Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:List of policies and guidelines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Kosovo City Names

The UNMIK laws no 1999/24 of the date 12 december 1999 clearly say that the municipalities of Kosovo should be named in its official language (wich is the language of the majority) and evry other name is out of law.And I see that all the municipalitys of Kosovo are named in serbian(wich is illegal).

http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm
http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf

Therefor I see it quite resonable to change the names to albanian - Bindicapriqi —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1) This is not the right place to discuss this. 2) Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of UNMIK, whatever that means. —Nricardo (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this local admin material using space within Wiki??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oassiss (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The problem here being that consensus and don't disrupt to make a point are both guidelines that are very much binding, while categories for speedy deletion (a policy), has been safely ignored at times. (with a recent arbitration committee descision denying a case in which it featured)

Also, this page fails to list the foundation issues at this point in time. Hmm.

Kim Bruning 15:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

True. I'm all for merging the summaries from Wikipedia:All Policies in a Nutshell into this one, wherever they're missing or whatever. The links to the actual policy documents really need to be retained though. I would certainly like to distinguish between different types of policies, but there seems to be little consensus on even what the term "policy" means, and there's always Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Stevage 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merging is a definite yes here. The Neokid 18:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my current plan is to move all guidelines from the bottom section of WP:POL to Wikipedia:List of guidelines. I don't know what exactly to do with Wikipedia:All Policies in a Nutshell as it and this page are basically each complete in themselves, but they have separate goals. That one seeks to paraphrase policy on a general level - this page paraphrases very specifically policy-by-policy. Stevage 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, both pages have the same goal of creating a central page that lists all policy in a convenient matter. I'm the one that started WP:NUT but I haven't found much time for it lately, so I'm happy that you're making a better version instead. As such, please copy/paste whatever parts (if any) of WP:NUT you find necessary onto this list, and overwrite WP:NUT with a redirect to here. I'll leave it up to you which of the two names you like best. Radiant_>|< 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this complete as of now. Thanks for mentioning it on the VP, that's how I heard about it. It's on my watchlist now... JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the pillar pictures from WP:5P; except for deletion / no firm rules (the red pillar) they match well:

  • Orange pillar: rules of engagement (5P) / Behavioral
  • Yellow pillar: free content (5P) / Legal
  • Green pillar: NPOV (5P) / Enforcing policy
  • Blue pillar: WP:NOT (5P) / Content

If anyone wants to make them match more closely, feel free... but I think the visual correspondence is a good idea, and a possible guide for making all our various (and somewhat confusing) rule lists make sense. Alba 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate facts in articles

Is there anything approaching a Wikipedia policy relating to this? It is possible for a fact to be verified in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines really be nothing more than clutter in an article. For example, Fred Bloggs might be briefly mentioned on a local news website for making joke imitations of Van Gogh paintings. It would hardly be appropriate to add this into the article on the original painter himself. The Angel of Islington 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A nit!

This sort of bugs me but I haven't changed it (tis just a grammar nit) YET... "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try and discourage others from being incivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed." It is "Try TO discourage" not "Try AND discourage" I will fix it soon if no one objects here (this being a policy page and all) ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say...

...that I love the "policy in a nutshell" boxes. Makes the place so much easier to understand (and the more people understand it, the less problems there will be). Dan100 (Talk) 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is peculiar

Notice the pictures of the pillars. How come three of them have a colored top and a white bottom, while two of them have a colored top and bottom? Very weird, indeed. Aiee. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Yeah...I was wondering what the heck was up with that--Crucible Guardian 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for criticisms?

I've been trying to find some guidelines for what to put in a criticism section, but can't seem to find anything. For example, the talk page of "Theory X and Y management" contains:

I'm a motivational expert, and I am really confused about the criticism on the X and Y theory as well as Maslow's hierarchies of needs. I understand that non-experts feel uncomfortable in putting heavy criticism in the Wikipedia. So, I have some questions and commments about the Wikipedia's function here. First, is presenting examples out of line in the Wikipedia? I know that presenting counterexamples tend to be rhetoric, but they do fill an important function in explaining why a theory is not very useful. I think this could help the notion that even if the criticism is concise and correct, a non-expert cannot rate its severity. An example would do that very efficiently. For instance, a lot of scientists and ordinary people would consider the idea that there are only twelve types of people (as some astrologists may suggest) as ridiculous and oversimplifying. In this light, theory X and Y is even worse! I would like to add these things to this page, because I feel that we need to explain in layman's terms why certain historical ideas and theories are not very useful. Clebo 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What advice can we give authors in similar predicaments?

My guess is that, if the criticism is widely known, it should be included. Examples seem reasonable in the context of illuminating an a point. For example, the "Writing" section of Wikipedia:How to write a great article gives the Red Cup and Billy Fish as examples.

What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilgerdenaar (talk • contribs)

If a criticism is important to the understanding of a subject, it should be mentioned in neutral terms, with citations. Importance my be subjective, but if it's important enough to have citations, it's important enough to be included. Coyoty 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Organising Wikipedia:List of guidelines

Could someone give me a hand? I'm trying to organise Wikipedia:List of guidelines the same way as this page. CG 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd that that talk page links here... I don't think the list of guidelines should include style guides and official policy - they are simply not guidelines. I've made a template list for guidlines only, but I think I might have lefts some style guides in the list. Putting the style guides in there would make the list too huge. Fresheneesz 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Recently I've been corrected - style guides apparently *are* guidlines. This was very unclear to me, but I've changed their template so that its hopfully more clear. Fresheneesz 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Unenforceable Policy (YAUP)

JA: Like any WP:Policy or Guideline whose fair and equal enforcement would depend on knowing the real-world identity and affiliations of each editor in question, the aspects of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:SPAM that deal with advancing particular purposes are simply null and void. Just f'r'instance, nobody has any way of knowing for sure whether that editor or that cabal of evatars who are so insistent about imposing the POV of their favorite secondary source on an article is in fact the author or publisher of the work in question. What will be the result of attempting to enforce a WikiProvision of this type — and I use the word "vision" blindly? The editors who are honest enough to use their real names will be at the disadvantage of the editors, their agents, and their evatars who are not. WikiPar for the course, of course. Jon Awbrey 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're learning very fast indeed. :) Could you please improve your spelling a bit though? Kim Bruning 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Official policies

We have those now?

Wow, we have official policies now? I must have been hiding under a rock. Could someone tell me which official stamped them? ;-)

A bit more seriously: At some point the process we use for documenting guidelines here had generated so many pages, that people apparently saw a needeto differentiate, and started calling some pages "official policy". Now some people decided to call certain pages "non-negotiable policy". Apart from the latter name being something of a diplomatic faux pas, does anyone notice any inflation going on here, or is it just me?

tidying

I think we might want to start thinking of smart ways to organise things. The method(s) of organisiation should be able to simplify guidelines, ensure flexibility in the face of change, and in general just make things intuitive and pleasant to work with, and keep the wiki addictive ;-) .

Kim Bruning 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I propose creating a comprehensive list of guidelines like the list of the 42 policies is comprehensive. There are many guidelines that are 100% redundant, and simply explain the use of other guidelines or polices. In saying that, i'm implying that they are better used as essays, not guidelines. With a comprehensive list, we can begin weeding out or merging guidelines. Any comments? Fresheneesz 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That is an excellent idea (but also a herculanean effort). You have my full support and cooperation in this matter, including the merging of redundant policies and guidelines. >Radiant< 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

GFDL - policy?

