that I can contribute a lot. But one thing I will note is that the most recent extremely-high-profile back office brouhaha we had about WP:MEDRS and WP:BIOMED (to wit the giant years-long covid slapfight) did not convince me that having a bunch of additional rules for what sourcing guidelines to use and when to apply them would make it easier to deal with conflict. jp×g🗯️ 06:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Provisionally oppose upgrade, but not use as an essay for now This guideline lacks references to support the claims that it makes. (I accept that WP:V does not necessarily allow me to delete all unreferenced content in the project namespace, but that does not mean that I have to agree to making it a guideline). It tells us to prefer peer-reviewed sources, despite the fact that this is apparently not completely uncontroversial: [1][2][3][4] and all the other sources that come up on a search for "peer review flawed process" and Scholarly peer review#Criticism. It fails to answer the apparent controversy. It fails to consider whether the purpose of peer reviewing is to determine accuracy (which is relevant to reliability) or to determine importance/originality etc (which is not relevant to reliability). (I am under the impression that scientific "proof" consists of being able to reproduce the results of an experiment by repeating it over and over again, and the peer reviewer is presumably not doing this). We are told to use textbooks. I was once told that the average physics textbook is two years out of date the moment it reaches book shops, and that you cannot do physics properly without reading papers. (You'll have to take my word for this for now, as I don't have time to verify it.) James500 (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm among those scientists that think the peer review system is broken and should be thrown out, but that's a red herring here. Peer review is currently the universally-accepted quality control mechanism in academia. There is debate other whether it should continue to be so, but until then tertiary sources like Wikipedia have to rely on peer reviewed literature, because there is simply no alternative.
With textbooks, Wikipedia is supposed to be at least two years out of date, because our goal is to document and explain major points of view. New research does not become a "major point of view" in science in the first few years after it is published, because the scientific community needs time to assess the arguments and the evidence. In other words, it is impossible to summarise cutting-edge research without falling afoul of WP:SYNTH. We can give readers a summary of accepted knowledge; they should go elsewhere to learn about current debates or the state of the art. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
(Answering both James and Joe) Though there are many problems with peer-review, it is correct to treat it as the best process we have because it really is the best process we have. If some better system takes over, we'll adopt that as the gold standard instead. Peer review is about both accuracy and importance, but the degree to which it can address accuracy depends on the field of study. It's true that reviewers are not expected to repeat experiments, but they are supposed to look for flaws in the experimental protocol, check that competing theories are adequately cited, and they are supposed to insist that enough details are given that others can repeat the experiment. In theoretical fields like mine, reviewers are supposed to check calculations, but they are not expected to repeat computer calculations. I strongly disagree that we can't describe recent publications without violating SYNTH. All that's needed is to present the results as a theory proposed by a named person, without making our own judgement of its validity. The only real problem is deciding which of the thousands of new publications to cover, but that's a NOTABILITY problem not a SYNTH problem. I'm sure that many readers visit Wikipedia looking for accessible explanations of new scientific ideas that they saw in the press or somewhere and I believe that one of our roles is to provide them. Incidentally, lots of important science never appears in textbooks and research monographs about them can take much longer than two years to appear. Zerotalk 14:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
You've said it yourself: the problem is selecting which primary findings should be covered. Call it SYNTH or call it OR or call it notability (though that seems a stretch?) – it's a problem. If we don't retain an emphasis on secondary over primary sources, how do you propose that we identify which new papers are "important science" and which are garbage that somehow sneaked through peer reviewer but will be forgotten about in a year, without engaging in original research? – Joe (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It's absolutely a problem of BALASP and SYNTH to cover the results of primary papers using those papers as sources. If the wider academic community hasn't contextualized it with the existing mainstream consensus, through reviews or at the very least summaries in the background of other, independent, primary research articles, then it does not belong on wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how you can match this situation to the definition of SYNTH. There isn't anything necessarily SYNTH about it. We can judge notability by the usual way we judge notability: by the attention something gets in "reliable sources". Arguments about the notability of particular cases will happen but that's true across all fields, not just in science. I'm not saying that we should pick journal articles that are citation orphans and make articles out of them, but once a journal article makes a "splash" we are free to cite it. The suggestion that Wikipedia must be endlessly years out of date is horrifying and definitely was not the intention when the rules were written. Zerotalk 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This is completely unrelated to notability. The problem with covering splashy new science results is that it is not possible to summarize what the scientific community's assessment of them is in relation to the existing understanding of the topic. We are therefore synthesizing its relevance to the topic when we describe it in an article based only on its primary report. And we don't necessarily have to be years out of date, but WP definitely is intended to operate as an encyclopedia summarizing accepted knowledge, not as a EurekAlert stand-in. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The way to avoid summarizing "what the scientific community's assessment of them is in relation to the existing understanding of the topic" when we have no reliable sources for that assessment is to not do it. To avoid SYNTH, don't violate SYNTH. You have not given a reason why citing a recent publication is necessarily SYNTH. Zerotalk 01:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
You would be engaging in original research as an anonymous editor. In the real world, you generally need a degree in a semi-related field and familiarity with research statistics to interpret the validity of results in the study. None of us are qualified to do that as anonymous editors, even those of us who do have credentials in specific fields IRL. That's what makes using primary research so different here than if you are writing your own summary for work in a research lab. KoA (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The same argument could be used to eliminate all articles on technical subjects even if all the sources are secondary. Do you think an average editor can understand a graduate textbook in differential geometry or quantum mechanics? The only reason we have many excellent articles on scientific subjects is that we have editors who can understand the sources. You are actually criticising something that nobody has proposed. The role of an editor is to summarise what the researchers (and experts other than the original authors) say about it, not to "interpret the validity" of it. Zerotalk 09:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The role of an editor is to summarise what the researchers (and experts other than the original authors) say about it, not to "interpret the validity" of it. Exactly. IRL, you are assessing the validity of statements in the results section if you are summarizing them in any way or saying they are worth mentioning. We as anonymous editors don't get such special privileges, so that's why we rely on secondary sources who are qualified to do that for us.
If I'm reading a primary article IRL and citing the results, I'm supposed to be checking if their methods actually let them say that, the statistical tests are valid, etc. That gets taught pretty early on in introductory college level courses, and especially on how scientific literature is misused when people don't do that. That reality remains regardless of guideline or not. KoA (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
KoA, I think you have the right intuition here, but it's neither OR nor SYNTH.
First of all, it is actually impossible to violate SYNTH when you are looking at a single source. SYNTH begins with the words Do not combine material from multiple sources. One source is not multiple sources; ergo, SYNTH does not apply.
Second, deciding that some material is worth mentioning is not an example of material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists – which is our definition of OR.
I find that understanding the reason that WP:NOR was created helps people understand it. That policy exists because, 'way back in Wikipedia's earliest days, a Usenet personality (read: physics crackpot) thought that Wikipedia would be an excellent place to tell the world about his proof that Einstein was completely wrong. He couldn't get the scientific journals to publish his nonsense, and he got laughed at on Usenet, but he was just so convinced that he had figured out something that nobody else knew, that he really wanted to tell the world. Wikipedia was one of his targets. We didn't accept his nonsense, either, and we wrote NOR to draw a line in the sand, and say to all the other crackpots in the world: if you can't get your idea published in the real world, we don't want it here, either.
The flipside, which has probably occurred to you, is that if you did get your idea published in the real world (e.g., as a primary source in a scientific journal), then we might want it here. But what's important for this discussion is: If the material in question was actually published in a reliable source, then it's not NOR. It might be a violation of every single other policy and guideline, but it's not NOR.
I think what you're looking for is Wikipedia:Relevance, or, in the more general case, NPOV. Deciding whether the contents of a source is worth mentioning is fundamentally not about an editor making stuff up, but about an editor finding the right WP:BALANCE in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No. You're not generally looking at a single source when writing an article, you are looking at multiple sources, and indeed you can imply something about them in the ways you put them together. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
But incorporating material from the primary source into the context of the rest of the article is synthesizing from multiple sources... JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH does not restrict itself to primary sources. If you combine any sources to reach or imply a conclusion that does not appear in any source, then you violate SYNTH. Combining two high-quality secondary sources, if you combine them in ways that reach or imply a conclusion that has never been made in a reliable source, is a SYNTH violation.
For example, this is a N classic SYNTH violation:
String theory is correct.[excellent source]
Newtonian physics is correct within limits.[great source]
Therefore, I say Einstein is wrong![Wikipedia editor's own conclusion]
Using two sources next to each other – so long as you are not reaching or implying a conclusion that has never been published in a reliable source – is not a SYNTH violation.
