Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content

userpage

but do we own our userpage at least a little more than an article? even a little bit?Д narchistPig (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should at least own our userpage.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See above, #Do we own our user pages?. In the sense that is being used here, I think we do own our user pages. Obviously we don't legally own them, but we have a lot more control and authority over them than anything else. Still, we can't put anything we like on them, and there are other sorts of behaviour that are inappropriate too. I think a section on user pages is long overdue here. Richard001 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with you, but This conversation may or may not provide a different answer to the question. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A comment on comments

At the beginning of the section "Wikipedia:OWN#Comments" I'd like to insert the comment: "The following comments are examples of sentiments that this policy discourages".

Is that ok?Bless sins (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary, especially with the last comment. Richard001 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:ExpertContributor

I have added a mention of this template to this policy page. It isn't that well known (even less so than {{maintained}}, which I have also added a link to), but I can only presume people are okay with it seeing that it hasn't been proposed for deletion. I quite like it myself.

I also think we need a page or section of a page on article maintenance (all we have is the template linked above). It could perhaps be included here, since it probably doesn't merit its own page (e.g. Wikipedia:Article maintenance or Wikipedia:Maintenance of articles; these could redirect to a section here). Again, because the template has survived several deletion proposals I assume the majority of editors don't mind it. Richard001 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the use of this template should not be encouraged, especially since Wikipedia:Expert editors has been rejected as policy. The template is bad for the same reason that policy was bad: at best, it doesn't mean much, and at worst it promotes inappropriate page ownership. Experts (and I happen to be one myself) can justify their edits like everyone else. This being a policy page, which shouldn't contain items that are against consensus, I will remove that mention of it for now--obviously further discussion may reveal consensus runs the other way, and if so it can be added back. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of articles is not the same as conflict of interest

The "consequences of ignoring this policy" section needs to go; it appears to be based on a faulty understanding of what we mean by ownership and what we mean by conflict of interest on Wikipedia. There are two reasons, the first more important than the second:

1. Ownership of articles has does not necessarily have anything to do with conflict of interest. They may be related, or the may not. For example, people who know a lot about a subject, or who have edited an article heavily, may have a tendency to be over-protective of their work — but there's no conflict of interest present because they're not modifying a page they have an external interest in. Conflating the two can cause nothing but confusion.
2. There's no good reason to have a special "consequences" section — most of our policies don't. It makes good sense on WP:COI, where we are dealing with users who have external interests and need an incentive to follow Wikipedia policies that makes sense given those interests. But this is a guideline for habitual Wikipedia editors, who know they need to follow policy. Anyway, the consequences listed aren't particularly accurate or enlightening: it basically says that the consequences of maintaining control are.. well... losing control.

The section adds nothing—our policies don't have to be longer than they need to be—and is confusing. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asked to discuss this on the talk page, but after 24 hours no discussion is forthcoming. I truly don't understand the rationale for why the section makes sense, and I note that there has never been any discussion of the section since it was added in January. Thus I don't think there has been any deliberate consensus on this issue, only inattention. I am therefore removing the section once more. Of course, I may be missing something obvious — but in that case I am sure the section will be restored and the mystery will finally be explained to me! ;) SCZenz (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are different. and I think that stating each policy in one place is the way to prevent discrepancies and lack of coherence. Both can be involved, people with COI do tend to exhibit ownership, especially of articles about themselves, --but so do many without it. Just a reference is necessary. DGG (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary

I feel quite the contrary. I have started many articles where I have been the only, or mainly the only, contributor. I check the articles every couple of days to see if anyone has edited them, but most often the situation remains the same, I'm the only one who has ever edited them. It makes me very proud to have committed content to Wikipedia that other see fit to edit. Here I mean correcting mistakes in the content I supplied and adding new content - deletion of articles I started only annoys me. =) JIP | Talk 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tragedy of the commons

So, I assume the same principles apply to other namespaces? I wrote Wikipedia:Tragedy of the commons about the perils of doing so. Essentially, the problem with our current situation is that because no form of homesteading is allowed, other users can gang up and arbitrary say, "We're deleting your userspace content." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course they can, if it doesn't facilitate the Wikipedia project. See Wikipedia:User pages for more information. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why WP:COMMUNISM?

The shortcut seems pejorative in nature. MuZemike (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a joke, no more, no less. But if you find it terribly upsetting, please go on ahead to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and ask to have it deleted. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't take that much offense to it. I just remember someone putting a dubious shortcut (WP:WHINE) on Jimbo Wales' talk page a while back that stirred a scant amount of controversy and eventually got removed. MuZemike (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike, it has been proposed for deletion under redirects for discussion. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD is not for redirects but only for articles, see here, so it's been removed. If you want it deleted then you need Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Resolved

 – These redirects have since been deleted LeeVJ (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Ownership: Proposed template

I have, and will continue, heavy editing of an article, other editors have also, but over time the discussions and edits have my name regularly appearing, A recent talk page I encountered was from a good editor that didn't know me, but was concerned about 'treading on my toes' - I've encountered it myself it other articles - feeling I had something to add, but an editor/editors had such a stake in the article that I might offend them, although I am to be WP:BOLD. Except for vandalism, personal attacks, intentional npov and spam, every single edit is deeply appreciated, so I feel pride and dedication, but not ownership and I don't want any editors to 'hold back', so I was hoping there was a banner expressing my position aptly, but on reflection putting a banner on a page saying something like 'leevanjackson is a regular editor but does not claim ownership of this article' seems a bit self proclaiming?

In short: What is the answer, to successfully expressing 'there are regular editor/s who contribute heavily to this article, but they are adverse to ownership, and welcome any new edits,comments or criticism, no matter how bold or trivial' . LeeVJ (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a new template on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Denial_of_ownership_advice_or_template.3F, would like to know what you think, also if it is ok to add it and the Template talk:Maintained with notes to the guidelines ? LeeVJ (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The avillage pump question has now been archived... I have created a couple of examples ... what do you think? LeeVJ (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "middle" version, e.g.

There are regular editors who contribute heavily to this article, but they do not own the article and they actively encourage any new edits, comments or criticism no matter how bold – please give verifiable references for any material you add or change.

You'll notice I've omitted "if possible" from the point about refs. Unreferenced edits to well-referenced articles are a pain, and stand a high risk of outright removal, especially if the article has reached GA/A/FA class. You might like to add an invitation to note in the article's Talk page any ideas that come without WP:RS. -- Philcha (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Like it, have an almagamation formed - not sure about the bold bit at the end.. LeeVJ (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not many responses from the pump discussion, and still haven't used it: but just in case here's the current best wording I've got too...

Looks good! -- Philcha (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Any Opposes to adding extra directions in guideline and this above as an initial template?

What is this supposed to be for? This goes without saying... for all articles. And could be interpreted as being an anti- version of template:maintained. Richard001 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rejigged (the previous section was a prelude and covers the purpose). I realise this is the basic premise, but a number of editors (newbies and regulars alike) are sometimes unaware of them, I thought it'd be nice to some them up in something simple before they encounter the multifarious and complicated world of policies and guidelines (we all lose our way in them sometimes). Third q, I sought this article for a way of addressing said problem, 'Maintained' template doesn't cover it, I edit in bursts and maintenance requires a more regular watchful eye so problems could slip through if the maintained template was added - other editors might omit from a watch list or leave it for the 'maintainers' to clear up - the article in question occasionally attracts a swathe of vandalism. Glad you answered, it has been hard to get other views ! LeeVJ (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see placing this on templates of articles that I think others are owning, and it would be useful to have something for the purpose, but I fear there will be disputes about its application and removal if used that way.DGG (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles on whose Talk pages the template's use is most disputed would be the ones that most need it.