The Text of the GNU Free Documentation License is listed as a policy. Its been confirmed to me that it isn't one. Shouldn't it be better placed somewhere more appropriate? Fresheneesz 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean that I confirmed it to you, that is not what I said. The text of GFDL is just not policy in the way that WP:CIVIL or any other common policy page is policy. It is outside of any internal Wikipedia policy development. The text cannot be changed, and the text of the license does not apply itself to Wikipedia. See comments at the Talk page there. This is one of many examples where putting templates on everything doesn't work; standardizing makes things vague. The text of the GFDL is totally outside and beyond policy. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So is it or is it not used as policy. Since it is used as policy, then my question is answered - ie we should not put it anywhere else, ok.
Also, I'm not trying to edit the text of the GFDL license (god forbid). And standardization does not make things vauge - in what way does that work? The sole point of standardization is to make things more familiar to a large group of people. Fresheneesz 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Standardization is usually good but we can't always pigeonhole everything. Also, too many template boxes may render a page hard to read. >Radiant< 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The page on GFDL doesn't have any templates, so thats not a problem. Fresheneesz 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

adding Template:policylist to policy pages

I recently put the Template:policylist on most of the policy pages. But apparently Centrx disagreed, and reverted all of my edits (giving no explanation and no note on my talk page). Does anyone else thing putting that template on all or most policy pages is a bad idea? Fresheneesz 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do add it, you could add {{policylist}} at the bottom of {{policy}} so that it goes onto all policy pages. Though yes, I do support adding it. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No open proxies

I was under the impression that "no open proxies" was at least as much copyright as enforcement? WP is required to keep tabs on who contributes what, and open proxies foul that up by making edits unattributable? Is enforcement of other rules just overwhelmingly more important? -- stillnotelf is invisible

Open proxies are blocked because of how easily they can be used to vandalize. IANAL, but when you edit as an IP, you agree that your IP is used as attribution. Your argument applys to all IPs, because almost none can be traced back to a person easily. mrholybrain's talk 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the number of content policies

It strikes me that there are way too many policies (which are also way too long and change way too often). A shorter list of concise rules would be much better.

For example, looking at the content policies, these could easily be reduced from eight in number to four, namely:

The other pages would then be downgraded from "official policy" and treated as guidelines or discussion pages. Similarly, other types of policies could easily be reduced in both number and complexity.

Thoughts? jguk 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We have three content policies: NPOV, NOR, and V; I've moved the others to miscellaneous. This isn't the place to discuss downgrading policies to guidelines, Jon, because not enough people will see it. Best to do it on the relevant talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm raising it here first as it needs to be raised somewhere first). It's a point that can be raised elsewhere later, if my comment leads somewhere, jguk 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Isogolem, each of the three content policies say we have three content policies, not seven or eight or however many you're calling "content". Everything could be called "content" when it comes to it, but the point of using the term to describe NPOV, NOR, and V is to signify that they determine which words may be added to articles, and that they're special in that sense; that they are core policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not everything could be called "content" - certainly not policies about banning, civility, reusing Wikipedia material, AGF, bots etc. However I see your dilemma: this page uses the implied term "content policy" to mean any policy primarily about defining what does or doesn't belong in Wikipedia, whereas those three articles use it in a more specialised way. I would be inclined to move those three to a special section above, "core content policies" or something - they really should be highlighted in some way as they effectively overrule most of the others. Stevage 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, SV I see your point. I see this page as an attempt to list and organize all policies. I'm not set on it having the structure it has now, only on it having a self-consistent structure that doesn't include "misc". What about changing "Content" to "Content and Style" (done)? Keeps the grouping but allows implies the other items are "style" policies. Fair?

Spoilers?

Just curious if Wikipedia has a policy regarding plot spoilers of books, TV episodes, movies, etc.? I haven't been able to find anything on it--perhaps I'm just not looking in the right place? --Bonesiii 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the Manual of Style - Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Bonesiii 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Policies

Jguk, you wrote "these are all the key content policies, break any one of these and the content is not permitted - other legal policies are derivative from the copyright policy)" You're plain wrong. You can add any text you want so long as you're following V, NOR and NPOV. Everything else hinges on these, which is why they are the three core policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, if it fails WP:NOT or is a copyvio, you still can't add the text you want. I suppose most everything hinges on these, and they could be called the five core policies, but then IAR and CIV are definitely also core policies. Hm, SV, perhaps you should create a page akin to WP:5P to explain your vision on which policies are the most important, and perhaps that vision should not be on the policy pages themselves, just like the Five Pillars, the Trifecta, the Statement of Principles and the Flower Garden aren't part of the policy pages. (Radiant) 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Additioanlly, Radiant, if you are unwilling to release your contributions under GFDL, you should not add content either, jguk 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
IAR is not a content policy! :) jguk 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute here, with SlimVirgin and Jayjg asserting that WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are the only three content policies, and with Radiant, supported by me, asserting that content also needs to comply with WP:NOT and WP:Copyrights.

Whilst understanding why SlimVirgin and Jayjg do not understand WP:NOT and WP:Copyrights to be core content policies may help us develop the wording of policies better in the future, I don't believe specifying the precise number of content policies is essential to the text of WP:V. I therefore suggest omitting it in its entirety, jguk 16:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs to conform with every policy. That said, legal policies, or mission statements, are only peripherally content policies. The fact that there are 3 content policies has been in the lead for well over a year; if you want to change that, you'll need to get some broader agreement. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I take as a starting point the question, is it factually correct to say there are 3 content policies? If it's not, we should not say it. If there's reasonable doubt, we should also not say it. I trust you agree with this point.

My take on what the content policies are is that that they are the policies that all content must comply with. If we refer to "core" policies, I'd understand it to mean the minimum number of policies that we need to comply with so that content is acceptable.

Personally I'm not sure content can comply with WP:V but not WP:NOR - but leaving that aside for now, I am sure that content can comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and yet not be allowed on WP because it does not comply with WP:NOT. Similarly, content can comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, but not be permitted because it does not comply with WP:Copyrights, or indeed, because the editor is unwilling to release his contributions under GFDL.

WP:V, WP:Copyrights and WP:GFDL are all very important policies. They are all content related. So much so that every time we try to edit, below the edit box there appear direct links to the text of those policies. There is also a reference that content must be encyclopedic (which is what is really behind WP:NOT).

Indeed, to my mind, the core content policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:Copyrights and WP:GFDL. Content complying with any four but not the fifth is not permitted. Content complying with all five, subject to editorial judgment, always is.

Finally, I should add that I don't see the precise number of content policies as being important to WP:V. I'm happy not to refer to any numbers at all. I do believe, however, that if people want to add a number and list the core policies, that that assertion should be factually correct, jguk 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your mind is in disagreement with the official position of the WP, and it looks as though you are proposing a fundamental change. The Five Pillars are WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:CP, WP:EQ, and WP:IAR. The Three Core Policies concerning content are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. It looks like you are trying to expand the Three Core Policies into some private list of your own. Please clarify and explain if this is not the case. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for adding some humor to the situation, Radiant! I'm still unclear on what you feel is desirable - this dialogue is all over the place, is it settling here for now? It appears jguk wants to trim the policies, without reducing the number. It appears you concur with that, but you either want the 3 core dismissed or so noted on their pages. That could be misleading, I'm basing this on your recent edits. If that is not the direction you feel is desirable, would you please try to state it succinctly here? thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be settling here for now, yes. See the section below; I think the best option would be to put the information on the "three core policies" on its own page, rather than copy/pasted over several policy pages. One reason is that it keeps the pages shorter and keeps redundancy down; another is that there are other "core" policies as well as other "content" policies, and it is not agreed upon that these three are paramount. (Radiant) 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that in practice, the key content policies are those which content must be compliant with to be allowed, and the minimum such number.

The varying importance of WP policies is debated on different pages with different people putting their own emphasis on which ones are important. The ones highlighted below each edit box are WP:Copyrights, WP:V, WP:GFDL. That's a pretty important list given prime billing and which is entirely fundamental to all edits. There's also a reference to "encyclopedic content" (which is what we really mean by WP:NOT). So it's not really a private list it's the one you see every time you make an edit plus WP:NPOV added - which I don't think anyone would seriusly dispute.

