User talk:Alex Shih/ArbNotes/Infobox

I am a supporter of infoboxes in general, as a disclaimer, because they are a secondary format to the article itself for information giving. I tend to keep an eye on some situations where info boxes are disputed but frankly the vitriol tossed about on those articles seldom makes input desirable which may be the point behind the vitriol.

• I don't understand how the arbitration committee can change what is meant by WP consensus. If multiple editors do not agree with a consensus that consensus can be overturned. I understand the frustration that editors feel when they have put hours into an article and an editor who has put much less time in that article has an equal say in the article but that is the nature of Wikipedia. The problem is much deeper than attempting to "punish" those who dare to disagree with those who have put more time and hours into an article. And I for one would welcome dealing somehow with those deeper issues. In the end this is about article standards and formatting; either we have a standard or we don't and if we don't people will disagree. As well, ownership is a key issue here. How do we allow ownership on some articles while telling editors its not acceptable on others.

• Perhaps consensus can stand for a certain period of time before being challenged. This may be part of the criteria you mention; I haven't see that criteria if it is already in play.

• If content is false, poorly supported by sources, or damages someone then we as editors have a right to ownership per the encyclopedia. But an infobox does not damage content but is a style element, an information giving format, so ownership on this issue may be many steps too far in what an editor think he or she has a right to.

• Finally, civility is a behavioral policy and no amount of article work should give anyone a pass on uncivil behaviours. As long as we allow that kind of behavior we will in the long run lose editors rather than convince them of anything.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC))

yawn. Cassianto^Talk 10:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Case in point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for the comment, Littleolive oil. I'll respond to them later. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Littleolive oil Yes, my thoughts are before trying to form a "consensus", the position has to be informed. Consensus should not be taken literally (e.g. headcount) in content disputes, rather it should be focused on the strength of argument. So I am hoping to work on a clarification draft that would reduce future time sink by making sure most infobox discussions would follow the format of Talk:Michael Hordern. About ownership and civility: One needs to be careful to not confuse ownership with stewardship, and that's the only thing I would add based on observation. The idea of civility has to depend on the context, and sometimes I feel like it's more of a difference between having a professional or casual approach to the project; personally I don't really care about snarkiness nor profanities, depending on the context, unless if it gets personal; this is another discussion for another day. Hope this makes sense. Alex Shih (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure one can have a comprehensive clarification if a format drafted by only one editor who traditionally opposes almost if not all infoboxes is used. Maybe that is not your intention. Input from multiple editors might be more indicative of arguments for and against. The line between stewardship and ownership is not always clear and perhaps the two should be delineated. When editors consistently and deliberately use vitriolic language an environment is damaged, and this is in fact a way of owning an article talk page snd content. Most people do not like nastiness and meanness which is directed at them on a consistent basis and will leave rather than deal too long with it. I agree that the occasional snark or profanity is not sanctionable or a worry but as you say context is important as is frequency. Thanks for you response to my first lengthy post. I am traveling with out the time to engage anymore here but many thanks and best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC))

@Alex Shih: you need to be clear about the difference between ownership and stewardship – most importantly the behaviour typical of ownership, rather than stewardship. such as "An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior." My principal concern of late has been the way that uninformed, but well-intentioned, editors who are new to an article are treated should they ask why there is no infobox (or dare to boldly add one). Let me assure you that discretionary sanctions will do nothing to help tone down the 'bite' that occurs in these circumstances, and is almost certain to worsen the problem. You may find my work-in-progress at User:RexxS/Infobox factors helpful in understanding the breadth and depth of issues that have arisen over the last four or five years concerning infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me say that I found the work you did there to be very informative and constructive. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Infoboxes The ancients had Helen of Troy as cause for going to war; we have the infobox. Ah, well. :-)

  

  A worthier cause?

1. POSITION & DISCLOSURE: I have no horse in the race. But if we had to choose between having an infobox in every article or nowhere in Wikipedia, I'd go with the former. That's what my protractor shows.

2. IT'S BUT A BRIEF; DROP IT: The box provides a summary of the basic info. It is not a substitute for the article. Articles about complicated subjects in any field would benefit from the introduction of boxes; it's the equivalent of having a layman's explanation. Quantum physics, for instance, cannot be understood by the layman (nor by most physicists); a box is but a step towards getting a general clue. Executive summaries are infoboxes.

3. WHY SUCH HOSTILITY?! The users who are too lazy (we do exist!) to read through the article's text will at least get a glimpse of what's in it. Instead of punishing them for intellectual laziness, why not offer them a chance, a teaser, a taste, an invitation, an idea, a clue? The box carries more positive possibilities than negative ones.

4. INJUSTICE FOR ALL: Wikipedia is like this, yes; we have no idea, without delving into past histories (and why should a user do that indeed ?) about which editor did what. There may by some perceived injustice in this. Nonetheless, this is how things are. We neither own articles, nor do we get some kind of special privilege on article content on account of our "hard work" here. Often, contributors who have worked hard and long on an article view the introduction of a box as something that demeans their work and the content itself. But this is irrelevant to the content (and Wikipedia as such). Someone, from somewhere, having a dozen contributions only, posting anonymously from a small mobile phone, could add some little thing of value to an article we worked two months solid on our PC. Tough - but fully legitimate.

4. TRAVAILS & TRIVIALIZATION: The box is not meant to trivialize either the content of the article or the efforts in creating and shaping it. The crucial point is having the proper infobox in every article and having the right infoboxes available. For this, there's a whole field in Wikipedia where infobox formats and content are continuously debated and presumably improved; also, a project.

5. HAVE BOX. WILL TRAVEL: Not every article needs a box. Not every subject needs a brief. Yet, we should be leaning towards more rather than less use of infoboxes. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)