Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 38

< Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191

WP:OR, WP:SYN in presentation of numeric and algebraic information

I have been on WP for a while, and in that time I have noticed a fair amount of confusion and disagreement about WP:OR, WP:SYN and related issues for numeric information, numeric data, algebraic formulae, calculations, graphs, charts, tables, etc.

However, I was under the impression that simple calculations like converting fractions into percentages for comparison with other percentages is permissable. For example, from Wikipedia:Attribution#What_is_not_original_research.3F:

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.

Nevertheless, I see this results in never ending fights, over and over. For example, if 3 sources give their survey results as percentages and one source gives their survey results as a ratio, surely one is allowed to convert the ratio into a percentage for comparison purposes. However, some dispute this.

Also, suppose a source states that a quantity X of fluid is certain to contain one molecule. Nevertheless, a more thoughtful examination of the problem makes it clear that the quantity X contains at least one molecule. Is this OR to state this correctly, rather than as the source does (presumably because of a typo or slipup)?

Another example is when a source states that a container contains 10 gallons. However, this is only roughly correct, since a more careful but simple calculation shows that the container contains 8.9 gallons. Is it OR to state or note the correct figure?

Another example is when a probability is left out of a calculation. For example, suppose that the source states that one must consume X gallons of a liquid to get at least one molecule of a substance. However, using simple probability, it is clear that consuming X gallons only gives one a chance of 95% of getting one molecule of the substance. It is OR to include the 95%?

Thank you.--Filll (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:OR prohibits the making of simple logical or mathematical deductions - in fact it explicitly permits them. WP:Common sense can clearly be applied in most cases. Particularly when a source is obviously wrong or unclear, and it can be corrected in an equally obvious manner.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I would object to making an edit that claims that the source says something it does not. I would caution to take care to not refactor the quote itself, but to make your synthesis afterwards. Do not for example change 'Foo says "Bar is ten gallons"' to 'Foo says "Bar is 8.9 gallons'; you could however state that 'Foo says "Bar is ten gallons", however it is actually 8.9..." followed by a showing of your math. (Hopefully that made sense...) -- RoninBK T C 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
About the molecules - verifiability VS truth means the sourced info gets in even if it's wrong. Thus WP helps perpetuate mistakes. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not right - WP:V doesn't require that anything must stay in an article. It only says that unverifiable material should stay out. We are expected to exercise editorial judgment by not using sources that consensus of involved editors says is simply incorrect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. But that consensus can be tricky to reach if there are very many sources saying X and few sources saying !X. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Our non-mathematical articles routinely paraphrase sources, indeed extensive quoting is discouraged. A paraphrase may be precise, imprecise, but appropriate ("Smith was an 18th century author" where source says Smith lived from 1750 to 1802) or downright misleading. We make editorial judgement on these issues all the time. There is no difference in mathematical formulas and conversions, except, perhaps, some objective criteria for validity in many situations.--agr (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's OK to make mathematical calculations on the data. When citing this, I would put the source numbers of the calculations in the footnote (or occasionally in a comment hidden by <!-- ---> tags. The actual numbers given by the source documents can be included as part of the citation of the source. As for including incorrect data from source, I would say that this is a big no, for the main article text. Remember that we like to use eeliable sources – if source data is incorrect, then it isn't reliable (for this number). Once again, in various situations, it might be worth commenting that one of the sources is incorrect in a footnote, but in almost all cases, it isn't worth commenting on the error in the main text of the article. Bluap (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's okay for some people to make some simple math calculations on the data. We don't want the classic road example to be inadvertently introduced. (A politician repaints a road over a narrow bridge, going from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. (a 50% increase) Accidents rise, so the road is repainted from 6 lanes to 4. (A 33% decrease.) The politician announces that the bridge is now at 17% greater capacity.) Dan Beale-Cocks 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Assume good faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the change, assumptions made of anyone or anything is to subjective to be more than a guideline. Making a state of mind a policy is unenforceable and therefore essentially useless. --Hu12 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A puzzlement is that if we're supposed to focus on the edits and not on the editor, why is it necessary to assume good faith? Note that not assuming good faith isn't the same as assuming bad faith (WP:NPOV implies that it is, but that's a false dilemma). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
To get back on point (those who think AGF shouldn't even be a guideline are welcome to start a separate thread, preferably at the talk page there) - Wikipedia has only 42 policies, while there are hundreds of guidelines. Given the relative numbers, and the general stability of policies, I suggest that changing a page from a guideline to a policy not be treated casually; at minimum, notification of the planned change belongs on this page before the change occurs, so there can be discussion.
In this case, the page has been reverted back to a guideline, something with which I personally agree. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like it would make more sense for it to be a guideline. Guidelines can have more examples, etc. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB > BOT?