I really have never seen the 5 pillars has having any official status - more being a way to try to introduce newbies to WP, and I've no idea what you mean by the Three Core Policies, jguk 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, all I know is that whenever you get involved with the policies or guidelines, and I'm thinking back over the whole two years I've been editing, you cause trouble, and I'm very tired of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Jayjg: "This isn't a personal issue, it's a policy issue." [1]
Quoting myself: "SlimVirgin, please don't play this ad hominem [...]" (earlier today at WP:VPP) --Francis Schonken 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, it's a policy issue. When certain individuals regularly attempt to fundamentally change the meaning of policies to their own preferred versions, and others have to deal with that, it's not a personal issue, it's an issue of respecting policy. And by "certain individuals" I mean jguk and you, Francis, among others. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as a policy issue in that I am not attempting to change policy. I believe it is a case of how existing policy (de facto) is best explained to potential contributors. Any misunderstandings I, Radiant, Francis, you, SlimVirgin or others may have in the policies is entirely due to it not being clear from the wording of the policy what exactly is meant. Surely it's best to get these out into the open so that a text that everyone reads in the same way can develop.
Admittedly WP has a poor history on this. The first policy was WP:NPOV, which Larry defined in a philosophical way that he himself noted most people will not understand. The outcome - WP does not follow NPOV as originally intended, and has probably never, ever done so. Instead everyone has their own vague idea of what NPOV means based on the words in the title - giving rise to lots and lots so-called NPOV disputes when people can't decide whether something breaches NPOV or not.
What's wrong with having a clear, easy-to-follow set of existing rules? Hiding behind - you don't understand the policy so we're going to continue re-writing it in a way you still will not understand - helps nothing, jguk 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this how I post here

I don't know if I am doing this right. I'm new here. I went to post some things on a page, and it said one of the four links were blacklised and would not post. Since the link was actually the only one that I am admin of, that seemed weird. I've never spammed or anything on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldsailor (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick list

  1. A content policy, by definition, is a policy about content.
  2. There are at present 46 policies. More than three of those deal with content.
  3. A legal policy, by definition, is a policy about law.
  4. There is no dichotomy; a policy can be both a legal policy and a content policy.
  5. I'm not sure what a core policy is, but the most likely definition would be m:Foundation issues.
  6. Any content that fails NPOV, V and/or NOR is unacceptable.
  7. However, not all content that does not fail NPOV, V nor NOR is acceptable.
  8. Any content that fails NOT or COPY is unacceptable, as is content removed for OFFICE reasons.
  9. If a copyright expires, some text will no longer fail COPY and may therefore become acceptable.
  10. However, if a new book is published, some text will no longer fail V or NOR, and may likewise become acceptable.
  11. The "triad" has been on the pages for about a year, added by SlimVirgin. It has not been debated or agreed upon anywhere.
  12. However, precedent on Wikipedia isn't binding; policy pages are edited frequently, and lots of items that have been on policy pages for a long time get removed.
  13. Several pages exist that explain why a certain combination of policies is good. The most famous is WP:5P.

Did I miss anything? Anything up here that's false? (Radiant) 16:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I can't help thinking that none of this discussion about how many content policies we have is important. jguk 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it's not, which is why I've been copyediting WP:ATT in the meantime :) but in my opinion most policy pages are overly verbose, which leads to confusion of newbies (and oldbies are unlikely to re-read policy all that often). So shortening a page by removing a claim that is, to my mind, misleading sounds like a useful thing. (Radiant) 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is important. It might even be crucial to resolving the current ew/dispute and clarifying the entire system. Perhaps we should examine the policies and the way they are organized, and possibly restructure. Are there core content policies, and if so, what are they? Is there overlap? What are the core legal policies, and what are they? Is there overlap? And the same with behavior/interaction policies (do we even have a name for that?) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But if we have 46 policies, I for one would like to see them organized and listed, and discuss which have overlap. There is currently discussion about V, NOR, RS, and ATT being merged/re-organized, there may be a better way to do that than with 46 policies. Also, are there core policies, and if so, what are they? You are saying no, which would mean 46 policies to know and understand before being reasonably certain you weren't working against policy. Does that sound reasonable? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is true that some policies are fundamental and others are corollaries, or definitions of process. It may be useful to reorganize this page to indicate such; it may also be useful to merge policies that are corollaries (e.g. the proposed merger of V/NOR/RS into ATT). Fundamentals include the GFDL license (corollaries WP:COPY, WP:FUC), WP:NOT (corollary WP:WINAD), WP:CIV (corollaries WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:FAITH, WP:DR) and WP:OWN (foundation issue). We also have a few restrictions on editing (WP:NOP, WP:SOCK) which appear to be less fundamental and more about process. Several of these are about content. (Radiant) 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
An article which is under copyright has no content issues per se, but if it is included then the Foundation will face legal issues. Copyright is a legal issue that transcends Wikipedia, not a content rule invented by Wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are content policies invented by Wikipedia that uniquely define which content is suitable for Wikipedia; no other encyclopedia has these content rules. As for the claim that publishing a new book mirrors the case when something is no longer under copyright, the analogy doesn't hold. When something falls out of copyright, that exact text could theoretically then be used in Wikipedia. However, when a new book is published, the original WP:NOR will still not have been suitable for Wikipedia, since it will (by definition) not have complied with WP:V. You might be able to include new content which is substantially similar to the old content, but it is still not the old content. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no flaws with Jayjg's reasoning here. So Cp is Legal; and while a policy we really don't have to worry too much about edit wars there, because the impetous and form are set externally, by copyright law. I was thinking also of such things as the proposed TRIVIA and SCHOOLS3, which would fall under Category:Wikipedia notability criteria categoriy of guidelines under the current structure, all of which are more closely allied with WP:NOT than any other policy so far as I can see. Do you percieve my meaning here? We have related Policies, with overlap and some contradictions. We have Guidelines which may or may not fall under the aspect of clarifiy details about Policies, yet are not so labeled. We lack a clear structure of organization. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Jayjg is correct that NOR/NPOV/V are invented by Wikipedia to define content (although arguably, factuality has been the aim for older encyclopedias as well), but he is incorrect in claiming that no other policy has been invented by Wikipedia to define content. Indeed, WP:NOT predates two of the three he mentions.
  • Also, I fail to see why a newly published source would require an article on that subject to become shorter; indeed, it may well become longer. For instance, if a new form of dance develops, and someone writes a short article on it, that's original research and not allowed. If a book is published on the dance, the exact same short article now has a valid source and is no longer original research. It needn't be reduced in any way. Thus proving my original analogy.
  • (Radiant) 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua wrote: Also, are there core policies, and if so, what are they? You are saying no, which would mean 46 policies to know and understand before being reasonably certain you weren't working against policy. Does that sound reasonable? Most of those 46 policies are procedural polices (stuff like Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion or Wikipedia:Protection policy, which you only need to know if you want to get involved with the procedure in question). A large proportion of the rest are behavioural policies, not content ones, and as the vast majority of wikipedia users never behave in ways that are detrimental to the project, I'm not sure it's necessary for most of them to read such policies. Only if they want to get involved in enforcing them, or if a user is directed to them as an explanation of why they shouldn't behave in a way they are behaving, is reading one of those necessary. Some are legal policies (e.g. Wikipedia:Copyrights) which most users should never need to read as either they'll already know about the laws discussed (don't infringe other people's copyrights) or the relevant parts are displayed rather prominently ("You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL"). Some legal policies discuss content issues, but I'd still say they're not content policies, because they discuss things in absolute terms of what is a legal requirement. WP:BLP is a good example.

