The other type of POV in articles is [[Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters in video and computer games]]. Not the subject, but the "in subject." What if it were an article for nudity in videogames, sharp weapons in videogames, martial arts in videogames, etc? The pairing of "this instance in this subject" could be infinite. Humor in movies, female characters in literature, non-costumed characters in comicbooks... yes the presentation can be verified and factual, but isn't it more of a thesis, an essay, or a presentation?
The other type of POV in articles is [[Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters in video and computer games]]. Not the subject, but the "in subject." What if it were an article for nudity in videogames, sharp weapons in videogames, martial arts in videogames, etc? The pairing of "this instance in this subject" could be infinite. Humor in movies, female characters in literature, non-costumed characters in comicbooks... yes the presentation can be verified and factual, but isn't it more of a thesis, an essay, or a presentation?
Both of these types of articles seem to allow POV and opinion as a way to offer subjective but verifiable description. What do you think? Should there be more like them?
Both of these types of articles seem to allow POV and opinion as a way to offer subjective but verifiable description. What do you think? Should there be more like them? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ihavenolife|Ihavenolife]] ([[User talk:Ihavenolife|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ihavenolife|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.
Dang! How do we read that article now to judge whether the deletion was justified? This is what I hate about deleted stuff - you can't read the damn things. Hopefully there is still a deletion debate somewhere. Carcharoth00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to believe that was sarcasm. The title itself is patently non-encyclopedic. Right? Right?? How about [[Wikipedia:List of mistakes made by Ji .... wait. Nope, not even gonna finish that one. Apparently, someone did think it should be something more: deleted. ;^P Eaglizard09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was partly sarcasm and partly a rant against the number of times I've come across old discussions about an article that has been deleted. Being unable to see what was deleted (unless you are an admin) makes it difficult to follow the thread of a discussion about a deleted item, and to see whether you agree with either side. As for not being encyclopedic (assuming you are not being sarcastic in turn), I was unaware that pages in the "Wikipedia" namespace had to be encyclopedic. In the article namespace, yes, but not the Wikipedia namespace. Have you seen WP:BJAODN? That is hardly an encyclopedic name. (For the record, the Jimbo essay was almost certainly speediable on the basis of being a personal attack, but without being able to read what was deleted, there is no way for me to be certain, so the nagging feeling of censorship lurks in the back of my mind). Carcharoth23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." I'm pretty sure the statement "Jimbo makes mistakes" falls under this exclusion. And anyway, Jimbo is a public figure, so he has to accept personal attacks from time to time. I'd put this up on WP:DRV, except that there's a copy at User:Ashibaka/Jimbo makes mistakes. NeonMerlin19:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main Page Did You Know
The policy of only including facts from new articles has lead DYK to be comprised of uninteresting, obscure and very locale-specific facts. I think it is important to keep in mind that the general knowledge of the average administrator is on completely different level to that of the average main page reader.
I would suggest that we change DYK to have the first bullet be on "middle school level", the next two on high school level and leave the fourth and fifth to come from new articles.
The following is an example of what the first three bullets could look like:
...The jaws of crocodiles are powerful enough in closing to crush the bones of small animals, but so weak in opening that they can be held together by hand? (This is Encarta's current DYK.)
I like that idea a lot. The DYK feature is one of my favorite Wikipedia entry methods, so expanding it a bit sure sounds good to me. Spalding11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of DYK isn't to rehash widely-known facts from old articles. It gives exposure to the best new articles so that they are edited and refined. Sure, sometimes there's an entry or two I'm not interested in, but that's life. --OldakQuill08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the purpose of "DYK isn't ro rehash widely-known facts". I am saying the purpose should be to provide information that will be interesting to the largest possible audience and this layered approach which include a portion of what Wikipedia veterans will call widely-known facts is one way of doing that. - sYndicatetalk23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, even with changing the articles every day, DYK gets more acceptable articles than it can show. Increasing the space available to DYK would mean taking it away from some other part of the Main Page, which I doubt will happen. -- Donald Albury(Talk)23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying the size should be increased. I'm saying the level of obscurity of the first three points should be toned down so that more people (especially younger people) will find them interesting. - sYndicatetalk12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have replied to the wrong sub-thread. My apologies. However, more on point on your comment, while we should avoid obscurity and too much technicality in articles, we are not writing an encyclopedia for children. I would be opposed to writing any part of the encyclopedia at a less than adult level. -- Donald Albury(Talk)12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I am not saying we should change the articles to a "less than adult level". I am saying we should include some facts in DYK that some people would actually be able to respond 'yes' to. The average main page reader will not know '..that there is a pattern to the names of the class of medications called "monoclonal antibodies"', but more importantly, (s)he will not care. By having different tiers in DYK, the section can appeal to both the average reader and people who will find the above mentioned example interesting. - sYndicatetalk13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea very much. It could bring many new readers into wiki-addiction. Which I think is a good thing =) --euyyn02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turning WIkipedia into a Political Debate - Multiple articles on one Political POV
Could someone help me understand if there is any policy about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for political POV? Multiiple articles have been created for the sole purpose of pushing a tort reform POV. There is already a long article on tort reform, and it just links to a multitude of other 'articles' (rants is more like it) on tort reform, under the guise of separate topics. I don't care what the personal POV is, a political debate has no place on Wikipedia, does it? It certainly is inconsistent with a *regular* encyclopedia. I have changed one article to turn it into a legimate article, which warrants an entry. However, the trend just propagates. I checked Encyclopedia Britannica online, and there is no article on 'tort reform' for good reason. The only references that are cited - both pro and against - almost all violate the guidelines of Reliable Resources. They are almost all political sites, either for or against tort reform. One 'reference' frequently cited on these articles is Tillinghast/Towers Perrin which is an interested party in the politics of tort reform with its operations as a major consultant to the insurance industry and as an insurance company itself with its reinsurance business. There are also lobbying groups (for and against) tort reform that are used as 'references'. This is not encyclopedic. THe nature of an article on a political agenda precludes neutral point of view references and invites polemic sources.
I am asking about this here, because this is not an isolated example, but a consistent pattern. Here is one example of an article that was originally created for the clear purpose of advancing a tort reform agenda, and not to discuss the actual topic itself:
Medical Malpractice -- The article previously had a very short 'explanation' of the elements of the claim (which were misstatements of law), with the rest of the paper a tirade about tort reform. I made corrections to the misstatements of law, and added a discussion on the incidents and types of medical malpractice -- citing both a medical journal and the Institute of Medicine. I also suggested that 'tort reform' not be included here. Below is a quote of what one editor added just today. However, he is not alone among a small group of political activists pushing this agenda.
This is under the heading "Malpractice Settlement Alternatives" (which makes no sense in itself since this proposal is not this at all) --
The group, Common Good has proposed creating specialized medical courts to improve the American system where almost 60% of all plaintif judgments are now consumed by attorney fees & court costs. These specialty "Health Courts" (similar to existing administrative tax or workmen's comp court proceedings)whose hallmark would be medically-trained, full-time judges making precedent-setting decisions about proper standards of care, would remedy the unreliability of our current system.
Proponents believe that giving up jury trials and scheduling noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering would lead to more people being compensated, and to their receiving their money sooner. Support for this alternative comes from sources ranging from The National Law Journal 1,the USA Today editorial page 2, The Wall Street Journal 3, Forbes magazine, the AMA, and the American College of Surgeons. The Harvard School of Public Health has been working with the Common Good initiative4in conducting research to answer unresolved health court policy questions by analyzing individual state constitutional impediments to health courts, doing projected cost analyses, developing a tiered schedule for noneconomic damages-which would have upper limits-and working out the standards for compensation.
The entire paragraph is pro 'tort reform' with one sentence that "Opponents of tort reform object to the idea." Can ANYONE explain how this is NPOV? Also, the 60% reference is from an uncited report and the 60% is incorrectly reported and out of context. The actual report concluded that there was no effect on the cost of health care.
This is what these multiple tirades on tort reform end up looking like:
"Proponents of tort refom argue (fill in the blank)". -- then a long tirade
"Critics of tort reform argue (fill in the blank)" -- and inevitably a rebuttal tirade
Then there is a vicious edit war, with no real resolution because the article by nature is a political debate.
First none of these anonymous groups of 'critics and proponents' are sourced, but broad agendas are nonetheless attributed to them. Then the argument devolves into the tirade (on either side) with polemic references.
The articles become so unreadable and so argumentative that any iota of encyclopedic content is lost. Is there any policy at all on this kind of thing? Why is WIkipedia even including entries on purely political debates? jgwlaw02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that since I started editing this article I've only included one citation, as follows...
Tort reform supporters argue that lawsuits over socially beneficial practices increase the costs of those practices, and thus improperly deter innovation and other economically desirable activity. An example often cited is the medical insurance industry, where some governmental studies have shown a link between the rising costs of medical malpractice premiums and reduced access to health care[1].
The citation is a link to a 2002 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It was deleted in the course of a collaborative re-structuring of the article by jglaw and I, and no explanation was ever given as to why. Maybe the problem is that valid secondary-sourcing is being lost in edit wars, while leaving a lot of partisan detrius on board.
It is covered at WP:NPOV, specifically the issue of undue weight. If an article is biased (and stacks of 'em are, Wikipedia, she ain't finished) then take action on it - if there are problems, there are plenty of places to find help about, such as request for comment if you need that as well. Most wikipedia editors are helpful people, but POV pushers are about. You'll find that most are well meaning, and that if you keep the faith, you can make the article work. WilyD13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor of the Tort Reform article, I'd like to pose a few examples of the items in question. These were originally posted under the heading "The Tort Reform Agenda" (which I take to mean "list of stated purposes")
Caps on non-economic damages (e.g., monetary compensation for pain and suffering), punitive damages;
Use of court-appointed expert witnesses and elimination of elections for judges (In other words, mandatory appointment for both judges and expert witnesses) ;
Requirement that class actions that have a nationwide class of plaintiffs be tried in federal courts.
This list was deleted for the reasons jglaw describes above. However, when you click on each of the links in the above list, you'll notice that only two of the linked articles even make a passing reference to tort reform, and none contain NPOV tags. The list was intended to extend the primary definition to include a description of the most commonly proposed tort reforms, which I thought - and still believe - it did.
Clearly, it was not intended to "propagandize" anyone. Unless we can agree that most readers instinctively know what "collateral source doctrine" means, than we must try to inform readers about the meaning of the term. Anything less seems like censorship, in its most odious form. My suggestion would be (if jglaw still believes these linked articles to be polemical) to edit the articles in question, as the notion that tort reform advocates support the listed changes doesn't appear to be in question by either of us.--HelloDali17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why we need the NPOV policy. Any article purely there for POV purposes needs to be re-written or, if there is nothing worth salvaging, nominated for deletion.--Runcorn10:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. However, I would like to ass that, instead of attributing beliefs to the strawmen of "critics of tort reforms" or "proponents of tort reform," editors should avoid weasel words and name actual parties to the tort reform debate (e.g. insurance companies and business lobby vs. trial lawyers) and cite to those parties theorugh reliable sources.-- danntmTC14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia a "How To" Guide?
As I'm very new to Wikipedia, I just wanted to check what the policy is regarding information containted in articles that seems to be a guide of the "how to" sort. When I first started using Wikipedia, there was a fierce debate on the suicide page about information that some felt was listing methods along with their pros and cons. However, of particular note to myself is the page on surveillance. There is an extremely lengthy sub-section on counter-surveillance, including lists of methods for performing it. Is this what Wikipedia is? It doesn't seem appropriate to an encyclopaedia (in my opinion), as there are ample "How To" guides available for any given subject, it would seem risky for Wikipedia to offer "advice" on such sensitive issues and it would seem highly difficult (again in my humble opinion) to maintain NPOV while telling people the right way of doing things. I would like to suggest and possibly make changes to this page, but wanted to check the relevent policies before doing so. Blaise Joshua11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think, but am not sure, that "how-to" guides are meant to be on our sister project, Wikibooks, rather than here. Nevertheless, you are correct in your observation that Wikipedia does have a tendency to have things that print encyclopedias don't (how-to guides just isn't one of them).
In any case, I would agree with your opinion that Wikipedia should not be offering advice. The article on surveillance should not be in the second person (last time I checked, there was a guideline against the second person but these things are volatile), so feel free to rewrite the article accordingly. However, be careful to distinguish advice from information: simply stating what the methods are (big big subjective grey area here) is not necessarily a how-to, and could be just the presentation of fact. Neonumbers12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider your re-write/removal carefully, the information can be rewrote. Also source it, if that is original research it should be removed.--I'll bring the food14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I often wonder how many of these folks have ever actually seen an encyclopedia? OF COURSE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA HAS DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS.
My grandfather's encyclopedia circa 1915 had pages of details about building steam engines, radios, and making batteries for your radio using (then) common household chemicals, such as borax. It was fascinating reading as I was growing up.
I disagree with you, William. Of course, most people could find encylopaedias to support their particular idea of what Wikipedia should and shouldn't be, including encyclopaedias that contain biased, incorrect or selective information on a given subject. Besides, it would seem way beyond the scope to have such information in every articles. Where would you stop? What about articles on surgery or dental work? The fact is, there are books and courses out there to instruct people on how to do things if they want to learn how to do something. Generally, it's not in the remit of an encyclopaedia to provide such instructions. Lastly, please don't shout by using caps. Your opinion and input is just as valuable without doing so and it just comes across a lot nicer : o ) Blaise Joshua14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a balance to be struck. Wikipedia is meant to represent the sum of human knowledge, but it is not meant to be a how-to guide.--Runcorn10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given further reasons, such as self-identification, strong community identity and homogeneity, etc etc as valid reasons for having this category. But these reasons were all ignored. I repeat, British Bengalis are on a different order of identification compared to something like Swedish Brits.
