Contents
- 1 We are social
- 2 RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY
- 3 Predicting the outcomes of future legal cases
- 4 Question about WP:NOTGUIDE interpretation
- 5 No Non-Encyclopedic Material in Userspace
- 6 Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
- 7 WP:NOTDIR and phone numbers
- 8 Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
- 9 NOTREPOSITORY
- 10 Recent changes
- 11 "Not a dating service"
- 12 Clarification regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY
- 13 Wikipedia is not a memorial but it is an obituary?
- 14 Request for template to mark WP:NOTTRAVEL articles.
- 15 Issue with "Wikipedia is not censored"
We are social
People sometimes quote wp:not as to pretend there is not a single social aspect to Wikipedia. We are not a social network, but I'd sure hope that we are not anti social. I tend to talk to people, and I like to tell people what I work on, which is based on my motivation to collaborate with other people. Out of those experiences I've even found a group of real life friends that I meet with regularly (you could call it a 'social network').
I was thinking of the following change:
- The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective and social collaboration.
To me this is natural (implied by collaboration) and the 4th pillar supports this social aspect of the Wikipedia in my opinion.
However the amount of times people try to use this part of the policy to imply that we should all be some sort of robots makes me think we should make this balance more explicit. It is about the difference between a social network site and a collaboration site, not social vs anti-social. Both websites types have plenty of both social and anti-social interactions. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- That would insert "and social" in the second-last sentence of the first point at not...social networking service? While I agree with what you say, that change seems a bit subtle, and I doubt its meaning would be understood by those who can't already grasp the difference between sociable collaboration and automated editing. The end of that section points to WP:User pages—that might be the page to spell out anything needed? Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. It'd be more helpful if you actually gave us an example of those people. But we actually have a policy that says Wikipedians are very social creatures: Wikipedia:Civility. It demands observing rules of social conduct and resolving the disputes in a social fashion: through consensus. People should not come here to socialize. But people who come here to edit article are required to be sociable.
- Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I have actually noticed that some editors tend to form groups that always agree with each other in discussions. This is fine if they are correct, but often times it tilts the balance when trying to find a real consensus. I came to WP:NOT to find if there was something like Wikipedia is not a club, but found nothing. The closest I found was WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK but it doesn't really address this problem. I came to the talk page and this post actually seemed like the opposite of what I was expecting. I absolutely don't believe that this editor is purposefully trying to promote this kind of behavior, but I just want to point it out as a potential consequence of making Wikipedia closer to a social network. I'm just worried about this. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Admittedly I am/have only made use of Wikipedia as a reference tool, never "social" or for "social media", but it sure would be nice if folks on here were a whole lot nicer than they are. For instance I made some minor edits to the Mahalia Jackson and to the [Broken Trust ] wiki pages, additionally to the [Presley ]page. Well. You'd a thought I was committing cyber space heresy or something. 'Cite your source.' 'Cite your source.' Dude! I've cited my source. "Removed for failure to cite your source." What the heck? Anyway social or social networking Wikipedia sure ain't, BUT it would be a site nicer if people were nicer. You know what I'm saying? User:Forthe1789usconstitution —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- IP 97.32.131.77, I think this is on the wrong page, and it is unclear what you are referring to. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus is against adding films to this section. Reasoning varies, including the opinion that this is an attempt to change global policy to settle the inclusion of one specific film in one specific article, the technical objection that this is the wrong section, and the opinion that, unlike text, a snippet of a film or an entire film take up the same amount of article space. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This proposal is to add films to Subsection 3 of the section "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (which has shorcuts WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:NOTLINKFARM, WP:NOTGALLERY, and others) as shown below. (The bolding is just to highlight the change, it's not intended to be in the actual policy text).
Current text:
- Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording.
Proposed new text:
- Public domain or other source material such as entire books or films, or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording.
— Preceding comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
Survey
- Support in general. This does not mean we should avoid links to full PD movies or other media, whether at Commons, Internet Archive, or hosted elsewhere (as long as it's PD), just that when you are putting these within the prose of the article, they do not help to condense the summary approach we are supposed to be giving the reader. Short clips or screencaps of relevant sections embedded in the prose are infinitely more helpful from an encyclopedic standpoint to showcase something that is of discussion in the neighboring prose rather than the full work and telling the reader to go find it themselves. We don't need to include full classic novels to understand those novels from an encyclopedic viewpoint, so the same logic applies with video and audio. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – media files are treated in subsection 4 (recommending to host them at Commons); subsection 3 is about the kind of files we'd rather have at Wikisource, which is definitely not films. There really didn't go much thinking into how this RfC should be formulated did it? Propose to snow close this RfC for such obvious flaws in its initial proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as written. If the film is for example a short film like the classic Gertie the Dinosaur, it makes sense to include it in its entirety, as the whole thing has encyclopaedic value; and there may be other reasons which may justify including a whole video work (video art, scientific experiments, documentaries...), but the proposed amendment doesn't allow for any. I agree with Herostratus below that books are different than films, as the first would be placed as text in the article but the second are in the separate media player, and thus occupy just a small amount of real state in the page; but I don't agree with your conclusion: NOTREPOSITORY is about avoiding hosting whole works in Article space, not against embedding a player where a work hosted elsewhere can be explored in full. This would be equivalent to removing all images and substituting them with links to Commons, merely because of the current possibility to click the image and zoom it in place. It's absurd.
- At the end of the day, the only benefit this proposal would bring is one of style - the whole film would be linked from the harder-to-find "External links" section, instead of placing the external link in the easy-to-use media player, in a section where it would me more relevant and salient to the reader.
- As for those stating that we should include snippets of the relevant parts in the film, there is nothing stopping us from including those in addition to the whole film. Diego (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I admit I haven't followed the other threads. As the file is hosted on Commons, which is perfectly reasonable (and if not, it would need to be brought up there), it seems this comes down to whether displaying a full-length film in an article is the same as displaying a full-length text/document in an article such that it should be linked rather than displayed. No, I don't think it is at all. Putting aside that media files are already addressed under a separate bulletpoint, the key bit of text is "are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording." Displaying a full-text document conflicts with the display and composition of an encyclopedia article. A video takes up the same amount of space regardless of whether it's a brief clip or the whole thing. There's a lot of work to do to figure out video's place on Wikipedia, and it may be the case that this specific sort of example (a whole film) is deemed not suitable from an e.g. MOS perspective, but if the whole of a video work is available, I don't see why it would be contrary to "what Wikipedia is" such that it would require inclusion here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Technical oppose. Hi. Subsection 4 already covers "media files", which means digital images, digital video, digital audio and other interactive contents. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well but Subsection 4 just prohibits articles that are "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text" which is a whole different thing. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Favor. A two-hour (or whatever) movie? It's here's-something-extra enrichment, which we always put in the External Links section. We don't put the text of an entire book in the body of an article and say (by implication of the placement) "You need to read this entire book to get an understanding of the subject appropriate to an encyclopedia article". Why should we do that (by implication of placement) for a full length movie? IMO it's a service to reader to separate out enrichment material from the body of the article. Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - NOTREPOSITORY is about posting entire written works in the article, not about a video player box that takes up less room than many titles. ContentEditman (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Per ContentEditman, the movie in the described case is not literally on Wikipedia - it is on Wikimedia Commons, on an entirely different page. Embedding the movie involves adding one line of text to the page source. This differs fundamentally from having an article "War and Peace" with the entire text of War and Peace on Wikipedia. We defer that function to a different WMF project in that case also, but there's no easy way to embed a text page in the article, so we use a link. Furthermore, this change has the obvious flaw that it seems to discard many other files that are kept locally in Wikipedia File: namespace because they don't meet Commons rules on non-US copyright status, or are Fair Use. Wikipedia is an image repository in those cases, and needs to remain so. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lets just be blunt here. This is an overbroad proposal designed to end a debate over the inline linking of the Debbie Does Dallas film. Scope creep for the purpose of masking unsavoury topics is a bad idea. At a more basic level, a file is a file is a file, be it one image, one animated gif or one movie file of any length. Resolute 19:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This RFC is a ridiculous attempt to posthoc codify one incident of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The editors involved need to realize that there are levels of consensus, and that Wikipedia is not censored. As for this RFC, embedding a video is completely different from inserting the full text of a book. The video is being hosted on Commons, not Wikipedia and the action is more akin to the embedding of an image. The videos do not take up any space and are the subject of the article itself—you can't get any more educational than that. That's even one of the criteria used for fair use. Opencooper (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as a terrible, terrible idea that violates Wikipedia's core mission In an article on a painting, we will generally show the painting. On an article on a song, where we have an out of copyright recording, we will generally include the song. Our readers won't be helped by burying, say, Night of the Living Dead or Gertie the Dinosaur or any of the many other out-of-copyright films - which Wikipedia's code is set up to handle extremely well if put in as a thumbnail - as a link. We are meant to be an educational resource. Saying we shiould be a much more terrible one should get no traction. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose We should not make policy over a single issue. I have not seen any evidence that this is enough of a thing to require coverage by policy. This can be worked out on the article talk page. HighInBC 15:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose a pointless misreading of policy. It's already adequately clear that WP:NOTREPOSITORY apples to any content regardless of format. (edit) #4 in the policy obviously addresses images and media, while #3 obviously addresses text material. This entire discussion is a misguided wikilawyering attempt to circumvent WP:NOTCENSORED policy at a particular article. The issue here is that some people are missing the fact that NOTREPOSITORY ONLY applies to content that isn't contained in an appropriately related article. The final line of the policy makes it clear that images and video files CAN and SHOULD be included in articles once an article is created for it to be in. WP:NOTREPOSITORY is not a valid basis to exclude valuable content from a relevant article. Alsee (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. given the SNOW here, the outcome of this RFC should be to clarify #3 by replacing the two instances "source material" with "source text". Alsee (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose policy does not need to be made worse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC).