Hi; I use AWB a fair bit, often reaching 6-12 edits per minute. The "rules" section states that accounts making more than a few edits per minute should apply for a bot account - is this necessary in my case, would you say? I mainly just do disambig, typos... that sort of thing. User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope not, cause then every Huggle user and maybe every VandalProof user would need to apply for a bot account. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:05, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I know, that's what struck me as strange :-) User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 09:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say no, your still confirming each edit. If you had a set of rules or regexes for AWB and all you were doing was clicking start, that would be a bot. Visually editing a large number does not in and of itself require a bot. Now if you wanted to write rules and what not to fix disambigs, etc then yes. Also, 6-12 edits a minute, assuming its not being done for like 5 hours straight really shouldn't be an issue. I remember reading that Wiki gets 70,000 edits a day. Might check over at WP:BON if you want a second opinion. MBisanz talk 09:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I wouldn't worry about it, unless and until someone actually raises a complaint about the speed of your edits. The AWB project cautions against making highspeed edits because of the potential stress on the server. (Personally, I look forward to the day that someone accuses me of being a bot.) -- RoninBK T C 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no WP:BOT is policy, and quite clear on the point: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is required if one does 6-12 edits per minute. Even if the end of the requested approval is: you don't need to do anything specific, continue as you are doing not being a bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you (Treasury) doing anything different than Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot? BRFA is so backed up I'm hoping we could IAR is it is. MBisanz talk 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The bot policy covers "Assisted editing tools". If you read that section, it seems to be saying that mass-edits performed with those tools that are generally accepted and benign, such as disambiguating links and making spelling corrections, doesn't require a bot account. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:59, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from that section: "if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request", doing 6-12 edits per minute, is "doubt" (to say the least), so going through the approval process is required. Anyway, the process is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, not here (WP:VPP). This is not the place to ask for exceptions to the WP:BOTS policy, while, apparently, the less "exceptional" road (WP:BRFA) hasn't been tried yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It also says "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." You're lawyering. The spirit of the policy is what's important, not the wording, as polices are not laws. The point is to make sure people don't make possibly-controversial edits en-masse. Disambiguating links and spell-checking is benign, and no specific "exception" needs to be "requested". If the user's edits become a problem, that can be dealt with when the time comes. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:11, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too happy about Treasury's handling of the user:88.108.85.25/King Cobra issue. Thus far Treasury reverted 4 of the 5 edits this anon user made, and placed 4 warnings (up to level 4) on the anon's talk page. As none of Treasury's edit summaries comply to Wikipedia:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes, there's also a distinct WP:BITE issue going on. I'd recommend Treasury to do less edits, and give a bit more attention to explain reverts to newcomers, and over-all be more welcoming to newcomers, for edits that on first sight are maybe a bit ill-advised but are not by far vandalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither am I (happy about his edits), and I as well as a few other users have posted warnings to his talk page. The edit summaries are the result of the anti-vandalism tool he's using, called Huggle, and they normally do conform to guidelines, as they're meant to be posted in the event of reverting blatantly-inappropriate edits. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
So Treasury used huggle to revert non-vandal edits (in which case, as a side-remark, of course huggle doesn't emit proper edit summaries)... Whether this is a request via WP:VPP or via WP:BRFA (which IS the more appropriate place without wikilawyering), the result would be the same: 6-12 edits per minute not allowed for this user under the given circumstances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Not allowed by whom? The edits might be problematic but we're dealing with that. If they continue to be a problem the user will be talked to again about it. This number of edits per-minute you keep quoting doesn't mean anything. Inappropriate edits are a separate issue from bot approval, and will be dealt with as needed. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:00, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Treasury asked a quick decision via VPP, instead of taking time to listen to advise via BRFA. The fast decision was given. If Treasury thinks the decision unfair, here's the place: WP:BRFA.
Not knowing how to use edit summaries is an issue for WP:BRFA.
Here are the essential requirements for bots (per WP:BOT),