Finally there is Category:British Asians. If British-Bengalis have no valid reason to exist, I can hardly think of a valid reason for British Asians which is a specifically British construct, and even more artificial at that! --Peripatetic17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting you should mention "asians" as I read this article today (based upon the findings of a report) -
Peripatetic, you probably should take a look again, as I was the nominator of that CfD, not against it.
I'll note that you are re-populating these (11?) with the recently deleted category. That's a speedy deletion for re-created content. Stop doing that!
I've only checked a few of these, and so far none of them fit such a category. The Baroness Uddin may have been "born in Bangladesh" (although there is no verifiable reference, and it certainly wasn't under that name, as that is her husband's surname), but "grew up in London ... educated at the University of North London" according to the article. She is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She is a British Baroness raised to life peer. There is no verifiable statement that she considers herself Bengali, nor Bangladeshi.
The Harry Potter actors were born and raised English and Welsh, respectively. Again, there are no verifiable self-identifications as any other heritage. They are not from the same community, although they may have become friends due to their professional life.
In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The place of birth is rarely notable.
Finally, as you have come forward here and cited the log, I will quote your own words:
No African or Caribbean or Asian or Indian immigrant is referred to as "English", no matter how long they or their generations have lived here.
Once again, I am going to ignore your malicious remark. Something about personal attacks comes to mind.
I am going to refocus on the issue of Bengalis. Bengalis are an ethnic group who originate in South Asia, in the region adjoining the bay of Bengal. Their main distinguishing characteristic is the Bengali language. They may be of several religions - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. They are distributed mainly across two countries - Bangladesh and India (particularly West Bengal). Again, the majority ethnic group in this region is known as "Bengalis".
For various economic reasons, people have migrated from this area for decades. There are large Bengali diaspora in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, mainland Europe and the Middle East.
Bengali people who arrive in the West do not automatically lose their Bengali ethnicity. They may have a different passport, but that is not the issue. Similarly, children of Bengali immigrants who are born and raised abroad are also referred to as Bengalis. I refer you again to the websites of British Bengali groups - BBPA [2], Bob Network [3] among others. These are all second-generation associations.
Seems to me you are mixing up ethnicity with nationality, either wilfully or for whatever reason. Baroness Uddin is Bengali in the same way that Jack Kennedy was Irish American. If British Asian is applicable, then so is British Bengali - as Bengali is no more than a subset of Asian. Unless you are planning to delete British Asian as well. We have not seen evidence of that so far.
I will try and bring up evidence of Bengali ethnicity for each of my cases. You can refer to them as English or Welsh as much as you like. That is not my remit. My remit is to prove that these people are demonstrably of Bengali ethnic identity.
Konnie Huq [4] - quote: Born to Bangladeshi parents and graduated from Cambridge University. Evidence of Konnie playing UP her Bengali roots when she filmed Blue Peter in Bangladesh. [5]
Rupa Huq is Konnie's sister. Similar.
Baroness Uddin [6] - quote: Baroness Manzila Pola Uddin was born in Bangladesh and brought up in London and Baroness Uddin is proud to support BritBangla. I am pleased to be associated with BritBangla and give my support; and with worthwhile charity initiatives. See Baroness Uddin identifying with fellow Bengalis at launch event - see picture [7], or do you need her to actually SAY so in that many words?
Afshan Azad [8] See Afshan's quote: I hope they are glad to see a Bengali girl in a Hollywood film. I want them to see my talent and see me as an individual.
Shefali Chowdhury [9] quote: Shefali Chowdhury, a second-generation Bangladeshi based in London, who plays Parvati Patil in the latest Harry Potter film
5 down, 6 to go. Rest assured, I shall find evidence for the others as well. Regards. -- Peripatetic20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)P.S. Just out of curiosity, why the rank inconsistency wrt British Asians? Why are you sparing British Asians from the cull? How come there is no demand for SELF-IDENTIFICATION evidence for every person listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Asians. How come you haven't gone on a cleanup drive? Is it because of the size or popularity of the category? This inconsistency needs to be discussed openly. Regards.[reply]
The main thing that leaps out at me is the vital importance of having clear definitions for each of these categories, and judging strictly by those definitions. To be encyclopedic, a category must have a definition which means it is possible to make an entirely objective determination of whether someone fits into it, based on reliable published sources. If we need to go around gathering "evidence" of someone's Bangladesh-iness, then the category is insufficiently well-defined, and we are engaging in original research.
I don't personally see a problem with a "British Bengalis" category defined as EITHER:
- "This category contains British citizens with known Bengali ancestry"; OR
- "This category contains British citizens who have identified themselves as Bengali"
(not both) and including ONLY people identified by reliable sources as fitting those criteria.
However, if we need to go around deciding whether people count or not based on what charities they support, or where they have presented reports from, then that is utterly unencyclopedic original research. TSP21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further response
Something else I should have made clear at the outset. Bengaliimmigration to the West on a large scale - and more broadly, south Asian immigration - is a relatively new phenomenon, beginning in the 60s and increasing in the 70s, 80s and 90s. What this means is that the current generation of Western Bengalis is only the second generation, with the vast majority of them having parents who are both Bengalis, who were originally inhabitants of the home country and who were the original immigrants. This is the case with all 11 in the list.
In sum, it is relatively simple to trace Bengali ancestry for second-generation Brit Bengalis or Bengali Americans, etc etc. It is several orders of magnitude easier compared to Europeans in the US. As a rule, intermarriage with other ethnic groups gives rise to multiple ethnic identities. This has happened to most Europeans in the US, e.g. Italians or Poles or Swedes, etc. For example, not many people today can claim to have exclusively Swedish parentage all the way back to Ellis Island a century years ago.
This is not the case with the Bengali diaspora, simply because there hasn't been enough time for that to happen so far. I'm sure within a couple of decades, as a result of increasing intermarriage, ethnic identity will become more heterogeneous. That is the nature of immigration. However, for the moment, tracing Bengali ancestry remains a quite straightforward matter.
The remaining 6:
6. Iqbal Ahmed[10] - article refers to original homeland Bangladesh.
7. Akram Khan the dancer [11]. One of Akram's most popular dance performances is based on his experiences of visiting his ancestral country [12]
8. Eenasul Fateh[13] - aka the magician Aladin, whose father was a Bengali diplomat.
10. Shami Chakrabarti[15] - whose parents came from the western half of Bengal (West Bengal in India). The daughter of Bengali immigrants, she and her younger brother grew up in "semi-detached suburbia" in north-west London, etc etc.
11. Muhammad Abdul Bari[16] - the BBC profile of the new MCB head identifies him as a Bangladeshi.
I hope all this explanation suffices.
I still don't get why British Asian is kosher but British Bengali is not. There are literally dozens of references to British Asians - what standards of proof are given for members of this list? As it is, Asian happens to be a sociological construct, meaning entirely different things in the UK (south Asian) and in the US (oriental Asians)! Bengali, on the other hand, is a recognized ethnic group, and with 230 million people [17], it is one of the bigger ethnic groups in the world.
I see there is even a list of Pakistani British people [18], existing as a subset of British Asians. As mentioned before, British Bengalis are another subset of British Asians in the same way. Asian in this context is no more than a catch-all term; it is not an identifiable ethnic group in itself.
I have not had a reply on this from any concerned. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated the Bengali ancestry of the above 11. Given so, what is the policy regarding a Category called "British people of Bengali ancestry"? Such naming is both clear and accurate. I am not particularly worried about what the specific category is called, as long as it correctly identifies ethnic origins. Whether a person wants to self-identify or not is immaterial in this case.
I have for the past hour been doing Status Quo articles. I have done most of the albums. I am going to make a Status Quo template. I make a page about Matt Letley. I add in some information, not wanting to create a worthless article. Then, some admin goes ahead and deletes it within three minutes with no reason given, just deletes it. I appreciate the right of Admin's to delete it, but give me a reason, I have feelings to you know. I had a much more strongly worded letter drafted berfore this. Holein the wall18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article. It was deleted as having "no assertion of notability," per WP:CSD criterion A7, but I think that was an error. The drummer for a band we have an article on is not obviously non-notable in any way. In the future, if you have trouble with such things, you should take it up with the closing admin or bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For valid reasons for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There are also systems of deletion without such concrete rules: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion can be used if someone suggests deletion and nobody objects, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion makes decisions about deleting articles based on community discussion. Speedy deletion is a rigid system designed to be used only for things that are entirely non-controversial, AfD is for things that some users may disagree with, and PROD is for stuff inbetween. -- SCZenz01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar complaint. I have made several articles, all notable in their own right. However, each and every one of them has been deleted, and most speedily deleted. As with Hole_in_the_Wall's problem, I respect admin's right to delete it. Granted they may not be as important as chemistry or the arts, but if I recall the original goal (I don't see it anymore on the main page, then again I didn't look that much) of MediaWiki was to provide a place for ALL human knowledge. I mean, it's not like I'm posting just gibberish. If Wikipedia wishes to have all human knowledge, then it must have all human knowledge. Therefore everything is notable. I know merging plays a role in this, and the meaningful articles I attempted to post could not be merged anywhere. This doesn't mean they're worthless. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is a great site for information, but it just seems a bit too selective and snobby. Perhaps the policies should be more open in the future if it wishes to encompass more information. Just a thought.
The trouble is that things can get speedily deleted before the author realises that speedy deletion has been proposed. The deletion does not show up in your watch list, so you don't know that the article has gone until you look for it. Inexperienced users will not know how to find who deleted it. Should deleting admins notify every (non-anon) article editor that they have deleted it?--Runcorn11:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. A representative of Scientific American recently began posting external links to online articles from the magazine. There has been much dispute about whether this is a good thing or not. On the pro side, Sci Am is a highly-reputable popular science magazine, and the links are all relevant and may very well provide useful information on the topic for users who want to learn more than our article has. On the con side, the Sci Am online articles have ads, so they are making money off the links, and the linking is massive and systematic. The representative recently posted the following text on the subject:
Hello, I represent Scientific American and I am responsible for the insertion of the new external links on Wikipedia to SciAm. I don't believe what we are doing is wrong but we have stopped inserting links at this time. Also, I want to clarify what we're doing and why. We are not using a spambot. A person is manually entering the links to the Wikipedia articles and we are not inserting articles just for the sake of spam or search optimization. We're only adding an external link when we believe it would contribute by providing additional information on the topic. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for many people and we would like to contribute by adding our content. Yes we acknowledge that by adding the links it will probably benefit us but that is not the reason we're doing it. The articles that we link to are all completely free and the user is not required to pay or register to view them. The ad unit several people have mentioned does promote a subscription but the viewer has the option to immediately close the ad. Visitors to our web site will view ads since it is partially advertising supported and we must do this to operate and continue to provide content to our readers. This is a user experience that is similar to visiting most other content web sites and blogs on the Internet. We are not trying to mislead anyone and have been completely transparent in our actions by not masking our IP and by using the user ID - Scientific American. We believe we are providing additional content on the topic, which I believe is valuable to Wikipedia users. We are not inserting links indiscriminately. We add external links at the bottom of the list not the top. We do not modify other links. We make the copy straightforward by just placing our publication name, issue date and title. We do not reinsert other links that have been removed by others who may view it as inappropriate. Also the next phase was to to add actual content to Wikipedia in topics lacking any substantial content. But at this time, we will not do that since it may be viewed as inappropriate. I hope I have been clear in our motivations and intentions. Finally, if many Wikipedia community members views what we're doing is inappropriate we will stop. Thank you --Scientific American 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from this edit)
To start of the discussion, here's my own personal opinion. While this is arguably linkspam, and certainly does make Scientific American money, I do not think either of these reasons to reject such links is compelling. On the contrary, we should encourage them to add more links if they want to, because Scientific American articles are good. Links to good, relevant external pages improve the encyclopedia, so I think Scientific American deserves an exception to our usual mode of linkspam enforcement. Ultimately, whether the encyclopedia is made better is the only thing that's important. -- SCZenz18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Don't these links fail criterion 1 of WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided": "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." In other words, aren't these the sort of links that would make fine references (if the articles were updated to include info from them) but are inappropriate as external links? — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Often the articles' info is more specific than I imagine being in the article; they're really "more information," I think. Anyway, don't we usually link to our references? If nothing else, having these links will let us use the material to improve the articles more easily. -- SCZenz19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Amazon started posting links to there products, evry Wikipedian would be up in arms. How is this any differant. And why do the need a 'team' to ad links? Surely, if their articles were so relavent people would be doing it allready and SA wouldn;t need to do it. This looks super fishy to me. Holein the wall18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are unquestionably trying to make money off of us and promote themselves. I claim, however, that their effort will be mutually beneficial. -- SCZenz19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the person at SciAm is editting the articles, it seems to me that using the ref tag would be a better use of the time. However, we often have external links to nytimes, guardian, and other on-line articles supported by advertising. AND we all love Google, a service supported by advertising, to verify references and notability. Quite different from Amazon, where a link doesn't actually contain information.