For example, this pairs two primary sources, and it is Y 100% non-SYNTH and acceptable per policy:
Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book.[op-ed in a magazine]
Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.[Jones' blog]
Alan, you're correct insofar as we (and the policy) agree that you can imply something that isn't present in any source, but there is nothing inherent about using a primary source, or using multiple sources in the same article, that means you actually are reaching or implying a previously unpublished conclusion. If you haven't combined multiple sources to create a new conclusion, it's not SYNTH; if everything in the article comes from sources, then it's not any type of OR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Joelle, I don't know if the implications of your comment were clear to you – maybe it doesn't say quite what you meant – but if it were actually true that "incorporating material from the primary source into the context of the rest of the article is synthesizing", then WP:PRIMARY would be much shorter, since all it would need to say is "Citing primary sources is banned". Either it's possible to cite a primary source in an article without violating SYNTH, or primary sources are banned by SYNTH. This is a strictly either-or situation; we cannot have it both ways, so that we claim out of one side of our mouths that primary sources are permitted and out of the other that using them is a violation of SYNTH because using them (correctly) is synthesizing their contents into the context of the rest of the article.
Given that the word primary doesn't appear anywhere in SYNTH, and given that editors cite primary sources every hour of the day, including in Featured Articles, I think it's clear that primary sources are permitted (when used appropriately) and do not violate SYNTH (except when used in ways that would equally violate SYNTH if they were secondary sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
What's your point? No one said SYNTH is restricted to primary sources. You were just plain wrong that we are only dealing with one source in almost every case that matters, and yes the implication from the way you combine them is what needs to be looked into, that is SYNTH analysis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
JoelleJay said incorporating material from the primary source into the context of the rest of the article is synthesizing from multiple sources. Note the absence of any restrictive clause like "if that's done to reach or imply a conclusion that is not present in a reliable source". A plain reading of her sentence indicates that she believes using a primary source is a SYNTH violation.
Do you agree with her that citing a primary source in an article always involves synthesizing it with the other sources in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It always depends on how you use the source. I understood her point to be you are using more than one source (Though one would surmise, one would need to have a very rigorous explanation for throwing primary info into the middle of secondary analysis, of course). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my point was that contextualizing a primary source with the rest of an article is combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not implied in any of them. "Contextualizing" being a key synonym of "interpreting" or "analyzing" here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
All sources can (and must) be cited without "interpreting" or "analyzing" them. You seem to think that merely citing a source involves interpreting or analyzing it, but that is not true. See SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition and other items on that page. Here is a hypothetical example of a properly cited source: "XYZ has proposed that black holes evaporate more quickly than previously assumed.[cite]" If the source satisfies RS, this ticks all the boxes and does not involve any interpretation or analysis, nor does it imply that XYZ is correct. It is mere reporting of what is in a source and there is nothing whatever wrong with it. Zerotalk 03:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
You don't judge SYNTH on one source alone. It remains, primary sources are not interpretation/analysis so therefore you can't use them to recast, remix, redo, update, shade, shape, bolster, critique, bring new contextualization, make new implications, etc., for secondary analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
My point is that content cited to a primary source that has been contextualized with the other material on the page is a) no longer from "only one source" and b) is automatically SYNTH because definitionally primary-cited content can't be contextualized with other material without violating OR.Your example, if citable only to a primary source, is still "bringing new contextualization" to the topic beyond the "basic facts" allowed by PSTS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Alan said: one would need to have a very rigorous explanation for throwing primary info into the middle...
The "rigorous explanations" I've been given for this, by its proponents, is that they want give credit to the original researcher or to make it easy for people (i.e., people who need to give credit in their own papers to that original researcher) to find the original paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
If you are talking about highlighting a primary source that's already highlighted in secondary sources, that's probably fine (depending on how long the Wiki article should be) as long as you do it in a similar way to the secondary source(s). (That is, you don't draw anything 'new' from it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The biggest problem that I have here is that this essay is a TLDR wall of uncited text. Every time I read it, I find new issues. For example, the section "definitions" contains a link to the article Primary source, which says that it is about "the study of history as an academic discipline". (While the article does contain a one line mention of "scientific literature", it is referenced to a source that is about "research" generally, rather than science). The link to the article is clearly not relevant to the essay and ought to be removed. Another example: The essay tells me to use "reviews published in the last five years or so". Why five years? Is this just a round number? Where has this number come from? Who says five years is up to date? Has this essay been systematically checked for errors? It might be better to start a new proposal from scratch, and build it up one line at a time, carefully checking (and preferably citing) the claims as you going along. James500 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
the article Primary source, which says that it is about "the study of history as an academic discipline" – Um, no, it doesn't. It says that "in the study of history as an academic discipline", a primary sources is a particular thing. It does not say that the article is about the study of history. (Compare "In the field of medicine, cancer is a disease, but in the field of astronomy, cancer is a constellation".) The link is there to help people who don't know what that jargon means. Reasonable people could disagree over whether it is more useful to link to the encyclopedia article, the policy, or the explanatory essay, but I don't think anyone believes it's best to leave unfamiliar terms undefined.
For your other questions:
Why five years? Is this just a round number? – Three to five years is recommended to medical students based on the length of time it takes for sources to get published in that field. This is based on the idea of a "cycle": You publish your research, I publish my review of your research, and someone else publishes a response to my review. You want the whole cycle to happen. Because it takes weeks or months to write the papers, and months (sometimes, even longer than a year) to get the paper published, it usually takes at least one year, and it often takes three to five years, to get an understanding of how the scientific community has reacted to a paper.
Where has this number come from? – Straight out of WP:MEDRS.
Who says five years is up to date? – Medical researchers, but as a Rule of thumb, not as an absolute statement that applies in all circumstances. Some information (e.g., names of diseases) rarely changes, and other information changes rapidly.
I don't think it's possible to uncritically apply the norms of the medical research cycle to all science - different disciplines move at different speeds and have different considerations and conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
And that is why I think citations would be desirable: to avoid the risk of a Wikiality definition of reliability. James500 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Citations are typically used in mainspace. Wikispace generally doesn't have citations outside of very specific needs. An essay/guideline not having much for citations is the norm. KoA (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I agree with you. History isn't science, but it makes a good example: their fundamental unit of scholarly output is the book, and the cycle is consequently much longer. I don't expect the hard sciences to be wildly different (anything in the last five years is likely to be reasonably current under normal circumstances in any hard science, no matter how fast it moves, and under abnormal circumstances, sudden shifts can happen overnight even in medicine). I am more concerned about subfields that move more slowly. Sometimes niche information is relevant and appropriate, and the best source is six or ten years old, rather than two or five. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, and then you get into fields that don't fit completely into a single box, like the history of science, where you might need to cite decades old research, such as when a mainstream theory is proven incorrect conclusively and repeatedly and so nobody touches it again. Luminiferous aether is the first thing that comes to mind (although probably not the best example as that's been the subject of much ley coverage). Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that there isn't consensus to upgrade SCIRS right now, but I'm also not hearing a hard no forever and there's been a lot of potential points of improvement raised. I'll try to summarise those at WT:SCIRS when I get a chance – but if anyone can beat me to it, please be my guest. The trickiest issue seems to disagreement over the desirability of applying WP:PSTS to scientific topics, but since that's already a policy I don't see much room for manouvre. – Joe (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, I do not see any disagreement over WP:PSTS. After all, this is its current first paragraph.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
So, perhaps it is the pro-SCIRS editors here who need to be reminded of the actual PSTS text. They are the ones who are suddenly turning to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources into "secondary and tertiary sources only" and arguing that no, primary sources should not be used for straightforward statements of facts, instead proposing an alternative which would often run counter to common sense (I am yet to a see a response to the fairly obvious downsides I identified in an earlier comment here).
I also want to highlight that this would be a very disruptive change if adopted and there were actually serious attempts to enforce it. To give a personal example: so far, I have successfully nominated a total of threearticles for GA. In each case, the article was what I (and apparently, the reviewer) considered to be a healthy mix of primary and secondary sources. Further, each reviewer was a veteran editor with ~67k, ~267k and ~22k edits, and two of them have made extensive contributions both to creating and reviewing GA-class articles. If the people responsible for much of the GA article creation and maintenance are acting counter to the spirit of the policy you propose, you may want to reconsider something. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I really thought SCIRS was a low-profile and uncontroversial essay before this – I'm surprised there is already a camp of "pro-SCIRS editors" who need to be reminded of anything! WP:PSTS does indeed say that primary sources can be used, as does WP:SCIRS, under #Respect primary sources: a primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. When I observed that there is disagreement over PSTS, it is precisely because the rather moderate attempt to apply it in SCIRS (as opposed to say WP:MEDRS, a guideline, which says Avoid primary sources) has provoked such strong reactions. – Joe (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, only a few posts up, multiple editors are telling me that what may appropriately cite in this "Respect primary sources" wording really means is, apparently, "A primary scientific source can only be cited when it cites something else, and never for its own findings." This really is not the way many of us have thought of WP:PSTS before, so I question the idea that this is "moderate". InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
But the purpose of this discussion was to gauge support for upgrading SCIRS to a guideline, not their opinions to a guideline. – Joe (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
In which case, wouldn't this suggest that the SCIRS text needs to be amended to fully clarify that it does not currently endorse such opinions, before it can become a guideline? If some editors appear to intepret the existence of a policy as a mandate for making editorial decisions which are not currently openly endorsed by it? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
At least for most of us who work on science topics, it generally isn't anything controversial in practice in my experience.
