Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moving forward

Rather than edit warring on the talk page over our various preferred versions of WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE... I suggest that we try to draft a consensus version here on the talk page. Any takers? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate "talk page editing". We're on a wiki, we should use the wiki process. Wikipedia:Editing_policy/draft. I have removed a lot of the redundancy while retaining the basic structure. Gigs (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

diff for first rev. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Working it out on a draft page works just as well for me (I will take a look at it and comment there)... my suggestion was aimed at encouraging us to work together and discuss things, with the goal of reaching a proper consensus... as opposed to continuing our mutual attempts impose our POV by constantly reverting each other's edits. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... Gigs, WhatamIdoing and I have worked on this at the draft page... and I think we have reached a compromise that is acceptable. I have uploaded that compromise version. Hopefully it meets with the approval of others. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You only merged a small subset of the the changes. Gigs (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the rest and marked the draft as an archive. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct... all I merged was the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM section from the draft... as we did not discuss any of your other changes. I will talk a look at them now. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Having done so... I have no major issues. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem all right to me too.--Father Goose (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick's revert

Three months later... Kendrick has reverted the above changes back to the problematic section title and language. Perhaps he/she could explain his/her objection? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Scope

I think that the speedy keep on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing policy was a mistake, there should have been a proper discussion as to suggest deletion is not disruptive and to suggest that it was is IMHO misleading given the content of the talk page archives. Personally I am still in favour of demoting this to a guideline (Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive_1#Demote to a guideline as I still think that it clashes with the content policies and guidelines, and given the wording it has adopted will always has the potential to used as a workaround by frustrate the general consensus of how those polices and guidelines are generally implemented.

If it is going to remain a policy, (and it looks as if it will for the time being, but let me know if someone proposes to delete it or demote it in the future and I'll express an opinon), there should be an explicit mention of what to do with text which violate What Wikipedia is not.

Coupled to that is the problem of this policy contradicts content guidelines. For example what about the restrictions on quotes of primary sources being too large (or a quote farm)? The usual thing to do in that case is to move them out onto Wikisource or Wikiquotes, this policy could be seen as opposing that move. The same for articles on words they go out into the dictionary.

I also think that as it is a policy there should also be a mention of what to do with text that is outside the scope of an article and is not notable on it own, or would need more work than any of the editors of the current page is willing to do to make it into an article. Clearly if it is outside the scope of the current article it should not be on the talk page of the current article as it is not relevant, so where should it be preserved?

There is also questions of the content of lists that are deleted because the are OR or non-NPOV, while the list itself my fall foul of those criteria, not all the individual entries may in themselves be either OR or non-NPOV , but they may not be notable enough to warrant their own articles. I am thinking for example of List of massacres. In such a situation it might be argued that although the article should be removed, it can not be, because some of the content must be preserved (under "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained") because some day someone will put the entries into one or more other articles (just not the one under the AfD discussion) -- the information can not be moved to the talk page because if the article is deleted then the talk page shoudl be deleted so where should such information be preserved? -- PBS (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is rather too vague to give definite answers in any particular situation, but I think we do need a policy that says what ought to be (but isn't always) so obvious as to go without saying - that Wikipedia is an information source, and that (as a general principle, subject to certain exceptions) more information is better than less. For example, we have nationalistically-driven editors from [country X] regularly going round removing information on historical [language Y] names for places in [country X], then demanding other editors give a "reason for including this information" before it will be allowed in (naturally, any reason then given is ignored or countered with personal abuse). "Including information" is what we ought to be about; the place has become so overrun with wikilawyers and deletionists and POV-pushers of various species that I think (sadly) we really do need to say it, indeed much more loudly and clearly than this page already does. --Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts: Any potential contradictions might be best resolved by simply pointing to the other relevant policy/guideline/essay. E.g. add the tag "Further information: Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations." to the paragraph that you are concerned is an endorsement of quotefarms.

Regarding articles on words, we do actually have quite a few articles on notable words. E.g. Chemistry (etymology), Football (word), American (word), Prithee, Negro, Thou, etc, etc. Many editors understand WP:NOTDIC's intention as primarily to prevent the creation of simple word-definition stubs (which were a bigger problem in the early years). A few editors disagree. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Draft RfC on words for more background and examples and discussion.

