Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
Incidentally, &Delta, you really should remove the Wikipedia logo from your self-hosted mirrors of those deleted pages. Unlike user-contributed article content, which is freely licensed, [[:File:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png|the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted and a protected trademark]]. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
Incidentally, &Delta, you really should remove the Wikipedia logo from your self-hosted mirrors of those deleted pages. Unlike user-contributed article content, which is freely licensed, [[:File:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png|the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted and a protected trademark]]. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
of course i've heard of 'peer reviewed' journals but they are controlled by the same conventional bureaucratic paper pushing unimaginative overly conservative dogmatic loving MIC obedient goons as Wikipedia 'employs'. no offense intended. sheep. they're all obedient sheep .. as far as the logo is concerned, i'm not financed by Microsoft or other multinational thug-company of the MIC. i cannot afford a decent html editor that does not record key strokes and send them off to big brother. if Wikipedia sues, i have no assets. MSU does not endorse any page it hosts regardless of content. there is no point in 'going after me'; i'm not scared or threatened by your posturing. your condescending comments are not appreciated. i suggest, for the sake of science, you put Micheal_space back up and qualify it up the wazoo if you need (put a 1000 banners warning "speculation" or "nutcase" or whatever you want..) .. if you look carefully, there are Many many pages on Wikipedia that contain 'original content'. Micheal_space happens to be both original - and correct.[[User:&Delta|&Delta]] ([[User talk:&Delta|talk]]) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:04, 25 February 2009
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
Improving Wikipedia's credibility
- Merged to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - please avoid Wikipedia:Multiposting
82.6% of articles put up for deletion were by new users
After a couple of months of compiling data, I finally finished the first section of my research: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, thanks to a dozen admins who gave me a copy of the deleted material. I found what many article squadron members already know, that our current deletion policy overwhelmingly effect new users:
- 31 out of 98 articles, nearly one third, which were put up for deletion were created by editors whose very first contributions was the new article.
- 66 out of 98 articles, 67%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 100 contributions or less when they created the article.
- 81 out of 98 articles, 82.6%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 1000 contributions or less when they created the article.
Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users? Ikip (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can start by compiling similar statistics for earlier points in time (say, November 15 of 2007, 2006, and 2005). My impression is that the majority of deleted articles have always been by new and anonymous users -- by the time you've accumulated a few hundred edits, you've got a feel for what sorts of articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was going to say. It stands to reason that the people most likely to have their articles deleted are those who are least likely to understand the project. The drop in editing since 2007 has a lot more to do with the fact that the "main encyclopedia" is done. There really are only major paths to editing right now: improving existing core articles, which not nearly as many people have the patience for, or creating pop culture articles, which are by far the most likely to face deletion. Resolute 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I find it very important that wikipedia retains editors.
- I am troubled by what you say Resolute, because I think there is so much more we can write about. Ikip (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- With no bar to article entry, in addition to the lack of a bar to editor entry which makes us something of a laughing stock already, I'm not sure we'd have enough of a reputation left as anything that might possibly resemble the shadow of an encyclopedia. So what about retaining readers? Is that important too? Or are we just hoping to coddle authors so they'll feel fuzzy inside and get to have their work appear online for no one to read? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:28, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- The "main encyclopedia" is done? What a let down. Here I thought I was contributing to a paperless encyclopdia that was stiving to collect the sum of human knowledge? Its done? Human knowledge has ceased? With each new day there is nothing more to learn or share? The "main encyclopedia" is done? Wow. No wonder new editors are discouraged. Why not post a notice on the Main Page? Main Encyclopedia Is Done. Please wait for the next encyclopedia. Inexperienced editors need not apply. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- He didn't mean that literally. That's why it's in quotes. The point is that of course there'll be an observable drop-off in editing over time for an encyclopedia. There was a very large blank slate to fill before, and now there's not. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- At that we disagree. There is so much more Wikipedia can be. To even consider that in a world of growing population and history and events unfolding before our eyes that there should be a "slow down" seems add odds to what Wiki's potential is. We should be continually expanding it... unless we have finally run out of paper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- We are continually expanding. I don't disagree with that. Nevertheless there can never be enough current topics available at a given time to equal the amount that needed to be created to cover history. A drop-off was inevitable, and is for any similar record of information. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:42, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- At that we disagree. There is so much more Wikipedia can be. To even consider that in a world of growing population and history and events unfolding before our eyes that there should be a "slow down" seems add odds to what Wiki's potential is. We should be continually expanding it... unless we have finally run out of paper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- He didn't mean that literally. That's why it's in quotes. The point is that of course there'll be an observable drop-off in editing over time for an encyclopedia. There was a very large blank slate to fill before, and now there's not. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- The "main encyclopedia" is done? What a let down. Here I thought I was contributing to a paperless encyclopdia that was stiving to collect the sum of human knowledge? Its done? Human knowledge has ceased? With each new day there is nothing more to learn or share? The "main encyclopedia" is done? Wow. No wonder new editors are discouraged. Why not post a notice on the Main Page? Main Encyclopedia Is Done. Please wait for the next encyclopedia. Inexperienced editors need not apply. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- With no bar to article entry, in addition to the lack of a bar to editor entry which makes us something of a laughing stock already, I'm not sure we'd have enough of a reputation left as anything that might possibly resemble the shadow of an encyclopedia. So what about retaining readers? Is that important too? Or are we just hoping to coddle authors so they'll feel fuzzy inside and get to have their work appear online for no one to read? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:28, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was going to say. It stands to reason that the people most likely to have their articles deleted are those who are least likely to understand the project. The drop in editing since 2007 has a lot more to do with the fact that the "main encyclopedia" is done. There really are only major paths to editing right now: improving existing core articles, which not nearly as many people have the patience for, or creating pop culture articles, which are by far the most likely to face deletion. Resolute 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the drop of in article creation have more with our structure than with available topics. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans. The slowdown of article creation is caused by a tendency to delete red links and to favor links to broad topics. Taemyr (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Editors should be encourged to create articles for those redlinks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- There was once a need to create articles about all the presidents of the united states. Now there's not. There was once the need to create articles about every Hollywood celebrity. Now there's not. Sports players. Now there's not. I could go on. These all needed to be created at one point, and now they don't. An overall drop-off in creation will be observed. Your point might also play a part, but Resolute's is a solid fact of logic. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:02, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- With repects, I disagree. History is a changing and mutable beast. Okay, about the presidents. At best, barring deaths, we'd have a new article every 4 years. But celebrities, authors, filmmakers, scientists, musicians, sports figures, political and religious leaders, etc, etc... there are continued worlds of information to be captured within these electronic pages. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, continued. I don't contend that. It still accounts for a predictable dropoff. Unless you're saying that in 2007 enough new celebrities emerged to equal the total number that existed prior throughout history. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:26, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely there are new articles about people being created all the time, and many of them are notable. What I meant by the "core encyclopedia" are the traditional encyclopedic concepts. By and large, those topics all exist now, often in fairly good states. Wikipedia's growth to 2007 was driven by the need to fill those topics in along with the expected creation of pop culture, recent history and "in the news" topics. Far fewer people have the desire to work on the "nuts and bolts" of an article - adding citations, prose expansion, doing the core research to fill out the topic. At this stage of Wikipedia's life, that is the type of editor in greatest need, imnsho. The decline in editing activity is not really a concern in my view, as I do not see a decline in quality at this point. Resolute 18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- With repects, I disagree. History is a changing and mutable beast. Okay, about the presidents. At best, barring deaths, we'd have a new article every 4 years. But celebrities, authors, filmmakers, scientists, musicians, sports figures, political and religious leaders, etc, etc... there are continued worlds of information to be captured within these electronic pages. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Roughly every other article that I created was nominated for deletion at one point. About 10-15 percent got deleted. If I haven't been persistent about defending them, more would end up deleted. That is quite a frustrating experience for an editor, that when you contribute, someone comes and puts a del tag, instead of trying to improve it. Problem is the dominance of controlling mentality over contributing among a number of editors. Also, deletion discussions drain so much energy that could be focused on article creation/improvements. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- That and posting obnoxious messages everywhere to try and propaganda people into supporting a particular side, rather than making a point in the designated forum like a mature adult and then shutting the fuck up. Not you anon. They know who they are. (that being another problem mentality, in addition to what you mentioned) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:51, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- To make sense of this I would have to see the percentages of articles not nominated for deletion; otherwise these are useless statistics. Most of my articles used to be nominated for deletion. They were plenty notable, it was just the hovering cloud of overeager new article patrollers. Then I learned to use the {{inuse}} tag, also not to save my articles until I added a few sources. It's kind of a vetting or hazing process. There are a huge number of very notable subjects untreated on Wikipedia. One that comes to mind are major corporations of the world. There are established, publicly traded companies with thousands or even tens of thousands of employees, a billion dollars a year in sales, leaders in their industry, etc., that don't even have an article. Every once in a while I still get a notability tag or even a deletion nomination when I creat one because someone is too lazy to check google. I usually just remove the tags per IAR.Wikidemon (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- But User:212.200.243.17, you complain about putting the del tag instead of trying to improve it -- the problem is this. No one can know for every article if something is appropriate for existing on WP. That's why AFD exists in the first place. So either someone, normally in good faith, puts a del tag, or they let it exist here when it's not supposed to. Saying that "they should try to improve it" makes NO sense when they ARE trying to improve WP as a whole by getting rid of the article. Your complaint is especially groundless since you don't say what sort of articles you're adding. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate statistic would be this: how many articles are proposed for deletion? How many did get deleted? If Deleted/Proposed is low number, then something needs to be done so that many useless deletion discussions are avoided. If Deleted/Proposed is closer to 1, then deletion process already works fine. In my experience, D/P is about .3, and therefore far from efficient or just. ps. Deleted number should NOT include articles which were successfully recreated or renamed/redirected to new titles. pps. I know some articles are kept because RS are found in deletion discussions and therefore argument that deletions resulted in better articles, but finding those on talk pages would be less stressful. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Without knowing *what* was deleted or the quality of the material that was deleted, the numbers are meaningless. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. If something is deleted, and then successfully recreated, that means improvement in the first place would be more appropriate. If something is proposed for deletion but not deleted, that means proposal could have been replaced with the effort on improvement, or was not justified in the first place. I am not questioning here deleted articles, but articles which are proposed for deletion and don't get deleted and where AfDs mainly waste time of wiki editors. Numbers are useful to measure the 'efficiency' of the deletion process. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Measuring the size of deleted articles would also be useful statistics, as would be the number of the references/sources in the given article at that time. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the original question "Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users?", I'm troubled that your stats don't even come close to allowing you to do that. Not least, you have given us nothing on the distribution of number of users into the three categories you've selected - it may well be that more than 82% of users have less than 1000 articles, in which case such users suffer fewer AfD deletions per user than do more experienced users. Neither do you look ay PROD and speedy deletions. But more bluntly, there appears to be an implicit assumption that newbies are maltreated because they are newbies, rather than that articles are deleted because they're not salvageable. So, the figures, on a small sample, are interesting but not illuminating. You'd have to do qualitative work on actual articles rather than statistical work on a subset of deletions before you could hope to draw conclusions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- "rather than that articles are deleted because they're not salvageable." This is a values judgment, which is fraught with much more controversy than what I have presented thus far. Ikip (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:AFD 100 days may be of interest. MBisanz talk 13:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! It's awesome statistics. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, I posted this message also at: WT:Articles for deletion. It is facinating how both postings take a different path. Ikip (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! It's awesome statistics. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another question to ask is, out of those deleted articles, how many, giving as far a fair chance as possible, should have been keep or at worst redirected? How many of those were true vanity articles that should have been CSD'd or PROD'd? Obviously the numbers will vary depending on your opinion, but I'm sure there's enough outsider points to figure some parts out. And then the other question to ask: how many articles were created by new users with the same number of edits that have been kept in the same time period? If 98 articles out of 200 created were put to AFD, that's one problem. If 98 articles out of 2000-5000 were, that's less an issue. --MASEM 14:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd considered conducting a similar line of research, but the complexity meant that I wasn't inclined to tackle it just yet. :) The biggest problem you face is showing that these new editors would have continued to edit had their pages not been nominated for deletion. A qualitative study might be the most revealing approach, but it would be tricky at best. If, on the other hand, you were to take a quantitative approach you would need multiple groups. I'd look at four groups just as an initial trial: new editors who had pages nominated, but where the page survived; new editors who had pages nominated, and the pages were deleted; new editors who didn't have their pages deleted; and new editors who didn't create new pages. This might make the data more interesting, and give a few comparisons which might be of interest. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have to be careful when drawing inferences from statistics... for example, one could just as easily look at the statistics quoted above and ask the question: "Why has the quality of new users declined so much since the good old days?" (ie drawing the inference that all these deletions are due to a sudden influx of really bad editors, and that new users wrote much better articles "back in the day"). Not that I am asking this... just saying that one could. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- How many of our existing long standing Wikipedia articles were created by new users is what we should be asking. I would gladly delete 50 articles if it meant we got one keeper. Chillum 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is very important to be kind to new users, so that we can keep growing our community. Making deletion processes less harsh is one way to do that. But I have to say the title is rather misleading: most people with 100-1000 edits are not "new users" at all, they're just ordinary occasional contributors, so I'd consider the 67% figure more accurate. rspεεr (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- 100-1000 occasional here, just to back up "data" with "anecdote". ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Uploading a copy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 bills
Does wikipedia allow pdf uploads of government bills? Is it suggested? I would like to upload a copy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 bills to Wikipedia. I'm aware that Wikisource has them, but I would like to upload the actual pdfs from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/ Official Bill]. Please let me know if this would be allowed or discouraged.Smallman12q (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is allowed, but even so, WikiSource would be the better place for these, no sense being redundant. I would probably recommend deletion at a File-for-deletion discussion because of the redundancy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't host external documents in PDF or any other format. They would probably be deleted. If you want to refer to the document, just interwiki link to the Wikisource page. Dcoetzee 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Wikipedia doesn't host external documents in PDF or any other format.? You can upload external documents. I'm looking for a policy link mainly.Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can, it'll let you, but you shouldn't. References are stored on other sites and referenced by Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not store its own references. It only stores information displayed directly in articles, and there are very few PDFs uploaded. Dcoetzee 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware there are few pdfs, but I'm mainly looking for a policy link that says I should or shouldn't. (This isn't just for me, I've noticed other people interested in uploading pdfs related to bills as the government has a habit of moving them around breaking links.Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess for me the question is what the purpose is. Uploading a bill itself does not serve any obvious purpose that I can see. It isn't encyclopedic content by itself. Used as part of an article, it would be better, imo, to use excerpts and discuss the bill itself, linking to the wikisource copy for those that wish to read it in its entirety. Resolute 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are people who question references from the bill and there are others who would like to read it but are for some reason or other reluctant to go to a 3rd party link.Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- The closest thing I could find to relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Text_files. Dcoetzee 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are people who question references from the bill and there are others who would like to read it but are for some reason or other reluctant to go to a 3rd party link.Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess for me the question is what the purpose is. Uploading a bill itself does not serve any obvious purpose that I can see. It isn't encyclopedic content by itself. Used as part of an article, it would be better, imo, to use excerpts and discuss the bill itself, linking to the wikisource copy for those that wish to read it in its entirety. Resolute 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware there are few pdfs, but I'm mainly looking for a policy link that says I should or shouldn't. (This isn't just for me, I've noticed other people interested in uploading pdfs related to bills as the government has a habit of moving them around breaking links.Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can, it'll let you, but you shouldn't. References are stored on other sites and referenced by Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not store its own references. It only stores information displayed directly in articles, and there are very few PDFs uploaded. Dcoetzee 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Wikipedia doesn't host external documents in PDF or any other format.? You can upload external documents. I'm looking for a policy link mainly.Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikisource wouldn't really be third party. As for why they would be reluctant to go to a third party link, I have to say that really isn't Wikipedia's problem. We need only to source info to what we consider a reliable source. It is up to the individual to judge the accuracy of that source. From my POV, such an upload would fall foul of WP:NOT#IINFO. Resolute 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the WP:NOT policy should be changed to reflect that government documents/congressional bills are not to be uploaded. I'm mainly looking for a particular, concise line that says "it is not(or it is) acceptable to upload congressional bills).Smallman12q (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's rather clear from Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (#3 lists laws as an example, and states "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia.") and Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Postdlf (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the WP:NOT policy should be changed to reflect that government documents/congressional bills are not to be uploaded. I'm mainly looking for a particular, concise line that says "it is not(or it is) acceptable to upload congressional bills).Smallman12q (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:WPS refers to quotes...not uploaded material. And even then...it says that "omplete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource"...can that be interpreted as uploading a copy of the bill? And well, Wikisource's inclusion policy at Wikisource's inclusion policy states Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text. How do I interpret that? WP:NOTMIRROR states complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Does that include uploads? Perhaps as of now I believe there needs to be a policy change or a guideline of some sort created.Smallman12q (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- It probably should be noted that the bill is already on WikiSource. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- It does include uploads; uploads should be used in articles, as part of the encyclopedia content, not just as references. See also the link I gave above, which is specifically about uploads. Dcoetzee 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- It says However, most PDFs should be converted into wikitext. Source documents should be uploaded to Wikisource instead. So I take it, I can upload the actual pdf to wikisource? Well two questions...can I use a transkwiki link to link it back here and I can't seem to find the actual pdf uploaded on wikisource as you(the text is up yes, but not the actual bill with the scrawly handwriting=P).Smallman12q (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't know - I'd check with Wikisource. They might have rules against redundant documents, or they might encourage it. And yes, you can always use a transwiki link to reference a source in Wikisource. Dcoetzee 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- It says However, most PDFs should be converted into wikitext. Source documents should be uploaded to Wikisource instead. So I take it, I can upload the actual pdf to wikisource? Well two questions...can I use a transkwiki link to link it back here and I can't seem to find the actual pdf uploaded on wikisource as you(the text is up yes, but not the actual bill with the scrawly handwriting=P).Smallman12q (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
What purpose is served by having the pdf files is not served by having the text alone? 121.72.165.27 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well it would mainly be to have a copy of the official bill. Plus a pdf is more convenient than source wiki.Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It is worth holding on to...
I see this guy on TV recycling plastic. At the same time I am thinking "After all the searching and complaining I did, they still deleted the Astrosociology article". Foolishly I thought, "If only I knew someone who was an absolute authority on this psychology.." and Pat, this crazy recycling guy on the TV, he was saying "... but it's well worth holding on to..." When hard drive space was awfully limited the wiki wanted to, "collect the sum of human knowledge", which is the total amount of it but these days we often say, "But this bit is black and that bit is white. If it doesn't impress me formidably, it is not even getting in the door. In fact, place a few boots around to help it on its way out." Astrosociology is a waste of space beside the Rouge Cabal and the WikiGnome. But hey! We have a policy here that if something is real enough, actually exists in truth, a part of knowledge, we can shelve and keep that info in some way to protect it, on display for all time, right? There will be obscure stuff on the wiki, even stuff with the tag "This may never be proven to be entirely accurate, complete or unbiased", right? No way! Delete all info of moderate esteem! This is a system of dependence on social hierarchy and if you do not excel, we cannot cope with you! Limited worthy sources? Limited number of active proponents? Ptah! Remove that crap! We do not deal with an unnaproved content in any way and we mean it. ~ R.T.G 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Try WP:ARTICLERESCUE. Currently, Wikipedia requires that its articles have some notability, and hence a not notable article will be unable to garner support. What you can do is userfy it, and expand the article in your userspace before trying to post it back out.Smallman12q (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- While I'm an inclusionist, proponents of the "Wikipedia is not paper" viewpoint frequently fail to see the real cost that articles contrary to our goals have on maintenance, navigation, reverting vandalism, and other human factors. This is the real cost that would have to be addressed in any plan to keep such articles around. Dcoetzee 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I
do notunderstand the "Wikipedia is not paper" ideabutisn't it fair to say that, regardless of the fact that truly unsuitable articles exist, those which are disputed in value when brought to light are often not dealt with at all and subject to summary deletion? There is an area in that, of course, that articles could cross over into misinformation. Is it necessary to banish all (or any) articles of low notability unless the information be construed as possibly misleading? I cannot say the rate, but it is fair to say that many obscure topics are subject to total exclusion with low tolerance. There is no guideline to say that no article should be deleted unless appears misleading, is there? Low notability articles can hardly bring the wiki into great disrepute but the offence is, perhaps, often classed alongside misinformation. While the problem of misinformation would prevent our goals, is the problem of low notability a minor implication? Seems to be, in some points, a popularity competition. Is that a help or a hinderance? Could we have a guideline that low notability is a weak objection to the inclusion of an article? ~ R.T.G 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I
- Low notability is indeed a much weaker argument against inclusion than misinformation, a hoax, or an utterly useless article. One can imagine a Wikipedia where consensus is in favor of including all verifiable topics, no matter how non-notable they may be. However, I believe the current consensus represents the (albeit unsubstantiated) position that the human cost to maintenance and navigation exceeds the value provided by such articles to a small number of potential readers. Dcoetzee 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is there room for a guideline on the subject of Exclusion from, or, Lesser requirement for notability? At present the guidelines say the obvious, stuff you made up yourself, like a new drinking game, is not notable. In the example of Astrosociology (undeletion request), it was a topic covered by old NASA guidebooks and a few modern cultural books but the major proponent, a travelling lecturer in the subject, was the main basis through the article. He has not made any Laws of Physics revelations or started any new cultural revolutions. He is a professor and appears the highest regard in the subject, on a mission(?) to revamp it with various international lecture spots and is often hosted by the AIAA. It is listed on http://www.sociology.org.uk/clink.htm?laper.htm and has various other minor points of notability. But this and other stuff was deemed to be non notable, original research dating only a few years serving to advertise some one persons notability. No provision was found to lower the bar of notability beyond what people in the discussion wanted which was mainstream sociology (the bar pinnacle, no?) and therefore it would have to go. To be fair, awareness that the world is round and anticipation of extra-terrestrial contact might never be (return to IMO) mainstream but will always be an interesting topic of minor value, won't it? Perhaps this example in particular would be of great interference to sociology or was too biased but would other examples benefit a guideline on accepting minor notability? ~ R.T.G 15:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I have a current example of the possible problem. An article which I would