To be blunt though, this has highlighted how many who would benefit from additional guidance of scientific sources are often opposed to it, so there's a catch-22 there on the wiki-process side of things. Some arguments that have come up here are just plain misconception or just making something simple we normally do when dealing with primary sources seem really complicated somehow. I mentioned earlier too how it's not an uncommon problem for people with a science background to have trouble adjusting to working as an anonymous editor when it comes to using scientific literature, so there are a few systemic things to address.
That said, SCIRS in concept is fairly well primed to be a guideline, but there is some work to be done on structure, broadening concepts that were addressed in the narrow MEDRS sense, etc. I didn't get around to it yet, but I have a few edits I've been working on putting in that I'll get to soon. KoA (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm with you there. Reading this discussion, I can certainly see where people are coming from with the fear of too harsh a prohibition, but I cannot really imagine my own usual topic area functioning at all if primary and secondary sources were given complete parity. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I cannot really imagine my own usual topic area functioning at all... One thing that seems clear to me but not to everyone in this discussion is that "science" isn't a single topic area. Medicine is different to climate change, both are different to archaeology, and all of them are different to astronomy. They have commonalities, but there are such fundamental differences in the nature of the research, the speed of the field, the conventions, etc. that I don't think it's going to be possible to produce a single guideline that both covers every scientific discipline and has anything useful to say that more general policies and guidelines don't already. MEDRS works because it's focused on a single topic area, but at least some of it's provisions just don't translate to other sciences. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
SCIRS would be applicable to any field that has primary research papers and secondary reviews/meta-analyses/books. They all would benefit from stronger guidance discouraging inclusion of primary results, as suggested in PSTS, which itself apparently needs to be enforced better in certain topics if editors are routinely citing splashy new papers. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree and I think that Joe Roe's initial proposal to upgrade SCIRS to a guideline was a commendable effort, but there is a big undercurrent of opposition as it would be subject to abuse, and the project has suffered from that in the past. It would be wielded as a gatekeeping tool by editors experienced in wikilawyering, keeping out new ones with valuable contributions, stagnating the project. The key to Wikipedia's success is open collaboration, as written in the lead sentence of the Wikipedia article. FailedMusician (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
and the project has suffered from that in the past. Citations? JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The text goes on to say It would be wielded as a gatekeeping tool... and I'm sure you know of relevant incidents yourself. FailedMusician (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to know what you think are examples of the project suffering due to "overzealous" application of MEDRS.And again I don't know how you can be sure [I] know of relevant incidents [myself] unless you're an alt account of someone who has actually interacted with me before this thread. Do you have any prior accounts? JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Every academic subject has primary research and then secondary sources such as books. This includes the Humanities and they can be quite soft subjects such as Harry Potter Studies; Fashion; and Poetry. Science just means knowledge and so is too general a concept to be definitive or helpful. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Not every subject has primary research results published in the form of papers, unless you're stretching the contextual meaning of "results" to include any intellectual work product. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you point me to a diff where anyone spoke of anything resembling complete parity between primary and secondary sources? In my view, the opposing arguments instead are more akin to acknowledging that different sciences - indeed, different research areas of the varying sciences which we would ideally all need to cover - have different publication cycles, a vast difference in complexity of primary vs. secondary studies and last but not least, a different relationship with time and probability.
Thus, on balance, sometimes the harm of delaying the inclusion of a complex, high-quality primary study in favour of either waiting years for a review which will likely adopt its findings anyway, or settling for a mention in another study's introduction which will likely only cover a fraction of relevant information would exceed the supposed benefits to reliability incurred from doing so. To me, this is where the argument seems to be at - as was already pointed out, the basic point of "prefer secondary sources to primary ones" is already part of WP:PSTS.
Again, I'll add another example from climate science. One thing which makes it distinctive from most other sciences is not only that much of it deals with the future, but also that it deals with the future as directly shaped by human actions in the present and upcoming days. Besides the WP:NOW implications, this means that climate-related papers routinely make not one prediction but several, in accordance to Representative Concentration Pathways / Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and occasionally other factors (i.e. research on species' vulnerability to climatic risks may include different predictions for the same scenario based on different assumptions about species' dispersal success). This kind of nuance will rarely be seen when the paper is cited in another primary source - in my experience, there'll often just be a reference to paper's finding under the most extreme scenario (something like "up to X million will be affected by year Y", where "up to" conceals the estimates under all the other scenarios.) I believe that any policy which would force us into adopting such framings purely due to citing decisions made for a very different audience (academic readers of climate literature are assumed to be aware of these scenarios and how they affect findings by default, which is obviously not true for the general readers of Wikipedia) would be deeply flawed, so I continue to press this argument.
Further, I would again emphasize the difference in what can be considered a "primary source". I maintain that an in vitro analysis of drug candidates, an observational study in a couple of hospitals or even a proper RCT are still not the same as field research collected over years by teams living on polar stations for months at a time, or data collected from hundreds of profiling floats or any other such examples. Consider something like a volcanic eruption. Can you imagine restricting coverage on eruptions to secondary sources only? If not, then how different are they, really, from the eroding glaciers or burning forests, or even the slowing ocean currents? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Support, though I'd be in favor of some tweaks/changes, eg I think it's too long, and should also say more about sources being a mix of primary and secondary (eg a novel study might be a good source for current state-of-the-science background). But the core of it, identifying the difference between primary and secondary in science, would be useful to have as a guideline, particularly to prevent against the misuse or overuse of primary sources, basically the same thing that medrs does for medicine. Levivich (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The analogy between MEDRS and SCIRS has problems, mostly to do with why they exist. MEDRS was invented because we knew that people would read WP for medical advice and we don't want to kill anyone. This gives a very strong motive for strict rules on medicine that does not apply to general science articles. I don't see a strong reason why science is different from, say, history. Zerotalk 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
These rules aren't very strict IMO and apply to all fields, which to say, lots of fields could use a ___RS. MEDRS to explain different levels of reliability in medical sources, SCIRS for general science sources, I think there should be a LAWRS for legal sources (that would explain about citing court opinions v. treatises, etc.), and yes, a HISTRS for history sources (that would explain about citing historians for history v. non-historian scholars v. news media, for example). (Btw I never bought into the whole people-look-at-WP-for-medical-advice-and-might-die argument.) Levivich (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a memory any more, but my recollection is that both MEDRS and BLP were more or less forced on us by the higher-ups as they were afraid of being sued. In the early days Wikipedia was not filthy rich like it is now. Zerotalk 04:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unpopular opinion: at least the money has bought better higher-ups; I think the current management team is the best one so far. Levivich (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@Zero0000 As far as I know, BLP and MEDRS were invented by the English Wikipedia community with no higher-ups forcing us to. In 2009, the WMF board passed a resolution urging all WMF projects to adopt BLP policies. By that time, our BLP policy was already three years old. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at its talk page archives, it seems that WP:MEDRS was spun off in an organic, creepy way from WP:MEDMOS. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I think that even MEDRS is too restricting, although I understand that in that case we need to be concerned about people taking medical advice from Wikipedia (despite Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, which hopefully prevents any liability but certainly won't stop most people). In the case of science, this concern is irrelevant. Animal lover|666| 07:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability. One problem with using secondary sources is that they often do not cite with enough precision where they got their information from. It might often be from out-of-date or otherwise unreliable sources, but, even if not, you can't always tell. That is why I often prefer a primary source, which anyone can follow up to check the quality of the evidence. Ideally I like to include the primary source together with a recent secondary source so as to demonstrate that the claim in the primary source is still trusted. This is my experience particulary in editing natural-history articles about particular species. So I would like to retain the current ambiguity, that at least allows primary sources even if it does not favour them as much as I would wish. JMCHutchinson (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - A lot of science isn't really like medicine, which is extremely complex and needs many clinical trials and reviews to establish 'truth'. I don't think non-medical science necessarily needs a guideline separate from the Wikipedia-wide ones that already exist. For example, I'd really, really hate to see info in articles about interesting and unique but obscure species purged for "failing SCIRS" because it isn't from a literature review, like is done for poorly supported health claims based on a single study of 12 lab mice or whatever and MEDRS. Same principle for info about exoplanet discoveries, and probably many other things in the non-medical sciences - the system of clinical trials and evidence-based medicine doesn't apply. Crossroads-talk- 23:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose In 2008, when WP:MEDRS was accepted as a guideline, it began with the rationale that "Wikipedia's medical articles, while not a source of medical advice, are nonetheless an important health information resource," whereas WP:SCIRS lacks this public safety impetus. When Joe cites WP:PSTS as already warning against reliance on peer-reviewed primary literature because it is primary, it misses that while peer review is flawed, there is clearly a distinction between such papers and a lab's press releases. The promotion of WP:SCIRS would undoubtedly be used to delete articles on species that have only been described in a few primary scientific articles on the basis that a scientific consensus is yet to form, despite the reality that without the governemnt and private sector funding allocated to medical research, thousands of species will remain without secondary literature reviews for the foreseeable future. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Userpage policy in regards to offensive and violence-related quotes
Based on this discussion, there seems to be some disagreement on both the valid interpretation and scope of Wikipedia:UPNOT. The issue itself is resolved, but I believe that an improvement of the guideline (or as a secondary option, a clarification) would be desirable.
