Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2

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

Reliability of Wikipedia and Vandalism

Dear Seniors, some people in real life questioned the reliability of Wikipedia, and said If any one can edit Wikipedia, even without registered user name i.e I.P and makes wrong edits or spoils the content of Wikipedia, such as putting a wrong information suppose some editors through its registered account or IP edit Wikipedia article London and edits that the London is in United States rather than UK, how will it be reliable that anyone might put a wrong information, and if a person reads that article and go to London but thinking that London is in USA as information placed on that article. or suppose there is any article of a city in which some editor (IP) puts wrong info which does not really exists there, suppose one puts a info that bla-bla (City) has a prostitution/ brothel, but actually that city/town does not have that thing, then how Wikipedia is reliable, what happens to these edits, MY response was that the senior Wikipedian could revert that incorrect info edits which is called Vandalism on Wikipedia. but again they asked if no senior Wikipedian reverts that wrong info on the article for two or more days then that wrong info must be existed in the article. but still they were stubborn to accept it, I was confused how to convince them, but I persuaded that the wrong information or vandalism is reverted by the Wikipedia bots or the authorized users. could you please understand what they actually wanted to say and did I answered them the right information as I could? and does really Wikipedia is not 100% reliable subjected to the Vandalism?.

Thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jogi don: Please work on reducing sentence length. You are hard to read.
They are correct, strictly speaking, which is why we have the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. But they make a logic error in going from "Wikipedia is open to factual errors" to "Wikipedia is not reliable". For the most part, important information is watched closely enough to prevent a serious reliability problem. Your hypothetical edit to London would probably be reverted within 30 minutes, and the editor would be blocked if they persisted very long. It's a choice between "the glass is 90% full" and "the glass is 10% empty"; Wikipedia's detractors choose to look only at the negative, rather than fairly and objectively looking at the whole picture. "Wikipedia is not very reliable for trivial information" is probably a fair statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing in this world is absolutely and perfectly "Reliable". Reliability is about how good the percentage is.
  • Can anyone put wrong information in Wikipedia? Yes.
  • Can wrong information stay in Wikipedia a long time? Yes, sometimes for many years.
  • How reliable is Wikipedia? See Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content: a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."[1] Important or popular articles on Wikipedia are watched very carefully. They can be almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. However obscure articles may get very little attention, and may have low reliability. However Encyclopedia Britannica probably doesn't have any article at all on the topic. Alsee (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jim Giles (December 2005). "Internet encyclopedias go head to head". Nature. 438 (7070): 900–901. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..900G. doi:10.1038/438900a. PMID 16355180.(subscription required)
@Jogi don: Your real-life friends are correct: Wikipedia is an excellent source of information but it is not reliable—at least, not nearly as reliable as a traditional publisher with professional editorial oversight. As a matter of policy, all information in Wikipedia is required to come from reliable sources, which must be cited in each article. However, just as you mentioned, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, people often make edits that violate this policy. Other people usually fix the problem sooner or later, but when you first access a page, you don't know if it has recently been edited in violation of policy. Wikipedia policy says that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; see WP:CIRC. Open wikis in general are largely not acceptable as sources for information in Wikipedia articles because open wikis are not reliable; see WP:SPS. However, you can get much good information from Wikipedia. For guidance on how to use Wikipedia for research, see WP:RESEARCH. That page explains the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia and how to use it to get reliable information. The best way is to use Wikipedia as a initial summary of the main information available on a topic, and then read the cited sources yourself to get reliable, in-depth information. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all of you for guiding and helping me in this regard, sincerely..Asad Ali Jogi (Jogi 007 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC))

Discussion at WT:village pump

I started a discussion at WT:village pump#Slow down the archiving? about archiving. Chime in. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for first sentence in this article?

Does the first sentence in Two knights endgame need a citation? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73: The lead of the article usually does not need citations if it simply summarizes the article per WP:LEAD (those other sections would normally contain referenced material). There are exceptions, like when a sentence is contentious. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The first sentence of the article states what it is about, but an editor has repeatedly put "citation needed" on it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to request a source for that sentence, given that it is definining the problem with some very specific claims ("the defending king possibly having some other material" and "The material with the defending king is usually one pawn"). The reference doesn't need to be inline in the lede, but it should be explained somewhere in the body text how we arrived to that definition and what reliable sources have defined the scope of this endgame. Diego (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I would even argue that the amount of detail to describe what the defending player could have is too much detail for the lede, and should be the first section to describe the situation, thus providing a clean place in the body for the sources for that. That lede doesn't summarize the article very well and is more being used as a background/setup paragraph. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability within bio

Full original section heading: Notability within bio (more specificallly: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!

