Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Requirement for referencing?

I wonder if it should not be required that an article to be listed on DYK has references? I think this would be a sensible thing, because every single article on Wikipedia should cite its sources , and it would encourage more widespread referencing. Also, if references are not added to an article by the person who writes it, it's often much more difficult for a subsequent editor to identify a source to verify the given fact. Worldtraveller 08:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea but I think it would cut into the pool a lot. Also there is some controversy around how much referencing is needed... do you need a cite for "the sun rises in the east" sorts of questions? Also that's one thing that people do, add references. I have done so in the past for DYKs I found interesting and others have done it to mine. So... part of the criteria for selection maybe, requirement, probably not in favour. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I object. Although I personally provide refs for my articles, there are many editors who do not care either for referencing or nominating their articles for DYK. The requirement would cut off their superior and lengthy articles from DYK, which may become dominated by stubby but referenced articles. One aim of DYK is to encourage newbies, who seldom use references as well. Furthermore, there is no difficulty in bypassing this requirement, by renaming "external links" to "online references" as some editors do when pressed for refs. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think editors not caring for references, and newbies seldom using them, is a significant problem. One aspect of Wikipedia that is very easy for critics to attack is its perceived unreliability, and citing sources is the only way to combat that. By highlighting new articles that are not verifiable I think we give ammo to our critics. I honestly can't see that making references a requirement would lead to more stubby articles - generally, the shorter the article the less likely it is to be referenced anyway. Perhaps making it a requirement is too strict at this stage, but what about at least recommending it in the guidelines, and giving priority to articles that have references? Worldtraveller 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree with Lar and Ghirla here. Making it a requirement is too strong and would diminish the nomination pool. There's nothing wrong with pointing it out as being exemplary wikipractice, thus encouraging it, but many articles are by fairly new users who are still "tuning in" to the way things should be done. Exposure on DYK also leads to article improvements in many, many cases. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of forcing articles to be referenced but agree it would diminish the number of DYKable articles. Maybe if someone submits an unreferenced article a note could be added to their talk page asking them to list their sources before it can be put on the main page. There's also the question of whether to require inline references or just a list of sources. --Cherry blossom tree 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
A simple remedy to the two concerns expressed here is to bias the selection of chosen articles by favoring referenced articles over unreferenced. A sudden ban of unreferenced article could result in a shortage of acceptable candidates so an immediate rule requiring referencing is inappropriate. On the other hand, if authors of unreferenced articles are consistently rewarded by putting their work on the main page there is no reason for their behavior to change. Consistently selecting referenced articles in preference to unreferenced articles should be a workable balance between the two extremes because it will encourage referencing by allowing unreferenced submissions to be crowded out during time periods with plentiful candidates yet still allow unreferenced articles to be used when the number of submissions takes a periodic dip. --Allen3 talk 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a lot of structure/process/rules. Here's my methodology:

  • Pick the prettiest/neatest/interestingest picture. Is the article with it halfway decent? non stubby? decent hook? no major controversies or currently listed on AfD etc? Pick that for the lead. Else iterate in neat picture order. If the picture is on commons decide if I want to pick a different one because I'm lazy
  • Start at the bottom with the oldest article not yet picked. Is it halfway decent? (as above). Take it.
  • Iterate up. Skip articles that are the same topic as one picked so you don't have 2 of the same or similar topics.
  • When I get to 6 with short hooks or 5 with long hooks, stop.