Should the policy be stricter/clearer when it comes to content that is likely to cause broad offence, as well as content that justifies, excuses or endorses violent acts (or can be reasonably interpreted as such)? FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should be much stricter - and disallow ALL expressions of support/opposition for issues unrelated to Wikipedia on our user pages. This isn’t the venue for it. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
If this isn't the venue, then what is? starship.paint (RUN) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, a personal blog? BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe that this is a misunderstanding, which I also had: Blueboar is referring to Wikipedia not being the place for political expression, not that the Village Pump is the wrong place for my suggestion, correct? FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for the misunderstanding. starship.paint (RUN) 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Exactly what is broadly offensive? Is it "the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion" or could it be "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother"? Is it "God has no religion"? starship.paint (RUN) 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
That’s a fair point, but also the issue with making any consistent standard. I would go for “likely to be considered inflammatory by a non-insignificant amount of editors“, but that does come with its own issue. Basically “I like this group considered terrorists by many countries” is subject to removal, “I like this goal (assuming it’s compatible with human rights and international law) of said group” is not. For example, supporting many of the goals of Lehi (militant group) shouldn’t be sanctionable, but supporting the group itself should.
Alternatively, we could pick a country with reasonable hate speech, anti-terrorism ans incitement laws and base our standards on them? FortunateSons (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding those specific examples, I am honestly not familiar enough with the American political discourse to make a clear judgement. However, generic pro-life and pro-choice statements should be permissible, while “abortion is murder” should not. FortunateSons (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The notion that women cannot choose offends the pro-choice, and the notion of destroying fetuses offends the pro-life. The notion that God _______ can offend the religious. That's the problem with offense. starship.paint (RUN) 15:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there an alternative approach that you would consider feasible? The current version does not seem to be specific enough to be useful. FortunateSons (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure of that myself. starship.paint (RUN) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"abortion is murder" does not advocate violence, it simply compares something to violence. It and similar statements should be allowed, unless we have a broader consensus to remove all political speech from userpages. Toadspike (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This was just about the broadly offensive part. None of the “standard” positions on abortions are violence-related. FortunateSons (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
If we want to ditch userpages, fine by me. If we want to keep them, the existing guidelines are sufficient imo. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we have three options:
Editors may not express support for any position that is controversial in any part of the world
Editors may not express support for any position that is unrelated to Wikipedia
Editors may express support for any position that is mainstream in any part of the world. Editors may not express support for violence, regardless of whether the position supported is mainstream.
The current status quo, where what we allow and reject is based on the opinions of whoever turns up at the relevant discussion, is arbitrary and typically contrary to our status as a global encyclopaedia.
I lean towards #1 or #2, but #3 has the benefit of being transparent - if someone wants to tell us they are very biased, perhaps we should let them? BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
No controversy means no politics, no social issues, at least. Mainstream, what is that? Is Israel mainstream? Is Palestine mainstream? Is Hamas mainstream? Is North Korea mainstream? Is Iran mainstream? Is Qatar mainstream? starship.paint (RUN) 15:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes - if it’s mainstream in Israel, or Qatar, or Palestine, or even North Korea, it would be permitted under #3.BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I think all 3 are valid choices, with a minor caveat that 3 does not have to be exlicit (example: believes that there should be no place for (x ethnic/religious/social group/GSM) in (place) is implicitly violent even if there is no action or policy prescription attached.). FortunateSons (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
A hard no to #1. That meant that a simple statement of fact may be seen as controversial in some parts of the world. Ie "Guns are not needed in everyday life." A position valid and practiced in many parts of the world would be deemed as controversial by many in US. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Why should an editor state his/her position on guns in the first place? How does it benefit the project? Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This idea that userpage content must benefit the project, where does that come from? We have a rule like that for article talk pages, quite right too, but why should it be extended to user pages? Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site does say, Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. That rule does not get enforced consistently, but I think it does say that material on a user page must primarily support the mission of Wikipedia. If a user really wants to include other content that does not directly support the mission of Wikipedia, they can put it on a subpage, where it is less likely to be noticed. Of course, if the content is offensive enough, or violates a policy, then the community can still insist that it be removed. Donald Albury 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, some small (as in not large) amount of material is permissible, I have not seen myself any case involving a large amount but then I am not in the habit of scrutinizing user pages. That plus the rest of the guides, rules or whatever we wish to call them can be used by the community to determine whether a specific piece or amount of content is compliant as was actually done in the instance leading to this discussion, without the need for any further rules. Selfstudier (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Given that my userbox has been repeatedly complained about by some of the more insistent voices here, I hope you’ll allow me to shift the scenario slightly. My userbox is about Wikipedia, about the systemic biases of its editorship, and how those biases allow for supposed political correctness to trump basic fairness and equality. And we see it time and again. How many users have some statement in solidarity with Ukraine? That doesn’t get complained about, though having something as anodyne as I support Ukraine is realistically supportive of violence, namely Ukrainian violence against Russia. This, and nearly every time this has come up in the past, has been about censoring some positions over others. So unless the rule is we should all have red links for user pages I don’t see a single proposal that wouldn’t be used to further enforce what is an already existing systemic bias. nableezy - 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The equivalent counterpart of "I support Ukraine" is "I support <insert your favorite country>", and not what the userbox in question says. Regardless, overall, I think that it's better to address any systemic bias issues in Wikipedia by disallowing calls for violence rather than by adding more of them, only directed against the "right" people. spintheer (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There isnt a call to violence in my userpage/box, and calls to violence are already disallowed. nableezy - 22:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it would - that would be the idea, we shouldn’t be picking and choosing which positions we accept/reject.
With that said, perhaps we should add exceptions for positions that are genuine and undisputed statements of fact - for example, “the earth revolves around sun”. BilledMammal (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
And point 3 is prone to majority capture. Case in point, western powers have had tried to spin the story that there is a genocide in Xinjiang with flimsy proofs at some levels and USA propaganda machine driving behind this as well, and the article was at Uyghur genocide for 3.5 years before the current title. If one believes that there was no genocide and expressed as such on their user page, wouldn't that be condemned as well? – robertsky (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Three should allow editors to express that position, as it is a mainstream position in, at the very least, China. BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Ideal, but practical? People don't always interpret things you want them. The current consensus on RS deprecate many Chinese sources, and may just go 'hey, your position is not based on reliable sources therefore not mainstream'. – robertsky (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
My preference is #2, but within reasonable limits Well, I'm conflicted. On one side, I think politics and ethical questions should stay generally stay off userpages, having nothing to do with the project and more often being divisive—for example, a userbox saying "I am Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Athiest/etc." isn't helpful and honestly kind of annoying— but I don't have a problem with, say, a userbox boldly stating that "This user supports Red Dwarf coming back for a fourteenth season", or something like that.
On the other hand, a significant part of me says, "Ah, what the hell, let people say whatever they want on their own userpages".
There's merit to both sides here, so I doubt this discussion will come to any useful consensus. Our current policies are the sort of bland, milquetoast decisions Wikipedia does best. Cremastra (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
No. Neither "content that is likely to cause broad offence," nor "content that justifies, excuses or endorses violent acts (or can be reasonably interpreted as such)" are a problem. In the real world, causing broad offense is extremely common: a woman without her face or hair covered will cause broad offense in some places, whereas requiring a woman to cover her face or hair will cause broad offense in other places. Both supporting and opposing gay rights will cause broad offense among different groups of people. In fact, every important issue will cause broad offense in one way or another: climate change, gun control, abortion rights, immigration, poverty, COVID, the definitions of "man" and "woman" and "person" and on and on.
Similarly, violence is sometimes justified, and all humans engage in and depend on it, either directly or indirectly. Pacifism ("violence is never the answer") is naive, our societies are built on violence, our physical safety and comfort are secured by violence. It's an inseparable part of life. "Violence is never justified" is just untrue and easy to disprove, so there is no logic in banning all expressions of justification or support of violence.