That leaves the content policies, by which I mean policies that exist to help wikipedia editors decide what should be included in wikipedia and how it should be written; this distinguishes them from the legal content-related parties which exist (essentially) to help the wikimedia foundation avoid getting sued. These are perhaps a little more tricky, as they're apparently less obvious to most wikipedia contributors than the rest, (or, at least, they're the most frequently violated, which probably means that a lot of users don't understand/know about them). We're talking about: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:WINAD. Of these five, WP:WINAD is essentially a corrolary of WP:NOT. There are arguments that WP:NOR is a corollary of WP:V, which is the impetus behind the current attempt to merge them. Other than this, I feel all of these policies should be given equal weight. Certainly, content must pass the tests in all of them to be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Therefore, I feel that any statement about "core content policies" should include at the very least WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT, and probably also WP:NOR (at least until/unless WP:ATT becomes policy). Take or leave WP:WINAD; the important part of it is on the WP:NOT page. JulesH 18:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on who you are talking to. Are we explaining our policies to be able to answer the question "What makes Wikipedia different?". In which case, I would agree that respecting copyright is indeed not a difference. Or are we explaining our policies to someone wanting to write for us. In which case we're answering "What rules do we need to follow?". Respecting copyright is fundamental to answering that. jguk 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
JulesH: I agree, and this is beginning to look like organization. Legal, Content, Behavior, and Procedure is how I read you organizing policies in your post, is that correct? jguk: This is not about explaning policies so much as organizing them into a coherent structure. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference between WP:NOT/WP:WINAD, and the core content policies, is that WP:NOT/WP:WINAD define the kinds of articles that are appropriate (or not) for Wikipedia, whereas WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:NPOV define what content can go into those articles. WP:NOT/WP:WINAD sets the framework for editing; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, a phone book, Google version 2, etc. WP:NPOV/WP:NOR/WP:V define what can actually go into articles themselves, what makes Wikipedia content different from the content of other encyclopedias. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Put another way, WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:NPOV are content policies, WP:NOT/WP:WINAD are scope policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This then calls for an update of the definition of "core content policy" as currently used in the introductions of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace" - WP:NOT does part of the determining of the "type" of material that is acceptable in the main namespace, in a non-redundant way with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV (e.g. dictionaries; telephone directories; copies of widely published primary material,...). WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV primarily determine quality of the acceptable material I suppose, not so much "type" of the acceptable material (for which WP:NOT is the "core content policy" I suppose). --Francis Schonken 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be a good distinction, but I'm afraid it isn't quite as clear-cut as that. There are kinds of articles disqualified by NOR/V concerns regardless of content (e.g. a student copy/pasting his essay or paper into Wikipedia is original research regardless of the content of the paper), as well as NPOV concerns (e.g. articles like "<Faction> opinion on <event>" are deleted as "inherently POV" regardless of content). Conversely, there is content disqualified by NOT regardless of what kind of article it's in (e.g. one shouldn't add a link to one's own website to a page even if your website has the same subject; one shouldn't list a celeb's phone number even if it's verifiable; and the content of a page should not be a mere collection of source material). It appears that "content" and "scope" (arguably, "scope of content") are intermingled on Wikipedia. (Radiant) 13:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • True, completely agree. I only wanted to draw attention that WP:NOT does take care of a large part of the "type of content" selection, part of it not really overlapping with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV (although, like always, one could say that when WP:NPOV is transgressed, then so are usually WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NOT, and all other variations, traditionally expressed as "core content policies don't work separately"). Also, of course, WP:NOT does some of the quality selection too: e.g. not making lists of fancruft is a quality issue as much as a type of content issue. --Francis Schonken 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Random section break

KillerChihuahua, for whose benefit?

It's a fair question, as I think I've demonstrated how best to organise them depends on what the purpose of the organisation is. jguk 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, you haven't. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indulge me anyway. Who is the intended audience for this page? jguk 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unclear what you're saying here. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the target audience for this page? Is it all contributors?, newbies?, experienced editors?, all Wikipedians?, journalists or students interested in the way Wikipedia works? Whose needs should this page be tailored to? jguk 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You are asking this same question in many policy pages. What are your intentions? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The audience for a "list of policies" is mainly any and all editors, although it is to be expected that new editors just write articles without having to bother about policy, and it is to be expected that long-term editors don't read policy all that often because they've read it at some point in the past. I fail to see the purpose of the question, though. (Radiant) 13:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates

When a user changes one of the warning templates ({{test1}}, {{test2}} or whatever, is there not some way of warning the rest of us country bumpkins that it's been done? I just found that all of a sudden {{test1article}} needs the title of the article in question. Not in itself a problem, but it would be nice to be warned. If possible - it may not be.--Anthony.bradbury 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith?

Why is Assume Good Faith on this list? Isn't that a guideline, not a policy?--Dmz5 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

It's incredibly confusing how something actually becomes a "policy" from looking around here. I was wondering if someone could help. Just H 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline for alphabetic sorting

I just sorted some entries on this page in a more didactic sequence, targeted towards new users, based on my experience. Another user sorted them alphabetically with the summary "Sorry, but all of this page is alphabetic, and any ordering by perceived importance is going to be pretty much arbitrary". I agree with this argument in articles such as List of BBS software. We don't want to start a discussion about which's more basic or important. However, this argument certainly does not apply to all articles. We wouldn't want to sort Christmas alphabetically. Where is the border line?

Criteria we should consider include:

  1. Does the article primarily serve to find specific, named things or teach about facts?
  2. Is there a logical connection between entries? (E.g. we currently have "FAQ for Neutral point of view" after "Neutral point of view". No one in their right mind would advocate putting FAQ before the policy.)
  3. Is there a didactic concept or a learning curve? ("Verifiability" appears in second place, right after "No original research". I don't think it would make sense to put "Biographies" first, and "Verifiability" last, and have "No original research" somewhere in the middle.)
  4. How arbitrary are the sort names themselves? (E.g.: Many users might expect "Criteria for speedy deletion" under "S" for "speedy deletion".)
  5. Does alphabetic sorting contribute to making the article stable? (IOW: How likely is it that editors will start a war over the sequence? I don't think the risk is very high here; I don't think there'd be a fierce discussion if someone moved "Verifiability" ahead of "No original research".)
  6. Are there any other natural criteria, such as chronology or position on a subway line? (Importance could also be considered a natural criterion provided there is consensus among editors.)

I'd invite my fellow coeditors to think about other criteria, and where you would draw the line and then apply it to this page. — Sebastian 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (green font added later.)

Since significant parts of this page are not alphabetic, it is evident that the reverting editor didn't check his facts. I therefore reverted the page. Of course I'm happy to discuss any changes here. — Sebastian 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you are, or appear to be, introducing a hierarchy of policies by implying that some of them are more important than others. Doing it alphabetically is arguably arbitrary, but at least it implies equality. >Radiant< 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Importance is one of the possible criteria. I didn't even think about it, but I'd say it fits to point 6. I agree with you that it can be a a source of disagreement, and thus may cause a problem. — Sebastian 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Per the above, I've restored the alphabetical order. It is true that the sort names are arbitrary and potentially subject to change. I don't think learning curve is an issue as I don't expect novice users to read the linked pages from top to bottom. >Radiant< 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Policies and Guidelines

I am having a few difficulties wading through the various policies and guidelines and relationships between the two. I would like to propose a new style guideline (if that's not too circular) for policy pages which should state that:

  • Guidelines should always refer to the related policies and guidelines in the introduction
  • Policies should always include details of subsidiary guidelines at the end

This would make understanding the heirarchy of policies and guidelines a bit clearer.

As an aside, I think we could do with a cull and rationalisation of guidelines too - some of the guidleines seem to contradict each other. What do others think? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, as the title of this section suggests, I am going to ask questions ^^ Man, I can be so bright at times!

  1. What is the difference between a policy and a guideline?
  2. Can we create policies and/or guidelines?
  3. If that is possible, what is the procedure to go through? (I'm thinking it should be like signing an ammendment to a constitution, but I'm asking due to my doubts)
  4. Is a certain status (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) necessary for such a procedure to be undertook?

Thanks in advance to your answers!

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers

  1. The difference between a policy and a guideline is given at [2] As I understand it, a policy has fewer exceptions. Guidelines are subsidiary to policies.
  2. Wikipedia:How to create policy
  3. as above
  4. No - all editors are welcome to participate (see above)

Hope that answers your queries and please feel free to put me right if I have misunderstood anything. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to those wonderful answers!

