This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
Is there a policy on having your email and mailing address on your userpage? Is it allowed? I could see where it might not be allowed because after all it might be someone else's address. I didn't see anything about that on the userpage page. Herostratus05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is permitted but not required. We trust users enough to not post someone else's email as their own, and would probably do something about it if they abused that trust. --Improv06:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Posting your mailing address, however, would be mind-bogglingly idiotic given the amount of harrassment of editors that has taken place. If I saw that I would certainly leave a strong message on their talk page pointing out the potential for harrassment. --Sam Blanning(talk)10:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to warn me then :) I see it as important, as an admin, to be contactable in as many ways as possible.. --Improv13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. That's just nuts, in my opinion. I've had one vandal vow to track me down and destroy me. I honestly don't see how you can be an effective vandal fighter if your identity is known. If you don't have a family maybe its different. At least one editor was severly in danger of losing his job (I don't know how it turned out, but he was in big trouble). Several other editors have been put in fear of safety, job, or reputation. I'd strongly suggest getting a PO box at least. Herostratus08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been very open about my identity, but I would advise new users to be careful about what they reveal, as wikistalkers can learn a lot about you from a few clues. I've been threatened with a law suit over my editing, and other users have been driven off Wikipedia after stalkers contacted their employers. -- Donald Albury(Talk)13:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I choose not to reveal personal info. I've received a few emails through the email function, but I just use a hotmail account that matches my username here, so I can also feel free to reply to any emails I receive. Nothing links to my real personal email. With free accounts so readily available from hotmail or yahoo, it's certainly an option for people to consider if they choose not to be identified. Fan-196714:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! Your mailing address?!? Why not just enable wikimail (so they can click on "email this user" on the left of the page), and give poeple your address if they ask for it and seem to be the sort of person you would feel comfortable with (i.e., highly unlikely to be an axe murder or burglar). SB Johnny14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
History Page
If you wish a page in the history section only to be deleted(i.e. you are happy with current edit but not the old one) is this possible?
It is possible to permanently remove information fom an article's history, but this has been done (as far as I know) only to prevent potential legal problems for the Foundation or to protect the privacy of living persons. -- Donald Albury(Talk)13:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Otherwise, there is no rationale or reason. I wonder if some people know this when I see that some people have experimented, posting peculiar things, only to revert them a minute later. MichaelZ52607:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Image policies
I, like many other WikiPedians, no longer upload images. The whole process is so bloody auto-matic, it's silly. I upload an image and within ten minutes bloody Orphanbot is shitting all over me telling me that my 'media' will be deleted in 7 days if I don't add so and so fukin' tag or link ETC. I'm kinda sick of it. Whilst I know that WikiPedia walks a fine line in the whole Fair use thing, it would be nice if I wasn't gangbaged by robots everry time I uploaded an image. Hole in the wall19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to be insulting, but if you did it correctly OrphanBot wouldn't complain. I have been warned a total of twice for uploading images, and I didn't even upload them. In those cases, their original uploaders left no information and the bot notified me when I replaced the image. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could call this piling on, but I've uploaded close to 90 images without getting a warning. I'm very careful about where I get images from, and I always make sure I've tagged them appropriately. -- Donald Albury(Talk)20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Editing the current reliable source of any controlled ascertainment of knowledge is unduly the truth if all the edits collect the same facts which connect with an absolute truth about the article. For instance pump in a chemical analysis with a acidic perception could alter the sincerity of the outcome. So commerce may have a pump up volume where an encyclopedia could be more intricated like funk and wagondalls. --Beyruling21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Really, I'm trying to be nice, but when you refuse to even read the message it's difficult. What part of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags does not make sense? Click them and you're at the policy. Simple. Furthermore, uploading an image correctly is almost excessively simple. Find the file. Type in where you got it. Select a license from the very nicely made drop down list. Press sumbit. Nothing to it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's a bit trickier than that. If you didn't create the image yourself, you need to make sure the image is acceptable for Wikipedia. --Carnildo19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No it does not. Currently the majority of are images (just) are not fair use use. Fair use is bad and should be used where there is no other option. And I mean no other option.Geni00:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that this subject has probably been done to death in the past, but I ask for your forbearance to broach it one more time. Recently there was a vote at Talk:Syracuse to determine whether the name should link directly to the original city, or whether it should be an out and out disambig page, with the original Syracuse being retitled Syracuse, Italy with the other main ones remaining Syracuse, New York and Syracuse University. The vote went 15-8 in favour of Syracuse linking directly to the original city, but somehow, the New Yorkers had their way and the original Syracuse must go to the cumbersome Syracuse, Italy.
Now I am aware that Syracuse, New York is now much larger than the original Syracuse, and that there is world class uni there. It is also probably true that far more Americans would be searching for one or other than the orginal Syracuse, but on the other hand, I look at the fact that all other Syracuses are named after the original one that has existed continuously for 2,700 years, was once the largest Greek speaking city in antiquity, was the imperial capital of hte Byzantine Empire for a short period, has a UNESCO World Heritage listing - amongst many other notable facts of great significance. I look also at the fact that Syracuse, New York is an acceptable titling in all situations, whereas the same cannot be said for Syracuse, Italy, bearing in mind that Syracuse has only been part of Italy for 145 years, and has actually existed for 20 times that length.
Perhaps it is fair to conclude that Syracuse being a disambiguation page is the most equitable result possible. I would agree if that were a policy applied consistently throughout wikipedia, but there are 100s upon 100s of English village names that point directly to the orginal villages when their namesakes in the new world outgrew them many decades ago. There is a massive inconsistency here. At a minimum it is a clear cut case of Anglo-American focus, but at worst, there is something decidedly unsavoury about it all.
In the specific case of English village names, one problem is that Rambot created lots and lots of articles at Sodbury, Kansas without creating redirects at Sodbury. So when the people writing about Sodbury, Gloucs., come along, they create an article at Sodbury without realising there's another one - no-one knows offhand that Sodbury (pop. 137) gave its name to an equally obscure town in Kansas, so no-one thinks to discuss the relative naming importances until one of them is obviously significant. I wonder if there's some way to identify articles like this, which have a significant part of the name in common, are places, but don't have a primary disambiguation. Shimgray | talk | 10:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, Syracuse has been a disambiguation page for two years now. It is only recently that Syracuse, Italy has tried to change it. "The New Yorkers" (most of who are not in New York), are only trying to keep the page as it has been. The main argument is that both cites have certain claims to the page. Syracuse, Italy has the preponderance of History. Syracuse, New York as the preponderance of all wikipedia visits, and all Google searches, not just American as well as the fact that it is perhaps the largest metropolitan area with a Greek name outside of the Mediterranean make most of the counter examples of other Greek cities moot. The two weeks of discussion on this topic only further demonstrates the Syracuse, NY claim that there is ambiguity, and claims to be made for both sides. The compromise of the last two years still works. I am not entirely sure how this is case of Anglo-American bias, since both communities have a fair claim on this site. Again, we welcome all comments, though we FAR prefer closure in this on going matter.--Niro514:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I invite Wikipedians to take a look at the oppose list and check the geos... There's a Scandinavian, a Sicilian, and I've only checked the first half... Equivocating this to NY vs. the world or US vs. the world is ridiculous. Every major dictionary or encyclopedia lists both Syracuses, some even Syracuse University separately. This is obviously a case of equal disambiguation. -newkai | talk | contribs16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's up with Sodbury. Sodbury has, as far as I can tell, always redirected to Chipping Sodbury, and Sodbury, Kansas has never existed. That's a secondary point, however. If there are English town names that go directly to small English hamlets instead of disambiguating between them and cities in the US, then by all means they ought to be changed. Powers14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops! I racked my brains for somewhere trivial-sounding that didn't actually exist and came up with Sodbury, which I expected to be a redlink the same way as Sodbury, Kansas... I didn't expect someone would have redirected it. Entirely a fictional example to explain how we got this way. Shimgray | talk | 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As has been suggested, if Syracuse, Italy is not an appropriate name (although one can argue it could be since it is currently part of Italy, the history can be found in the article's history section), then by all means, it can be changed to Syracuse, Sicily. Just because Syracuse, Sicily has changed hands between owners, does not warrant it being dominant. Whatever the Sicilian Syracuse ends up being named, disambiguation is the best way to support a world view. Maybe this topic has brought to light other cases, such as the English ones above, but that's another story for another move request... Which so far hasn't happened. -newkai | talk | contribs16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's check the policy. "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." Clearly Syracuse does not pass this test, as only a small fraction of the links to Syracuse articles in Wikipedia go to that specific Syracuse, and the New York Syracuse is more often searched for and read than the Italian Syracuse.
There's no need to make value judgments as to which city is "more important". Based on the existing policy, this situation clearly calls for either a disambiguation page, or for Syracuse, New York to be the primary subject. --dreish~talk02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but I do not see any evidence of this principle being applied across the board, anything but. I can only close by saying that for almost 3 millennia there was one Syracuse, now some others have been named after it about 5 minutes ago, and this is what a few of us are struggling to understand. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)13:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that this principle is not being applied? The fact that some people haven't complained about, say, Apple, which probably ought to be a dab page, doesn't mean that the policy wouldn't dictate a dab page if someone did propose to fix it, and there wasn't a consensus to keep the fruit at that page. I don't think policies are necessarily meant to be rules that everyone must follow at all times, but rather rules to settle disputes when they occur (such as with Syracuse) so that the entire project doesn't devolve into shouting matches.
As for the age of the original Syracuse, that is not relevant to the policy on disambiguation. Granted, most of the people who search for Syracuse in Wikipedia are probably just students interested in the University and wondering what sort of town it is set in, or residents looking for some dull bit of information about their city, while those minority looking for the Syracuse in Sicily may indeed be searching for something more historically and culturally interesting, but the fact remains that those majority of users are looking for Syracuse, New York, so sending them to the wrong page initially just doesn't make sense, and is not sanctioned by the current policy. --dreish~talk20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
ok - but your suggestion (further above) "for Syracuse, New York to be the primary subject" is clearly not sanctioned by the current policy either. Are you seriously suggesting that that is the "well known primary meaning" for the term as the policy requires? I stand by my opinion that this policy is not being consistently applied across the board, mainly because of sectoral or nationalist interests, and where these do exist some obviously get more primacy than others. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)07:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It may be interesting in some cases to describe someone's age at the time of a specific event (At the age of 80 the former president jumped out of an airplane.) but I can't see a general value for giving the current age. Give the date of birth and let the reader do the math. Fan-196718:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fan-1967: also, putting current age into the entry will by definition create text that will soon be erroneous and require continuous updating. Put in the date of birth. Let people's fingers and/or calculators do the rest. Bucketsofg✐20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of template Age is to automatically update the age every time the page loads. This of course does not help with print or if the person dies. I also believe that is unprofessional and not what a encyclopedia should do. An encyclopedic article should last for a long time. Jon51320:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
...and that's the real reason I wear sandals. Seriously though, the "current age" idea just seems somehow unencyclopedic to me too, despite its clever update feature. --Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle21:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
With CSS (class="noprint") printing of the age can be avoided. Something similar can be done to avoid it on CD. On the screen, we are not restricted by traditional limitations of paper.--Patrick22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't currently have any dynamic content, and I think if we're going to this is a pretty big change that should go on the mailing list and be run by both the community and the developers, who need to evaluate the impact on caching. We also would ideally want general mechanisms for adding dynamic content that are easy to use. The current policy, however, is to avoid time sensitive language. Incidentally, the trick with hiding such language from the printed version is interesting. Deco23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe as currently implemented, this won't get updated on every view since the source does not change — which I suspect will lead to very mysterious behavior. IMO, this is a bad idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if anons will continue to see the cached version after it has become outdated, then of course this isn't right. I guess a better question is if it would be a good idea if implemented correctly. Deco01:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As a general point, I would agree with putting ages. Asking the reader to calculate the age is just laziness on the part of the editor. This mostly applies to people who have died though. If you know the exact birth and death dates, you can give their age when they died, and the age at key points in their lives. That is useful information. I do agree though, that there are issues of updating for the age of living people. If you really must put ages in, link them to a specific event. Eg. "J. R. R. Tolkien started writing The Lord of the Rings in 1937 when he was 45, finished it 12 years later in 1949, and the final volume was published in 1955 when he was 63 years old."
So for current ages, find the most recent event mentioned in the article that has a year attached to it, and put the age there. eg. from Steven Spielberg: "On June 14, 2006 it was confirmed that the 60-year-old Spielberg had already begun working on an space travel movie titled Interstellar." (my bits added in bold).
This is an example of a general point that thinking about how to write and organise information can avoid problems like this. Carcharoth01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No! No! No!
A person's current age is not encyclopedic unless they are over 100 years old.
Wikipedia articles should not contain information that will quickly go out of date (even if it is dynamically updated) since Wikipedia content is reused extensively outside of Wikipedia.
A person's current age is trivial to calculate from their birthdate.
Some people may object to their current age being listed in an article (regardless of how easy it is to calculate).
I support Kaldari's point of view for the most part. If there is something notable about their age such as accomplishments or other notable endeavors, then the onus is on the article writer to indicate same in the text. Most biographical articles indicate birthdates and most Wikipedians can do the math. Plus, there are already a number of articles (such as Virginia Hey) where the date of birth is up for dispute. Kaldari's second point is definitely worth noting -- Wikipedia content often appears elsewhere (for better or for worse); even if we had a dynamic template installed that continually did the math and updated itself, you're still going to end up with outdated information appearing else. File this under "don't go there". 23skidoo17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Kaldair has good aims, but there may be some problems with Kaldair's points:
A person's age could be encyclopedic for several reasons, including if they are very young or very old. It could also be encyclopedic in other circumstances; E.g. "At the age of 30 John Smith set out to climb the highest 10 mountains in the world by the time he turns 40. As of 2006 is now 37 and has climbed 8 of the highest mountains in the world."
Age can be dealt with in the manner shown above, "As of 2006..." That way, even if the article does not get updated in 2007, the reader will not be confused.
WP:BLP, which is official policy, states that we should consider not including a person's birthday because it can lead to identity theft and other problems.
I think they would object more strenuously to having their exact birthdate published than they would their age.
It isn't necessary to give someone's current age at all. In nearly all cases it is marginal. This would just create a maintenance burden that probably wouldn't be met. Calsicol00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What to do with non-commercial images from before May 19 2005? They cannot be speedied if they were uploaded before that date. Should they be taken to Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, or copyright problems? Its not that clear where these images should end up. I'm leaning heavily toward copyright problems at this point. Any advice on what to do would be most helpful, as I'd like to clean out the massive noncommercial-only collection of images sitting on wikipedia from pre-May 19 2005. Kevin_b_er03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, try talking to the uploader? In any case where the uploader is reasonable and still available, sending an email or writing a nice note on their talk page (not sticking on an accusatory template) is going to get the best response and the best chance of us getting better permission to use the image. I'd only take it to Copyright problems if the uploader hasn't edited Wikipedia in the last year, or if they don't respond to inquiry within a few months. — Catherine\talk05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A few months is far too long, and will stop anything from being done (heck, a lot of people join and leave the project in that time). I'd suggest giving a week. Let's get a move on and clear out the cruft. --Improv06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It is the date of an imperial proclamation saying that Wikipedia would no longer accept non-commercial images. The intention was that pre-existing noncommercial images should be deleted too, but not immediately, so that replacements could be found or acceptable licenses acquired. Dragons flight18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well the deal is that there is a large number of noncommercial-only images where the uploaders aren't the ones holding the copyright. The images are essentially 'nonfree', but its ambigious as to what policy is for the old images. Kevin_b_er01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Many of us, with other responsibilities in life, only check our XfD pages once or twice per week. For special cases, with clearly defined requirements, there is Speedy deletion.
I oppose turning all RfDs into speedy deletions. The official policy is seven days, and should remain seven days, to give editors time to participate.
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RfD discussion time.
I couldn't find any discussion of the change before it was made, and the change contradicted other instructions that appeared in the page header. I don't care one way or the other about the issue, but I've reverted the change until it can be discussed. I've also added a pointer to the WP:DP discussion to the WP:RFD talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ever since the removal of the scandalous WP:SOCK rewrite, the policy has gone back to its old inconsistent nomenclature. Sock puppet is taken to many any alternate account in the introduction and description of legitimate and forbidden uses. The identification parts then treat all sock puppets as being forbidden alternate accounts. The handling parts then go back to treating any alternate account as a sock puppet. Sock puppet, sock-puppet, and sockpuppet are all used interchangeably. Most tags on the page treat sock puppets as if they were forbidden, with things like "This user is a confirmed sock puppet ... and has been blocked indefinitely", implying that the block was due to being a sock puppet. "Sock puppetry" is nearly always used to refer to forbidden uses.
As I previously listed on the talk page for the policy, I would like to propose changing to the use of "sock puppet" to mean an alternate account used for forbidden purposes, "alternate account" to refer to alternate accounts in general, and "legitimate alternate account" to refer to legitimate alternate accounts. I present the following reasons for this:
Most editors seem to use sock puppet to refer to an illegitimate alternate account. For example, nearly all AfD discussions use these terms.
When editors use sock puppet to refer to both types, it generally causes confusion, since legitimate editors are lumped together with illegitimate editors - this occurred, if I recall, when someone involved with revealing the WP:SOCK rewrite problems said that the article was rewritten by (paraphrasing very liberally here) "two editors, a banned user, and a handful of sock puppets". While most of those sock puppets were Zephram Stark's, one of them was me, a legitimate alternate account. Most editors would not realize that distinction.