Regarding separation from Wikisource: Again, it can be a fine line. E.g. We include a complete copy of many poems here, as well as a link to a copy on Wikisource, as the local copies can be annotated and explained more easily if they're duplicated here.

Regarding conflict with ISNOT: which particular aspects do you mean?

Regarding "...has the potential to used as a workaround by frustrate the general consensus of how those polices and guidelines are generally implemented.": That seems like too much of an abstract concern, to warrant demoting/deleting this policy. I'm curious as to specific examples, if you have any in mind?

Regarding where to put things, wikiproject space is often a good choice.

Personally, I would suggest that this policy, as with all policy, needs to be understood as existing as just one aspect of, "the way things are done around here"™

Philosophically, it definitely has the perspective of some typologies of editor, more than others, at its heart. Just as many policies are more in line with the perspective of immediatists and exclusionists, this one is more in line with the views of eventualists and inclusionists.

The policies (and community) work, because they (we) all balance each other out. :)

I'm not saying the policy couldn't be improved, but I don't believe demotion is warranted. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So no disagreement about the need to mention scope?

"This page is rather too vague to give definite answers in any particular situation" if it is too vague then it should not be a policy page. It should either be a guideline or an essay. It is not a general principle that "more information is better than less. " it also depends on other thinks like whether it is valid information, that it is not original research and that it presents a neutral point of view. There are many other qualifications on more not less: such as is it encyclopaedic, is it a copyright violation etc.?

"Any potential contradictions might be best resolved by simply pointing to the other relevant policy/guideline/essay", Yes but we generally give more weight to the content of policies than guidelines or essays. The was long since decided, and came to a head between WP:V and WP:RS. The information in this page would be more useful and lead to less conflict if it were a guideline.

I notice one editor who has been active in keeping preserving PRESERVE as a policy is user:Colonel Warden and CW often uses it in AfD debates here is a recent one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland where CW writes: "Our editing and deletion policies make it very clear that we have a duty to preserve and build upon such initiatives. ...Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)" and a little further down the same page "My response remains that we should retain the article for the policy reasons stated. If these seem over-familiar then this is to be expected as many AFDs are repetitive in nature, alas. I try to vary my responses so that they do not seem monotonous or unthinking but the same essential points must naturally recur. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)" Notice that it is an appeal to the authority of "policy", which, User:Quiddity rather undermines your argument about "Any potential contradictions might be best resolved by simply pointing to the other relevant"policy"/guideline/essay." -- PBS (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"...would be more useful and lead to less conflict if it were a guideline" - More useful to whom though? (See, my comments about editor typologies).

"...undermines your argument..." - or, it reflects my nuanced views of how to understand the spirit of our rules. ;) - This is similar to the discussion at WT:LAYOUT#External links and Wiktionary (and the same earlier discussions in archives 4 and 5), wherein I agree with you that practice (and spirit) diverges from the rigid EL/Layout guidelines. Practice follows WP:SISTER, but that's no longer tagged or categorized as anything except a how-to.

Scope - do you have an example in mind, of text that was out of scope for where it was placed, but deserves to be preserved? - Generic answer: If current location for text is not ideal, the 4 standard options are: article-talkpage, userfication, article-incubator, and wikiproject page.

If this is primarily about users like CW (and other moderate/extreme inclusionists/eventualists, such as DGG maybe) quoting WP:PRESERVE in AfD, then one option would be to respond with WP:EFFORT.

Does that help? Your thoughts welcome; I enjoy trading perspectives with lucid editors. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:EFFORT is only an essay and is not one which cuts much ice at AFD. The essential point of WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT is that content which has any merit and/or potential should be retained in mainspace where it may be found and worked upon by readers and editors. A commonly expressed sentiment at AFD is that it is better to delete imperfect material completely and start again from scratch. That approach is quite contrary to the idea of a Wiki and so we should continue to firmly rebut it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember a particular example offhand, but I have several times condensed a non-notable stub for a company or product into a single sentence or short paragraph in a more general article. As a hypothetical example, if "Brand X Glucometer Model Y" has an unusual feature, it might be worth mentioning it as an example at Glucometer. These articles also occasionally contain perfectly good background information about the product's use, which might be useful elsewhere, even if there's no reason to keep anything else.