Thanks a lot! This helped me a lot! ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy trumps consensus

I had added the summary "Policy trumps consensus" to the description of WP:CONSENSUS to mean "A group of editors on an article cannot, even with consensus, do something in violation of policy". It happens frequently: "we all agreed that this was fair use". Naturally consensus can however *change* policy. How would you (Radiant, who removed it) express this? Stevage 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy doesn't trump consensus. If there really is consensus that something that is against policy is the best way of improving wikipedia, you can ignore the policy. But that consensus had better be really good... JulesH 12:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two issues. First, a "local" consensus (i.e. half a dozen editors on a random article) cannot overrider a "global" consensus (i.e. established by a large group of editors all over the wiki, and that includes all policy pages). Second, consensus cannot override the Wikimedia Board, or the Founding Principles. There are very few instances of that, but fair use is one (as is NPOV). >Radiant< 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a revert log?

When an administrator wants to revert an article to an earlier version, he/she can:

  1. use the administrator's special tool to revert; or
  2. use an ordinary user's History -> Edit method to revert.

Is there a way to distinguish the two methods? -- Toytoy 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No, there's no log. He can also use any number of javascript tools to revert. The effects are identical so I'm not sure why you'd need to distinguish them. >Radiant< 10:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes an admin may enter an edit war or revert war. It is improper that the admin uses admin tools when he/she gets dirty in a mud wrestling. -- Toytoy

Icons

I didn't think the topics on the paged matched up perfectly with the five pillars, so I've created a new set of icons for this page. (Except for the gavel, which was preexisting.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source

Is there a wikipedia policy page that says you shouldn't use another wikipedia page as a source? The thing is there's an article on a war, and there's another article about the major empires involved in the war, and some people insist that in the infobox for the article on the war itself we must put what the concensus (more of lack there of) was of the article on the major empires involved. --LtWinters 18:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's Will

I was looking for the article on Jimbo's Will, which is clearly official policy - it has at the very least been cited as reason for a ban. Shouldn't there be an article detailing that Jimbo's Will is to be enforced, or does that go without saying? 82.135.13.29 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge two policies?

This probably has been addressed before, but why are Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on two separete pages? I think if they were on one page (What Wikipedia is not), we could develop more concise language to cover Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself... - Rocket000 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS policy

WP:OTRS was recently promoted from guideline to policy. I am wondering where on this page to put it. I was thinking that maybe we could start a new section for Wikimedia Foundation-related ones which would have WP:OTRS and WP:OFFICE as WP:OFFICE is more than just deleting pages; it could be protecting pages, etc. What do you all think? Greeves (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it should go under "Enforcing policies" or we need a new group. Rocket000 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

policy for inclusion?

I am surprised that while there is a specific policy for deletion, WP:Deletion_policy, there is no inclusion policy specifying the criteria for including/creating a WP article. For example, is satisfying the notability criterion for a particular subject/person sufficient for including a WP article for that subject/person? I think that having a more explicit list of criteria for inclusion would be helpful. Regards, Nsk92 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing policies

This list is currently missing:

...and most importantly:

The following are also considered official policies:

I know these fall under other policies already listed, but since they are policies (not guidelines) they should be included.

Also, Text of the GNU Free Documentation License isn't a policy, and What Wikipedia is not is listed twice.

- Rocket000 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The only actual policy you've listed is Ignore all rules, and that's on the page at the moment. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Shouldn't the Privacy policy be there? I couldn't find it. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 16:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a Wikimedia Foundation policy. I've adding a link to the page where that and all the other policies of the Foundation can be found. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Much?

What the hell with all the guideline warnings?! I get that this is an "encyclopedia", but there a little bit too much guidelines! It's the same with WikiQuote! I went on the Colbert Report quote page and it looked nice. It was well organized, easy to read, only two pics, bt at the top it says "Does Not Meet Guidelines". So what!

I believe that if it's well-organized, can easiyly be read, and is neat, there's nothing wrong with it! I do believe that the ones that give usefull information (like if it's planed for the future) are helpful, and if it is a mess. But getting rid of the trivia sections just because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is just bull$@&#! It's the biggest $@*&#?* peice of %@#* I %##@%&%^@%$@ [PORTION OF THIS COMMENT WAS DELEATED BY GOD. THANK YOU]@! But I digress.

What I say is, for serious articals like the holocost and Scrubs (Hee hee), have the guidlines. But for articals about TV series, especally comedy like Fam Guy and Robot Chicken, don't have all the guidelines. And if you don't like a section, like the trivia section, don't read it! Like my good friend Stewie would say, "Well that's my argument. Where's your's?" --BrianGriffin-FG 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections.--Father Goose 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank Gosh Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is the first rule. Otherwise, nothing would ever be accomplished around here. —Nricardo (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

in the policies under deletions, it makes the first mention of AfD on the whole page... this is a technical acronym that is understood by veterans of Wikipedia, but to newcomers, the term doesn't mean anything in the context. it should at the very least be a link (as the first mention of the term) such as AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.173.91 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing policies

the first two topics in the "Enforcing Policies" section do not tie in with the style of the rest of the page.

all the other topics (including the others in "enforcing policies") give a summary explanation.

for example: Blocking policy - Disruptive users can be blocked from editing for short or long amounts of time.

in this example, it clearly explains blocking policy as a summary.

however the first two topics:

Appealing a block - Rules for having a block lifted.

Arbitration policy - Rules for how the Arbitration Committee decides Requests for arbitration.

only explains what is on those two pages, but does not summarise what the rules are, or the overall scope of the rules.

for "Appealing a block" it would be better to state something along the lines of: "Users who wish to appeal a block can Appeal if they feel the block was in error."

etc, to fit in line with the existing style and to provide a useful summary for these two topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.173.91 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"nonfree"

in the legal and copyright section of the page, it refers to "nonfree" images... "nonfree" is not a word, and should be "non-free"

as should "relicense" be "re-license"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.173.91 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the policy against duplication?

Wikipedia is filled with duplications. For example, have a look at the History section of United States, compare with History of the United States. Where is the policy against duplication? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy; the relevant guideline is WP:CFORK. There are many examples like the ones you specify, where a "parent" article has information at a more summary level, and a "subarticle" goes into more detail. If you notice any contradictions, please feel free to clean them up. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My dream: "Wikipedia is not an exhaustive and excrutiatingly detailed catalog of every single thing or person that has been mentioned on South Park or Family Guy."

Please. Posterity will thank you. --66.129.135.114 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging and moving pages

Why isn't Help:Merging and moving pages a guideline? --neonwhite user page talk 04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Euro or Dollar?

Someone raised this on another article and I couldn't find any guidelines about it so I thought I'd put a question here. There was a bit of a debate about how comparative financial figures should be listed - one camp arguing that they should be listed in Euros and the other in Dollars. Outside of saying that articles explicitly related to the U.S. or to EU countries which use the Euro should list the respective currency for these areas, I don't have an answer to this. Does anyone know of guidelines on this issue? Blankfrackis (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate talk page for List of guidelines

It seems quite counterintuitive and confusing to me to have separate page for the lists of policies and guidelines, but a single talk page. (Wikipedia talk:List of guidelines redirects to Wikipedia talk:List of policies.) I have not run into this sort of thing for any other page. I propose that the redirect page should be deleted, so we can have 2 normal talk pages. I wanted to get a sense of what others felt before pursuing this further. Libcub (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I endorse your suggestion, I'll just do it.--Father Goose (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity policy

I just searched around trying to find the policy that states that Wikipedia contributors are guaranteed, as much as possible, anonymity and that outing is prohibited, but couldn't find them. The only pages that talked about it were essays. Is there no policy or guideline that actually states explicitely that anonymous editing is a policy here and that outing editors is prohibited? Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING, part of Wikipedia:Harassment.--Father Goose (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooray!!

I love this one:

Ignore all rules
Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia.