When editors use sock puppet to refer to legitimate alternate accounts, it is offensive, confusing, and just doesn't sound right, due to the main use of the term. In my opinion now, I believe that it violates NPA due to the connotations. As for not sounding right - under the current policy, most WP:OFFICE actions are performed by a sock puppet or sock puppeteer. Since bots are also sock puppets under the current definition, quite a few major editors are also puppeteers. If one wanted to violate POINT, one could have quite a bit of fun with this.
The definition of sock puppet elsewhere is confusing. MeatballWiki defines it as any alternate account. Jargon File defines specifically as an account used to give the false appearance of support for something.
I realize that this is not an issue that interests most people, but I would really like to resolve this issue, and am personally rather offended that policy sanctions what is essentially a personal attack against me and quite a few other users. --PhilosophusT00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a second registered account to reserve the use of the nickname I display in my signature. I have clearly indicated the relationship on both user pages, and I don't use the second account for editing. I think that is a perfectly legitimate use of a an alternate account. I'm sure there are other users that have equally valid reasons for having an alternate account. -- Donald Albury(Talk)16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
My account is an alternate account which I use because of my main editing areas (I do NPOV work on pseudoscience articles) - my real account is highly linked to my real name. Other editors I work with have had their employers harassed for their edits, and I have little doubt that my department would have been harassed in these cases as well if I had not been using an alternate account. If I were to make all of my edits under this account I would be rather easily identifiable. But under the current WP:SOCK, I am a sock puppet, and can be legitimately derided as such. Since most people don't understand the distinction, they then think that I am not a legitimate editor - this actually happened to me during the WP:SOCK rewrite. --PhilosophusT01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A bot is not a sockpuppet. If you use it for what it's intended for, it is a bot. However, if you use your bot account to falsify a vote (for instance), yes it is a sock. -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, but your comment is a good illustration of the confusion. A sock, per the current version of WP:SOCK, is any additional username of a user, regardless of use. --PhilosophusT01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the WP:SOCK considers the use of bots as "acceptable", but it would seem you're right. Maybe this policy needs a little lifting after all. -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a TFD discussion on Template:Photo, which posts the following text: "Warning! This article contains pictures you might not want to see. If they offend you, you might be advised to leave the article." The significant potential impact of such a disclaimer needs to be addressed by more than just the few TFD voters who have thus far participated. Postdlf02:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it's a dictionary definition. The deletion policy includes "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)" as grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary states that dictionary definitions and usage guides do not belong in Wikipedia. I would be very surprised, indeed, if there are any reliable sources for any material that could make this more than just a dictionary definition or usage guide. -- Donald Albury(Talk)16:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I just read the article. Yes, definitely just a dictionary definition so it probably will be deleted. The picture itself I don't mind so much. Garion96(talk)16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that, as I pointed out in the AFD, the picture is not a pearl necklace (and I can't believe we're discussing this). Fan-196718:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I know, I read that. But will a warning that it might contain objectional material keep a teenager out? Anyhow - where do you see that warning? It isn't on the main page. I don't remember seeing it anywhere except there. Bubba73(talk), 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No. We go through this regularly. We do not censor pictures that are pertient to an article, although we may move some pictures down the page to avoid too much shock effect when the page opens. I nominated the article for deletion under the "no mere dictionary definition" provision, not under any censorship provision (there isn't one). -- Donald Albury(Talk)00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:not censored is not a license to violate US law. In the US, where our servers are based, pornographic images need to be treated a certain way, that includes keeping model records on file to prove that the actors/actresses were over 18, and it also includes ensuring no one under the age of 18 sees the images. Johntex\talk06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is that they might come across something a parent would rather them not see. I have a nine-year-old daughter. I don't want her to come across that picture. Bubba73(talk), 01:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And let's be realistic. A "warning that it might contain objectional material" won't keep teenagers out. It would attract them. Fan-196701:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of censoring, but editors should consider whether something is in good taste (no joke intended). Bubba73(talk), 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that 'good taste' is an editorial decision about content. Images that may be widely seen as offensive should be used only in support of the contents of an article. Images should not be added to articles for shock value. Graphic images should generally be placed so that they are not apparent when a page first opens. An image of an erect penis is acceptable in the 'Erection' section of Penis, but not in Pubic hair (although a flacid penis is in one of the images illustrating the article). Context and importance in illustrating the contents of the article is what is crucial. -- Donald Albury(Talk)01:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, then, are naked breasts appropraite in the Pearl Necklace photo? I would say not, which is why I brought it up at the Pump. Bubba73(talk), 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I had to cancel my first two edits because it's so hard not to make a joke about this one. But your question is a good one and deserves a serious response. IMO the image is not inappropriate because the article itself has an inherent "sexual context". The image shows only the upper torso which seems appropriate in that context. In fact, even cropping the image to eliminate the breasts would appear questionable, and catering to a particular POV about the human body. --Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) The page above says that it can't violate the laws of Florida. If distributing that photo to minors doesn't violate Florida law, then I guess it is OK. But I was thinking more of having medical textbook illustrations instead of erotica. Bubba73(talk), 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:not censored is not a license to violate US law. In the US, where our servers are based, pornographic images need to be treated a certain way, that includes keeping model records on file to prove that the actors/actresses were over 18, and it also includes ensuring no one under the age of 18 sees the images. That doesn't mean we can't have the article, but showing the picture in the article would be a violation. We could probably put the image behind a link, using {{linkimage}}. Johntex\talk06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Acutally, an even better reference is Legal status of Internet pornography which explains that 18 USC 2257 has now been extended to cover "secondary producers" as well as "primary producers". According to the DOJ, a secondary producer is anyone who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" explicit material. Johntex\talk07:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See: Miller Test. In the US, the First Amendment is regarded as voiding content restrictions when the work, when taken as a whole, has meaningful value. It is likely that most any content that meets our guidelines for inclusion, and hence has encyclopedic merit, would qualify for a First Amendment exemption. As to the record keeping, under present law and regulations, only commercial entities responsible for "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted" (18 USC 2257(h)(3)), are required to maintain records. Dragons flight07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the DOJ unilaterally created the secondary producer category out of whole cloth, it has never been enforced, and is likely be thrown out by the courts as a result of current challenges. Besides which, even their regulations are restricted only to commercial activities (CFR 75.1(c)(2)), so not Wikipedia regardless. Dragons flight07:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are gettin at by "Unilaterally". The US executive branch does set administrative law as required by the legislation. They are not required to consult with anyone else, nor would it be customary to do so. As to being thrown out in the future, that is speculation. (18 USC 2257(h)(3)) has been on the books a long time. I see no reason to suspect this administrative change will be challenged. Does it apply to Wikipedia? Perhaps not. It may apply to our mirrors but not to us. In any event, it is not the only law on the books. There are many other laws relating to the corruption of minors that have not been struck down, in fact they have been upheld. Showing pornography to minors is against the law. Johntex\talk07:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
18 USC 2257 specifically covers only primary producers, the language for secondary producers is an invention of the DOJ that has already provoked lawsuits from the EFF, among others. Since the administrative ruling is substantially broader than the actual code, most observers expect the portion on secondary producers to be struck down. As to showing pornography to minors, Miller v. California is constitutional case law and will apply everywhere in the US. No restrictions on pornography that lack a First Amendment exemption, vis a vis the Miller Test, have survived court challenges. It has been debated before and Wikipedia really has very little to worry about with regards to its use of pornography when presented in a sensible encyclopedic context. Dragons flight08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
(Unindent again, replying to most recent Johntex message, esp the last sentence.) While a cautious lawyer might advise a client not to publish this photo because of the theoretical threat posed by laws not yet struck down, the position the Supreme Court has taken is that the Internet deserves the highest free-speech protection. In large part due to the existence of end-user filtering technology and the superiority of such technology to any legislative effort as a means of preventing children from encountering pornographic or indecent text or images, they have struck down every attempt thus far to censor the Internet for the benefit of children. The photo clearly serves (or attempts to serve, issues of accuracy notwithstanding) a purpose of informing the reader of the meaning of a term. Any competent WWW filter would have no trouble blocking the article. Whether it is a legitimate Wikipedia article is another question, but the claim that it is illegal is frankly a little absurd. --dreish~talk20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Dragons flight and Dreish for your thoughtful replies. I do accept that I tend to be a little conservative when it comes to not getting us sued. We are so conservative on things like fair use images and libel, but we sometimes want to step right up to the line on things like explicit content. I have no problems with the article, though I am not sure there is enough material to merit its own article rather than a merge. I have no problems with the picture, though I do think it would be prudent to put the image in a linkimage template. That does not hurt the availability and gives us some added protection. It seems to me there are other reasons to use the linkimage template besides legal ones. Generally speaking, serious reference encyclopedias do not include pornography. It could easily be harmful to our mission if people feel they can't read Wikipedia at work or school because they will come across such images unexpectedly. I think the linkimage template is a very happy middle ground. Johntex\talk03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The linkimage certainly seems like a reasonable compromise on an issue that will always be controversial. The image is available for anyone who chooses to click on it, but it's not "in your face", which the originally definitely was, in more ways than one : ) --Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Johntex, I guess this sort of consensus-building post demonstrates why you're an admin and I'm not. Having argued my point as far as I can go with it, let me say that I don't have any great desire to see Wikipedia turn into an unfettered medium for pornography, and certainly the picture in question raises questions about whether a policy should be set limiting such things. I think it might be nice to institute some sort of voluntary content labeling system for Wikipedia articles that go beyond what one might find in a secondary school library. --dreish~talk13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Involvement of external websites in Afds?
I'm involved in an editing dispute and would like to know if an editor posting to bulletin boards on websites outside Wikipedia in order to invite people to a Wikipedia AfD or DRV and have them post keep "votes" for his or her article violates any Wikipedia policy? 71.38.130.15615:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It usually will result in a large number of "votes" discounted, at the very least, and is at least strongly discouraged. --Improv15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and the template--that would have come in handy. It appears there is no WP:Foo I can cite about this then? 71.38.130.15616:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a tag and entire guideline for when the subject of an article edits it, but what about when paid employees or volunteers of an organization or company edit their article(s)? This happens more frequently than we probably realize (I've directly dealt with it a handful of times, personally) and takes on many forms, from a publicist dumping a resume of their client to a paid copy writer totally revamping (and superficially, greatly improving) an article at the behest of their employer.
This naturally raises WP:NPOV issues, and can potentially be embarassing for companies that do, and sometimes for Wikipedia as well. I was thinking that it would be useful to have a guideline that would inform companies and organizations of the best ways to correct errors and biases in articles related to them, and also to help Wikipedians develope better ways of dealing with "corporate editing" when it is detected.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion when this happens, even at the highest levels of the project, it's been unclear if we should just axe anything written by paid employees, try to integrate it into the articles if it's unbiased, or what. The more I think about it, we really do need a guideline on this topic, and I don't think it would be instruction creep, since it is a specific solution to a speficic problem.
I don't think it's a problem. Middling-large and large companies don't care about wikipedia enough to advertise, they have separate (and frankly better) avenues. Small companies that advertise tend to fall under AfD (either WP:SPAM or WP:CORP) or spam vandalism. Can you provide a specific example? --ColourBurst19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Schwan Food Company and Bodog are both examples I've been personally involved with where a large (multi-million dollar revenue) company has had paid employees rewrite the article. There was also drama involving Wal-Mart doing it recently as I recall, but I wasn't involved with that. --W.marsh19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As long as they're not violating NPOV or NOR, or deleting information in an effort to make themselves look good (other editors should not let them get away with deleting important information), it doesn't seem like it's a big deal. But the guidelines about writing an article about yourself, ought to apply to high level employees, marketing personnel or paid consultants. -Freekee20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Shared IPs
Why don't we ban all identified shared IPs? Whenever somebody loads a page from such an IP, they can get a special template inserted at the top of the page (maybe a box similar in color to the "You have new messages" box) asking them to register an account before allowing them to edit (or rather, just put that notice up if they ever click on "Edit this page"). It's not hard to make an account (username, password, confirm password, enter), or to login every session (since they're sharing the computer and probably won't keep cookies). Just to make sure it's as easy as possible, if somebody starts making an edit, but forgot about logging in, after hitting the preview or save button, they should be prompted to login, and they shouldn't lose their edits, or have to hit the back button to reload them: "Continue to preview page".
I'm in favor of allowing editting only from logged in accounts. It would make communication a lot easier if you know for sure the person with whom you are communicating is still the same person. Johntex\talk06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How many regular editors are there that made their first edit without signing up for an account? I did for one, and I think it must be a very high proportion. We shouldn't assume that many of them would have bothered with that first edit if they had to sign up. Most people don't. The number of user accounts is only a little over 1% of the total unique visitors per month. Calsicol00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! I finally had a good idea (thanks, Deco). Caliscol has a good point, too. I'm an example of one who edited anonymously, at first. Can the software disallow blanking by anons? A drastic reduction in filesize could be rejected, instead producing with an inviting sign-up message box, complete with 4 textboxes (make the default text descriptive, to reduce the profile). I don't know, it's the little things that attract or repulse people. How are surveys viewed in the wikimunity? Xaxafrad04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly policy-related, so thought I'd announce it here. I noticed while responding to an RfC that this conversation is alive and heated, but taking place in many different places (with the same users going from page to page in some cases), and of course causes an edit-war or two. SB Johnny11:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Main & Sub Categories
I would like to discuss an issue that I have been struggling with for a while now. It involves including the same Article in both a Main Category and a Subcategory.
Example: Jane Doe dies from breast cancer. ‘ Category: Deaths from breast cancer’ is added to her Category box, but not the ‘Category: Cancer deaths’. Then, when I click on the ‘Category: Deaths from breast cancer’, her name is included in the list. But, if I click on the ‘Category: Cancer deaths’ she is not included.
What I am wanting by adding her name to both Categories is a separate list of ALL persons who died from breast cancer, and a separate list of ALL persons who died from cancer. What is the problem with including the same Article in both a Main Category and a Subcategory? Help!
In order to get the full list of people who have died of all cancers, you're going to have to look at the cancer deaths category and the individual cancer subcategories. Subcategories exist in order to shorten the main lists, and, of course, to give categories more order. ~�-newkai | talk | contribs
Newkai,
Thank you for your succinct answer. But, if the problem is making the Main Cancer Category too long, how about Categories such as 'Living people' - what could be longer than that!? And, I see editors putting the Category "Film actors' & 'American film actors' in the same Article. Again, thank you.
That's been a poser for me too in some cases. In the case of the example you cite (is that hypothetical, BTW?), the main category page for "people who died of cancer" would list its subcategories before its pages (e.g, "people who died of breast cancer", "people who died of lung cancer", etc.). Most articles categorized in "people who died of cancer" probably need cleanup to recategorize them as "people who died of such-and-such cancer".
From what I've seen, the general feel for what makes a good category is that it (1) is useful in that it ties in related articles that a reader might want to look into, (2) isn't rediculously large or small (a category with 2 articles might not be useful, a category with 11,000 articles becomes so generalized as to become meaningless), and (3) makes a meaningful connection among articles (for example, "((Category:Articles containing the word shrubbery))" wouldn't really create a good group of articles, though that might depend on one's degree of montypythonoholism). SB Johnny15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, got distracted by the Monty Python thing. The point is that while it might be nice to have a categorical connection between all people who died of cancer (point 1), it would probably make the category much too large (point 2... note that categories tend to be broken up when they reach 200+ articles), and the main category should probably only list people who died of cancers so rare that there's only 2 or 3 people who died of it (the only thing that comes to mind is cancer of the thrid nipple... sorry!), or of a small group (such as accordionists who died of melanoma). SB Johnny15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am beginning (reluctantly) to understand the downside of a large, all-inclusive Category. I admit I’m a lazy researcher, and like my sources to do as much of the work for me as possible. BTW ‘Living people’ is an existing Category in Wiki, and, yes, there are examples where editors have placed both the Category "Film actors' & 'American film actors' in the same Article. As for the cancers of the third nipple; that’s OK unless it metastasizes to the fourth; but now we have to add another Category: Bovine. Thanks for your help.
The ability to view a list of articles based on criteria like the intersection or union of category membership has been requested fairly frequently in categorization related talk pages. There are a couple of tools that might help (although apparently tools are not using the most recent copy of the english wikipedia--I'm not sure how serious of a problem that is or what all that actually means). There is Category Tree and Cat Scan. If the toolserver copy of wikipedia were working properly, the Category Tree could be used to produce a listing of all articles in a category and its subcategories.
Just a note regarding Category:Living people, as explained on the category page, "this category is not intended to be browsable and should not be sub-categorised" -- the purpose of the category is to assist in patrolling articles about living persons for vandalism not for navigation or browsing. older ≠ wiser16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe another project too...
The policy of allowing anon-IP users to edit comes up on this page quite often, usually by those frustrated by acts of vandalism infliced on our beloved wikipedia by editors who take advantage of this policy.
Soooo, I'm wondering if there might be interest in a wikiproject and/or cabal devoted to following up on IP edits. Examples:
When an IP editor edits a page in a positive manner, members of this project/cabal would follow up with a no-change edit, for the purpose of adding an edit-summary remark saying "((user)) approves edit by ((IP))... nice job!", and have some sort of subst:template to add to the IP userpage that would thank them for their positive contribution, expound the virtues of creating an account, and automatically list the IP as an example of an IP user doing good deeds.