Treasury takes allowances for more than one of these requirements. That is not allowed (whether I say so or not). I'm not saying the flaws in Treasury's editing behaviour couldn't improve soon with some proper advise, but there's no pre-emptive just go along behaving like a semi-bot, and we'll see about the behaviour improvement later. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Treasury didn't ask for a decision. He asked for advice. The requirements you list are requirements for an automated bot -- in other words, if you write a program and intend it to run unassisted on Wikipedia, it must meet those criteria. Treasury is using an assisted-editing tool, for which there is a separate section of the BOT policy, and they have nothing to do with the criteria you just listed. Users of assisted-editing tools, if used to make very frequent edits, might need to seek bot approval if making possibly-controversial edits. Reverting vandalism is not controversial -- but it can be problematic if benign edits are being reverted as vandalism (ie. the editor used bad judgment). If that happens, though, it is a separate issue. A user needs to be talked to about their judgment, and possibly even blocked for such a thing eventually; but no one ever needs to apply for a bot account if they frequently revert things as vandalism that are indeed not vandalism. That wouldn't help the situation at all, and it's not the point of bot accounts. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:23, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Equazcion, quit the wikilawyering on Treasury's behalf. This is not the kind of user that should be doing 6-12 edits per minute, until behavior improves. That behavior improvement would maybe not take much time, 24H is maybe enough to see which way this goes. Until then, 6-12 edits per minute are out of the question. The reasoning of what is behind the various sections at WP:BOT is that if you use AWB in non-bot mode, or any other semi-automated tool, responsibly you won't do 6-12 edits per minute on a regular basis (because using your eyes checking the edits supported by AWB and other semi-automated tools, and/or adding a few appropriate words to the edit summary, etc takes more than 5 to 10 secs per edit).
Other users have tried to wikilawyer their way out of doing high speed editing with or without tools, saying they *really* checked their edits before submitting any of them. The current text of WP:BOT is a result of that wikilawyering. It's clear and simple: if there are questions raised: submit a WP:BRFA request. Those assessing such requests have some experience, and would normally give proper advise.
I also think you have a bit of an antiquated view of WP:BRFA requests (that is: a view dating from before requests became recommended for high-speed editing that is not really bot, and also became recommended for requests that from the outset were not intended for a bot flag). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two reasons for the bot approval process. The first is to approve the task, which is not relevant for AWB and kin. The second is to grant a bot flag so that the edits can be filtered from the recentchanges list. That is important even for manually approved edits, and the reason why people who use AWB to make edits at a high sustained rate should set up an alternate account with a bot flag. It's a routine thing to get approval for an AWB account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Still though, this would just be to flag the account so that the edits don't show up in recent changes, and not to approve the task. In other words, if the bot account were refused, the user would still be allowed to make the edits at that speed -- and reverting edits inappropriately would be addressed elsewhere. In yet other words, a bot account is not required in order to make rapid edits -- it just helps (others). Advising rapid editors to request bot accounts isn't a way of overseeing frequent editors, as long as the task doesn't need approval. The task in this case is reverting vandalism, which everyone knows is fine. If there are problems with those reverts, it needs to be addressed elsewhere, and telling the person they need to request a bot account doesn't solve the problem. It just makes the recentchanges list easier to read. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what was unclear in Carl's recommendation "That is important even for manually approved edits, and the reason why people who use AWB to make edits at a high sustained rate should set up an alternate account with a bot flag." So, please Equazcion, quit the wikilawyering, and listen to the advise. WP:BRFA is the more appropriate place for the request, the people there have quite some experience on the matter, and would give proper advise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Kindly stop making accusations. I agree with CBM and did not argue with any of his points. Noting those, the user probably should apply for a bot account -- I don't disagree there. But that is, again, only to make the recentchanges list easier to read, whether the edits are problematic or not. Requiring the user to apply for a bot account is not a solution to bad judgment while editing, even in the case of rapid editors. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:15, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, and maybe I have a bit of a different view (and experience) as Carl's in that respect:
  • Task requests have been submitted with AWB as executive tool (and properly so);
  • The BRFA procedure is free to look into use of edit summaries and the like, and the outcome of the request can be based on such assessment;
  • AWB-based requests are not always granted, Carl's view ("It's a routine thing to get approval for an AWB account") maybe lacks a bit nuance: either the request is granted, either 6-12 edits per minute is advised against during the request procedure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My (our) stance is that a bot request in this situation would not be to ask permission to make rapid edits. It appears you disagree with CBM and I, which is fine. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:31, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I have no problem with that (with agreeing to disagree), but as said, BRFA is the appropriate place, they have the experience. Filing a request includes providing data in this scheme:
Operator: ˜˜˜
Automatic or Manually Assisted:
Programming Language(s):
Function Summary:
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):
Edit rate requested: X edits per TIME
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function Details:
Note the suggestion to provide info on editing rate (which would be 6-12 edits per minute per Treasury's request for advise above), and programming language (which would be AWB, huggle, and/or whatever Treasury feels like). It would be bad advise given to Treasury to suggest leaving fields blank in the proposed application scheme would make a favourable impression on those assessing the request. It is a common reason for turning down requests (my experience). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy on users adding themselves to parent categories?