  • Done. Move the stuff over, protect the pic, commit the changes and start working on leaving notices

Checking references and weighting my pick/nonpick decision mathematically? I don't think so... maybe with automation? ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason DYK has to be from new articles only. It might as well be new referenced facts from any article. We're well past the point we need to be promoting new articles. What we have is a situation were the vast majority of our 1.1m+ articles are terrible. We need to promote accurate content and referencing. Highlighting unreferenced facts/articles is very simply a violation of the verifiability policy. Doing it on the main page of all places contributes to the problem, not the solution. Allowing any newly referenced facts fixes the pool size problem, and the level of referencing is not a problem. The fact just needs to the supported by some reliable source. That's not that hard. The other objection about this being for new users and references not being needed is just misplaced. We're a reference work — very simply, we don't need unreferenced contributions. - Taxman Talk 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The current DYK rules are that DYK is for new (or newly expanded from stub/redirect to decent size) articles. Changint that seems a different question than whether the acceptance criteria should be narrowed to introduce a reference requirement. So then:
  1. I'd oppose changing the article qualification rules, they're fine as is. Allow old articles and it moves toward FA or GA, and we already have those. See the quote at the top of User:Lar/DYK which I think quite pithy and profound.
  2. I also oppose the idea of tightening requirements to encompass references. More than one of my accepted noms saw great improvement in the references area (I do references already when it makes sense, but they got better). Further I have seen references introduced into other DYK noms, over and over. That's the very idea behind DYK after all, bring new articles out where people can see them and are motivated to improve them. Again, see the quote at the top of User:Lar/DYK which I think quite pithy and profound, just as I did in the para right above this one. :)
I'm not against asking people to do better at referencing things. But I'm against mucking about with DYK to achieve purposes that it's not designed to achieve, and suggest that the campaign for better references be taken elsewhere. New editors are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia and I think messing with DYK can wreck that, and wreck it badly. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Your whole argument seems to boil down to you want to do it the way you're used to doing it. Maybe the purposes it was designed for are counter to what they should be. Changing the qualification rules was an option to solve the problem of not enough references articles to draw facts from. But with 1000+ new articles a day I don't think there should be a problem getting 5-6 referenced facts a day. As for #2 there is no value in not encouraging the right way of doing things right from the start. Don't you reallize highlighting unreferenced facts is encouraging violating one of our most important policies? Think of it from the positive--can't you see how useful it would be in helping and teaching new editors how things should be done if all articles listed on DYK are referenced? Far from mucking up and "wrecking" anything, it fixes a significant problem and teaches new editors the value of referencing. I cannot see where you're coming from on this being a problem. - Taxman Talk 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, my whole argument is that DYK has been done this way for a long time, and you haven't demonstrated clear benefit for either change, absolutely not a change to non new articles, and almost certainly, not a change to the mechanical part of the criteria. I'm a relative newcomer to doing DYKs so its not about how I'm personally used to doing it, I can change (or not do it and leave it to others if new process becomes too onerous) if there is consensus for change. You just haven't demonmstrated it to me. Instead you've parachuted in and said things need fixing. OK: {{sofixit}}... If you guys want to pop by DYK and annotate those noms that have issues for lack of references, (or better, fix them up and explain to the new users (perhaps via subst'd boilerplate) what you did and why so they learn) that would be great, and I and other admins will certainly take that into account but I'm opposed to policy change for how DYK articles are selected. It's instruction creep and makes the process harder. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Again the first idea was just a possibility to ease the objection if needed. Don't focus on that. But yes I do feel we've clearly shown why facts in DYK need to be backed by reliable references. It's a core content policy after all. As to parachuting in, yes I was reminded of a problem that has been brought up before but never fixed. So I'm making the effort to get the process changed to fix it now. See below. - Taxman Talk 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that there remains some value in highlighting new articles. We should not, however, be highlighting anything not in compliance with WP:V, any more than we should be highlighting articles not in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I was under the impression that a reference to the DYK fact in the article was mandatory. Jkelly 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reference to the DYK fact cited in the article is one of the selection criteria and I have yet to deliberately select an article that violated it. It's an easy enough thing to check. "not in compliance with WP:V" however does not mean that the article has to use cite.php style references. Giving a source is sufficient, and I already tend to not pick articles that don't cite any sources. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Taxman and Worldtraveller here. While trying to showcase new articles is always good, trying to showcase articles which meet all of our content policies, particularily WP:V, which is our largest problem, is imperative. While inline citations are gradually becoming a FAC standard, there should be a strong rule completely prohibiting articles which don't have a reference for the article. Additionally, the methodology Lar uses is adequate, I might just add that added weight for inline citations be given (not necessarily by number of citations, because inadequate citations are easy to spot). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So what's the issue? If you already do it most of the time, it just needs to happen every time. It's not feature creep to enforce an existing core content policy like WP:V. Yes the ideal would be every fact on DYK is cited inline to a reliable source. No we don't need to be draconian and require that off the bat, but we do need to require that the article have a reliable reference that backs the fact. And effort needs to be made to move toward the ideal. For now change "Try to select articles which cite their sources." to something like, "Selected articles must cite their sources.", and maybe even add ", ideally inline for the highlighted fact." Certainly facts cited inline should be preferred over those not if there are enough. That way we highlight the right way to do it. In practice, before the fact goes up it's quite easy to ask what source was used and to show the person how to cite it. Yes, I'll jump in to try to help. - Taxman Talk 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that if it has to happen every time, it's not going to happen every time at least if I do it. There's too much to remember (it is a highly manual process) as it is. Do my best, sure, but I'm not so keen on outsiders parachuting in and dictating process changes because all of a sudden they're thinking they can push their pet peeve, which is what this feels like to me. I'm new so maybe I missed all the updates you did in the past and you already know this, but this process takes 20 minutes each time you do it as it is. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's mechanics that are the problem, that's not too hard to solve. Change the rule as above, then inform everyone so the culture changes and each fact is noted whether it has a reliable source or not. If not, inform the lister it needs one, and either remove it then for them to put back if it gets one, or leave the note for some time to allow them to fix it, but it's still obvious that fact is not suitable for choosing. It shouldn't be too hard to get 5-6 a day that are done properly, and if it is, just slow down the updating, which solves your other problem too. I'm sorry if the process takes a lot of time, but so does good research and we're not claiming we don't need that, so I'm not sympathetic to an argument based on time. Also, you don't have to be the only one that does it, so don't feel like Atlas or something. I have a feeling once people see what is required more submissions will be of the proper type and the work will be reduced. People just need to know what is required before they can do it. And I'm not dictating a process, I'm pointing out what needs to be done to follow one of our most important core policies instead of highlighting violations of it. - Taxman Talk 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This seems pretty simple to me. You wouldn't put an article on the main page if it was blatantly embracing a non-neutral point of view, or if it was about something somebody made up in school one day. Wikipedia has three core policies - NPOV, no original research, and verifiability. To appear on the front page, an article really should meet all of these criteria. The Main page is the most high-traffic area on Wikipedia; if we don't enforce our basic standards there, then where will we? As for encouraging new users to write well-sourced new articles, I agree with Taxman that neither new users nor new articles are really priorities for Wikipedia right now. We have far too many horrible stubby little articles, and I would much rather see the article count shrink rather than grow. If new articles are to be added, then they should be on notable topics which can be sourced. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. I agree with Taxman that anything cited under "Did you know?" should be referenced to a reliable source, otherwise what we're showcasing might turn out to be nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Encouraqing referencing is a noble aim, but should not be a mandatory requirement for selection IMO. I think you'll find that the majority of articles selected are referenced (to varying degrees). Very few new articles appear here on WP fully polished and fully referenced, particularly those by newbies who are still learning the ways. And merely having references in an article doesn't guarantee that it's accurate. It is an impossibility to check all the references before selection, particularly if they are not from online sources. A big chunk of references is merely "verifiability by illusion" unless you have access to those sources.
