Contents
- 1 We are social
- 2 WP:NOTDIR and phone numbers
- 3 NOTREPOSITORY
- 4 Recent changes
- 5 "Not a dating service"
- 6 Clarification regarding WP:NOTDIRECTORY
- 7 Wikipedia is not a memorial but it is an obituary?
- 8 Request for template to mark WP:NOTTRAVEL articles.
- 9 Issue with "Wikipedia is not censored"
- 10 Crystal election date references
- 11 Forking WP:PRICES into its own page
- 12 recruitment
- 13 Should bio sections be dedicated to Rumors?
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)
-
-
- This is a very good point and should have its own section in the talk page. I think a new page should be made just to address this problem brought up by Hamsterlopithecus.Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- not a club? I'm not sure that's a very good motto for the behavior you're pointing at. I remember there are some policies which talk about getting input from independent, uninvolved Wikipedians when attempting to build consensus; maybe some clarification is needed in those policies or elsewhere, that the independent, uninvolved person shouldn't be someone with a history of working with one side or the other. 64.186.47.170 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 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)
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)
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[1] 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)
- FWIW, I support all four of Johnuniq's reverts, for the rationales he gave, though open to re-adopting "human", per the discussion below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:53, 8 May 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)
- I like the idea I saw in an edit summary about this, that we should use "human" because it was the formulation used by one of the founders. While Johnuniq is correct that we don't need to remind anyone that we're human, that's not really the point of the wording choice. I can't read Wales's mind, but I'm pretty sure he chose it for reasons we now address at WP:SYSTEMICBIAS; it stresses that WP is not an American project, or a Western one, or an English-language one, but a project for the whole world. I also agree that "accepted" is question-begging. The fact that we don't mean conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or things made up in the back yard one day, is already inherent in the meaning of the word knowledge, versus, say, data, both of which can be called information in various contexts. It's like the distinction between wisdom and memorization, both of which can be called learning or competence, but with very different implications.
At any rate, a great deal of WP:NOT, and various other polices, adequately explain that not every fact, supposition, or claim can or should be included here, so having WP:NOT repeat Jimbo's vision statement of WP as the repository for the sum total of all human knowledge is not actually problematic here, and is good for institutional memory and continuity. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:53, 8 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)
-
- But if an editor posted "I'm a biologist with an interest in reproduction", would that run afoul of WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE? EEng 23:43, 7 May 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)
- However, the policy Wikipedia is not censored, while clear, is far more often referred to blatantly incorrectly than it is correctly, in that POV-pushers often yell "Censorship!" to "win" a content dispute about posting something that consensus thinks is undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Crystal election date references
Crystal specifically references the 2020 presidential election as reasonable and the 2032 election as not. In the past, this section has referenced only the next upcoming election as appropriate: In 2011, the 2012 election was appropriate, while 2020 was not. Consistent with that was the older decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination) to redirect and protect the title prior to the 2008 election. Consensus was found there and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (also covering 2016 and 2020), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination) that it was not appropriate to have articles for elections far in advance.
Sometime after the 2012 election, the section was updated to have dates further in the future, with an election two cycles away as acceptable rather than one, and one five cycles away as unacceptable rather than three away. This was done without discussion or consensus, though likely unintentionally when templates were inserted to automatically update with time.