When an IP editor vandalizes a page, members would use a template in addition to the ((test...)) templates that says "thanks to people like you many wikipedians have begun to think that signing up for a user account is necessary, contrary to our belief in the ideal of 'anyone can edit'", and automatically add it to a "list of IP users that are perfect examples of why IP users should not be allowed to edit.
When an IP editor adds interesting but non-encyclopedic content to an article, members could use a template on the IP userpage that notes that while their contributions were clearly well-meant, we have (self-imposed) standards to live up to, and that while we might like to help them settle in, it's rather unseemly to refer to someone as a number, and often inacurrate because often multiple users share an IP.
Anyway, this is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not so much. Every time the "IP issue" comes up, it eventually ends up with someone saying "well, that's the way it is, because Jimbo says so". Personally, I agree with Jimbo for the most part (with the exception that I do think that frequent-vandal IPs should simply be permanently blocked), the reality is that (god forbid) Jimbo could get run over by a bus tomorrow (or perhaps die of old age in a few decades), and it might not be a bad thing for the "anti-IP crowd" to be able to build their community up for the inevitable debate. IOW, yes, I'm makin trouble, but I'm makin trouble because I think it's better to have the trouble out in the open, rather than simmering slowly towards a rather unpleasant eruption in the future. SB Johnny17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject: IP Patrol (Anon-IP Patrol? AIP?) Volunteer based, no administration needed. Well, their noticeboard might get busier. Fire up the templates, find out how many anon-edits there are per hour! Is there a policy page for anons? Xaxafrad04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's always better to use a free image rather than a fair use image. However, good-quality free images can be very hard to find for some subjects. National broadcasters such as Bastardi are one of those subjects. For fair use purposes, we could probably get away with the image from his official AccuWeather biography page [1], tagged as a promotional image, but it might be borderline. Powers01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be a serious no way. The guy must appear in public from time to time. In fact he appears to appear at weightlifting events. That would be one logical aproach.Geni03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Addiction
I am now addicted to this stuff, Wikipedia as it's called. I lost my house, my family, my job, my clothes, even my computer! What can I do? I keep reading books and I get confused because I can't find the little edit button on the page. Can you recomend a doctor?
I'm having a discussion at Talk:Narbonic over whether Wikipedia:External links says we shouldn't use external links in article texts. The user I'm discussing with says there's nothing there that says an external link can't be used, only that it's preferred to use an internal link than an external one.
Does this mean that where an article doesn't exist, people should feel free to use external links to websites? Or should WP:EL be changed to make this clearer? (I left a message at Wikipedia talk:External links but nobody responded). Fagstein07:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Whenever possible, internal links are preferred, but the limited use of external links in the text when there is no other option seems to be acceptable to most people, in my experience. This is not to say that there are not some people who are strongly opposed to it, though. Also, I do not recall what, if anything, policy has to say about it. As for non-existent articles, they should be created and then filled with external links. There is even a speedy delete criterion that includes that, A3 (it used to be more explicit about external links, but A4 was merged into it). -- Kjkolb13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia URL policy
Can anyone help in pointing me to a policy that describes how wikipedia constructs URL's? I need to be able to test URL blocking software for a particular set of directories within a domain whilst allowing generic access elsewhere. Does a document exist?
How about writing it into the wikipedia codebase that all talk pages (once created) are forced to have the templates {{talkheader}} and {{todo}} imbedded at the top? I believe this will reduce lengthly discussions, alowing them to get to the point, as well as reducing flame wars, and showing that it is useful to sign posts. A lot of problems could hereon be (at least partially) solved in one. Idealy, if there is a way to only force the templates to be displayed at talk pages that have already been started by a human editor, that should absolutly be done (so as to not give false indication that a discussion has started). Is this possible? - Jack(talk)20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea (I've certainly put my share of {{talkheader}}s on random talk pages (mostly the long ones, filled with unsigned comments, no section breaks)). Why shouldn't it be possible? I could write the code to do it, if I had the source code (ON CREATE, PUT("{{talkheader}}<br>{{todo}}") or whatever language it's written in). But probably something about too much server overhead. How much code would it take to prompt somebody to archive a talk page once it reaches the 30/32kb threshold that makes it pop up the warning about Google toolbar Firefox cutoff issue? Xaxafrad00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem with {{talkheader}} appearing on every page is that it is useful once or twice for new editors, and then wastes screen space forever after. New editors should be advised of good editing practices in a welcome template, and be reminded – if necessary – through a polite note on their talk pages if they forget.
It's not that difficult to fix the work of the occasional newbie who mucks up a section break or forgets to sign a comment, and I'm not sure we want to put up with editors who require a reminder to be civil and abstain from personal attacks on every talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll also echo what Nae'blis had to say, to wit:
Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone. If the message is on every talk page, it becomes effectively invisible, and yet takes up screen real estate nonetheless.
I would like to solicit wider comment on This conversation on AN/I where a third party was adding links to their site, containing last will/testaments of famous people. We need to come to a consensus on if this appropriate or not, and so I asked the CEO of the company to hold off on adding more such links until we can discuss it. --Improv21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:FICTION and its affects debate
After a couple of recent AfDs on fiction related articles, a few editors are complaining about how WP:FICTION is affecting these articles. The most recent of these is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters. Some editors think the guidelines could be tweaked a little in regards to minor characters, others are complaining that the guideline interferes with the create of subarticle stubs and should be eliminated or completely revised. So I'm asking for additional input Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) about the issues. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That page is an interesting comparison of various versions of English, yet it doesn't answer my question. My question is: Which one does Wikipedia use? Colour or Color? I can imagine that, unconsciously, a million edit wars have occurred between those two spellings. The page you cite does not state Wikipedia's policy. What is the Wikipedia policy? --Zaorish19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a policy. The general rule of thumb is, for articles specifically or mostly about American topics - United States, Condoleezza Rice, Carolina Panthers, Hurricane Katrina - you use American spelling. For articles specifically or mostly about British, Indian, or European topics - Ireland, Tony Blair, FIFA World Cup - you use Commonwealth spelling. For any and all other articles, you go with the intent of the original editor. If you get to an article about bread, and the word "colour" is there, you leave it as is. Likewise, if the word "color" was there, you still leave it as is. The only thing that is required is that the language be consistent within the article; all references have to be colour OR color. In cases like the articles on tire/tyre, color/colour, petrol/gasoline, etc. compromises and explanations have been made. --Golbez19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Golbez. That's what I'd assumed, but I feel we should commit to one eventually...I'll think more on this. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.--Zaorish21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be a disaster. It just wouldn't be acceptable. Wikipedia would have to split in two. Well, unless the Americans agreed to use English spelling that is.... 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Methinks this is one of those debates for which there will be no solution so long as the Internet remains an international forum. 23skidoo01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Free-for-all on who makes the article first. Which is why gasoline is the aritlce title, instead of petrol, and why us Americans still haven't been able to get Orange (colour) changed to Color, because the WP:MOS states that whoever makes the first significant changes gets to decide the style. Hbdragon8808:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
What Wikipedia IS?
To clarify first: I'm fully behind the concept of What Wikipedia is not. Contrary to the opinion of one writer, I suspect that What Wikipedia is not is a shorter and ultimately less censoring list than trying to define everything that Wikipedia is.
Yet I'm wondering whether thought has been given to what an encyclopedia, and a wiki encyclopaedia, is. It seems to be assumed that we all know that what an encyclopaedia is, yet some articles deviate considerably from what I believe I read in The Guidelines, yet not from the more specific guideline required.
Let me give it a shot:
An encyclopaedia article provides a layperson with a working understanding, a clarification, of a defined term.
This definition captures a sense implied widely in the Style Guidelines by reminders that the audience of an encyclopaedia is diverse. However it makes a more distinct stand than the current guideline against the several articles that offer almost strictly academic or scientific treatises on a topic; these are clearly not aimed at a general audience (or designed only to impress them but not necessarily to further their knowledge).
I can imagine that this position may, erm, create debate. Especially since I believe I have seen a guideline that acknowledged that an encyclopaedia was a resource for research.
I agree with that position, but surely we don't understand the term 'research' to be unrestricted. 'Research'--in terms related to an encyclopaedia--might mean high-school or even early university students. We surely don't mean academic research in the more advanced sense because that population has its own considerable private resources expressly for that purposes.
In my view, too many of the articles here have used this forum to offer rambling, pedantic academic surveys of their field, rather than focusing on clarification and enlightenment of a general reader.
I'm being too harsh on some authors: what is likely happening is that these authors are having trouble marshalling the diverse ideas into some coherent whole. In either case, I believe the central idea of 'clarification' may be a helpful reminder that a survey may not accomplish the desired goal.
"Write to Clarify a General Audience" should be a guideline. "Not an academic or specialised reference" should be a "NOT".
Not sure if you're aware of these, but there are a few proposals along these lines. Wikikids is a proposal similar to the one you suggested above, and I believe Wikijunior and Wikichildren are more about content geared toward younger people, as opposed to being made by them. However, you would have to read each proposal indepth to figure out the nuances and differences between each one. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
conflicting sources, verifyable and reliable
What do you do when there are conflicting sources, and they are all reliable? For instance, at Savielly Tartakower#Quotations, I found three references that said Tarakower made the comment about all rook endings being drawn, but I also found three equally good references saying that Tarrash said it. Bubba73(talk), 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can send out an email and ask the sources for some more explanation if possible. Or, maybe you may want to simply mention that "X1 says Y is so" but "X2 says Z is so"... But I'm not so sure. --Aminz01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I did list who said what. I'm trying to get an email address. Bubba73(talk),
I tried to contact what I thought would be the most easily accessible of the authors through his magazine, and he doesn't use email, so I sent a paper letter. Bubba73(talk), 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
According to a short discussion on one particular talk page, the creation of the aforementioned articles was encouraged by a college professor in his class to address why universal health care proposals have been defeated despite overwhelming public support for universal coverage. He admits that he devised a common article template for his students to use in order to answer this question or "puzzle", and the edit histories reveal a flurry of referenced assertions in the various sections of each article. Given that the templates conclude with a section entitled "Why the window of opportunity for health reform closed", I inferred that his belief that "health reform is/was an opportunity" was the position being advanced. I understand that research may be needed to make an article factual, but is this stringing together of facts original research even if not done be a single editor? Medtopic05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
From the summary you have given, I would agree with you. Another thing, the word "reform" itself is rarely neutral. The word assumes that the change makes an improvement to whatever is being reformed. Maurreen06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I attempted to expand and rephrase my argument with your idea that desiring change is not necessarily neutral. Cheers! Medtopic21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Suicides & Firearms
I have been entering BOTH Categories, ‘Deaths by firearm’ & ‘Suicides by firearm’ in the same Article. As a result I have been getting some grief from some editors saying they don’t belong in the same Article; that ‘Suicides by firearm’ is a subcategory of ‘Deaths by firearm’. If this is so, I believe it should be changed. ‘Suicides by firearm’ (like ‘Suicides by hanging’) is a METHOD of suicide and, therefore, should be a Subcategory of ‘Suicides’. Thoughts?
I haven't made or proposed a cleanup template before, and I'm not sure what principles I ought to have in mind. Thoughts? Melchoir09:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's great! I actually saw an article just yesterday (Cent (United States coin)), which includes the sentence: "Presumably with the rapid rise in price for zinc (more than doubled in the last six months), the US Mint will have to find another alternative." (Hadn't decided how to edit it yet, but maybe I'll give your template a spin later). --SB_Johnny | talk09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I work for a newspaper and this template is needlessly negative toward newspapers.
My understanding is that Wikipedia:Cleanup is generally for articles that are awful. The complaints you cite would not make anything awful.
For another thing, there is no need to imply that newspaper articles routinely do not "unite related ideas".
Those are the main things. I could give a few more points. But the larger point is that I see no need to put templates on so many articles that we don't like. These are really low-level complaints. WP is far from perfect. Templates should be saved for larger problems. If we got carried away, probably 99 perecent could be tagged for something or another. Maurreen19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree that the examples I gave were awful?
Okay, it might be more accurate to say "This ... reads like a stereotypically bad newspaper article". But then that would be needlessly negative toward the previous editors of the article, who are more likely to be watching and get offended!
I see your point, but I also see useful larger purposes for cleanup templates. They can be easier to apply and more effective at increasing awareness of a problem than a simple talk page complaint, and they can provide a standard list of suggestions and further reading. This template would be easy to use for an editor who spots the problem but isn't sure exactly what to say about it. And I don't think the complaints are at such a low level; a badly organized article is not only hard to read, on Wikipedia it has the even worse disadvantage of being hard to edit! Melchoir20:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope. They were of fair quality. But Luis Sancho is bad.
A stereotypically bad newspaper article would likely still have some news. A bad article is a bad article.
I think the changes you are looking for are unlikely to be helped by a template. But I will propose a compromise, with different wording below. Maurreen20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This article or section may need polishing or structural improvements. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to layout and consider longer paragraphs, more order to the narratives, and more unity for related ideas. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.
Well, the driving idea behind the template is to warn against imitating news style. Whatever people read, they will always try to insert that style into Wikipedia. Essays, advertisements, biographies, video game guides, textbooks -- and newspapers. If we frankly alert editors to the unconscious root of their mistakes, they have an opportunity to think about how an encyclopedia is different. Melchoir21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want a template for "reads like a stereotypically bad newspaper article", would you also support templates for "reads like stereotypically bad academic writing", "reads like stereotypically bad business writing", and so forth? Maurreen21:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. I really wouldn't know until I saw some proposals. Would they include specific, actionable advice? Melchoir22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
They could include such advice. In my observation, “bad newspaper writing” is usually at least more understandable than “bad academic writing”, which is dense and over-uses jargon. But I’d prefer none of these as templates.
How do you figure that newspapers are more likely than anything else to have disorderly narratives, or for related ideas not to be united?
Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article talks about paragraphs and sections; certainly it could say more. As for newspapers being more likely than other media to chop up their topics at random, I don't know how one could prove that, but it's my experience from Google News. Would you like a poll or something? Melchoir23:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)
Articles on blogs and multiple blog links in articles.
Some of these are just pure spam, some apparently aren't, but there seems to be an awful lot of links to blogs floating around (google result).
There are also articles on blogs, such as types of blogs, blogs by country, etc., that have little content other than very long lists of external links (see, e.g., gardening blog, and Romanian blogosphere). What's the policy on this sort of thing? Do these all need cleaning up or VfDs? --SB_Johnny | talk13:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see much use for them either, since they're all contrary to WP:NOR. This morning I've been looking at links to forums as well... there's thousands among the 4 forum sites I've checked for so far, many of which were completely uninformative, and some appearing in linkfarms on articles (e.g. Gardening, links now removed). SB_Johnny | talk13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As it is Sponsored by: LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE & HEALTH FREEDOM LEGAL DEFENSE COUNCIL, I'd like to know if any of the cases reported on involve this law firm. Stephen B Streater16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually on closer inspection there are other cases being reported: "Health Freedom Law applauds Ilena Rosenthal for her courage and determination and congratulates Attorney Mark Goldowitz of the CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP PROJECT for his work in this case. We thank the both of you." The common theme seems to be that they are all cases that involve Dr Barrett from the Quackwatch organisation. David D.(Talk)16:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I know that I have read somewhere, policy, guideline or discussion, that having a section headed trivia in an article, with a list, was unencyclopaedic. That instead if the item was important enough it should be worked into the body of the article. Someone is challenging this and I cannot find where I originally read this. Help please. Doc23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's written anywhere, the sections are just discouraged. The content should just be included in the main body, or if they can't be worked in they should be deleted. Oh, wait. I just found Wikipedia:Trivia...is that what you meant? BrokenSegue02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia will never be a complete source of knowledge.
I decided to check an article on cyanide and happiness only to learn that it has been deleted.
If Wikipedia has any article deleted due to google hits and alexia rating, how will it ever be a good source of knowledge. It won't.