Similarly, articles about organizations of dubious notability are sometimes merged into the biography of a notable founder (or the other way around). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Policies aren't laws, no matter how much they've been twisted and lawyered by people that want them to be like laws. This policy does describe a core and very essential part of "the way we do things". It's the only policy that describes how articles actually get developed and written in a wiki environment.

Nothing in this policy requires keeping an article that is based on almost non-existent secondary source coverage like that crucible article. It is a shame that crucible AfD turned out that way, I would have definitely !voted delete even though I fully support keeping this a policy. People citing a policy badly and incorrectly is not a good reason to attack that policy. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress: sloppiness is encouraged?

WP:IMPERFECT should encourage editors to create draft articles in their userspace and move the article to mainspace only when it's ready to "hatch" (i.e. when there is a verifiable assertion of notability and at least a bare stub minimum of actually referenced material in the article). The current wording quite literally encourages the horribly bad and already rampant practice of creating "placeholder" articles.

"Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" should not mean "sloppiness is encouraged". Keep it in your userspace until the thing doesn't need an article issue tag from the get-go. --87.78.120.37 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you just complaining, or proposing that we add something like this to the policy? If the latter, I expect others will disagree. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I just complaining? I don't know, you be the judge. My personal guess would be that a comment starting with xyz should encourage editors to is an attempt to start a discussion about changes to the policy page. Your mileage may vary.

If the latter, I expect others will disagree. -- Oh, I am absolutely sure that others will disagree, especially the sworn enemies of content quality aka "inclusionists" who abuse IMPERFECT as an excuse for bad editing practice. Much more important in the context of your comment here however is the question --which you leave woefully unanswered-- of whether or not you agree or disagree with the basic notion of my suggestion to expand the IMPERFECT section, and what rationale you are basing your opposition on, if any. My suggestion makes perfect sense, and if you think it doesn't, please point out exactly where I went wrong. --87.78.120.37 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah... the old "Inclusionist vs. Exclusionist" debate... that is a debate that goes back to the founding of Wikipedia, and isn't about to be resolved now. Personally, I tend to lean more to the "Exclusionist" side... and, in my own practice, I do as you suggest (working on articles in user space until they are ready to "hatch")... however, I realize (and it sounds like you realize) that others have a different practice... that this isn't the consensus view on how Wikipedia should work. The "Inclusionist" rational (which I admit does have some validity) is that Wikipedia is collaborative in nature... so if an editor starts an article by creating an imperfect flawed stub, other editors will come along and fix the flaws... and eventually we will end up with a good article. At least that is the goal.

Reality is somewhere between Inclusionism and Exclusionism... The Inclusionists and Exclusionists have achieved a consensus that acknowledges both views... we allow imperfect stubs, as long as there is a reasonable chance that they can be improved... but... we have the AfD process to delete flawed articles if it looks like they can not be fixed or improved. It's a balance between the extremes that has served us fairly well for several years. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy

In this reverted edit, I added wording about accuracy. It seems to me that this policy (at least the sentences in question) give an extremely skewed view of the project's actual goals and practices. We're not just about more-is-better information - we're trying to present accurate information. That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a search engine. Wikipedia isn't here to provide "information" - it's here to provide useful, accurate, encyclopedic information. I'm not sure exactly what the objections are to specifying this in the policy, but I'd be open to discussing them. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's that the definition of "accurate" that we have to use here isn't the common one; "verifiability, not truth" and all that jazz. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the sentence is already phrased as an extreme generality. It makes the (extremely arguable) generalization that more information is better, so it seems reasonable to make the (much less arguable) generalization that accuracy is important to what we do. Our version of accuracy has some quirks, but it's sufficiently close to the widely understood meaning of the word to make it suitable for a very general statement. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "verifiability" rather than "accuracy".—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But accuracy is not solely about verifiability. Material also needs to be neutrally presented, without undue weight to minoritarian viewpoints. One could easily construct an article using "verifiable" material which would make the case that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS. Everything in it would be verifiable, but it would not be accurate (since it would resort to cherry-picking sources and thus violate WP:UNDUE). Accuracy means that material is both verifiable and presented neutrally. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we want editors to present the information in our articles accurately ... However, that information does not need to be universally accepted as being accurate (even experts can disagree as to whether something is accurate or not). Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. But in very general terms, I think we can agree that we want to present accurate information. The sentence is speaking in very general terms. I don't think anyone would read it as a demand that everything presented in Wikipedia be universally acclaimed as accurate. If one reads the entire sentence, or paragraph, or policy with that fine a lens, the whole thing needs to be tightened up. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that POV warriors and Wiki-Lawyers will use your addition of the word "accurate" to argue that viewpoints they disagree with should not be included (on the grounds that they don't think the viewpoint is "accurate information".) What we need to get across is that information must be presented accurately.... not that the information itself must be accurate. Even inaccurate information must be presented accurately. (I hope that makes sense.) Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But wikilayers and POV-pushers already use this policy to justify adding inaccurate material, and in particular to criticize people who remove it. Anyhow, I see your point. Do you have alternate wording which you think better communicates the need to present information accurately? MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please could you give us an example of a "wikilawyer and POV-pusher" adding inaccurate material and citing this policy as a reason? It strikes me that what we have here may not be a problem with the policy, it might be a problem with an editor.—S Marshall T/C 06:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.3.52.158, 1 May 2011