With the caveat that I wish to stress the if! Rules are not created to be broken – they're created to create some reason and some logic to people working in a system. They are to be broken only if they're a hindrance to common sense and constructive development. I'll take it and translate it to Swedish Wikipedia, where legalists are a little bit too alert. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Strunta_i_reglerna --Father Goose (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I got a question

Is wikipedia for posting modern academia or more like a democracy so that who ever has the most people agreeing with what was posted gets to leave it? I don't theink this page says which one - i'm confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deo Favente (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

hi,

is it ok to copy wikipedia and paste it on other websites? I copied the main article "Wikipedia" and changed some things.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.15.120 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

// but it doesn't look so well and the HTML looks terrrible. doesn't look like the main Wikipedia website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.15.120 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you copy all the css then it will look the same. Hopefully there is some place to download it in one package... And my question is still not answered. Edit: I looked for a place to download the css in one package, but i must suck at searching cause i could not find it. Another alternative would be to change all the urls in the html you copied to point to wikipedia's urls for css.Deo Favente (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

I have a wedding picture that was taken in 1947 by a professional photographer for Stone Photography Incorporated and I'm trying to figure out whether I can upload this into wikicommons. Can someone out there help? Mmyotis ^^o^^ 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You should ask your question on Commons itself, they're the experts on their policies.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators

Is this a policy? It has a tag saying so, & a discussion by a small number of people agreeing, but it's not listed here. Peter jackson (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and listed it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Who does policy speak to?

The text and even the nutshell version talks to "users", but in fact the vast majority of users are purely readers. Policies only affect "editors". The text should reflect this.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Internationalism

An awful lot of entries are biased towards one country, and the United States in particular. I suppose that this isn't surprising considering that most English-language users of Wikipedia are likely to be American. Moreover, most of us are apt to know most about our home country's version of any given topic. This said, it's no excuse for what is a lazy practice of many contributors of crafting an article without referring to its international dimensions (where these are relevant/substantive). I've sought to draw attention to this by adding a content guideline tentatively called "Internationalism". If there is a better way of going about this, don't hold back!

Adding datetime stamp to facilitate archiving process.—G716 <T·C> 10:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

Would it be best to archive this? it is long and it is getting to be a little slow in the loading territory. Rgoodermote  02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - done - anything over 90 days old will be auto-archived—G716 <T·C> 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Towards new proposal policy

Many community members strongly disagree with the current policy. We are proposing a modification of languages criteria to star a wikimedia project, with a community draft]. feel free to contribute with your opinion:

Thank you very much. —Preceding Crazymadlover
Adding datetime stamp to facilitate archiving process.—G716 <T·C> 10:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving a few things in and out of the Content section

There are currently 7 policy pages in Category:Wikipedia content policies, and I altered the Content section of this page so that it conforms. Attack pages seems more a matter of deletion policy than content policy to me, so I moved it to that section. WP:NFCC and related pages are constantly coming up in article review processes, and it's generally regarded as a content matter; a month or two ago, I added the "content policy" cat, and it's one of the pages I keep track of at WP:Update. WP:NFCC is also in the "copyright" cat, but even though our policy on images and clips has its roots in international law, it's evolved into something uniquely Wikipedian. WP:NOT has always AFAIK been in the "content policy" cat since most of the page concerns content. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nickname idea

Wikipolicy is an easy portmanteau of Wikipedia and Policy (shared p) so I took the initiative of redirecting that term here since it has no other use. There is a history of a deletion in late 2008 for this, but it was not blocked from recreation so I presumed that it was some sort of vandalism previously. Tyciol (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nutshell

I've made a page at Wikipedia:Nutshell where I'm trying to put together a comprehensive list of actual policies, without explanations, reasons-why, history, examples, redundancies, and so on. Though it's a nutshell, I want it to be complete and precise. The page would help me, and I hope others, to better understand Wikipedia policies. If someone could check it for completeness and correctness, I would appreciate it. –MT 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'd like to include all the enforcement policies in the monthly WP:Update, but I can't find any rules of enforcement at WP:Dispute resolution; it seems more similar to pages that are in the behavioral cat, to me. Also, the WP:LOP#Global section is more likely to confuse people than help, I think; it says it means "general" policy, but WP:GlobalBlocking means blocking on all projects at once. WP:LOP#Global only has 2 pages, IAR and NOT, but NOT is already in the content policies, and IAR seems to me to belong with WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS, i.e. in the enforcement cat; by itself; can we axe the "Global" section from this page? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing Refernce:

I am not exactly sure about where should I discuss this, but I feel that this the right place to discuss this matter.

I have observed in various article at wikipedia that the refernce citation is no standardized through out the wikipedia. Different users use different ways of citing reference. There are some references in APA style, others simply refer the authors name. Some will the website address, and some won't mention the reference. This creates a problem that wikipedia is facing of in sufficient and unreliable reference. This also requires for many users to put the tags of request for improving the article by providing reliable citations.

I suggest that wikipedia programmers should work on a system that make's citing refernce easier and standardized throughout wikipedia. A referncing tool similar to the one present in MS Word 2007 should be developed or purchased to be included in the editing tools. So that the reference style is standardized.

Further, it can be made neceassary, for the editors to give refernce for what they edit or emend or expand, to give reference by the use of that citing tool.

Please talk more about it, and also suggest the right place where this topic should be discussed. --DaDexter (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions (categories)

A few years back, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was mistakenly deleted. In particular, this policy was formally approved by the bureaucrat on 2005-09-25 13:30:49 UTC. Restored, with additional description.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Functionaries listed here, but the page itself says it's a proposal. Peter jackson (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise, OTRS says it's a policy, but isn't listed here.

Can't you people get your act together even on something as basic as this? Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the 1st time I've pointed out such inconsistencies. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm noticing more inconsistencies on this page now; it was in pretty good shape half a year ago. I've added the following footnote which ought to be self-explanatory, but feel free to revert or discuss: "When a summary or talk page on Wikipedia claims that a page says something it doesn't say, the original page is definitive, not the summary or talk page. For instance, all the Wikipedia content policy pages are in Category:Wikipedia content policies; adding a page to the content policy section below above without getting consensus to promote the page to the content policy category doesn't make it a content policy page." - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) tweaked 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll come back to this as soon as I'm finished with today's WP:Update. I'm not comfortable with linking to this page from the Update if this page is going to be wrong. It looks to me like a reversion going back 2 or 3 months would be an improvement, and we could start from there. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I just visited OTRS again, & it still says it's a policy, & it still isn't listed here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick thought

WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS have been in the enforcement cat for about half a year; I get why someone removed them from the enforcement section of this page, but I think the reason they've been accepted in the enforcement cat is because they're two of the most frequently quoted pages in enforcement related discussions. Maybe it would be less confusing if we define the "enforcement cat" (both here and on the category page) to be "enforcement plus the policies on policy". Then we wouldn't need to move WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS to a different cat, and I'd propose that we throw in IAR (it's just one sentence!) and this page (because it's not really a good idea to let this page get out of synch, and reporting on it every month at WP:Update will help). - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't seen any support for this. Now I think the best solution would be to add Category:Wikipedia conduct policies to WP:Update, and make that a section on this page; there are already pages similar to WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS in that policy cat, so they'd fit in nicely there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles are all in Category:Wikipedia conduct policies. These probably have more in common with WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR than the enforcement cat pages do. WP:LOP probably doesn't belong in Category:Wikipedia conduct policies ... any ideas where to put WP:LOP? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Of the existing categories, it would mostly likely fit Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, I would favor a revival of Category:Wikipedia policies, which is currently a redirect to Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then put Wikipedia:List of policies in that category.--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the page in line with policy pages

Is there any reason not to use the same subcats as appear at Category:Wikipedia official policy? (I mean, other than "global", which means different things to different people and is a huge subcat ... pretty useless). They are all named "Wikipedia X policy", where X is: conduct, content, deletion, enforcement, and legal. The "legal and copyright" section of this page makes some sense to me, and I wouldn't mind changing the name of the subcat to match and adding in the policy pages in Category:Wikipedia copyright; other than that, and other than the ideas above (#Quick thought), the pages that are currently in those cats make sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like good sense to me. :) It might help keep them coordinated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Does the footnote I added make sense? - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also ... I've just added Category:Wikipedia legal policies to WP:Update and I'll get the June update done today ... which policy pages would you like to see added to a theoretical Category:Wikipedia legal and copyright policy? - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Question 1: I've got the basic idea, but I think it's a little convoluted. How about something like this:

This summary page is descriptive of the content of the various policy pages referenced and does not override the text of those pages. Where discrepancy exists, the policy page itself overrides. Changing this page does not change policy. Likewise, adding a page to this summary does not elevate it to policy status. Policies are promoted through consensus. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for more.