I've blocked this IP and removed the accompanying waste-of-time conversation as being from an incarnation of permablocked user Pce3@ij.net (aka IMHO). If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to restore. --Improv14:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from the edit histories. Wow, if I'd known it was that guy I wouldn't have responded to him! Melchoir18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
To avaid a revert war on the bittorrent page I'm bringing the question of trademark notices here. Background: "BitTorrent" is a trademark and I work for the owner of that mark. Trademarks that are not activly defended are subject to possible dilution and eventual loss so I added a trademark notice to the BitTorrent" page. It's been reverted twice. The third time I put a small ™ and a footnote but that too was reverted by a user who seems uninterested in meaningful discussion. So 1) what is wikipedia policy on trademark notices 2) faced with a letter from a trademark owners corporate legal what would wikipedia do? Sorry if there is help on this already - I couldn't find it. Trapper19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The issue in this case is that the leaves the reader with the incorrect impression that BitTorrent is a proctol like say HTTP and that the name may be used freely. It can't. It could be solved by a header like "This article is about the protocol for the client, see BitTorrent Clients, for the company that owns the trademark BitTorrent see BitTorrent Inc" (i've proposed that on the talk page) but that does not answer the bigger question. Trapper20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the templates at the top of the article, that sounds like a reasonable concern. I'll drop by the talk page. Melchoir20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Countless companies with products covered on Wikipedia own trademarks and have trademark policies. For instance, see Coca-Cola, eBay, JBoss. None of them have trademark notices and links to policies, and they do not seem to have lost their trademarks for it. I have never seen any other articles with trademark notices. I cannot see why your company think they may lose their trademark because an encyclopedia article which the company did not parttake in writing does not include a trademark notice and a link to a trademark policy. If your company has inflicted itself with such an arrogant legal department, I am sorry for an otherwise innovative and fresh company. Haakon20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
will you comment on the header idea - you seem to be the person with strong feeling and I'm tring to find a win win. Trapper20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot that. It seems that awkwardly inserting it into the disambiguation line would make that line harder to read. It would seem out of place, and someone would before long think that to himself and simplify it by removing the trademark stuff. Haakon20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and can not say what they would do if confronted with a specific legal notice; however, I feel that an attempt to enforce the use of ™ or similar artifice would be baseless in this context. You are entirely correct that your company must enforce the trademark on "BitTorrent" in order to preserve your exclusive usage rights, but this requirement is intrinsically limited to only those contexts wherein you are granted exclusive usage rights in the first place, i.e. primarily commercial contexts where there is the possibility of confusion by the public. The existence of a trademark does not prevent the exercise of the right to freedom of speech, and any party may still use "BitTorrent" as a means of identifying your company for the purposes of critical commentary or discussion. Further, third parties using a trademark under conditions protected by the freedom of speech are not legally required to identify the mark as such (in the US at least). Standing practice on Wikipedia is not to identify trademarks as such, unless the existence of the trademark in particular is likely to be interesting/surprising to the reader. I have no specific opinion on whether that is the case here, but you are certainly entitled to argue that case if you so choose (probably best offered at Talk:BitTorrent).
All together, I believe Wikipedia would be entirely within their rights to decline to add an identifier specifically noting that BitTorrent is trademarked. Further, given established practice, I would be surprised if any request to add such an identifier based solely on the preferences of BitTorrent Inc. were to succeed. In my opinion, the only course of action that might succeed is to argue that mentioning the existence of a trademark is in some way more interesting/surprising to the reader than the existence of a trademark would be in relation to a typical protected product or service. Dragons flight20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Also note that the "BitTorrent" mark seems quite unenforced in the places it matters. All the most popular BitTorrent clients aside from the one from BitTorrent Inc, seems to show no signs of mentioning the trademark. See the websites of Azureus, µTorrent, and BitTorrent. I would recommend that BitTorrent Inc diverts their energy to these and others, since they actually matter (from my layman trademark knowledge). Haakon20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no obligation to acknowledge or disclaim the trademark because Wikipedia is not using the term in trade. Furthermore, in our general disclaimer, we state:
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the GFDL licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikipedia can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.
Our use of the marks is informational, and it is long established that persons using marks for informational purposes are under no obligation to preserve or protect those marks from dilution, nor do they need permission to use the marks.
One more quote, to make our day complete: "Much useful social and commercial discourse would be all but impossible if speakers were under threat of an infringement lawsuit every time they made reference to a person, company or product by using its trademark." New Kids on the Block v. New America Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 307 (9th Cir. 1992). Kelly Martin (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Current team rosters in sports articles
It is my considered opinion that the inclusion of "current" team rosters in sports articles serves no encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia articles are intended to be "timeless". Frequently the rosters in the articles are out of date, and will become increasingly so if the individual fan who is maintaining the roster happens to stop. We should abolish "current rosters" from sports team articles on the grounds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a sports gazetteer. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. They do go counter to the timeless nature that we are striving for. Plus, nearly every major sporting league (MLB, NFL, etc) have team pages that can be linked to with an updated roster. In the wikipedia article is it just a matter of adding a Current Roster sub heading with an external link to that page. Serves the same affect but will always be up to date. Agne17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Something in that form is always going to exist... since people want to list the current team players on a team's article. If they get inaccurate that's more of a reason to fix it than remove it. If we try to set a threshold for when we can mention that a player plays for a certain team... it's just going to seem like instruction creep. --W.marsh17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's necessary to have a current roster somewhere. It's kind of silly to have an article about a team and not list its members. Perhaps the "current" roster can be in a linked-to page about the latest season. There are certainly some team articles that are too long and too centred around the current season. Fagstein17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a discussion related to this at Wikipedia talk:As of. I think the reality is that there's no practical way to keep information that will not age well out of Wikipedia (should we not include "current" political officeholders as well?). To some extent, being able to include time sensitive information is one of Wikipedia's differential strengths. Rather than abolish it, perhaps we simply need a better way to cope with it. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say the "fluid" nature of sports rosters causes more out to date info then listing current political office holders. Think about baseball especially from the trade deadline thru Septemeber call ups. In contrast, we can be reasonably certain that George Bush will be president till Jan 2009 and that Mel Martinez will be Senator of Florida thru 2010, etc. Something certainly needs to be done and I think a compromise can be acheived. Instead of the current St. Louis Cardinals page (which tends to be more up to date then others) listing every player you include (example below) Agne17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But then we can't link to individual player articles, or provide any information of our own on the roster, or correct any mistakes in the MLB's list, or provide information when their website is down etc. We're perfectly capable of having team rosters, and I think the information it provides is worth the risk of momentary misinformation. Fagstein18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition, as somebody involved in WikiProject Football it's more a problem trying to get editors to wait until transfers are completely finalised than making sure squads are kept up to date. --Daduzitalk19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If the slang is listed with a header to the page with a brief description, I believe that is allowed, as it is descriptive in the sense that it is a list of that which is enumerated and described at the top of the article. The list is a series of examples of what could be defined as slang, so I don't think it would be prohibited. MichaelZ52602:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The article fuck is a popular illustration of how a detailed article can be constructed around a word without being just a dictionary definition. Deco21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
which time zone does wikipedia use?
Hi...Can anyone tell me which of the world's timezones wikipedia uses when an article mentions a specific time? Are they standardized to one timezone?
thanks!
The standard code UTC which appears on history means universal time, which basically means Greenwich Mean Time or GMT, or, if you ever saw the TV show JAG, they called it Zulu time. It's basically the time in London during the winter, when summer time (what Americans call Daylight Savings) is not in effect. Fan-196718:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If a time is mentioned in an article then it probably uses the timezone of the place where the event happened. For example (from Polish September Campaign) "the first such attack occurred at 4 AM on 1 September", refers to local time, rather than UTC. --Cherry blossom tree19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Categories that are members of Category:Sports in the United States by city tend to contain a bunch of articles all sorted under the first letter of the city name. For example, the Category:Sports in Baltimore contains a ton of articles under "B" for "Baltimore", which seems redundant. It would make more sense to me to sort the articles under the team name instead, so "Baltimore Americans" would be under "A" and "Baltimore S.C." would be under "S". This was brought to my attention when all of the teams in Category:Sports in Rochester, New York were actually re-alphabetized under "R" instead of under the team name where they were previously. Any thoughts? Powers14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You can fix this by putting the category onto the team page like this, for example on the Baltimore Orioles page: [[Category:Sports in Baltimore|Orioles]]. This will list the Baltimore Orioles under "O". User:Zoe|(talk)02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I know how to do that, and in fact have done so in the past. As I mentioned above, someone (no need to name names) removed the sort terms on the pages in Category:Sports in Rochester, New York. When I questioned the user about it, I was told that it was done to conform with all the other categories in Category:Sports in the United States by city. I am here to question which should be the standard so that we can either leave them all the way they are, or sort them by team name. Powers13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Board game categories
There is a disagreement on Go about what categories Go should be in. I'll let the protagonists speak for themselves if they want to, as they have rehearsed the arguments. Stephen B Streater07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Postdlf wrote: I get really annoyed by how unfocused these discussions become; whether we should on our own initiative decide that certain content should not be provided to children, whether and why certain schools may have blocked Wikipedia and what we can and should do about it, and what we are legally permitted to do overlaps only superficially. The analysis is completely different for each issue and they can't be discussed all in one cacophony.
Agreed. The one new and interesting discussion, in my opinion, is the fact that schools may be censoring wikipedia. Is there a source for this information? i think it is a no brainer that a goal for wikipedia is that some version of wikipedia should be available in schools. Even if it is only the CD version 1.0. David D.(Talk)21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the goal, but not with the method. If a school blocks access to (all of) Wikipedia, that's their loss. And a big one, I think. But the way to change that is not to try the impossible task of censoring an open medium that "anyone can edit", but to convince them that the value offered is greater than the (mostly imaginary) risk. --Stephan Schulz21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly lobbying for such freedom of information is a good proposal too. i have my doubts that many schools would go for it. And now I think about it, it might be articles like evolution that are the problematic ones, not the other weird stuff. David D.(Talk)21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly only in very sad, primitive, backwater countries ....(sorry, could not resist the sitting bird). But seriously: How many schools do block Wikipedia? Is there even one known case? --Stephan Schulz21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been beaten to death every month or so. The conclusions:
Wikipedia easily passes the Miller test: it is not affected by any of the laws regulating obscenity.
Wikipedia does not distribute material intended for erotic stimulation. Therefore, it is not bound by the record-keeping rules of the pornography industry.
There is and can be no objective standard for "pornographic", "objectionable", "harmful to minors", or anything else in that vein.
Cultural standards extremely widely between areas where the English Wikipedia is read: everything from the extreme restrictions in Iran to the openness of liberal parts of Europe.
Attempts to come up with warning labels for articles get deleted in short order.
I don't think we can suggest a solution to the blocking problem without better information on why WP is being blocked - for all we know, perhaps students just waste too much time editing it. Deco21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the "anyone can edit" part that kills Wikipedia in schools. School web filters are generally extremely conservative -- Geocities, for example, is blocked simply because anyone can set up a webpage there. No amount of warning labels will get Wikipedia unblocked. --Carnildo21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming they are blocking it, that is a very good point, it could easily cause a disruption in the class room. Re Schulz above, but are they blocking it? one thing we do know is that many vandals are doing it from school computers, so certainly not all schools are blocking it. David D.(Talk)21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a consultant to about 20 schools (K-12 range) and the #1 complaint from teachers and librarians is sexually explicit language of the sort that appears in major articles every day. Yes, they get reverted in a few minutes but one glimpse by a teacher or librarian is probably enough. the schools have to worry about the parents complaining. As long as Wiki tolerates sexually explicit vandalism it will have a very serious problem with k12 schools in the US. Rjensen22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"tolerates"? I don't know about you, but I am very intolerant of sexually explicit vandalism in articles. In the pages I work on it is actually quite rare, but the potential for this kind of vandalism is an inescapable feature of our system. Personally, I think that ultimately it is the education system in America that has a problem if they are so concerned about the mere chance of accidentally seeing a sex image that they are willing to shut out a powerful educational resource like Wikipedia. Dragons flight22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Wikipedia does not tolerate any vandalism, sexually explicit or not. If you mean "as long as wikipedia is hit by sexually explicit vandalism", you may be right, but as Carnildo says, as long as "anyone can edit" we cannot prevent all vandalism. The solution would be to create a static version of Wikipedia, from which our adult content can be removed. As Wikipedia is GFDL'ed, anyone can do this; if there is a demand for such a version, someone else will build it, and we don't have to. Eugène van der Pijll22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
How about a filtered Wikipedia mirror?
How about all the folks objecting to:
nudity
alleged political bias of whatever sort
lack of sufficient peer review
excessive editorial oversight
discussion of religious dogma alongside scientific thought
discussion of scientific dogma alongside religious thought
Articles on trivial or superficial subjects like Pokémon or American Idol
Userbox templates
Userboxes that are subst'd
Impolitic suggestions concerning the sovereignty of places like the Falklands, Taiwan, Tibet, or Kashmir
Zionism
Anti-semitism
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
on Wikipedia--setting up your own mirrors, imposing the editorial policies, POV, and agendas of your choice, and documenting human knowledge as you see fit (excluding those bits which you find heretical, offensive, or otherwise inconvenient)? Think of all the wikis we could sprout! That way, those of us who want to write a serious, comprehensive encyclopedia can do so, without all the tiresome arguments of how Wikipedia needs to get rid of X? GFDL means you can fork off whenever you like, taking the whole 200Gb or so, and start your stuff there. If Wikipedia were to remove everything which some demagogue thinks objectionable to children (or to adults--"protect the kids" is mainly a phenomenon in Western democracies where it is used as a rationale to justify circumvention of the free speech laws), we'd have nothing left.
An encyclopedia for children is a great idea. But Wikipedia should, first and foremost, be an encyclopedia for mature adults (though not an adults-only encyclopedia; there is a difference)--just because some net-nanny doesn't like our editorial policies and decisions, doesn't mean we should bend over to please every censor in the world. Those with legal authority over Wikipedia's servers in Florida, we ought to watch; however, I'm not aware of any attempt to bust Wikipedia as a porn site. As a general reference work; Wikipedia easily passes the lemon test, and likely has little to worry about. (Any material which doesn't pass the lemon test, such as the occasional groatse post, ought to be removed; but about this there is little controversy).
The lemon test? That deals with separation of church and state. Maybe you mean the Miller test? WP doesn't really pass the Miller test with respect to all localities, but few websites do. Deco21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Miller test is a conjunction. All three conditions must be met. Tell me how Wikipedia could possibly meet "The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." --Stephan Schulz21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Edcon To clarify Stephan's point, all three "prongs" of the three-prong Miller test must be met for a work to be legally considered obscene. As it would be difficult to argue that Wikipedia lacks serious literaly, artistic, political, or scientific value; bringing obscenity charges against the WFM or the encyclopedia's editors would be difficult. (More to the point, winning a conviction would be difficult... sufficiently hard-headed prosecutors can often bring charges for whatever they like...) --EngineerScotty21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In all the above debate (now removed) most people were not arguing that wikipedia was equivalent to a porn site. That was the strawman set up as people were not willing to address the actual argument. i.e. wikipedia could be more kid friendly. David D.(Talk)21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, that would be crazy. Actually, I am assuming the CD version 1.0 is probably a step in the right direction for a children's edition. It also has the advantage of being a non editable version, so it may also be more school friendly too. David D.(Talk)21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking about making Wikipedia more "kid friendly". Accepting a lot of questionable assumptions, we might make it more accessible for kids, not more friendly. It seems like you (Dave) subconsciously buy the argument that censored
Straw Poll
Just a small straw poll, as I was thinking the other day. I will take no position on this, I just want to see what Wikipedians in general think. This isn't a question of policy really, just of personal preference.
The question is, which would you rather have as an article (as a general question):
1. Reasonably well written, useful, and expansive article that is nearly completely lacking in sources.
or
2. Short, less useful article that is fully sourced and highly accurate. DarkShikari13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
#2 by a landslide. Article #1 rarely turns out to actually be accurate, or if it is today, it won't be next week. And it is a question of policy. Wikipedia policy says that reliable sources should be cited for all material. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think your use of "useful/less useful" makes it clear what position you're taking. #2 if I have to vote--sourcing is is a must--but how about #3, a useful, fully sourced article of the right length? We have a tendency to stuff articles full of every random fact someone feels a need to add, and they're really hard to trim--as long as any given fact is "true", someone will object to its removal. The result is bloated, shapeless, interminable articles with no sense of what's important. Which is bad, imo. · rodii ·16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed—why can't we add sources and trim trivia from #1, while expanding #2 to be more useful? I thought we eventually wanted all of our articles to be both thorough and well-sourced. If you have a specific article dispute in mind, however, it might help to provide context—and help us to provide specific comment and advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't thinking at all of that when asking this question. I was thinking of the large number of informative but unsourced articles Wikipedia has, that if you removed all unsourced material, they'd end up as stubs. I'm really not sure what to think myself. DarkShikari19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
David D. you didn't answer the question. "Long, meandering and unsourced" was not one of the options. The best answer is clearly 1. Sources may get academic marks, but they don't actually make anything either true or neutral. Academics churn out huge numbers of well-sourced but wrong-headed articles, many of which actually set out to mislead. Judging an article by the level of sourcing is lazy and creates fall comfort. 62.31.55.22304:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Warnings on pages with strong sexual content
Hi folks. I am fairly new to WP though I 've tried to add whatever I know to whatever I could think of.
I noticed how pages with content for a very mature audience might be accessible to young people. Shouldn't there be safeguards against this. Perhaps there should be a warning about age requirements before entering such pages.