While users re-adding themselves to deleted categories is one thing, users re-adding themselves to parent categories is quite another. While those diffs are quite old, the user currently remains in the category as discussions on the matter didn't really result in any conclusive remedy. The category was removed, the discussion died down and was archived, and sometime afterward it was re-added. Can the UCFD decision be enforced? If not, what is the point of designating something as a parent category in the first place? On UCFD should we no longer nominate categories to depopulate of individual users? It would indeed seem pointless if it can't be enforced. The arguments made in the above discussion about redlinked categories that the disruption caused by re-adding redlinks is minimal doesn't equally apply to this scenerio, as the category does exist and the category is alive and well in the category tree. I've asked the user to remove himself yet again, which was refused. What recourse? If the answer is do nothing, then that is essentially saying UCFD decisions are not binding. If that's what the community wants, then fine, but let's not pretend they are by keeping the process around. VegaDark (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been going on for over a year now ... both sides of the debate are getting a bit POINTy. Take it to arbitration if you feel strongly about it. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I still maintain UCFD decisions aren't binding. You've spent two years and can't even compose a guideline with more than minority support. Now you're proposing to get even stricter? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
If UCFD decisions aren't binding, then UCFD should be deleted, full stop. —Random832 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Look at it's creation history, it was created in a fit of pique by a CfD admin sick and tired of seeing user issues pop up there. It was not a determined consensus effort. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
So do you at least agree that CFD decisions regarding user categories (prior to splitting off to UCFD) are binding? VegaDark (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a reasonable decision to create a new venue for deletion, renaming, and merging of a type of category that is judged by standards that are vastly different from those that apply to regular categories. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Schmucky, no one has spent two years composing a guideline, and the proposed guideline you're referencing is one that even I opposed. Moreover, one doesn't need a guideline when there is WP:NOT (a policy). Black Falcon (Talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And how to apply NOT to user categories is not a cut and dried issue and there isn't a consensus and every attempt to write a guideline for applying NOT has been discarded. I've written the only consensus statement on user categories to every remain in a guideline at WP:USER. Users don't belong in article categories, work-in-progress articles should be commented out, and user categories should be treated like any other user content - wide discretion for creativity until it becomes polemical or disruptive.
Wikipedia:User categorisation is marked historical and abandoned. It was first attempted as a guideline in 2005. The current attempt at a guideline is at User:Hyacinth/User categories and has no agreement on anything. The only consensus statement about user categories is in WP:USER, which is in the section on how to apply WP:NOT, is a simple statement I wrote in March 2006, [1], explained above.
So yes, for more than two years, almost three, there have been active attempt at defining how user categories should be policed. The current enforcement attitude shown towards user categories (like what started this conversation) shouldn't be occurring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I want to address three points separately: the consensus for WP:NOT, the consensus of individual UCFD discussions, and the failure of attempts to develop a guideline for user categories.
  1. Regardless of your opinion on user categories, surely you will admit that WP:NOT has consensus support, including the provision that Wikipedia is not a MySpace equivalent. Whether that provision applies to certain cases can be disputed, but there can be no question that the principle itself is accepted.
  2. With the possible exception of foundation issues (such as NPOV), consensus is determined in large part by what actually happens. And what has happened for about a year is that a single interpretation of WP:NOT as it applies to user categories has prevailed across more than one thousand CFD discussions involving hundreds of distinct editors. And this interpretation of WP:NOT is that user categories should, in some way, be useful to the encyclopedia; in most cases, this usefulness takes the form of facilitating encyclopedic collaboration. It is an interpretation that has sometimes called for deletion of categories and sometimes for their retention, but it is an interpretation that has been directly or indirectly adopted by most UCFD participants (someone who argues for keeping a category because it's useful is accepting this interpretation just as much as someone who argues for deletion based on a lack of utility).
  3. Previous attempts at specifying guidelines for user categories - there are not as many as you make out to be - failed for the simple reason that they adopted excessively bureaucratic and narrow approaches. (By the way, Wikipedia:User categorisation was a de facto WikiProject to convert lists to categories; it was not a proposed guideline, so that example doesn't really support your argument anyway....)
Returning to the issue that started this thread ... regardless of one's opinions on UCFD, and even putting aside for the moment the CFD closure, what is the justification for keeping a non-category page in a category that exists specifically to be a parent category for other categories only? Black Falcon (Talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Common sense applies here; you're not a "Wikipedian by religion". –Pomte 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Humour? technically it might fall under freedom of religion too, you are whatever faith you choose to be... Lx 121 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how freedom of religion is an issue. No one is trying to prevent SchmuckyTheCat from placing himself in a "X-ian Wikipedians" category; however, he should remove his user page from the "Wikipedians by religion" parent category. By its very name, that category is not intended to contain individual user pages. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly not appropriate for user pages to be in these categories; their entire purpose is to organize other categories (see comment by Pomte above). SchmuckyTheCat should remove his user page from the category. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page of Redirected Pages