I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow! That title was so like the title of a Victorian novel. Impressed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Who makes heavy use of the "Table of contents", "First discussion", "End of page", and "New post" links near the top of each VP tab? I use them only on rare occasion and believe they are examples of poor user interface design. I suspect the visual clutter detriment far exceeds the intended benefit of more convenient navigation. If these links "made sense", then every page with a longer table of contents ought to have them. They aren't ubiquitous because it's overkill. The "New Page" link is duplicating the native Mediawiki "+" menu item. The "First discussion" and "End of page" can be found easily by normal browser scrolling like we do on talk pages. Those two links seem particularly useless to me. The first is linking to the oldest active discussion and probably the most likely thread to be stale. The click-through rate for that link must be very low. The second is linking to the end of a page in a way that requires one to use the scrollbar most of the time anyway to scroll back up to see the beginnings of the new threads you are interested in. The "Table of contents" link has the same issue: often the TOC is so long you need to use the scrollbar anyway so why not just use it in the first place? Heck, the links themselves and the horizontal rule (!) contribute to lengthening the top of the page, which adds to the very vertical space problem that some of these links are trying to solve. I am sure some people use these links but I suspect they are not heavily used. The question is a matter of design and after considering them for a bit I believe they should be removed. It would make the initial VP experience much cleaner and clearer for newer visitors. Thoughts? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the TOC so I can see if there are any discussions I'm interested in rather than scrolling through the whole page. I don't much use the rest though. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I like the TOC too. I am not suggesting we remove it. I'm suggesting we remove the link to the TOC. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as the TOC, why not just use what WP:TH does with it? We use a scrollbar in the TOC itself instead of having to scroll through the page itself. — Gestrid (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The WP:TH's scrollable TOC seems okay to me but I don't really view a scrollable TOC as an advantage to the normal TOC because either way the user has to use the scrollbar. But modification to the TOC itself is seperate than my suggestion. It's the link to the TOC that I'm suggesting to remove. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
To be more specific. In {{Village pump page header}} I am discussing the possibly removing the code:
<div class="hlist" style="text-align:center;">
* [[#toc|Table of contents]]
* [[#below toc|First discussion]]
* [[#footer|End of page]]
* {{Edit|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|section=new|New post}}
</div>

Jason Quinn (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that. I see what you're talking about now. It wouldn't bother me to get rid of that, but it also doesn't bother me to have it there. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't even notice that. I don't use it. If it's ok with everyone else to get rid of it, it's ok with me. — Gestrid (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I created a mockup of how I think a "minor" redesign of the VP might look. It consists of three changes: A) the removal of the links above, B) a reordering of the tabs, and C) more rounding on the tabs for a refreshing visual change. Now that I can see my ideas in practice. I notice two things, the removal of the links encourages the editor to actually read the header text of each tab but there may be some value to the "Table of contents" link and "New post". At the moment I am still considering Change A. Change B I think is a slam dunk improvement. The "Idea lab" tab ought to be first. It also has the advantage of not have a redirect notice banner like the "Policy" tab does so there's less visual clutter for new visitors. C was intended just to remind me whether I was on my mockup or the real VP but it kind of looks and feels like a nice change. After I stew on it for a while and think of other potential changes, I may post to the "Idea lab" or even "propoals" regarding this. Thank you for your input. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
1. Along with laziness, apathy, and time limitation, clutter is one of the reasons people don't read the tops of pages. Every element should earn its keep, and these links don't. They are "nice to have" for a small fraction of users. I've never seen a need to use any of them and I think I'm functional enough at VP.
2. Unless one of our skins omits the standard "New section" link, I see no point in a redundant "New post" link. Multiple ways to accomplish the same thing is unjustified complexity—and tends to add to confusion and learning curve for new users.
3. I'm neutral as to Idea lab first, but it should precede Proposals.
4. Neutral as to curved tabs. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Mandruss. Order-wise there's not much choice for the tabs. We both agree that "Idea lab" must be before "Proposals". Because they are closely related it makes sense they be adjacent. And as the first stage for ideas, it seems like it ought to be first. The "Miscellaneous" tab must obviously come last. "Technical" is almost like a "Miscellaneous" category so should come directly before "Miscellaneous". And "Policy" similar to "Proposals" so must come to the immediate right. Not sure what if any thought went into having "Idea lab" in the middle. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Two questions: (1) Since we already have a "new section" tab less than two inches above the "new post" tab, do we really need it? and (2) I clicked on the "first discussion" tab and nothing happened, so what is it supposed to do? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I never use that set of links, and I am willing to support removal if no significant opposition arises. However I oppose changing the shapes of the tabs. It's an I don't like it oppose, however I expect any support for it would be an equally weighty I like it. Alsee (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