- Support - If whole books are not permitted, why should whole films be permitted? Perhaps I have missed a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose If we have an entire film in the public domain, we should be presenting readers with the option to view the film. Burying it in a link at the bottom of the page seems counterintuitive. Mhao Koe (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
This is simply a clarification. There has been considerable discussion over a particular article, Debbie Does Dallas (see wP:Village pump (policy)#Should we move full-length movies from article space to Commons?, also Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#Link to full film on Commons and Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#Link to full film on Commons#What was the previous consensus? and User talk:Jimbo Wales#Debbie Does Dallas and its lengthy and somewhat heated, but IMO it comes to two positions:
- WP:NOTREPOSITORY does not mention films, so they're not prohibited. And for good reason: unlike putting an entire book or whatever smack in the middle of an article, a film is embedded with just single window which you click on to play it (or not if you don't want to).
- WP:NOTREPOSITORY may not mention films, but this is probably just an oversight; the spirit of NOTREPOSITORY prohibits including entire works right smack in the body of the article. Put them on Commons and then put a link to them in the External Links section, and what's so bad about that?
I hope I've stated that fairly. There are many details and there's been a lot of discussion raising various points, and you can look at the links above to see all that if you want. The basic problem is that people are trying to interpret WP:NOTREPOSITORY and arguing over whether or not it already, by implication, prohibits putting films in articles. So let's clarify this. Herostratus (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- If we are going to include movies, we should also add audio works as well, falling under the same umbrella. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yeah probably. Are people really including OGG files of entire albums or even songs in the body of articles? Normally I'd be amenable to adding "or entire songs or albums". However, this issue is contentious and difficult enough. All we need is people being like "Oppose, I do agree that films shouldn't be in but songs are OK". Cover the audio question separately in a separate RfC, I guess. (NB: I just made an early quick change to the proposal to make the sentence grammatically correct) Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes they are , per from the original VPP discussion, Goldberg Variations came up. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. Well, I don't know about that. It's different enough to be a separate discussion, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes they are , per from the original VPP discussion, Goldberg Variations came up. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah probably. Are people really including OGG files of entire albums or even songs in the body of articles? Normally I'd be amenable to adding "or entire songs or albums". However, this issue is contentious and difficult enough. All we need is people being like "Oppose, I do agree that films shouldn't be in but songs are OK". Cover the audio question separately in a separate RfC, I guess. (NB: I just made an early quick change to the proposal to make the sentence grammatically correct) Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Question: What exactly is this RFC talking about? are we talking about citations? are we talking about "external links" sections? Are we talking about an image gallery? Determining what is appropriate to link (and what is not appropriate to link) often depends on the context in which the link appears. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The lead text in WP:NOT that starts the example text to be changed is : "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:". The issue came up in that people were embedding the full video within the text of the article, which, atop other issues specific to DDD, begs if full videos should be embedded within prose, or just linked to in as an EL or the like, as one would do to link to commons galleries as opposed to having that gallery on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Including a single is not like including a gallery, it's like including an image; only a thumbnail is seen in the page, which is clearly not forbidden by NOTREPOSITORY. In order to see the film, the user still has to click the thumbnail and open a media separate media player which is thus no longer part of the article. "Embedding the film in the article", as in "hosting the film in Wikipedia", would be placing the film in auto-play at the top of the page in a maximized window; i.e. using the article as a placeholder for watching the movie, like those streaming websites do. I agree that would be forbidden by NOTREPOSITORY and we shouldn't do it, but embedding a thumbnail with a link to the video has nothing to do with that. Diego (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The lead text in WP:NOT that starts the example text to be changed is : "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:". The issue came up in that people were embedding the full video within the text of the article, which, atop other issues specific to DDD, begs if full videos should be embedded within prose, or just linked to in as an EL or the like, as one would do to link to commons galleries as opposed to having that gallery on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: Section 4 does not cover the case that this RFC resulted from, the embedding of a full movie in the text of the article about that movie, which is not a situation section 4 prevents. This actually is towards Section 3, and would require adding "Wikisource or Commons" and maybe some additional advice in the following sentences, but that's definitely where it is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- How clueless can one get? Nothing about the current or proposed modified wording is about embedding. Only about where the file is stored (Wikisource for source files in #3, Commons for media files in #4). As I said: not much thought has gone into how to formulate this RfC, and it should be closed on the spot for general cluelessness. Please present an actual question instead of this confusing non-issue: the current proposed wording of the RfC effectivley invites people to store full length films in Wikisource, which should be avoided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Francis Schonken. This is another discussion about the wrong thing, in the wrong place. Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- How clueless can one get? Nothing about the current or proposed modified wording is about embedding. Only about where the file is stored (Wikisource for source files in #3, Commons for media files in #4). As I said: not much thought has gone into how to formulate this RfC, and it should be closed on the spot for general cluelessness. Please present an actual question instead of this confusing non-issue: the current proposed wording of the RfC effectivley invites people to store full length films in Wikisource, which should be avoided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Erm. Well, look. Subsection 4 says "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text." This means that I can't create an article "Whatever (film)" which consists entirely of just an OGG file of the file presented on the page (similarly, I could create an article "Whatever (painting)" consisting entirely of just a PNG file of the painting).
It certainly doesn't prevent me from creating "Whatever (film)", writing a short stub article (perhaps even just one sentence) describing the film, and then sticking in the OGG file (just as I am surely not prevented from creating a file "Whatever (painting)" and writing a short stub article (perhaps even just one sentence) describing the painting, and then sticking in the PNG file.)
I thought that meaning of "with no accompanying text" was fairly obvious (which is why IMO Subsection 4 does not come into play here, as that is not a problem -- no one is creating, or is likely to create, articles consisting entirely of an embedded film with no text). Guess I was wrong, though. Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you agree that the current wording already does what it's intended to do, i.e. prevent hosting whole works without context, what is this whole RfC about? The proposed change would greatly expand the extent of policy by also forbidding works in context, within an article, which is not what WP:NOTREPOSITORY is intended to avoid. Diego (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll make another stab at explaining what we're talking about here:
- Example One
This is CLEARLY NOT ALLOWED by WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Subsection 3:
"The Sorrows of Young Werther" is a book by yadda yadda yadda...
[entire (public domain) contents of the book The Sorrows of Young Werther]
And so thus we see yadda yadda... [rest of article]
- Example Two
This is CLEARLY NOT FORBIDDEN by WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Subsection 3:
"The Sorrows of Young Werther" is a book by yadda yadda yadda...and so on... [rest of article]
External Links Section
*Link to website (maybe Wikisource, maybe not) containing the entire (public domain) contents of the book
OK? With me so far? So let's look at two more examples. As it now stands, it appears that WP:NOTREPOSITORY doesn't forbid either Example Three or Example Four:
- Example Three
"The Big Important Film" is a film by yadda yadda yadda...and so on... [rest of article]
External Links Section
*Link to website (maybe Commons, maybe not) containing the entire (public domain) contents of the film
- Example Four
"The Big Important Film" is a film by yadda yadda yadda...