Sorry if this is a very simple question but, if I redirect a page, should I clear the talk page of all quality/importance assessment templates, etc.?

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

I usually do remove these templates because they transclude categories which are no longer desired on redirects. If you redirect because you performed a merger, these or similar templates are usually already present on the merger target's talkpage. Be careful to leave non-trivial templates likes peer reviews or oldafds in etc. for the case that the article gets recreated at a latter time. – sgeureka t•c 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fade up

Article Religious violence in India is giving totally one sided and wrong picture of India , So I have started a constructive article at Religious harmony in India and requested every constructive Wikipedian to contribute article

Is it policy problem or policing with some policy I do not know, some people deleted my effort to create an article at Sandbox first then they shifted the same to my personal user space here User:Mahitgar/Religious harmony in India so ,how do I invite other contributors for contributing in to this article at my personal user space?

While I do want to go with rules over here at en wiki , but if a semi regular visitor like me gets baffled while creating new articles here , I wonder what a totally new guy may be facing here while creating his or her first article ! Mahitgar (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox is for everyone to do things like testing, nothing there will last more then a few minutes at the most. You can always ask people to work on article on your userspace, but I think the main problem is that the article doesn't seem very notable or even very neutral. Harmony is basically the lack of actions. If I were you, I'd run it by the folks at WP:India and get their opinion on it. Oberiko (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews vs Wikipedia - the Spitzer example

We have been trying to get people to realize that breaking news belongs on Wikinews and not on Wikipedia. This afternoon's announcement about NY Governor Spitzer has now unleashed a rush to put the latest and most up-to-date "report" in the artcle about him. The problem is that most of this "reporting" has either been factually wrong or is shear speculation... In the last fifteen minutes the article has stated that "it has been reported that" ... "he is expected to resign" (he did not), "he admitted to being involved" (he did not), and has repeated a host of other allegations, speculations and inaccurate statements made by the media. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Here we are, not really knowing all that much about a breaking news event... and everyone wants to write about it. Given that this is a BLP, we MUST be very very careful about what we "report". I really think we need to be strict here. All of this should be directed to Wikinews until we actually know something beyond what was said two minutes ago on whatever news show we happen to be currently watching. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would protecting the page until a formal announcement is made be reasonable in this instance? John Carter (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to keep the page at Semi as long as possible in the spirit of "anyone can edit", but maybe later this evening when there are fewer of us and more of them online, full might be a good idea. MBisanz talk 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it would not. Full protection of a regular article is only acceptable in cases of extreme vandalism or edit warring by established Wikipedians (i.e. those not affected by semiprotection). Under no circumstances is preemptive full protection because there might be "fewer of us and more of them online" appropriate. Mike R (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My point being that later this evening, there may be more extreme vandals and fewer admins to deal with them, which might make full protect a good idea. Then again, there are also likely to be more RS by then, so maybe it won't be needed. MBisanz talk 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Gov. does resign over these allegations, even if true, it would make us, once again, a laughingstock in Europe. Who really cares if he did or not? I myself patronize high price prostitutes and strippers on a regular basis, in addition to having a beautiful wife and a girlfriend as well. Average White Dork (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

John... re your comment... I think the section on the event should be removed and the article fully protected for at least a few hours... just to calm everyone down and make sure that we actually have some perspective on this event. Tell anyone who complains to post to Wikinews. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There is not much of a problem here. The speculation that Spitzer will resign is being reported in many mainstream news sources. Any uncited statements have been quickly removed. We should be proud of how quickly and thoroughly we update our articles when stories break.
Wikinews is different because it allows interviews, original research, investigative journalism, etc. But the existence of Wikinews should not preclude Wikipedia from keeping its articles up to date. Mike R (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I just reviewed the WP:BLP page. While I can and do think that there is more than sufficient cause to add a "breaking news" provision to that page, I can't see anything regarding the extant content which would qualify for removal of the content on that basis of that rule. I am going to post a comment on the BLP page to see if we can create a guideline to deal with similar circumstances in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The "current event" banner has been on the prostitution section [2] for ...um... many minutes now. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike is correct, the job of Wikinews to be able to do synthesis and original research(actually original reporting which is a bit different) shouldn't stop us from updating pages as events occur. Indeed, we are very good at being an update to date source for major events and have been recognized in the news as such for a variety of subjects such as our work with the sinking of the MS Explorer and the Virginia Tech Shootings. There's no good reason to hobble ourselves on what we are good at. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a proposal to change BLP policy to limit notability for living people only to those in paper encyclopedias (copied from BLP talk page)

The reliance of this policy page on Jimbo's thoughts should be zero. He's been more or less caught with unclean hands once again, proving that bios of non-notable people (people not in paper dictionaries) are a CORE problem of Wikipedia. Just by reason of existence. Just by BEING there, they present an unending source of problems (legal, moral, time, money), and an unending source of temptation for those in power. Thus, I propose (for the zillionth time) that we do away with the damn things. Period. No exceptions except for LIVING people famous/notable enough to be in the Britannica, or some other paper encyclopedia. For dead people, this is not a problem, any trivial person has room in Wikipedia, since it's not paper-- who cares?