I think Tosh.0 is way better than you like your not funny 71.3.52.158 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 14.99.90.101, 8 June 2011

14.99.90.101 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You've initiated the procedure for requesting an edit, but haven't stated what edit you'd like made. I've closed this request, but you're welcome to reactivate it and request an edit. Note that substantive edits to policy pages are made only after discussion and a consensus has been reached. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On verifiability

Presently the text reads "However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research." Surely that "should" ought to read "must", in order to agree with wp:V. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess so; also the "and" should read "in other words", since (in the bizarre version of the English language Wikipedia has invented) the two conditions are equivalent.--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that "must" in WP:V is wrong. We don't require all material added to be attributable to sources. We welcome unsourced contributions. Gigs (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what has happened. It used to include the next sentence, "but in practice not everything need actually be attributed." Now that sentence has been broken off which makes the first sentence sound like a stronger requirement than it should. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree... verifiability is a "must" (a source must exist for anything we add)... however, citation (ie actually including a citation to such a source) is a "should" (unless the material is challenged or likely to be challenged... in which case it becomes a "must"). People often get these two concepts (verifiability vs. citation) confused. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

People often get these two concepts confused because the two concepts are confused. wp:V starts off by saying that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Yet how are readers to check an uncited source? While editors have the option to challenge, that does not extend to all readers. Should non-editor readers really to be expected to blindly trust the pseudonymous or even IP editors' entries? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW Blueboar, I agree with you, with the small exception of "common knowledge" (narrowly construed). I struck out my first comment because I realized I used the wrong words. (And mistook the new wording of WP:V) Gigs (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Even "common knowledge" must be verifiable. However, most "common knowledge" is so easily verifiable that there is no need to actually verify it in the article by providing a citation.

I say most because there can be good faith disagreements as to whether some fact actually is "common knowledge" or not. In such cases, it is better to take a "it does not hurt to cite it... so, if challenged, just cite it and move on" attitude). Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-editor readers presumably check uncited material exactly the same way as editors do, and exactly the same way everyone checks dubious-sounding information that happens to be followed by an inline citation, e.g., by asking their favorite web search engine about it.

If it were up to me, I would not have WP:V start with a line about "readers checking". I'd simply say "whether readers can check that the material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on WT: MoS re reverting poorly summarized edits

On the Wikipedia Manual of Style talk page, there is a discussion about whether the fact that an edit is not or poorly summarized is sufficient reason to revert it. This policy page has been cited.

WT:MoS Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

edit protected requests.

I have a suggestion to make. Many articles are semi-protected, and it is not easy to find that edit request template/instructions. Can that template info be automatically added to talk pages of protected articles? 76.197.230.18 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A radical idea -- Why not two levels of editing in Wikipedia?