I'm not sure that this is a good thing. Most of the links are certainly good links on an individual basis, but it continues systematically, we're going to end up with every single one of our higher-profile articles on science linking to Scientific American. Remember, we try to keep the number of external links on our articles within a reasonable limit, so that means one less link devoted to someone else, too. I'm worried that this will, in effect, make Scientific American look like a sort of unofficial Wikipedia affiliate... No matter how good they are, I think we should avoid that. --Aquillion19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That just means we have to deal with each link added on a case-by-case basis (which we ought to be doing for every link anyway). I think it's clear that if the editors of a given article decide against keeping a given link, Scientific American isn't going to keep on reverting the decision to remove it. We don't have to officially sanction the process en mass, we can look at each link as it comes.--ragesoss19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. What I kind of meant to say was that even if the individual links could pass on a one-by-one bases, the effect of having the overwhelming majority of science articles on Wikipedia link to Scientific American might be something we want to consider. --Aquillion20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comparison to Amazon.com is a red herring -- we can use product identification numbers and link through a counterpart to the ISBN-book links that are already being used if we're concerned about vendor neutrality. That would not solve what's a crucial difference between products and articles -- mp3 players, software, golf carts, and virtually everything else Amazon sells is not itself really properly encyclopedic, and we would risk looking like a sales directory if we had articles and links for all that stuff on Wikipedia. Scientific American's content is, by contrast, by nature almost always encyclopedic -- scientific discoveries are about the world around us, and they are the historical core of what encyclopedias are about. To reiterate, a lot of links to amazon makes us a product directory, but a lot of links to SciAm makes us well plugged in to science. I would be tempted to say that the SciAm articles are unqualifiedly a good thing, my only reservation being that we might want to be cautious about covering research that is too new. If those who add the links take great care to deal with this latter issue sensitively, I see no issue with this kind of linking going on. --Improv23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their explanation is much appreciated. But I can't say it makes me like any better that a commercial entity is adding links to their own site. Who will be the next? Wikipedia does not let affiliate programs determine its content — and links aren't even content. It'd actually be preferable they'd skip the links and start directly adding the relevant content to the articles. Links would neither be necessary nor appropriate then — not even for reference, when the creator of the referenced content itself adds it, think about it! Why would anybody with a financial responsibility to their shareholders bother to do such a thing? It still stinks of bargaining for advertising space, in their own interest they should refrain. Femto19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Femto, you seem to be saying that if an editor adds his own work, it doesn't have to be referenced. That doesn't work. If anyone, the author of an article in Scientific American, a staff member at the magazine, or a reader, adds material from an article, it must be cited as a reference. The issue here is not (or should not be) about using Scientific American articles as references. The issue is about external links.
I do have to say that external links to Scientific American articles will almost certainly be more relevant and useful than 95% of the external links we currently have, but that is more of an argument for agressively cleaning out poor external links than for letting Scientific American add their links. -- Donald Albury(Talk)20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that a company only has to be the first to include some fact from their site into an article, and Wikipedia must provide a free link to them for all eternity? That doesn't work either. References are a help to the reader and an academic courtesy to the original source. But the facts are free, especially if chosen to be added by the source itself. Femto21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not for all eternity, no - it could be replaced by a different source later. But yes, every fact added to any Wikipedia article should be accompanied by a reference to a source, as per the Verifiability and Original Research policies. This applies even when they're added by someone with sufficient authority to make a statement, because we only have their word for it that they are that person or group.
As a separate issue, yes, we do undertake to credit every contributor for providing the information for all eternity, under the GFDL - that's one of the things that the History function is there for. TSP21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not for all eternity perhaps, but long enough for adding linked facts to Wikipedia becoming a lucrative business model! Other sites will be less reserved than SciAm. I also agree with below that the reference argument is rather moot at this point, as all we've got is links so far. Femto13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The facts may be free, but they have to be sourced. If anyone, including an employee of Scientific American, adds new material to a Wikipedia article based on an article from the magazine, then they need to reference the source. Again, this is a different issue from the one which was originally raised here, which is whether we want employees of online sources adding "external links" which are not direct sources for information in an article. -- Donald Albury(Talk)21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they need to reference the source. The fact remains that except for the few cases regulated by WP:OR, an editor of Wikipedia should never cite themself as source of the content which they add.
Say I wrote an essay on the history of bark beetles breeding in bohemian birches. I put it on my website. If you add the information from there to Wikipedia, you may add a cite as a courtesy to me, and as a help for the reader to determine the reliability of the information. This is the purpose of Wikipedia's references.
But I can add my knowledge to Wikipedia regardless of whether my site existed or not. Citing myself does not make me a proper source or increases my encyclopedic verifiability. Neither is it a courtesy to myself, it's a promotion. This holds true even moreso for publishers of franchised content from other writers. A link to their site, a secondary source, would neither be necessary nor appropriate, when they own the added content and have access to its primary references. Femto12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument very confusing. If a magazine article is used as the source for material in a Wikipedia article, then the magazine article must be cited no matter who adds the material to Wikipedia. You seem to be saying that if an employee of Scientific American should add material from an article in that magazine, he or she could not cite the article, but would have to cite the references listed in that article. That would be wrong. References in Wikipedia should only be to sources actually consulted by the editor adding or verifying the material. Citing indirect sources that the editor has not consulted would be wrong. Note that most articles in Scientific American are commissioned from experts in a particular field, and are not written by employees of the magazine. And this is all still hypothetical, anyway. -- Donald Albury(Talk)13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that, so long as the links are relevant to the article, and go into more depth than the wikipedia article, they can only be benificial. Ideally, the relevant content from the SA articles would be merged into the WP article, with the SA article then used as a reference - but failing that, pointing readers to a useful article to read next is the next best thing. With luck, it will prompt people to add content from that page back into the WP article (with appropriate references). I recognise that there is a money-making and publicity side to this, but I tend to focus more on the quality of WP articles than that. Responding to the external links point above: yes, it's nice to keep them down to a reasonable number, but if the external articles/websites will be of use to the reader wanting to go into more depth, then they should be added regardless of how many are currently there. Or will WP abruptly run out of space / words if we do that? Mike Peel22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like Femto's points. Realistically, I'm not too worried; there are not all that many sites on te net that provide science content: one is lucky to find one or two for the obscure topics, maybe half-a-dozen for the more well-known topics. My goal is to have good information that is accessible, ad can be cross checked. This seems to fulfil that purpose. linas01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely with Femto and agree with Donald Albury. I also think that it is a red herring to think about the scale of the thing: if each individual edit is good (according to the categorical imperative) then the sum of the edits ought to be good as well. The guideline WP:EL for links normally to be avoided seems a little odd to me: if the encyclopedia reaches a point where the articles it links to are superceded, then the links ought to be removed, provided they are not being used as references. In the meantime, if you can direct readers to another source, or even another approach, then so much the better. Let the individual editors (i.e. people with the article on their watchlist) make the call. There is no need for an overarching deicision about whether the links are a good thing or a bad thing.
Finally, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Scientific American is not. They take different approaches to things; Scientific American tries to write entertaining articles and we are trying to be an useful work of reference. Narrative is more important to them than to us, and it can only help to give Wikipedia readers the option of consulting their articles (provided, of course, they are relevant and the links section doesn't get too bloated). – Joke02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing the high quality of Scientific American, I'm very happy to have external links to their articles in ours. They will only add to the value of our 'pedia. And I'm really glad that they are doing the work. Saves me from having to do it ;-). That this may also help them, is no skin off our collective noses. Paul August☎03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing any organization to add self-links in articles' external links sections sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. At the very least it shows a blatent disregard for WP:SPAM, one of the few tools we have in the fight against the rising tide of spam here. What motivation does said organization have to spend time adding their links as proper citations when they can get away with simply dumping them en-masse, especially if someone is doing it "on the clock"? Ok, so Sci Am articles are often relevant and useful - but would it be so bad to request that Sci Am either add their links to the articles' talk pages (to allow other neutral editors to determine their worth), or add them as citiations? --AbsolutDan(talk)05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full ack. Allow it just once, and I foresee thousands of articles, each with highly relevant links to dozens of magazines. If relevant external content improves Wikipedia, the more the better? Where's the limit to relevance? Why bother with internal content in the first place? The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to create internal content, not to be a directory to that of others, even if someone might use it as a source at some indefinite future. Femto12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, there's the rub. Scientific American is close to a best case for allowing an entity to add many external links back to itself. The problem would be in drawing the line between Scientific American and Weekly World News. So, I'm all for anyone citing any reliable, published source as a reference for material in an article. I think we need to tighten up on external links in general, however. I like your suggestion of asking SciAm to post the links to the talk pages and let the editors familiar with the page decide if they belong on the article page. -- Donald Albury(Talk)12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not discourage Scientific American. It is a good source and their links would benefit WP. Putting the links on talk pages could be a good compromise. Maurreen17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that it is Scientific American doing the edits should not be an issue, nor should their external motives. It shouldn't matter who is doing the editing, as long as the edits are good: that seems to be one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Since the links have generally been relevant, unobtrusive, free and useful, I say let them continue adding them, but ask them to ensure that they don't reinsert links that other editors have decided to remove. – Joke19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a link to any relevant Scientific American article would improve our encyclopedia. Can anyone point to a single inapproprate link to any article, added by Scientific American? If not, then having them add the link to the talk page is just unnecessary extra work, for no gain. If they start making inappropriate links, then we can take action. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to add links to articles, which we all agree are useful, is just silly. Paul August☎03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've come a bit late to this discussion, but my suggestion is that we let SciAm add all the relevant link they can come up with, and that we, as Wikipedia editors, then form a WikiProject to tidy up after them and turn the "external links" into chunks of readable prose summarising the relevant points of the article, and that have a link to the article as a reference for the information. In other words, they link to what could be useful content, and we then edit the articles to add any missing information from those article, and reference those articles if we judge them to be appropriate references for the new information. Does that sound acceptable? Or would that be too much like hard work? Carcharoth23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases, but please realize that is not necessarily the case that all the content from every SA linked article would be appropriate to add to our articles. Some articles might be linked for the purpose of "further reading". Paul August☎03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a bit late, but I do want to add my $0.02. I feel SA are wrong on two counts:
If the writers there want to "contribute by providing additional information", they should do what all creators of content should best do for Wikipedia, and add content to it. If they are genuinely (and philanthropically) interested in adding to a topic, nothing at all prevents them GDFL'ing their content and boldly adding it right in. This would be the very best they could do for us. Especially pictures. Hint hint.
By acting in direct violation of several policies (most especially WP:EL,don't link to yourself), they are ignoring consensus on these matters, and behaving boorishly. However, my immediate reaction reading the first parts of this on the Project Physics page was that SA would immediately desist and apologize if detractors brought this to their attention -- an impression which was indeed borne out.
I would like to also offer my counter to above arguments that SA should be excepted since "they are good" -- this is pure ad hominem. Obviously, if this were not SA but some obscure fanzine or Amazon.com, these objections would not be raised at all. And by allowing this particular exception to policies, we force ourselves into the unenviable position of eventually having to write a policy that covers which websites are "allowed" to do this, and which aren't... Slippery slope is the phrase, of course. Eaglizard 07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ps: I added an invitation to contribute content freely to User_talk: Scientific American, but somehow I doubt they'll start beefing up actual article content. 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome Scientific American adding links to relevant articles, although I am a little concerned about setting a precendent. It isn't reasonable to expect them to contribute the material to the articles directly: it would be far more work for them, with less return, than adding a link. They could not simply paste the contents of their articles into Wikipedia, both because we have existing entries which would need to be integrated with, and because their articles, no matter how good, are phrased as magazine articles and not as encyclopedia entries. I also don't expect them to give up their copyright so freely. User:Carcharoth had a good idea a few posts up from this: encourage them to post their links, freely mine the articles for useful content (rewording so as not to contravene copyright), and convert the link to a reference. They still get the hits from click-throughs, and our articles improve.
I expect that New Scientist, Nature, Time, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer will want similar arrangements. We need to set up a suitable group which will evaluate such proposals and determine whether they are in our interests.-gadfium08:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I listed a few fairly well known and respected publications, and then thought I should throw in a respectable publication which has only local significance in contrast. I have no connection to the CPD, indeed, I doubt I've ever read a copy, but if I chose a publication from my local area (eg Metro) then few Wikipedians would be able to say "Yes, that's a respectable newspaper/magazine". My point is that we couldn't make a comprehensive list, but we should provide a place for such publications to request permission to place links to themselves in our articles, and a way to evaluate those requests.-gadfium05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Eaglizard: It is silly for us to object to an otherwise appropriate and useful link to an article, for no other reason than who it was added by. To discourage the adding of useful content (and a link is as much content as any other text in an article) because we don't like who added it, is placing other concerns ahead of those of our readers. I also doubt that SA is in violation of any policies, and if they are then those policies should be rewritten ;-) (Btw WP:EL is a style guideline, not an official policy, and it only says that self links should "normally be avoided", and I don't think that WP:EL, is really talking about this situation — the section discouraging self-links is mainly about POV issues.)
To gadfium: Bad precedent setting is really not much of an issue for Wikipedia, where current practice generally dictates policy, not the other way around. Current practice is that links are, more or less, added and removed on a case-by-case basis, as judged by the editors of each article, and this is how it should be.
Coming into this debate a little bit late, I want to add that I think it is a neat idea for SciAm to be adding quality links to Wikipedia articles. Particularly if the focus of the article is specifically about the Wikipedia article topic, I don't see what the real problem is here. I would likely try to strongly recommend that for SciAm to do this, they should voluntarily restrict themselves to only one or two Wikipedia articles per SciAm article, and avoid spamlinking dozens of SciAm articles for a single Wikipedia article. If done in moderation, I think this would be a fantastic thing for Wikipedia.