I agree with Self: we either have free speech (in userpages) or we don't. Either one is fine with me. But trying to control that speech, especially with unrealistic rules like banning speech that gives offense or justifies/excuses/supports violence, is unrealistic, and attempts to do so offend me :-P Levivich (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I must admit that the last line is funny :/
Having said that, are you then in favor of removing the current version as well? FortunateSons (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think I'd be fine with deleting all of UPNOT. This website should have one set of rules about what you can't write here, and it should apply to all pages, and it should be in the TOU, stuff like no threats of violence, no discrimination, no promoting a business/product, no copyright violation, etc. I'm not sure we need anything beyond the TOU, and let the WMF enforce it. So basically the same as every other user generated content website. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, let’s add that as #4 FortunateSons (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
At the risk of opening up the scope of this, should it apply to userboxes as well? FortunateSons (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah it doesn't matter if the text has a border around it or not :-) Levivich (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
To put your position in line with what I say above, would your position be #4 - Editors may express support for any position that is mainstream in any part of the world? (#3 without the exception)
Note that this would include calls for ethnic cleaning, honour killings, etc - forbidding these was why I added the exception to #3. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
No, I'd say editors can express anything that's not a TOU violation. No defamation, copyvio, death threats, discrimination, etc., but unpopular opinions are fine. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
How would you distinguish between discriminatory and non-discriminatory violence? FortunateSons (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
So #4, unless the content violates the UCoC? (The TOS doesn’t talk about violence etc, it refers to the UCoC - although I note that under the UCoC I don’t think expressing support for discrimination would be forbidden, although I may be mistaken) BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the relevant passages of UCoC are:
Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs
The use of symbols, images, categories, tags or other kinds of content that are intimidating or harmful to others outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use. This includes imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize.
I'm saying don't have an enwiki userpage policy at all, because we already have TOU#4, which incorporates UCOC#3, and those are sufficient, enwiki doesn't need to make separate rules about this. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
If we don’t have rules - one way or the other - we’ll just continue with our practice of forbidding and allowing based on local consensus, in an arbitrary way that reflects our systematic biases. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
We have rules: TOU/UCOC. Arbitrary local consensus that reflects our systematic biases is called "democracy," and it's the best decision making process we've been able to come up with so far. To put it another way, the place to have rules about what we cannot write on this website is TOU/UCOC. The better approach (IMO) isn't to think about what should we ban on userpages, but what should we allow on userpages that we don't allow on other pages (if anything). And I think we should allow anything on userpages that's compliant with TOU/UCOC. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
If that’s the route we want to go ("we should allow anything on userpages that's compliant with TOU/UCOC”) I think we should explicitly say that, to minimise the chance of what I describe. BilledMammal (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd support revising WP:UPNOT to basically say "see TOU." Levivich (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions for #4: All content permissible according to ToU and UCoC is allowed on user pages. FortunateSons (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of what rules are in place, unless there's a change in English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, enforcement will continue to be done with the current consensus-based methods, and thus will still be determined by whichever editors happen to get involved in any given discussion. Yes, this gives activist editors an outsized voice. But since changing this would require those same editors to relinquish influence, English Wikipedia hasn't reached a consensus to do anything else. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Concur with Levivich here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, violence is sometimes justified, and all humans engage in and depend on it, either directly or indirectly. Pacifism ("violence is never the answer") is naive, our societies are built on violence, our physical safety and comfort are secured by violence.
A. This doesn't change the fact that English Wikipedia is an international forum, so actively calling for violence against other humans in any context necessarily means calling for violence against other potential members of the Wikipedia community.
B. violence is sometimes justified is such a short-sighted statement. Once you welcome people to call for violence when it's "justified", the goalpost of what is "justified" will slip right between your fingers towards things you didn't intend. >"Some violence is justified!" >"Wait no not like that"
Either we allow calls for violence by anyone for anyone, or not at all. Welcoming calls for violence "sometimes" will mean that we'll have to start playing a "draw the line" game, which won't end well for this project.spintheer (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
You're making a slippery slope argument: that's almost always flawed logic IMO. "Draw the line game" is called "making decisions," and it's what we do as humans, on and off wiki. The lines we draw are called "laws" and "rules," on wiki we call them "policies" and "guidelines" and we have a ton of them and the project would be a lot worse if we didn't have any, or if they said "either everything is allowed or nothing is allowed."
For example, I oppose the violence that the Russian military is perpetrating against Ukraine. I support the violence that the Ukrainian military is perpetrating against the Russian military, to an extent. That extent -- the line that's drawn -- is international law such as the Geneva conventions. I oppose the violence that violates the international laws of war, but I support the defensive violence that is permitted by those laws. That's not a problem, it's not inconsistent, and it's better than either supporting or opposing all violence. This is just one example of defending violence, and it would be easy to come up with others. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
"Draw the line game" is called "making decisions," and it's what we do as humans, on and off wiki. Of course, this is a general truth that doesn't actually address my point. Of course policies draw lines to balance competing objectives in the best way possible. I'm not saying to stop drawing lines in general. I'm saying that policies are created and lines are drawn in order to serve the long-term productive development of this project. In this specific case, the line drawing would decide what people is it ok to advocate violence against within Wikipedia, and what people you're not allowed to. It would involve deciding in what contexts advocating for brutality is "justified", and when it's not allowed. My point is that making a (inevitably arbitrary) decision in these questions means that it'd always be fair game for debate, which means that we'll regularly revisit this sort of policy, because by definition there'll always be someone who disagrees. Engaging and reengaging in this sort of policy discussion is (a) completely inappropriate and disconnected from improving the encyclopedia and (b) will significantly hurt the English Wikipedia project more than any supposed benefit that it would bring. In the long run, any outcome of such a policy decision would hurt the project and alienate productive members of the community.
Therefore, it's better to prohibit everyone from supporting violence on Wikipedia in any form. Making some support for violence acceptable means that we'll have to revisit this topic, which I believe will inevitably be derailed into places that will fundamentally hurt the project. spintheer (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Best to worry less about what's on an editor's userpage & more about whether or not they're pushing their beliefs on other pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This is broadly correct barring explicit hate speech. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
But...I do hate speeches. They're long and boring and you have to stand there the whole time. They normally don't even serve snacks or anything. GMGtalk 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
You must have been to bad speeches, I often got some snacks. Perhaps you only hate speeches if you're hungry? FortunateSons (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
User pages being unowned and not a free speech forum like everything else, here, should remain editable, including sometimes removal of text or pictures (we even do it for user comments, so user pages should be no different) -- sometimes but rarely there will be disagreements, and then just settle it like we do every other disagreement (short version: does this promote the working purposes of the project or not). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm broadly in agreement with GoodDay and Alanscottwalker and don't see a reason why we should take any action.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The question isn't "is it offensive", but "is it disruptive". At best, posting opinions about contentious topics unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose will aggravate other users, impacting our ability to collaborate. At worst, it can actively scare potential editors away—one of the most damaging things you can possibly do to Wikipedia—or create a chilling effect that makes a given group feel unwelcome on the project. Conversely, WP:TIGER applies. If someone feels so strongly about a topic that they have to shout out their beliefs on their user page as if it were a social media page, they are not fit to edit in that area, broadly construed. If there's anyone who should be made to feel unwelcome, it's the tigers, not the people who they oppose. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Idk, it kinda depends on topic. If it weren't for feeling very strongly about a topic, I would not have spent 100+ hours on Murder of George Floyd or Nakba. What else but strong feelings could possibly motivate anyone to edit about such grim subjects, or any subject? Dispassionate editing is an unrealistic expectation; the best we can do is try to productively channel the passion. If it weren't for tigers, I don't think some articles would exist. (And I bet the museum curators who create tiger exhibits are extremely passionate about tigers.) Levivich (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course we want editors to care about the topics they work on… BUT… they must maintain a level of NEUTRALITY while doing so. That means they must curb their passions. If an editor can’t do that, they probably shouldn’t be editing on that topic. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
And what evidence is there for the supposition that having personal beliefs on a user page makes it so that an editor can not edit neutrally? nableezy - 12:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Or they need be passionate about verifiable, neutral, original writing but unoriginal research presentation, with extra care for living person information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The truth is that every single editor on Wikipedia has strong opinions on the pages they edit. Our agreement to work within a model of consensual collaboration toward neutrality is independent from that truth and my main frustration when editing is not people who argue passionately but rather those who feign dispassion. And it is worth noting that this passion will create points of view especially with regard to reliability and WP:DUE - which is why consensus and neutrality guidelines are critical to the project. Literally 0% of this will change if we censor userpages to create a mask of dispassion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your frustration, perhaps consider you are making at least two assumptions: 1) to write, everyone must have strong opinions about subjects; and 2) people around you are feigning something. Neither of those assumptions are invariably true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I've found that the "everyone has strong views when writing Wikipedia and is naturally going to push their POV" line tells us more about the people saying it than about editors in general. Most (but not all) of the people protesting against de-blogifying userpages are people who have contribution histories just screaming "I'm here to push a POV". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