As a fairly frequent user of Wikipedia, and as someone with a considerable interest in English grammar, I have noticed that there is a problem with the quality of the English in many of the articles. As an example, the article on "keyboards" includes this sentence. There isn't a solution to this problem on home computers so far. This sentence simply does not "sound" right to English speakers, possibly because it is written in colloquial English. It would be better to say: At present, there is no solution to this problem on home computers. or A solution to this problem on home computers has not yet been found. So, I therefore propose an utterly radical idea: There should be two classes of editors. One class would be those people who want to make factual changes to copy, comments, etc. The other class would be limited to those folks like myself -- call us pedants, if you want -- who are concerned about how the entries "sound" to the ear. In addition, the requirements for editing for this second class of editors could be considerably relaxed, since we would not be touching the rest of the article. I realize that my suggestion might cause problems, but I thought that I would throw it out for discussion. David Pinto Montreal, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.164.248 (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What would the point be, exactly? Almost all pages can be edited by anyone, including the article you've brought up here, and there aren't any "requirements" for editing them. There are a few semi-protected pages which unregistered editors can't modify because of the level of vandalism, but this suggestion isn't practical because if we give some IPs the ability to edit to correct grammatical problems then there would be absolutely nothing stopping them from vandalising the page instead. Hut 8.5 11:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup... Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including those who just want to improve how an article reads. If you find that the grammar or word choice in an article is problematic - just "correct" it. No need for permission or special levels of editing. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• The class of editor described is commonly known as a gnome. Warden (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Displacing an existing article with a sandbox

Hello, Editing policy. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Displacing_edit_histories.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tighten up policy on poor quality articles

The number of articles is approaching the four million mark so we need to look at preventing the creation of new articles. We almost have enough articles.
Narhh. Just kidding!
I would like to suggest a (serious) change in the policy wording. I would like the following paragraph in the policy rephrased:

"Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts articles can evolve improve over time. into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

My suggested wording is an attempt to raise the minimum standard for articles. Even a short time spent on New Page Patrol will show that there is a need to raise the standard of new articles. The blasé attitude towards article improvements also suggests that we should reword the policy. It is being used as an excuse by editors to allow very poor quality articles to exist. Jimbo himself has stated that there is a need to improve quality of the existing articles. An AfD which in part prompted me to make this suggestion can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non violent direct action in Australia.

There are sufficient warnings given to editors telling them to make a halfway decent, referenced article. Also, articles can be developed offline, or in user or project namespace.

Does this need an RFC? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're proposing to do here isn't justified and even if it was this proposal would not achieve it. It is fairly uncontroversial that we need to move towards improving the quality of our existing articles rather than adding more. However this does not imply that we should be more willing to delete low-quality articles. Even if we do want to start deleting low-quality articles the proposed change - which isn't the only or even the main piece of policy preventing this - would not achieve this aim. I can't help but think that this is an attempt to resurrect your proposal to speedily delete unreferenced articles after it was shot down in flames. Hut 8.5 08:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that proposal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy as it is currently written is an explicit endorsement of very low quality articles. Why is that enshrined in policy? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy does not "endorse low-quality articles". It does not say that very low quality articles are fine as they are or that they should not be improved - the whole point of the paragraph you're proposing to change is that they can be (and are) improved. Just because it specifies that such pages should not be deleted merely for being low quality does not mean they are endorsed. Hut 8.5 22:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Whatever. I'm going to move on. Plenty to do and all that. Policy is ignored by newbies anyway, and that is where a lot of poor quality material comes from. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but newbies are where long-time editors come from, too. If we make a habit of biting them for everything they do wrong, we'll have a lot fewer coeditors. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix problems

The entire goal of WP:5P is to fix the problem of ignorance. The point of WP:PRESERVE is that we should preserve content while doing so. Re-titling this section of this policy as "Fix the problem" buries the lede. Of course, we're here to fix a problem. But we're here to preserve content while doing so. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No... we are not here to necessarily preserve content. We have had this discussion at least twice before. In both of these previous discussions, the consensus was that the point of this section isn't just to tell editors to preserve content. The point of the section is to explain when it is appropriate to preserve the content and when it is not appropriate to do so. There are many problematic situations (laid out in multiple policies and guidelines) where the best way to fix a problem is to NOT preserve the content. In other words... while the WP:PRESERVE aspect of the section is important... that aspect is balanced by the WP:HANDLE/WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM aspect (which tells editors not to preserve content in some situations). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Blueboar. Once upon a time, PRESERVE and HANDLE were separate and contrasting sections. That is no longer the case. The section heading needs to reflect both goals, not just the first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems that may justify removal - UNDUE

Kendrick recently changed this section from saying:

• WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources.

to

• WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, or splitting tiny minority viewpoints to a new article.