I must clarify that I am not talking about sexuality here but offensive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunty.Gill (talk • contribs)
A strong belief is that Wikipedia is not censored for minors and putting any sort of age restriction on pages would probably met a strong resistance. However, a sort of content warning template similar in intent to what we have already with spoiler warnings for films & novel could be appropriate. Agne17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As a community belief that is fine, but we have an ethics issue here - making such strong content so easy easily accessible to minors is dangerous. Bunty.Gill17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
To avoid hypocrisy? We are told we can't use fair use images in articles on world leaders because the intent is to make Wikipedia accessible to school children (free use being the preferred method of delivery). So how can wikipedia be of use to children if parents and teachers block access to the site due to strong sexual content?Michael Dorosh17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow your argument, but if parents and teachers want to block the site that's up to them. I don't think a few spoilers would make any difference. --Tony Sidaway17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A disclaimer that does not appear when needed?! What if a kid types out en.wikipedia/org/Fuck in the address bar to see what the word he heard his school senior means. He/she never got to know that he/she is heading into dangerous territory. I hope I am able to make myself clear here. Bunty.Gill17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My Oxford Advanced Learner's has a red-colored triangle with an exclamation mark in it *BEFORE* the entry for Fuck, and labels it out as "Sexual Slang". Bunty.Gill17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What, and that's supposed to stop kids from reading the entry? It sounds to me like, if anything, it would attract the kids. When you emphasize a word like that you are actually doing more of a disservice than if you just leave it as one word amongst many others. That's actually highlighting the material you find "offensive". --Cyde↔Weys18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
One, the whole thing was just an example of a possible situation to justify why we REALLY need such a thing. Two, if that's what the kid wants to do - fine, but atleast she/he now knows. S/he may have wandered to the redlight area, but will not enter if s/he does not want to. Bunty.Gill18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should just put the answer to this question in a template (like user:Raul654/protection)- I'm getting really tired of having to retype the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again. Raul65417:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're too weary to participate in the discussion, then feel free to not participate. :-) Just don't blame us for wanting to discuss it. Some people aren't online here 24/7.Michael Dorosh17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What's left to discuss? Every aspect of this issue has been discussed at great length - to the tune of many hundreds of kilobytes. The problem is that people keep coming along wanting to beat the same dead horse, at which point, we should simply write the correct and proper answer down somewhere so it doesn't repeat the same (oft-repeated) effort. Raul65417:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Every time someone suggests we should protect the featured article (which happens often) I say no and point them to User:Raul654/protection; someone needs to create a page with the answer to this question (no) and point to it when this question gets asked (which happens often). Raul65418:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that Wikipedia hasn't violated any laws, and so is in no danger of prosecution, what exactly is the "danger"? Postdlf17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the inconsistency. Wikipedia doesn't pretend to uphold any particular moral code that would label some material appropriate or some non-appropriate. The stated desire of providing free knowledge to all covers all types of knowledge-even knowledge of some things that a particular indivdiual may feel is inappropriate. They can make that designation on their own, Wikipedia will not do it for them. Agne17:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not inconsistency, but a sense of responsibility towards those who are unaware of the (somewhat dangerous) possibility.Bunty.Gill18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, here is the repeated assertion that it is "dangerous". How is it dangerous? You're arguing in circles now. --Cyde↔Weys18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you want me to do? Write an article in WP on the effects of pornography and sexual slurs on minors? You see it circular because you are behind a (very biased) lens. Bunty.Gill18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You're calling me "very biased" yet you fail to offer up even a single shred of evidence to support your assertion that things you happen to find inappropriate or offensive are dangerous to children. What is inherently so dangerous about an image of a naked body? --Cyde↔Weys19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a biologist and wish to specialize in neuro. In case you want to quarrel, I am on more solid ground. But I'd rather that you give me a moment, and I 'll bring the "shreds" that you are so desperate for. Bunty.Gill19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the images would simply be a way of using WHAT LINKS HERE to find gnarly porn-type content and would have the opposite effect of that intended.!Michael Dorosh18:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
They'd just be magnets for those wanting to find that stuff anyway. The problem isn't in identifying unsuitable content, the problem is that it is permitted on the site to begin with. That won't change, so Wikipedia will continue to labour under a set of inconsistent pretenses.Michael Dorosh18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Those disclaimers assume that there is an objective, non-culturally contingent way to determine what may be "appropriate" for children. But if we're going to go with those, I'd add the "not suitable for children under 12" warning to quantum physics, because it's too difficult for that age level to understand. Also, Ann Coulter should have that warning, because at that age children lack the ability to dissect rhetoric and factually evaluate the kinds of extremist political and social statements she makes to sell books. If this isn't what you meant by "appropriate" or "suitable", please elaborate. Postdlf18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate as in "possibly objectionable" and " potential permenanent or temporary psychological damage". Bunty.Gill18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Like what? Please provide a citation that backs your assertion that your example causes permanent damage. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you be a little more concrete (for those of us who don't have time to read the book right now)? What's your exact premise as to what causes harm to children, what children are harmed by it, how that harm is caused, and what that harm is? Postdlf18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Give me some time to answer that. I may write an essay or a WP article, depending on what the content turns out to be like. I need to dig up my local library to build up a convincing case. Bunty.Gill18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a dissertation, just a less vague description of your position in response to simple questions. What is your understanding of the issue? Postdlf18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding rude here, why don't you take a stand? Do you or do you not want me to offer facts? I already offered the opinion (as opposed to facts). Bunty.Gill19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Because you're advocating for a change of some kind, yet the opinion you've presented in this advocacy is too inchoate for anyone to analyze: offensive (?) text and/or images causes (?) harm (?) to children (?). I have no idea how you're using those terms (all of which could mean many things in this context), and so I have no concrete understanding of what you are talking about. Until you try to give some fixed content to those terms, I can't really get more out of your statements than "content I do not like changes people I consider helpless based on their age alone in ways I do not like." Postdlf19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK Michael Dorosh, I am a newbie here, but you can't just terminate this whole thing like that. I want to "BE BOLD" with you. Convince me about the page for which you gave Raul654 the go ahead. I understand that it is *his/her* subpage but you are passing it off as a sort of consensual one. (Don't bite me, I am new here.) Bunty.Gill18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I meant Postdtf. If a children's Wikipedia is created, we are not going to need these, because, that propably will not be blocked by parental control programs. If we don't flag pages, eliminate offensive content all together, or create a children's wikipedia, Wikipedia will be of no use to children any more. Ashwin Narasimhan18:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how "offensive" suddenly got imported into "appropriate" or "suitable," as my examples just dealt with the ability to comprehend a difficult subject. I note from your user page that you are 14; what pages and/or subject matter would you like to be restricted from seeing? Postdlf18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no subject matter that I wouldn't want to see. I would be benefited by having Wikipedia unblocked, because my school blocks Wikipedia, which is still my primary source of information. Ashwin Narasimhan18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We have an effective tool that has been used successfully on several articles that contain graphic content. This tool is the linkimage tool. Using this tool, we allow a reader to read a text article on a given topic and then click the linkedimage if they want to see the image. Some advantages to this approach:
It's been proven to work on articles like Autofelatio
It allows people to read the article first without being presented with what may be a shocking image to them. It is entirely reasonable that people will not realize an article contains graphic content jsut from the name. For one thing, they may not know what the word means. Second, the link may have been written a different way, like soup. Third, since most serious reference works don't show pornographic images, it is entirely reasonable for a visitor to suppose that we would not show such images.
It keeps the image available here on Wikipedia for people who do want to make the informed decision to view the image.
It requires no code-development, no user-preference buttons to be created or set.
It allows us to better comply with regulations that prohibit display of pornography to minors. By clicking on the link, they are making their own decision. This is far better than the "site warning" that we supposedly have - because the reader has to actively seek out our site warning. It is not presented upon coming to Wikipedia from Google or any other link.
Please allow me to turn that question around. How do you define a noteworthy subject for an article? How do you decide whether a specific source is reliable enough to be included in an article? How do you decide if a portion of an article is sufficiently similar to a previously published work to be a copyvio? How do you decide if an article is sufficiently well written to be a Featured Article? The answer is that editorial judgement has to come into play in each of these cases. Johntex\talk19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Although some argue it's a violation of WP:NOR, it is entirely unreasonable to argue that editors may not use any judgment whatsoever. Michael19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And in addition to all of that you just cited you want to add massive flamewars about whether something is "offensive" enough that it should be linkimaged? --Cyde↔Weys19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
But in reality it'd be one huge shitfest, and I, for one, would really not want to have to get involved in that. --Cyde↔Weys19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Especially when you have conflicting moralities. For example I have seen people complain here and elsewhere about photos showing women in swimsuits (and I'm not even talking bikinis or thongs). I've seen complaints raised because an image had too much cleavage. There are people who have moral standards (regarding body exposure and language) that are still in the 1950s; when these people cross paths with people who feel that the morality of the 21st century allows for more leniency, you end up with arguments and bad blood and no consensus. And I'm just talking about "prude-ism" if I may invent a word; I haven't even started when it comes to the use of language. 23skidoo19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As with all the other decisions that we make everyday, guidelines can be developed and a middle ground can be chosen. We already have that today, by the way, as evidenced by the fact that linkimage has been proven to stabilize certain pages from edit warring about what is appropriate. Johntex\talk19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with what any particular person finds offensive. It is a discussion about the fact that wikipedia is blocked by insitutions or parents and thus many children have no access to the resource. I agree, a children's wikipedia that is tame enough not to be blocked would be a useful addition to the wikipedia family. Above Postdlf asked "Why do they block it? What exactly, in your opinion, would have to change for them to unblock it? " One very good reason that wikipedia gets blocked is the weird things people put on their user page (see an example of this on Cyde Weys page in the Explore section top right). Whether one finds this kind of stuff offensive or not, it is hard to argue that this will not cause school to block wikipedia on their computers. David D.(Talk)19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should all be encouraged to speak our mind, it helps us move forward. Personally i think you are making some good points. Times change and despite what Raul says about this being discussed ad nauseum i see no reason why such discussions should not be repeated. I see it as a big flaw in wikipedia that schools are actively blocking it. It's actually worse than universities banning students from using it for research projects. At least at the universites students can make that choice themselves.David D.(Talk)20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is a problem. Our goal should not just be to make an encyclopedia. Our goal should be to make an encyclopedia that is maximally usable to the maximum number of people. Johntex\talk20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
By which standards? This is an international resource, so should we use US standards? Or Norweigan standards? Or would you be ok with Iranian standards that forbid pictures of females who aren't wearing Burkhas? This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for minors, there's no global standard. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"maximally usable to the maximum number of people" would suggest shooting for a balance. I suspect that few people in Iran would be allowed by their own government to use such a resource, so there would be no benefit to taking out images of females who are not wearing Burkhas. Johntex\talk20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Jontex) Given this is the En encylopedia i would think the standards for US high schools would be a good place to start (certainly Iran seems to be less important to consider). Its not like there is no precedent here with regard to what schools find acceptable. My guess is that the CD that is curremtly being produced has a much tamer version than the online one here. I assume, however, we find that agreeable? David D.(Talk)20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that this is indeed the en: Wikipedia, let me remind you that en: stands for English, a language spoken both as a native and as a secondary language around the world. If you want a us: Wikipedia, feel free to create one. But even within the US, high school students are a distinct minority. And even within US high schools, you will find a rather large inconsistency about what is acceptable and what is not. Catcher in the Rye and Harry Potter have both been removed from some US school libraries to protect the childen... --Stephan Schulz21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's be reasonable here. Bringing in extremely rigid countries as examples is unfortunate. More often than not, all countries have reasonably uniform laws regarding what kind of content is unsuitable for minors. User:Postdlf has a DJ so he/she may be able to say more on this, although I have reason to believe I am correct. Bunty.Gill20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the school blocking is unfortunate, but as above comments have suggested, we can't please everyone by excluding everything. I think a better solution than bowdlerizing Wikipedia is 1) make sure that our articles on "controversial" or "offensive" topics are chock full of academic integrity and serious scholarship, and 2) for anyone who's really interested to set up Wikipedia mirrors that can be sans sexuality, sans violence and war, or sans whatever the PRC government doesn't want its citizens to see at the moment. Call these "children's wikipedias" if you like (though I think simple.wikipedia.org already fits that label), but I encourage anyone who is concerned about these issues to set up a school-friendly, Muslim country-friendly, or totalitarian regime-friendly alternative. It would be easy for a mirror to filter whatever content it wanted based on our category system rather than any reference to "appropriateness" or "offensiveness"; a mirror could exclude anything within such controversial topics as Category:Sex or Category:Republican Party (United States) or their subcategories with little effort. Postdlf20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Serious question: Is the blocking of Wikipedia by schools actually a widespread problem? I'd never heard of it before today. Schoolchildren are a part of our audience, and to an extent, we should cater to the needs of our audience, but before contemplating substantial changes on the grounds that some people can't read Wikipedia, I'd like to know whether or not there are actually a substantial number of schoolchidren who are presently being blocked from accessing Wikipedia? Dragons flight20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should cut to the core of the issue. I suspect that some of the folks participating in this discussion feel that there are some things that simply should not be in the encyclopedia because they find them offensive. If that's the situation, can we get to that now rather than later? It'll save a lot of time. If not, then we might as well get that question out of the way now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no easy resolve for this issue. It's a cultural thing. A naked breast might not upset a German parent, might anger an American parent, and might outrage someone from an even more conservative country (pardon the stereotypes). I remember the one semester I spent in Germany in sixth grade. Our biology book had real photos of naked 5, 15, and 25 year-olds of both sexes to demonstrate human development. -newkai | talk | contribs20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think pornographic images are harmful to the credibility (because they are not expected and not customary of mainstream research works) and usability (because they lead to blocking) of the project. I support linkimaging those images as a compromise that helps address this concern while still keeping the images available. Johntex\talk20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can _you_ objectively define love, passion, hate, frightening and family? There are some areas where objectivity is inevitable, but that does not mean they are nonsense. And this is also the reason why WP needs humans. Bunty.Gill20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you give a real answer for once instead of just continually trying to divert attention to other topics? We're talking about supposed pornography here, not "love, passion, hate, frightening, and family", which we don't seem to be having a problem with. Stop using straw men and stay on topic. --Cyde↔Weys20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Coming from you, that does sound very convincing indeed. And to answer your question, I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer your queries that ostensibly aim more at propaganda and pushing your opinion than genuine discussion. Bunty.Gill20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What is "pornographic"? I bet you would categorize a lot more images as pornographic than I would. For instance, I would consider the images on Vulva, Penis, and Anus to be encyclopedic rather than pornographic; to me, pornographic means intentionally sexually-stimulating, not just an image of a naked person. --Cyde↔Weys20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Obscenity on the internet that is open to people under 18 is a federal crime in the USA. If any US federal prosecutor thinks an image on Wiki is obscene, Wiki could be shut down in a matter of hours and have years of litigation before it could reopen. The determination of what is "obscene" will be made by a federal jury (selected in the state the Feds think is most anti-obscenity.) Rjensen20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The worst way to fight a totalitarian police state (which is what you are describing) is to simply give in to it. --Cyde↔Weys20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, we're talking about access of wikipedia in the schools NOT totalitarian states. I am not offended by any of cydes picture, but that is not the point. The point is, if wikipedia is censored on school computers is there a way to solve this problem. Blaming the schools for censorship is easy but does not solve the problem (assuming there is a problem). David D.(Talk)20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Any kind of warnings, censorings, etc. would cause an ideological WikiInsanity of argumentation over what is pornographic, what is suitable at 12, 18, etc. Don't forget we already have images which are banned for any person in some countries. -newkai | talk | contribs20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
from Wiki: In 2005, the United States Justice Department, under Attorney GeneralAlberto Gonzales, promised to start a "war" on adult entertainment. An early blow to sexually explicit websites was the expansion of 18 USC 2257 requirements regarding record keeping, model consent, evidence and public accessibility; the regulations are now interpreted such that records be kept for any and all imagery - including such which had not previously had such requirements - which caused many sexual sites to shut down citing the difficulties of obtaining consent in the requisite forms from previous years, or the regulatory burden imposed. In September of that year a further attack on sexual material came as an FBI "Anti-Porn Squad" was formed, which has initially targeted for prosecution websites such as Red Rose Stories, one of many sites providing text-only fantasy stories. Other sites such as BeautyBound, run by Midori, a prominent BDSM teacher and author on Japanese bondage, have closed down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens." [quoting Wiki on Obscenity] Note that Wiki is very risk adverse regarding copyright/fair use. It should be more so re obscenity, in my opinion. Rjensen20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I feel we should be safe than sorry, when it comes to protecting children. Innocence lost once, can never be regained. Bunty.Gill20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I get really annoyed by how unfocused these discussions become; whether we should on our own initiative decide that certain content should not be provided to children, whether and why certain schools may have blocked Wikipedia and what we can and should do about it, and what we are legally permitted to do overlaps only superficially. The analysis is completely different for each issue and they can't be discussed all in one cacophony. Postdlf21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All three are issues, and I leave it to older members to decide how each has to be sorted out. Why they are together here because they emerged out of the one discussion. It goes without saying that I will press my agenda of stricter controls against porn for kids. Bunty.Gill21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There are no universal, worldwide standards for pornographic content (ref Miller Test). Our sexual articles treat their subject from an objective and scientific perspective, not a lascivious one - it is offensive to the people who created these informative works to call them "porn". Repeating myself, repeating myself. Deco21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You are addressing the straw man argument above and not the one being asked. How can wikipedia be more widely available to minors that do not get access to wikipedia since it is blocked. It it is not about censoring wikipedia, it's about making it more available. David D.(Talk)21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Rather than try to find a good place to post this, I'll drop it down here. I'm opposed to censoring any thing short of pornography on Wikipedia. When I was in high school (back in the day), Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World were removed from the school library because of the sexual content (I will leave finding the sexual content in Nineteen Eighty-Four as an execise for the reader). -- Donald Albury(Talk)03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Let us not pretend that this is a test. This was an article getting vandalised and somebody got over-excited and decided to fully protect a page, heft its edit history to a non-subpage, and leave it that way. The proposal has lukewarm support at best and I'm going to reverse this 'test' in a few hours time. -Splash - tk03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
NB: I wasn't testing this, simply linked it here as I felt it was relevant to the policy proposal, was told it was a test elsewhere. This has since been reverted, but comments at the policy proposal page are always welcome — xaosfluxTalk04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing faiuse images from templates
Is this right? A fairuse New York City coat of arms image was removed from this navigational template for specialized NYC public schools. All transcluded instances of this template are of course in articlespace - articles on the eight schools and the test you take to get into them. Image remover Durin argues in his explanatory essay as follows:
[I]t is entirely possible (and does happen) that templates intended for use only in main article namespace are used in other namespaces. This potentially creates a copyright issue if there is a fair use image on the template.