[entire (public domain) film, click to play]
And so thus we see yadda yadda... [rest of article]
The problem is that people are interpreting and arguing over this, since it doesn't either expressly allow or forbid either one, but you can take it either way. What I'd suggest is that, if this RfC fails (and that seems certain) this uncertain state will continue, which is not good, so probably instead and by clear implication Subsection 3 should be amended to read something along the lines of:
- 3. Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording '(this does not apply to films, which may be included in Wikipedia articles)
And if the person closing the RfC finds that it hasn't been accepted, probably she ought to do this, to prevent further uncertainty and argument over the meaning of the passage. Herostratus (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ok, thanks for the clarification. I now see how current policy may be ambiguous. I would agree to a clarification like this one, which explicitly allows example four. Diego (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK. That's reasonable. Either way, there's reasonable arguments. I don't agree with you, though, and I'll explain my reasons directly below. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification. I now see how current policy may be ambiguous. I would agree to a clarification like this one, which explicitly allows example four. Diego (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the proposition because:
- Sticking anything smack in the middle of the article, directly in the path of the reader, pretty much implies "this is part of the article, and you really need to read/watch/listen to it to get the full value of the article". That's asking a bit much for motion picture, which they commonly run close to 2 hours or more. We certainly don't take this position on books. Putting something in the External Links sections implies "OK, you've read the article and gotten an overview of the subject appropriate to the level of an encyclopedia article, now here's some 'extra credit' material for further enrichment if you want". To my mind that's where a 2-hour movie belongs. It's not a huge difference, more a matter of emphasis in guiding the reader.
- There's little question in my mind that this is going to hang some people's computers. Hella people still have dial-up (and if you don't believe me, go hang out with some poor people), IMO you're more likely to get clicks by people not quite understanding what they're getting into if the link is in the middle of the article, and it's gonna hang their computer. That's unkind. (How this plays out with mobile devices I dunno.)
- Some of the movies are going to be porno movies (probably some of those being pretty nasty), and all-in-all it'd be prudent to have them separated a bit from the actual article (and FWIW hosted on the Commons or Wikisource servers rather than ours, if it matters) rather than smack-dab in the middle of the article. (For those of you making articles that have non-pornographic movies, sorry... porn is part of the Wikipedia, and it's not really possible to have separate rules for it, so you have to have overall rules that take it into consideration. Even if you're Greg Louganis you have to wear a lifejacket on the ferry and no use complaining about it, for much the same reason...) Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, some thoughts about those points:
- The proposed change doesn't say anything about length - it would forbid any full video, even if it's a few seconds long. This proposal is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
- That's a technical problem that should be with technical means, not by forbidding the content for those users who can view it. A simple css media query which added a warning message before playing the video could fix that.
- A video of a porn film would be located at an article about porn, so readers would get ample notice before accessing the video anyway. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we don't remove content merely because it's objectionable when it's relevant to the topic. Removing content because it's porn would already be bad, but removing content that is not porn merely because it shares the same file format that porn films is beyond ridiculous. Diego (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- OK, well, some thoughts about those thoughts:
- Well, people can be reasonable. It's not really possible to micromanage to the point of saying "Films of more than five minutes" (or whatever), one reason being people will be like "OPPOSE, limit should be six [or:four] minutes" and so forth. Already the rule prohibits "entire books", and yet if there was a public domain work published in book format consisting of a few lines of text, we could either be reasonable about including that, or else accept that the law is blunt instrument and not include. No rule is gonna be perfect.
- Well OK fine. No problem then. Go ahead and add the required code, then, and thanks.
- Yeah sure whatever you say. I don't agree with you about what is appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia, what is or is not likely to cause us trouble down the line, and what is or is not catnip for trolls, so we'll just agree to disagree there, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Herostratus, the files are not hosted here - they are hosted on Commons. I don't know why this is hard for people to grasp. Can you explain what you mean by "cause trouble down the line"? Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, right, OK... I wasn't clear on that in my own mind, sorry... it seems that we could host whole films on our servers, but they would be auto-moved up to commons... this would happen more or less automatically, right? OK, that would make "cause trouble down the line" a (little) bit less of an issue, maybe... doesn't change anything else though. Does it? If I created an article that consisted solely of images (with no text), would it matter a lot (for the purposes of WP:NOTREPOSITORY if the material existed on Commons's servers or ours? Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- One reason for the confusion here is that this policy has been stupidly organized from the beginning. There is no coherent overall idea, and it tries to make policy by the backwards statement of things that "Wikipedia isn't". If we put the meaning of that section into a straightforward, positive sense, then we would say:
- Oh, right, OK... I wasn't clear on that in my own mind, sorry... it seems that we could host whole films on our servers, but they would be auto-moved up to commons... this would happen more or less automatically, right? OK, that would make "cause trouble down the line" a (little) bit less of an issue, maybe... doesn't change anything else though. Does it? If I created an article that consisted solely of images (with no text), would it matter a lot (for the purposes of WP:NOTREPOSITORY if the material existed on Commons's servers or ours? Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, well, some thoughts about those thoughts:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize and explain a topic rather than simply to store a trove of documents. Photographs and other media are useful for illustrating articles, but an article is not an article without a prose explanation. While it is technically possible to present CC-licensed or public domain text such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, and proclamations, such source material should not overwhelm the article as a whole, so it generally belongs on sister projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. For similar reasons, collections of loose external links are discouraged; instead of posting a list of URLs for readers to follow, you should make an encyclopedic description of what these sources say and present them as inline references instead.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I know that this formulation lacks the whole bold Wikipedia is not chic, and would crimp someone or other's artistic style, but who cares? Enough people have lost enough content, and been sent around in endless silly argument, because of the back-asswardness of how this policy is written. It's time for this darling to be murdered, in fairness to all those others. Wnt (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Herostratus, I think you and I have very different ideas about what this part of the policy is supposed to prevent. I believe that this section of the policy boils down to a very common-sense definition of what an article is. See point 4? It says a picture without any accompanying text is not an article. That would also apply to a movie. A movie is not an article. It doesn't say (or even imply) that movies should not be added to articles. Look at the word "repository" in the policy section - it is linked to Digital library. Don't use Wikipedia as a digital library of primary sources or images. Commons is a digital library. So what we're talking about here is not using Wikipedia as a digital library, but adding content to an article. This is the wrong guideline to govern content, even if that content is a digital file. See WP:IUP. Now, can you please explain what you mean by "cause trouble down the line"? Cause trouble for whom? Who will cause the trouble? Legal trouble? Reputational trouble? What are you talking about? Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't say that entire movies shouldn't be in the middle of articles -- that's why I have suggested adding text so that it does say that. One reason I did that is, contra what you're saying, some people are interpreting it it militate against having movies within articles. I don't think that's madness or luncy -- rules can't always cover every example, so if you have a rule that says "Look, don't put the text of a novel, or 350 images, or the entire source code for a product, or the entire text of a law and so forth into an article, OK?" (which is pretty much what the current rule says) it's not crazy to interpret "and so forth" to mean "an entire feature film". You may not agree with that, but can you see how a person could make that leap? And in fact some people have been in the recent discussions. It's this lack of clarity and arguing over interpretation that's non-optimal.
- Herostratus, I think you and I have very different ideas about what this part of the policy is supposed to prevent. I believe that this section of the policy boils down to a very common-sense definition of what an article is. See point 4? It says a picture without any accompanying text is not an article. That would also apply to a movie. A movie is not an article. It doesn't say (or even imply) that movies should not be added to articles. Look at the word "repository" in the policy section - it is linked to Digital library. Don't use Wikipedia as a digital library of primary sources or images. Commons is a digital library. So what we're talking about here is not using Wikipedia as a digital library, but adding content to an article. This is the wrong guideline to govern content, even if that content is a digital file. See WP:IUP. Now, can you please explain what you mean by "cause trouble down the line"? Cause trouble for whom? Who will cause the trouble? Legal trouble? Reputational trouble? What are you talking about? Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's essentially a matter of opinion I guess. It's not terribly important either way. Just, it ought to be clear. I ought to have included two options, the second being to specifically add the text "does not apply to movies". I've called on the person closing the RfC to do just that (but they probably won't).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you don't understand what I meant by "cause trouble down the line" then no, I probably can't explain it to you, sorry. Maybe somebody else can. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here can read your mind, Herostratus. If you don't even try to explain what you mean, why do you think anyone will understand it? Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I expect that everyone else understands it, Right Hand Drive. Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here can read your mind, Herostratus. If you don't even try to explain what you mean, why do you think anyone will understand it? Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't understand what I meant by "cause trouble down the line" then no, I probably can't explain it to you, sorry. Maybe somebody else can. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Herostratus, if you want to prevent "trouble down the line" and eliminate "catnip for trolls", I suggest you move your debate to the WP:NOTCENSORED page. I also suggest you start with images of Muhammad, that is far more trouble and catnip than any other content on Wikipedia. Good luck with that. Until you do get that policy changed I request that you don't try to hijack WP:NOTREPOSITORY as wikilayer avenue to circumvent a WP:NOTCENSORED policy you don't like. Alsee (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Other idea, let's promote Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source to guideline
When we're tired of hearing what Wikipedia "is not", here's a stable formulation of what Wikipedia "is". I'd not tamper with the WP:NOT policy to insert things in it that are in fact covered better by the WP:NOR policy ("Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them") — but what might be beneficial is a guideline explaining the connection between WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOR's WP:PRIMARY. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Very good idea. It would help support NOT and how to address disputes over the application of NOT. Currently this policy defers to POV to settle disputes, which can miss the point entirely when editors disagree on what is and is not encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- There are some things I would change/add to that to be more positive, but this is a good concept to consider to parallel WP:NOT. Of note, things I'd change include omitting the PSTS re-definitions and pointing to WP:PSTS (so we don't have conflicting concepts), making sure that in speaking of illustrations outweighing secondary sources that UNDUE is an appropriate guideline, backing a bit off the notability factor (as notability itself is a guideline and there are numerous exceptions), and perhaps making sure to add some of the more net positives, like "WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit" to stress the need for civility, "WP is an unfinished work" in that there is no deadline to finish articles, "WP is an educational resource" so focus of articles should be on general information dissimination over details, and probably a few others. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have yet another policy or guideline; we already have too many, with more than enough of them being ignored or discovered after being pointed to them. Anyway, as noted at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a tertiary source#Current discussion, this proposal is in more than one place; where are editors supposed to vote on it at? At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Other idea, let's promote Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source to guideline? Discussion for this proposal needs to be centralized, per WP:TALKCENT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
RfC about embedded pornographic movie in A Free Ride
A hardcore pornographic movie has been embedded in A Free Ride since 2012. Rather than just remove the movie as was done at Debbie Does Dallas, I have started a request for comment. I assume that the results of that RfC will be useful in guiding actions at Debbie Does Dallas. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Predicting the outcomes of future legal cases
It is not uncommon for Wikipedia editors to add material that predicts the outcome of future legal cases. See, for example, this recent edit that made predictions about several cases that are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. Although WP:CRYSTAL appears to allow predictions about the outcome of cases when "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories [are] stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities" in the legal field, I think we may want to include language in WP:CRYSTAL that specifically forbids predictions about future legal cases.