BTW, the same thing can be said for the New York Times, or even scientific publications like Nature or New England Journal of Medicine. A few high quality reference links to publications like these is something reasonable and indeed should be commended. And don't tell me that the New York Times doesn't have a single reference in Wikipedia linking to their website. Precedence is already on Wikipedia to permit these links, so it is really more of a manner of how and in what quantity should links like these be permitted. The whole Amazon.com debate is moot as Amazon.com already is listed as one of the ISBN links. As far as some companies making money off of Wikipedia, get used to it. While annoying advertisements aren't permitted for Wikipedia, commercial links certainly have been for some time. They must be on-topic, verifiable, and relevant to the Wikipedia article in question. A link selling viagra pills on the William Clinton article is clearly not going to be allowed. --Robert Horning20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing in my two cents, I think it is fine for SA to add the links. I believe I've added links to SA articles, but I would not link to, say, Amazon. Bubba73(talk), 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without doubt, Scientific American is a reliable, reputable publication. It contributes good information in any area it publishes. While it may be the first publication to add links, it won't be the last. Wikipedia should provide guidence for such situations. My suggestion would be, All such links may be added in either 'Exterior Links' or 'Additional Reading of Interest'. The guideline would apply to employees of a magazine who are working on company time and are not the free, volunteer public. Looking at a few of the links added, they are good information, the article is enhanced by them. Terryeo17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be all this fuss if Scientific American had added something from the article, then cited it as a reference? What's the practical difference?--Runcorn12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truth and opinions
If a certain point of view on a particular issue can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false (as is the case with some pseudosciences), do they require a mention? If something is proven, it holds true to all, so can a false point of view still be considered valid? --81.156.50.15119:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid for us to report that, for example, some people believe in astrology — whether astrology is real or not. It's not our place to determine 'truth'; we just report on the major schools of thought on a given issue. It's certainly appropriate for us to note when a particular opinion is 'fringe' or 'mainstream', but we can't and shouldn't decide on the 'truth' of an issue. (We can apply some editorial judgement. If an opinion is in sufficient minority and far enough out on the fringe, it may not warrant inclusion. Obviously this has to be approached on a case-by-case basis.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Inclusion should be based on the extent to which something actually extends and is pertinent-how widely-spread something is. MichaelZ52607:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, in many cases, we do determine truth, and we must in order to be a reasonably serious encyclopedia. For example, Earth states that the Earth is round. Even though there is only one notable viewpoint on this, we are still determining truth, and not just reporting on different viewpoints. I believe that in cases where there is only one notable view of the truth, we can usually report that as the truth. Otherwise we, as an encyclopedia, have very serious problems. --PhilosophusT06:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We report what the sources say. If there is only one notable view of the truth, there will be few reliable sources that say otherwise. But what is truth? It is a simplification to say that the Earth is round; it is a much closer approximation to the truth than the statement that the Earth is flat, but it is not exactly true. Similarly, few people would reject Newtonian dynamics, although we know that it is not exactly correct.--Runcorn12:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Books in Wikipedia
Is there a policy or guideline about articles about books in Wikipedia? Any notability or any other criterion for inclusion of books? ≈ jossi ≈t • @00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would assume that the book is not notable. I believe that the small version of the Review of Particle Physics by the PDG is self-published, but it is likely that it is notable. We can't assume that being self-published means that a book is not notable. However, it is highly unlikely to be notable unless it has a large enough readership and enough reputable and reliable sources about it. --PhilosophusT06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be over-prescriptive to have lots of rules about this; anything that should not be included ought to be picked up by the usual procedures for deleting articles.--Runcorn12:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion essay: Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal
I just wrote an opinion essay based on a thought that has been bouncing around my head in the last few months. I probably posted it in the wrong place, but for now you can find it on Jimbo Wales' talk page here:
Comments are appreciated. I figure, given the number of people at Wikipedia, that this suggestion been made previously but I haven't seen any discussion of it. --Ben Houston19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. There is another thing. I have about 150 pages on my watchlist, so I try to watch all changes, especially by anon users. One thing I do for anon users is check their talk page. I was checking an edit by User:207.200.116.198 today, and he as at least 16 "last warnings" and two "only warning". (How many "last warnings" and "only warnings" does someone get????) But it is an IP address used by AOL users, so I have no way of knowing if the person who edited today is the same one/ones that previously got all of the warnings. Bubba73(talk), 20:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DITTO: On first reading, I missed: "I clearly believe that the ability to contribute anonymously/pseudonymously must remain an option." I don't like that. I think every editor should have to register and agree to a policy statement. Bubba73(talk), 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Anything that encourages people to behave themselves and has the potential to benefit Wikipedia's general reputation can only be a step forward. If it works for Amazon, it can work for us. I wouldn't mind shelling out a few bucks to have my identity verified. --Jwinius20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting ideas but I definitely have to say "don't go there" in terms of either a) asking people to pay to join up (it's hard to tell if this is an actual suggestion in your essay) or b) use credit card or any similar piece of ID for verification. The first goes against what Wikipedia is all about and the second is troublesome from several different standpoints - one of which you mentioned as credit card bias, but even if we aren't talking credit cards, not everyone has a drivers licence, Social Insurance, etc. The idea of requiring real names is intriguing. People want Wikipedia to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia and as a research tool, yet there is some loss of credibility when you have an article on nuclear physics written by someone identified as, well, 23skidoo for example. The problem here, though, is that many users want to be anonymous so that they can contribute to articles they don't personally want to be associated with (for political or personal reasons). We might lose people's input. And I know several users who use pseudonyms for their edits (not handles but actual names) for this very reason. 23skidoo20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 80%: No fees, no credit cards (some can afford neither). Actually, there are some instances where a person may not wish to use their real name. I know, as a psychotherapist, I would rather not get into disputes with persons I’m working with professionally (we do that enough in the room). I’d be satisfied if every Editor would be required to have an informative User Page that tells us something about their fields of interest end expertise. Michael David21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My paraphrase of the arguments that Jimmy Wales has repeatedly made against proposals of this type is that committed POV pushers will gladly jump through hoops to edit, but casual users who might provide the counterweight to them will not. -Will Beback20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about at least requiring an email verification of all editors? I verified my email address - it costs nothing except a little time. The current policy seems to be "anyone can edit - no matter how stupid you are, no matter how uneducated you are, no matter how wrong you are, no matter how much of a joke you think it is to enter nonsense, no matter how much time you take away from good editors, and no matter how much you hurt the WP." Bubba73(talk), 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I misreading the "Outsourced Identity Authentication" section, or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia spend potentially a million dollars a year -- an amount equivalent to its entire current annual budget -- on verifying people's identities? --Carnildo21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23skidoo, it is by pseudonymous edits that Wikipedia's coverage of Physics remains respectable. Crackpots, who would always be willing to give their real names, will often harass identifiable editors outside of Wikipedia. Would you really be interested in editing articles if every revert of some crackpot's changes resulted in threats, letters to your employer, and possible frivolous lawsuits? --PhilosophusT22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be possible to just refer such harrassment to the criminal legal system? Restraining orders with respect to all communication as well as editing of Wikipedia, if one makes the case that is where the harrassment occured, could be found -- and might even be less work that a continuous battle against a determined foe who operates outside of the behavioral norms of society. It makes sense to me to integrate Wikipedia back into the structures of society in which it operates, at least with respect to identities and the applicability of criminal law, rather than continuing to view it as its own isolated island with an ever growing bureaucratic overhead. --Ben Houston22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that I have enough time and money to deal with the legal system of the editor doing the harassment, and that the harassment is enough that the legal system would care about it. In many cases, the harassment isn't legally actionable. --PhilosophusT03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% in favor of requiring people to register a user-name. I think it is silly for us to do back flips working with IP addresses. We need to be able to leave a message for someone and know that it is reaching the intended person. However, I am against any requirement to use real names. There are too many crazy people out there and we already have issues with Wikipedia disputes spilling over into the rest of people's lives (See User:Katefan0 for one example). Johntex\talk21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to crazy people: Wikipedia should not be considered an island isolated from society. Crazy people should not be tolerated, it strange that the norm on Wikipedia is a relative powerlessness (and so many things resonate from there), crazy people should be dealt with via the criminal law system -- harrassment, stalking, threats results in restraining orders, criminal records and imprisonment. Without the well developed criminal system to rely on, society would significantly worse off -- one shouldn't believe that Wikipedia is so strong that it must deal (burden?) with such things alone. --Ben Houston22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this: if editors needed to log in to edit, WP would lose a bit of it's "mistique". As far as building a good encyclopedia is concerned, that mystique isn't really necessary any more... it would probably do just fine if no editors were allowed to edit unless thay had created an account before 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (for example), perhaps requiring potential new editors to get 10 references from people with more than 10,000 edits in order to get an account!
There's gotta be a happy medium somewhere. Maybe just make a rule for IPs (and IP ranges) that have 4 strikes against them, and permanently block them. Banning IP editors in general seems a bit extreme. Not banning IPs that have exhausted the community's patience smacks of superstition. We can keep the good and swat the bad. Why does it have to be all or nothing? --SB_Johnny | talk21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any compelling reason why people have to be able to edit as IP addresses. I am not interested in the project having "mystique", I am interested in building a useful encyclopedia without wasting time on busy work like trying to figure out if an IP adress is still being used by last weeks vandal or not.
Strong Oppose - see WP:AGF. Also, I have been targeted for identity fraud on a couple of occaisions because of information I have posted on the internet, so if I was forced to use my real name, I would just stop using WP. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk|Contribs | Chess | E-mail22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood - the proposal doesn't say that real names must be used to edit Wikipedia. Besides that point though, how would you deal with the various issues discussed in the article? --Ben Houston22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: "a "Real Name" attribution that is automatically displayed with their user identity (in edit histories, and watchlists) and on their user page.".
Also, for the record, it is easier to block IPs than to block usernames, as users can easilly create accounts, they can't easilly change IP addresses unless they are AOL, or have a dynamic IP. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk|Contribs | Chess | E-mail22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you quote is out of context -- I am referring in that sentence to people who verify their identities will have their usernames denoted as verified (like a little icon or something) in various places were it is diplayed. In another part of the essay I did write: "Thus, even though I propose moving away from anonymity/pseudonymity, I clearly believe that the ability to contribute anonymously/pseudonymously must remain an option." --Ben Houston22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But when you block an IP, you don't know that you are blocking a person. You could be blocking 100 people, or zero people if they have another IP adress to switch to. Johntex\talk22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are referring to "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering"? I wasn't making the point that anonymous contributions should be prevented but rather a shift towards encouraging the use of real identities that fosters personal responsibility. It is actually a finding in social psychology that individuals who feel anonymous (either by wearing hoods as done by the KKK or as part of a large crowd) feel less responsible for their actions. I notice Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on it but here is a relevant description from the American Psychological Association magazine and writen by its former president [19]:
People's aggression can also increase when they feel anonymous--for example if they wear a uniform, hood or mask, Zimbardo said.
"You minimize social responsibility," he explained. "Nobody knows who you are, so therefore you are not individually liable. There's also a group effect when all of you are masked. It provides a fear in other people because they can't see you, and you lose your humanity."
For example, an experiment in 1974 by Harvard anthropologist John Watson evaluated 23 cultures to determine whether warriors who changed their appearance--such as with war paint or masks--treated their victims differently. As it turned out, 80 percent of warriors in these cultures were found to be more destructive--for example, killing, torturing or mutilating their victims--than unpainted or unmasked warriors.
What's more, a person's anonymity can be induced by acting in an anonymity-conferring environment that adds to the pleasure of destruction, vandalism and the power of being in control, Zimbardo noted.
I'm going to try and express this concern in a different form at some point -- I think I covered too much ground too quickly in this essay. --Ben Houston23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure you remember that anonymity and pseudonymity are of differing degrees of problem and that you will have to deal with each differently. I would think that anonymous IP editors feel less personally accountable (and hence less responsible) for what they do. But if you edit long enough under a pseudonym you identify with and become invested in that fixed identity. Considering the great divergence of feelings behind either blocking unregistered editing, and "requiring" (whether by pressure or rule) real name editing (something I personally would never comply with), I'd suggest focusing separately on changing the former policy. Postdlf00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with pseudonyms, but the fact that one IP address could be many different people is a big problem. How about (1) All editors must register to get a unique name, even if it is a pseudonym, (2) all editors have to read and agree to a policy statement, and (3) each new editor has a probationary period - any edits must be approved by an established editor before they are made visible to the public. Bubba73(talk), 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just loopy. How could you ever make sure a user isn't a sockpuppet? And wouldn't "approving" edits be a much larger strain on the community than simply reverting vandalism when it's found? And who would be doing the approving if not the community at large? Over half of the IP edits I see are valid. While permanently blocking those that cause vandalism seems like a good idea to me, why not extend the benefit of the doubt to those who edit with good intentions? SB_Johnny | talk00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnny here, but I'd say that from my own personal experience more than half of the anonymous edits I see are valid. In the articles on my watchlist there's a good number of IP edits every day, the significant majority of which are solid improvements (adding new information, correcting factual mistakes, correcting typos or spelling errors and sometimes even reverting vandalism). Of the rest most are bad, but good faith, edits (unsoruced or just plain erroneous material or stylistically wonky additions) and only a relatively small proportion are outright vandalism. I'd say the vandalism:worthwhile addition and flawed editing:solid editing ratios are pretty similar between IPs and registered users and POV-pushing is if anything more prevalent amongst registered users. I will admit that I tend to suffer the same prejudice a lot of editors do as regards IP users (I'll tend to check edits by IPs first, assuming they're more likely to be problematic) but when I actually reflect on what I've seen I can't say I can rationally justify my assumptions. --Daduzitalk05:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is an improvement over the current situation. With the amount of time, energy, effort and wikiserverspace wasted on defending against IP vandalism [citation needed], this seems like wonderful proposal.
FYI, I added [citation needed] to my own "broad, sweeping statement about IP vandals" before anyone else lept for the WhackingStick of WP:CITE. It's just based on my own, relatively new experience on WP.
See also Muppet Wiki User Name policy. The Five and Out Rule seems like a good way to have WP:AGF for the casual "Hey, I found a typo or other obvious error" editors.