If I were to be as uncivil as you I’d say that about the people pushing to restrict userpages. nableezy - 08:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't seem to have the capacity to take myself seriously enough to be offended by anything anymore, so I can't really say anything useful about the rules. But it seems to me that the edge cases that can get people excited are often situations where people take the words and garnish them with a bit of inference about the editor's state of mind, or let's say they hallucinate, then get offended by the thing they made, which is absolutely real from their perspective. So, maybe a simpler solution is for editors to embrace the fact that we are not as smart as we think and stare at this photo for a minute while reciting "I am not a forensic psychologist". Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm very smart, implying I'm not is sooo offensive. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien has repeatedly attacked people for being dishonest (eg here), of hav[ing] contribution histories just screaming "I'm here to push a POV"., of being WP:SPAs in contentious topics who anyone with eyes can see are WP:CPUSHers by looking at their user pages, contributions, and participation in discussions (those latter ones in this discussion, one above one below), and they do so without any evidence or even an attempt at providing it. They have repeatedly attacked other editors, and in a normal world they would be sanctioned for repeated WP:ASPERSIONs. But we arent in that world, we are in one where somebody can repeatedly attack others without consequence because they think they are right, and they think that so much they dont even have to show any evidence at all to prove they are right, because it is obvious to anybody with eyes. Yeah, well, I think a lot of things are obvious about Thebiguglyalien as well, but Ill follow the rules on keeping them to myself. nableezy - 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Weirdly you rarely see people accusing themselves or even considering the possibility of self-deception for the flash-fiction stories they make up to try to make sense of things. People thinking they are right is the bit that I never understand. Maybe people should keep an "All the times I was wrong about anything" diary. Put it on their user page. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Consensus is messy and not always clear. Sometimes, there is no consensus. That is how it works in a collaborative project with people from all over the world. Written policy here doesn't dictate practice, instead, practice dictates the written policy. Since there isn't a clear consensus for a rule change, I would say no change is needed, and some problems have to just be worked out one at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Infoboxes and such should be limited to Wikipedia related things. Text in the users own voice is their call. Subject to 1) existing policies and guidelines and 2) the user having to face the fact that others may see them as walking piles of dogshit and treat them accordingly. Free speech does not free you from the consequences of your speech. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Let people post their inflammatory/demeaning/promotional/etc. statements on their userpages. Then you know who the problem users are who need extra eyes watching them. 24.24.242.66 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a very important and often overlooked point – but the risk is people may come across the problematic userpages without being clued into this implicit agreement and assume other editors have no issue with their content. There's no way for someone new to the site to tell whether we are pragmatically tolerating these editors for the sake of more easily identifying the bad ones or, you know, actually tolerating them, which leads to the chilling effects Thebiguglyalien mentioned. – Teratix₵ 06:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
If we allow offensive content on user pages, one option would be to allow editors to add a notice to the top saying that these views are solely the views of the individual, and may include views considered abhorrent and rejected by the broader community. Obviously, the editor whose talk page this notice was added to would not be permitted to remove it unilaterally. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Why isn't that a standard thing anyways? I know that the encyclopedia doesn't do disclaimers, but user pages are (or at the very least are widely perceived as) not really part of the encyclopedia. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
There is The userpage box (I put it after someone complained my page could be mistaken for a WP page). Maybe could add to it "Please don't complain about anything here". Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The bare minimum standard for a Wikipedia userpage is it shouldn't be disruptive, go out of its way to offend other editors, or end up provoking massive timesink discussions. If a fellow editor expresses a good-faith complaint about something on your userpage, you're being an anti-social jerk if you insist on digging your heels in and doubling down on retaining it. – Teratix₵ 06:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
An alternative more fun approach could be to require all editors to include at least some offensive material on their user page, but on the condition that it is material they personally find very offensive. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I would personally support that option too ;) FortunateSons (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of someone working with an editor for months, finding them very rational etc., then going to their user page and 'yikes, this guy really hates baby animals and canadians. was not expecting that'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
RfAs will be fun with some tripping over such materials. 😂 – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
content that justifies, excuses or endorses violent acts (or can be reasonably interpreted as such) is hopelessly black and white, for a start. What about "I'm proud that my grandfather fought in the Second World War", "This user is a policeman" or "I like my steak rare"? – Joe (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Or I support Israel's right to defend itself, which is being called genocide in many places. Animal lover|666| 07:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to armed self defence, yes, even in cases were no-one believes it’s genocide. It’s the same as Palestinian right to (violently) resist, an endorsement of use of force. FortunateSons (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This gets even more murky if you consider statements like "I am a proud American" to be supporting violence (since modern United States is built on Native American lands). spintheer (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Or even just "I live in the United States", by extending the same reason spintheer (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
We can argue this ad infinitum, but would you agree that:
“User“ supports ISIS
“A quote by Hitler“
“User“ believes that „warcrime“ is valid if the victims are members of „group“
“User“ believes that „group“ should not be allowed to vote/get married/be citizens of […].
X is justified in causing (physical) harm to Y
X has a right to kill Y.
are and should be permitted on a userpage, particularly of someone who edits in the relevant areas? FortunateSons (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Allowing users to put these example on their user pages does far more harm than good to the project imo. I was just extending Joe's argument to show that virtually anything can be construed as support for violence if you stretch it far enough, so some line needs to be drawn. I think that the current policy is too permissive in this regard. If it were less permissive, we wouldn't be having this conversation and people would just keep their violence-supporting opinions off of wikipedia. spintheer (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense, sorry I misunderstood your point. FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Editors should be allowed say whatever they wish. We can't get into the business of policing speech. But the latter is conditional on use of such quotations being construed as WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct resulting in indefinite topic bans. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Which is what we have been doing? What has been broken? – robertsky (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
No, which we have not been doing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
If that was the practice we wouldn't be having this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is starting to go around in circles. At this point, we either need to create an RfC or accept that this discussion has been a waste of time. Presumably, an RfC would be to update WP:UPNOT and include options like:
Disallow all opinion content unrelated to Wikipedia on user pages
Disallow opinion content about controversial, contentious, or politically charged topics unrelated to Wikipedia on user pages
Disallow hate speech (defined as content that denigrates individuals or groups based on personal characteristics such as nationality, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc) on user pages
Allow users to include any opinion content on their userpages as long as it does not violate other policies such as threats of harm, copyrighted material, etc
No change, enforce the current user page guideline which disallows things such as "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia", "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project", and "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia"
Note that "offensive content" is not mentioned, because it's been made clear that there's no standard for measuring offensiveness. Also note that "opinion content" does not include expression of identity. Simply stating one's nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc would be allowed under any of these options, while defining oneself as having a certain political ideology or being "pro-" or "anti-" would be political opinion. The next question would be which of these options are viable, and what specific wording should be used. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
accept that this discussion has been a waste of time Count me in that camp. Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Count me as camp RfC, with options being a mix of yours and @BilledMammals; I might open one at a more reasonable time, but am happy for someone else to do it as well. :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Also in the RfC camp. I would add an option: "Disallow content that directly promotes or calls for the use of physical violence".
An RfC would help reduce time waste, because it could alleviate the need for future discussions about this topic. spintheer (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Waste of time. No one has presented a concrete option that actually seems like it would gain support. The RFC options are basically either things we already do, INCREDIBLY subjective, or complete non-starters, even just based on this discussion. Please don't waste everyone's time with this. The ANI thread this is based on couldn't even find consensus about this, it just so happened that a random admin decided to make a call. Parabolist (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Ding. In this thread, users upset that views they dislike are allowed. Sorry? nableezy - 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Correction: Users are discussing whether it would be a net benefit to this project to implement a policy change that limits the expression of views which promote/support violence on Wikipedia. spintheer (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No, they aren’t, and the genesis of this discussion makes that clear. nableezy - 13:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
If a user writes on his/her userpage that I believe that the October 7th attacks were legitimate resistance to Israel, they are telling us quite clearly what bias they have; if they edit Israel-related articles in a skewed way, we should be quicker to ban them than we would a user whose opinions are completely unknown to us. Animal lover|666| 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Why is it that you think that holding that belief is unacceptable somehow? What matters is a persons article edits, and editing in a skewed manner, not only in the direction you disagree with, is what counts. nableezy - 08:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I had no intention to claim that only skewing in the anti-Israel direction is wrong. We want to be a neutral encyclopedia, but no one is completely neutral on any topic they truely understand. Anyone who is able to edit articles on a given topic in a neutral way is certainly welcome; anyone who can't, especially in CT topics, is not. Statements made on one's user page should be used as evidence of one's opinions, especially when deciding how to deal with them in case of skewed article edits. Animal lover|666| 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
If somebody is editing in an inappropriate manner then their user page has no relevance at all to the correct sanction. People's opinions have nothing to do with if their article edits are proper. And any attempt at legislating on the basis of those opinions is going to lead to more entrenched systemic bias. And lest we forget, NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia defines what is "neutral" and then demand that its articles, and editors, follow that. No, NPOV means including all significant views, and trying to legislate out significant views is a direct assault on that neutrality. nableezy - 15:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The user page wasn't good, but I indeffed them for their behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding acts of violence: I think power of violence (and eat the rich if we are being pedantic) is a rather clear violation of Wikipedia:UPNOT. The OSS one is fine, the Israeli one is fine (though those two together and the talk page would make me cautious about the future editing of this user in the relevant area, which was resolved by @ScottishFinnishRadish anyway), the communism and antifa ones are fine.
