Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kendrick's revert

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

Scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So no disagreement about the need to mention scope?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is a work in progress: sloppiness is encouraged?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from 71.3.52.158, 1 May 2011

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 14.99.90.101, 8 June 2011

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

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

On verifiability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on WT: MoS re reverting poorly summarized edits

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

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

edit protected requests.

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

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

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

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

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

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