Due to this change, it is ambiguous whether an election three elections in the future is too far away to be speculative. Prior practice and precedent were that only the next upcoming election should have an article. Unlike the Olympics also mentioned here, substantive plans are not discussed beyond the next election, as the incumbent is unknown. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024, this section was referenced many times by both sides, and despite a majority of votes to delete or merge the article, it was closed as no consensus/keep. Some argued that there were sources about the election sufficient to keep the article, while others argued the material was speculative and addressed demographics in that year rather than the election itself. In light of the recommendations made by the closing admin, how should this section be clarified regarding events in the intermediate future, in hopes of reaching a better consensus? Reywas92Talk 07:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- the basis for considering it suitable for an article, is whether it will be affected by anything that might happen at the next election. The 2016 election will result in the election of a president, who may or may not run in 2020, and therefore is a reasonable subject of political discussion at present. If they do run, and if they should be re-elected, the nest election is 2024. It is reasonable for people to discuss what is likely to happen after Trump, or after Clinton. So 2024 is a suitable topic. Beyond that, there are too many factors for reasonable discussion, and I do not see that they are good sources actually discussing it, so perhaps we should not yet include 2028 Obviously the times specified in the guideline will need to be changed from year to year, as time passes. (this analysis is only for the US, with fixed 4 year cycles and a 2 term limit; other countries will need analysis in their own terms). DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- "If they do run and if they should be re-elected." This seems like the kind of speculation we should be avoiding. The next election is not 2024, it is 2016, with the next one after that in 2020. There are not good sources discussing the election that will be held in 2024 either. Reywas92Talk 21:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- the basis for considering it suitable for an article, is whether it will be affected by anything that might happen at the next election. The 2016 election will result in the election of a president, who may or may not run in 2020, and therefore is a reasonable subject of political discussion at present. If they do run, and if they should be re-elected, the nest election is 2024. It is reasonable for people to discuss what is likely to happen after Trump, or after Clinton. So 2024 is a suitable topic. Beyond that, there are too many factors for reasonable discussion, and I do not see that they are good sources actually discussing it, so perhaps we should not yet include 2028 Obviously the times specified in the guideline will need to be changed from year to year, as time passes. (this analysis is only for the US, with fixed 4 year cycles and a 2 term limit; other countries will need analysis in their own terms). DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Forking WP:PRICES into its own page
Until about 2015 the central place for discussing policy on prices was Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and redirects including WP:PRICE, WP:PRICES, and WP:NOPRICES went there. The precedent of discussions around that section of this policy should guide whatever is discussed presently.
At this point prices have been discussed enough to merit their own discussion page. Prices have only been a small part of what this policy covers, and conversation is developing enough to justify having a central place to track discussion on its own.
I redirected all the price shortcuts to go to Wikipedia:Prices. This does not change policy, but only changes the place where people go when they want to find any archival discussions about pricing policy. It would be excessive to expand the 1-2 sentences covering price here to include all the content listed on that page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Price_of_medications you link to WP:PRICE, intending to redirect to a section of this policy page. I just changed the shortcut because of your usage and because I think the shortcut should direct to the place with the most discussion on the topic. If it is helpful, I would change your links to WP:NOTCATALOG so that your links went to the place you intended. Or otherwise, I would discuss where the WP:PRICE link should redirect. It was not my intent to disrupt what you are saying. What would be useful? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
recruitment
In this dif from 2007, the underlined was added to this document: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. It was just pointed out elsewhere that recruitment points to our article about companies attracting people to hire. That dif arose from this Talk discussion also from 2007 that was about religious people using WP to Proselytize, arising from disputes at evolution and creationism. I had never clicked the link at "recruitment", and had always taken this as some kind of umbrella term bringing together yes, attracting great employees, proselytizing, and Community organizing - any effort to pull people into your "cause".
Shall we just delete the wikilink and leave the term broad, or should we replace it with something else? Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Should bio sections be dedicated to Rumors?
I come across bios which have large sections of commentary supported entirely by rumors or gossip. See Cary_Grant#Rumors_about_sexual_orientation for instance, or Randolph_Scott#Personal_life, "Rumors" subsection. Should WP be a platform for such tabloidist commentary? There's been some debate about the question at Talk:Cary_Grant#A_massive_Sexion, and other issues related to adding photos to support the gossip. It seems to undermine the validity of many bios of famous people.--Light show (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, unless such rumors are serious discussion of notable academic studies that generally give point/counterpoint if these rumors were true or not. While BLP does not apply to those long since dead, we still should absolutely respect their legacy and avoid such gossip/rumors. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by "academic" here. We would be generally talking about biographies published by publishing houses, wouldn't we? Now, on occasion, an academic publisher might publish a biography of usually an academic but for others it would be a non-academic publisher (and most any modern biography, whether published by an academic house or not will likely dealve into the private life of a subject). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC) See also, [2] and [3], and [4] there are undoubtedly other examples. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, by "academic" I don't necessarily mean published journals, but that the work is done from more a scholarship, historian standpoint, being a secondary source, critical overview of the person's life, like a biography, rather than a journalistic source which typically just reports what has been said without transformation (aka primary sources). Rumors nearly always are primary sources. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by "academic" here. We would be generally talking about biographies published by publishing houses, wouldn't we? Now, on occasion, an academic publisher might publish a biography of usually an academic but for others it would be a non-academic publisher (and most any modern biography, whether published by an academic house or not will likely dealve into the private life of a subject). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC) See also, [2] and [3], and [4] there are undoubtedly other examples. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)