I don't mind adding something about WP:CFORK... but the edit removed the key point of the original sentence. WP:UNDUE goes further than that just saying "don't split off tiny minority view points into a new article"... It makes it clear that there are situations when we we should not even mention a tiny minority view. In other words (to relate UNDUE back to this policy section) if mentioning a tiny minority view would give it undue weight, we should not preserve the information. Kendrick's edit took this out. I reverted. Now... discuss if necessary. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I think you're right, but there are occasions in which what seems like a tiny minority viewpoint overall might deserve mention "there" but not "here". In this sense, removal is about removing it from this article is justified, but removing all mention in all articles might not be. Similarly, there may be times when we need to use "medium-quality sources" rather than high-quality sources, e.g., to accurately describe what a subject says about himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think the policy already makes that clear... No? Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem editing?

If a first editor makes an edit that improves Wikipedia, and a second editor simply has something against the first editor, should the second editor undo the edit? 128.196.126.151 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: This editor is blocked per community consensus at WP:ANI for disruptive editing, and has been using multiple IPs to evade the block. They are upset at the application of WP:RBI to an editor who has wasted enough community time already. See also WP:DEL#Deletion without discussion? as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#Request additional review of disruptive editor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there consensus that improvements to wikipedia should be undone if it's simply claimed the improvements were made by a "blocked editor"?206.207.225.61 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If the edit is done while blocked, I don't know where consensus currently rests, but I believe edits are often reverted when done by a blocked editor while blocked and I for one would not revert such an action; if the editor is banned rather than blocked, we generally remove all edits done by the banned editor (post-banning.) Regarding whether an edit improves Wikipedia, that is a matter of opinion, and generally does not enter into it except in cases of vandalism, where it is clearly not an improvement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this a policy?

See also in the archives Demote to a guideline and I object

Policies describe standards that all users should follow. This reads more like an essay on the Wikipedia process, much like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Users who habitually flaunt policy can be sanctioned. But can we sanction users who do not boldly add information to Wikipedia, or who do not try to fix problems, some of the main things we are told here to do? As far as any of it reaches the level of standards that all users should follow, it is already covered in other policies. The page was elevated to the policy level in October 2004 in a bevy of promotions, without any discussion that I've been able to find.  --Lambiam 10:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we can sanction editors who refuse to fix problems (or at least those who prevent others from doing so.) And, yes, a lot of what this policy says is covered in other policies as well, but repetition and restatement are not necessarily bad things when it comes to policy. Doing so allows us to better understand how the standard in question should be interpreted in various specific situations. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this page should be a policy. Almost all the content of the page that isn't just common sense is a summary of something said in more detail elsewhere. About the only original thing is the principle that people should try to fix problems if possible and remove them where this isn't possible, but even this principle is subject to loads of caveats. I rarely see this page cited or quoted anywhere, and when it is cited it is frequently misused. Wikipedia does have an awful lot of policies and guidelines, and any attempt to simplify them or reduce the number of them it would make life much easier for new editors. Hut 8.5 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is used

1) as a way of strongly endorsing (policy-level) the more philosophically stated guidance given in the Guideline WP:BOLD, and the Essays WP:WORKINPROGRESS, WP:DEADLINE, WP:BATHWATER, etc.

2) The list of "Instead of deleting text, consider: ..." options that are given in the WP:PRESERVE section, are not covered elsewhere (in policy, afaik). These options are critically important in balancing out the opinions of individual editors, and providing instruction on how to handle disputed content.