suggest merging, only 2 days old, is up for speedy deletion within the same minute at which it was created, with general notability tags. In the template is written "Article about the events of a non-notable gambling website". The guy is refering to Full Tilt Poker Dot Com of which the claims are made that they give out poker jackpots of $2M dollars and quoting, "The most recent FTOPS saw 27,493 participants and a prize pool totaling $11,158,000." The article for speedy deletion is FTOPS V and the "non-notable website" is Full Tilt Poker. The guy who tagged that does this. User:Wuhwuzdat is performing the essential job of tagging hundreds of articles every day. It would seem that wuzdat goes through articles quickly adding tags to bring them to the attention of reviewers. The reviewers will often give these articles the full rigormarole, quality standards to personal taste etc. Guidelines are detailed and do say that stringent notability may be relaxed. They go on to detail the methods to test notability but they do not give details of how and when to relax. Is it best that we as editors use one hand to quote the guideline method for testing notability but hold in the other hand that relaxed concern is down to a new discretion every time? I wont mention any downside to that but I will say that the provision of that end of the guidelines could only serve to document the concensus a bit more? Can anyone suggest a situation that notability be a lower concern? ~ R.T.G 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- To explain my tagging of the article in question here, please check the version of the article, as it existed at the time I tagged it [[1]], and note the large number (14) of links to different pages on a single website in the references section, and an additional link to what appears to be an online gambling site. It appeared to me to be a blatant attempt at spamming, and I tagged it with a G11 as such. If I am overstepping my bounds, or being overly aggressive in my tagging, please inform me. Feedback is an important part of improvement. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I have a current example of the possible problem. An article which I would suggest merging, only 2 days old, is up for speedy deletion within the same minute at which it was created, with general notability tags. In the template is written "Article about the events of a non-notable gambling website". The guy is refering to Full Tilt Poker Dot Com of which the claims are made that they give out poker jackpots of $2M dollars and quoting, "The most recent FTOPS saw 27,493 participants and a prize pool totaling $11,158,000." The article for speedy deletion is FTOPS V and the "non-notable website" is Full Tilt Poker. The guy who tagged that does this. User:Wuhwuzdat is performing the essential job of tagging hundreds of articles every day. It would seem that wuzdat goes through articles quickly adding tags to bring them to the attention of reviewers. The reviewers will often give these articles the full rigormarole, quality standards to personal taste etc. Guidelines are detailed and do say that stringent notability may be relaxed. They go on to detail the methods to test notability but they do not give details of how and when to relax. Is it best that we as editors use one hand to quote the guideline method for testing notability but hold in the other hand that relaxed concern is down to a new discretion every time? I wont mention any downside to that but I will say that the provision of that end of the guidelines could only serve to document the concensus a bit more? Can anyone suggest a situation that notability be a lower concern? ~ R.T.G 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion what Wuhwuzdat did was fine. I beleive that the article isn't good enough for stand alone (a series of five of those lists has been added and perhaps they would make a good sub article merged or perhaps not, but...), tagging the article is one thing, you are showing it for examination, delete, merge, all goes to the same place, but when the guys examine it, minor notability will not often save such an article unless serious concern is produced. It is great to see a budding admin listing all the articles but the following process is not geared towards collecting as much factual info as reasonably possible without, granted, being a phone book, guest book, directory of art, etc. Events and science are of great value in cultural interest when a good collection of minor ones are on hand, no? Some things are difficult to aquire the knowledge of but can be equally fascinating? What value is that? ~ R.T.G 02:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Good Articles and WP Guidelines
This question relates to a GAR I'm currently involved in, but I'd like a general answer to the question rather than an opinion on the GAR.
My question is, if an article clearly violates a WP Guideline, such as WP:BLP can that be a criteria for removing it from the list of Good Articles? It seems to me that by definition, an article that violates guidelines cannot be classed as an official 'Good Article', but another has argued that unless it specifically contradicts Good Article Criteria (where it is not explicitly stated that Good Articles should follow basic WP guidelines), violating BLP is not an adequate reason to remove it from the list of Good Articles. Some clarification please! Riversider (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the Good Article Criteria should explicitly state that Good Articles should not violate any Wikipedia policies or Guidelines, but if they do, the rationale should be either self-evident or explained on the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Proposed_criteria_7:_Comply_with_content_policies_and_guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- What ever happened to WP:COMMONSENSE? Fore delisting a good article, you should generally establish a consensus first...see WP:GAR. If an article is violating a wikipedia policy/guidline, there are one of two steps to be taken. First, try an correct the article. If the article cannot be corrected, then the offending content should be removed or the article will face WP:AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Addresses
What are the guidelines regarding adresses? Should they be included in article? I'm look at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. I wanted to know whether putting an address/telephone from the Federal Reserve website would be appropriate? The site is http://www.federalreserve.gov/branches.htm Smallman12q (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both are often discouraged in practice, though phone numbers more strongly objected to than addresses. Two sections of WP:NOT may address this: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook (it's not a travel guide) or WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory (it's not the white pages). But, note Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, where the infobox gives the street address. Postdlf (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's usually reason to have them on the article; it isn't encyclopedic content (unless you're discussing how a specific subject has moved from one historic location to another, or discussing a specific building), and can just as readily be found by the users on the subject's official website (which, for stuff like the Federal Reserves, there's always one of). The reason that the Boston article has an address is because that's a skyscraper infobox (and for articles about buildings themselves, it does make sense to list the address). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could I add the number to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston? Or is that discouraged? (Just double checking)Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some infobox templates have a line for address, phone number, or contact information. If this is not wanted, the templates should be changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- And they absolutely should be as this is just encouraging spam. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be removed, but I can't imagine how a business' address or phone number being posted to their article encourages spam. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is the Federal Reserve, I don't believe anyone would have the nerve of spamming them. I also would like to point out that the number is very visible on their website.Smallman12q (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- These guys will try to spam and scam anyone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- What I meant was that having the ability to put contact details in an ibox will encourage even more spammers to write adverts masquerading as articles. – ukexpat (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is the Federal Reserve, I don't believe anyone would have the nerve of spamming them. I also would like to point out that the number is very visible on their website.Smallman12q (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be removed, but I can't imagine how a business' address or phone number being posted to their article encourages spam. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- And they absolutely should be as this is just encouraging spam. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the website definetly should be put under an external links sections as is allowed. The phone is a bit more strange but I would allow it. I think what people are talking about is that putting phone numbers could lead to spamming on wikipedia. I think this is crazy and putting phone numbers of any company that is notable enough to have an article should not be considered spamming. It takes up only 10 or so characters get over it. --AresAndEnyo (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- How long have they been at the address? Is the "unencyclopaediac" guideline supposed to prevent stuff like silly information? With respect to the WP:NOT guideline, adding the address will hardly make the site look like an address book. Any other reason that the information should not be possible to reference here? ~ R.T.G 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- No one in this thread seems to have considered the possibility that telephone numbers will attract the activities of vandals and (worse) criminals, who will substitute bogus numbers for the real ones. Imagine the mischief that can be caused with redirects posing as the telephone number for an Israeli embassy, for example, or a pro/anti abortion organisation. Or the tangible damage of people calling what they think is the headquarters of their personal bank, but is actually the number of someone 'phishing' for account details. In some instances, hijacked addresses could lead to similar problems. There would need to be an immense amount of policing if WP wished to avoid being regarded as a scammers' paradise. Much better, I would have thought, to direct people to far less easily edited sites for such details (federalreserve.gov, in this instance), where security and policing should already be in place. Sure, the mischief potential with the Fed Atlanta as a specific case would seem to be small, but more generally, phone numbers and addresses strike me as a minefield just waiting for the unwary foot. Grubstreet (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Over Use of Semi-Protection