I personally try to select referenced articles, and ensure that the fact mentioned in the hookline does in fact appear in the article itself. I sometimes check online sources if given, but I'm not going to be running around trying to find book and newspaper sources to do any checking. The present system works pretty well, although I would support strengthening the encouragement of better referencing. DYK isn't broken, keep it for new articles, encouraging new contributors and exposing these new articles to improvement opportunities. No rule change is needed, perhaps just more encouragement to cite sources in the guidelines. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is we already have a mandatory requirement for references. That discussion was had and sealed long ago, and we can't set aside a core policy for convenience. We know references aren't a silver bullet, but they are the minimum needed for our work here. We don't expect you to check them all yourself, but they do need to be there. Encouraging someone to go ahead and check every reference for a DYK is a great idea though. Non online sources won't happen quickly, but at least it can be checked that the source exists.Worldtraveller covered the rest. :) - Taxman Talk 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but not appropriate for a high turnover, rapid turnaround template like DYK. It is just unrealistic and unworkble. This is not WP:FA which is scrutinised over an extended period by many peers. I'm sorry, but for me, the standards you are trying to apply here are inappropriate to the target. Whether the DYK model is the correct thing for the front page is a different argument. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't really understand how encouraging citing of sources goes against encouraging newbies. Just as we wouldn't highlight something riddled with spelling errors, blatantly biased, or clearly original research, it seems really very counterproductive to encourage the production of articles that are unverifiable. We do have certain standards here - encouraging newbies does not mean just getting any old people to edit, it means encouraging newbies to write articles that conform to the standards. In any case, is it actually true that DYK nominations come mainly from newbies?
No-one's asking for fully polished articles from the word go - just a front page that only highlights articles that conform to our core policies. If requiring referencing reduced the pool of articles available by half, it would actually make everyone's jobs easier - updates every 12 hours instead of every 6, articles get more exposure and interest, and DYK maintainers don't have to spend so much time maintaining it. I don't even think it would reduce the pool by half but if it did, it wouldn't be a disaster by any stretch of the imagination. Worldtraveller 16:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am all for both citing sources AND encouraging newbies, and I certainly DID NOT propose encouraging the production of articles that are unverifiable, quite the contrary. Please read what I wrote. I did question the nature of verifiability in this context, because DYK is a rapid turnaround process - in as noms, featured, out again.
Take one current example article on the DYK template. Can you say that, without access to the 6 references given, you can verify that the article is accurate? "Verifiability by illusion". For someone without access to the sources there is no substantive difference if these references are missing for the 10 - 12 hrs the article is on the main page. We should encourage the original author, as well as other readers, to add these necessary references which is what DYK does.
"Encouraging" is the key word here. Yes, encourage newbies, and everybody else for that matter, to write articles that conform to the standards. The erection of prohibitions to selection is a disincentive to all. Best in my view to make the guidelines clear with pointers to relevant core policies, and adapt notification templates to reflect this. Again, encouragement is the key. I am still against making it a mandatory requirement for selection of articles for featuring on DYK. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you can say that without further information, an article with 6 references is better than one without. First, by assuming good faith that if they are there, they were probably used correctly. Then apply trust but verify. Because the references are there, someone that does know the topic is likely to be drawn to that if they are used in a bogus manner. Or try google scholar, google books, or just search to see that the sources exist and compare with sources that are available online. Again, anything bogus will jump out. That makes the one with references much more valuable, and does make a substantial difference if the references are there while the fact is highlighted on the main page. That time is critical to the fact checking effort and demonstrating the right way to do things. And you can be opposed to it, but again, that doesn't mean we can set aside the policy. I'm extremely surprised to see people that understand the importance of referencing arguing against applying our policy on it for something on the main page. So yes we encourage it for everything, but for something highlighted on the main page, we need to require it. - Taxman Talk 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Throwing my weight behind the fact that did you knows should be referenced. Otherwise, why not allow any article on the main page rather than just featured articles? And as to using new pages, that would be fine if we really did, but I've seen someone use a did you know from a page that was created from splitting a long page into separate articles, and crediting the person who split the page with the did you know. That seems odd to me. Use referenced facts, and widen the pool to all articles. If that creates a paucity, so be it, but let's reward the right contributions here. Hiding Talk 18:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cactus.man, I didn't say that you were proposing to encourage unverifiable articles - I just said that the system, as it is, does exactly that. I'd like to offer an example of how not referencing from the start can cause significant problems later. Months ago I wrote Ferdinandea, about a volcanic island that intermittently appears in the Mediterranean. I included a mention of a claim that a US bomber on the way to Tripoli in 1986 had bombed the island thinking it was a Libyan submarine. Didn't cite my source. A few weeks ago I revisited the article, looking to bring it to WP:GA standards, so I needed to find the source again. I couldn't remember where I'd got the fact from, and google searches for Ferdinandea were now so swamped by Wikipedia mirrors that it took me days to track it down - time which could have been used for writing more articles.