Re "anti- version of template:maintained", template:maintained does not cover the same ground. It states at the end, after the list of editors, in small print "This in no way implies page "ownership"; all editors are encouraged to contribute." and says nothing about WP:RS or an invitation to discuss ideas on the Talk page. It might be good for the "not owned" template to have an optional list of active editors. In that case perhaps template:maintained should be changed so that its main message is "no ownership" and the list of editors is optional. -- Philcha (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think this template is a marvelous idea, and in my opinion it would be a good idea to merge it with template:maintained to make that template less potentially intimidating to good-faith contributors.
But I think it's a poor idea to put it on pages where people are WP:OWNing the article. When I first saw this I had the same idea, but I'm not comfortable with the likelihood that it would encourage naive/unenlightened editors to contribute only to have their contributions reverted. I can completely sympathize that challenging an OWNer can have chilling repercussions, and that experienced editors have reason to be hesitant to do so - but experienced editors are much better candidates than a newcomer to deal with an OWNer. Using this as a hint carries a risk of leading to newcomers quitting in discouragement, and a committed OWNer is highly unlikely to "get it" from indirect hints anyway. arimareiji (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that "challenging an OWNer can have chilling repercussions". The point of a template is to inform a would-be OWNerthat he /she is likely to face some serious opposition from editors who know their way around. Most wiki-bullies back down when confronted, especially if they're smart enough to realise that the pages in question will then be on a few watchlists. -- Philcha (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ownership example

Imho, the section Ownership examples serves no good purpose and makes the policy vulnerable to gaming by providing a limited definition. At the very least, it should prominently state that the list is not exhaustive by any means and that ownership can take on many other, especially much subtler forms than those examples. All of the items in the list are things that could be easily assessed and addressed. Therefore, they do not constitute a real problem. The kind of subtle ownership involving dirty tactics like calling in "neutral", "uninvolved" friends editors, that's what this policy should focus on -- and it should stop at saying that any kind of ownership pattern is discouraged on the strongest possible terms. Instead, it gives a free pass to the most worrysome forms of ownership. The most problematic cases are those where several people are controlling an article, working and lawyering their way around other guiidelines and policies, too, like WP:3RR or WP:Consensus or meatpuppetry. It's sad indeed that those really problematic cases are not even outlined in the policy, making wikilawyering easier particularly for the most problematic (i.e. determined) cabals of owners. A wikitypical shame. 78.34.140.100 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you consider the example section a massive beaning? How would adding more examples help this? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Beaning, yes, to an extent (to the extent I'd argue for removing the section altogether). However, in addition to that and even more importantly, I think it's "meta-beaning". I.e., it implicitly provides clues on what precise things to avoid to go under the radar of the policy and/or to wikilawyer one's way out of it. You see, someone doesn't stop behaving like s/he has any special rights simply by avoiding those things currently mentioned in the examples section. So it should either be removed entirely, or it should be implicitly (by stating that the list is not exhaustive) and/or explicitly expanded. If it was my call, I'd say let's remove the whole section. It serves no positive purpose, and indeed potentially serves negative purposes on several levels (beaning and meta-beaning). Also, most of what needs to be said about concrete situations is in the Types of ownership section. 78.34.130.247 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, iyo, did I give the impression I was arguing for expanding the list with my inital posting? 78.34.130.247 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Meta-beaning, I like it ;-) (although I'd argue it's beaning one way or the other)

So, in one sentence or less: It's not a helpful section? ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's 78.34.130.247 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as agreement :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:) rightly so. 78.34.130.247 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

← OK, so just to get this jumpstarted, the argument is that the section A) is a beaning (WP:BEAN) because it tells you what not to do, and B) it's a beaning because it tells you how to avoid the more common ownership issues and come up with something more clever? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A) is what I'd say is the beaning aspect, B) is the meta-beaning aspect. Something cleverer, yeah that's always the hard part. If it were only for me, I'd be happy excising the section. I think the policy (like all policies) should emphasise its own spirit within its wording. To that end, how about replacing it with a section that basically says the issue of ownership is one of the spirit of collaborativeness, of properly building consensus among all interested editors? 78.34.130.247 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have come across two quite nasty kinds of ownership declaration:

• "I'm not going to allow you to destroy this article"; and
• "We don't accept this argument here" (notice the majestic "we" implying that the "owner" is some kind of official Wikipedia authority).

Can they be added to the examples? Ninguém (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think adding examples, definitions, rules etc. just invites wiki-lawyering - which would-be owners are often good at. See Wikipedia_talk:Ownership_of_articles#Proposal_for_additional_On_Revert_ownership_example_for_claim-staking. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for additional On Revert ownership example for claim-staking

Proposed addition for Ownership Examples / On Revert:

• "I'm going to add a better [or free-use] one when I have the time."

An editor is, by making such an assertion, staking a claim to a particular sub-section, text, image, or link and reverting something he or she considers to be claim-jumping, often justifying the reversion by Wikilawyering. If - Wikilawyering aside - the reverted material met Wikipedia standards for inclusion then it was by definition better than the void left by the reversion. The proper action by the would-be owner would be to leave the edit in place and to replace it with the better material when (and if) it comes to hand. Since only an owner would have the right to stake such a claim, the existence of such a claim is a clear indication that the user is attempting to own the article.TransporterMan (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that adding examples, special / notable cases, etc. only dilutes the message and creates opportunities for wiki-lawyering would-be owners. If I wanted to re-write WP:OWN I'd make it really simple:

• No-one owns any article, period.
• If an article has passed GA or FA, changes or additions that are not supported by adequate citations but are not obviously vandalism, frivolous or inaccurate may be reverted, but only after copying the reverted edit(s) to the Talk page (i.e. the text, not just a diff) and inviting editors to re-instate the changes with suitable citations.
• If those whose have done a lot of work on the article in the past are dissatisfied with a recent, well-referenced edit, they should not remove or revert the edit but improve the text and / or start a discussion on the article's Talk page.
• Changes or additions of media samples, including images, should be left in place provided they have no obvious copyright problems.
• If anyone has doubts about the relevance, quality or usefulness of an image or other media sample, they should start a discussion on the Talk page.

--Philcha (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, WP:LETGO perhaps per earlier subtopic above, or perhaps seek consensus via that subtopic? TransporterMan (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the earlier thread. --Philcha (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There having been no objections to the example raised in >24 hr, save one objection to the idea of examples, generally, I'm going to be bold and make the edit. TransporterMan (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Being WP:BOLD, I moved the overly long intro to a new Overview section, made a short and to-the-point lede, and moved the Signature bit to within the new Overview section. diff. Hurray! It's better. (IMO, obviously.) Rd232 ^talk 02:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ownership creep

In the past six months I've noticed "lazy" reversion (without a proper edit summary) of articles I add to is dramatically increasing. In fact, I now keep a very close watch on my Special:Contributions page for 24 hours after I edit an article to make sure some "owner" hasn't reverted to his preferred version. I read in the New York Times that this is being discussed at the Wikimedia level as a challenge for Wikipedia. Does anyone know where that discussion is taking place? Shii (tock) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, I found it. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-10/In the news *sigh* Shii (tock)

Is that not itself a type of ownership? Maybe not of the article but a specific section or specific edit? Not that I'm criticizing the action, but just pointing out the train goes both ways. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Projects

Unresolved

I think that this policy should make specific reference to ownership by projects; as there can be a tendency for project members to assume that, on "their" articles, project-wide consensus trumps wider consensus. It can be difficult to challenge this, as discussion usually takes place on project talk pages, where the project members are obviously going to be in the majority. I'm not sure how to word such a section; would anyone care to make a start, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Is this with reference to some specific disputes, or just a hypothetical concern? Remember that we must avoid instruction creep. The section on multiple editors seems good enough in light of the purport of the rest of the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not merely hypothetical, being born of several years' experience. The section to which you reefer speaks of tag teams, but not projects, and does not address the specific and unique aspects of ownership by projects. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently saw a project page which said "The consensus among this project's members is that we don't want…" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other comments? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Project members can of course develop consensus; it's a good thing. That's not "ownership" by itself unless other editors are being prevented from changing an article. Are there many cases that cannot be handled by common sense and require the instruction creep you propose? Shreevatsa (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course consensus is a good thing; but what I'm talking about isn't consensus; it's a false appearance of consensus. I'm not proposing instruction creep: WP:CONEXCEPT (an English Wikipedia policy) says quite unambiguously "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right". And yes, there are cases where this is an issue; but as I've already indicated, I don't want to make this about specific issues. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, so this particular issue is already covered by WP:CONEXCEPT. :-) What more do we need? Shreevatsa (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Specific reference to ownership by projects in this policy; as explained above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adminitis

The last edit of substance was adding a See-also link: Wikipedia:Adminitis. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't immediately see the connection. Those undergoing the "disease" are more likely to try to own an article? Doesn't click in my opinion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary editors (don't run away!)

I think this policy needs an addition of something like, "While primary editors are not to claim ownership, it is allowed to be the main editor of an article, as long as input from other editors is never ignored." (No, this phrasing is not anywhere close to perfect, but it gives the jist of my idea) I think this policy is important, but some articles only receive improvement from a select few editors who care about the subject. It would be a shame to scare off an editor from improving an article with multiple edits because of this policy. Angryapathy (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugggh!

Desperate Housewives article seems to be owned by User:AdamDeanHall. He is so damn annoying, and has had major problems with this in the past with heaps of other people. He is constantly changing the starring list to what he thinks it should be, refuses to talk about it on the discussion page, or his talk page. I've been added all characters that have starred at any point during the series, like shows like lost, which have had lengthy discussions on their articles, with the final verdict to add all: "The general convention, per the TV project guidelines, is that we list all roles that are deemed as main characters by the producers and network. That is to say, it is a function of their contract status, and not of our opinion as to who is important and who is not. As well, we don't differentiate based on seasons, former or current status, and so on. Again per the guidelines, if the infobox listing is considered to be too large, it can be replaced with a link to the "Characters" section." Can someone help me here? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent him an e-mail, "reminding" him of this policy. Dude1818 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Experiment

I'm going to try an experiment that I expect won't do any harm and might be helpful ... without fiddling with the policy status, I'm moving this page from the conduct policy subcat to the Category:Wikipedia basic information subcat, the one that WP:5P is in. Feel free to revert, and please see the discussion at WT:Policies_and_guidelines#Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User Namespsaces

Isn't Your user page "yours?"Parker1297 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the GDFL conditions are that the user forfeits ownership to Wikipedia. But users are considered the caretakers of their user page and user talk page. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples

The Examples section was discussed last spring, actually removed last August, and then restored last November, because the removal discussion was (apparently) overlooked. Do we want examples? If we're going to have them, could we at least indicate that comments like these don't always prove, e.g., that spam is wanted, or that editors can invoke OWN to dodge discussions about massive changes that someone objects to, and so forth? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The #3 example in the On revert section should be removed, in my view. It says: "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."

I point out that plenty of experienced Wikipedians do that without feeling that they own the articles. It is always best to first present/discuss, on the talk page, huge changes one wants to make to an article...in case that article has already reached WP:Consensus about certain things. Unless the "huge changes" are improvements only (such as heading/style/reference formatting). Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed #3, which IMO was one of the most easily misunderstood examples.

Would you object to a sentence at the top of the section like, "Editors who engage in ownership often show that through statements that suggest others are unwelcome. Here are some examples that may, in some circumstances, indicate a problem with ownership"? (I'm also open to deleting the whole thing, or removing easily misunderstood examples). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of the former #3. And, no, I wouldn't object to those proposed sentences. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OWN vs BRD

Despite being policy, I've noticed several editors try to circumvent WP:OWN by using WP:BRD, even though that's merely an essay.

Short of deleting WP:BRD, is there any way to prevent this / prevent people thinking that its an appropriate thing to do?

Newman Luke (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. The user appears to be forum shopping (check his history). -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham#Evidence of disputed behavior, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser#Evidence of disputed behavior.

But the problem is a general one. Is there a way to stop users trying to circumvent WP:OWN (an official policy) by referring to WP:BRD (a mere essay), without deleting WP:BRD ? Newman Luke (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually no way. The purpose of these pages is to institutionalize discussion.174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What it is Not?

I think it would also be useful to indicate what ownership is not. For example, something I've experienced more than once unfortunately, is an editor violating WP:HOUND by running around making minor edits to various articles the editor they are hounding has worked on. If the hounded editor then reverts, that is not ownership, but dealing with someone violating another policy. I've seen said hounders try to turn around and call it ownership, however, and I think it would be useful to address that here. Also, keeping articles at FL/FA level when they have achieved that status by reverting unsourced additions, or having to deal regularly with MoS issues because a lot of newer editors and IPs don't know that X is done because it is how we style things, is also not ownership, but proper article maintenance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also regard keeping articles at GA level as proper article maintenance, and therefore not WP:OWN. A-class may less clear, as that depends on the relevant Wikiproject(s). --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: If that is how you style things, this should be clear, weather you make it in hidden comments, or you make it clear on the talk page. Archiving does not count. Featured articles cannot have this special privilege of elitism because of that fact that information, and especially, consensus, can change. If this was implemented, this would easily squelch any future reform.174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, any article can not have this special feature of exclusionary stability.174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, archives do count, and it isn't a "privilege". And considering you are one of those wikhounders doing the exact thing noted above, your opposition is self-serving at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely there's an essay

Can anyone point me to an essay about ownership-type problems related to other editors' styles/process/editing activity, rather than the content of the page?

This turns up as telling editors to use {more|fewer}, {smaller|bigger}, {faster|slower} edits, which is classic ownership, but also as telling editors not to create a page unless they've met the arbitrary standards of a passing editor -- even if the editor is working continuously on expanding the article -- which is not exactly the classic case.

VPP has two editors today who are complaining about other editors "not even making the effort" to provide well-developed stubs before clicking 'save page' for the first time, because they want to patrol and tag articles within 60 seconds of their creation, despite repeated requests and advice to give editors a fair chance.

Surely this kind of thing has come up before; does anyone know of a good essay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OWN? Or not?

Is requiring "a consensus amongst the main contributors to a particular article (to permit a particular approach to organizing information)" [emphasis in the original] an OWNership problem? This is proposed as a formal, semi-binding (yes, I know, we need to have that WP:No binding decisions discussion) result for a long discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally depends on the circumstances, but I don't see that as being ownership. That is the general idea of WP:CONSENSUS. If a single editor has a suggestion and no one else agrees, it is still consensus and not ownership just because the one person disagrees. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but if several new (to the article) editors want X, and two old (to the specific article) want Y, should only the opinions of the old editors count? Would you be happy if you had an idea about, say, how to expand an article, and your contributions, and your arguments in favor of them, were rejected because you hadn't previously contributed enough to that article?

Let me give you an example: An editor once wanted Neoplasm to include a statement (visible, in the mainspace) to the effect that nobody should expand the stub, since the "real" article was at Cancer. If you had wanted to expand the stub, and you were told that the "main contributor" refused to let you, would this seem like ownership to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In a case like that, I'd say that yes, that was an example of ownership, as it runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines and if there are multiple people thinking the change should be made, then a discussion should be started to see if the new consensus should be upheld. Claims of "not contributing enouhg" as a reason for blocking edits, so long as such edits are within Wikipedia guidelines, are definitely ownership. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, as you indicate above, a single, "drive-by" editor should never be able to overrule a group of long-time editors solely because he's new to the article.

I'll have to think about a way of expressing the complexities. Perhaps simply eliminating any mention of who's involved ("Consensus at a particular article" instead of "Consensus amongst specially privileged editors at a particular article") would be the way to go about it.

Thanks for your reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and similar principles can help to distinguish between cases of WP:OWN and simply maintaining / improving articles. --Philcha (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Move?

Should we move this page to Wikipedia:Ownership? This would prevent future confusion with templates not being included:

Here are some points to consider:

• The first line says "All Wikipedia content" then it footnotes to "Wikipedia content includes articles, categories, templates, and others.". The rest of this page just mentions "article". Should we instead switch the words of "article" to "page" and "articles" to "pages"? It is true that regardless on which namespace you are on, the same boilerplate appears at the bottom of the page saying that no wikipedia content can be owned.
• Example. This perfectly legitimate edit has caused confusion.
• When editing, regardless of the namespace, below the edit box "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." is stated. This means that Ownership does not apply to exclusively articles, and that categories and templates etc. have the same precedence that they are not owned and they cannot be owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.121.27 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you guys think?174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Maurreen (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Surprise surprise that you would appear here and point to one of my edits and claim it "caused confusion". It did not. The addition of an example was reverted because it was based on a current, on-going issue (someone added a quote from someone they were in an active dispute with), and templates are different from an article due to the usual higher complexity of code (telling someone they shouldn't edit a template if they have no clue what they are doing and end up breaking 100+ articles is not ownership). Meanwhile, please remember that as a sock puppet of a blocked editor, you are not allowed to edit policy pages, per policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  That would be wp:assuming bad faith and I don't use the register account because I don't want to use it.174.3.123.220 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • No, you can't use the registered account because it is indef blocked. There is a difference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

    • And because I choose to edit in both IPs and the account, the account was judicated to be blocked.174.3.123.220 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

      • No, it was blocked because you refused to identify yourself when switching between them, making it appear 2-3 three people agreed with you when it was just you. It was also originally blocked because of your making death threats and other inappropriate actions, and was appropriately reblocked because you continued violating the polices noted above. Not that any of that has to do with this discussion. Of course, you are still continuing to violate them, but that is neither here nor there. Suffice to say, as an IP editor with a know, and blocked, registered account, you are not allowed to edit policy pages per policy. As for the proposed rename, I see no real reason to do it, as ownership is primarily about articles. It is very rarely an issue outside of them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

        • Ownership is not primarily about articles. Anything editable on wikipedia is not owned by anyone.174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP has a point. Other pages should fall under this policy too, as they can easily be just as susceptible (especially essays and so forth). Users don't even 'own' their own user pages, even with the amount of leway given. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User is covered by WP:User and while they don't "own" it, most of WP:OWN does not apply to a user page (i.e. if someone goes an edits your user page just to edit it, you have the full right to tell them not to edit it and revert it). And if someone edits a template and breaks it, it is not ownership to revert it. Part of the issue is the IP making this proposal has, in the past, made claims that anyone reverting his edits is displaying "ownership", yet he himself threatened to kill another edit if they reverted his edits on a template (which is why is real account was indef blocked). It seems to me that proposals to change this should come from a more neutral party who has not made such an extreme violation of it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who made the proposal, it's a good proposal. No pages are owned. In my view, non-article space is just as susceptible as articles to "ownership"-type actions.

But I do hope more people weigh in. You never know what will surprise people after the fact. Maurreen (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)village p

Since part of the proposal is renaming, I'd suggest a notice at the appropriate village pump(s). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support move. It would be nice if this move took place so that the policy were extended to explicitly apply to templates, categories, etc. It often arises in more cases than just articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion: How about moving to WP:Ownership of content? The current title is inaccurate, ceratinly, but the one proposed by the IP seems a little too vague to me. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea. A. di M. (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support move. I also think "ownership" is better than "ownership of content". It is shorter and we don't always have to specify everything in the title. For example, we have WP:Verifiability and not WP:Verifiability of content. Yaris678 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I have now modified my position. See below. Yaris678 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but verifiability is the pillar and much less ambiguous than ownership. Ownership can be misinterpreted in so many ways.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much was I was thinking, although you've said it far better than I did. Ownership by itself could refer to, for example, who owns Wikipedia. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, verifiability is not a pillar (see wp:pillar). Verifiability can apply to content, whereas ownership can apply to user pages? Is that what you are thinking?174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support idea of move, but not to the proposed name. Ownership of content or similar is better. Although, this policy is mostly article centered. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  That's simple to remedy: we just change the instances of "articles" to "pages"...174.3.121.27 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although "ownership of pages" would be better yet — "ownership of content" seems to be getting into copyright issues, since we all own the content that we contribute. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support: I like this renaming. Since we have 3 different proposed names, let's have a straw poll on them:

• "Ownership" alone doesn't say enough for me (ownership of what? Wikipedia? the database? Who knows). "Pages" and "content" are both better, and I could live with either, but pages are where the content resides. Content is what's being "owned". For me that fractionally tips it.

What about Wikipedia:Page ownership or Wikipedia:Content ownership as simpler versions? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Page ownership" does read better than "Ownership of pages". I can agree that using "content" may be misinterpreted. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like "page ownership" because it isn't like a prepositional phrase like "ownership of pages". Cf. Yaris's "I also think "ownership" is better than "ownership of content". It is shorter and we don't always have to specify everything in the title.". I think the shorter title makes sense and is better than the prepositional phrase, and without a preposition makes it more useful.174.3.121.27 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving the page to WP:Page ownership. This name seems to address all the issues raised. Yaris678 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to WP:Page ownership per all similar comments. Marginally better than the name I proposed above. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, Wikipedia:Page ownership Simple, 'of' is a useless word. It would cover the talk pages too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the IP who started this RfC has now finally been community banned for his being a long-time block evading sockpuppet, wikihounding, etc.. As such edits are generally disregarded, should the RfC be restarted from a clean slate rather than being from someone who was trying to tweak this policy in a way that would have given him greater ability to WikiHound other editors? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• This would be time-consuming and wouldn't really benifit the discussion since there seems to be a consensus for a change, so I'm inclined to suggest that we should just let this discussion run and see what happens. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, IP sock drama aside, good faith editors have already contributed, so it would be preferable to continue instead of restarting.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Doesn't seem necessary. Ownership of the article namespace is most pressing issue and most working in other names spaces already understand that WP:OWN relates to all namespaces. "Ownership of articles" is the most effective title for the policy. --RA (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have seen many editors get called up on WP:OWN because they "hang out" at particular articles and are always there, tweaking away at other peoples contributions. I don't believe this is an infringement on WP:OWN. Being some of the most active and informed editors on a particular article, and having it watchlisted does not constitute WP:OWN, right? It constitutes WP:I've been editing this article for a long time and know the topic well enough to answer your talk page question/I have about 8-10 academic books right in front of me so were right under WP:RS/WP:VERIFY to tweak your edit which you made based on one JSTOR article.

Yet there doesn't appear to be a WP:OWN#What WPOWN is not section. I suspect this has been asked before, but I note that the request above is not being asked for the same reason, but for something to do with WP:HOUND. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree editors may wish to have a section like this to put them at ease regarding watchlisted articles they know a lot about and have serious reliable sources, but feel like stalking everyone who edits. Do you have any proposed wording for this? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it works both ways - in some Zoology topics I'm the most active and usually the most knowledgeable, but in e.g. Medicine I'd go the relevant Talk page and ask advice. Perhaps what I just said might be a basis for the sort of wording to use in WP:OWN. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps adding to "Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors." to give:

Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors. Editors who, through familiarity with a topic or ownership of a large number of relevant reliable sources, track edits to such articles using their watchlists, and may discuss or tailor others edits. Provided this 'haunting' of an article does not marginalise the valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often, these editors are in fact a useful source of assistance for editors unfamiliar with the pages, and should be approached.

Or something less verbose! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Being the primary editor does not equal ownership if the primary editor's contributions are justified. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor other's edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to editors unfamiliar with the pages. {{Maintained}} template may be used by such editors on the article talk pages.

Reworded a bit. "allow views" is too broad and first sentence need stricter introductory setup. Structured second sentence a bit less confusing. "familiarity with a topic or ownership"->"familiar"; "a large number of"->"broad". Removed "haunting" as washy term. Reduced passive voice in last. Added template info. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Despite good arguments to move the article (mainly to emphasise that it is not just articles which are within the scope of this policy, there is not the necessary consensus for this move. The main valid objection is that this is an encyclopedia and the main type of page we are dealing are "articles". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Wikipedia:Page ownership}}

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles → Wikipedia:Page ownership — Repeated request based on discussion above. Reason: Simpler (avoiding using "of") and "Article"->"Page" as much of the material applies to other namespaces as well. "Content" is ambiguous. (Side note: I have not further inquired into the sockpuppet issues concerning the previous nomination above, and this RfM is based on valid input of independent editors.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment removing a community banned person's edits is not "drama" so please assume good faith and avoid tainting the request/discussion with unnecessary invective. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, the comment was not directed at you and the removal of RfM, but about the the incident itself. I wanted to make it clear that this is a good faith nomination and not related to sockuppeting. I have rephrased my words now to avoid any further misunderstandings. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No problem, and thanks. I meant to put in my summary when I removed that it would be fine if another editor started it properly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support while I personally disagree with it, the consensus above is pretty clear. I do think the move discussion should probably be advertised a bit though, maybe at WP:CD, to avoid surprising folks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The use of the term "article" is much more appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia than "page." Obviously, as this policy is meant to apply to all articles/pages/documents/whatevers on Wikipedia, not just those in article-space, the name "page" does make sense. But if we make a sweeping terminology change from "article" to "page" that may lead others, especially companies that try to self-promote themselves on Wikipedia, to justify their non-encyclopedic edits. ("It's just a web page, not an actual article!") Of course, we have WP:NOT et al... but still. In summary, I find the terms "article" and "encyclopedia" much more closely related than "page" and "encyclopedia." --Chris (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified 9 users from previous discussion about the repeated nomination. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per discussion above. However it is phrased, it's clear that we need to expand the concept beyond articles—certainly to templates and categories at least, which are covered in "page". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. I would prefer WP:Ownership of content. WP:Page ownership is too broad (as many of the behaviours this policy forbids would be entirely unproblematic on one's own user page), and WP:Ownership of articles is too narrow, but I can live with either of them. Just WP:Ownership would be too vague. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Content" suggests encyclopedic content too easily where in fact this covers literally all pages. WP:OWN may need refactoring a little to better explain how userspace works (basically copy and summarize WP:UP#OWN) but that's more an editing issue more than anything else. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - in general when policies, guidelines and advice get revisited, it's good to tighten up wording. Generally a standard that works and is widely understood is that "articles" means specifically mainspace, "pages" means any page in any namespace. Same kind of issue on "what to call different pages" has come up before, notably at WP:UP a few months ago. Guideline covers a point of principle - on WMF wikis, all pages are communally owned, not just mainspace or selected pages. The concept/discussion of "ownership" applies in principle to everything from mainspace, all talk pages, all userspace pages, all help and template pages, all files and media... etc. Suggested and would support again a rename to "Page ownership" as an improvement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support As I said above. Hopefully this time the discussion will continue without stupidity of the above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support based on my earlier comments and those of others involved. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the policy should not be limited to articles. However, perhaps it should explain that you are allowed to assume some ownership of your userpage and refer users to Wikipedia:User pages guideline. This is equivalent to the current explanation that "when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it". Yaris678 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As above, WP:OWN may need refactoring a little to better explain how userspace works (copy and summarize WP:UP#OWN) but that's more an editing issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Yaris678 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, page ownership is a better fitting title. No reason against changing it. Blurpeace 05:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's a statement of good will, rather than a weapon of punishment. As A.di.M. said above, expansion of scope to all pages may be misleading: user pages are special, arbcom pages are special (are there any pages actually owned by the office?). But title is the least nuisance, so who cares? East of Borschov 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This policy has always been primarily concerned with articles, and it's much more important as applied to articles. A person is understood to have a (limited) level of control over editing of their user space and their own comments in discussions. By all means the policy should describe how it applies to other types of pages, but I think the title should focus on the most important part. Dcoetzee 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support WP:Ownership, WP:Page ownership, WP:Content ownership (in that order), and to making it clear that people do not WP:OWN userpages, though by tradition there is some limited latitude given to how people organise their personal userpages - as detailed on Wikipedia:User pages. Indeed, as WP:OWN is policy and WP:USER is a guideline, it might be useful to bring over some content from WP:USER to WP:OWN as much of it, especially WP:UP#OWN, is standard procedure. SilkTork *^YES! 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - A compromise of Wikipedia:Article ownership, Wikipedia:Content ownership, or Wikipedia:Ownership would likely alleviate much of the opposition's concerns.   — C M B J   23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just how many of the things listed in "Examples of ownership behavior" would be unacceptable on one's user page (provided they don't add illegal content)? ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain of whether your question is directed at me or SilkTork, but the policy was clearly not written with userpages in mind, and that's precisely why alternatives to the term 'page' are worth considering. Either way, the policy itself would certainly benefit from further clarification in this area.   — C M B J   06:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(It was intended to be to SilkTork, but apparently we edit-conflicted without the software blocking us for some reason. ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 09:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

• Ownership seems the simplest and clearest title. The guideline can then explain how ownership varies depending upon the nature of the object - article, userpage, talk-page comment, RfA vote, fair-use image or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. WP:OWN is long-standing and this should remain at a page that begins with 'Own'. 'Page' is plain wrong. I'd not be concerned with shortening it to just WP:Ownership. Editors don't own template or WikiProjects, either, but the core idea here is that they don't own the articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, because no single editor can own templates, categories, etc., any more than s/he can own an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is simpler to understand. This policy relates primarily to articles. Ownership issues relate to other pages but that comes out in the page. Anybody who has been around long enough to work on other name spaces understands that. I've weak opposed a move to Wikipedia:Ownership above also. --RA (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak move to WP:Ownership. This is a policy, not an article, so naming conventions aren't as clear. Purplebackpack89 21:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose they are named articles, and that is the purpose of the page. We have pages all through the wiki, however, in the main namespace we have articles as per the name of tab. This is asking for a change with larger ramifications/implications, and that sort of decision should not be made in a backwater. billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose along with Jack Merridew; the ban is essentially on article ownership, surely. Page wouldn't be a helpful move. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Ownership primarily relates to articles. It's just much more easier for anybody who's new to Wikipedia. warrior4321 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The policy deals primarily with articles, and the current title is easier for new editors to understand. --LordPistachio ^talk 06:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current wording is more descriptive of the problem being addressed than the proposed wording: the issue relates to encyclopedia articles in mainspace. Carrite (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Featured articles

I've added a note about featured articles. [1] While they're not exempt from WP:OWN, people writing FAs are in fact given a lot of leeway, because there's a need for one person, or a small group of people, to steer the article through the final writing process. The same person is then usually responsible for maintaining it once it's promoted. Without that maintenance FAs can deteriorate rapidly. I've been careful not to phrase this in terms of an exemption, but as leeway extended as a courtesy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I reverted the change. Maybe we can reach a compromise here on the talk page. I know that FA usually do have primary authors but I still do not think that should be included here. Much of my how I view the issue is summarized here: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles. Is there a specific problem that you see and are trying to solve? meshach (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this addition seems to give too much leeway to FA maintainers. For example, "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article" suggests care should be taken because there is someone who maintains FA rather because content in FA has already been carefully reviewed and selected. I know and understand that the articles are brought up to and kept at FA level in large by single editors, and the community recognises this. But there needs to be a more careful wording on this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with discussing other wording. The wording I added was:

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, some leeway is in fact given to writers seeking to nominate articles for featured-article status, or who are maintaining and updating featured articles they have written. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article, and to post suggestions for change on the talk page first. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

I added it in response to a discussion at the FAC talk page here, where FA writers were expressing concern about being accused of OWN when they try to improve or maintain articles to FA standard. Any suggestions for better wording most welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "This article has been through a careful and detailed review process, but please feel free to add whatever trivia you feel is missing from it"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget primary sources, images that don't meet image policy, and WP:OVERLINKing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's taking "descriptive, not prescriptive" too far. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My prose stinks, but I'll give it a try just to get the ball rolling:

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ), review the {{articlehistory}} on the talk page to determine when the article was promoted to Featured status, and to post suggestions for changes on the talk page. The articlehistory template will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is clear enough, but I would suggest a couple of changes. First, I think it has to be specified that posting suggestions for changes on the talk page applies to significant changes, e.g. , rather than to minor corrections of grammar, punctuation, format etc (it's surprising how many of these live on in featured content). Also I think the wording needs to be as brief as possible, so I would cu some of the central wording from the above text. That could give us:-

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ). Suggestions for significant changes involving the addition, deletion or alteration of text or images should first be posted on the talk page. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the pointer to FA reviews is actually one of the most relevant links, as this is where the majority of content disputes were resolved/fixed. So omitting that is not a good idea. "Particular" is weasel word, "care" is enough. Also, I think "significant changes" imply text/images/links, etc., so we shouldn't iterate all those. So taking that into account and comment above:

While featured articles are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a featured article (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ), review the {{articlehistory}} on the talk page to determine when the article was promoted to Featured status, and to post suggestions for significant changes on the talk page. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Next:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; suggestions for significant changes of text or images should first be posted on the talk page. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article, which is normally exempt from the 3RR policy while on the main page.

I hope this achieves the following:

1. Points (new) editors to Articlehistory, which lets them know when the article was reviewed and who the original nominators were;
2. Points them to WP:WIAFA and the notion of high quality sources;
3. Suggests FAR for older FAs;
4. Provide a rationale for this text, in that FAs are reviewed by the community, subject to FAR, and vetted for high quality sources and a thorough review of the literature;
5. Defines "significant" edits; and
6. Encourages talk page discussion for significant edits.

One problem I have with this text is that WP:OVERLINKing is not often "significant", but frequently damaging. We might solve that by adding mention that FAs are vetted for MOS and image compliance in the WIAFA link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, has your view changed on 3RR on main page day? I note your rather strong comments on that point here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, actually the wording troubles me. I am quite surprised to read here that there is leniancy on 3RR on TFA, but I carried that wording here as others say there is, and no one has objected to it. I suppose that's because we're focused more here on the FA issue, than the TFA issue. "Exempt" also seems to be a very strong word here; I would think the only exemptions for 3RR are BLP vios, copyright vios, blatant vandalism, etc but not good faith edits. Perhaps the wording here could be fixed to reflect that we encourage discussion on talk wrt TFA, rather than an exemption from 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite that straightforward. I've lost count of the number of "good faith editors" who are convinced that it's absolutely vital that the film V for Vendetta receives a mention in the article on Guy Fawkes, for instance, along with a demonstration against scientology in which the protesters wore a mask based on one worn by the hero in the film. There's an issue of editorial integrity that goes way beyond what's so far been discussed here, and certainly goes way beyond putative 3RR violations. There's generally not much time for discussion on TFA day, as the flood of good and bad faith edits can be quite a considerable effort to deal with. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Malleus. I am tolerant to those who come to a TFA wanting to make improvements, if they are anywhere near in the ballpark. I am less tolerant to others who come in with an agenda and start with the aggression. Brian and I recently had that latter experience with our joint project, Tosca, an aggressive editor who lost his argument and later tried sneaking in his desired changes, and also fought a side battle on a related DYK. Some leeway has to be given on TFA day.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the key point is that due to the multiple layers of review, a FA, especially on TFA day, carries a strong presumption in any dispute in favor of the existing version. Someone coming in and engaging in a dispute with the maintaining editor should have to fight an uphill battle. All editors are equal, but this is one case where some need to be more equal than others.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Strongly agree with Malleus." I bet you never thought you'd see yourself saying that Wehwalt. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree; there are many poor FAs, particularly older ones, and FACs tht passed with a minumum of consensus or before standards tightened. If a four-year-old TFA goes up, passed at FAC before standards tightened, we can't restrict other editors at TFA or presume that version meets standards. Hence, my addition to the proposed text above to check articlehistory to find out how old the FA is, and a reference to FAR. TFA is precisely when we hope that article will improve, so it won't have to go to FAR. In spite of our proposed caution to discuss first, we all know wrongful ownership does exist on some FAs, and POV is defended by "collective blocs of editors". If this text goes too far in one direction, we'll see the opposite of its intent-- a backlash against FA writers. I don't think TFAs are exempt from 3RR or ever have been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think in many such cases, the editor will not stand alone against the "owners", except of course, if his claim is utterly misguided. There are many eyes on the upcoming TFA and TFA, and a major disagreement in which others do not join can be dismissed as a bit on the fringe.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence, discuss on talk (and exemption from 3RR accomplishes nothing in those cases anyway, as the owners can tag team to claim "fringe" and revert-- this 3RR exemption is not going to lead good places). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. Fortunately the articles in the category (came up before standards tightened, still with a number of maintaining editors, has not run TFA, has something in it worth arguing about) are few. Not worth eroding a general rule that TFA maintaining editors need to be cut a break.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides, I think it is going to have to be an awfully bold admin who will call a maintaining editor for 3RR on TFA day ... I'd certainly be open to an unblock request under those circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that saying that TFA is exempt from 3RR encourages editwarring on main page day !!! I just don't understand the notion that TFA is 3RR exempt at all-- certainly, there may have been past cases where admins didn't block because it became hard to sort vandalism from good faith edits, but I've seen legit blocks for 3RR on TFA, and by saying this, we're going to assure some innocent sucker ends up blocked. And by moving too far here, we encourage ownership on FAs, which in spite of the false claims of problems, is quite alive and kicking in some instances-- we don't serve anyone by moving too far here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You said that in the diff I posted, but I haven't seen it in the almost two years I've been an admin, and I follow AN/I reasonably closely. I would say that maintaining editors should be cut some slack, but TFA day is not a pretext for edit wars. How's that? But I'm not going to block some sap for clearing up an unsourced, an unneeded word, an overlink, and a howlingly stupid edit that doesn't rise to the level of vandalism, all within 24 pressure packed hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I may have to rely on your common-sense approach tomorrow, when this hits the main page. I make no bones about the fact that the feelings of the surviving relatives will be far more important to me than a possible 3RR block. I've been blocked before, it doesn't kill you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Featured articles are, by definition, our best work and so should exemplify cooperative and collaborative behaviour. We should not encourage the idea that there are vested editors who may trample upon other contributors, contrary to this policy. If FAs merit editing restrictions on their day of display, then this would be better stated elsewhere, such as Talk:Main Page or WP:FA. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm rather surprised that you apparently don't see the inconsistency in "our best work", and "so should exemplify cooperative and collaborative behaviour", not to say the non sequitor inherent in that position. That is unless you believe that it's the effort that's important, not the result. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The FA criteria require stability as evidence of consensus and so behaviour is already relevant to FAs. The OWN policy is explicitly concerned with editorial behaviour as this is its focus. It is directed at editors much like yourself and your efforts to construct a get-out-of-jail-free card are tainted by this evident conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Malleus_Fatuorum_reported_by_User:Tbhotch for a fresh example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So, there we go. Because the controversial exemption from 3RR on TFA was added in here (one sentence), the rest of the (reasonable) text is opposed. As I said, if we go too far here, we get backlash. (Malleus, I share your concerns about the "feelings of surviving relatives", but not everyone does, and 3RR exemption may work against those relatives in other cases.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Restart

Next (remove exemption):

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; suggestions for significant changes of text or images should first be posted on the talk page. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The editor(s) who nominated the article may be still maintaining it; if so, they generally have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough survey of the relevant literature. The same courtesy is extended to editors acting to maintain the quality of today's featured article.

I hope this achieves the following:

1. Points (new) editors to Articlehistory, which lets them know when the article was reviewed and who the original nominators were;
2. Points them to WP:WIAFA and the notion of high quality sources;
3. Suggests FAR for older FAs;
4. Provide a rationale for this text, in that FAs are reviewed by the community, subject to FAR, and vetted for high quality sources and a thorough review of the literature;
5. Defines "significant" edits; and
6. Encourages talk page discussion for significant edits.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Sandy's most recent version, I'm uncomfortable with the second-to-last sentence. It seems to say "although the first sentence says anyone can edit, the author of the FA has a sort-of right to own it". I'm totally sympathetic to the need for protecting TFA from garbage, and I would probably support just about any change to WP:Protection policy towards that end. I can empathize with how it must feel, after doing all the work it takes to get an FA, to have someone who doesn't know what they are talking about want to do something dumb to it. But I'm afraid that, barring a complete revision of what we consider to be consensus, the FA author needs to be able to explain to the upstart, "This edit would be a bad idea because the high quality sources say XYZ", and not "This edit would be a bad idea. I'm the person who made this an FA, and I know." OWN is, after all, a policy, not a guideline, not an essay. There's inherently a contradiction between saying "this is policy" and "this is something we hope you will do as a courtesy". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's eliminate mention of editors then, and just refer to WP:WIAFA (we don't have to defer to nominators-- we have to defer to Wiki standards):

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources and a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with image policy and Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The same courtesy is extended totoday's featured article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I really would prefer to see more explicit protection for editors acting in good faith to maintain the quality of FA's/TFA's.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's the rub: without that, why put this in OWN at all? But with that, how is it not creating a new user-right: the FA nominator who is exempted from OWN? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trypto (that there is no reason to defer to individual editors; that is ownership-- we only need highlight the fact that article may meet criteria, depending on when it was featured). But the reason we're adding this is because editors become frustrated when MOS, image, undue or unsourced text are deleted from FAs, and then unfairly allege ownership-- this would help explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sympathetic to that explanation. Would a solution be, instead, to spell out some sort of conduct expectations for the FA author as well? Something like, explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of an FA does not constitute ownership. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So you would put more of an expectation on a TFA author to defend work rather then on the drive by editor who (in my experience) usually edits without edit summary, or with a minimal one?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heavens no, of course not. But I also would not make a policy change setting up the FA author as some kind of new user right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How many TFAs have you had Trypotofish? I'm just wondering whether or not you're speaking from a position of experience. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree again with Malleus, showing that a broken clock is right twice a day (dating myself pre-digital).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus: zero. But I've had plenty of experience with long-time editors who think that they should be entitled to some sort of special treatment. And I can easily see how such individuals would like to alter this policy so that they may OWN pages. Oh, and Malleus, I just took a look at Moors murders as well as its recent edit history. My congratulations to you and your fellow editors on the page for some very impressive work. And I think it's a pity that the TFA couldn't have been full-protected for the day. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: But I'm afraid that, barring a complete revision of what we consider to be consensus, the FA author needs to be able to explain to the upstart, "This edit would be a bad idea because the high quality sources say XYZ", and not "This edit would be a bad idea. I'm the person who made this an FA, and I know." OWN is, after all, a policy, not a guideline, not an essay. But the deal here is that TFA editors have already done the work, and it's fairly clearly laid out in the article, citations, and references section. What I hope these revisions do is expect readers to understand that they must also come to the proverbial table expecting to do some work. Come provide your sources. Come provide well-considered arguments. Offer alternatives and solutions. It's enormously frustrating to write an FA, which is essentially an argument about why the knowledge presented is valid, and then have to defend it with more work when editors either don't care, are too lazy, or just don't understand how to present their points in the Wikipedia way. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, as I've already said, I'm very sympathetic to that frustration. And I'd be happy to see full protection of TFA for 24 hours. And I've said that I am OK with Sandy's most recent version. But I'm not OK with saying that, after doing all that very real work for an FA, the author can claim some sort of new user right, exempting them from explaining the need for those sources, those well-considered arguments. It's not a get-out-of-consensus-free card issued into the indefinite future. This is an open Wiki, so anyone who is unwilling to deal with the great unwashed public is probably ill-advised to edit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment for the most part, and my point here isn't to avoid dealing with the filthy masses, but rather an exercise in introducing them to what Wikipedia is all about. It forces us to examine how knowledge is explored and created. Newcomers should jump in not only in doing that but in understanding that. I have no problem overturning edits to TFAs and explaining to newcomers why they were overturned, welcoming them here, and asking them to participate in the process as a whole: provide counter sources and discuss the nature of neutrality and reliability. I absolutely do not think FA writers should get a free pass to do anything, but when an editor who has been around since 2005 puts a neutrality or some other dispute tag on an article, or demands what content should be in the article without bothering to buck up and do the work to justify why, that just smacks of callous laziness. I have other issues with consensus too when it comes to content, but that I think is for another policy talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's very fair, and I think we really agree much more than we disagree. For the reasons you just described, I'm in favor of adding Sandy's last version, just as I'm opposed to going farther than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Next:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The same courtesy is extended to today's featured article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that addresses my concerns, although I don't know whether it will satisfy others. I would be OK with that version. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this represent a change? It seems entirely aspirational.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My perception is that it is mostly aspirational, but "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership." is substantive (and probably about as substantive as can justifiably be proposed). No objection from me if we bold "not". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the page isn't very concrete, anyway ... there's not much teeth to it, just examples, so this text may help lower accusations of owernship on FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It does represent a change, albeit only a small one. I will be glad of it, in future, I am sure. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Sandy's text. The only two things I'd to add are (a) that editors are asked to take "particular" care, rather than just care. And (2) from Hell Knowz's version, something like: "The editors who nominated the article may be still maintaining it, and are likely to be familiar with the relevant source material," because that goes to the heart of the issue, which is that the main writers are likely to know the sources inside out. But I could go with Sandy's version without those points too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the second of those two additions would be a deal-breaker for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I agree to a pretty large extent with Wehwalt, that it doesn't matter much, but I also believe strongly that a change large enough to matter a lot would represent a fundamental redefinition of OWN, and we do not have consensus for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I continue to oppose these drafts as I agree with Tryptofish that this policy is not the right place for advice about FAs. Special protection of FAs should be arranged elsewhere, at a page which covers the details of the FA process. If FAs are given a high level of automatic protection, such as that provided by the pending changes feature, then the issue of ownership becomes less important because edits will have to go through a consensual process involving multiple editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please don't bring up Pending changes here. That has nothing to do with this conversation, which is that some editors actually know something about a topic, and their well-explained reasons might just trump the random drive-by editor's. Karanacs (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Pending changes has plenty to do with this matter because it is a mechanism which serves to filter out poor quality drive-by edits. It is the presumed level of knowledge of editors which is irrelevant. The quality of edits should be evident from the edits themselves. Ad hominem considerations should be avoided and it is the purpose of this policy to emphasise this point. If you wish to overturn this policy, you will need far more support than we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, pending changes is irrelevant. WP:OWN does not address vandalism and PC predominates with keeping vandalism out. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PC's purpose is to keep out blatant vandalism while still allowing IPs to edit articles. A large proportion of FAs are not semi-protected currently (so IPs already edit) and/or are not magnets for blatant vandalism. Even if those articles were to fall under PC, reviewers do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to judge whether an edit is a "good" edit beyond whether it is blatant vandalism; if an FA is still being maintained, then those with the specialized knowledge would need to do another review of the "approved" edits to make sure they are appropriate. PC is a red herring. The actual issue is that editors with specialized knowledge who have spent a lot of time bringing an article through the FA process are often accused of ownership when we revert edits to those articles. I agree that these editors need to calmly and civilly explain why they are reverting the edits, and a discussion can ensue if the new-to-the-page editor disagrees. What I - and the others who have weighed in - would like to avoid is being constantly accused of ownership because we are vocal about upholding quality and the FA standards. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But full protection of TFA for 24 hours would be a good thing, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes is, as anyone involved with it is all too well aware (whatever their view of it), currently in the throes of trying to gain acceptance in the face of a lot of opposition. But I wonder how many would agree with the idea that Pending Changes can possibly "filter out poor quality drive-by edits". I find that an amazing idea. It has the opposite effect. Pending Changes is only about filtering out blatant vandalism. By introducing the new phenomenon of a vast team of willing "Reviewers" who will gladly condone any and all edits, Pending Changes reinforces poor quality drive-by edits. It gives them credence. It makes the job harder for the editors tending the page, by deeming such edits "Accepted" by a Wikipedia Reviewer. The editors who know better (which is not to say they OWN the page) now have two editors to disagree with by reverting the poor quality drive-by edit. So please, as beseeched above, don't bring Pending Changes into this. PL290 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the instigators of this discussion I agree that PC should not be brought up here. It is a very divisive issue and should be debated in its own forum. This is a discussion about the wording of WP:OWN. meshach (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, Tryptofish has in fact stated agreement with one of the above wordings to update this policy. As to your own concern over whether this policy is the right place for the proposed change, I suggest it most certainly is. In particular, it defines ownership in terms of a Primary editor, "one editor who appears to assume ownership of an article", and Multiple editors, "each defending the ownership of the other". This is inadequate unless placed in the context we are now discussing. Various wordings have now been suggested; it seems we are potentially close to agreeing a version. Would you care to suggest a variation that resolves any remaining issue you have? PL290 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break again