I have recently noticed that wikipedia has become plagued by semi protection. It seems like a rare occurance now to be on an article page and not see the silver lock. This is of concern and directly against the philosophy of wikipedia. It seems to me that people are getting the idea that once a page is vadalised once it should be semi protected. In my opinion this should not be the case. For example one page I have found semi protected is the "dog" page. I doubt that this page is heavily vandalised (thinking from a vandals pov, doesn't seem very fun), futhermore there is nothing I can see on the discussion page about its protection. I feel we need to start actively fighting semi protection. Any thoughts? --AresAndEnyo (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've been going through WP:INDEFSEMI and lowering indefinite page protections without compelling justification, but if there's any specific examples you'd like me to look at, drop by my talk page. I've unprotected Dog, let's see how it goes. –xeno (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely semi'd several pages. I will be very irritated if any administrator unprotects any of them without attempting discussion first. We need much more semi-protection around here, not less. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protection yes, but it is very rare that indef protection should ever be used in the article space. It should be a couple weeks at the most. Chillum 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- So this is no longer the encyclopedia anyone can edit? –xeno (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be vicious at all but it seems to me that Sarcasticidealist opinions are exactly the opposite of the ideas wikipedia was created on. --AresAndEnyo (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the ideas Wikipedia was founded on were to create a repository of free (as in air and as in beer) knowledge by way of a wiki model. Anything that interferes with that is a problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia is actually is an encyclopedia created by everyone who has the whim to participate. This is what wikipedia has been about from the start. Someone searching through wikipedia as a user and finds a spelling mistake should be able to fix it without having to sign up for an account and waiting 4 days!! Your opinions are incorrect and you only want to push your elitism. I won't say your way is not better than the wikipedia way, but this is not your or any of our project's to mould. I think the only reason wikipedia has grown at all is the freedom to edit has allowed it to become dynamic and cutting edge. There are plenty of conservative encyclopedias out there with a dictionary definition of computers if people want. As for doing this only to "established" articles, it all becomes a matter of who draws the line.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- That line is drawn only where vandalism is common. There's not a single page on my watchlist that is protected, and I seldom make edits to pages that are protected. People finding spelling mistakes and not being able to fix them, is not going to turn users away and reduce the quality. People leaving the project because they're spending all of their time fixing vandalism rather than writing articles is going to reduce the quality. New users will seldom make productive changes to established pages (heck, I seldom make such changes). I don't see a problem with making WP "the encyclopedia that anyone can fill out a form and then edit."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia is actually is an encyclopedia created by everyone who has the whim to participate. This is what wikipedia has been about from the start. Someone searching through wikipedia as a user and finds a spelling mistake should be able to fix it without having to sign up for an account and waiting 4 days!! Your opinions are incorrect and you only want to push your elitism. I won't say your way is not better than the wikipedia way, but this is not your or any of our project's to mould. I think the only reason wikipedia has grown at all is the freedom to edit has allowed it to become dynamic and cutting edge. There are plenty of conservative encyclopedias out there with a dictionary definition of computers if people want. As for doing this only to "established" articles, it all becomes a matter of who draws the line.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the ideas Wikipedia was founded on were to create a repository of free (as in air and as in beer) knowledge by way of a wiki model. Anything that interferes with that is a problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely semi'd several pages. I will be very irritated if any administrator unprotects any of them without attempting discussion first. We need much more semi-protection around here, not less. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've had several requests for semis declined because the level of vandalism wasn't enough or it had tapered off by the time the administrator looked at the request. I've also had some declined because the vandal(s) were blocked. More than once I've had to go back and say "the vandalism is back" and the article usually winds up with a few days' or a week's semi-protection. Indef. semi should only be used on persistent vandalism-magnets or magnets for sockpuppets of banned editors that have access to a wide variety of IP addresses. In practice, this usually winds up being high-traffic, controversial articles. The "bar" for BLP articles for semi should be somewhat lower than for other ariticles, but only if the vandalism is harmful to the subject of the article, not merely "Elrod was here"-type or page-blanking-type vandalism. For the latter the bar should be the same as for non-BLP articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully flagged revisions will finally be used shortly so this won't even be an issue (and by that I mean putting it on pages that would be semi'd otherwise, not all across WP which would never happen). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think we have to take a pragmatic approach. Yes, we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but that doesn't mean anyone can change any part of it immediately in any way they like. One an article reaches a particular level of maturity, we can reasonably ask whether the costs of losing or inconveniencing IP editors by making them go through {{editprotected}} would really exceed the costs of having to revert (or worse, failing to revert) regular IP vandalism/miguided attempts to improve. The vast majority of articles are doubtless not yet at that level (though I would still semi-protect BLPs as a matter of course), but many of the most read articles (so what seems like a majority) might well be. (Edit conflict: I don't really think flagged revisions are anything other than semi-protection - or some other level of protection - repackaged.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Very well-said. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you saying that flagged revisions are just another semi-protection, thus the reason why I oppose them as well. However, I have to disagree with you on your first point. I think most people will agree with me that being an encyclopedia anyone can edit does directly imply that anyone can change any part of it immediately in any way that they see fit, which then implies that anyone can turn it back. What you are talking about is restraining the average helpful (occasionaly misguided) wikipedia user from editing pages. This is the big change and one that conflicts with policy. Protection should be used to protect pages from vandalism (that is users that continously try to destroy the page for their own ammusement) not protecting wikipedia from people trying to make wikipedia a better information source (even if you disagree from them). If we allow this increase in protection to continue (it may sound a bit dramatic) I believe we will start a slippery slope towards higher and higher level of protection. To the point when being able to edit a page will be source a painful application process that we will discourage new writers. As it is my feeling that wikipedia is composed at the moment of many decorated users who will probably loose interest in a few months, you can see how we will start to have an encyclopedia less and less people edit. This will lead to it being less and less relevant and thus less and less popular. --AresAndEnyo (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see how going to an edit page an adding a template to suggest a change is easier for anyone than actually being able to edit the page directly, even if it requires a later person to approve it. But I guess that's a discussion for another page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Those are good points, but I've also known valuable editors leave or scale down their involvement in WP precisely because they see their good work being eroded over time with nothing to protect it. It wouldn't necessarily be a major offput to new editors to sometimes see a friendly message like This article has been found to be of sufficiently high standard as to be protected from direct editing; it can nonetheless undoubtedly still be improved, and you are warmly encouraged to suggest edits (or request unprotection if necessary) by leaving a note on its talk page. I think people who empathized with what the project fundamentally is (i.e. an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy/anarchy/...) would understand and accept.--Kotniski (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I, as an administrator, will honour any request to unprotect an article with indefinite (or effectively indefinite) semi-protection where I agree that the article may have a reasonable chance at staying largely vandalism-free. I think that this is in line with both our protection policy and the foundation principle that anyone should be able to edit. I do think that we could have a better system for protecting articles, and I think that a good candidate would be flagged protection as it was originally proposed. Unfortunately, those wishing a more restrictive system of flagged revisions opposed that proposal under the idea that it would replace Flagged Revisions. As an example, Sarcasticidealist's oppose was this: "I could support this if it was intended to be in addition to the other implementation of flagged revisions. As I understand it, it's intended to supplant that, so I'm opposed." I have not since seen an active proposal for the "other implementation of flagged revisions", so I'm understandably annoyed that politics has prevented us from making a useful and otherwise uncontroversial change. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal came up in the context of Jimbo's statement that he was going to ask the developers to turn on flagged revisions for BLPs. Certainly, not all details of that were ironed out (and still aren't, which understandably annoys me). Now, putting flagged revisions on BLPs isn't mutually exclusive with activating a new form of protection, like flagged protection, which is why I said that I could have supported flagged protection if it was in addition to turning on flagged revisions for all BLPs. But the tone of discussion on flagged protection was very much "Yes, this way we won't have all the downsides of other implementations of flagged revisions", so I opposed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes; last I heard Jimbo was attempting to formulate a proposal for FlaggedRevs which would be sufficiently effective and open to gain widespread community support. The difficulty of that task should not be understated. My point on the oppose is that the proposal shouldn't be opposed on the grounds of the opinions of others. Whereas the editors opposing widespread use of FlaggedRevs will oppose widespread use of FlaggedRevs regardless of whether flagged protection is implemented or not, opposing flagged protection on the basis of support for exclusive use of flagged protection seems counterproductive as anything but political jockeying. Is that a fair statement? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say I was fully satisfied with the initial version of flagged protection, but I agree opposing a moderate move because it is not strong enough when the stronger one clearly has no sufficient support is counterproductive and can only led to status quo. I have proposed a new version that I think addresses most concerns (creation of a reviewer group, autoconfirmed users are autoreviewed, but this can be disabled on a per-article basis). I have put together this and two other proposals at User:Cenarium/Proposal that I think would help the BLP and unfocused vandalism issues that cannot be handled by protection. Cenarium (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The fewer pages that are protected the better. It would seem obvious that flagged revisions, which I vehemently oppose, would replace semi-protection, not be added to semi-protection. The cd versions of Wikipedia are in effect the flagged revision. When I started using Wikipedia, de rigueur was to look at the revision history and look for what seemed to be a stable edit and read that one. I never cared what the current version said, because I did not even look at it other than to see how it differed. The reason I strongly oppose flagged revisions is that "anyone can edit" and I really do not want to have to wait for someone to "approve" a good edit, no matter who makes it. Also you get into this ridiculous hierarchy of who approves the edits, who approves the people who approve the edits, who approves them, and so on ad finitum. I think the best approach is to watch changes, all of them, and flag them as good/bad/indifferent, and if they are bad, fix them quickly, and never get upset about having odd information in any article for a few seconds. The only time I would semi-protect an article would be if no one can keep up with the corrections. Apteva (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, in case it's not already clear: flagged protection explicitly says that flagged revisions should only be used in a flagged-revisions-visible-by-default configuration on pages that would otherwise be semi-protected (or full-protected). In that case, it is an improvement for the principle of open editing you describe, in that pages which originally could only be edited by autoconfirmed users (or admins) would then be editable by all users with simply a system of checks for new users (or non-admin users) before the edits went "live". I "vehemently oppose" FlaggedRevs for a system that would effectively protect most articles, and yet it is my opinion that flagged protection is a good system. I might as well also point out that the "hierarchy" you describe is actually relatively simple: reviewers (who can approve edits) would (presumably) be flagged by administrators, who are flagged through a community process. Any hierarchy is relatively short, and the reviewer group would be only one extra rung on the ladder. Make sure you understand what you say you "vehemently oppose". :)
- What you might be more interested in is the "patrolled revisions" proposal Cenarium makes on the same page, which proposes to use FlaggedRevs without any effect except marking revisions as acceptably clean, which would introduce a more tangible system for the procedure that you describe. I don't think this system is exclusive of the flagged protection system, since the flagged-revision-by-default option can be enabled on individual pages, and it would ultimately help reduce the number of pages which are semi-protected by making vandalism easier to manage. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The fewer pages that are protected the better. It would seem obvious that flagged revisions, which I vehemently oppose, would replace semi-protection, not be added to semi-protection. The cd versions of Wikipedia are in effect the flagged revision. When I started using Wikipedia, de rigueur was to look at the revision history and look for what seemed to be a stable edit and read that one. I never cared what the current version said, because I did not even look at it other than to see how it differed. The reason I strongly oppose flagged revisions is that "anyone can edit" and I really do not want to have to wait for someone to "approve" a good edit, no matter who makes it. Also you get into this ridiculous hierarchy of who approves the edits, who approves the people who approve the edits, who approves them, and so on ad finitum. I think the best approach is to watch changes, all of them, and flag them as good/bad/indifferent, and if they are bad, fix them quickly, and never get upset about having odd information in any article for a few seconds. The only time I would semi-protect an article would be if no one can keep up with the corrections. Apteva (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say I was fully satisfied with the initial version of flagged protection, but I agree opposing a moderate move because it is not strong enough when the stronger one clearly has no sufficient support is counterproductive and can only led to status quo. I have proposed a new version that I think addresses most concerns (creation of a reviewer group, autoconfirmed users are autoreviewed, but this can be disabled on a per-article basis). I have put together this and two other proposals at User:Cenarium/Proposal that I think would help the BLP and unfocused vandalism issues that cannot be handled by protection. Cenarium (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes; last I heard Jimbo was attempting to formulate a proposal for FlaggedRevs which would be sufficiently effective and open to gain widespread community support. The difficulty of that task should not be understated. My point on the oppose is that the proposal shouldn't be opposed on the grounds of the opinions of others. Whereas the editors opposing widespread use of FlaggedRevs will oppose widespread use of FlaggedRevs regardless of whether flagged protection is implemented or not, opposing flagged protection on the basis of support for exclusive use of flagged protection seems counterproductive as anything but political jockeying. Is that a fair statement? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both proposals Wikipedia:Flagged protection and Wikipedia:Flagged protection/Proposed state ", but not visible to readers by default until reviewed by a 'reviewer'"?, the latter proposal takes the attractive part out of the first one, by the fact that edits by autoconfirmed users have to wait for review as well before they go live, the problem in patrolled versions is the workload, the idear is not original, we can look at RU.wiki. Mion (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Question
- This image is the Public Domain per WP:PD (1831 image). However, it is on a liscensed site. Is it or is it not Public Domain? ResMar 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- If copyright of an image has expired, any claim to copyright is invalid, unless they've added some significant creative element to it. However, a cursory look at that image suggests that it's a composite of several old images and their selection and arrangement may be protected. Dcoetzee 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you are 100% sure it's really a public domain picture, then it stays that way. However, if they modified it in any meaningful way, a new copyright is attached. I don't see any in the image you presented, but this includes some use of visible watermarks, color correction, damage-"restoration," and the like, but only to the extent that their use was creative rather than mechanical. For example, superimposing a watermark of one of the admirals involved in the fighting would probably be considered artistic, superimposing the logo of the Geological Society of London would be considered mechanical in most cases. If they only modify a part of the image, the unmodified parts remain public domain. In this case, if that really is a faithful reproduction of an old image, you are in the clear despite any claims to the contrary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Update: I agree with Dcoetzee. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for your input. That image is a photocopy of a page from the geological diary of Constant Prévost, depicting the 1831 eruption of Ferdinandea. Since I don't see anything modified from the original 1831 illustrations, I'll be bold and upload it under Public Domain. Thank you for clarifying that up for me. Cheers, ResMar 16:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Reports of new policies/guidelines
Didn't there used to be a bot that reported at this page whenever a page was newly marked as a policy or guideline? I marked one as a guideline yesterday and it doesn't seem to have shown up here. (The page is WP:MOSPOL, should anyone wish to dispute its status.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Material referenced only by a broken cite
Newspapers regularly clean out their archive resulting in broken references. What is the policy on material that is only cited by a broken reference? Should the material remain with the 404 cite? Should the cite be replaced by a (cite) tag? Should the material be removed? What has brought this to mind was this edit removing important material on the grounds that the cite is broken. TerriersFan (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DEADREF --NE2 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you are lucky, it will be available through a Google News Archives search, possibly behind a pay-wall. You can replace the ref with the paper-reference format with the URL pointing to the summary available via the Google News Archives. If you are really lucky, archive.org will have picked it up, and you can just replace the link with a link to archive.org. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was a poor edit. The URL in a newspaper article citation is a convenience only. It is not the citation. The important parts of a newspaper citation, that enable one to locate it in the archives of one's choice, are the byline, dateline, headline, and publication. We have an article on citations that explains this. The citation in that edit still had three out of those four.