It seems odd to me to say that because someone might have made their references up, we should not require references on DYK. I think with any referencing, DYK or anywhere else, there has to be an assumption of good faith that people are citing sources accurately. They can be properly checked in due course. Worldtraveller 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to disagree that "the system, as it is, does exactly that" (encourage unverified articles). You haven't shown that it encourages them. Several of us have said we do take it into account, and there is nothing stopping anyone from tagging noms as having the problem. The issue is that apparent outsiders are trying to force change when it's not shown that it's needed or that it will be effective, or worse, that it won't break the entire process.
I guess maybe some {{sofixit}} is required here. At the risk of repeating myself... Those of you that feel strongly that articles should not be selected for DYK no matter how great they are, if they don't have properly verified references, are welcome to so annotate those article nominations so that those of us actually doing the work will see that and take it into account. Also there's a timer in effect, we don't do new DYKs more often then every 6 hours. If you're an admin and feel strongly about it, turn up when the timer's just about to go off, flag that you're doing a refresh (there is hidden text in both the template and the talk) and DO IT. You'll crowd out those of us that think you're a bunch of nstruction creeping process wonks focused on the wrong things, because you'll get to select articles in exactly the manner you think is proper. Select only articles that meet your criteria. Just make sure you do the whole thing, and do it properly, follow all the steps, and do it right so we don't have to clean up any messes.
Heck, right now at this moment I think the timer is at 16 hours or something (I've been busy writing documentation for work and didn't have time to do an update) so... it's not like there are people crowding you out from doing a selection. Do one. Go crazy. Show us how to do it properly. Be WP:BOLD. After you've done a few, I for one will give your comments a LOT more credence than I'm giving them right now.
Apologies if everyone here that I don't recognise is actually an old DYK hand with dozens of DYK updates under their belt and I didn't know it. But that's not the way I'm betting. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need to attack people so offensively, or try and institute some kind of 'us and them' mentality. Who's 'outsiders'? Are people who don't actively maintain DYK not allowed to comment on it? Is DYK somehow separate from the rest of Wikipedia? The extra burden a requirement for references would create is on the article writers - it would add about two seconds to your work when doing a refresh to glance at the bottom of each article and see if there's a reference section. That's all anyone's asking the maintainers to do. Worldtraveller 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I reject the notion that I'm attacking anyone, much less offensively. I am sorry but I'm not sure I see how pointing out that any admin can edit DYK is setting up us vs. them (for after all it's saying that anyone can do it, not just the current set of people doing it) or is an attack on anyone. If you take it that way, I'm very sorry and I apologise, but it might actually be your issue, not mine. I do, however, think it's fair to suggest that you try your hand at it before you demand that the process be changed. Yes, if you haven't actually worked the process, comments about how little impact ("two seconds" is clearly exaggerating for effect) your changes would have have less credence with me than if you have. Try your hand at it, the DYK really needs updating now. The article I'd pick for lead at first glance is nicely referenced, by the way. Finally, I have to wonder if suggesting I'm attacking is in itself a way to not address my comments substantively. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Got to say, Lar, I found your words fairly strong and polarising. I've had a go, but I don't see why that should mean my comments should carry any more weight than they did ten minutes ago. It'd be nice if we all recognised that wikipedia is built on consensus and that nobody owns any process. Who knows, I might start demanding people create an article before I listen to them. Hiding Talk 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the tags, should help a little. As for carrying more weight, it comes down to this, if you comment about a process you haven't executed, it's not reasonable to expect that your comment gets the same credence as one you have. I would support you "demanding people create an article" if the topic was the finer points of article creation. Yes WP is built on consensus and no one owns any process, but we do give different amounts of credence to different folk based on experience and areas of interest... AfD, RfA, ArbComm elections, Esperanza elections were just 4 I picked off the top of my head, there are lots more. My point stands, people that haven't done an DYK update aren't as qualified to comment on process changes and what effect they would have than people that have. Doesn't mean their opinions have no value but it does mean they may possibly not know what they're talking about, or at least may have missed some nuance. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I disagree Lar. Consensus is consensus, and is formed by the broadest discussion possible. If this discussion is germane to did you know and also to verifiability, it makes sense to engage both sides of the argument, and people who have two different sides to the argument, and no side in that argument should have any greater power. And by the way, I think the discussion has taken new article creation into it's broad spectrum of noise, so I think that's a fair comment. Put it this way, if someone's been editing an article on foo for six months and someone comes in and corrects the wiki formatting to be in line with policy, whose voise carries more weight? And how do you expand out the discussion? Verifiability is a key policy, that's the point I think is trying to be made here; it should not be overlooked by main page content; it's a high profile area and a high profile policy. Kind of a bad precedent thing. I don't think anyone is commenting on the procedures, they are commenting on the requirements. Big difference. Also, your four examples are all areas in which the weight of a person's comments are defined by a neutral party; in the case of an afd the closing admin weighs the comments, in the case of an rfa the 'crat does so, and in arbcomm elections and esperanza elections the conditions for suffrage are set before the vote by the election organising body. What we are engaged in here is not a vote, it is a discussion, and people should recognise that perhaps their closeness to a procedure is not necessarily a good thing. If this discussion involved new users who one could perhaps suggest were trolling after having assumed good faith, I'd have no problem, but we're talking about editors of good standing and I don't think your comments on outsiders or the weight of a comment show much good faith.
  • Sure, the people who run the thing can have an idea of how much impact the change might entail, but is that a case of turkeys and christmas? Let's try and keep the discussion on an even keel. I can't see that checking that a fact being used for did you know is sourceable is going to add that much more work. I checked all the ones on the page last night in about ten minutes tops. Perhaps your experience differs? Hiding Talk 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
a bunch of instruction creeping process wonks is not an attack? Wouldn't you take offence if someone called you that? And talking of 'outsiders' is not setting up an 'us and them' mentality? Look at your process that you described above - from point 1: Is the article with it halfway decent? non stubby? decent hook? no major controversies or currently listed on AfD etc?. All you need to do is add got a section at the bottom called 'references'?. How long would that take? Worldtraveller 21:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a process wonk and I refer to myself that way all the time, in fun. But ya, this discussion isn't the place for comments of that sort. I can see how you might have taken that badly and I apologise. As for outsiders, you have to admit, a lot of new voices all turned up here all of a sudden, advocating new process, advocating new instructions, and perhap for some of you, it's because of posts on different pages suggesting that you turn up here and advocate change. To the extent that is true, it is offputting to me, sorry. As for modifying what I do, I already check for references. I'm fine with checking for references being a suggestion or addition to the guideline but I continue to oppose making it some sort of mandatory thing. Until you do a DYK update or two yourself (and by the way as of this writing the timer continues to advance, give it a go, it's only 30 or so minutes of effort...), you're not, in my view, as qualified to comment on how much additional effort mandatory guidelines add as someone who has. No amount of explaining away will change my viewpoint. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, because it's an important issue, it is worth bringing people in to make this important change. I'd be with you more about your outsiders claim if we weren't dealing with something that is on the main page and relating to one of our most important core policies. Because it is on the main page and an issue of very settled policy, we need to decide how it should be and the process should develop around that. The process tail shouldn't wag the policy. - Taxman Talk 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_5&oldid=1050337943"