obnoxious formatting

right now this page is rendering basically unreadable on small screens. It appears to be being caused by a photo gallery in the discussion about trains, which is so long it should probably be on it’s own dedicated subpage anyway. It’s really obnoxious having to zoom in in order to read anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked the user who added those images to refactor that part of their comment, but they have not responded yet (and have not edited this wiki since Dec 17th). Do you, Beeblebrox—or anyone else—think the problem is pressing anough to refactor the image gallery for them? - dcljr (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because there’s no reason for one user’s edits to be inconveniencing others. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've done it. Did this fix the problem, Beeblebrox? - dcljr (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see it until after it was fixed, but it definitely would have been appropriate to apply an immediate fix. It surely falls within the intent of talk page guidelines: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read, as well as IAR for cleaning up any problem. Even on my widescreen desktop it drove the page to a fugly horizontal scrollbar. Alsee (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the page is rendering normally now, thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Firearms/Mass shootings RfC: Poll update discrepancies

In my opinion, it's inappropriate to include this unofficial tally in the RfC without an explanation of why the counts do not match the !votes. I'm moving it here temporarily. –dlthewave ☎ 23:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#poll update until discrepancies can be resolved.

Just an count of what we have so far, people can of course continue contributing/!voting. 42 54 58 people have posted so far, (as of Alanscottwalker @ 19:52, 24 February, DDG @ 05:16, 3 March, SMcCandlish @ 11:53, 10 March). There is a mixture of results, because of all the options and the way the RfC is written. Of the 42 54, 4 5 are clearly not !notes, but a question, a criicism and 2 3 comments, which leaves 38 49 !votes which so break down as follows;

  • Oppose - 7
  • Oppose (support 1B) - 3
  • Oppose ("unless relevance to the gun, ie: law changes") - 1
  • Oppose (support 1A/2A) - 1
  • 1A/2A - 4 6
  • 1A - 1
  • 1A/2B - 1
  • 1A/2C - 1 2
  • "if sourced" 1C, "if not" 1B/2C - 1
  • 1C - 2
  • 1C/2C - 5 7 10
  • "situational" 1C/2C - 1
  • 1C "or" 1D - 1
  • 1C/1D - 1
  • "depends" 1D/2C - 1
  • 1D ("but 1C if...") - 1
  • 1D/2C - 3 6
  • 1D/2D - 3
  • 1D - 4
  • (other)
    • "do like everywhere else"
    • "comment"
    • "please clarify C"
    • "wrongly posed question"
    • "case by case"

Carry on. - theWOLFchild 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

another 12 added, fyi wolf 06:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Another way to breakdown current numbers as SMcC 10 March !vote #58