If a convenience URL in a newspaper article citation loses its convenience, because the material scrolls behind a costwall or is otherwise lost to side reorganization and suchlike, then the citation does not become any less valid than it was before. It remains just as possible to go to an archive of The Post Newspaper of Zambia, be it on a WWW site, in a national library, or in a local library, and look up an article with the headline "Challenges facing education in Zambia" that had a dateline of August 2007.
Some people forget that more than lifting just one finger is sometimes the way to find things. Not every action in the world is a mouse click. That's FUTON bias. Combat it as you would combat other systemic biases. Uncle G (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is a problem with some online newspaper articles: For many papers, it's not clear where the article appeared in print, if it appeared in print at all. For a fast-moving story, the article that appears in tomorrow's paper may be significantly different than the online story I'm citing this morning, and the version in the paper may exist online only briefly before being replaced by an updated version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I must confess a bias against such sources: much of the time the replacement is at least partially because the earlier versions has some inaccuracies or other issues. And if we are going to take verifiability seriously, well, the material must be verifiable somehow. An electronic copy of a print article is verifiable; it just takes more work. An online article that comes and goes without archiving isn't truly verifiable. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I use http://www.webcitation.org to archive copies of pages that may go offline. – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mangoe: In many cases material is added as new information is available, and still-correct information is removed for space, especially for print editions. Also, for breaking news, the Wikipedia article may be updated before the news hits print, so there is no print edition at the time the referenced is used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not one to be a stickler for "verifiability, not truth", after several cases in which I've had to chase after obscure sources to refute a citation containing a patent mistake. But in developing events, where the story itself is changing, it doesn't seem to me that we are doing the world a service by (in effect) promoting early reports that are not repeated. Often (if not usually) they are not repeated because they don't pan out. Mangoe (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The WebCite answer would be great if someone would only implement a bot to automagically submit wp cited sources to WebCite, as suggested in its faq. Any volunteers?LeadSongDog (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Question about WP:COI and WP:NOR
I'm just curious- say I was a really famous celebrity, but nobody knew my birth date for example. Could I put it in, or would it be deleted, because there is no proof that I am said celebrity? Would it violate WP:COI and WP:NOR to do that- or make any edits on my encyclopedia page? Wiki548 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Conflicts of interest are only a problem when they are abused. If I were a really famous celebrity, it would still be perfectly fine for me to revert vandalism on my entry—it would only be a problem if I started saying "Nihiltres is the best person ever" on the article. :) The "no original research" rule still applies, though, not because the identity of the celebrity is in question (they'd just have to go through OTRS) but because the date is not verifiable. If I were a really famous celebrity and I identified to OTRS, I could say something like "Nihiltres was born on April 1, 1969" even though that's not true, and no one would be able to tell the difference. Requiring a reliable source may be a pain, but it's a worthwhile step to encourage accuracy. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no. This is one of the canonical applications of the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Indeed, in years gone by this very sort of situation, where direct word of mouth to the Wikipedia editor making the edit was the only source, was actually given as an example in the policies. If there's information about onesself that isn't published by people with good reputatoins for checking their facts, from one's birthdate to one's shoe size, then it isn't verifiable. Wikipedia:Autobiography explains more.
This is what all our policies and guidelines recommend one does: make suggestions on the talk page, don't add unverifiable material to the encyclopaedia, and stick with what the sources say and what readers can check, even if you know better. Don't correct the encyclopaedia, correct the source. And if you want something unpublished to be published, then publish it yourself.
If you are trolling, Wiki548, as it is very possible that you are, then be warned that trying to chew this particular very old bone will get you short shrift. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- they (the rich and fat and famous) cannot add information but they can delete it once and for all, can they not? NVO (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- They may not add unverifiable information, which is the subject of discussion here. But that's the same rule as for everyone. Similarly, it's not solely the rich and fat and famous that might have biographical articles. Our policies strictly apply to all biographies of living persons. The guidelines and policies can be seen at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article, Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- they (the rich and fat and famous) cannot add information but they can delete it once and for all, can they not? NVO (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no. This is one of the canonical applications of the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Indeed, in years gone by this very sort of situation, where direct word of mouth to the Wikipedia editor making the edit was the only source, was actually given as an example in the policies. If there's information about onesself that isn't published by people with good reputatoins for checking their facts, from one's birthdate to one's shoe size, then it isn't verifiable. Wikipedia:Autobiography explains more.
Appropriate map projection for location maps
Wikipedia currently doesn't seem to have any co-ordination concerning location maps and there isn't much consistency between the kind of maps used in the different country articles. Some time ago there was a dispute over what map projection to use for the location map on the European Union talk page. At that time while most of the larger countries, Canada, the United States, Greenland and Russia, used Robinson projections for their location maps, the EU used a Mercator projection. The result of the discussion was the selection of an orthographic projection as a compromise. The same editor who created the EU orthographic projection posted similar location maps on the countries listed above and they're still there now.
However I feel the issue should be given wider attention and a specific projection chosen for consistent use across English Wikipedia. The three maps which were previously discussed on the EU talk page were:
Any preferences? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I really do not think it matters. Personally I would prefer rotating the orthographic slightly to put Europe slightly to above right of center. The Robinson is less distorted than the Mercator, but really, use whichever anyone wants to use. This is clearly not a policy issue. Apteva (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- "The Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality" do have a visually arresting argument. - X201 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Surely consistent style and layout across articles is a policy issue. If it doesn't fall technically fall within your idea of a policy, it is something which deserves centralised debate. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually as I see it, it is more of a policy to allow individuality - articles are expected to be self consistent with citation style and Brit/US spelling, but not expected to be consistent across articles. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- If there is to be a centralised discussion, I think it should belong on project countries.