Works for me. This seems to me to fit better in the lead section than as a footnote. Anyone else? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Off to examine the theoretical category. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd include:

Neither of these last two are policy, precisely, but certainly merit inclusion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the logic that these all involve legal and copyright issues, but some of these pages have a long history in other policy subcats. The 5 policy subcats other than "global" (see Wikipedia:VPP#Global_policy.3F) don't have much overlap, and the 3 subcats I've been covering at WP:Update don't have any overlap ... I don't think that's written in stone, but it seems like a practical approach. On the last two, I mentioned some ideas on the talk pages for why the recent promotion to policy status might not be a good idea; they seem more similar to pages in the "disclaimer" subcat of Category:Wikipedia legal policies to me ... they're not disclaimers, but they serve a legal purpose and they're not to be tampered with without consultation with the lawyers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure I follow you here. :) Are you saying that policies should be in one category only? If so, I'm not sure I agree, since a category for policies related to legal & copyright issues would be incomplete with the exclusion of any policy related to legal & copyright issues. Those users who wished to locate such policies in a category might not be checking other policy categories. I guess the question would be the purpose & function of the category. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had to deal with the consequences of overlap so far at WP:Update because there hasn't been any, and I'm not sure how to approach it. If we add the legal subcat to BLP, which section do I put the monthly update in: content, legal, or both? Also, I'd prefer that people go through roughly the same process to promote a page to a policy subcat as they go through to promote the page to policy status; if pages are switching subcats without a lot of discussion, then it will be hard to follow their history at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it work for you to have one tag (category) meaning "this page concerns important legal issues" (whether it's a policy page or not) and another tag that means "this policy page is more similar to the pages in the legal and copyright subcat than it is to pages in other subcats"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I think we're at one end of a cycle, it's very difficult to get people to talk about policy these days ... that's not much of a problem, it suggests that people think that policy pages aren't creating unsolvable problems and don't need babysitting ... but it means that I have to tread very carefully if I don't want to be the "big daddy" (and I don't). There's not enough history behind Category:Wikipedia legal policies for me to be comfortable pushing to expand it at this time. Besides, it has only 3 pages, and 2 of those pages are already covered at WP:Update in other subcats. I'm fine with the idea of some kind of cat to denote pages that have legal and/or copyright content, but I guess my preference now is to either get rid of the legal subcat or remove it as a subcat of Category:Wikipedia official policy when we (I predict) get rid of Category:Wikipedia global policy ... that would allow me to cover all of the policy subcats at WP:Update, which I've always wanted to do but didn't have time to do before. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Dank, I'm glad that you're doing what you are with WP:UPDATE, but I have to agree with Moonriddengirl that it makes sense for some policies to be in multiple categories, just as many articles are in many categories. I certainly agree that the categories in that area need to be cleaned up a little, but we shouldn't be putting policies in rigid straitjackets just to make it easier to manage WP:UPDATE.--Aervanath (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS categorization

Ok, the page is what it was before OTRS was added, and we can discuss categorization here. WP:OTRS isn't a behavioral policy - it's closer to an enforcement or deletion policy, if anything. (So that it's clear that I'm not acknowledging it as policy: I still firmly believe that OTRS is not a policy (it isn't on meta), was not correctly marked as one (3-editor consensus), and so on.)    M   16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Code of conduct

Is the WikiMedia code of conduct a WP policy? It seems to be applicable to representatives of the Foundation, not to WP editors. And what about the other WM policies? --Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria

I think it would be correct to say that Non-free content criteria is a Legal and copyright issue, rather than a content issue, and this needs to be recategorised. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The NFCC are stricter than what the fair use law allows for. The policy says it uses "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Those extra restrictions are founded in Wikipedia policy and not legal documents. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
But you agree this is a legal issue, rather than an editorial issue? The reason I say this is that it is implicit within the remaining content policies is that the coverage which they are concerned with is copyright compliant. The rationale behind Non-free content criteria is about ownership rights over content, rather than editorial rights over that content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We're re-jiggering the policy subcats over at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy; this will mean changes to this page too, per the nutshell here. I agree about NFCC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change, I think the move to Legal and copyright category is the right move for Non-free content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We haven't had any complaints, so it looks like it's going to stick. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about the 3 new or expanded policy subcats

The ones I know of are at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_69#Wikipedia_administrative_policy and WT:POLICY#Agreed, plus links from those discussions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a quick decision that will reduce the list of legal policy pages from 11 to 7; link is WT:POLICY#Tweak to list of legal policies. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey! It's Four here! You're all weirdos and I don't know why I can edit this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EffinChanos6NM (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

I can't get the shortcut WP:CONPOL to work. Can anyone assist? The previous shortcut (WP:CSP) did not work either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There ya go. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It still does not go to the right section. I can't get the shortcut to work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems to work now I changed the shortcut to point to #CONPOL (which was already defined as an anchor). I guess the problem is something to do with the fact that the source HTML already contains a tag with id="content" (in the automatically generated part).--Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Applet

I would like to use an applet to add a bit of interest to the page "Tidal resonance" - see the requests on the discussion page. Most browsers support applets but they are not in the list of supported file types on the wikipedia upload page. Is there a policy of not using them (say because sun owns the java copyright), is it an oversight or am I missing something?

Regards, David Webb (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll get a knowledgeable response at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (WP:VPT), I think. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Use WP prefix to stop hiding redundant redundancy

The "WP:List_of_policies_and_guidelines" needs to be changed to use the "WP:" prefix for each page and stop hiding the true titles of pages in numerous redundant links, over and over, redundantly, again and again. For example, simply list:

By removing most renamed link-text, the confidence of the linked titles will be increased and the page will be simplified internally. Although some redirects exist, to handle titles, which are different than page titles, there is just no reason to keep masking the true titles of the pages. The practice of omitting prefix "WP" will obviously be confusing to many new readers, as would any other type of masking of true titles. Instead, lean towards a WYSIWYG presentation, where what appears on the screen is what a user would enter to access a page: most page titles should be shown as a user could enter them for access. The short prefix "WP:" is enough shortening to keep the list from becoming overly expanded by prefixes. Perhaps there has been a feeling that "WP" prefixes should be omitted to remain consistent with highly-masked wikilinks within policy documents; however, a list of pages will be expected to list exact titles of pages, rather than euphemisms or alternate POV-phrases for page-links. Again, the titles will be abbreviated enough just by using auto-expanded prefix "WP:" rather than the full prefix "Wikipedia:" for each page title. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see that this is necessary - there are different possible views as to what the "title" of the page is, whether it includes the namespace prefix (and anyway, if it does include the namespace prefix, then we are not being "exact" if we're going to replace it with WP).--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I definitely appreciate the sentiment: I frequently have to mouseover links, to see if they're linking to mainspace or projectspace – E.g. WP:5P has 5 links to mainspace, and 2 links to other wikis – The idea that describes your concern is Principle of least astonishment.
However, taken to it's logical extreme, it could get very cluttered (in conflict with the KISS principle). I'd be dismayed to see the WP: prefix added to every displayed-link in projectspace; E.g. adding the prefix to every item in {{Policylist}} would not be helpful, imho.
It might be helpful to demonstrate your idea though, in certain cases (such as here). Edit this project page (perhaps in a sandbox, or just self-revert instantly) and link us to the diff of how you envision the ideal format. One option might be to use lowercase wp, because the namespace-software ignores letter-casing (e.g. WiKIPediA:5P, wP:5P), and because "wp:" is less visually intrusive than "WP:", especially in long lists (ie. it helps the capital letter of the actual page title stand-out better: wp:Five pillars).
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Governance and Style Guides too long and complex

Wikipedia editors' bad attitudes and their bots push new contributers away, as does the complexity added by those same editors and bots. This is temporary you are not going to turn me into a permanent editor by berating me as if I know all the complex and long winded guidelines and rules. The Style Guide for Wikipedia is more of a Wikipedia Governance, 100 Book, Encyclopedia for Wikipedia.