The writing on the top of the page is a rather clear sign that they are incapable of being a productive member of Wikipedia, but non-violent.
It also makes up way too much space of the user page, same issue we had in the original case. FortunateSons (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I think there are some userboxes which might be fine on their own, but user pages which combine them to tell a combative story in hieroglyphic fashion are not. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I'd recommend not opening an RFC on this topic. The topic-in-general, has the potential to be messy. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Suggested RfC structure
I think a 2-way-split is optimal
Should the policies regarding userpages be changed in the following way:
Opinion content unrelated to Wikipedia
A. Disallow all opinion content
B. Disallow opinion content about controversial, contentious, or politically charged topics on user pages
C. Disallow opinion that can be perceived as offensive by any reasonable person regardless of their location
D. Disallow hate speech (defined as content that denigrates individuals or groups based on personal characteristics such as nationality, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc) on user pages
E. Allow users to include any opinion content on their userpages as long as it does not violate other policies such as threats of harm, copyrighted material, etc
F. Like E, but allow for a topic ban on the affected topic if the user does not remove it upon request
G. No change, enforce the current user page guideline which disallows things such as "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia", "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project", and "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia"
Violence
A. Allow calls for violence, unless direct at (groups of editors) or specific people or protected classes
B. Allows for calls for violence only against entities (states, armies, companies)
B. Disallow calls for violence, but allow for justification or excuse (see A for restrictions)
C. Disallow explicit justification or excuse, but allow implicit statements of support
D. Ban all statements that are not broadly considered legal (ex. believes in individual self defence)
E. Ban all positive statements about violence
F. Ban all statements about violence (including their condemnation) FortunateSons (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Inspired by @BilledMammal and partially copied from @Thebiguglyalien, I hope to have fully covered all serious suggestions. Does anyone feel like their option is left out? FortunateSons (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
An RfC with fourteen different options has zero chance of producing any productive discussion at all, let alone a consensus to change anything. – Teratix₵ 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You are right, I think a violence-related one would be a productive start. FortunateSons (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The "Opinion content unrelated to Wikipedia" approach is doomed because editors can't reliably differentiate between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Second attempt at violence-related RfC
A. Allow calls for violence, unless direct at (groups of editors) or specific people or protected classes
B. Disallow calls for violence, but allow for justification or excuse (see A for restrictions)
C. ban content that advocates, encourages, or condones acts of violence (generally including excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance)
D. C, but actually enforce it
E. Ban all statements that are not broadly considered legal (ex. believes in individual self defence)
F. Ban all positive statements about violence FortunateSons (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Down to 6, is that usable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Still too many options, in my opinion - and most of the options are also unclear as to what they would entail. I would suggest just two options:
A. Editors may express support for any position that does not violate the Terms of Use or the Universal Code of Conduct
B. Editors may not express support for any position unrelated to Wikipedia
If the consensus is A we can have a followup RfC about permitting the placement of a disclaimer on the user pages of editors with controversial opinions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good, feel free to open it if you there is no disagreement. FortunateSons (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Workshopping is the first thing for a policy. No point in opening it if half of editors are saying (or implying) that it is a waste of time. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There's no rush, I think we should take some more time to iterate. @BilledMammal, afaics this is the first time that the ToU and UCC are mentioned in this thread. I guess I thought that all English Wikipedia users already bound by these policies, is this not true?spintheer (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
They were mentioned above by Levivich.
There has been some debate regarding whether the UCoC applies absent an enabling act, but the main point of mentioning it here would be to make it clear that there are still some limits. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:IAR and common sense should apply in this case. Any attempts to make a hard-line rule will result in immense suffering. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC will be stronger if it includes fewer options. If necessary, some straw polling here might help pick out the strongest candidates. I would also urge that a status quo option be included. If it isn't, editors are likely to add it anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Good point, thank you. I forgot to add, for the last RfC, C is my summary of the status quo (but not always the enforced one, being the reason for D). FortunateSons (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No, if you're actually doing this, you don't get to decide a new wording for the status quo. The option should be "nothing changes." Again, there's no actual consensus that a rule isn't being enforced. The ANI did not find quorum that there was a problem, and neither has this discussion. Parabolist (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
That’s not a new wording, it’s just a summary using changed grammar of the words. I’m genuinely open to a better one that does not necessitate looking at the page.
Regarding outcome, we will see. FortunateSons (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The better one is "No change." Why do we need a "summary using changed grammar" for an option that means there's no problem here, in rules or in enforcement (Which is a common refrain here, and was at the ANI). What exactly is the problem this is seeking to solve? What is the impetus that something needs to change? Even if I take your position, it seems like actually the rules worked, and an admin requested that the quotes be removed. This is without even getting into how we would begin to define a 'call for violence', or whatever the hell 'broadly legal' means. Parabolist (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It worked on outcome, but “a cooperative editor” and “an admin who happened to notice and care” shouldn’t be a policy basis.
The goal of a phrasing was to include to often missed footnote and allow people to have context on which way the votes change the policy (stricter or less strict), but I see how it led to confusion and apologise.
The problem is as described above, a vaguely phrased and inconsistently applied policy about a significant topic. I can’t change the application, but I can try to improve the former with the goal of more cooperative work and less on- and off-wiki issues. FortunateSons (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but then you should be ready to answer simple questions like "What is a call/justification/excuse for violence?" Is supporting historical revolutions a call for violence? Active ones? Is statements of support for governments engaged in active conflicts a call for violence? What about countries engaged in extrajudicial killing? What is the difference between a justification or excuse? You use the phrase "legal" in your RFC: whose laws? Why them? There is a reason that our rules are simple and broad: this sort of needless specificity creates far more problems than it solves. Your solution to vaguely phrased policy is to add more vague phrases. Parabolist (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point. For reasons of length, I’m afraid I can’t answer them all, but the general answer of interpretation is (inspired by German civil law) “whatever an objective person utilising good faith would perceive it as, being mindful of the context”. You can’t catch every edge case regarding , but if it was a one-word sentence, it would be “not ok if someone living could reasonably feel like such a justification includes them.”
Legal was referring to “general legal principles” or “patterns”, like basic rights to self defence and autonomy, but does not refer to specific disputed cases (like stand your ground laws).
Vague group/government support (at least IMO, but some may disagree) is generally acceptable unless it breaks another rule, such as being disruptive to the project (supporting Nazi Germany).
That being said, I don’t think that my version is perfect, but doesn’t the same problem exist with the current policy? How would you make a clear distinction between condoning, excusing, trivialising and normalising? (Taken from Wikipedia:UPNOT) FortunateSons (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Thats my point, every part of your proposal requires so much clarification that it becomes unusable. Similarly, I didn't want you to answer all of those questions, but demonstrate that these are all very obvious questions that arise from your wording, without clear answers. I'm completely lost on how you feel "general legal principles" are going to apply to a rule that seemingly is mostly directed at statements involving state actors and groups that those actors consider illegal. You're alreading writing clarifying sentences to add, when we solve this simply with one sentence currently. At this rate we'll be adding several paragraph to the policy, all because of an ANI thread there was no consensus that a rules problem existed. Parabolist (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s technically solved with two sentences for now, but I understand your point. The issue is that the current version is either extremely vague or simply not applied in the way it was intended to, neither of which is great.
The goal of legal principles was to catch statements that are violence but only in a very technical way, as to not make the rule overly intrusive. FortunateSons (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you see option C as retaining the status quo entirely, or replacing it with your summary? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Retaining it as is, but it is split in two due to the footnote, so I saw no better way of putting it into a 'votable' option with more clarification than "status quo". If there is an obvious way to do it which I missed, I apologise for screwing it up :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it'd be worth it to clarify, maybe something like "status quo: ban content that advocates, encourages, or condones acts of violence (generally including excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance)"Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thats the better one I have been looking for, thank you. If we use my RfC (or one inspired by it), this should replace C. FortunateSons (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
If I was wiki-dictator-for-life I would abolish all political/social userboxen as I don't think we are supposed to be here to share our opinions on these matters, but that ship clearly sailed a looooooong time ago. So, given that this is the situation we are in, I don't think it is a good use of anyone's time to try and define super exact rules for what is allowed and what is not. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I am getting really tired of “structured RFCs” that offer us pre-set options to !vote on. Just ask the basic question: What limits (if any) should we place on the use of userpages to make political/social statements?Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I have made such RFCs in the past, and I believe they have their place, but only with long-term issues that previous, less structured discussions have failed to resolve. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 06:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Just slap a big tag at the top of every user page stating "material on this page reflects the user's views and is not necessarily indicative of any position of Wikipedia as a whole." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Heck, this should probably be coded in so that it automatically appears without any work on any particular page. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This is going in the wrong direction. I'm not concerned about deciding which opinions or types of speech are or are not morally acceptable. I'm concerned about the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG issues that come from acting like userpages are social media pages where you make political statements. Even more importantly, I'm concerned about what it communicates to potential new editors when we claim to be a neutral, welcoming encyclopedia and then plaster it with contentious and polemical statements. And after reading this discussion, I'm now also concerned with the fact that many editors seem to feel entitled to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs—especially since many of these editors are WP:SPAs in contentious topics who anyone with eyes can see are WP:CPUSHers by looking at their user pages, contributions, and participation in discussions. And as far as I'm concerned, the attitude of "everyone has strong opinions they insert when they edit" is telling on oneself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
the attitude of "everyone has strong opinions they insert when they edit" is telling on oneself Agreed; everyone has strong opinions on some topic, and sometimes they edit articles related to that topic - but they should try to prevent those opinion’s influencing their editing. Of course, they won’t always succeed - I doubt I do - but they should try, and I’m concerned that were normalising the notion that they shouldn’t, as it results in things such as editors arguing, unapologetically, for different standards to be applied to claims in line with their POV than for claims against their POV.