There are several reasons why predictions about undecided cases are especially dangerous:
- Casual readers may rely upon these predictions to plan actions that are not currently permitted under existing law. For example, if an article predicts that a court will soon rule that citizens may own radioactive material, a reader may make plans to purchase radioactive material in anticipation of the predicted outcome of the case.
- If predictions are wrong, and the Wikipedia article is not updated after a court issues its decision, uninformed readers may assume that the incorrect predictions actually report the true status of the law.
- If a large number of experts predict a court will find a person guilty (or that an appellate court will uphold a finding of guilt or liability), then readers may assume that the person really is guilty, even if a court ultimately finds that person innocent.
I realize that the situations listed above are worst-case scenarios, but I think we should seriously consider adding language to our policy that specifically forbids predictions about the outcomes of legal cases. However, I am interested to hear from other editors on this matter, and I look forward to seeing what people have to say about this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that we should strengthen the NOTCRYSTAL policy, because every legal professional can express his/her opinion and have that published in a reliable source (i.e. even reputable newspapers will quote mere opinions). No harm in waiting for the final verdict before updating an article. On the other hand, it may be helpful to report on when a verdict is expected. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's definition something wrong with that addition as while sourced to reliable ones, it's projecting a result from one point of view. That there are cases that have been impacted by Scalia's death is certainly true, but there's opinions on how Scalia's absence will affect their result so as to focus on one opinion is more a POV aspect than CRYSTAL. I don't know how to word it or to make sure that wording is sufficiently broad to cover similar aspects (such as the results of a pending criminal case). --MASEM (t) 15:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Masem: My fear is that POV and WEIGHT would still allow editors to say "court X is likely to that Y is now legal" when every expert opinion agrees on the likely outcome. Why not just say some thing like, "Wikipedia articles should not include predictions about the outcome of undecided legal cases." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Hi. I have seen first hand what the burden of unfounded accusation does to an accused. It is not pretty. I myself have felt it too. Since Wikipedia's policy is WP:NPOV, for Wikipedia, a person is neither guilty nor innocent unless proven either way. Even once proved, that persons is "found by X to be {guilty|innocent}" and never "proven guilty" or "proven innocent". What Masem says is worth consideration but the matter of a person's reputation is worth more consideration. BLP is always extra-delicate. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be agreement to this, I would recommend the following language as a bullet point under CRYSTAL: Speculation on the results of legal trials. Speculation about how a legal trial, either civil or criminal, will conclude should be avoided, even if this speculation is backed by numerous reliable sources. Such speculation is inappropriate as described above, may be damaging to the parties involved in the legal case by bringing preliminary judgement on them, and in the case of living persons, may further be a violation of Biographies of living persons policy. Speculation on potential legal actions, such as if a company will pursue a lawsuit or not, may be appropriate if described by reliable expert sources.. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Masem: The text you have written sounds excellent! I was struggling to find the right words, but you have done a fantastic job with this proposal. The only thing I would change is that I would say "Speculation about legal cases" and replace the word "trial" (it appears twice) with the word "case." I want to make sure that this policy also covers appeals and other administrative tribunals that may function like trials, even if they aren't called "trials" in common parlance. In any event, thank you very much for writing this, and I look forward to adding this to WP:CRYSTAL. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's fair. I do think it's reasonable to speculate (if it's well sourced) that a company may be pursuing legal action, or considering an appeal, or the like, the stuff that happens before/between/after trials (or even if a trial is still ongoing, a company says that if they lose they will seek appeals, for example), so just trying to distinguish the actual courtroom factors from what happens elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is appropriate (provided that reliable sources exist) to speculate about whether an organization will pursue legal action or file an appeal, but that it is not appropriate to speculate about the likely outcome of that action or appeal. At least in the United States, it is not uncommon for analysts to predict the outcome of cases that are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States; I just want to make sure that those predictions aren't represented in Wikipedia articles. Thanks again for your help with this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good job, Masem. I think I like it. But I'd rather remove "either civil or criminal" or at least move it after "conclude". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now that we've had time to review and comment upon the proposed text, are we ready to add this to WP:CRYSTAL? Here is an updated version of the text, with the proposed edits included -- let me know if there are any additional comments or suggestions: Speculation on the results of legal
trialscases. Speculation about how a legaltrialcase, either civil or criminal,will conclude should be avoided, even if this speculation is backed by numerous reliable sources. Such speculation is inappropriate as described above, may be damaging to the parties involved in the legal case by bringing preliminary judgement on them, and in the case of living persons, may further be a violation of Biographies of living persons policy. Speculation on potential legal actions, such as if a company will pursue a lawsuit or not, may be appropriate if described by reliable expert sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)- I'd give it a couple of days, just to be clear and make sure there's no opposition and then I'll add it. I would probably just add WP:BLPCRIME as a additional link in that since it builds from that point. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like your suggestion of adding a link to WP:BLPCRIME. Thanks for your help with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd give it a couple of days, just to be clear and make sure there's no opposition and then I'll add it. I would probably just add WP:BLPCRIME as a additional link in that since it builds from that point. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now that we've had time to review and comment upon the proposed text, are we ready to add this to WP:CRYSTAL? Here is an updated version of the text, with the proposed edits included -- let me know if there are any additional comments or suggestions: Speculation on the results of legal
- Good job, Masem. I think I like it. But I'd rather remove "either civil or criminal" or at least move it after "conclude". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is appropriate (provided that reliable sources exist) to speculate about whether an organization will pursue legal action or file an appeal, but that it is not appropriate to speculate about the likely outcome of that action or appeal. At least in the United States, it is not uncommon for analysts to predict the outcome of cases that are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States; I just want to make sure that those predictions aren't represented in Wikipedia articles. Thanks again for your help with this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's fair. I do think it's reasonable to speculate (if it's well sourced) that a company may be pursuing legal action, or considering an appeal, or the like, the stuff that happens before/between/after trials (or even if a trial is still ongoing, a company says that if they lose they will seek appeals, for example), so just trying to distinguish the actual courtroom factors from what happens elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem: The text you have written sounds excellent! I was struggling to find the right words, but you have done a fantastic job with this proposal. The only thing I would change is that I would say "Speculation about legal cases" and replace the word "trial" (it appears twice) with the word "case." I want to make sure that this policy also covers appeals and other administrative tribunals that may function like trials, even if they aren't called "trials" in common parlance. In any event, thank you very much for writing this, and I look forward to adding this to WP:CRYSTAL. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. Our job as an encyclopedia is to cover things with the perspective and weight appropriate to the sources; if there's an overwhelming agreement in the sources regarding the future legal impact of some decision or event, we must cover it -- failure to do so would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV (and WP:DUE in particular.) None of your objections to this situation are encyclopedic; Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide legal advice or to protect its readers if they make the mistake of misreading the predictions it covers as facts. While we have to keep our articles up to date, this applies in all situations, not just these; it is absolutely inappropriate to leave out information that is valid, sourced, relevant, and WP:DUE simply because we are concerned that readers might misinterpret it. I do not see this suggestion as ever being one we could implement. Furthermore, as a core content policy, WP:NPOV and WP:RS trump WP:NOT; that is to say that you cannot forbid people from accurately summarizing the sources with appropriate weight by adding things to this page. If you want to make an exception to WP:DUE to allow (let alone require) the omission of information that is otherwise both reliably sourced and appropriate for the article, then you need to suggest that on WP:NPOV, not here. We could mention that such speculation should not be covered if it is WP:FRINGE, or if covering it would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight (as is often the case if it's eg. just the speculation of one editorial); but WP:NOT must make it clear that including it is not only appropriate but, in some cases, required when it meets the standard WP:DUE imposes. If we have eg. a large number of high-profile legal scholars concurring on the future impact of some legal event, WP:DUE does not permit us to omit it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's not how NPOV or UNDUE work. WP summarizes sources but we do not mirror them. Many of our policies are set to adjust our coverage to an encyclopedic manner; we remove material that may be sourced if it violates BLP, we don't simply regurgitate news per NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM, we don't cover routine news stories, and we work against systematic bias. So if even if there's speculation that John Smith will be declared guilty by many RSes, we are at liberty not to include per BLP, NOT#CRYSTALBALL, and RECENTISM, as once the trial is complete, we'll have that factual data. NOT is one of the five key policies and equal in weight to V, NPOV, and NOR. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'd like to echo much of what Masem said above. However, I would like to emphasize the interrelationship between WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. One fundamental attribute of all Wikipedia articles is that they "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" (quoting WP:NOTEVERYTHING). When reading this maxim, it is important to distinguish between "accepted knowledge" and predictions about future events. Moreover, some kinds of future events can be predicted with relative certainty (e.g. the fact that there will be a presidential election in the United States this November can be predicted to a fair degree of certainty), while other future events cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Legal cases can never be predicted with any degree of certainty because it is impossible to know the criteria that a court will use to adjudicate a case. To that extent, predictions about legal cases are not verifiable because those predictions will be based upon "unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" (quoting WP:V at WP:NOTRELIABLE). Although legal and political commentators often make inferences based on the ways in which courts and judges have ruled in the past, those inferences are hardly "accepted knowledge" and are really nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation (per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V). Furthermore, the publication of such guesswork in this encyclopedia will inevitable cause the reader to believe that a party is civilly or criminally liable even though a court has not ruled upon the case. For those reasons, we should clarify that Wikipedia articles should avoid speculation about the outcome of future legal cases. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree that such predictions about the outcome of legal cases should not be made in Wikipedia's voice. Of course, there are cases where it is appropriate to include predictions made by external reliable sources, in particular when such predictions have caused reactions that have been analyzed by other reliable sources; as an example, Catalan declaration of sovereignty is being widely discussed in Spanish political media, as it is expected that it will be overruled by the Constitutional Court of Spain. Another example may be everything that went around California Proposition 8; it wouldn't make sense to exclude predictions over the outcome of such high profile cases.
- This clarification of the guideline should not be used as a reason to exclude such encyclopedic coverage of people who make predictions about the future of legal cases. In short, don't introduce anything that collides with WP:CRYSTAL's "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Diego (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that idea does give a line to be drawn between criminal cased and civil lawsuits (in which there is a potential penalty if the verdict falls one way or another), in contrast to policy and governing regulations (generally affirming or nullifying existing laws). I agree that speculation on the Catalan case would be appropriate to include (attributed to secondary expert sources, of course), or for example, most US SCOTUS cases which are generally about conflicts in laws; here, though, I would expect that a multitude of sources have common agreement on how such cases will resolve before we can include them; a random expert commenting without any other collaborative comments would be UNDUE. On the other hand, if a person or company is on a criminal trial, we absolutely want to avoid any speculation which way the case might fall, though we would accept sourced documentation and analysis of the court proceedings. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that may be an useful criterion. Criminal cases are more likely to bring BLP issues with them, so they should be handled with care. Diego (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to respond to Diego's original comment by making two points. First, with respect to the assertion that WP:CRYSTAL permits speculation when such speculation is "properly referenced," predictions about the outcome of legal cases are never verifiable because they inherently involve the unsubstantiated guesswork of pundits who have no way of knowing how a court will rule in the future (see my comments above in response to Aquillion). Predictions about legal cases are fundamentally different from other kinds of future predictions; you can predict that a skyscraper will be built if a developer purchases land on which to build the structure and hires contractors to build it, but it is impossible to step into the mind of a judge to determine the criteria the judge will use to adjudicate a matter. Second, we should not distinguish between criminal and civil cases when writing this policy. When a party is found to be civilly liable (even if the party is a corporation or government entity), such a finding may attract just as much enmity in the eye of the public as a finding of criminal guilt. Nor should we distinguish between those cases and cases that involve the validity of statutes and regulations, because speculation that laws are invalid will inevitable lead to premature judgment about whether lawmakers and other officials are acting appropriately in their official capacity. Nor should we distinguish between cases that have received significant attention in the press and cases that have received little attention. All cases matter a great deal to the parties involved, and we should make sure to strengthen WP:CRYSTAL so that we do not suggest to our readers that a party is guilty or liable before a court of law has officially ruled on the matter. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Predictions may not be directly verifiable as descriptions of future events, but it is verifiable that a reliable source has made them - therefore they can be included following the criteria in WP:RSOPINION (i.e. you can't say "this case will be ruled in favor of the defendant with high probability", but you can say "specialised journalist Mr J. predicted that this case will be ruled in favor of the defendant based on criteria X and Y"). That's the essence of my comment, and I don't think that WP:CRYSTAL should forbid the latter, although it could warn that it should be made with care (mostly because of BLP concerns, which already includes such caveats). Diego (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to respond to Diego's original comment by making two points. First, with respect to the assertion that WP:CRYSTAL permits speculation when such speculation is "properly referenced," predictions about the outcome of legal cases are never verifiable because they inherently involve the unsubstantiated guesswork of pundits who have no way of knowing how a court will rule in the future (see my comments above in response to Aquillion). Predictions about legal cases are fundamentally different from other kinds of future predictions; you can predict that a skyscraper will be built if a developer purchases land on which to build the structure and hires contractors to build it, but it is impossible to step into the mind of a judge to determine the criteria the judge will use to adjudicate a matter. Second, we should not distinguish between criminal and civil cases when writing this policy. When a party is found to be civilly liable (even if the party is a corporation or government entity), such a finding may attract just as much enmity in the eye of the public as a finding of criminal guilt. Nor should we distinguish between those cases and cases that involve the validity of statutes and regulations, because speculation that laws are invalid will inevitable lead to premature judgment about whether lawmakers and other officials are acting appropriately in their official capacity. Nor should we distinguish between cases that have received significant attention in the press and cases that have received little attention. All cases matter a great deal to the parties involved, and we should make sure to strengthen WP:CRYSTAL so that we do not suggest to our readers that a party is guilty or liable before a court of law has officially ruled on the matter. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that may be an useful criterion. Criminal cases are more likely to bring BLP issues with them, so they should be handled with care. Diego (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that idea does give a line to be drawn between criminal cased and civil lawsuits (in which there is a potential penalty if the verdict falls one way or another), in contrast to policy and governing regulations (generally affirming or nullifying existing laws). I agree that speculation on the Catalan case would be appropriate to include (attributed to secondary expert sources, of course), or for example, most US SCOTUS cases which are generally about conflicts in laws; here, though, I would expect that a multitude of sources have common agreement on how such cases will resolve before we can include them; a random expert commenting without any other collaborative comments would be UNDUE. On the other hand, if a person or company is on a criminal trial, we absolutely want to avoid any speculation which way the case might fall, though we would accept sourced documentation and analysis of the court proceedings. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Needs more work I think this needs more discussion before implementing. I say this despite liking the wording proposed by Masem.
- Currently, we have a Policy (wp:crystal) prohibiting predictions about the future. That policy has an exception, for prospects of success, if supported by experts. So far, OK. But now we are talking about creating an exception to the exception – namely that prospects of success, even when accompanied by references to experts, are not allowed if they involve legal cases. And we are debating an exception to the exception to the exception, to say, for example, that discussions of the prospects of the Catalan case are allowed. Sorry, my head is spinning. This is how laws are written, and that is not a compliment.
- I’ll propose a general meta-rule. When we craft a broad statement, it is likely that rule will have exceptions. If we find ourselves needing to add an exception to the exception, we shouldn’t just do it, we should pull back and rethink the whole thing.
- I agree with Masem’s point that some predictions, even if supported by reliable sources, may ended up being BLP, but that doesn’t mean we have to specifically warn that speculation about a legal trial may violate BLP – we already have the metarule that BLP trumps crystal. We don’t need to say it again.
- I am also not convinced that legal cases are so special. Do we think readers actually conclude “Hey I may buy some radioactive material, because Wikipedia says it might be legal”? For those cynics who respond “yes”, where’s the harm? The individual calls the supplier, tries to place an order and is turned down, because it is not yet legal. I think predictions of the impact of global warming have real-world implications an order of magnitude more important than the possibility a reader might mistakenly assume someone is guilty of something. My goal is not to trivialize the latter, just to point out that there are much bigger issues. If we are going to carve out exceptions to exceptions, we either need a more exhaustive review of the set of things belonging in the list, or we ought to revisit CRYSTAL itself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- In general agreement here to avoid exceptions to the exception, but I think something needs to be added. As currently in place, this sentence in the lede of the NOT#CRYSTAL "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." technically enables the prediction of how a legal case will close if a reasonable expert comes along to make the point. The harm that's at play is the immediate financial or personal damage that a specifically named person or entity will incur on the close of the case, which we should not be predicting on, hence why civil/criminal cases are here. In contrast, a SCOTUS case challenging the constitutionality of a law is not going to have an immediate impact on any person/entity.
- Now, BLP does help that if the case is about a person, that speculation is right out regardless if sourced; even if 100 sources claim X is guilty of murder before the case is over, we shouldn't at all say that. But that leaves cases of entities (businesses and other groups) that still may suffer direct damages from a civil case. But that begs the question given how BLP policy works, if we need to protect such entities. If not , then this whole thing can be easily fixed by a few words somewhere in the existing preamble of NOT#CRYSTAL stressing the importance of making predictions on an issue involving BLP/BLPCRIME. If we need to assure entities are also similarly covered, then we need something more. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Question about WP:NOTGUIDE interpretation
Does WP:NOTGUIDE mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information that could be used as a guide, or that it can't be written as one? In other words does it regard the content or tone?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- This would apply to tone, not content. We should not set out to write in the style of a guide, but if to discuss a topic it is necessary to present information that would be in a guide otherwise, that's acceptable. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Masem is right. The spirit of WP:NOTGUIDE is not write to paragraphs or numbered lists about how to accomplish a task, like how to make kebab. But consider this: If you look at the present state of the article kebab, you get a good idea how to make some. I myself don't avoid sentences that both declare a fact and at the same time are how-to, especially when they are one or two, or short.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Aye. It's much to do with instructional or "advicey" tone, too. I very frequently encounter material in cat, dog, and other pet-related articles that meant well, but amounts to "how often you should groom your Persian" advice. It's one thing to say "according to the GCCF, TICA, and FIFe, long-haired breeds like the Persian require at least weekly grooming to avoid matting of the fur.[12][13][14]" It's quite another to write something like "Weekly brushing, at least, is needed for your Persian, or matted hair will result", with the same citations. We shouldn't ever use "Wiki-voice" to give advice or say anything that can be taken as WP giving advice (red-flag words: should, must, need, can, etc.). But the fur-related point is an encyclopedic fact if three major fancier-and-breeder organizations agree on this point as a limitation of the breed and a dependency it has on humans; we can report it that way. Since it constitutes advice in the sources, that actually makes them primary sources for that opinion (even if high-value ones in the context), so they should be directly attributed and not given undue weight (Maybe other authorities disagree? If it was only the Azerbaijan Cat Club and the Cat Breeder's Association of Kansas who said this, we probably would not include it at all, due to low established publisher reputability and lack of breadth of expertise available to them. Anyway, I encounter issues like this at a wide range of articles, including sports and games, operating systems and software, law and regulations, medicine/health/lifestyle, tools and machinery, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No Non-Encyclopedic Material in Userspace
Should this recent edit [1] which directs material that is non-encyclopedic cannot exist in userspace be overturned? All userboxes describing the hobbies and habitations of our non-notable editors are non-encyclopedic in nature. This new policy seems to be a major policy shift outlawing userboxes. (Which might be a good thing, but probably warrants some discussion.)LavaBaron (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion that it was based on was from editors using userspace for web hosting of pages completely unrelated to editing the encyclopedia. Other policies clearly establish that user pages to identify one's hobbies and other interests as related to what they edit helps in the areas of communication needed for WP, so these aren't a problem. As long as we understand that material that supports the construction of an encyclopedia is fair, then this addition isn't a problem. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Without the background and caveat of this explanation none of this is readily apparent. WP policies should be worded and composed in such a way that they stand on their own and can be easily understood without a guide or interpreter to explain the story behind how they came to be. Three years from now no one will know that this new policy is "based on was from editors using userspace for web hosting of pages completely unrelated to editing the encyclopedia". LavaBaron (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted the change. Adding a new point to WP:NOT requires discussion. The discussion originally cited for the change was about WP:U5's wording and deletion summary, not WP:NOT at all. And it was at WT:CSD, which is very much the wrong venue even if WP:NOT were being discussed. And, in any case, there was no consensus from the discussion. A2soup (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Something along these lines should be retained, of course, under WP:NOT#WEBHOST, just with better wording. It's not that the userspace content is "unencyclopedic", but unrelated to working on the encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I reworded it a bit more, and now my policy-related objections to it are resolved, but I still don't think it should be here. The reason is that it is nothing but a quick summary of part of WP:UPNOT. Creating redundant policy guidance like this is potentially problematic because the two policies can diverge over time, even though they address the same subject. This creates contradictory policy, with no clear indication of which is correct. For this reason, I think that mirroring WP:UPNOT here is a bad idea, and the addition should be removed. A2soup (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like either of these versions. The current version says Don't store material unambiguously unrelated to Wikipedia's goals, including in userspace. See WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included. There is nothing that lists Wikipedia's goals and the word "goal" is not a term of art. This creates an open vortex that will undoubtedly prompt future fights and disagreements as editors try to determine if something is or is not in violation of Wikipedia's undefined goals. The caveat to see UPNOT for examples only notes these are examples but not an all-encompassing list of proscribed information so doesn't resolve the potential for word-parsing disagreement. We should eviscerate this entire addition and initiate a new, dedicated discussion from scratch if there's a desire to add something to this effect. LavaBaron (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's surely resolvable with some additional word-smithing? I agree we don't want to open a new lawyering/gaming can of worms in the process of trying to close an old one. PS: I have no big objection to removing it and re-drafting in talk, but I think a lot of progress has been made just tinkering with it in situ. That said, this is not my normal policy haunt, so I'll defer to people who spend more time on this page and are more attuned to where unexpected loopholes can open up (I know I see many that others miss when it comes to WP:MOS matters, since I spend most of my policypage time there). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The way it's being done here is not a policy-fork risk at all; it's a very, very compressed summary of the gist, with a direct cross-reference to where the detailed material is. We do this in about 1000 places in our policies and guidelines; this is standard-operating-procedure cross-referencing. I'm not wedded to the particular language. The important part is that it's really bizarre for us to have had a section in this policy about not using WP as a webhost, without actually addressing not using it as a webhost, except for a couple of oddly specific things like obituaries (???). An edit along these lines, whatever the exact wording resolves the cognitive dissonance of us having a policy that isn't fully about what it says it's about. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like either of these versions. The current version says Don't store material unambiguously unrelated to Wikipedia's goals, including in userspace. See WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included. There is nothing that lists Wikipedia's goals and the word "goal" is not a term of art. This creates an open vortex that will undoubtedly prompt future fights and disagreements as editors try to determine if something is or is not in violation of Wikipedia's undefined goals. The caveat to see UPNOT for examples only notes these are examples but not an all-encompassing list of proscribed information so doesn't resolve the potential for word-parsing disagreement. We should eviscerate this entire addition and initiate a new, dedicated discussion from scratch if there's a desire to add something to this effect. LavaBaron (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely - I found that the webhost policy was not aligned with the old or new wording of WP:U5 which needs to be corrected because U5 (and XfD) is how we implement the policy. We need to say you can't store random junk that is not related to the project and because the random junk is limited only by the imagination of random drive-by editors, the wording needs to be pretty broad. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the point that this page should line up better with WP:UPNOT. Adding the word "unsuitable" does not accomplish that, since that word is not present in WP:UPNOT (or WP:U5 for that matter). If our purpose here is to align the policies, it only makes sense to do that with the language from WP:UPNOT - anything else will add to the confusion. As such, I've removed "unsuitable" in favor of WP:UPNOT's "not related to Wikipedia's goals". They mean different things, so the difference is substantive. A2soup (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I reworded it a bit more, and now my policy-related objections to it are resolved, but I still don't think it should be here. The reason is that it is nothing but a quick summary of part of WP:UPNOT. Creating redundant policy guidance like this is potentially problematic because the two policies can diverge over time, even though they address the same subject. This creates contradictory policy, with no clear indication of which is correct. For this reason, I think that mirroring WP:UPNOT here is a bad idea, and the addition should be removed. A2soup (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried to distinguish this point better from the first point in the section. If this still isn't satisfactory, I'll leave it to youse all (all-y'all?) to sort it out, including removing it if it comes to that. I would just like to see the loophole closed. The "personal" in point #1 is WP:LAWYERable / WP:GAMEable, and we'd now explicitly exclude using WP userspace as a sandbox for people's work-related MediaWiki installations, non-WMF Wikia projects, etc. Maybe we should say something like "non-Wikipedia and non-WMF" or something; it's not like we want to shake our fists at someone for housing some Wiktionary or WikiData material here, after all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The reference to WP:UPNOT is a great addition. The section lines up closely with WP:U5. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@A2soup "not related to Wikipedia's goals" only mirrors the first section at WP:UPNOT and we should cover off the other sections too - all of which we regularly find examples of. "Unsuitable" or " unrelated to Wikipedia" (to quote a phrase at the top) is a better catchall. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with "unrelated to Wikipedia" as a faithful summary of WP:UPNOT. "Unsuitable" is new language not in UPNOT and so should not be introduced here under the guise of mirroring UPNOT. I see that you have chosen to use "unrelated to Wikipedia" in your latest edit, and I thank you for that. A2soup (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, we can use more license in summarizing sources in articles than we can in summarizing policies and guidelines, because people will argue half to death over interpretation. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Since the "unsuitable" wording wasn't agreeable – it was just what I thought of off the top of my head – I've thought on it, looking at the version partially reverted to, reading:
Content for encyclopedia-unrelated projects. Don't store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included.
It's mostly adequate. The first item in the section is a don't-store-personal-junk here rule, while the point of this one was don't-store-stuff-for-non-WP-projects-here-either (including organizational). I think this could be clearer with something like "Don't store material for projects unrelated to Wikipedia ...". That would definitely make the anti-gaming ("It's not personal! It's for a GNU project! Gotcha!") distinction that was intended, without including any "suitability" language that someone objected to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
Mousham gupta (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
ÀÈņBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousham gupta (talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not .
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR and phone numbers
Can someone please remind me why we always link to organizations' websites, but rarely to their telephone numbers, when the latter are often much more difficult to find? I know it's tradition, but I am interested in the reasons, if any, behind the tradition. EllenCT (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- For one, website addresses work directly from anywhere in the world, while phone numbers require the user to figure out appropriate dialing codes. Second, if a company has gone out of their way to limit its phone number (even if a bit of googling can find it), we should respect that, while a website address is meant to be a public front. Thirdly, many companies that even have public phone numbers have multiple numbers depending on whom you want to call (tech support, general HQ, etc.), so deciding which to include can be a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also, there's the matter that a website will provide you information about an organization more or less immediately without requiring making contact with them, where a phone number is simply one method to contact them & tells one little more than that. (The website may provide less information than one expects, but even that omission is information. Sometimes important information.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC:_Address. There is a discussion about whether WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTYELLOW prohibits the inclusion of non-notable school addresses in {{Infobox school}}. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
NOTREPOSITORY
Ping Alanscottwalker please explain this edit. Wikisource does not accept anything except source texts, so it is an obviously valid clarification to say that only source texts be uploaded there. Not to mention the fact that the just closed RFC overwhelmingly rejected idea that things like video files are supposed to be covered in that section, again justifying clarification. I'm not sure if you're familiar with how policy is edited, but it is improper to baselessly revert an accurate clarification of policy. Are you suggesting that the policy SHOULD direct people to (impossibly) upload something other than source-texts to Wikisource? Alsee (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since you're wondering, yes I've written policy, and second, if you want to change policy, you should start an RfC and get a positive consensus for your proposal, not just edit in what you think maybe should go there based on being INVOLVED in the RFC, especially when you have been prominently involved in issues ongoing related to films. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Alan is right here. You took an RFC that overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to add one type of media and extrapolated it into a decision to remove other types of media. There was some sentiment that non-text works should be covered by point 4 of the policy, but I do not believe that RFC achieved consensus support for the change you made. I think if you want to formally split text and media into distinct points (basically, rewriting #3 and #4 of the existing), that is fine - and depending on how it is worded, would likely support (if it avoided the issue I called out in that particular RFC) - but that will require a discussion focused on that aspect. Resolute 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Resolute, Wikisource only accepts text. Do you agree that Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource should be clarified to say Complete copies of primary texts may go into Wikisource? In conjunction with that, it says Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Only texts can be uploaded to Wikisource, and only texts can have wording. There is no possible meaning for "source materials" there except text. Alsee (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC) In addition to the fact that it lists SIX fairly exhaustive examples specifically of textual materials. Alsee (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Resolute, #4 already explicitly covers media. The only thing at issue here is clarifying #3. Alsee (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I regret replying so hastily. I shouldn't have rushed off the initial knee-jerk explanation about #3 when your actual concern was not to remove other media completely. We're in agreement. #1 covers external links, #2 covers internal links, #3 covers texts, #4 covers images and media. I was not making change to the meaning of policy. Images and media are indisputably covered. I was just avoiding the (strange) misreading of policy where people try to shoehorn media under #3. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the change again. If you want to change the meaning of the policy, you have to seek a consensus to do so. This applies particularly given that you are an involved editor in discussions elsewhere that rely on the original wording of NOTREPOSITORY. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Amakuru I am not changing the meaning of policy, and I request you either revert your disruptive edit, or offer a substantive basis for believing your edit was an improvement. Alsee (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alsee two other editors in this same section already objected to your change, but you insisted on making it again. If you believe it's the correct change, then talk to the closer of the RfC above to see if that was their intention, or open a new RfC here. You were entitled to make the change through WP:BOLD, but since it has been challenged, please seek consensus. The RfC above rejected establishing any new wording in that section. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Amakuru I am not changing the meaning of policy, and I request you either revert your disruptive edit, or offer a substantive basis for believing your edit was an improvement. Alsee (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the change again. If you want to change the meaning of the policy, you have to seek a consensus to do so. This applies particularly given that you are an involved editor in discussions elsewhere that rely on the original wording of NOTREPOSITORY. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The issue I see is that Wikisource just doesn't take "texts", but any material presenting solely in a textual format. This includes things with primitive formating like data tables, lists, etc. which would not normally be called "texts", but do fall under "materials". While one can argue that images and video may also fall under "materials", there's no way to upload those to Wikisource. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- MASEM how about using your word "textural" instead?
- Amakuru I remind you that all edits, including edits to policy, must be made with a good-faith belief that they are an improvement. I am questioning whether you had any good faith reason that policy should mislead editors into wasting time going to Wikisource trying to upload content that isn't accepted there. Will you accept
Masem's suggestionof "textural"? Alsee (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (Sorry, it's not actually Masem's suggestion, but hopefully that was what Masem had in mind.) Alsee (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you are arguing without checking the premises. "In addition to texts, Wikisource hosts material such as comics, films, recordings and spoken-word works." therefore the suggested change rejected Case closed. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, that's weird. The lead repeatedly says "texts", I didn't see that last line. Ok, it was a good faith mistake thinking only texts can be uploaded there. We've still got a consensus rejecting films from #3, a fairly exhaustive listing of textual works and others with "wording", and images/media clearly covered by #4. I guess we'll need an RFC to either clarify #3 as "textual", or add some language excluding films from #3. Alsee (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Recent changes
This diff shows some changes from 15:24, 31 March 2016 to 01:16, 3 April 2016. The changes:
- Add {{Important concept}} box at top.
- Link to WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in the lead.
- Change the first of the following lines to the second:
- Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.
- Information should be included in this encyclopedia if it is verifiable and useful.
- Change:
- summary of accepted knowledge
- summary of human knowledge
I have removed these changes because:
- Excess boxes lead to banner blindness and saying this policy is important is essentially meaningless because we don't want passers by to ignore pages which do not carry that message.
- The linked essay is great but policies do not depend on essays and there is no need to make editors wonder whether they need to study the linked page to understand this policy.
- That reversed the meaning and is false.
- There is no need to mention that we are human, but there is a need to mention accepted—stuff we heard last night is knowledge but it is not necessarily accepted knowledge.
Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree in particular with the idea that "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful". This violates WP:ENC. -- Kendrick7talk 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please think about the before-and-after text in #3 above and consider the meaning of the words. It is clear that they contradict each other, so one of them must be wrong. What are the chances that the original text is incorrect given then it has been in plain view in the policy for a long time?
- The original #3 is saying that, for example, "my teacher is 30 years old" may be true (and verifiable), but being true (and verifiable) is not a sufficient reason to include the text.
- By the way, it is not possible to "violate WP:ENC" in any meaningful way because WP:ENC is an essay—it's a great essay and I agree with all it says, but it is correct only because it mirrors policies. If an action was contrary to what WP:ENC advises, the action would violate the corresponding policy, and that is the reason the action would be bad.