  • 1.
    • A. - 19
    • B. - 4
    • C. - 13
    • D. - 14
  • 2.
    • A - 18
    • B. - 1
    • C. - 21
    • D. - 6

wolf 02:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're compiling !votes, it might be useful to have one set of totals for each question instead of tallying up all of the possible combinations. –dlthewave ☎ 23:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Go right ahead. I just listed what was there, !votes that were the same were added up, !votes that had any variation or distinction, were noted separately. It's by no means meant to be official, final or even determinative. It's just for anyone curious to see what kind numbers are in so far. Cheers - theWOLFchild 04:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If we are going to have a running total, lets have one that actually provides some consolidated information. If a !vote noted a numbered option I counted it in the totals so they may add up to more than the total number of !votes. Also, I used Thewolfchild's counts above for the numbered options.
    In the format n = A/B/C/D: 1 = 8/4/11/6 and 2 = 5/1/7/8. However several !votes contain nuance that boils down to "it depends" and "follow the sources". Ten of the Opposes say "existing guidelines are enough" however they are split 5/5 by what they consider "existing guidelines". Of the ten Oppose five seem to refer to existing WikiProject Firearms guidelines, while five seem to indicate the need to follow general Wikipedia content guidelines on a case by case basis ie pretty much the 'D' option. Jbh Talk 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well voting is voting, so not suppose to be that meaningful -- but yes, clearly a central issue being commented upon is application or rejection of the project guideline as any-kind of useful restriction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I would say the key take away is the repudiation of the local consensus project guidelines insomuch as they essentially pre-define due coverage and place an improper presumption in the way of neutral consideration of what to include based on the sources/reporting in each case. Jbh Talk 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just want to opine, as usual, that tallying votes while a discussion is ongoing is not helpful. As it is not a vote, keeping a running tally apart from when it's being closed serves only to influence subsequent participants (not saying it was done intentionally here, but a gloss of previous opinions on a complex issue does have an impact on decisionmaking, whether we want to admit it or not). It could also discourage participation by making it appear as though it's in some closing phase. Recommending to collapse this section if you wish to retain it, but there's no policy basis that requires abiding this request. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What is a simple breakdown of the !votes, as they were posted. Feel free to break them down, split them up, count them any way you like. - theWOLFchild 06:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for collapsing this. I was going to do it myself the moment I saw such a section existed. Creating these is patently disruptive and a form of gaming the consensus building process by trying to steer people's !votes. Don't do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies

There seem to be a few discrepancies in a recent update to the tally. I count the following:

  • 11 for 1A (instead of 19)
  • 18 for 1C (instead of 13)
  • 7 for 2A (instead of 18)
  • 27 for 2C (instead of 21)

I'm sure there's a reason for this, such as adding ambiguous !votes like "oppose" to one of the categories. @Thewolfchild: could you explain your methodology? –dlthewave ☎ 04:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, first off, I did say; It's by no means meant to be official, final or even determinative.. It's just a rough tally. but that said, when people simply wrote "oppose", what do you think they mean? And where would you count their !votes? - theWOLFchild 05:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: please explain how you arrived at these numbers. –dlthewave ☎ 23:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You first. Once I see how you came to your discrepancies, then maybe I'll have a better idea of why you seem to mine numbers are off. - theWOLFchild 02:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I went through the list and counted each !vote. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Me too. - theWOLFchild 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not archiving

Does anyone know why Social Media Statistics RfC isn't archiving? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Significant omissions in regard to involvement in corruption, grand kleptocracy and transnational organised crime

I am an admirer and long term user of wikipedia and have had some experience in dealing respectfully and generally with positive outcomes with page editors. I have however long been aware of issues with content dealing with profiles or topics which do not acknowledge significant background issues with corruption, grand kleptocracy and organised crime. My background is in investigative journalism and to some extent with corruption and organised crime control. I know I am not the only one in the transnational crime investigation and control community who feels the same way.

In relation to a project I am involved in, I am about to endeavour to correct multiple Wikipedia entries that have issues - the usual cause being that they have been provided by or for the persons or institutions that were the subject of entries. These are cases where there are or soon will be material on criminal links or activities that can be referenced to the appropriate standards that an encyclopedic project such as Wikipedia aspires to.

In my past sensitive interactions with Wikipedia I have sought to engage with the community rather than just wading in with edits, but beyond the particular current project this is a much broader issue where I think something of a policy discussion is warranted on the mechanisms for incorporating and preserving validated information on significant issues of public significance where there are also potential legal, security and other issues.

Doubleosixandahalf (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:V is king--so be careful the kinds of sources you employ and how you employ them (WP:NPOV). However, if you can verify also that articles are being influenced by those persons or institutions, WP:COI and WP:COIN can be useful. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW. Closing after a day is quite quick, but I can't see this being successful. If anyone has a real and grounded opposition to this closure, I'll undo it (but you'll need to show something quite convincing). Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

– These pages are technically subpages of the Village pump page. These are typically formatted with a slash and not parentheses. Example:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (incidents) Interstellarity (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC regarding Wikipedia policy on deadnaming trans people