With that said, I do see a benefit of letting people put these views on their talk page - it warns editors to watch out for POV-pushing, and it’s evidence at ANI if POV-pushing does occur. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Let users express extreme opinions on their talk pages, and these extreme opinions become public information which can be used against them in all on-wiki discussions. Don't sanction a user for expressing them, but do use the expressed opinion as evidence if there are other potential grounds for sanctioning. Animal lover|666| 07:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Nail on the head right here IMHO. If your user page looks like this (see image), you've crossed a line. Is this editor here to build an encyclopedia?Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thinking about it further, I think the following options may be better:
Editors may express support for any position that does not violate the Terms of Use or the Universal Code of Conduct
Editors may not express support for any social or political position unrelated to Wikipedia
Status quo
My concern with the previous version of #2 is that it could forbid statements such as "I like dogs" - arguably a WP:NOTSOCIAL violation, but not something we should really be concerned about editors saying. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
All you need is number 1, which is equal to number 3. That you want number 2 is neither here nor there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on the current letter of the policy, 3 is quite a lot more restrictive than 1 FortunateSons (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The status quo must include 1 by default, thems the rules (whether or not enforced). Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, that was poorly phrased: 3 includes 1, but goes beyond it. FortunateSons (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
How are beliefs about self defense considered illegal? At least where I live, if someone comes up to my door acting all crazy and violent, I'm perfectly within my rights to grab a rock or stick or watering can to convince them to go away. GMGtalk 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't illegal, which was the point I was going for. Self defence is an example of violence (in the broad sense of the word) considered legal almost everywhere, so "I own a gun for the defence of me and my loved ones" should not be considered violence even within the scope of a highly restrictive ban on conduct endorsing violence. FortunateSons (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
In general, I don't believe that one user page you found offensive is a crisis that warrants an ANI thread, a VP thread, and what appears to be an overcomplicated RfC. Beside the option to just go do something else other than police user's talk pages, if you want to open an ANI, it seems like it worked out. So policy seems to be chugging along. GMGtalk 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
To me, it comes down to this: Is a Wikipedia Userpage the right VENUE for editors to express their opinions on social/cultural/political issues? If so, why? And if not, why not? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Personally I don’t really care what happens with this discussion so long as the policy is consistently applied, and not, as historically been the case here and literally everywhere else in the world, used as a cudgel against views that some majority, here or some ANI thread, opposes. But, for the sake of argument, I do actually think that there is a benefit to allowing for the expression of personal views, as it helps demonstrate that the editor base is not a monolith, that there are dissenting views allowed on pretty much any topic, that we as a project take seriously the idea that our aim is not to determine what is "neutral" and then indoctrinate John Q Googler but rather we aim to include all significant views. Showing that this is not just a place where the dominant view, American and European centric, cismale, etc., is accepted is useful by itself. nableezy - 14:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Not to get all political on main, but the world in which we live (i.e. the one where we have airplanes and penicillin and computers with Internet connections) exists due to great amounts of violence -- not only over the course of human history, but as a perpetual undergirding force that maintains social order on an everyday basis. Certainly, everybody who locks their bike to a streetpole to go in the store, keeps their money in the bank, trusts their employer to pay them at the end of the week, et cetera supports some amount of violence under some circumstances -- why else would you feel comfortable dropping your kids off at school without a bulletproof vest and a 9mm? Every once in a while, some scumbag goes to a public place and starts trying to murder dozens of people -- this is, oftentimes, stopped by doing a quite violent act (like shooting them). Likewise, a few decades ago, some scumbag became the dictator of Germany and started murdering millions of people, and doing various other awful things, which were mostly stopped through the use of truly overwhelming amounts of violence, which we refer to as "World War 2".
"But JPxG", you may say, "this is stupid disingenuous concern trolling because everybody knows those things were done to prevent greater evils and so they weren't really violence". Well, no: almost certainly the majority of violent acts throughout history have been done for the sake of achieving some greater good in the eyes of those who undertook them. Of course, I don't mean to posit some sort of completely rudderless braindead moral nihilism where nobody can tell the difference between good and bad things. Some violence is evil, some violence is tragically necessary, some violence achieves better results than the counterfactual scenario where it isn't employed but is nonetheless avoidable, some violence is implicit, et cetera.
But Wikipedia editors are not equipped to sit down and argue on a talk page and decide with objective certainty which actions are morally justified and which are not -- if we could do that we would have essentially solved moral philosophy and could probably bring about world peace in a matter of weeks by making really smart posts about it online. I don't think we can do this. At least not in weeks -- maybe if we are around for a couple millennia.
The point of this is that we can sit around and come up with all kinds of seemingly-distinct categories of statements, like "glorifying" or "calling for" or "endorsing" or "defending" or "minimizing" or "justifying" -- but they are not actually distinct categories in themselves, and they're fundamentally downstream of the actual moral considerations in play, which we are unable to determine objectively. Determining which of them any given speech act falls into is so difficult and situationally dependent that it's hard to see any benefit whatsoever from larping that we're employing some kind of objective standard. I think the best strategy is to just tell people not to be stupid and do our best to not be stupid, and know it when we see it. jp×g🗯️ 01:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
To the best of my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), your argument is "we can't create a philosophically sound framework to rigorously ensure that certain types of speech are limited, so therefore we should not make any attempt and instead defer to people's general judgement of what is stupid." I agree with the premise, but disagree with the conclusion. AFAICT, we can't make a philosophically sound framework to rigorously define anything of practical use. This doesn't stop us from making real-world laws and Wikipedia rules, because using natural language to specify what is and isn't allowed still empirically works better than leaving it at "don't be stupid". This is why we have other Wikipedia rules that limit speech, like rules against hateful statement.
The question is will adding a rule that says e.g. "Directly endorsing, promoting, or calling for physical violence is not allowed" be a net benefit or liability for the development of this project. As discussed above, I personally think that allowing this sort of speech can lead to very problematic and sticky situations that will overall hurt the project. spintheer (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, what WP:USERPAGE says now, and has said for the last decade, is this:
Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit
Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors:[1]vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)
These may be removed, redacted or collapsed by any user to avoid the appearance of acceptability for Wikipedia, and existing speedy deletion criteria may apply. To preserve traditional leeway over userspace, other kinds of material should be handled as described below unless otherwise agreed by consensus.
I spent a little bit trying to date when this showed up; it wasn't there in 2004. By January 2007 the page mentioned "polemical statements", by August 2007 it said this; by 2009 "don't be a dick about it" had changed to "don't be inconsiderate"; by June 2010 it had the "statements of violence" section; and by 2014 it had gotten to what's quoted above.
I think that, if anything, this is about as detailed as it could possibly be without tripping over its own shoelaces (which it is perilously close to doing). Adding stuff to this would make it more complicated. What's a "supporting a controversial group" and what's "condoning of violence"? We just have to figure it out case-by-case. I don't think there is any kind of policy framework that allows us to consistently determine in advance whether the community considers it acceptable to support or oppose the Democratic National Convention, the PKK, the IDF, the Proud Boys, Hezbollah, the AFL-CIO, Redneck Revolt, the Wehrmacht, the Huffington Post blogroll, the Ku Klux Klan, the IWW, 8chan, the Black Panthers, the Azov Brigade, Freemasons, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and Hamas. We just have to kind of figure it out as we go. jp×g🗯️ 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
There are also applicable policies. WP:OWN says that userspace is still part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes. WP:NOT has both WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG, which disallow the use of any page—including userpages—for political advocacy or as a personal web page, respectively. There's a lot of hand wringing in this discussion about whether OWN or NOT should be ignored if the subject is contentious, but that's where they should apply the most. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
References
^Treatment such as excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance (for example, by explaining support of vandalism as being 'humor' or edit warring as being valid for resolving content issues) will generally be seen as having the same effect as condoning the behavior, and may also be removed.
classic SYNTH violation:
100% non-SYNTH and acceptable per policy:
