Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HandThatFeeds (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 22 June 2008 (→‎Footnotes/References: replaced leading spaces with cquotes for formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.


Graphs

JUST LOOK AT THAT UPWARD SPIKE! Oh, the bottom line of the graph isn't 0, it's 20 million.
This meets your Y=0 intercept criterion, but is equally or more misleading. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does not meet the Y=0 intercept criterion, but is less sensationalized. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm all for not having an overflow of policies people are supposed to know about, but we need one on graphs. Graphs of data that purport to show a trend should have their origins at 0 so that the trend is not exaggerated or sensationalized. This graph to the right, for example, taken from New Deal, currently is sensationalized; it greatly exaggerates the drop in unemployment from 1929-32, as well as the subsequent upward spike. This trashy data interpretation is common in daily newspapers (even the Wall Street Journal) who always seem to have a nagging fear that they need more exciting-looking trend lines in graphs in order to make their stories look more exciting; but this is an encyclopedia. Exceptions are OK as long as the graphs are explicitly labeled with an appropriate disclaimer.

I couldn't find this policy on Wikipedia. Does one exist? If not, where do I begin? Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The main reason I want a policy on this is mostly so there can be a shorthand so that editors concerned about this (namely, I) don't have to explain and try to establish validity of the whole theory every time a change request is made for a graph. Tempshill (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You express a valid concern, but zero is not always the relevant Y intercept as zero is typically not the appropriate X intercept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue describe is one of the classic techniques of using statistics to distort the truth. It is definitely mentioned and discussed in the 1954 text How to Lie with Statistics. Article reviewers should be wary of this and the other issues, but most people are statistically illiterate so I don't expect you to get a lot of headway. GRBerry 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that graphs should not be drawn to look misleading, but often it depends on the circumstances and type of variable being measured. I suppose one major exception to this is temperature. There's often no need to make a temperature graph's y axis start at 0°C as that's an arbitrary value chosen to match the freezing point of water. If the graph was about gas pressures or very cold temperatures, you would make the scale start at 0 Kelvin since that value is quite relevant. For most everyday graphs, however, the temperature scale would not need any specific starting point. Tra (Talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what's wrong with the second graph there other than the choice of vertical scale. Is that all? We can just choose a more reasonable scale to fix that. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other graphs are just there to demonstrate that a rigid criterion can be manipulated. We just have to be willing to use good judgment. You just can't make very issue a matter of policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting down on policy-proliferation is always good, but I sympathise with User:Tempshill having to explain things all the time. It seems like an essay on the subject would do the trick well enough, documenting the different aspects of "how to make good graphs" (including, as in all things, common sense). Does that sound like it meets your needs, Tempshill? An explanatory essay that you can link sounds about right from my point of view (who knows, it might even make it to MoS-guideline status in some possible future). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An essay sound like the approach. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you're concerned about meeting is that the ratio of areas in a graph showing a change should be similar to the actual change. A graph showing an increase of 5% should not be offset in a way that looks like an increase of 50%. I think a policy should be set but rather than talking about offsets it should talk about area proportionality as the same misrepresentation can happen for things like log-scale graphs. Likewise, graphs showing the derivative of something without any reference to the constant factor have this problem as well. Rather than denying these outright, perhaps they should have some kind of not proportional caption with a link to a Wikipedia: page on reading graphs? I don't agree with Kevin Murray's comparison graphs. The one with the zero offset still does a better job of showing how the change is small with respect to the total, while the small version does not. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some graphic examples of your proposal. It sould be an interesting solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murray, I would give you 1/8th of a Tufte Barnstar for these graphs if such a thing existed. A picture is worth 984 words or so; thank you. I do disagree that the 2nd graph is less misleading, though - despite the vertical scale, I still see the rise from bottom depth to top height as an increase of about 75%, rather than an increase of about 350%. I think the essay idea is fine and I'll do it. Tempshill (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any barnstar can be created, and 1/8th well earned is better than 8 from folly. I like GM's idea but am concerned that a graph loses its meaing without some visually perceptible variance. In my business huge dollars can be gained or lost on minute marginal change which is not always relevant to the total value, since the probable risk is rarely a loss of all, but a loss of some increment. I have to make subjective decisions on how to demonstrate data to sophisiticated investors who don't have a lot of time to spend on preliminaries, but a flat line does no good in showing the nuances. I'm glad to help, and if needed be your devil's advocate in the process. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that can be done to reduce the general misunderstanding of graphs (and statistical theory) would be helpful. So yes, we need an essay (at least). How to Lie with Statistics is certainly a great, and maybe groundbreaking book. I also recommended books by John Allen Paulos, especially Innumeracy and A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper which includes those fallacies and others. Area proportionality makes sense per Gmaxwell. — Becksguy (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs now exists. Please feel free to edit. I'll add some references in a bit. Thanks, all. Tempshill (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, a whole discussion on graphs and no mention of WP:NOR? Any way you read this "pillar" policy, it is incompatible with graphs other than those taken from a published source (assuming you get permission). Emmanuelm (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OR paranoia. It's not original research to take a table of statistics from a source and trivially turn it into a graph any more than it would be to include a table of statistics in the article as a table. Anomie⚔ 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image submission embarassment

A big part of the reason we have all sorts of copyright related rules for images is that we're trying to encourage people to make more freely licensed images. Great stuff.

So, obviously, we should want image uploading to be as easy as possible. It's not, and past usability studies have faulted Wikipedia for making it hard to upload images. Some of those difficulties are impossible to fix (like, we were faulted for asking for the copyright status and authorship of uploads), but some we can improve.

I was disappointed today to find out that we've recently made the situation much worse: Pursuant to a bugzilla request and a vote on meta all WMF wiki's except for Commons were set to require that uploaders be auto-confirmed.

This proposal was apparently not widely discussed or popularized on English Wikipedia and as a result much of our instructions are now highly misleading. For example, many articles have the FromOwner pleas begging for image submissions (For example, Larry_Gelbart). The FromOwner system has gotten us hundreds of freely licensed photos which probably would not have been otherwise submitted. However, since the change if you follow the instructions and create a new account to upload, when you click the upload button you are told: "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Autoconfirmed users, Sysops." and no further details. You're pretty much just screwed. So now honest people wanting to give us images are shown a brick wall, while vandals can continue to use sleeper accounts. So much for Assume Good Faith.

I'd like to propose that we request this ill-considered setting change be immediately reversed for English Wikipedia and that we instead use site-JS to only stop new uploads of non-free images (based on the upload page uselang). --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, we do have WP:IFU which in theory addresses this issue. Now getting more people to clerk that page is another matter. MBisanz talk 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is images for upload supposted to upload an image I took which is stored on my computer? For non-free images pulled from the web .. fine. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about just copying things found elsewhere. :( Regardless it still leaves us with bad and confusing instructions spread all over the site. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A caveat though; for every good image we get from those (shudder) placeholders, there's likely a far, far greater number of copyvios. Should we really allow such easy uploading of the latter, which we are clearly doing of late? What I mean is, uploading images is very easy, almost too much, but is this the way to help curb it? That i dunno. Wizardman 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked for a few months but in the month or so after Geni started FromOwner a majority of the images were kept. ::shrugs:: People seem to do a better job when we ask them for only images they created. Beyond that, our mission is creating and collecting free content. Deleting a single image is easy. Getting a free release of some obscure person or place can be hard. We should endure a hundred copyvios just to get one more image freely licensed. ... If you really think avoiding deletion work should be our first priority, then the best solution would be to disable upload completely. No more problems! :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that message direct potential uploaders to the Commons, where autoconfirm is not required and free images should be hosted anyway? Kelly hi! 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sense to me. Wizardman 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in the past, but sending users over to commons is really confusing. Not exactly a friendly way to handle new contributors. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you're coming from, but I think a brief explanation of what Commons (a repository of free media) is would handle that. Kelly hi! 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it demonstratively doesn't. Adding commons to the mix requires another 6 or so steps in the upload process (going to commons and creating a commons account), and probably subjects the user to a couple of kilobytes of additional text that they should read. Evidence suggests that the upload pages are already largely unread due to information overload (people don't follow the pre-existing recommendations to use commons). ... and beyond that, making upload autoconfirmed hides the upload link, so they won't even make their way to the instruction to use commons. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would work better if projects are more seamlessly integrated. We could link directly to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork and omit most of the intermediate steps, but only if "unified login" pre-enabled for newly created accounts. If it isn't, it ought to be. — CharlotteWebb 10:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The only issue I can see with restricting non-free uploads only is that it might encourage people to upload things with incorrect licensing, putting even more strain on things like WP:PUI. Couldn't we just change the directions to direct people to Commons? Mr.Z-man 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for making image uploads autoconfirm-only is not vandals, it's the clueless. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 4 day, 10 edit limit inhibits every person and not preferentially the clueless. If I were joe-photographer wanting to give an image to WP I'd follow the instructions and get an access denied and give up. I'm not going spend an hour reading just to discover I need to make 10 edits and wait 4 days, or register at another site just to give Wikipedia something, I'm going to either just forget it or take my ball and go home. The result of making it harder for people to give us free images is that there will be fewer free images submitted, talk about counterproductive. :(--Gmaxwell (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been of the opinion that there should be some sort of quiz for image uploads. We have an overwhelming amount of information and instructions right now, but it's all very easy to ignore. If uploaders were forced to take a brief quiz before uploading an image, I'm pretty sure it would take care of people who can't read, don't like to read, are stupid, are children, are stubborn, or all of the above. Wikipedia:Upload was a push in the right direction, but it seems a lot of people just hit "my own work" and ignore everything else. --- RockMFR 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VPT#Proposal - Upload Block for something along these lines. Kelly hi! 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We started to write a quiz at commons once.. but it turned out to be hard work! :) Consider the question there "Do you know what fair use is?" '... SURE! It means that it's fair for me to use what I want!' doh. ;) I'm of the view that we should split uploads into "Did you create it?" vs "Did you find it someplace" address the latter with WP:IFU and the former with a quiz that determines if they really created it or not (and collect a working email address so we can follow up with them!). Somewhat OT for my complaint here... --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins at Commons understand copyright. Admins at en Wikipedia are (mostly) clueless about copyright. Send the uploaders to Commons. Kelly hi! 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me instant SUL and cross wiki redirects and I'll do it. Until then not practical. there is no reasonable way I can get people to jump to commons and back without ending up with cracks in the rails.Genisock2 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm actually there might be a way to move them across smoothly but it would be an abuse of the mediawiki functions that makes the interlang stuff look minor.Genisock2 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth: The rate of surviving (non-deleted) freely licensed images uploaded per day went down by 7.1% (and 0.4% on commons), when comparing the 75 days before vs 75 days after the change. Surviving (non-deleted) non-free image uploads on EnWP decreased 5.5% and the total image upload rate (including images which got deleted) to EnWP decreased by 31% during the same timespan. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, that's about the timeframe when ImageTaggingBot stopped working and STBotI, which is more aggressive at tagging new uploads, started running. --Carnildo (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Coincidentally, I was speaking today to one of the (real-world) system administrators in my university, who was telling me how he was totally unable to figure out how to upload images successfully to Wikipedia, either public domain or making a plausible claim of fair use. He had failed in his first attempts, and was consequently intending not to try contributing to wikipedia again. Now, this guy is a very experienced computer guy, with a full career of experience in complex computer systems involving multiple protocols and man of them almost non-existent documentation, and considerably experienced with intellectual property licensing, and it's the first time I have known anything related to the subject to discomfit him to the point of abandonment. 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

it's a known problem. Placeholders are meant to counter it to an extent.Genisock2 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So finally when, thanks to the efforts of many editors and bot operators, the non-free uploads problem is finally being brought under control, this unnecessary step is taken? It might make sense for smaller projects, but enwiki has the resources in the form of people power and bot power to deal with all new uploads. Turn it off! --bainer (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! The image problem is not under control! Go look at image categories using {{PD-old}} or {{PD}} or {{PD-Russia}}, or even {{PD-self}}. They're chock full of copyvios! And hardly anyone is working to fix them. Kelly hi! 02:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To us old timers a backlog of < 50k images is fairly "under control" by historic standards. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I get you. But I would guess the backlog is at least that, if not more. This is a total scientific wild-assed guess on my part, based on the total number of images on Wikipedia and the percentage of copyvios I find when looking at them. People tend to think the problem is in the areas of non-free content - that is actually well-patrolled by bots and not too bad overall, by WP:NFCC standards. The real problem is in public domain images that have no, or insufficient, details on authorship to justify the PD claim. It's not just PD, but other claimed free licenses as well - I was moving Flickr-sourced images to Commons, and around 10-20% of those Flickr-sourced images on en Wikipedia do not have free licenses and have to be deleted. I'm seeing articles with copyvio images in them getting all the way through peer review, good article review, and featured article review. As an example (just off the top of my head, and maybe not the best one) look at the image of the playwright Gilbert in the article Creatures of Impulse, just promoted to FA. Who created that image, and when and where was it published? The article got promoted despite the concern being unresolved. Kelly hi! 04:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I hate is that I'll be out at some building or location that has a WP article, check WP via my phone.. see that there is an image and not bother taking one. Then I look later and realize the image was a copyvio (or otherwise non-free). Watch out on the flickr sourced images. Flickr will not remove copyvio without a direct complaint from the holder, and generally won't disable accounts. Lots of copyvio on flickr. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, that image came from the New York Public Library, that's what NYPL means. As to when it was taken, who cares? Please, your copyright paranoia is off the charts. Enhance your calm, there is no need to panic. Wikipedia isn't going to die if you miss a copyvio. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal completely. Supposing someone didn't want to edit text to be able to upload an image? they'd be contributing, and it'd be great.--Serviam (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sorry there's a higher hurdle for image contribution. I used to patrol recent images for copyvios, an endless chore that I gave up on. The copyvio problem far exceeds the alleged problem of difficulty for average users to upload free images. Tempshill (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom trying to sneak in policy change on BLP

Those interested in the ongoing development of BLP policy might be interested to read this current proposed ArbCom decision. It's been attached to a seemingly unrelated case regarding a boring, technical issue of formatting of reference quotes, where few would be likely to see it before it's a fait accompli, and it grants sweeping new powers to admins to impose their will unilaterally on anything pertaining to a BLP. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it does not just apply to articles about living persons, it applies to any content relating to a living person. The proposed remedy thus affects about 25% of our content. Risker (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that pretty disturbing. Anything that clearly and obviously doesn't belong in a BLP is already easily removable; hell, we even ignore the three-revert rule when it comes to BLP. If something is too controversial to be immediately reverted as vandalism or is complicated/potentially real enough to be libel, then it should be reverted and discussed. Anything else needs discussion and consensus for or against inclusion. The regular editing process is absolutely fine for that. If you don't agree with a change, revert it, discuss it, get consensus and either put it back, keep it out, or change