1) start with making Governance and Style Guides only editable by Wikipedia Foundation staff.

2) reduce the number of pages.

3) create a basic "getting started guide" for new contributers.

4) All Discussion Entries should be auto signed by the server.

5) throttle down Bot use. Yes, they allow for a lot more to be accomplished. A negative is how they fill history and change logs with lots of bot edits. For example the bot "SineBot" creates lots of history in the change logs, for very little value added.

6) For Bot to operate directly on Wikipedia.org they should need approval from Wikipedia Foundation staff, to reduce overhead created when humans need to fix errors caused by unvetted/untested automated routines. I guarantee I could create and run a bot without wikipedia approval even though there is a limited bot policy Wikipedia:BOTPOL. Or get a bot approved and then change it, without notice. The current bot governance has many flaws.

6.1) Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group is currently not made up of only Wikipedia Foundation staff.

6.2) "Authors of bot processes are encouraged, but not required, to publish the source code of their bot." Wikipedia:BOTPOL Where is the code review?? How do you truly know it will not due harm, or when the code changes and should go though another approval process but does not.

6.3) Read history for Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard there are plenty of problems with currently approved bots and the bots owners.

7) All Bot Edits must have BOTEDIT in the beginning of the comment.

8) All Bot discussion pages need to be continually monitored.

9) Create Wiki Check feature (which happens to be feature a lot of the bots are doing) which checks updates as the user is submitting updates.

10) Create a method for multiple users to vote privately to temporary ban rogue or overbearing senior editors.

Response

Your critiques are common and noted. Part of the issue is that many of your objections have already been handled or determined by the community to be manageable risks.

1) Governance and Style guides have always been constructed by the community to reflect its actual practices. They are also being improved by the community, and believe it or not, have been getting gradually more streamlined.

2) Happening. See WP:WikiProject_Policy_and_Guidelines, or check out the talk page of any major policy.

3) There are tens of guidelines for new users. Some of the best are: WP:5P, WP:The Missing Manual, WP:Introduction, Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines, and there are many others (I've collected a list of a bunch here)

4) SignBot?

5) On the recent changes or watchlist page, select 'hide bot edits'. There's now way to do this I know of on article histories, but you can check over at WP:Tools#history for some ideas.

6) Bots are pretty closely watched many (if not all?) can be turned off by other editors if they are malfunctioning. Them bot folks ain't no dummies either. They keep a pretty close eye on things.

6.1) Some of the smartest editors and coders are not on Wikipedia Foundation's staff (no offense guys!)

6.2) Bot operators are trusted users of the community who have to go through an approval process which shows their Bots work properly. Our systems are not designed to eliminate the risk of harm, merely to encourage people to avoid the dark side, and to keep a close eye on everything, especially if it looks unusual. Not to entertain the idea, but if bots we going to run amok, it seems like they already would have.

6.3) Systems get better. Bots do great work that humans wouldn't want to. What issues do you see that you'd like fixed?

7) Bots are identifiably named with BOT (i.e. SmackBot, SignBot, etc. and only legitimate Bot accounts can do this).

8) Bot discussion pages can be monitored with a simple click of the watchlist star. More importantly, Bot owners are expected to get approval for any significant changes to their code or function. Otherwise, Bot edits show up in page histories for scrutiny like any other edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies&action=submit 9) 'Checks updates as the user is updating them', I'm not sure what this refers to. What data source would you have the update bots query?

10) Admins who overreach are accountable to other admins or to ArbCom. Is there a particular admin you see misusing their tools? You don't have to name them here, but there are already procedures in place to handle those situations. WP:ANI the Admin Incident noticeboard is one place to raise issues. These forums not always as swift or vengeful as community de-adminship, but it has been discussed regularly, and generally dismissed as a bit too much of a hassle relative to the problem, especially for the volunteers who mop-up this place.

These are my personal, and not tremendously experienced opinions, but I think they are generally accurate. Criticisms are good and especially welcome over at the WP:Village Pump. You're best discussing individual ideas with the group that engages most closely with them. Ocaasi (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You just brought light to more complexity. How would a new or temporary contributer or viewer know where to post suggestions, problems, bugs, report vandalism or bias non-neutral pages and editors? Bot discussion pages often have comments on the top of them stating "this is not a person and responses on this discussion page are not read". Look at User talk:SineBot discussion page, he encourages you to contact the developer and not leave comments on the "bot" page; the problem with this is the loss of logs containing to the "Bot" for accountability. My argument against bots is that wiki system can be update to reduce the need for bots to perform after edit fixes; thus also greatly reducing the amount of edits being performed which fill the logs. If the wiki system was updated to add spelling and format checking as well as auto signing discussions, then bot use would be reduced. Also any user can create an account which has "bot" in its name, for testing I just created one; try it yourself. Yes, its not privileged as a bot but it would confuse users reading history of edits.
Great questions. Your easiest bet is the the WP:HELPDESK, where they can field any query (and probably already have). No dumb questions around here though, at least not for new editors ;-). Most specific areas have their own place to ask, typically a noticeboard. For example, vandalism could be corrected, and then you would report the user to WP:AIV which is Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. If you have one of the Counter-Vandalism tools like Huggle, STiki, or Igloo, they let you revert the changes and automatically make a report to AIV. Non neutral pages are under WP:NPOV policy and there's an WP:NPOVN noticeboard for that. Issues with WP:Reliable sources are discussed at WP:RSN noticeboard... There's a full list of noticeboards at Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Problems with specific editors should follow processes for WP:Dispute resolution, typically beginning with a polite notice that something seems unconstructive (or is unconstructive), then another warning or involvement from a third party, then in content disputes, possibly a WP:Mediation or WP:RFC request for comment. If someone's just being a dick, (WP:DICK,a must read), the place to go is WP:ANI, the administrator noticeboard.
On the other points, it's very unlikely that a bot discussion page has not been watchlisted by the bot author. What's s/he is really just saying is, 'don't inconvenience my by posting here, since I'd rather use my own talk page and keep everything in one place'. Your concern about a loss of accountability is not unreasonable, but it is pretty unlikely. Many experienced users have hundreds if not thousands of pages on their watchlists and keep a regular eye on all of the pages in their reach. Log bloat is a bit of a problem, but almost every bot edit is actually an improvement, so the alternative is human tedium. I do think you have a nice suggestion, however, and would personally like to see an option to 'hide bot edits' on Page Histories. The Village Pump/Technical section would be the place to take this. It's probably already been suggested, but mediawiki code is slow on the uptake (despite the great coders, they are tremendously understaffed). I'm glad you're concerned about the bot issue, but do be careful about creating account names--I wouldn't use it, even as a test--however I think you're correct that at least all new usernames which have 'BOT' in them should be screened. In general, you're doing the kind of thinking that benefits a variety of protect-the-wiki projects, particularly, WikiProject:Long term abuse, WikiProject:Spam, and WikiProject:Vandalism. If you get an account you can partake in a variety of pretty nifty monitoring tools which track suspicious edits of just the kind you have described. One of the best tools by far is Lupin's Popups, which lets you see snapshots of pages just by rolling over links. This makes Wikipedia much more efficient. You need an account to use it, however.
So, lots of places to check out. Don't be overwhelmed, I think in 1-2 years you can master a lot of most of it. And any editor can help you. Also, you might want to sign up for an account... There are benefits, particularly regarding the ability to use tools, as well as generally better treatment from other editors. I think you should follow through on the idea to have [hide bot edits] on page histories, and to make sure that all usernames including BOT are screened. Those would make great first projects to figure out how to navigate this place, even if they've already been asked. I highly recommend the links on my talk page, which I put together for just this kind of situation (except I was the asker). Good luck, and let me know if you have any other questions, like how to tweak your preferences or tools once you are up and running. Ocaasi (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies_and_guidelines/Archive_1&oldid=1084179182"