Well, perhaps the remedy should be to remove such inclusion if/when detected, not to remove images from the template altogether? I understand and respect copyright law, but this really is copyright paranoia IMO. - CrazyRussiantalk/email14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not just a matter of copyright law, but what is a manageable policy at Wikipedia. Our policy explicitly states, "[fair use images] should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages". If we allow users to transclude templates that do not have fair use images yet not permit them such use if it has such an image, we create a less manageable situation than simply stating that fair use images are allowed in the main article namespace only. Besides this point, fair use images on templates serve a primarily decorative purpose. There is no gained value that having a seal on a navigation template has. If an article should have a seal on it for commentary about the subject of the seal, then have it elsewhere in the article. Having it in the template is decorative, and thus violates fair use law. --Durin15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What about in the case of Template:Infobox New York City. That template was designed for only one article, the main article space topic of New York City. It is designed specifically to ease editing on that article which is very long. Normally, I would agree with your policy, but since this image would be allowed to stay if we just moved the contents of that infobox into New York City, I am not sure the removal makes sense in this context. There are other articles that do similar things like Houston. I think if the template is designed for one specific page in particular, it does not violate the spirit of the guidelines... --MattWright (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I should also mention I didn't come up with the idea to pull the infobox out into it's own new york template and am not opposed to merging all that data back into the article if that violated some guideline. --MattWright (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
From the cookbook of dumb solutions 101: If you wrap the image with {{mainspaceonly|[[Image:Foo]]}}, the image will only be shown in the main article namespace and not on the template page or in any other namespace. Again, this should never be used for purely decorative images, since that would not be fair use, but I think a reasonable person can respect the New York infobox. Dragons flight22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Even better, I just made it compare PAGENAME to New York City so it will only show up on that single article. --MattWright (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I really am fed up reading this garbage about how the inclusion of a visual image in a template is decorative. It usually isn't. Because people have different settings on computers and browsers they often find that some templates' headlines are not clearly readable; one browser I used to use reduced most templates to unreadable spider-writing. In some cases, the use of a visual image is definitionary, i.e., it in visual form communicates the topic of the template for those who cannot read the headline, or who may be young and not fully understand the a complex headline. The use of images purely as definitionary visual aids is lawful under fair use when the image in question communicates. However if the image is obscure and so possesses no recognitionary value then in law it would be deemed decorative and then would be a breach of fair use. Using a visual image that, for example, showed that a template is about royalty, if that image is universally and unambiguously communicative through worldwide recognition, is perfectly allowed under fair use and would not be deemed in law decorative. Using a visual image that is unknown, not instantly recognisable and does not contextualise and communicate, would be deemed decorative and so an abuse of the law. That is the opinion of numerous legal experts I know, who think WP's interpretation of the law on this issue as meaning fair use images cannot be used in templates, is patent and utter nonsense. FearÉIREANN\(caint)22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Sometimes character designs are copyrighted. You certainly couldn't, for example, create your own movie starring Mickey Mouse, even if all the art was drawn by your people. Deco18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think probably some fanart is GFDLable and some isn't. Depictions of book characters are probably different from depictions of, say, characters from comics or other visual media. (As Deco illustrates with the example of Mickey Mouse.) But this particular one looks un-GFDLable; the fanart creator agrees to release the image under specific terms, but they aren't the terms of the GFDL. FreplySpang18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well yeah, if the author doesn't release it under the GFDL (or a strictly more liberal license such as free use) then it isn't GFDLable. I assumed this was done. Also, book character fanart can be copyvio if based on copyrighted art like covers or "guidebooks", so watch out. Deco18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was why I put those waffly "probably"s in there - I didn't want to think through all the details of things like cover art. :-) FreplySpang18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I know Terry Goodkind is very, very strict about fan art and fan fiction, so I'm not sure that book characters would be treated differently in this case. We're militant enough about copyright here where I'd be wary of even considering opening that can of worms where some might be allowed. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point; that alone should prevent our use of such illustrations. As for fan art representing characters from visual media, it would necessarily be a derivative work of the copyrighted original, so not only would we need GFDL release for the drawing, but we'd also need a right to use the underlying character that is being depicted. I've pondered whether we might have more of a fair use claim to use (for example) a Wikipedian's drawing of Superman, than we would a scan of a published comic book of Superman, but I haven't managed to take that idea very far yet. Postdlf19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What about fan drawings of actors portraying characters? For example, a while back I found a drawing of one of the Harry Potter characters, based on the image of the actress playing the role in the movie (I can't remember the article's name now, though). Is this covered by GFDL? User:Zoe|(talk)22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If you base a drawing on a photograph, it's going to be a derivative of that photograph. If you do a drawing of an actor portraying a copyrightable character (Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter; Christopher Reeve as Superman), it's probably going to be a derivative of that character. Postdlf04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Fanart and fanfiction are all derivative works, and, strictly speaking, are copyright violations unless the copyright holder has explicitly given permission for the creation of the derivative works. That means that in almost all cases fanart and fanfiction can never be licenced under the GFDL. BlankVerse03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Depending on circumstances, one might reasonably argue that some fanart / fanfiction consistutes fair use, and hence such works are not necessarily copyright violations. Dragons flight04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the fair use article that you linked to. Please give me one reasonable example of when fanart and fanfiction might be considered fair use. The only example that I can think of where fanart and fanfiction might not be a copyright violation is NOT under fair use, but under the parody exception. BlankVerse09:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Parody is a form of protected fair use; even has its own section in the fair use article. In general, a fan work which is non-commercial, transformative rather than merely imitative, and does not appreciably detract from the commercial value of the original is likely to be a fair use. In my experience, much fan work is pretty low key stuff shared among interested parties on a small scale and likely to qualify. Because of the commercial aspects that equation could change with respect to use in Wikipedia, however. Dragons flight14:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
However, parody is not a form of fair use that Wikipedia can use. The only way we could claim a parody exemption that would allow the use of fanart to illustrate the article is if the article is a parody of the original work -- which is hardly compatible with the goal of being an encyclopedia. On the other hand, in the unlikely case that the fanart is a well-known work in its own right, we can discuss it and use it under the "critical commentary" part of fair use. --Carnildo18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposed policy clarification with respect to logos
A major change was made to Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories by a user who, to say the least, does not like the guideline or its emphasis. I reverted it, but I wanted to mention it here. The user seems to want to policy to fit a handful of articles he is interested in, rather than understanding it is a policy for the whole encyclopedia. (There are a couple typos on the page that could be fixed). 200520:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A proposal has been written to create stable, linked-to versions of good and featured articles using links to the versions that were certified as good or featured. This policy would avoid forking of articles, cleanly preserve article history, and keep articles as dynamic as ever, while at the same time giving the benefits to article credibility that stabilization is intended to give. Feedback is appreciated. JDoorjamTalk20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Word Choice: Fetus vs. Unborn Child
In the article July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, an editor has objected to the use of the phrase "unborn child" as POV and replaced it with the word "fetus." The context is that a pregnant woman was shot in the arm when she covered her belly with her arms to protect her progeny. The question here is: is the phrase "unborn child" inherently POV and should it be listed at Wikipedia:Words to avoid? My own sense is that "unborn child" carries no POV in an article that is entirely unrelated to abortion, contraception, etc. Aesthetically speaking, unborn child seems much better than fetus and using medical terminology is unnecessary. However, I'm curious to hear other editor's opinions. GabrielF21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
From a purely stylistic point of view, "she was shot in the arm when trying to protect her unborn child" works okay, but "she was shot in the arm when trying to protect her foetus" makes it sound like an armed robbery of a medical research lab gone wrong. We have editorial discretion; editorial discretion and common sense makes articles better. I can see where they're coming from, but it's overkill - replacing "fetus" with "unborn child" to make a point would be exceptionally dodgy, and I'd hit someone for trying, but in flow of text like this a natural phrase is perfectly sensible. Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I came here expecting to oppose the use of "unborn child", but Shimgray is right, "foetus" would sound absurd. Support using "unborn child". - FrancisTyers·21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My inclination is that we should be comfortable with using the term fetus -- it's not even remotely obscure or jargonish, and having it used consistantly across all articles rather than having a special "cannot-use" for abortion-related articles seems more consistent. --21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Typical US controversy. Fetus is the scientific, used term. "Unborn child" definitively is POV. The example given by Shimgray should not lead to discuss a general policy or guideline. Anyway, why not change the sentence itself? I agree that the term "unborn child" gives a slant to anti-abortionnists, and is not used as much as fetus. When a woman is pregnant, protecting her child is protecting herself. So why not write : "she was shot in the arm." (point). ? Lapaz21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the entire sentence from the article. It seems too detailed to me compared to the rest of the details of the shooting victims. I think either word is okay if the sentence remains. FloNighttalk21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fetus is a more precise term and is not solely scientific or medical. "Unborn child" is more emotive and should be avoided, whether the context is the abortion debate or otherwise. If there is confusion about whethere the fetus is in a medical research lab, the story could say that she had covered her stomach to protect the "fetus in her womb." JChap (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Both are POV because each one has effectively been adopted by one or other side in the abortion debate, and so carries a presumption of bias. Pro-lifers use unborn child to humanise the entity being carried and so add credence to the claim that it is human. Pro-choicers respond by using fetus/foetus to dehumanise the entity and suggest, as is the core of their debate, that it is not human life. While fetus/foetus may be neutral in a medical article, in an article that is not technical it and unborn child both carry with it a presumption that by using either one is siding with one or other viewpoint. In the line above, her actions indicate that she believed there was a life form in her womb whose life she wanted to save. So in that context it would be correct to use a terminology that conveyed the motivation behind her actions. But the idea, given the nature of the abortion debate, that either foetus (I'm fed up writing that crappy American English spelling!) or unborn child is neutral is niave and simplistic. FearÉIREANN\(caint)22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that pregnant mothers and their family and friends think of the fetus as a child. "Fetus" is a biological or medical term used to refer to the young of any animal, not just humans. The shot mother wasn't trying to protect some fetus, she was trying to protect her baby. This can be avoided in general use by referring to it in the more usual way, not affected by abortion debates. For this example, the best sort of sentence would be like "this pregnant mother was trying to protect the child she was carrying". When a mother intends to have the child, there is no reason to suggest that it is not a child and there is no reason to muddle the matter. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If we look at usage examples, we have for fetus things like "We have yet to learn how the foetus is matured after the exhaustion of this supply." (in a book Animal Kingdom) and "The Foetus respires in the Womb." For unborn, we have things like "The throne was to be shared between an idiot and an infant yet unborn." Over-all, "child" is the appropriate word for an infant not yet born, and if there could be confusion then it is descriptive and neutral to specify "pregnant mother" or "carrying child" or "child in the womb", but "fetus" is reserved exclusively for scientific use, or inflamed debates. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm partial to Centrix and FearEireann's sentiments. The power and POV in both phrases is inherently tied into the abortion debate. Apart from that debate, context is the key--otherwise you are needlessly interjecting the abortion debate into foreign subjects. In an article about fetal development, it would be inappropriate to try and interject "unborn child" into a medical/scientific article. In the context of the Seattle Shootings, the mother was acting in a maternal matter of protecting what she perceived as her unborn child. That was an emotive action and describing the baby as an unborn child in contrast to a fetus is appropriate. Agne23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that in this particular example the use of "fetus" is distinctly strange sounding. Additionally, it makes an assumption about the stage of development that we have no information about, as far as I know. I don't think "unborn child" is inherently POV as long as it's not being used in an obviously pro-life context such as "Abortionists persuaded her to destroy her unborn child." Deco23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. The context in which it is used is based directly off fact. It is the woman's unborn child, and the use of fetus makes this sound as if someone is attempting to steal her fetus in some type of bizarre biological robbery. Michael23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Unborn child" is certainly plainer English. As long as it doesn't say "She was protecting her unborn child, which of course had a beating heart, ten fingers, and ten toes...", etc., it's a more graceful term. --SB_Johnny | talk00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
External Links, User Pages & Spam
Hi,
I was just wondering how it is that Wikipedia can have a policy like this:
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.
and at the same time allow external links on article pages as well as individual users who post external links to sites from their user pages? How can Wikipedia control whether or not a user is really just a PR person for a company or an employee trying to get more links to their comapny's website? After all, even if they aren't, does Wikipedia want to continue to promote some companies to the detriment of other companies that aren't being linked to? A Wikipedia external link must carry more value than any equal link just about anywhere else on the web. Since when is Wikipedia a personal blogging service and link farm for the already elite?
New policy suggestion: No external linking from User pages. (Why can't users just mention there favorite sites instead of hyperlink to them, anyway?)
Also, why should companies that meet only one of the three criteria get external links and Wikipedia articles about them and others don't. Anybody can pay to have an "independent" article or two written about them if that is all that it takes. It would be nearly impossible to verify that the article was written without compensation of some sort. Hardware review sites are a prime example. A company sends a free product to a hardware review site to review and Bam! a free link to the retailer's website and an independent article about them and their product.
External linking to Fortune 500 or these types of websites and companies seems completely unfair to the thousands and thousands of other businesses out there trying to compete with them.
Since when is Wikipedia a directory like DMOZ anyway? Wouldn't the mention of the business be enough? Why the external link also?
New policy suggestion #2: Get rid of all the external links to commerce websites altogether. It is the only solution that is fair to everyone.
I have personally seen Wikipedia articles that at the end have an External Links section and the article creator links to just one commerce website that relates to the article. How fair is that? (Just another reason for New policy suggestion #2.) This particular situation prompted me to create this post.
I understand that Wikipedia's policies on these subjects are clearly stated but I believe that the underlying facts detailed above dictate that fairness to all should prevail and Wikipedia can then truly become "only" a source for information as it should be, instead of a vaguely disguised advertiser for Fortune 500 companies and the like. (unsigned, from user:162.40.22.161)
I totally support the first suggestion; I can't really think of a need or value to Wikipedia for having external links on user pages, and these are often used for self-promotion (one userpage in particular has always troubled me in this regard). However, I think your second suggestion is too drastic. To the extent that you are talking about third-party sites that pretend to be impartial but actually have a vested interest, this really needs to be (and can be) dealt with on a case-by-case basis. To the extent you are talking about links to the official website of a company or product in an article on that subject, I think their sites may be valuable primary resources (particularly if it's an online business), and it can benefit Wikipedia if readers know that they will be able to find everything relevant to a topic within an article, including where to go for further information. If an external link really functions more as advertisement than information, that too should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I think the bigger problem is actually with those "thousands and thousands of other businesses out there trying to compete" with the notable companies, as those most often try to (mis)use Wikipedia as the venue by which they acheive notability. It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of what has made enough impact in the world to be worth writing about. Postdlf21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, external links on userpages all contain – automatically – the rel="nofollow" attribute, which instructs search engines (especially Google) to ignore the link when determining the popularity or PageRank of the linked page. Indeed, this is true of links on all non-mainspace pages, including article talk pages. (I believe there is still discussion over whether or not to do this to article space pages as well—we believe that useful sources should get 'credit'.) In articles, we expect and demand that links add siginificant value to the article, or the links get axed.
So external links on user pages are only useful advertising to a person or company if they can persuade people to come to the user page itself; they don't influence search engine results at all. The most useful way to get people to visit your user space is to be a productive, prolific participant in the project—and I don't mind giving productive editors a bit of advertising as a quid pro quo. Even then, there would probably be community pressure applied to individuals who created or maintained a user space that was particularly 'spammy'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding use of the "nofollow" tag on pages: "For what it's worth, external links on userpages all contain – automatically – the rel="nofollow" attribute" I cannot find a "nofollow" tag on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon There are embedded links to two commercial web sites. One sells products, the other sells advertizing. I am concerned that Wikipedia will become a resource for those who want to promote their own web sites.
That's userpages, not articles. Gashapon is an article page, and external links to articles probably should get higher ratings on search engines. I've removed two of the three external links at the bottom of that article. Fagstein04:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reason it's not on the articles too? That might make WP a somewhat less appealing target for this sort of thing. SB_Johnny | talk21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to weigh in on the no external links on userpages issue, there can sometimes be valid reasons for having external links on a user page (see for example Interiot's toolserver apps). Sometimes users may also choose to have commonly used resources (journal search engine, other online reference works and so on) linked from their user page for convenience. I don't think, therefore, a blanket ban would be a good idea, a limit to only links that could not be useful for editing purposes, but that would no doubt be a problematic rule to enforce. --Daduzitalk05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap. Well, yes, that would most definitely be an example of a userpage that needs looking at. I still stand by what I said earlier, though, there are legitimate reasons for linking from your user page (though none of them apply to that particular page). --Daduzitalk07:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hah, wow... The funny thing though is that those link don't help spam causes since user pages automatically have "nofollow" links. -newkait-c09:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images in userboxes
Would I be correct in assuming fair use images can't be used in userboxes? I've been removing them from userboxes as I see them, but something I saw made me start wondering. —JD[don't talk|email] 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The current blocking policy of Wikipedia is that if anyone, whether registered or unregistered user, performs an action deserving of a block from a certain IP, the IP is completely blocked. That is, even veteran registered users in good standing with Wikipedia logging in from that IP will be unable to perform any edits. I strongly recommend that this policy be modified simply to have two types of block: a standard (partial) block, and a full block.
This is because while the current blocking policy works well for American and European users, who have the large majority of IPv4 addresses, most Asian users are confined to having to share IPs with most other users. This should be all and well, considering there is a fair assumption that Asians are largely not as well-connected as Westerners, and even if they used Wikipedia, they wouldn't mostly be using the English Wikipedia.
However, there is a grey area between both worlds. Singapore is highly connected to the internet, with the largely English-educated population frequent users of Wikipedia, as it is being seen more or less as a one-stop resource, or at the least a gathering of knowledge. As a result, their frequent visits to Wikipedia have led to many of them becoming extremely commited users regularly contributing information to Wikipedia. However, there is also a problem. The largest ISP in Singapore, Starhub, uses one IP address for all its users (202.156.6.54), due to the constraints in obtaining new IP addresses.
As with everywhere, small minority of users also like to continually vandalise Wikipedia, thus drawing a disproportionate amount of attention to this IP address. Although the talk page has a notice indicating that administrators should refrain from blocking this IP, there are also autoblock features in MediaWiki, causing us to be automatically and fully blocked everytime an explicit act of vandalism is conducted. This causes great reprecussions, especially as repealing such a block is inconvenient given our timezone. Thus, to better filter out antisocial activity such as trolls and vandals without affecting those veteran users with good intentions, I strongly recommend this change of policy.
The standard block will block any newly registered users or unregistered users editing from that IP, while veteran users will still be able to perform edits as normal. This will benefit users of shared IPs greatly, such that the more well-meaning users will not be affected greatly by blocks.
Aware that there might be some even more dedicated elements who will attempt to hack into veteran users' accounts and use them to perform vandalism, the full block will still be available. However, I do hope there will be few situations where the full block will ever be called into play.
Benefactors from this change of policy also include school campuses, where with this new policy, veteran users can continue to contribute regularly while the vandals will be unable to tamper with the massive and awesome databank that Wikipedia is today. Thank you for reading this. Ariedartin JECJY13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought there was something in the works to allow blocks of people from an IP address who had no account, without affecting logged-in users coming from that address. Certainly something that did this while also preventing new accounts from being created from that address would be helpful. -- Beland18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the policy for commercial spam in user spaces? I assumed it was that it's bad, and warned User:Supplements((talk)) as such, and I'm pretty sure I was right. However, what about spam in user talk pages or archives, such as this? Should it be blanked, completely deleted, or left alone? I'm thinking blanked, but I have no idea.
Please note:
I personally believe this user is in good faith but needs to stop spamming. I've warned him (and he's been warned before) and I'm hopng he'll stop.
The article that this "spam" is comming from, gastric bypass dietis being considered for deletion as spam, so it's not necessarily agreed that this material is spam. I'm just asking this in case it is judged to be spam so I'll know what to do about it. Karwynn(talk)17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Scope of references
Now that an increasing number of articles are being referenced, I am more frequently questioning exactly what claims a given reference is supposed to be documenting. If a reference footnote is at the end of a paragraph, does it support the entire paragraph, or the last sentence? Should we adopt some sort of markup (perhaps HTML comments?) to disambiguate this? -- Beland18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Our style of reference is intended to be similar to the style used in formal publications, which have the same ambiguity. I think it's a problem, but inconsistency with established works would have its own set of issues. Deco18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This ambiguity can be a problem, but I imagine that a strict, logical system for marking a citation's scope would quickly get ugly. Often several scopes overlap, or one will form an enclave within another. To sort them out properly would demand a brilliantly designed GUI, and even then the underlying complexity of it all could discourage users from editing well-referenced articles.
Probably a simpler solution is this: if you're writing a citation and you anticipate confusion over its scope, describe exactly what the reference says in the footnote itself along with the author and page number. (Or if it's encyclopedic, for that matter, in the article.) Melchoir22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is a bit worse here than in traditional printed works, because there are multiple editors, and people are apt to (often rightly) remove information that's not referenced. Putting a note in the reference itself seems like a good idea. -- Beland22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no hesitation about removing external links as spam, since for the most part they are off-topic, clearly commercial or affilliate linking. However, I just found someone who seems on a compaign to add his site to a number of articles. I removed one, since he was trying to hide/embed the links into the middle of a paragraph. The rest however are under External Links, and there are possibly of value, neverthless it seems a somwhat spammy activity. How do I get another opinion? --Brat3202:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
After writing the above, I really am astounded that it was put into place. It is a terrible, terrible idea. This is a major user interface problem for Wikipedia. Where do I go on strike? Tempshill16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Within the last twelve months, Wikipedia articles on US politicians currently in office, and those running for office, have increasingly become mouthpieces for the politicians' campaigns. It's obvious that campaign staffers and volunteers are editing these articles all the time - look for the barely-notable or non-notable lists of beneficial laws introduced; early political history with a brave challenge to difficult odds; lists of faith and community links; streets and days named after the politician; service on committees and task forces.
This is all pretty depressing. The volunteers who make up the bulk of Wikipedia editors have not, in the last year, had the energy or focus to push back the tide of self-promotion that is ruining the current-politician articles, with the probable exception of the very top group of US politicians. I myself have not. A grass roots effort to energetically filter out the propaganda, and keep it out, seems unlikely to beat the continuous pressure from the campaigns. I do not know of a great solution to this other than to force a tag on all articles about "current politicians" (and I realize the definition of this could be broad or narrow) saying Warning: Wikipedia articles about politicians are usually edited pervasively by the politicians' campaign staff and volunteers. This violates Wikipedia policy and is discouraged. Take this article with a larger grain of salt than usual.
The above disclaimer could of course usefully apply to our medical articles or various other categories, but I single out the politician articles because the actors behind these edits have an agenda and so are more persistent than the worst vandals here, and harder to combat because the edits are not obvious vandalism. Tempshill16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A current events template of a sort could be useful, however it would need to be written in a much more NPOV tone then what you've suggested. Even in political articles, we must continuing strive for WP:AGF and not come across as having mass disdain for politics in general. As for your idea about a grass roots movement, have you considered starting a Wikipedia Project like WikiCampaigns or something to the like dealing with current office holders and candidates. Considering the timely nature of the election season, I can see you generating some interest. Agne16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see a wikicampaigns, if only to get them out of here. The worst problem, IMO, is that these articles are like the signs that get put up along every road during the campaign. Once the campaign's over, nobody takes them down, or cleans them out. At the very least, I'd love to see something like a dated cleanup tag, so they don't get forgotten later. Fan-196716:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point and that would be a distinct service that a Wikicampaigns project could. We could also use category listing like "Elections Nov 2006" that would make following up with the articles after the election a little easier to do. Agne17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Absotively! I can't even tell you how much I approve of that idea. Just make sure it's a bit more specific. May I suggest Category:2006 elections in the United States? This really will be a lot of help cleaning up after the hoo-hah is over. And speaking as a newpage patroller, I'm sure this cat will come in handy. --SB_Johnny | talk17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Making a Biographical Page for you and your friends?
I'm just curious is this is against the policy or not. I know you may write and edit biographies of celebrities here on Wikipedia, but, I am curious if one may write and edit biographies of everyday people as well. --Nekrogami21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A user placed a reference to the launch of Gears of War on the November 12 page, and I removed it with the edit comment "Release of a video game doesn't qualify". They then asked on my talk page:
How does a Video game not count? Halo and Halo 2 are both cited on their respective dates of release, and I have never seen a rule saying "no video games"
8/3/06 - Magus05
My feeling is that the launch of video games is too trivial to be added to the events in date articles. There are probably thousands, certainly hundreds, of video games released each year. This particular one does state "It is already considered the most important Xbox 360 game of 2006." but it might be difficult to draw a line for only the most important games. Usually, whether a game is important in the overall history of the platform is only apparent after some years have passed. This one hasn't yet been released.
I've taken this to the Village pump because it potentially affects all the date articles. Anyone got pointers to policy on this matter?-gadfium00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The proposed policy that started from the bit you quoted ended up at Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time. I think in general video game releases, like CD, book, and video releases, aren't notable on a global scale, though exceptions might be made for items that have withstood the test of time. I think far too frequently we consider the present time too momentous, as evidenced by how frequently events are mentioned for, say, the last ten years. It is still to be determined whether a game (book/CD/DVD) released in the last ten years will make a lasting impression on some part of society and influence future events in that field. Fabricationary02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize that the release of a game isn't quite as influential as say, any of the other events on said page, but they still are pretty big. Halo and Halo 2 were beyond big, and Gears of War is looking to follow suit. There is an extreme amount of excitement in the industry about this game, which is why the games launch is being called "Emergence Day". I really don't want to argue about this anymore, as it's really trivial, but in my opinion, a user-created Encycopledia should let any user post whatever they want, as long as it is accurate. What I posted was accurate. The game is "highly anticipated", and it is being release for the Xbox 360. I didn't say anything about the game itself, and there was no opinion in my edit. But whatever, I'm kind of new to this, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Magus05 - 02:30, 4 August UTC
I think all the above games were indeed "beyond big" and "highly anticipated" ... to FPS gamers who own XBoxes. Tempshill16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that page before, but forgotten about it. I may add to it later. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but data can be listed on multiple pages, can it not? Of course I could add it to that page, as it is a part of "Video Game History". But it's also technically a part of just "History". When I added it to the November 12 wiki, I honestly didn't think any of this would happen. It's a big day for many people, my post was accurate and contained no opinion, and was not negative in any way. 03:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that data can be listed on multiple pages, but pages should only contain the most relevant data. I don't think one of the most relevant things about November 12 in all of history is the release of Gears of War. While the event is important to you and a number of others, if we included all events on November 12 that were mentioned in Wikipedia articles, there would be thousands and thousands of events to list. From an editor's point of view, this would be a nightmare! :)
Thus, establishing a parsimonious criteria for what should be listed is needed. If the criteria said that all game releases could be listed, then it follows that book, CD, DVD, etc. releases can also be listed, and the page would still become quite long and contain a lot of information that is not of interest to many visitors. I would imagine that fellow Gears of War fans that search for information on Wikipedia would visit Gears of War first, then maybe History of computer and video games if they want more info into the history of that game and other games. I don't think they would visit random Wikicalendar pages looking for the release dates of their favorite games. Fabricationary03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we finally begin to employ the Holocene calendar for all of our articles and dates. It may not be standard elsewhere, but we must start somewhere! We will establish the trend and others will follow. Not only should Wikipedia use it, but it should replace the current system in common use everywhere. It is similar to shifting to the metric system. HE clearly is superior to the BC/AD system. Thank you. 129.15.127.25414:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No way. Wikipedia is not a tool to influence society. It's an encyclopedia for the layman to be able to read. Tempshill15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We had a debate some time ago about AD v. CE and AD won. I doubt we could make an even more radical change without a large change in heart throughout the project (not going to happen). I wouldn't mind making a script that would convert to the users taste though...if that would be possible. BrokenSegue15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
AD did not "win". From WP:MOSDATE: "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." Holocene Era, however, whatever that is, is clearly not acceptable. Wikipedia is not here to influence usage, just to reflect it. Powers15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Also, the proposal I was refering to was to change from either AD or CE to just CE. The people who voted no largely supported AD (for whatever reason), thus I said that AD won. Either way, we won't change to the some other random calendar. BrokenSegue15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
To confuse our readers in order to advocate a system that few people have even heard of seems extremely counterproductive for an encyclopedia. Fan-196715:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can just see the fun if we started doing all the dates in AUC. Didn't they also have January and February as the 11th and 12th months of the preceding years? Fan-196718:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If we are going be geologic about this, I'd suggest years BP is much more fun. You get count backward from 1950 AD. So this is the year -56 and Christ's birth is traditionally associated with the year 1949. On an unrelated point, the definition of the Holocene was recently changed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, so either all the dates in the Holocene calendar need to shift, or the Holocene calendar no longer starts at the beginning of the Holocene. ;-) Dragons flight23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Multiple accounts
I've discovered someone who apparently has multiple accounts, he's not doing anything malicious, He's just using the accounts to post his random thoughts and fill the pagees with UserBoxes and pictures. I don't think he has actually yet posted to any article, all that's happening is that each account spends it's time updating it's own or other user's page, or posting to the talk page of his other accounts. Should it be ignored? --Brat3216:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes the person does seem to be about 12 years old, but not the same person. The one I have has not posted anything malicous as far as I can see. Just incestous posting to him/herself. --Brat3217:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That was a lot of the activity from the other, though there were also a lot of pointless updates and articles on things like Disney shows and games. Fan-196717:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Always assume good faith. Leave a message on their talk page and inquire about it, and suggest if there are multiple accounts that this be noted on the user page. There are acceptable uses for multiple accounts. Fagstein18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a post on what seems to be the main user page only. I got a response on my talk page that did not seem like a 12 year old speaking - he claims they are his "students" and he is teaching them how to use Wikipedia. Around the same time (but before my post), one of the other users (students?) started blatent vandalism. We will see what happens. --Brat3223:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a big objection from me. It appears to give official standing to a non-existent speedy criterion, and may mislead both users and administrators into referring to this criterion. I'll probably edit it later today or tomorrow to fix this problem unless it's recast appropriately in the meantime. -- SCZenz18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, not sure how this fits into things. Seems better to have a good tag rather than ((delete|article appears to be written for the purpose of promoting this company/band/website/etc)), which is how it goes now.
(Sorry for "baiting" you... don't worry, I wouldn't use it if it weren't backed up by policy. Just seeing the need, ya know?)
Prod is basically designed to allow freeform text, and I see no reason to change. Speedy, on the other hand, needs a specific criterion. The place to start is Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, where there are, I believe, pretty regular discussions on whether we ought to be able to speedy obvious spam. Fan-196718:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
((Sorry for splitting the discussion. I copied the intial contents as a warning to people not to use the template, then replied to you when I saw you replied there. -- SCZenz18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Might be nicer to have a prod template for it anyway though... if for no other reason than to spare the effort typing in an explanation for what's really nothing more than commercially-motivated vandalism (like plastering "CLOSEOUT SALE!!!" posters all over the front of the library). I suppose I don't really see so many of those (and they tend to be deleted by the time I finish writing the prod statement), but I do find them a waste of time. SB_Johnny | talk21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've hobbled the tag now (still there if you want to take a look, but it doesn't add articles to the deletion category any more). Here's an article that's a perfect example of what this tag would be useful for (just found on NPP):
I've written a rough draft of this policy to stem the rising flood of bad new articles. Discuss and edit it freely. C. M. Harris22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Slang glossaries
As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virutally all of them violate the following policy:
Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a gooddefinition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
This has created a situation where editors trying to enforce policy frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.
There are quite a few slang glossaries on Wikipedia at this time, some being years old. Here is a partial list:
Therefore, I propose that the policy be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join this discussion. --List Expert23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We have less than 20 known writers at this period, compared with the number of WP editors today. Catullus is unvaluable, even if all his poems are not. --DLL21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Catallus to say whether any of his poems are notable, so I will only comment on the issue of translation. An edit counts as original research if it, among other things, "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Arguably, there is some minimal amount of analysis involved in the choice of one word or phrasing over another, but I see no evidence that it builds a particular case for anything in the article you cite. So when a good, citable, public-domain translation is not available, I think that an editor's own translation is a clear improvement to an article. Certainly uncited translations appear in many articles, and removing them all from Wikipedia would make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. Grouchy Chris07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English for a general introduction. In short, if you take a source that is in a different language, and you don't use a translation that is published elsewhere (e.g. Project Gutenberg, Perseus Project,...), always provide the quote in the original language along the translation. There's no "original research" involved when providing a faithful translation.
In general, quotes go to Wikiquote, and larger parts of text go to Wikisource. Quotes included in Wikipedia should be directly illustrative to the article where they are included (sort of like images). The present version of Catullus 1, which seems more like a translation instruction, is maybe rather something for Wikibooks. But it seems a really fine article too.
An issue arose at Talk: Jim Hawkins that I think to be better addressed here (or perhaps on the mailing list) than in an RfC. A user claiming to be the subject edited his article and the attendant talk page from several IP addresses, each of which, save one, is registered to the BBC, the corporation at which the subject works. An AfD on the article was closed as no consensus, after which the IP editorostensibly the subject—expressed that he no longer desired to edit and, threatening legal action (under some novel legal theory, surely), requested that the {{notable Wikipedian}} template, referencing that the subject has edited Wikipedia and the user names or IPs with which such editing has been undertaken, be removed.
Because the IP addresses are readily available in the page's history and because the IP editor chose to identify himself as the subject, I don't see anything compelling to militate against our continuing with our present practices vis-à-vis such templates (a cursory look at Category:Notable Wikipedians turns up many templates containing IP addresses, most notably at Talk:Daniel Brandt but also, for example, at Talk:Kenneth Montgomery Keillor and Talk:Siva Vaidhyanathan; another editor at the talk page has disagreed. It is plain, I think, that our current practice, for which a consensus apparently exists, is to include in the {{notable Wikipedian}} template IP addresses, and, if that practice is to be changed, a discussion involving more than a few editors must be had. Joe02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As the "other editor" involved, I thank Joe for inviting me to participate. I cannot say that I have made much of a study of the policy on this situation. My understanding is that there is no policy and no guidelines - merely precedent. My feeling is that we should weigh up the desirability of having an article on a marginally notable figure against the undoubted negative of antagonising the subject. I quote from Jimbo's keynote speech at Wikimania (the whole section is available at Talk:Jim Hawkins):
There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. Maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well.