This page is THE reminder, that slow and steady wins the day; That it is better (preferable) to improve imperfect-content, rather than to eradicate it. It helps to prevent "1 step forward, 2 steps back" decisions, in a way that no other policy does. It's a comprehensible-elaboration of the blissfully-short WP:IAR. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Editing articles is a fundamental task on Wikipedia. The essence of a policy is that it well-represents the way that we do things. This policy is more grounded in reality than policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:BURO which are routinely flouted with impunity. The section WP:IMPERFECT is especially important in explaining that we do not expect article submissions to be well presented and polished; that rough drafts and perfunctory stubs are quite acceptable. Warden (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought back in January 2009 that this policy should be demoted to a guideline so that it was understood that anything on this page should not to be read in such a way that it conflicted with the three content polices and BLP. I have not seen any arguments presented on this talk page that has changed my opinion. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support a more thorough discussion about what specifically in here the community deems as having policy level approval that isnt covered elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove the section titled "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to have the section titled "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" completely removed from the editing policy. Saying "perfection is not required" is not needed. Perfection in whose eyes? Also, it has been used to prevent the deletion of poor quality articles. We should not be using policy to send a message to editors that anything goes. "She'll be right" is the expression used here in New Zealand. Given the current state of WP with over four million articles and a huge backlog that is not being cleared and steady loss of experienced editors we should be taking a harder line on any poor quality material that is being added. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This principle is fundamental to the idea of a Wiki and is enshrined in the Five Pillars where it is summarised as "do not worry about making mistakes". The Foundation have made it fairly clear that they oppose raising the bar to new editors and their faltering first steps on the grounds that this would tend to restrict the flow of volunteers. Only 1% of our articles are of GA/FA quality and there are deletionists and griefers out there who would be very happy to delete all the rest. Weakening our protection of incomplete work risks destroying the project. As an example, note that this proposal seems to have been provoked by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantamine. The page in question was created with multiple respectable sources and mostly needed wikifying and attention from WP:WikiProject Chemistry. The proposer's idea seems to be that technical material of this sort should be deleted peremptorily before such action can be taken. Warden (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was completely flabbergasted to discover that is says "do not worry about making mistakes" in our fundamental principles! I have done an RfC for that as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with your belief that deletion of hours-old good-faith attempts to create an article improves the encyclopedia. In the long-term, it hurts the encyclopedia by discouraging new editors and removing accurate, verifiable information on notable subjects. Your goal is apparently "Let's not have good, verifiable information unless the person who provides the information knows how to make it look pretty from the very first draft." WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It may discourage some new editors but maybe they are not "worthy". And maybe it will encourage good new editors and stop experienced editors from leaving in frustration with WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand where Alan is coming from, and it makes some sense to me, but I think that the statement about not requiring perfection is really just stating the obvious, and it's a healthy perspective to keep in mind. Striving for perfection is a good goal, but expecting to achieve it is folly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. per above. Plus, our Policies/Guidelines/Manuals/Howtos are ridiculously extensive (see Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia) and expecting anyone to get even close to perfection, especially at first, is unreasonable. (I recommend the nom (re)read through meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies and bear in mind that all those perspectives are useful, when balanced.) —Quiddity (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Alan is probably correct that his proposal would help retain some of our experienced editors, but overall it seems to be a net negative. Almost no one has the skill to produce high quality articles right from the start - and if they did they'd probably be suspected as socks. Like most difficult things it needs practice. Encouragement not to worry about mistakes helps us retain exactly the type of conscientious newbies who are most likely to go onto to be valuable editors. Also, Im in agreement with the Colonel, though I fear his warning is understated. Even GA status doesnt always protect an article from deletionists when they consider it to be embarrassing to elite professors; as per the recent destruction of Twitter articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose despite the fact that a lot of users tend to think that "perfection is not required" means "any old shite will do"— there are few articles which would not benefit from improvement. pablo 10:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose from a slightly different perspective. As a newer editor, I would not have taken a lot of strides I did if I didn't know that mistakes on Wikipedia could be easily corrected. I thought long and hard about whether to create my first (and thus far only) article based on a concern on whether it met WP:N. The only reason I went ahead and created it is because I knew both that perfection was not required, and that edits could be easily fixed. It has since been accepted and improved to the point where it is firmly established. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• comment - in some ways, we do the world a disservice when we say that: "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"... what would be more accurate is to say: "Wikipedia is an ongoing project, attempting to draft an encyclopedia ... and anyone can participate". Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Pile on oppose Alan, these are all manifestations and consequences of WP:BOLD. We don't want people to excessively worry about making mistakes. I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that no one should be required to learn our policies and guidelines before editing. Obviously things go much smoother if they make an effort, especially if they are warned about breaking one, but we don't want people to be too intimidated before they even start. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.