And by the way, this proposal will fix the problems with Jimbo's bio, also. None of those bad things need go in, however well sourced. Jimbo's bio just won't exist until he gets famous enough to be up in a paper encyclopedia. Which probably won't happen in his life time anyway. SBHarris 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a lovely fantasy but not actually going to happen so is it even worth discussing? --Fredrick day (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, although I can't verify this right now, I am myself virtually certain that Jimbo already does have an entry in a printed encyclopedia or online version of same, or other printed biography. On that basis, the fantasy is also probably based on faulty premises as well. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Cite your source (online only doesn't count, since they're all subject to the same living person notability-creep that WP is). And if so, and he's up in paper, no problem, he can stay in the WP. And be subject to the viciscitudes of being hounded by the tabloids. But other less famous people won't be here, and thus they won't be here to tempt people at WP to take cash or sex, to fix up their look. Nor will they be subject to meanspirited editing by anonymous people who have no idea what's it like to be targetted by the press-- until it happens to them. Seriously folks, this is one of two or three major moral/ethical problems facing Wikipedia right now. If you/we screw it up, you/we will deserve what we get. SBHarris 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
well take it to the relevent policy page then. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello? This IS one of those pages. Its THE BLP policy page if there IS one. The BLP rules, which CONSTITUTE the policy, are the main article that this is the TALK page for. Those rules need major modification. We reach concensus for it HERE. SBHarris 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This page mainly cover the how/how not it does not really concern itself too much with the why (at least that's my reading of the page), which is why I'm suggested that you proposal would be more suited to here. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Responding to earlier comments, it is more than presumptuous to demand a person cite a source to justify existing content to fit a policy proposal which doesn't even exist yet, isn't it? Having said that, check the October 2006 Current Biography. Out of idle curiosity, do you have any idea just how many such biographical dictionaries exist? John Carter (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not proposing "biographical dictionaries" or Who's Who or whatever your favorite bio source is. I am proposing paper encyclopedia deliberately so that it limits things to the REALLY famous, and also draws a bright line which is easy. There aren't many of THESE. And they all have strict space problems. Thus, they don't pick semi-notable sports figures, actors, business people, and so on. The Britannica didn't even HAVE living bios until 1911, which was a century and a half after it was founded. And you can bet that those it had were more famous than are 99% of the people bio'd in WP. The other reason to suggest paper, is so we don't get the famous "Clinton" or "Bush" defense of BLP policy. You can still write nasty-but-verifiable things about famous politicians, if that gets you off. And yes, I'll copy this to the PUMP. SBHarris 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And you limit them so that they exclude people who have become famous recently, regardless of how famous they are. Let's tie our hands so we have to sit around and wait for the paper encyclopedias to update to cover someone recently famous. Sounds like a brilliant idea. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, plus why would we want to become subservient to the POV of a paper encyclopaedia. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If that is your proposal, then it is incumbent upon you to define the terms of your definition. Frankly, I cannot imagine that you will ever be able to do so, even to your own satisfaction. And I note that, in the process of copying this, you eliminated my comment which indicates that there are roughly 13,247 encyclopediae in the possession of the various colleges in Missouri, as per here, and even 2185 in the possession of the library of St. Louis County, Missouri here. The Library of Congress stops at 10000 as per here. Personally, I think that this proposal, if it is to have any chance of success whatsoever, should be placed on a separate proposal page, where the various issues I have to imagine the proposer still hasn't reasonably considered would be ironed out. Having said that, however, I honestly can't imagine it has a snowball's chance. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Look at your own entries. Of those last 2000, 500 of them are encyclopedias of home video movies. How many are paper general encyclopedias, which is what I propose? Not many. And once again, I'm making this proposal so WE don't have to fight about who is "notable" enough to be here, since it's totally unanswerable, and fundamentally corrupting. We just have to let a very few sources, who already have terrible space and money problems, do picking for us. So you'll get your Bush and Clinton, but you won't get your Wales or Siegenthaler or Rachel Marsden or Daniel Brandt or Seth Finkelstein or Jeff Merkey or anybody else who's caused endless trouble which all could totally have been avoided. If you can find any of them in any general encyclopedia in your list, I'll eat my hat. SBHarris 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Congress stops at 10000 encyclopedia here. Like I said, you still haven't clearly defined your own, at best nebulous, terms for inclusion. Until you do so, I really can't see any good purpose for discussing a proposal which also clearly violates other extant policy. I suggest that you spend a bit more time thinking this idea through, and create a separate page for it, where the details of the proposal can be thought through. Even then, though, as it does conflict with other extant policy, I don't think it has much any, if any, chance. And the New York Public Library has 4284 printed circulating encyclopediae here, 6916 printed noncirculating encyclopediae here. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Printed. General topic. Encyclopedia. (limited topic things are not really "encyclopedias", are they, despite what they're called). "Circulating or not" is irrelevant. Now, what don't you still understand about the proposal? SBHarris 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So, basically, for your now developing definition, there are questions of how we define an encyclopedia. Right now, your definition seems to fairly clearly violate OR, like it already violates several other policies. Maybe, when you've decided just how you are going to specifically define your terms, so that we have a clearer idea how many policies would have to be changed for it, it might make sense to discuss. Until then, though, ... John Carter (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On a practical note, how are we supposed to verify that a person is included in a paper encyclopedia? A brand new copy of the 2008 World Book costs about US$1000 (Britannica is more). Not the kind of thing an average person would buy or an average public library is going to update more than once per decade. There's an online version for only $50/year (why would I pay to use an encyclopedia to write a free encyclopedia?), but reading above, that doesn't count. This is far too impractical to be workable. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You have the same problem quoting items from old newpapers on microfilm or in the stacks of your library. If you don't want to make the effort, you should be doing it. If people were complaining about the high cost in time and effort to dig up stuff about YOU, Mr. Z-man, you'd understand the argument immediately and completely. As it is, use your imagination some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbharris (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