I think that we need to handle this well. Given that we've had an AfD discussion and failed to achieve consensus for deletion, the article should stay, despite the wishes of the subject. However, we need to be scrupulously correct in sourcing all the information in the article.
I see no need to quote the IP addresses used by the subject. Jim Hawkins identifies himself in his posts and the IP addresses are freely available in the history, if anybody really cares enough to go looking for them. What Jim is strongly objecting to is their display in a list. Presumably he resents having his privacy invaded to this extent, and I agree with him. He's failed in having the article removed entirely, now we are kicking him when he's down by revealing what is probably his home IP address.
Quite apart from anything else, I think antagonising a BBC radio presenter is something we should try to avoid. This should be an opportunity for a positive experience on all sides.
We should also be wary of "the we we've always done things". As Jimbo said:
So my feeling of it is, my sense of it is, that the living biographies part of Wikipedia, which is one of the most difficult and most important areas, is one where we're really seeing a really massive movement towards higher quality. A lot of people in the community are really committed to that.
And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.
Jumbo is quite right to suggest that there do not appear to be any relevant policies or guidelines from which one might infer the existence of a true community consensus; indeed, I imagine that most editors haven’t had occasion to consider the issue. At the very least, it is important, I think, that there exists a template by which to indicate that the subject of an article has edited Wikipedia, even if such editing has been done exclusively via anonymous IP. Notwithstanding that I see no problem with our including IPs on the template, I would suggest that a template amenable to all might be one that suggests that the subject apparently has edited Wikipedia but does not enumerate the IP addresses used (of course, complications ensue as regards the ability of other editors to monitor for vanity contributions from an IP address already understood to belong to the subject and, more generally, to ascertain that the subject has in fact edited the article; perhaps a commented-out IP section is in order). Joe03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
When I look at this situation, the contradictions in Jim's participation stands out the most.
Jim made the decision to be a public figure in his career choice. Everytime he signs onto the BBC Jim Hawkins is in the public sphere. Therefore an article in the public sphere about his professional career and public activity is appropriate. As an individual, Jim is well within reason to request that inaccuracies be promptly corrected and that for personal (i.e. family) information be removed. Both of these actions have been done. Jim's objection that this article about his public life violates his privacy is unfounded.
Jim made the decision (either from work or home) to participate in the Wikipedia forum. As pointed out when you click "Save" you are acknowledging that your IP is being recorded. The "Notable Wikipedian" tag is appropriate in situation because he made himself to be a notable contributor here with his participation and in upkeep of WP:AUTO, among other things, it is worthwhile to be aware of what IP he may contribute from.
The bottomline is that he consented to his IP being recorded and he willingly consented to being a public figure. As long as we continue to strive to the standards of WP:BLP, Wikipedia is well within the realm of reason.Agne03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The notable wikipedian template thing was just an idea. Someone removed it and I did not put it back or suggest that it be put back. I thought it might be useful since he usually does not sign his posts (see the AfD for many examples). They are already available in the history, but you would have to go through the posts one at a time to get all of the IPs he uses. It was just for quick reference. I think we should just let it go. However, I do not think that posting the IPs is a big deal. First, they are available in the history. Second, they are supposed to be in his signature after all of his posts. Third, we post the IP address of people editing anonymously all the time in the article talk, user talk and Wikipedia namespaces, just not using templates. For example, we say "23.12.56.651 has been vandalizing the George W. Bush article on the article's talk page or on the Administrators' noticeboard Fourth, they do not reveal much, especially in this case. He has already claimed to be Jim Hawkins, so his identity is not being revealed by the IP addresses, and we know that Jim Hawkins works for the BBC, so the ISP being listed is not revealing any additional information either.
I was just going to avoid the whole situation from now on, but I was wondering if a block of the IPs is in order since he is making legal threats. If he does take legal action, according to the Wikipedia:No legal threats, there might be a problem with our (editors) unofficial communications with him (see the fourth bulleted problem, although the other three apply to the situation as well). Last time I checked, he is threatening to legal action against Wikipedia, instead of other editors, which is what the policy explicitly covers. However, I think that the policy should still apply. This post is not a reply specifically to Agne, I just indented it so that it would be easier to read. -- Kjkolb04:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Dang! How do we read that article now to judge whether the deletion was justified? This is what I hate about deleted stuff - you can't read the damn things. Hopefully there is still a deletion debate somewhere. Carcharoth00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to believe that was sarcasm. The title itself is patently non-encyclopedic. Right? Right?? How about [[Wikipedia:List of mistakes made by Ji .... wait. Nope, not even gonna finish that one. Apparently, someone did think it should be something more: deleted. ;^P Eaglizard09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It was partly sarcasm and partly a rant against the number of times I've come across old discussions about an article that has been deleted. Being unable to see what was deleted (unless you are an admin) makes it difficult to follow the thread of a discussion about a deleted item, and to see whether you agree with either side. As for not being encyclopedic (assuming you are not being sarcastic in turn), I was unaware that pages in the "Wikipedia" namespace had to be encyclopedic. In the article namespace, yes, but not the Wikipedia namespace. Have you seen WP:BJAODN? That is hardly an encyclopedic name. (For the record, the Jimbo essay was almost certainly speediable on the basis of being a personal attack, but without being able to read what was deleted, there is no way for me to be certain, so the nagging feeling of censorship lurks in the back of my mind). Carcharoth23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." I'm pretty sure the statement "Jimbo makes mistakes" falls under this exclusion. And anyway, Jimbo is a public figure, so he has to accept personal attacks from time to time. I'd put this up on WP:DRV, except that there's a copy at User:Ashibaka/Jimbo makes mistakes. NeonMerlin19:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposal For Alternative Views
Please consider the following proposal.
What is analysis and what is opionion is an important
subject if you wish to claim that WP is open.
Go ahead be bold and try it - but don't be suprised if you are ignored or reverted by the consensus du jour. - Davodd22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am already. The idea that the administrators will not even discuss an idea which might improve
WP and eliviate a major source of critisism, and an anti-Internet philospophy is bewildering.
Especially when I agree with them that original articles should be NPOV and sourced and that they should not allow WP to become a blog. But there is a middle ground and I am having a very hard time determining the emotional/philosophical pre-disposition for their unwillingness to face a challenge.
It appears at first glance to be a coterie who wish to advertise that they are one thing but in reality are another. On the other hand they may be fearful that any original thought may bring pressure
upon the whole endeavor in which case they just need to keep pushing, back off, push again, etc.etc. until the sapiens decide it is better to go after the author than the forum.
On the other hand it could be down to the fact that the proposal is, well, largely incomprehensible. Succinctness is a virtue. --Daduzitalk13:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The above claim is incorrect, that administrators will not even discuss the proposal. There has been plenty of discussion, at Wikipedia talk:New proposal for alternative analysis, unanimously negative. Everyone hates it. It's totally foreign to our mission. This editor's only previous history was to double the size of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution article by inserting a long analysis from his own viepoint. That analysis was, of course, reverted, and editor would now like to change Wikipedia policies to make such "analysis" (some would say blogging) part of the project. No. Fan-196715:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Opinion essay: Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal
I just wrote an opinion essay based on a thought that has been bouncing around my head in the last few months. I probably posted it in the wrong place, but for now you can find it on Jimbo Wales' talk page here:
Comments are appreciated. I figure, given the number of people at Wikipedia, that this suggestion been made previously but I haven't seen any discussion of it. --Ben Houston19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've given further reasons, such as self-identification, strong community identity and homogeneity, etc etc as valid reasons for having this category. But these reasons were all ignored. I repeat, British Bengalis are on a different order of identification compared to something like Swedish Brits.
Finally there is Category:British Asians. If British-Bengalis have no valid reason to exist, I can hardly think of a valid reason for British Asians which is a specifically British construct, and even more artificial at that! --Peripatetic17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting you should mention "asians" as I read this article today (based upon the findings of a report) -
Peripatetic, you probably should take a look again, as I was the nominator of that CfD, not against it.
I'll note that you are re-populating these (11?) with the recently deleted category. That's a speedy deletion for re-created content. Stop doing that!
I've only checked a few of these, and so far none of them fit such a category. The Baroness Uddin may have been "born in Bangladesh" (although there is no verifiable reference, and it certainly wasn't under that name, as that is her husband's surname), but "grew up in London ... educated at the University of North London" according to the article. She is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She is a British Baroness raised to life peer. There is no verifiable statement that she considers herself Bengali, nor Bangladeshi.
The Harry Potter actors were born and raised English and Welsh, respectively. Again, there are no verifiable self-identifications as any other heritage. They are not from the same community, although they may have become friends due to their professional life.
In addition to the requirement of verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The place of birth is rarely notable.
Finally, as you have come forward here and cited the log, I will quote your own words:
No African or Caribbean or Asian or Indian immigrant is referred to as "English", no matter how long they or their generations have lived here.
Once again, I am going to ignore your malicious remark. Something about personal attacks comes to mind.
I am going to refocus on the issue of Bengalis. Bengalis are an ethnic group who originate in South Asia, in the region adjoining the bay of Bengal. Their main distinguishing characteristic is the Bengali language. They may be of several religions - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. They are distributed mainly across two countries - Bangladesh and India (particularly West Bengal). Again, the majority ethnic group in this region is known as "Bengalis".
For various economic reasons, people have migrated from this area for decades. There are large Bengali diaspora in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, mainland Europe and the Middle East.
Bengali people who arrive in the West do not automatically lose their Bengali ethnicity. They may have a different passport, but that is not the issue. Similarly, children of Bengali immigrants who are born and raised abroad are also referred to as Bengalis. I refer you again to the websites of British Bengali groups - BBPA [2], Bob Network [3] among others. These are all second-generation associations.
Seems to me you are mixing up ethnicity with nationality, either wilfully or for whatever reason. Baroness Uddin is Bengali in the same way that Jack Kennedy was Irish American. If British Asian is applicable, then so is British Bengali - as Bengali is no more than a subset of Asian. Unless you are planning to delete British Asian as well. We have not seen evidence of that so far.
I will try and bring up evidence of Bengali ethnicity for each of my cases. You can refer to them as English or Welsh as much as you like. That is not my remit. My remit is to prove that these people are demonstrably of Bengali ethnic identity.
Konnie Huq [4] - quote: Born to Bangladeshi parents and graduated from Cambridge University. Evidence of Konnie playing UP her Bengali roots when she filmed Blue Peter in Bangladesh. [5]
Rupa Huq is Konnie's sister. Similar.
Baroness Uddin [6] - quote: Baroness Manzila Pola Uddin was born in Bangladesh and brought up in London and Baroness Uddin is proud to support BritBangla. I am pleased to be associated with BritBangla and give my support; and with worthwhile charity initiatives. See Baroness Uddin identifying with fellow Bengalis at launch event - see picture [7], or do you need her to actually SAY so in that many words?
Afshan Azad [8] See Afshan's quote: I hope they are glad to see a Bengali girl in a Hollywood film. I want them to see my talent and see me as an individual.
Shefali Chowdhury [9] quote: Shefali Chowdhury, a second-generation Bangladeshi based in London, who plays Parvati Patil in the latest Harry Potter film
5 down, 6 to go. Rest assured, I shall find evidence for the others as well. Regards. -- Peripatetic20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)P.S. Just out of curiosity, why the rank inconsistency wrt British Asians? Why are you sparing British Asians from the cull? How come there is no demand for SELF-IDENTIFICATION evidence for every person listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Asians. How come you haven't gone on a cleanup drive? Is it because of the size or popularity of the category? This inconsistency needs to be discussed openly. Regards.
The main thing that leaps out at me is the vital importance of having clear definitions for each of these categories, and judging strictly by those definitions. To be encyclopedic, a category must have a definition which means it is possible to make an entirely objective determination of whether someone fits into it, based on reliable published sources. If we need to go around gathering "evidence" of someone's Bangladesh-iness, then the category is insufficiently well-defined, and we are engaging in original research.
I don't personally see a problem with a "British Bengalis" category defined as EITHER:
- "This category contains British citizens with known Bengali ancestry"; OR
- "This category contains British citizens who have identified themselves as Bengali"
(not both) and including ONLY people identified by reliable sources as fitting those criteria.
However, if we need to go around deciding whether people count or not based on what charities they support, or where they have presented reports from, then that is utterly unencyclopedic original research. TSP21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Further response
Something else I should have made clear at the outset. Bengaliimmigration to the West on a large scale - and more broadly, south Asian immigration - is a relatively new phenomenon, beginning in the 60s and increasing in the 70s, 80s and 90s. What this means is that the current generation of Western Bengalis is only the second generation, with the vast majority of them having parents who are both Bengalis, who were originally inhabitants of the home country and who were the original immigrants. This is the case with all 11 in the list.
In sum, it is relatively simple to trace Bengali ancestry for second-generation Brit Bengalis or Bengali Americans, etc etc. It is several orders of magnitude easier compared to Europeans in the US. As a rule, intermarriage with other ethnic groups gives rise to multiple ethnic identities. This has happened to most Europeans in the US, e.g. Italians or Poles or Swedes, etc. For example, not many people today can claim to have exclusively Swedish parentage all the way back to Ellis Island a century years ago.
This is not the case with the Bengali diaspora, simply because there hasn't been enough time for that to happen so far. I'm sure within a couple of decades, as a result of increasing intermarriage, ethnic identity will become more heterogeneous. That is the nature of immigration. However, for the moment, tracing Bengali ancestry remains a quite straightforward matter.
The remaining 6:
6. Iqbal Ahmed[10] - article refers to original homeland Bangladesh.
7. Akram Khan the dancer [11]. One of Akram's most popular dance performances is based on his experiences of visiting his ancestral country [12]
8. Eenasul Fateh[13] - aka the magician Aladin, whose father was a Bengali diplomat.
10. Shami Chakrabarti[15] - whose parents came from the western half of Bengal (West Bengal in India). The daughter of Bengali immigrants, she and her younger brother grew up in "semi-detached suburbia" in north-west London, etc etc.
11. Muhammad Abdul Bari[16] - the BBC profile of the new MCB head identifies him as a Bangladeshi.
I hope all this explanation suffices.
I still don't get why British Asian is kosher but British Bengali is not. There are literally dozens of references to British Asians - what standards of proof are given for members of this list? As it is, Asian happens to be a sociological construct, meaning entirely different things in the UK (south Asian) and in the US (oriental Asians)! Bengali, on the other hand, is a recognized ethnic group, and with 230 million people [17], it is one of the bigger ethnic groups in the world.
I see there is even a list of Pakistani British people [18], existing as a subset of British Asians. As mentioned before, British Bengalis are another subset of British Asians in the same way. Asian in this context is no more than a catch-all term; it is not an identifiable ethnic group in itself.
I have not had a reply on this from any concerned. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated the Bengali ancestry of the above 11. Given so, what is the policy regarding a Category called "British people of Bengali ancestry"? Such naming is both clear and accurate. I am not particularly worried about what the specific category is called, as long as it correctly identifies ethnic origins. Whether a person wants to self-identify or not is immaterial in this case.
The policy of only including facts from new articles has lead DYK to be comprised of uninteresting, obscure and very locale-specific facts. I think it is important to keep in mind that the general knowledge of the average administrator is on completely different level to that of the average main page reader.
I would suggest that we change DYK to have the first bullet be on "middle school level", the next two on high school level and leave the fourth and fifth to come from new articles.
The following is an example of what the first three bullets could look like:
...The jaws of crocodiles are powerful enough in closing to crush the bones of small animals, but so weak in opening that they can be held together by hand? (This is Encarta's current DYK.)
I like that idea a lot. The DYK feature is one of my favorite Wikipedia entry methods, so expanding it a bit sure sounds good to me. Spalding11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of DYK isn't to rehash widely-known facts from old articles. It gives exposure to the best new articles so that they are edited and refined. Sure, sometimes there's an entry or two I'm not interested in, but that's life. --OldakQuill08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know the purpose of "DYK isn't ro rehash widely-known facts". I am saying the purpose should be to provide information that will be interesting to the largest possible audience and this layered approach which include a portion of what Wikipedia veterans will call widely-known facts is one way of doing that. - sYndicatetalk23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that, even with changing the articles every day, DYK gets more acceptable articles than it can show. Increasing the space available to DYK would mean taking it away from some other part of the Main Page, which I doubt will happen. -- Donald Albury(Talk)23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying the size should be increased. I'm saying the level of obscurity of the first three points should be toned down so that more people (especially younger people) will find them interesting. - sYndicatetalk12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to have replied to the wrong sub-thread. My apologies. However, more on point on your comment, while we should avoid obscurity and too much technicality in articles, we are not writing an encyclopedia for children. I would be opposed to writing any part of the encyclopedia at a less than adult level. -- Donald Albury(Talk)12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I am not saying we should change the articles to a "less than adult level". I am saying we should include some facts in DYK that some people would actually be able to respond 'yes' to. The average main page reader will not know '..that there is a pattern to the names of the class of medications called "monoclonal antibodies"', but more importantly, (s)he will not care. By having different tiers in DYK, the section can appeal to both the average reader and people who will find the above mentioned example interesting. - sYndicatetalk13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea very much. It could bring many new readers into wiki-addiction. Which I think is a good thing =) --euyyn02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ashwin Narasimhan 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)