This seems like it has gone off from the "ownership of articles" part to more of the "FAs are high-quality, please don't mess them up" part. My opinion: FAs are not exempt from WP:OWN, but as there is generally one (or two) main contributor(s), some leeway is given in determining the content of the article in question. Why not word this proposed addition more about "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership" rather than "where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style"? I don't think the casual editor cares too much about checking all this stuff; the important part is saying, "Hi, you can edit this, but for major stuff, discuss it first because the primary editor of this article may have structured the article in a certain way that doesn't fit your change, and changing the whole structure might cause a loss of quality". Or am I just misunderstanding this whole proposal? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. In fact, I would be perfectly fine with making it simply:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have been vetted through a community review process as Featured article candidates. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the casual editor cares too much about checking all this stuff; Why not? This is a pretty big difference here. The people who write FAs care very much about checking all this. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, I meant, I don't think an average editor will care about having to read about all these special requirements and whatnot. Obviously, the FA criteria themselves are very important; it's just not something that needs to be listed out here as it's not extremely relevant to ownership of articles. Sorry for the misunderstanding. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, I kind of like the idea behind the original proposal. While FA is supposed to be a great example of collaboration, the reality is that often a single person does do most of the work. I agree that it is kind of an unwritten custom to give that person a little more leeway. That person, however, is particularly vulnerable to committing violations of this very policy. The word "vetted" in particular I see as a problem. I've seen editors that are blatantly violating this policy use that word all the time as a prima facie reason to revert good faith edits. Whatever comes of this, I'd definitely avoid the word "vetted". Gigs (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as proposed loses no meaning if the word "vetted" is simply left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are good points. Just tweaking (this is a community process, after all!), maybe change "have been vetted through" to "have gone through" (that is, "gone through" instead of "been through"). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. The same courtesy is extended to Today's featured article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the "where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style" necessary? Other than that, seems fine to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of new editors don't know where to find WP:WIAFA or what it is-- this is intended to help. If you can explain why you don't like that text, we can try to tweak it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't think it's that relevant to WP:OWN. Is there any way that it could just be shortened up, as many editors probably don't know the MOS or image policy either? Like, "they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, and are now considered Wikipedia's finest and highest-quality content"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to link new editors to that info so they will understand. They typically do things like add WP:OVERLINKing, unlicensed images, MOS breaches, and fail to understand that the original writer(s) usually have access to high quality sources and have done a thorough search of the literature. The idea is to explain that so they won't allege ownership when adding trivia, guideline violations, and the like. I'm trying to figure out which part of that to shorten, having seen all of these problems occur. It's also to help them understand how to disagree with a featured version, based on policy and guideline and WIAFA, when they may be right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, this makes more sense to me. Ignore my comments about shortening it, then. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, the version of the proposal as worded by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Very well-written. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• I support it too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Often the lead sentence or paragraphs of FAs are difficult to understand, incomplete, or worded poorly, and, if you're reading today's FA on a cheap cell phone, that's all you get, one mangled, unclear paragraph. I frequently comment, or make suggestions rather than changing the sentence or paragraph around to clear it up. And, yes, I sometimes try to make corrections before they become TFA. Most of the time my suggestion is taken or some version of it after a bit of discussion. But, oh, the times where the article is owned, and the reader is just up-the-creek-without-a-paddle! Owners don't need it codified. No matter how much the article is checked and what good sources the owner has, that doesn't mean it reads well when reduced to a paragraph. Doesn't mean it reads well at all. Some FAs are excellent. Most are worth reading. But many do wind up needing corrections. Don't make it harder to correct them, leaving the ridiculous or incomprehensible on the main page for any longer than it needs to be by supporting ownership. Yeah, sometimes it should be about the audience. Making it harder to correct errors doesn't support the audience. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Knee-jerk reaction is unhelpful; read what is being proposed. This is not about "correction of errors". If featured articles contain errors, grammatical or factual—and they sometimes do—these can be corrected in the normal way. Nor does the proposed clause prevent contributions to the article from any editor; every featured article is capable of further improvement. This is a "pause and reflect" clause, the objective of which is to maintain some community involvement in keeping featured articles as examples of its best work. A polite request for the use of the talkpage is a very small step forward, but still one worth taking.

Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Why I agree with most of the text I don't understand why the last sentence needs to be be in there. The TFA is a FA, so it is logical the same statement applies to the TFA. Also, the way it is currently worded it seems to refer to the article history template instead of to the practice of discussing changes. Yoenit (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Very well crafted. I have one reservation, which—like Yoenit's—concerns the final sentence: (1) repositioning it as the penultimate sentence would make it clearer; (2) rewording it "The same courtesy should be extended to Today's featured article" rather than "is" would make it more accurate; (3) as Yoenit states, it is redundant and would remain so even if my suggested changes were applied.—DCGeist (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Long overdue. As others have said, the last sentence (The same courtesy is extended to Today's featured article.) seems incongruous and extraneous, and I'd be happy with its removal, though I'm open to hearing why it's considered necessary—having said which, it does no harm that I can see. PL290 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Per DCGeist:

1. While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The same courtesy should be extended to Today's featured article. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

   or

2. While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and for compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support version 2 as stated above I see no reason to include the sentence about TFA at all. If a decent reason for inclusion of the sentence is given I would support version 1 as well though. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support either version; prefer version 2. PL290 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support either, leaning 2. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support either the first or second version. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. As written, I think it needs a stronger declarative statement that featured articles are 'not owned', not even by their creator/approver/maintainer. Then... "however.... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership." Also agree that version two is cleaner and keeps perennial proposals about FAs at bay; better to address that elsewhere. Ocaasi 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)