Of course, I also know that the odds of taking proactive steps to prevent IP vandalism are about as good as Pigs in Space.
I just noticed that further up I did use the term kid friendly. While i don't endorse censorship of articles like Harry Potter, i find it worse that they the kids lose access to the rest of the encylopedia over a few articles. If it is a case of limited censoship, using standard school guidelines, vs no wikipedia in the schools, I would bite the bullet and make a school version. The censorship battles can come later. David D.(Talk)22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those schools that banned Wikipedia are not going to unblock it since it's open edit. There's other things that annoy schools about Wikipedia, like that it's open edit and kids are editing their high school's entry with vandalism like "Mr. Foo is a poopyhead" -newkai | talk | contribs22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Above i wrote: "I am assuming the CD version 1.0 is probably a step in the right direction for a children's edition. It also has the advantage of being a non editable version, so it may also be more school friendly too". David D.(Talk)22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a non-editable version of wikipedia is not the best idea, because that would go against the entire purpose of Wikipedia. The most likely purpose that anyone can edit wikipedia is to make the information as up to date as possible. It would be too much of a burden to have to inspect all edits, because Wikipedia probably would not be able to afford it. School principals should view all articles that explain the purpose of Wikipedia. They should know that information that is obscene or innaccurate will not last for more than a few minutes. Content should not be changed, as it would reduce the quality of certain articles. If there is a childrens wikipedia that is separately created, adults should still be able to edit it, because if there were any restrictions on editing, it would take a lot longer to update articles. Most children probably couldn't afford to wait months after a hurricane to read about it. It would make their assignments a lot harder, because they would not be able to get it as easily. I understand that Wikinews exists for that purpose and that other websites tend to write about those things immediately. It would make sense for some articles to be uneditable but it would be complete nonsense for others. There is infact already a feature that allows webpages to be rendered unchangeable, but administrators need to use it a lot more.
Why would you doubt that a non-editable version of wikipedia is worth while? What about the Version 1.0 project? With regard to hurricanes there is more to wikipedia thatn current events. Not too mention other sources other than wikipedia are available. Of course there would be limitations but are you saying that is better than nothing at all? David D.(Talk)03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of words in other languages
I removed a list of translations of stevia into other languages from the Stevia article and put it on Wiktionary instead, but someone put it right back. Is there an existing policy on this? —Keenan Pepper23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there's a policy, but my feeling is that etymologies and translations should be included if and only if they have some encyclopedic merit beyond face value. For example, I added lots of translations to Hodgsonia (which is in a shameful, half-finished state), but only for indigenous peoples and for the two imperial powers whose botanists first described the plant. In Stevia, there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic value in the Swedish translation... but the article has a paragraph on Japan, so I think the Japanese translation is relevant. Does that make sense? Melchoir23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. I said if anyone wanted to mention interesting or important translations in prose, they were welcome to, just not a bulletted list. —Keenan Pepper00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created that list because it has encyclopedic value to that particular article. Acquaintances referred to that article specifically to see what Stevia is called in their home country. Translations were also requested in the talk page. I travel globally and often have no way of knowing what a food ingredient is called in other languages. Especially for things like stevia and MSG, the terms don't translate easily from English. Therefore a reference is necessary.
True, the Swedish term and a few others were redundant, so I have removed them, and included prose -- a far better alternative than deleting the entire list. Including terms in other languages is appropriate, especially for a reference work about a food substance that has experienced political controversy.
What rankles me is that unlike others who have endeavored to edit this list, one individual made absolutely no effort to make it fit better into the article, and instead arbitrarily removed a relevant contribution that I spent some hours researching and assembling for the stevia article, not for Wiktionary. The revised restoration goes some way to addressing the concerns above. Relevant information should not be removed; if you don't like the way it's presented, then figure out a better way instead. Amatulic17:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me one thing: What is special about stevia that its article should have translations into other languages (and only certain ones, with no reason given for the choices), but most other articles shoudn't? —Keenan Pepper03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not singling out Stevia. I think any article should include alternate names (preferably in prose form as you suggest, but at least as a list to start out), if the article concerns a food substance that has been embroiled in controversy around the world. Take MSG for example. Even here in the U.S. I frequently go into Asian restaurants whose personnel barely know English, and don't know what "MSG" or "Monosodium glutamate" means. It's quite useful for me to know that it's called mi-won in Korean, for example, because I want to avoid it (MSG nearly hospitalizes a close relative, so I'm pretty sure it's not good for me either). Where did I find the Korean name? Wikipedia! Googling for "monosodium glutamate korean" results in many dead ends. It's nice to know I can rely on Wikipedia for things that really matter. I'd like to see the MSG alternate names list expanded further to European languages, but for now, listing only Asian languages is appropriate due to MSG's special ubiquity in Asia. But unlike MSG which is permitted everywhere, the permissions and bans on stevia are spread out all over the world, so it makes sense to have a somewhat larger list of names.
I, and others, want to know what to look for (or avoid) when I go abroad. For example, Singaporeans (who are all English speaking) may want to avoid stevia because Singapore bans it; they might want to know the name for Steviawhen traveling abroad (as many Singaporeans do) to avoid stevia-tainted food. Conversely, I'm sensitive to sugar and I avoid artificial sweeteners, so I seek out stevia wherever I go.
As to the choice of languages, the ones listed are the only ones I could find. There simply may not be a name for stevia in, say, Croatian.
One thing that might let me cut down the list dramatically is to simply state that most other languages refer to stevia literally as "sweet leaf." However, I have not yet verified that the names I listed translate literally as "sweet leaf" except in a few cases. Another thing that will help is be to reorganize the list by country, which would consolidate the four Indian language names. I am doing so now. Amatulic15:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to have an alternate tranlation of the subject of an article, to facilitate searches. What if someone hears a term, and wants to find out what it means, on Wikipedia? -Freekee16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have less than 20 known writers at this period, compared with the number of WP editors today. Catullus is unvaluable, even if all his poems are not. --DLL21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about Catallus to say whether any of his poems are notable, so I will only comment on the issue of translation. An edit counts as original research if it, among other things, "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Arguably, there is some minimal amount of analysis involved in the choice of one word or phrasing over another, but I see no evidence that it builds a particular case for anything in the article you cite. So when a good, citable, public-domain translation is not available, I think that an editor's own translation is a clear improvement to an article. Certainly uncited translations appear in many articles, and removing them all from Wikipedia would make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. Grouchy Chris07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English for a general introduction. In short, if you take a source that is in a different language, and you don't use a translation that is published elsewhere (e.g. Project Gutenberg, Perseus Project,...), always provide the quote in the original language along the translation. There's no "original research" involved when providing a faithful translation.
In general, quotes go to Wikiquote, and larger parts of text go to Wikisource. Quotes included in Wikipedia should be directly illustrative to the article where they are included (sort of like images). The present version of Catullus 1, which seems more like a translation instruction, is maybe rather something for Wikibooks. But it seems a really fine article too.
There is a certain document that is relevant for an article in Wikipedia. The document is open source; so it can be legally uploaded to Wikisource. The document has been cited in published works, but it is itself unpublished; so under the policies of Wikisource, it should not be uploaded. The reason for this policy is verifiability (as I understand things).
I would like to find a way to upload the document to Wikisource, but still maintain verifiability. The document was written by a professor at a university. Ordinarily, a simple solution would be to ask the professor to publish the document on his web page at the university. In this case, however, the professor has now retired, and he does not have a web page. (He is emeritus, and is still listed as being a member of the faculty on his department's web page.)
Another obvious solution would be to ask the university department to which the professor belongs to publish the document on its web site. In this case, however, the document was written for something that was unrelated to the department. The committee to which professor belonged for the context of writing the document has since been disbanded, and it does not have a web page at the university.
The document is on file with the university administration. So, could someone in the administration, or the professor himself, upload the document to Wikisource? I think not directly, because the identity of the uploader could not be certified.
So, could someone in the administration, or the professor, e-mail the document to a Wikipedia/Wikisource administrator? The e-mail address could be verified by the having the administrator get the address from the univeristy web site. I thought that this would give some confidence in the source of the document. (As a variant, three administrators could be involved: one to upload, the other two to check the upload.)
In any case, no matter how the document is uploaded, some third-party verification could always be done by having the third party e-mail the univeristy administration and asking for an original copy of the document. The central point that I wish to make is that some verifiability/certifiability is feasible, even though the document is unpublished, because the document is on file with the administration. And I would not think that this constitutes original research, because the document has been cited in other publications.
Finally, I don't think it's relevant, but the document is a page of text. Also, the language is Swedish (though the Wikipedia article is English). Presumably the Swedish Wikisource would be appropriate, although an English translation of the document in the English Wikisource would also be valuable.
Suggestions as to how to properly proceed would be much welcome...!
"I would like to find a way to..." – yes, I can see that. But, no offense intended, what I read is: "I would like to find a way to... circumvent WikiSource policy". First, this is the wrong place to ask that (this is Wikipedia, not Wikisource). At Wikisource the answer appears to have been no. If you want to contest that, you might try at meta: or the mailing list or the appropriate IRC, but this Wikipedia policy page is unlikely to give you an answer (and if it would, it would be of no value at Swedish Wikisource).
Wikipedia is not the first publisher of original research. See WP:NOR. If you're speaking about a kind of textbook for a university course or so (that contains no original research), Wikibooks might be the right place, but then, if the material covered by that textbook has been published elsewhere before (which would be about the only acceptable proof for not being original research), why would you want/need to publish this particular textbook of this particular retired professor? If you need it as a source for some Wikipedia article, then just use those other publications containing the same assertions.
On a related note, but this remark is probably of no significance if the previous condition can't be fulfilled: the copyright holder must allow to release the text under GFDL. There are procedures for that, see for example Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
So, my recommendation: find a *reputable publisher* outside the WikiMedia projects. Get possible copyright issues straightened out with the current copyright owner(s). Then, the source is published, and your fellow-wikipedians can go and see and assess whether it's a Reliable Source, whether it represents more than a tiny minority view, etc, and thus suitable to be used as a source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not an expert Wikipedian. When I registered here, the Welcome message pointed me to a page entitled "Where to ask a question", which in turn pointed me to the Village Pump. I realized that my question related more to Wikisource than Wikipedia, but I did not find a "Village Pump" at Wikisource; so I thought that perhaps this was the place to ask my question. Your presumption that at "Wikisource the answer appears to have been no" is not called for! I never asked the question there.
After reading your comment, I looked again at Wikisource and found that it has something like the Village Pump after all, but it is not called "Village Pump". Okay, maybe I should have seen it before. But I think that the user interface here is sub-optimal: for people who are starting out, using the same name on all the Wiki projects would be nicer.
With regard to what the answer to my question is, I realize from your comment that I did not word the question well. I will word it more clearly when I ask over at Wikisource.
This is my first visit to the Village pump, so forgive me if my quick search missed previous discussions on this topic.
My question is, what if Wikipedia could have some advertizing on the site? I'm guessing there is philosophical opposition based on "information should be free" or something like that, but I wonder if advertizing could be included in a way that does not violate the foundation's mission or philosophy.
What I envision is, after the "external links" section on an article, there could be a "sponsored links" section. This could be populated with a bullet list of ads, from Google or Yahoo, or ads manually populated in a more controlled way. If it was done in a discrete and clear way, I don't think it would detract at all from the presentation of the article or the accomplishment of Wikipedia's mission.
And obviously, such ads would bring in a lot of revenue - probably hundreds of thousands USD per month (if Google ads were used). Instead of asking for donations, the Wikimedia Foundation would be busy just spending the money that came in. earnestcon14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is strong antipathy to advertising on Wikipedia by most editors. So far, donations (with an occasional fund-raising drive) have provided enough funds to keep Wikipedia growing. -- Donald Albury(Talk)15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, if you want to use popups.js you have to disable various popup blockers to get them to work right (: you'd leave us at the mercy of advertisers--AOL account15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia owes nobody an allegiance, save for its members, administrators and owners. Sponsorship will only complicate matters. In a world where everything is being commercialised, let Wikipedia be as unsullied as possible. Ariedartin JECJYTalk16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One reason that people disagree with unobtrusive advertising is that it might give advertisers some amount of power over content. If they colluded, they could threaten to withdraw their collective ad dollars in order to have, for example, a discussion of their business practices removed from an article. Deco18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got, so far, a pretty resounding NO on this one. A lot of us have put a lot of effort into removing advertising. Fan-196718:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the fact that the ads would probably be less effective on this. Wikipedia visitors are (compared to the overall web-using public) proportionately more likely to use a non-IE browser, and are therefore more likely to have the ability to block adverts (Adblock in Firefox for example). Wikipedia would not necessarily make as much money from adverts as another, more 'mainstream' website with similar traffic, because a smaller proportion of those visitors would actually see the ads. Cynical18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of references
Now that an increasing number of articles are being referenced, I am more frequently questioning exactly what claims a given reference is supposed to be documenting. If a reference footnote is at the end of a paragraph, does it support the entire paragraph, or the last sentence? Should we adopt some sort of markup (perhaps HTML comments?) to disambiguate this? -- Beland18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our style of reference is intended to be similar to the style used in formal publications, which have the same ambiguity. I think it's a problem, but inconsistency with established works would have its own set of issues. Deco18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This ambiguity can be a problem, but I imagine that a strict, logical system for marking a citation's scope would quickly get ugly. Often several scopes overlap, or one will form an enclave within another. To sort them out properly would demand a brilliantly designed GUI, and even then the underlying complexity of it all could discourage users from editing well-referenced articles.
Probably a simpler solution is this: if you're writing a citation and you anticipate confusion over its scope, describe exactly what the reference says in the footnote itself along with the author and page number. (Or if it's encyclopedic, for that matter, in the article.) Melchoir22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is a bit worse here than in traditional printed works, because there are multiple editors, and people are apt to (often rightly) remove information that's not referenced. Putting a note in the reference itself seems like a good idea. -- Beland22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Making a Biographical Page for you and your friends?
I'm just curious is this is against the policy or not. I know you may write and edit biographies of celebrities here on Wikipedia, but, I am curious if one may write and edit biographies of everyday people as well. --Nekrogami21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user placed a reference to the launch of Gears of War on the November 12 page, and I removed it with the edit comment "Release of a video game doesn't qualify". They then asked on my talk page:
How does a Video game not count? Halo and Halo 2 are both cited on their respective dates of release, and I have never seen a rule saying "no video games"
8/3/06 - Magus05
My feeling is that the launch of video games is too trivial to be added to the events in date articles. There are probably thousands, certainly hundreds, of video games released each year. This particular one does state "It is already considered the most important Xbox 360 game of 2006." but it might be difficult to draw a line for only the most important games. Usually, whether a game is important in the overall history of the platform is only apparent after some years have passed. This one hasn't yet been released.
I've taken this to the Village pump because it potentially affects all the date articles. Anyone got pointers to policy on this matter?-gadfium00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed policy that started from the bit you quoted ended up at Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time. I think in general video game releases, like CD, book, and video releases, aren't notable on a global scale, though exceptions might be made for items that have withstood the test of time. I think far too frequently we consider the present time too momentous, as evidenced by how frequently events are mentioned for, say, the last ten years. It is still to be determined whether a game (book/CD/DVD) released in the last ten years will make a lasting impression on some part of society and influence future events in that field. Fabricationary02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that the release of a game isn't quite as influential as say, any of the other events on said page, but they still are pretty big. Halo and Halo 2 were beyond big, and Gears of War is looking to follow suit. There is an extreme amount of excitement in the industry about this game, which is why the games launch is being called "Emergence Day". I really don't want to argue about this anymore, as it's really trivial, but in my opinion, a user-created Encycopledia should let any user post whatever they want, as long as it is accurate. What I posted was accurate. The game is "highly anticipated", and it is being release for the Xbox 360. I didn't say anything about the game itself, and there was no opinion in my edit. But whatever, I'm kind of new to this, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Magus05 - 02:30, 4 August UTC
I have seen that page before, but forgotten about it. I may add to it later. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but data can be listed on multiple pages, can it not? Of course I could add it to that page, as it is a part of "Video Game History". But it's also technically a part of just "History". When I added it to the November 12 wiki, I honestly didn't think any of this would happen. It's a big day for many people, my post was accurate and contained no opinion, and was not negative in any way. 03:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that data can be listed on multiple pages, but pages should only contain the most relevant data. I don't think one of the most relevant things about November 12 in all of history is the release of Gears of War. While the event is important to you and a number of others, if we included all events on November 12 that were mentioned in Wikipedia articles, there would be thousands and thousands of events to list. From an editor's point of view, this would be a nightmare! :)
Thus, establishing a parsimonious criteria for what should be listed is needed. If the criteria said that all game releases could be listed, then it follows that book, CD, DVD, etc. releases can also be listed, and the page would still become quite long and contain a lot of information that is not of interest to many visitors. I would imagine that fellow Gears of War fans that search for information on Wikipedia would visit Gears of War first, then maybe History of computer and video games if they want more info into the history of that game and other games. I don't think they would visit random Wikicalendar pages looking for the release dates of their favorite games. Fabricationary03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no hesitation about removing external links as spam, since for the most part they are off-topic, clearly commercial or affilliate linking. However, I just found someone who seems on a compaign to add his site to a number of articles. I removed one, since he was trying to hide/embed the links into the middle of a paragraph. The rest however are under External Links, and there are possibly of value, neverthless it seems a somwhat spammy activity. How do I get another opinion? --Brat3202:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead be bold and try it - but don't be suprised if you are ignored or reverted by the consensus du jour. - Davodd22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am already. The idea that the administrators will not even discuss an idea which might improve
WP and eliviate a major source of critisism, and an anti-Internet philospophy is bewildering.
Especially when I agree with them that original articles should be NPOV and sourced and that they should not allow WP to become a blog. But there is a middle ground and I am having a very hard time determining the emotional/philosophical pre-disposition for their unwillingness to face a challenge.
It appears at first glance to be a coterie who wish to advertise that they are one thing but in reality are another. On the other hand they may be fearful that any original thought may bring pressure
upon the whole endeavor in which case they just need to keep pushing, back off, push again, etc.etc. until the sapiens decide it is better to go after the author than the forum.
On the other hand it could be down to the fact that the proposal is, well, largely incomprehensible. Succinctness is a virtue. --Daduzitalk13:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above claim is incorrect, that administrators will not even discuss the proposal. There has been plenty of discussion, at Wikipedia talk:New proposal for alternative analysis, unanimously negative. Everyone hates it. It's totally foreign to our mission. This editor's only previous history was to double the size of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution article by inserting a long analysis from his own viepoint. That analysis was, of course, reverted, and editor would now like to change Wikipedia policies to make such "analysis" (some would say blogging) part of the project. No. Fan-196715:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holocene Calendar
I propose that we finally begin to employ the Holocene calendar for all of our articles and dates. It may not be standard elsewhere, but we must start somewhere! We will establish the trend and others will follow. Not only should Wikipedia use it, but it should replace the current system in common use everywhere. It is similar to shifting to the metric system. HE clearly is superior to the BC/AD system. Thank you. 129.15.127.25414:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had a debate some time ago about AD v. CE and AD won. I doubt we could make an even more radical change without a large change in heart throughout the project (not going to happen). I wouldn't mind making a script that would convert to the users taste though...if that would be possible. BrokenSegue15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AD did not "win". From WP:MOSDATE: "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." Holocene Era, however, whatever that is, is clearly not acceptable. Wikipedia is not here to influence usage, just to reflect it. Powers15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Also, the proposal I was refering to was to change from either AD or CE to just CE. The people who voted no largely supported AD (for whatever reason), thus I said that AD won. Either way, we won't change to the some other random calendar. BrokenSegue15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To confuse our readers in order to advocate a system that few people have even heard of seems extremely counterproductive for an encyclopedia. Fan-196715:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can just see the fun if we started doing all the dates in AUC. Didn't they also have January and February as the 11th and 12th months of the preceding years? Fan-196718:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going be geologic about this, I'd suggest years BP is much more fun. You get count backward from 1950 AD. So this is the year -56 and Christ's birth is traditionally associated with the year 1949. On an unrelated point, the definition of the Holocene was recently changed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, so either all the dates in the Holocene calendar need to shift, or the Holocene calendar no longer starts at the beginning of the Holocene. ;-) Dragons flight23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After writing the above, I really am astounded that it was put into place. It is a terrible, terrible idea. This is a major user interface problem for Wikipedia. Where do I go on strike? Tempshill16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre. I'm using Firefox and don't see any changes in redlinks, either in project space or article space. -- nae'blis16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Within the last twelve months, Wikipedia articles on US politicians currently in office, and those running for office, have increasingly become mouthpieces for the politicians' campaigns. It's obvious that campaign staffers and volunteers are editing these articles all the time - look for the barely-notable or non-notable lists of beneficial laws introduced; early political history with a brave challenge to difficult odds; lists of faith and community links; streets and days named after the politician; service on committees and task forces.
This is all pretty depressing. The volunteers who make up the bulk of Wikipedia editors have not, in the last year, had the energy or focus to push back the tide of self-promotion that is ruining the current-politician articles, with the probable exception of the very top group of US politicians. I myself have not. A grass roots effort to energetically filter out the propaganda, and keep it out, seems unlikely to beat the continuous pressure from the campaigns. I do not know of a great solution to this other than to force a tag on all articles about "current politicians" (and I realize the definition of this could be broad or narrow) saying Warning: Wikipedia articles about politicians are usually edited pervasively by the politicians' campaign staff and volunteers. This violates Wikipedia policy and is discouraged. Take this article with a larger grain of salt than usual.
The above disclaimer could of course usefully apply to our medical articles or various other categories, but I single out the politician articles because the actors behind these edits have an agenda and so are more persistent than the worst vandals here, and harder to combat because the edits are not obvious vandalism. Tempshill16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A current events template of a sort could be useful, however it would need to be written in a much more NPOV tone then what you've suggested. Even in political articles, we must continuing strive for WP:AGF and not come across as having mass disdain for politics in general. As for your idea about a grass roots movement, have you considered starting a Wikipedia Project like WikiCampaigns or something to the like dealing with current office holders and candidates. Considering the timely nature of the election season, I can see you generating some interest. Agne16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see a wikicampaigns, if only to get them out of here. The worst problem, IMO, is that these articles are like the signs that get put up along every road during the campaign. Once the campaign's over, nobody takes them down, or cleans them out. At the very least, I'd love to see something like a dated cleanup tag, so they don't get forgotten later. Fan-196716:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point and that would be a distinct service that a Wikicampaigns project could. We could also use category listing like "Elections Nov 2006" that would make following up with the articles after the election a little easier to do. Agne17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absotively! I can't even tell you how much I approve of that idea. Just make sure it's a bit more specific. May I suggest Category:2006 elections in the United States? This really will be a lot of help cleaning up after the hoo-hah is over. And speaking as a newpage patroller, I'm sure this cat will come in handy. --SB_Johnny | talk17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple accounts
I've discovered someone who apparently has multiple accounts, he's not doing anything malicious, He's just using the accounts to post his random thoughts and fill the pagees with UserBoxes and pictures. I don't think he has actually yet posted to any article, all that's happening is that each account spends it's time updating it's own or other user's page, or posting to the talk page of his other accounts. Should it be ignored? --Brat3216:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the person does seem to be about 12 years old, but not the same person. The one I have has not posted anything malicous as far as I can see. Just incestous posting to him/herself. --Brat3217:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lot of the activity from the other, though there were also a lot of pointless updates and articles on things like Disney shows and games. Fan-196717:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Always assume good faith. Leave a message on their talk page and inquire about it, and suggest if there are multiple accounts that this be noted on the user page. There are acceptable uses for multiple accounts. Fagstein18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a post on what seems to be the main user page only. I got a response on my talk page that did not seem like a 12 year old speaking - he claims they are his "students" and he is teaching them how to use Wikipedia. Around the same time (but before my post), one of the other users (students?) started blatent vandalism. We will see what happens. --Brat3223:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a big objection from me. It appears to give official standing to a non-existent speedy criterion, and may mislead both users and administrators into referring to this criterion. I'll probably edit it later today or tomorrow to fix this problem unless it's recast appropriately in the meantime. -- SCZenz18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, not sure how this fits into things. Seems better to have a good tag rather than ((delete|article appears to be written for the purpose of promoting this company/band/website/etc)), which is how it goes now.
(Sorry for "baiting" you... don't worry, I wouldn't use it if it weren't backed up by policy. Just seeing the need, ya know?)
Prod is basically designed to allow freeform text, and I see no reason to change. Speedy, on the other hand, needs a specific criterion. The place to start is Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, where there are, I believe, pretty regular discussions on whether we ought to be able to speedy obvious spam. Fan-196718:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
((Sorry for splitting the discussion. I copied the intial contents as a warning to people not to use the template, then replied to you when I saw you replied there. -- SCZenz18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be nicer to have a prod template for it anyway though... if for no other reason than to spare the effort typing in an explanation for what's really nothing more than commercially-motivated vandalism (like plastering "CLOSEOUT SALE!!!" posters all over the front of the library). I suppose I don't really see so many of those (and they tend to be deleted by the time I finish writing the prod statement), but I do find them a waste of time. SB_Johnny | talk21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've hobbled the tag now (still there if you want to take a look, but it doesn't add articles to the deletion category any more). Here's an article that's a perfect example of what this tag would be useful for (just found on NPP):
As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virutally all of them violate the following policy:
Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a gooddefinition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
This has created a situation where editors trying to enforce policy frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.
There are quite a few slang glossaries on Wikipedia at this time, some being years old. Here is a partial list:
Therefore, I propose that the policy be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join this discussion. --List Expert23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An issue arose at Talk: Jim Hawkins that I think to be better addressed here (or perhaps on the mailing list) than in an RfC. A user claiming to be the subject edited his article and the attendant talk page from several IP addresses, each of which, save one, is registered to the BBC, the corporation at which the subject works. An AfD on the article was closed as no consensus, after which the IP editorostensibly the subject—expressed that he no longer desired to edit and, threatening legal action (under some novel legal theory, surely), requested that the {{notable Wikipedian}} template, referencing that the subject has edited Wikipedia and the user names or IPs with which such editing has been undertaken, be removed.
Because the IP addresses are readily available in the page's history and because the IP editor chose to identify himself as the subject, I don't see anything compelling to militate against our continuing with our present practices vis-à-vis such templates (a cursory look at Category:Notable Wikipedians turns up many templates containing IP addresses, most notably at Talk:Daniel Brandt but also, for example, at Talk:Kenneth Montgomery Keillor and Talk:Siva Vaidhyanathan; another editor at the talk page has disagreed. It is plain, I think, that our current practice, for which a consensus apparently exists, is to include in the {{notable Wikipedian}} template IP addresses, and, if that practice is to be changed, a discussion involving more than a few editors must be had. Joe02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the "other editor" involved, I thank Joe for inviting me to participate. I cannot say that I have made much of a study of the policy on this situation. My understanding is that there is no policy and no guidelines - merely precedent. My feeling is that we should weigh up the desirability of having an article on a marginally notable figure against the undoubted negative of antagonising the subject. I quote from Jimbo's keynote speech at Wikimania (the whole section is available at Talk:Jim Hawkins):
There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. Maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well.