I've created an RfC regarding Wikipedia's policy of deadnaming trans people despite the lack of notable events under said deadname. As far as I have seen, Wikipedia policy is to publish the deadname of any trans person, regardless of events, so long as a reputable source has published the deadname. You can find the RfC here. 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A user has pointed out that there was an existing Wikipedia policy regarding this, and I have closed the RfC. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation question

I am not sure if this has been discussed before (if so, please point me to the discussion). Given that the standards for External Links are slightly different from the standards of reliability for citing information... Can a website that has been deprecated for use as a source be included in an “External Link” section? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on why the source has been deprecated. If it is deprecated because it has been repeatedly found to have printed lies and made stuff up (Daily Mail) then it would be inappropriate to use as an external link. It would fail WP:ELNO bullet #2 "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research..." On the other hand, if it is deprecated because it is self-published, but appears to be accurate information and the author shows evidence of fact checking, then it may be ok to use. SpinningSpark 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
IMDb is an example of a source that is considered unreliable, but it's apparently perfectly okay to put it in External links. El Millo (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Provided the link is actually useful per WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe IMDb is deprecated because it is unreliable. It is deprecated because it accepts user generated content (which, by implication, might be unreliable). In general, the information on IMDb is accurate. I'm certainly more inclined to believe something I read there than in the Daily Mail. IMDb comes under WP:ELMAYBE bullet #4. WP:ELNO bullet #12 on open wikis is also relevant; the user base of IMDb is large enough that errors and deliberate misinformation have a fair chance of being spotted. SpinningSpark 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Plural title guidance

As a result of a recent RM discussion at Talk:RGB color spaces#Requested move 20 October_2021, a page was move to a plural title, for no good reason that I could discern. If RGB color space needed to be plural, what about Standard illuminant and Primary color (within that field) and countless other singular titles that can refer to more than one thing? Is this messed up, or what? Is the wording at WP:PLURAL to fault, or just how this particular discussion interpreted it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What issue about the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page are you hoping to address? If you want to complain about a move, there's a process for that described at Wikipedia:Move review. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Threats to Independence of Wikipedia call for a fundraiser?

Who is it that has made, "threats," to the free encyclopedia's independence? Who or what might that threat be? Wikipedia has gone to an open, blind fundraiser to defend against threats mentioned, but no threat is known and no threat is named. As with political donations, readers should know all the facts which can be learned before offering donations blindly, is that not right? Knowledge is power, a wise man once said. This is a truth. Please make plain the threats so we might give, knowingly. Thank you in advance. 72.24.88.217 (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This should be in the WMF section, it is not an en.wp policy matter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
We here at Wikipedia are unaware of any such threats. The fundraiser is for the Wikimedia Foundation, not for Wikipedia. You'll have to ask them, not us. —Kusma (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Some say the WMF is threatening Wikipedia's independence, but that's probably not what the banners (posted by the WMF) are referring to. ;) Anomie⚔ 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline articles verb tense

Timeline articles (millennium, century, decade, year, and month) are written in different verb tenses. Most if not all millennium, century, decade and year articles are in the present tense, but some month articles are in the past tense. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again, not here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Assistance with Conflict of Interest and Reverted Edits on My Article

Hello experienced editors,

I am reaching out for your guidance and assistance regarding a situation I am facing while trying to update the article about myself, Peter Levashov. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page and have been careful to only add well-sourced and accurate information to the article.

However, a politically engaged editor, @HouseOfChange, has been reverting all my edits, despite my efforts to follow Wikipedia guidelines and work collaboratively. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review the situation and provide guidance on how to proceed or offer a neutral perspective on the edits I have made.

Here is the link to the diff of the reverted changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Levashov&diff=prev&oldid=1151099906

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving your valuable insights and advice.

Best regards,Levashov.peter (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I see it has been proposed that the biography be deleted. The rationale for deletion seems valid, and I suspect this may be the best way to deal with the situation. If, however, we are going to keep the biography, there are clearly issues with it that need remedying, but I think it unlikely we are going to include links to your website or other material concerning your recent activities: we base articles content on what third parties have to say about a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello AndyTheGrump,
Thank you for your guidance on the proper way to suggest changes to my Wikipedia article. I have followed your advice and submitted several edit requests in the "Talk" section of my page, ensuring that they are based on reliable, unconnected sources and maintain neutrality.
I kindly ask you to review these suggestions and consider implementing them in the article. Your attention and assistance in maintaining the integrity of the content are greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Levashov.peter (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of Policy vs. Other