would you like to check the attitude at the door and stick to your proposal rather than engaging in personal attacks on the editors debating it with you. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This wouldn't make it just difficult, this would make it prohibitive. I don't quite see the connection to microfilm/old newspapers. Yes, that's difficult, but we don't require microfilm references for anything. I do think we accept far too much in terms of BLPs, but this is way too far in the other direction. I think we'd be doing a great disservice to our readers if we only had bios on dead people and major world leaders. Mr.Z-man 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem (as I've also raised on the parallel BLP talk page discussion) is that for this proposal to be at all meaningful, it would encompass all statements made about any living person in any article; it wouldn't just limit the number of biographical articles. So Wikipedia could not mention Jimbo Wales. An article on the New York Yankees could not mention any player or manager that did not have their own article in some print encyclopedia somewhere. An article on a country, city, or other political subdivision could not mention any office-holders that print encyclopedias had not bothered to document. The article on George W. Bush could not mention Jenna Bush. It would eviscerate just about every article dealing with any contemporary subject, business, culture, politics, etc., if only the most famous people (as some print encyclopedia has arbitrary determined based on size limitations) could be mentioned or discussed in relation to that topic. Postdlf (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to give up the extraneous mention stuff and let it remain. As it is, it's subject to a notability criterion very much like what has been suggested alterntively for BLPs--you can only include stuff that would remarkable on its own, if it didn't involve the subject. Thus, no bios of kids of famous people, if they wouldn't have done anything to be famous on their own. Can we even mention them? Perhaps just the names. Not the birthdays and not the social security numbers. And those for the same reason. You don't (or should not have to) give up your privacy just because your parent is famous. SBHarris 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I find many of the objections to this proposal a little weird. It would be pretty easy to come up with an exhaustive list of encylopaedias that could be used for this policy. As for the suggestion that it violates current policy, of course it does - that's why it needs to be proposed and discussed. That's how policy is changed. I find User:Postdlf's point to be an excellent one (I think that this proposal, if implemented, would result in a lot of BLP-creep into other articles, and not really solve all the issues that User:Sbharris is hoping) but I don't really think it's enough on which to scuttle the proposal. So I'm not going to dance around: I oppose this proposal just because I think that there should be room in a non-paper encyclopaedia for living people who are insufficiently notable to make it into paper encyclopaedias. I recognize that this can cause problems, and there are things we can do to mitigate these problems (automatic semi-protection of BLPs, for example, and a broadened policy on whose biographies get deleted upon request). But this proposal goes too far and would do too much damage to the encyclopaedia's content. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the exhaustive list of GENERAL PAPER encyclopedias would be a very short one. The lists you see above include "Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Collectors" and "Encyclopedia of Wood Paint Coverings" and stuff like that. Nearly all of it is totally irrelevant, yet it's being put up as a problem with my proposal. Evidently by people would couldn't even bother to check the content of their searches. And who are nevertheless wanting to be the bio scholars on other people's lives. What's wrong with this picture? SBHarris 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the idea that a list of such encyclopediae would be fairly easy to generate, I would have to say that I think there would be major disagreements, given the number of such books throughout the world, but I'll let that ride. I note the local libraries, for instance, have encyclopediae of mythology, which I'm assuming wouldn't qualify, and thus potentially endanger a lot of content related to that subject, as the more direct sources might be harder to find. It also has encyclopediae of Louisville and Indianapolis, which, if mythology were to qualify, would probably qualify as well. I do find the idea of automatic semi-protection of BLPs an interesting one, though, and wouldn't mind seeing that implemented. Has it ever been proposed before? John Carter (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A silly and unworkable idea. Paper encyclopaedias, because of limited space, choose to exclude people who would warrant a position for practical reasons. People who have worked in them (I have) know in practice that perfectly valid entries get dropped with the response of "we really should have X in, but we haven't the room". Why should Wikipedia, which doesn't have the same space limitations, follow that rule? FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be an awful idea; it is unclear what would constitute a person who would be in a paper encyclopedia. And the vast majority of BLPs are perfectly fine. The cliche is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; this would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then sterilizing the parents. I've suggested before that we consider a specific policy of courtesy deletions for marginal notable people and what might be a reasonable standard for that. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. One standard discussed there is allowing courtesy deletions of someone if they are not a willing public figure. As I note in that essay, Durova has proposed the standard of "delete if deletion is requested and would not be in a paper encyclopedia" - this is a standard which is far weaker than that proposed above and even that does not fit with our current deletion practices in that it would delete many articles which the community has decided are definitely notable enough to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP notability standards for contentious facts