I think that we need to handle this well. Given that we've had an AfD discussion and failed to achieve consensus for deletion, the article should stay, despite the wishes of the subject. However, we need to be scrupulously correct in sourcing all the information in the article.
I see no need to quote the IP addresses used by the subject. Jim Hawkins identifies himself in his posts and the IP addresses are freely available in the history, if anybody really cares enough to go looking for them. What Jim is strongly objecting to is their display in a list. Presumably he resents having his privacy invaded to this extent, and I agree with him. He's failed in having the article removed entirely, now we are kicking him when he's down by revealing what is probably his home IP address.
Quite apart from anything else, I think antagonising a BBC radio presenter is something we should try to avoid. This should be an opportunity for a positive experience on all sides.
We should also be wary of "the we we've always done things". As Jimbo said:
So my feeling of it is, my sense of it is, that the living biographies part of Wikipedia, which is one of the most difficult and most important areas, is one where we're really seeing a really massive movement towards higher quality. A lot of people in the community are really committed to that.
And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.
Jumbo is quite right to suggest that there do not appear to be any relevant policies or guidelines from which one might infer the existence of a true community consensus; indeed, I imagine that most editors haven’t had occasion to consider the issue. At the very least, it is important, I think, that there exists a template by which to indicate that the subject of an article has edited Wikipedia, even if such editing has been done exclusively via anonymous IP. Notwithstanding that I see no problem with our including IPs on the template, I would suggest that a template amenable to all might be one that suggests that the subject apparently has edited Wikipedia but does not enumerate the IP addresses used (of course, complications ensue as regards the ability of other editors to monitor for vanity contributions from an IP address already understood to belong to the subject and, more generally, to ascertain that the subject has in fact edited the article; perhaps a commented-out IP section is in order). Joe03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at this situation, the contradictions in Jim's participation stands out the most.
Jim made the decision to be a public figure in his career choice. Everytime he signs onto the BBC Jim Hawkins is in the public sphere. Therefore an article in the public sphere about his professional career and public activity is appropriate. As an individual, Jim is well within reason to request that inaccuracies be promptly corrected and that for personal (i.e. family) information be removed. Both of these actions have been done. Jim's objection that this article about his public life violates his privacy is unfounded.
Jim made the decision (either from work or home) to participate in the Wikipedia forum. As pointed out when you click "Save" you are acknowledging that your IP is being recorded. The "Notable Wikipedian" tag is appropriate in situation because he made himself to be a notable contributor here with his participation and in upkeep of WP:AUTO, among other things, it is worthwhile to be aware of what IP he may contribute from.
The bottomline is that he consented to his IP being recorded and he willingly consented to being a public figure. As long as we continue to strive to the standards of WP:BLP, Wikipedia is well within the realm of reason.Agne03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notable wikipedian template thing was just an idea. Someone removed it and I did not put it back or suggest that it be put back. I thought it might be useful since he usually does not sign his posts (see the AfD for many examples). They are already available in the history, but you would have to go through the posts one at a time to get all of the IPs he uses. It was just for quick reference. I think we should just let it go. However, I do not think that posting the IPs is a big deal. First, they are available in the history. Second, they are supposed to be in his signature after all of his posts. Third, we post the IP address of people editing anonymously all the time in the article talk, user talk and Wikipedia namespaces, just not using templates. For example, we say "23.12.56.651 has been vandalizing the George W. Bush article on the article's talk page or on the Administrators' noticeboard Fourth, they do not reveal much, especially in this case. He has already claimed to be Jim Hawkins, so his identity is not being revealed by the IP addresses, and we know that Jim Hawkins works for the BBC, so the ISP being listed is not revealing any additional information either.
I was just going to avoid the whole situation from now on, but I was wondering if a block of the IPs is in order since he is making legal threats. If he does take legal action, according to the Wikipedia:No legal threats, there might be a problem with our (editors) unofficial communications with him (see the fourth bulleted problem, although the other three apply to the situation as well). Last time I checked, he is threatening to legal action against Wikipedia, instead of other editors, which is what the policy explicitly covers. However, I think that the policy should still apply. This post is not a reply specifically to Agne, I just indented it so that it would be easier to read. -- Kjkolb04:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've newly registered an account here at Wikipedia, though I've been a site user and occasional editor for 3-4 years now. My question is, in Macromanagement (computer gaming) and Actions Per Minute, there is an occurence of "citation needed." However, I'm a bit confused as to why it is there. In both cases, I didn't feel any citation was needed because it is common knowledge that anyone who would be writing about this would have. For example, why is there a citation needed for "The game is broadcasted in TV, showing off pro-gamers' micromangement skills."? That's identical to saying you need a citation for "Baseball is broadcasted on TV, showing off how baseball players throw the ball." It just doesn't strike me as something that needs to be cited.
From the Actions Per Minute entry, "A highly skilled or professional StarCraft player would normally execute an average of 230 to 400 apm in a game, whereas most average players will most likely be executing below 150 APM.", while more applicable than the first mention, still doesn't need to be cited. The person who wrote the entry just knows this for a fact like I do. We didn't get it anywhere other than learning the game and watching the matches...
We still need a source for facts, even if you know them to be true, deep in your guts. [WP:NOR] forbids us from just stating things as true. Have a read through that policy and you'll get a better idea than anything I can say in a few words. --Jumbo03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand what you said and thank you for your response. However, I am still a bit edgy on it because I could throw up a source but it would simply be off of a message board or news post which a Starcraft community member or even myself wrote. However, is the point simply to point to an external, uneditable (at least as easy as Wikipedia), source? As I wrote, say I linked to one of my own official Starcraft community posts on a known Starcraft website, would that be considered a source? Thanks.
Well, yes, you've put your finger on a problem with citing sources. However, we're pretty good at working out which sources are good and which are rubbish. Just quietly, but for Starcraft, I'd say that a forum frequented by expert players is about as good a source as we could possibly get for your APM figures. --Jumbo04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents: Everyone knows that baseball is broadcast on TV. I've never even heard of Macromanagement (computer gaming), and I would certainly be skeptical if someone told me it was broadcast on TV - I would want to know what channel it was on, and have a link to a site that could confirm it. Much better to replace the sentence with something along the lines of "Since May 2005, the TV show Macromanagement Rulz, which features players playing the game, has been broadcast on the US cable network ESPN. The third series is now in production." if possible. Stevage10:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to this, I saw in Valve Anti-Cheat "VAC1 swiftly became all but useless during this period of development, but since its 20 June 2005 launch VAC2 has successfully overseen a precipitous decline in the number of cheating players across the entire multi-player Steam library." By those rules, wouldn't something like this also need citation? Thanks. PGT.Endurance04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it does, then put a template on it. I don't read every article on Wikipedia, and I have to say that until this moment, I had no idea of the existence of Valve Ant-Cheat. Again I recommend reading Wikipedia's policies - there's something in there to cover every possibility. --Jumbo09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modifying Wikipedia:No legal threats to include Wikipedia and the Foundation
I suggest that Wikipedia and the Foundation be added to Wikipedia:No legal threats. Currently, only legal threats to against users are covered. The only mention of Wikipedia or the Foundation is, "If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation." Since threatening to sue Wikipedia or the Foundation causes many of the same problems that the policy describes, I think it should be modified to explicitly cover them. -- Kjkolb13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about the large number of articles about schools, guyed masts, railway stations, and the like seem to happen frequently. I've written a proposal discussing such articles, and I'd welcome anyone who'd like to comment on it or edit it to help make it better to do so. TIA, JYolkowski // talk14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3RR on linkspam
There's a persistent pornlinkspammer with multiple socks for something called thesexlane.com, mainly active on Oral sex and Webcam. I've repeatedly reverted him. Am I violating the rules here? Do some others want to keep an eye on these articles for awhile? Fan-196715:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3RR does not apply to blatant vandalism. If the user has not defended their edits and is clearly editing in bad faith, you shouldn't have a problem. Deco17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments requested on essay on coordinated vandalism
After some observations and discussions with User:Harmil, I think that we could benefit from a more coordinated and organized response to incidents like Colbert's call for vandalism of Elephant. I've written an essay that discusses how existing policies apply to such situations, so that useful information can be at one place. See Wikipedia:Dealing with coordinated vandalism (or WP:COLBERRORISM for "short").
I'd like to note that this is not an effort to formulate any new polices or guidelines. Also, although some of the comments are based on actions I'm concerned about from the handling of the Colbert incident, this page is in no way intended as an attack on any user who was involved. The goal is to do things better next time.
Please help improve the essay! If it ends up being useful, perhaps it can be linked from templates like {{P-protected}} so that users dealing with the issue have a reference—and observers and potential vandals have some idea how we deal with such things in general, and why. -- SCZenz20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking policy
I move that blocks should only be issued in cases of vandalism. It is written in the policy, that for other issues (POINT, NPA, civility etc.) an editor should only be blocked in extreme cases and that all blocks should only be preventive. The common practice, however, is that the admins block very easily, issuing punitive blocks all the time. If a long-time trolling or other misbehavior occurs, there should be a process established to block the user, not just a 1 admin's decision. Ackoz 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
While I agree punitive blocking is wrong, I think putting such strict guidelines would cause problems if someone is causing other types of problems. 3RR, for example, is not vandalism, but can only be stopped by blocking the users involved. Fagstein23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Punitive blocking is wrong and used quite often. Ok, 3RR would be a good reason for block, NPA and civility are almost never good reasons for a block. I am Ackoz, just forgot to login. 85.70.5.6617:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins really abuse of their blocking power. Fortunately there's always balanced admins who will promptly undo an unfair/unreasonable block by another admin. Those who block irresponsibly and arbitrarily should be admonished.--Húsönd17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Company Pages
A two part question for newly created company pages. 1. For ones that seem just like a promotional blurb should they be speedily deleted and if so, what db tag is best used? 2. For those that look like they should stay, but are in non-English speaking countries and are wrriten with a lot of spelling and grammer mistakes, (and sometimes border on being unreadable) what it the right thing to do (possibly a cleanup w/date tag)? --Brat3203:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no speedy category for companies, so I usually Prod them (use as detailed a reason as possible, specifically citing WP:CORP. Then I watch the articles. Often they actually will accept the Prod and not challenge it. Other times, not, which is why we have AFD. Fan-196703:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy on quoting opinions?
Does wikipedia currently have a policy/guideline on quoting people's opinions on a subject? If so, I think it might need to be advertised more prominently. If not, we should perhaps consider making one. JulesH07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on what you mean by quoting people's opinions on a subject (in articles? on talk pages? whose opinion, famous people? other editors?) and why there needs to be a policy? Thanks, Kjkolb08:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. [...] (Note: this is in fact a quote of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, recopied in the WP:RS guideline)
And:
An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.
And:
When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, [...]
Now, "direct quotes" of opinions (e.g. expressed in an autobiography) are usually primary sources too, so:
A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
This means that not every "verifiable" and "quotable" opinion is necessarily included in Wikipedia. It might be a "tiny minority view", even if printed in a reliable source. Or the WP:NOT policy might provide a ground for barring it from Wikipedia, etc. --Francis Schonken08:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a large number of guitar model pages being added in the last day of so, all by the same person. e.g. ESP LTD KH-602 and ESP James Hetfield. This seems like a thinly disguised attempt to put a manufacturers catalog in wikipedia. --Brat3201:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the first few, I thought they were normal. At this point the number of them seems more than an enthusiast. But I'm too new to go and tell him to stop. --Brat3202:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible he works for ESP. The original ESP article that all the others point to, reads like promotional company literature. Wikipedia really should do better with security. Require verified logins, and show IP addresses recently used. He's posting as QelDroma06 which doesn't seem to exist, and there's no way to trace his IP to his company, if that's where he's posting from. Amatulic01:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Change to Wikipedia’s No Open Proxy Policy
I'm a user in China and I think a discussion needs to begin about changing the "No open proxies" policy because it is added to the censorship of Chinese users.
I began contributing to wikipedia a year ago from China and I have to use an open proxy to access the site. I was stunned this spring when my account began being blocked because I use an open proxy. It can take several days for my account to be unblocked. I've been blocked and unblocked twice now and I'm admittedly reluctant to contribute to wikipedia because I know I'll have to go through the same hassle again of getting blocked and unblocked. It is frustrating enough to try and get around government censorship of the internet in China; it’s doubly frustrating when wikipedia contributes to this.
Some people have suggested using the following website to access wikipedia:
While the intention is good, it can take several minutes for just one page to load up. No other wikipedians would put up that, so why should users in China? Secure.wikimedia is not a solution.
I propose the following change to the no open proxy policy:
Users who are logged in and have no history of vandalism should not be banned.
This change would solve several problems. Now, editors are wasting their time tracking down logged in users who don't cause problems, banning them, and then having to deal with complaints and removing bans. Users are being unfairly targeted and punished for wrongdoings when they haven't done anything wrong. The proposed change would eliminate this.
I understand the need to stop vandalism, but in this case the policy is hurting users, wasting editor’s valuable time and contributing the Chinese government’s efforts to censor internet users. --David Straub 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
An observation on citing sources
This is something that has been bothering me for some times now. It seems that there's more articles with no sourcing at all than there are properly cited pages. I know I've read the formal policy, which states that -everything- needs to be sourced and verifiable. But in practice.. Well, honestly, in practice, the "citation needed" tag is only ever really used to point out specific lines the editor disagrees with or doesn't fit their POV on the article in question. And many edits take place with no mention of a source whatsoever.