- It's great to be bold, but it is really undesirable to edit war on a policy. If someone changes long-standing text and is reverted, the best response would be to engage in discussion (not at my talk!) and wait for other opinions. Johnuniq (talk)
- The important factor here is the word solely - certainly information we include should be true/verifiable, but that is not the only factor we use in determining whether something should be included. Certain true facts may be out of our scope, not notable, etc. I agree with the revert and suggest the removal of the dubious tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:ENC is not a guideline or policy, just a poster form of this page. Nor does the wording contradict it at all. This point, differently worded, has been in the page text since 2005 at least. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I support Johnbod's revision. The first is more appropriate for this policy (eg what we are not) and sets up that this policy is outlining types of information, though might be "true or useful", is information we routine avoid including. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the wording from circa 2014[2] was at least more diplomatic in getting the point across. "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful." I would support a reversion to the old wording. -- Kendrick7talk 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- As there doesn't seem to be any immediate disagreement, I've restored the older language. Saying that this is simply a common sense directive by which information can't apply to any encyclopedia is very different in spirit from presenting this as a directive by which information shouldn't apply to this specific encyclopedia. Forgive me this silly quibble, but WP:5P is my theology. -- Kendrick7talk 03:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I support Johnbod's revision. The first is more appropriate for this policy (eg what we are not) and sets up that this policy is outlining types of information, though might be "true or useful", is information we routine avoid including. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
More recent "recent changes"
I reverted the following change of Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful. ". We have no rights to speak about "any" encyclopedia. We are writing a guideline for *this* encyclopedia. I am sure we have no idea about rules of inclusion of thousands of cyclopedias of all times and tongues. Some of them welcome dicdefs, others are full of "howto"s, etc. I am sure for every our WP:NOT there is a compendium where it is IS:TOO (well, maybe with the exception of modern webspam... or maybe even not :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Yes, that is a very good point, and perhaps that sort of reasoning explains why the language was changed in the first place. I do think we're all basically on the same page here; however, I remain worried about the latest version potentially being taken out of context, given that Wikipedia's main goal is to actually provide useful information. I'll try to come up with a more consensus version. -- Kendrick7talk 03:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking about "accepted knowledge" versus "human knowledge". NOTEVERYTHING uses the formulation "accepted knowledge", but that makes us ask: accepted by whom? By scientists? (The proposal to adopt a scientific point of view failed.) By any reliable source? (Maybe.) By editors? (Unfortunately, this is all too frequently the practical answer.) The "human knowledge" phrase, or even the "sum of all knowledge" line from the movement's vision, might be more appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
"Not a dating service"
Section "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" has a "not-bullet" "Dating services". Why is it necessary? This is clearly a non-encyclopedic activity and quite covered by WP:NOTSTUPID. I would suggest to remove it, unless there an evidence of significant abuse of this type, so that we have to add this "do not piss on walls"-type guideline. There are plenty other stupid ideas of using WP for various online services: "WP is not Ticketmaster", "WP is not Craiglist", "WP is not Vanpool", "WP is not Meetup", etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't find any discussion of this in the past archives here but nor can easily see when it was added. I do think calling out "dating service" is not helpful, but should rather call out "social networking" of which dating service would be a part of and can be explicitly mentioned. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking about rewriting of this entire section under the new title "Wikipedia is not a host for various online services", and the bullets are written along the following format (roughly):
- All wikipedia pages, in all namespaces are to serve the purpose of wikipedia: building encyclopedia < etc..>
- WP is not your personal blog. It is OK to document your wikipedia activities, your editing preferences, even your hobbies, if this help other wikipedians to understand which topics you would rather improve in wikipedia. It is not OK do describe your recent date or how bad IYO this presidential candidate is <etc.>
- WP is not a memorial <you know what>. At the same time we may pay our respects to wikipedians who left us.
- All wikipedia pages, in all namespaces are to serve the purpose of wikipedia: building encyclopedia < etc..>
- I other words, for every WP:NOT, there surely is en exception (in non-article space) for activities which serve wikipedia's goals. What do you think? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- That might be better, but I would make sure to lead it off that for nearly all cases there is some lax allows for what is accepted per WP:UP (all geared towards maintaining a collaborative atmosphere for editing), and then going into the specifics. I would suggest rewriting it here first before actively putting it in place. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking about rewriting of this entire section under the new title "Wikipedia is not a host for various online services", and the bullets are written along the following format (roughly):
- The text was there in April 2010 before the WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE shortcut was created. The origin probably does not matter. On the face of it, the advice is not needed because if an editor propositioned someone, the facts of life would be quickly explained to them. However, the text may have been aimed more at what is in user space. It's ok to say "I'm a biologist with an interest in evolution..."—that's generic info that might be on any resume and which is relevant for a user page. However, anything like "I'm a horny guy with all the right attributes..." is near the top of NOT. I'm thinking if it ain't broke may apply and it's not worth removing, although the shortcut WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE could be removed to shorten the list. The ideas above look good and would be worth considering, if the effort were considered worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarification regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY
In city or place articles, are bulleted lists of:
- schools
- colleges
- universities
- banks
- medical institutions
- government offices
- TV stations
- radio stations
- news programs
- newspapers
considered "directories", and should be deleted? I agree that they clutter the page, and might not always have enough information (since they are in bulleted list and not in prose form), but should they be always removed from place articles? I am a bit concerned about this revision (especially the schools list—are they not that relevant?) Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, that diff is a problem. We simply just don't list all of these that might be in a city, but use discretion. It would be appropriate to list public schools that the city manages, as well as any major college or university that may be in the city. It is also reasonable to highlight any of the forms of media that serve that city, but not simply every station or newspaper that city might happen to get. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a memorial but it is an obituary?
Hey! I tried to create #Redirect WP:NOTOBITUARY but apparently this page title is blacklisted. Any idea why? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOT doesn't explicitly mention obituaries so I'm not sure that such a redirect would be appropriate. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the "article" Robert Provan is an obituary, which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and in my AfD post I wanted to link this page under the link "NOTOBITUARY" (which is substantially the same as "NOTMEMORIAL"), but I couldn't because for whatever reason this link doesn't exist yet. I guess this wasn't the place to come to to ask why it is blacklisted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hijiri 88, I'm not seeing any entry in the logs for that page, and I was able to create the redirect with no problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, that's super-weird. I've been hear for 11 years and have over 11,000 edits, and you're not an admin. When I searched for the title, the normal line offering to let me create the page and including a red link was missing, and when I created User:Hijiri88/WP:NOTOBITUARY and tried to move it into the Wikipedia namespace, I was specifically told that it was in the title blacklist. That's super-weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hijiri 88, I'm not seeing any entry in the logs for that page, and I was able to create the redirect with no problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the "article" Robert Provan is an obituary, which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and in my AfD post I wanted to link this page under the link "NOTOBITUARY" (which is substantially the same as "NOTMEMORIAL"), but I couldn't because for whatever reason this link doesn't exist yet. I guess this wasn't the place to come to to ask why it is blacklisted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Request for template to mark WP:NOTTRAVEL articles.
I propose that someone come up with a template that would explicitly tell that an article/section promotes a locality in subjective/promotional manner like a travel guide, locality tourism page. An example of this page is the Vigan article. This is especially a problem for localities with tourism as a major industry not so much for more obscure towns (but it still happens). I would want it to word in a way that the contents may be transferred to Wikivoyage, somewhere in the template where the Wikivoyage page is linked with the Wikivoyage logo prominent in the template. Also its a way to improve Wikipedia's sister project, especially if many of the problematic pages/sections are marked with this template.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe one exists: {{Travel guide}}. If you think you need a section-specific version (such as {{Confusing section}} is the section-counterpart to {{Confusing}}, that could be made too. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes {{Travel guide}}. This is what I'm looking for. Apparently changing parameter (1=) into (1=section) will change "article" into section. Thanks.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Issue with "Wikipedia is not censored"
I am a new user who was reading through this page, and when I came to the end of the "Wikipedia is not censored section" I saw that "Wikipedia will not remove information or images concerning an organization merely because that organization's rules or traditions forbid display of such information online." To me it seems that this is potentially inviting users to post private information about individuals or organizations when those organizations or individuals would prefer for it not to be posted, such as when the organization could face legal action due to the disclosure. Thanks for considering this, Gluons12 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC).
- That sort of thing falls under WP:OUTING, part of Wikipedia's harassment policy. The wording on this page is more about, say, Freemasons or Scientologists wanting to keep their rituals and traditions secret. clpo13(talk) 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is usually countered by two other policies: WP:BLP and WP:V. Any private personal information must be of the type that meets BLP policy, so if the organization doesn't provide it readily, and it's not documented anywhere else, we don't include it. And even when the information is not related to persons, verifyability requires us to be able to source this information, so if the organization doesn't publish it, we can't use insider knowledge for retaining the information. (And as Clpo13 gives, OUTING is further on this point) --MASEM (t) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)