Split from the above section; and I suggested this on the BLP talk page. Wouldn't this solve a great many problems outright?

To avoid problems, wouldn't it be just easier to enforce notability standards to any possibly contentious material? In other words, if Lawrence Cohen (me) was notable for whatever previous reasons, and got accused of incident x, that it can't be mentioned in the article about Lawrence Cohen unless that factoid(s) was reported by multiple non-trivial sources? Lawrence § t/e 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's already nominally the policy, no? "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." What would you see as the difference between this policy and your proposal? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The present policy is subject to endless gaming. As in, somebody gives your on-line chat logs about sex to AP news, which prints them. Now what? My answer: we shouldn't even have to be deciding, unless it's the president of the country. And maybe not even then. SBHarris 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Notable is notable. We are servants and subordinate to NPOV as limited by BLP. Lawrence § t/e 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Simple. Let's say a newspaper like Rocky Mountain Daily News publishes some unpleasant fact about Lawrence Cohen, or that I would not like to see on my Wikipedia bio. If it's sourced, and it's a good RS, then, hey great--under the current system, we included it. Under my revised idea, anything contentious or negative has to basically be notable on its own, as an event or fact. Let's say I was a local mayor of Somewhere, Montana (to crib from a current real governor in New York). I get busted for soliciting a prostitute. Rocky Mountain Daily News reports this. Great--include it, under our current standards. It would be due at least one sentence. Under this new idea, unless "multiple", "non-trivial" sources covered my arrest, we can remove it with no problems and use that to keep BLPs from becoming a coat-rack of every one-off negative event that people have in their lives. It's basically to give BLP more teeth.Lawrence § t/e 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E would apply. If you are notable for something else and some minor incident occurs that makes the news, it would be undue weight to give it much more than a passing mention, if that. If its reported in multiple major sources it should get more weight. If you aren't notable for anything else, and the Podunk Times reports that you were arrested on a minor offense, that would not be enough coverage for BLP1E. Mr.Z-man 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) However, it's currently accepted that one-off mentions are included for various little foibles, for example. If I were a British rock star and a London paper reported I was photographed doing lines of cocaine off the buttocks of my girlfriend Some UK fashion model, then someone would add a one-line note to my bio. And to be honest, it wouldn't be generally contested. Applying a very, very basic and simple notability test to contentious/negative facts in existing BLP articles would be a pad lock on doing harm. To do this, all we need to do is change this line in BLP

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

To...

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research), or is not itself covered by several non-trivial reliable sources that are independent of each other.

...thats it. That way, it means that only events that more than one indepent source cover is worthy to include. Simple, easy. Lawrence § t/e 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • How in the WORLD are you going to find out if the sources are independent in the true sense of the word? Just because they don't mention each other doesn't mean that somebody hasn't read the papers or talked to somebody who's read the papers. And I have people complaining that my paper general encyclopedia standard is too hard to verify. Come on! SBHarris 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Er... easily. Independent = you can't source to the New York Post three times for one allegation, or three times to The Register. However, if the New York Post, The Register, and the LA Times all report a given negative fact or allegation, you're good to include it. I'm not saying we need to go and interview newspaper editors to ensure they've never done lunch with another editor, or to follow financial trails and make sure Rupert Murdoch doesn't own all the papers in question. And please calm down. For whatever reason you sound hysterical today posting on BLP matters. Lawrence § t/e 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
See UPI, AP, Reuters International... SBHarris 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see them. If the three major wire services on the planet all carry a story and fact about a BLP, we'd look foolish not to include it in the article. That's not what my proposal addresses. Lawrence § t/e 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Requiring multiple reliable sources to mention a contentious fact is one thing; requiring multiple such sources to non-trivially cover it sets the bar much too high and violates WP:NPOV. Besides, notability guidelines do not and should not directly limit article content. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Extensive discussion on this can be found here on the BLP talk page. Lawrence § t/e 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_38&oldid=1142561213"