In particular I'm thinking of many of the articles on media, like games and movies. Many of the articles I've seen in that vein have no "references" section at all, and few seem to at least have an "external links". It might not be as bad as I'm thinking, because after all, I tend to notice the absence of a references section more than I notice the presence, so it might not be as big an issue as it appears, but I do notice that, at least half the time, the citation needed tags I run across are just lumped onto statements that put the article's subject in any sort of bad light, or are otherwise... I don't know.. unpleasant? Not necessarily untrue, and possibly verifiable. And I realize that burden of proof is on the original editor, so unsourced stuff can always be removed if they're of questionable veracity, but it doesn't seem to me that the tags are actually used for that.
I dunno, I think I guess I want to know the difference between policy as it is written here, and policy how it is actually put to practice. Errick04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As articles mature, they get closer and closer to the criteria specified at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Most articles are, let's say, immature. Including verifiable references is one of the steps on the path to featured status. We'd rather have some content than no content, which means we'd rather have content with no verifiable references than no content. If you think statements are particularly suspect, please mark them. If you can add references, please do. It's all part of the wiki process. In the fullness of time, all articles will inexorably advance toward featured status. Many editors seem to be less willing to simply delete something that looks suspicious than mark it with a "citation needed" tag. Eventually someone will either delete the statement or add a reference.
The guideline reads "If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you. Simply provide any information you can."
"In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors."
However, Wikipedia:Verifiabilityis policy, and it says, Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Unsourced negative material about living persons must be deleted immediately (that is policy). In other cases it is considered courteous to use a variety of means for dealing with unsourced material: requesting citations using {{unreferenced}} or {{fact}} (or it's synonyms), moving the material to the talk page if it is obviously questionable, or simply deleting it immediately if it is clearly original research, or if it is outrageous, nonsensical or offensive. Using sound judgment to pick what to challenge is fine. Selectively applying the verifiability policy to push a POV would violate the principal that the verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view policies must always be interpreted in conjunction with each other. -- Donald Albury(Talk)11:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add more compulsory information to the blocking templates?
As it stands, the various blocking templates give differing amount of information, most saying that the user has been blocked and giving the reason (e.g. Template:Test5 or Template:Blank5), most of which optionally let the user know where the problem edit occurred, some additionally telling the user how to oppose the block (e.g. Template:Vbc) and some additionally telling the user how long they have been blocked for (e.g. Template:Sockblockdodge). The one which seems to give the most information is Template:Block-reason, which gives the length of the block as well as (optionally) the reason for the block, and the page that the block is based on.
I would like to see every block template always providing the following information:
The reason for the block (along with a link to the appropriate policy statement)
The page(s) the block is based on (if applicable)
The length of the block (and/or the date when the block expires)
How to oppose the block (using {{unblock}}, along with a note that the user can still edit their user talk page, or contacting someone at Wikipedia:List of administrators)
The reason for having the first two is obvious, as they're in general use. (Note that I think that it should be possible to base a block on multiple pages, normally as a 1-2-3-block count.) The length of the block is currently not given in the majority of templates, which I think is likely to cause confusion amongst most people who get blocked as they won't know where to find this information and hence won't know when they can start editing wikipedia again. The information on how to oppose the block is vital in the case of any unjustified blocks, and this information should always be given at the same time as the block to avoid discouraging editors by making them search for the information on how to unblock themselves. (Note that this will likely cause more work at Category:Requests for unblock, but that's probably good.)
This change would entail adding several compulsory sections to the block templates, which would obviously impact anyone using them, hence the reason for me posting this here for comment.
It may also be an idea to move to a single block template (or a set of block templates with the same functionality but different visual designs), such that the use would be something like {{subst:block|NPOV|Page1|Page2|BlockLength}}, in any order. This is not required for the above suggested changes, however.
I should also add that I don't use the blocking templates myself - I am not an admin - and that these comments come from me seeing the blocking templates in use on various user talk pages. Mike Peel10:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recent vandalism
I've noticed quite a lot of vandalism lately, as Wikipedia is becoming more and more well-known. It wasn't just at the Elephant article, which appeared on the Colbert Report, there were many others. Why can't a policy be set in place that allows only registered users to edit articles? We could even let unregistered people edit the talk pages and ask questions, just ban them from editing the articles. Gary12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Late last month, I noticed that users from Philadelphia had added the portal template to several hundred articles, many of them tenuously related to the city. I thought its application was rather excessive, and after looking around a bit, I found a discussion between several respected contributors that obtained consensus for a limited set of articles and categories where the template should be used. When I asked the users from Philadelphia to back off a bit, they replied that since it was not policy they had no reason to comply with my request and that I was being overly bureaucratic. Since that time, the template has been added to hundreds more pages, putting the total at close to 600 articles, with no signs of slowing down. So, I guess it's necessary to develop a guideline designating appropriate uses of the the template. Thoughts? - EurekaLott04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
There is a place to find other wikipedia from uzbekistan yes? I shall (want) to order/make a new asscosiation for uzbek wikipedians? yes or no or maybe --Uzerbaaji10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you could keep an eye on the usbekistan article and its discussion page and when someone posts something send that person a message. Good luck.Steve Dufour14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to create an Uzbeki notice board, which would help coordinate edits to articles relating to Uzbekistan. Would you like this? I would be willing to help you get started. --Improv16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How to send a message to Wikipedia's owners?
I am having a problem doing this. Someone I know complained about the article on her and I checked it out. It seemed to me that this was an attack article, on a person without much public importance. I tried to do something with the article itself, including requesting its deletion, but I found myself having to confront the attackers as (almost) no one else seemed to care.* I sent an e-mail message to the address that is given for people to complain about what is written about them. However this e-mail did not go through. Is there some other way to let them now that there is a potential problem? Thanks.Steve Dufour14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems clear that you don't like the article. You've repeatedly tried to have the article speedily deleted as an attack page, without citing inaccurate or false claims, and that will go nowhere. It has been nominated for deletion three times and kept each time. Clearly, many editors on this article (including you) have agendas. This is common with controversial people. You have the right, under WP:BLP to demand that everything in the article be factually accurate, properly sourced, and verified from reliable sources.
If verified, sourced facts paint a negative picture, that is not a justification for deleting the article. As far as complaining is concerned, you can go to User:Jimbo Wales and click on "Email this user" but I don't think you'll get anywhere. Fan-196715:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I did try to have it deleted; not because it is false -- I have no reason to think that it is, but because it is a personal attack against an individual. I have read the policy about biographies of living persons and the one about attack articles and I don't think this article belongs on Wikipedia. I have strong personal feelings since I know the person so I will not do anything directly with the article anymore.
I tried to help by changing the wording to make it less attacking (and by adding a link to a personal web page by the subject) but when it was changed back I lost my temper and tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack article (db-attack), when the tag was removed I put it back twice. For this I was threatened with blocking as a "vandal".
BTW the article is Barbara Schwarz. Here is the first paragraph:
She's a friend of yours, and you don't like that negative information about her is reported, but let's face it. She is a notable person; she has made herself that way. It would be impossible to have an article about her that omitted those facts. Adding personal opinions, or links to personal webpages, is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article, and you would be the first to complain if one of her critics did so. If it were false, or even unverified, you would have a case, but from what I can see every line of that article (and every line of the paragraph you quote) is sourced and verified. Fan-196719:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
2. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy if no "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
It seems to me that her webpage, which displays some of the letters she received from her freedom of information requests, would fall under point 2 and be something that should be linked to. As I said I will not do anything more with the article itself.Steve Dufour19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not dispute the information given by her "critics" (or "attackers"); I have no reason to think anything said about her in the article is untrue. That is not my problem at all. She is not important enough to have an encyclopedia article. (Would you like to write the World Book Encyclopedia and ask if they are planning an article on her in their next edition? Or would you like to suggest to Wikipedia that her article be made a Featured Article?)
If her work filing for a large number of freedom of infomation requests is important then it seems to me that a page showing the results of some of those requests might be worth making available to readers. It is the website she choses to present to the world. If that means it is her "personal site" then by Wikipedian policy it should be linked to the article.Steve Dufour21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that a link to her personal website is appropriate in the article about her (but only in that article, of course). However, please drop the "not important enough" argument—the Wikipedia community has already shot that down three times in three failed deletion attempts. Wikipedia also obviously doesn't limit itself by what print encyclopedias include, so what World Book would or wouldn't do is irrelevant; if that was the extent of our coverage, we would have all went home a year or two ago. Postdlf21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue? If the article is about the person, and the person has a blog/website/whatever, it's pretty much a no brainer that it's a primary source... straight from the horse's mouth, if you'll excuse the expression. Adding it to my watchlist now. --SB_Johnny | talk22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. If you really think a link to her site on the article would be a good idea could you please add it. It has been added and taken off a large number of times in the last few days. I have said that I will not edit the article any more so I can not add it myself.Steve Dufour22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any article that is good enough can become a featured article. I don't think that the importance of its subject matter is a major consideration.--Runcorn22:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna take bets on when Barbara's article will be one?Steve Dufour00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. Please note that one reason I am doing this is because Barbara doesn't seem to have a full grasp of how Wikipedia works so she can not understand how to make these complaints herself.[reply]
Copyright status of flags, in particular U.S. flags
The current state of copyright tagging of U.S. flags at federal, state, and local levels is a bit of a mess. There's no clear picture of exactly what status these flag images may have as a group.
For federal flags, I think we can safely assume that all such flags are PD by way of being a work of the U.S. government. We have {{PD-flag-US}} which is obsolete, but that does not have the same meaning. We could use {{PD-USGov}} but a more specific tag in this case might be useful. I'd suggest the possibility of re-writing {{PD-flag-US}} to apply to this class of PD flag images. Alternatively, there is {{PD-US-flag}} which is not on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and does not seem to have been through much review. Is that accurate?
For state flags, we again have {{PD-US-flag}} but no other tag. A number of state flag images are tagged as being PD by way of copyrights having expired, but there's no assertive base for the tag on the various images. I.e., the flag was first made in its current form in the 1800s or some such. Some are noted as coming from the open clip art library, etc. It's scattershot.
That's a case by case basis. Flags, especially non-national ones, change on a regular basis. I was hoping for some more widespread law that could be the basis for an easy to understand and apply tag. --Durin12:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wikipedia material on my own website
I've read through the agreement and have become very confused on how to use information from here on my website. If I come across an article and image that I want to use on my website, what do I need to do in order to use it on my site? I notice that some topics have several sections. What if I just want to take one section?
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks has the general description. That's more intended for the wholesale re-users of Wikipedia content, but the basics remain the same.
I need some clarification on this issue... does wikipedia consider criticism to be encyclopaedic content? It seems fairly evident to me that: (1) criticism can not be "true" nor "false" -- it is an opinion; (2) the motives of those who post criticism are not known, referencable, or verifiable; (3) criticism is necessarily biased (violating WP:NPOV); QED (4) criticism is either off-topic or completely inappropriate in most instances?
A mini-edit war regarding the placement of an off-topic tag on the criticism section of a particular article (I, of course, stopped editing when I realized the cirucmstances), and the more I think about it, the more I believe that the content is inappropriate entirely (though my point is simply the existance of the off-topic notice).
What do you guys think? A CC: to my talk page (or at least a note to come look here) would also be appreciated. Tnx!
I gathered that the article you are referencing is Bash.org. I have to say that the Criticism section is distinctly POV and the "response" section is just as POV. In my opinion, neither is needed. Above all the article has an Original Research problem with nearly all the sources ending up being "example quotes" from the website. I've tagged the article and voiced my concern on the talk page. Agne06:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a guideline proposal: Wikipedia:Criticism. Don't know if that would help. Or Jimbo's quote on that proposed guideline page:
it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.
Seems worth noting for unbiased observers that Blaxthos is the admin of bash.org, the website that the article is about. He has a definite axe to grind in trying to make that article look biased -- he thinks ANY criticism is biased against him. 81.1.73.24713:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Fair use' on Wikipedia is constrained by United States law, because the main servers are located in the United States. 'Fair use' (or equivalent concepts) varies by country. 'Fair use' on the English language Wikipedia is restricted more than may appear to be required by U.S. law for a variety of reasons, discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use. The official English language Wikipedia policy on 'fair use' is at here. Other language Wikipedias set their own policies, but are often more restrictive than the English language WP, reflecting the law of the countr(y/ies) where a majority of the speakers of that language live. -- Donald Albury(Talk)12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that makes any sense to me is to take their shortform names in English and use alphabetical order. "African-Chinese relations," "Sino-Russian relations" (from "Chinese," of course), but I'm not sure what to do with America. I guess we would use the shortform name "United States" rather than "America," making "Iranian-American relations" and "American-Vanuatan relations."
There is not a dispute per se about the names, but I suppose I'm not clear on them and there is no obvious standard (although the alphabetical seems obvious to me.) Anyway, can anyone help me out here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional works often have an article describing their elements, but sometimes an interpretation or opinion is "explained" by the author, as if it were definitive. Since the examination is not fact, one has to accept the analysis as one out of several interpretations, still being a point of view but being general eough to be accepted in the article. One has to acknowledge the article is presenting a point of view. I've noticed this essay style writing in House of 1000 Corpses and Othello. The article almost becomes an editorial, acceptable enough to not be removed.
The other type of POV in articles is Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters in video and computer games. Not the subject, but the "in subject." What if it were an article for nudity in videogames, sharp weapons in videogames, martial arts in videogames, etc? The pairing of "this instance in this subject" could be infinite. Humor in movies, female characters in literature, non-costumed characters in comicbooks... yes the presentation can be verified and factual, but isn't it more of a thesis, an essay, or a presentation?
Both of these types of articles seem to allow POV and opinion as a way to offer subjective but verifiable description. What do you think? Should there be more like them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihavenolife (talk • contribs) .