- Re projections. Mercator and Robinson are comparable near the equator but distorts areas far away from the equator, Robinson distorts direction and shapes far from the equator. For small countries (e.g. Iceland) far away from the equator a relevant projection flat projection maybe different from a small country near the equator (e.g. Equador). For large areas such as the EU, [[Russia] or the USA and orthographic projection is probably better suited not to show distortions. In other words, different problems ask for different solutions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually as I see it, it is more of a policy to allow individuality - articles are expected to be self consistent with citation style and Brit/US spelling, but not expected to be consistent across articles. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposed "mocking" policy
There is already a "blocking" policy for those with admin powers against lesser editors. As these have shown themselves to be nearly as capricious and nasty on average as regular editors, I propose a "mocking" option whereby an editor may formally, and without fear of administrative repercussion, {{mock}} an administrator. Since the purpose of administrator powers is only to help ordinary editors of the encyclopedia, clearly a censure process is needed, independently of the biased and self-congratulatory proceedings at WP:AN. How about a general "editors' noticeboard", regarding abuses of the administrative process. Whereas clearly administrators hold most of the cards, ordinary editors are still the ones who build the encyclopedia. Sławomir Biała (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- There have been numerous such proposals over the years, none of which came to much. The most recent is User:Tony1/AdminReview, I'd suggest you make your thoughts known there (and, if you seriously want to enact such a mechanism, rather than just bitch about the big, bad admins, I'd suggest deleting the the pointless {{mock}} template). Rockpocket 02:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- People may mock me, however I ask that it be done with civility, in good humor(without anger), and that it addresses specific concerns in a constructive nature. Extra points if it is in the form of a haiku. Chillum 03:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Whereas the evidence cited above of behaving like a "bitch" was clearly presented in an outrageously tongue-in-cheek fashion, the issue of being called one still remains. Anyway, as it is evident that the adiminstrative community as a whole rejects my proposal, as well as me personally, I suggest that I should be blocked from editing, for bitching. If not, maybe we can continue this discussion in a more constructive and mature fashion. And, Chillum, if the suggestion of a haiku is sincere, then I would happily oblige. Sławomir Biała (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't call you a bitch or suggest you were behaving like one. Bitch is a noun, I used a verb. I did note that a serious proposal for dealing with admin abuse is welcome, a but simply using a mocking template for bitching (i.e. Unjustifiably complaining) about admins is not. You can decide for yourself which of those best describes your response. Rockpocket 07:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- A cabal against
- dragons, in the bitter winter.
- A new beginning. Sławomir Biała (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
10 pts - haiku 5 pts bonus - using the word cabal 5 pts bonus - using the word bitter -15 pts demerit - I don't feel very mocked
5 points... Chillum 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You asked for it!
- Bitch you are.
- Minus fifteen points.
- Bitch, bitchy. Sławomir Biała (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do we write paragraphs that are redundant of "main articles"
If you look at a Wikipedia page on any country you find sections such as Rwandan genocide under Rwanda that contain a couple paras on a subject and a link to an entire page on the same subject. Isn't this a poor policy to allow such redundancy? Wouldn't it make sense to have a Wikipedia-wide policy that the first para of the Rwandan genocide page simply display on the Rwanda page and then at the bottom of this first para you could follow a link to the Rwandan genocide page to read more ? That way you avoid the pervasive problem on Wikipedia that inconsistencies may arise between different pages on the same topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.176.150 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- If we actually paid attention to WP:Lead on a consistent basis, lead sections would be decent synopses of articles, suitable for transclusion. But we don't and so they aren't. Pity.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite sure what you're getting at. The topics on the 'main' page are supposed to give a brief summery of the contents of the detailed page. See WP:SS. Not quite sure what WP:LEAD has to do with it... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the wording of the summary paragraph in the context of the more general article would normally have a different form (though possibly very similar substance) to the lead of the specific article. And avoiding "inconsistencies" is no benefit if it results in being consistently wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you asking for a technical solution to this, such as automatic transclusion? If you're just talking about people actually following the guidelines at WP:SUMMARY then yes, I agree that they should, but there's not really much to be done about that except for to keep correcting articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I just created this category, and would be interested in people adding articles, by adding Template:Rescued on the article talk page. Is there anyway to find out which good articles were previous deleted, without going through all articles manually? Ikip (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be an implied assumption here, that we shouldn't delete good articles. Just because an article is advanced to being a good article doesn't mean it couldn't be deleted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be an entirely pointless task fraught with (the potential for) bogus and misleading assumptions. Not least is that in many cases, the deleted article was not rescued at all. The deleted article was crap. Later a new article having no relation to the old article (except for subject matter) was instated. We have plenty enough cruft in Wikipedia: I'd be grateful for some intimation of a purpose behind your endeavors before you continue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can see nothing in the template or the category that does not make some sort of point, as I have said in my rationale for nominating each for deletion a short while ago. Each has an almost exactly similar nominator's rationale. I think we would all welcome a full and frank discussion at the relevant deletion discussion pages, both pro and anti deletion to develop whatever the true consensus is on the area. The category is here and the template is here -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think the idea is that the reader goes "oh look, those vile deletionists got it wrong again!" but devoid of context, it's meaningless because many would be deleted due to spam reasons or are unconnected with the article that replaced them. IKip seems to spend all of his time trying to turn wikipedia into a battleground. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the category itself should be deleted for undue attention to the bad first version, and for making a point irrelevant to quality of the current version of the articles (should not be in mainspace for that reason!). Arnoutf (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think the idea is that the reader goes "oh look, those vile deletionists got it wrong again!" but devoid of context, it's meaningless because many would be deleted due to spam reasons or are unconnected with the article that replaced them. IKip seems to spend all of his time trying to turn wikipedia into a battleground. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
articles that seem to violate Wikipedia policies but are IMPORTANT for science
Wikipedia's Mistake
This website contains 3 pages originally on Wikipedia. They were important for science. How important? We may not know in our lifetimes. Either my father, W. Jean Micheal, is right or ppl simply don't care. My father thinks the MIC (military industrial complex) pretty much controls everything so if you disagree with anything the MIC wants, you are brushed aside. I happen to object to the LHC (large hadron collider) - we could be spending money on machines that can directly benefit humanity (such as ITER (the international fusion prototype)). But if my small voice protests the LHC and the MIC supports it, I can understand why Wikipedia might want to delete my pages. Thing is, whether my father's right or wrong about the MIC, the pages should have stayed up for science. Read them and decide for yourself.
Please read and think for yourselves. Don't swallow conventional dogma and instantly dismiss me. That is not right nor fair. I actually make a reasonable case based on sound and accepted engineering principles.
salvatore gerard micheal&Delta (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We don't publish original research - that's really the start and end of it. Cameron Scott (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)----
- Indeed. We don't publish original research. The rest of your argument, w.r.t. the article, seems a little neurotic. That does not mean that the MIC does not exist and is not very powerful: it merely means there is a limit to its interests. And oddly, the aspirational noodling of students seems to fit into that not-interested class. Science will have to get along the best it can until you can get your work published in peer reviewed journals. You have heard of those at MSU, haven't you? ----
Incidentally, &Delta, you really should remove the Wikipedia logo from your self-hosted mirrors of those deleted pages. Unlike user-contributed article content, which is freely licensed, the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted and a protected trademark. Postdlf (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
of course i've heard of 'peer reviewed' journals but they are controlled by the same conventional bureaucratic paper pushing unimaginative overly conservative dogmatic loving MIC obedient goons as Wikipedia 'employs'. no offense intended. sheep. they're all obedient sheep .. as far as the logo is concerned, i'm not financed by Microsoft or other multinational thug-company of the MIC. i cannot afford a decent html editor that does not record key strokes and send them off to big brother. if Wikipedia sues, i have no assets. MSU does not endorse any page it hosts regardless of content. there is no point in 'going after me'; i'm not scared or threatened by your posturing. your condescending comments are not appreciated. i suggest, for the sake of science, you put Micheal_space back up and qualify it up the wazoo if you need (put a 1000 banners warning "speculation" or "nutcase" or whatever you want..) .. if you look carefully, there are Many many pages on Wikipedia that contain 'original content'. Micheal_space happens to be both original - and correct.&Delta (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)