This close in AfD was interesting: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heraldic charges. There are many, including myself, who quote WP's without knowing which are policy and which are guidelines (or essays etc.). Why not have a different naming system to differentiate between then, such as WPP: (for policy), WPG: (for guidance), and WPE (for essays)? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That would require creating new namespaces. In principle I'm not against it, but I don't think it will change anything; we'll just have a redirect from WP:V to WPP:V, and most would continue using WP:V because that is what they are used to. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I hear you, but it feels like not being able to separate a policy from other types of WP:'s should be a big deal? I'm not sure everybody knows the difference (myself included). Maybe we could do it by changing the colors? 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone really knows the difference; the best we have is WP:POLCON. The difference between the manual of style vs. guidelines is even worse defined.
What do you mean by changing the color? BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Eh, the MoS is a guideline; it's why it has a guideline template at the top of it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
And I do think that knowing the difference is of value. By color, I mean that when some links to a policy (i.e. WP:V), that it would come up as say a green-link (instead of a blue link)? That might might be a quick improvement? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Changing the link colours is probably a bad idea. Changing the colour of the box a the top of the page ({{Policy}}, {{MoS guideline}}) might be worth considering. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed on the first part; various user scripts and user CSS already do all kinds of link-coloration jobs (redirects in green, links to disambiguation pages in orange, etc.), and people are doing this stuff on a very individual basis. The only thing they've ever had to work around is blue for a link to an article, purple for same but already visited, and red for link to missing page. Introducing more would break all the existing customization stuff. On the latter point, I'm skeptical this is a good idea, because various things that had a guideline tag slapped on them by a wikiproject probably should instead have {{WikiProject advice}} (a subclass of essay), because they only reflect a "local consensus" of a small number of editors; meanwhile, there are various essays that have the overwhelming support of the community (WP:BRD, WP:ROPE, etc.), but remains essays because they are not written as guidelines but in essay style. For a system like this proposal to work, pretty much every WP:-namespace page would have to be carefully evaluated for whether it is classified correctly, and some would need to be completely rewritten to change classification categories to reflect their actual level of community consensus buy-in. I think it's just going to remain a fact of wikilife that our documentation structure is complex and not perfectly consistent, and has a learning curve. PS: Another issue is WP:IAR and similar concerns: there are plenty of times when the literal word of a particular policy is moderated in some particular, narrow way by principles laid out in a guideline or even an essay, but people would ignore such subtleties and just retreat to "my position wins because I cited a policy and you cited only a guideline and an essay" counterproductive thinking (not to mention that one's interpretation of the policy might be completely wrong). We already have too much of a habit of just citing a shortcut as if that explains everything, and we would not want to reinforce that bad habit with a new layer of imprimatur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Article titles written in Chinese

According to Wikipedia:Article titles (policy), "article titles are written using the English language". Why, then, are there over 200 articles with the title written in Chinese characters? See Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@WWGB, those are disambiguation pages and not articles per se. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to expand slightly on that, it is entirely permissible for a Chinese title to redirect to an English title, but this raises the obvious question of what to do when there are multiple equally plausible redirect targets, and no English-language equivalent covering all of them. BD2412 T 15:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
We only create a dab when the Chinese translation is a likely search term for multiple topics, such as Chinese surnames and places in China. If the Chinese terms for "apple" and "baker" happened to be similar, we wouldn't create a dab, because Chinese is not particularly relevant to either topic. Certes (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

CP?

@Pecopteris when you wrote remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP, what were you referring to? I assume it wasn't WP:CP. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Child pr0n. What's the context, is this being discussed elsewhere? Pecopteris (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have linked to WP:VPP#Language at WP:UPNOT. RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I see the conversation is over. I think the RFC was poorly worded, frankly. It was a general question about a specific situation - removing another person's userbox that said "this user likes What is a Woman?", on the basis that such a userbox is "extremely offensive". While there was consensus for "no change" to UPNOT, there was also a consensus that the specific action taken (and justified by citing UPNOT) was not appropriate. I think the closure should have made note of that. Pecopteris (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why can't registered users edit using blocked IP addresses?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:VPP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:VPP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Wikipedia:VPP until a consensus is reached. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 14:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_2&oldid=1244839318"