it somehow and put it back in. Under no circumstances should such carte blanche measures be granted like this. Between this and their "sourcing adjudication board", I'd say ArbCom needs a serious re-examination from the community. This is starting to get out of hand.Comment copied from BLPN Celarnor Talk to me 03:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are overreacting here. All this does is cement the fact that admins can page protect/delete to prevent BLP violations, and enforce bans against those who repeatedly violate BLP, without having to go through the mess of a formal ArbCom (again). It's not "unilateral," as any of these actions can be appealed to a community decision at WP:ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Admins may unilaterally impose sanctions as well as use their administrative tools. The sanctions can only be appealed to Arbcom or WP:AE; WP:ANI discussions are essentially irrelevant. The current wording of the remedy means that any administrative action involving an editor that is identified as being BLP-related cannot be undone without either of those two fora making such a decision; that would include responding to unblock requests or modifying page protection. Arbcom still has the opportunity to improve the wording, but I wouldn't bet on it. Risker (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is an attempt at a power grab. Generally, ArbCom can only act when a case is brought to it. ArbCom is a dispute-resolution body. ArbCom is making broad policy here: "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy." That exceeds ArbCom's authority. --John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spoil sport! I was looking forward to the news story where a WP Administrator commandeers an ICMB in order nuke a nogoodnick from orbit. "any and all means" :( --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good reason that the arbitration committee is a committee, and not some BLPite admin going happy on editors. ArbCom is the proper place for wide disputes that can't be handled by discussions, blocks and obvious vandalism, not one person. Like Risker said, only ArbCom has the power of undoing these potentially ruinous blocks; posting a thread at ANI won't help you in the least. To undo something caused under this ruling, you have to go directly to ArbCom. This cements an oligarchy and weakens the power of discussion and consensus between editors. Celarnor Talk to me 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks interesting, can't wait to see where it goes. Oh an Celarnor, it explicitly says that if there is a consensus at a noticeboard to reverse a decision under this ruling then it can be reversed, you don't need arbcom to reverse it only consensus. 1 != 2 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the link in the decision is specific to WP:AE, and appeals of blocks linked to arbitration cases are a little difficult to discuss there when the blocked editor can't participate (transclusion notwithstanding). Risker (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of the merits and demerits of the specific changes, I find it highly offensive that ArbCom imposed such a remedy in a case ostensibly about boring technical issues regarding reference syntax, without the slightest bit of relevant evidence being presented to justify the remedy. I have to suppose that this was done on purpose in order to get this remedy in effect with minimum "drama" (or community discussion). *Dan T.* (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the rules about BLP-related blocks advanced in this remedy go substantially beyond existing practice (and since they do not bear directly on the content we show to our viewers, are much harder to justify). I believe that clear community consensus should be required to enact page bans, etc., not that clear community consensus should be required to reverse them when made unilaterally. Beyond this, I am not sure that the ruling differs substantially from current practice. That said, this sort of remedy seems very far beyond the scope of "arbitration" as a dispute resolution process. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does somewhat reflect a current, problematic practice, but it strengthens the that practice, strengthens the idea that "invoking BLP is a blank check for doing whatever you want and not having to deal with the consequences"; even more problematic than that is the fact that it removes the community's ability to do anything about it. But yeah; even more problematic than both of those is that it was enacted without any community involvement or discussion by fiat, and that some people are actually accepting it. Celarnor Talk to me 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving

moved discussion

I suggest we begin to discourage pagemove archiving of article talk pages for a number of reasons

  • Bots use the cut-and-paste method, therefore making it a de facto standard
  • The one stated advantage of pagemove archiving, namely that it "makes it easier to prove that the archive is a true copy of the talk page before it was archived" is not compelling - how often does someone really try to tamper with an archive when cut-and-paste archiving it? Deal with problem users, don't assume bad faith.
  • Having the page history in a single location is far superior - if I want to find a particular contribution I made to a talk page, I don't have to search the history of several archives individually.
  • Pagemove archiving stifles ongoing discussions and also encourages harvesting the entire talk page, there's no need to have a completely empty talk page even if the discussions aren't active.

This proposal is related to several complaints with respect to pagemove archiving by Koavf (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) - I'm not faulting the user as both methods are currently deemed acceptable, but you can see the complaints on his talk page. xenocidic (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disclosure notice: I have invited 5 users to comment here, two are proponents of page-move archiving, three are proponents of cut-and-paste. Koavf is one, the other three were the ones who took issue with the archiving. The last one is someone who reverted a bold change I tried to make to WP:ARCHIVE. I have also posted a note here. xenocidic (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xenocidic here, and with Tyrenius' arguments on the user talk page. --John (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People can just archive how they see fit. 1 != 2 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'm talking about article talk page archiving. People can archive (or not archive) their talk pages as they see fit. xenocidic (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you meant user talk pages. 1 != 2 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the first sentence. xenocidic (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something that might help with copy-and-paste archiving is to make sure that the archive has a diff or diffs at the top to where the information was archived from? Or perhaps an oldid? That might help with the "provability" (not a big concern as you say), and gives a point of reference. I see your point about having a unified history for the page. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point regarding the use of diffs. I personally do not see the need, but would support it if others felt it would be helpful. Dbiel (Talk) 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means advertise this discussion here, but the place to discuss changes to Help:Archiving a talk page is on the talk page Help talk:Archiving a talk page. For the record here, I disagree with xenocidic and think that moving is simpler and quicker than any other method. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resultant discussion archived can always be copied to the help talk page. As for pagemove archiving being simpler, and quicker, yes, it's certainly easier, but that doesn't make it superior. xenocidic (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents As stated above, I am in favor of page-moving personally and I am basically indifferent to whichever method someone chooses to use. As WP:ARCHIVE explains, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. The only really novel points I have are these:

  • If a method has been used on a talk page, it is probably best to continue using that method.
  • If anyone actually has any numbers on which method is used more frequently (and I find this doubtful) or any kind of polling data suggesting that one method is more confounding than another, I'd like to see it. Assertions that X method is the "normal" way to do it or is done "by the majority" are not useful unless they are substantiated in some way.

I doubt I have anything more to add, really, so I won't be watching this discussion. Thanks for inviting me, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point:
  • If a method has been used on a talk page, it is probably best to continue using that method
The problem is that even you fail to follow it as per the example indicated below in which you created archive #6 Dbiel (Talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a new opinion that he developed after our discussions. xenocidic (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but he (Kovaf) had previous made strong references to the policy page that contains this point to support his use of the move method. But this is just one more reason to discourage pagemove archiving and to standardize one one single method for article talk pages. Dbiel (Talk) 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support I fully agree will all points made by Xenocidic in the initial proposal. The following talk page is an example of the mess that gets made with the history files Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus Archives 1 & 2 were cut and paste, archive 3 was move, archive 4&5 were cut and paste, archive 6 was move. With the help of an administrator we were above to revert archive #6, but to restore the rest of the history is a much bigger undertaking. Current policy states that this type of mixed archiving should not be done, yet most/many/some users do not take the time to check how the previous pages were archived as was the case with this page. Also I challenge the point that move archiving is easier as if it is done correctly, you still have to cut and paste the portions of the talk page that should not have been moved which includes all headers and any recent discussions. I am one of the 5 invitied by Xenocidic Dbiel (Talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the inconsistency for you: it's not very hard for an admin to merge the history back from a moved archive page (ironically, using the technique usually used to fix cut-and-paste moves in article space), effectively turning it into a cut-and-paste archive after the fact. Unfortunately, the opposite conversion is not usually practical, at least not if the archival was only partial. That probably constitutes an argument for one side or the other here, though I'm not sure which... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The advantage of keeping the history intact is overwhelmng, as far as I'm concerned. It's hard enough finding diffs of old discussions without having to play guessing games about why the history of the page just stops. Even if you do know about this issue it's a fiddle jumping across archive histories, expecially if there's an overlap for discussions in progress at the time of archiving. . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sup Ya, that makes sense if it for article talk page archiving we need to keep a but of a unified style. 1 != 2 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support discouraging page move archiving instead we should consider history link archiving for places where whole pages are archived. Simply blank the page and provide a link to the history of the page just before the blanking. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Page move archiving makes it too difficult for non-expert users to find the history, and requires extra steps for expert users. It also indiscriminately removes the links to archives and any other special matter that is often found at the top of Talk pages. Someone comes to a Talk page that has been move-archived, sees very little there, sees very little page history, and assumes that is all there is. Finell [User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose general deprecation — although I wouldn't mind standardizing to one style for article talk pages, even if that style is suboptimal. Still, I really wish the reference desks (or the village pumps, for that matter), for example, were move archived. The big advantage of properly done move archiving is that the history of each discussion stays with the discussion: if you're reading an archived discussion, you know that clicking the "history" tab will take you to the history of that discussion, and that the history will be of manageable length. Conversely, on cut-and-paste archived pages, the history of a discussion will be at a different title than the archived discussion itself, and, on busy pages, often buried thousands of revisions deep. It's particularly bad on pages like the refdesks, which combine cut-and-paste archiving with archive transclusion: this causes the history of a single discussion to often be split between two pages, if the discussion has continued after archiving. I'm also having trouble understanding some of the objections to move archiving given above: to take Finell's comment above for example, surely a pagemove leaves a much more recognizable mark in the page history than a cut-and-paste, particularly if the latter is done without proper edit summaries. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal only deals with article talk name space. Dbiel (Talk) 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have multiple styles because they're preferable in different instances. There is no good reason to discourage certain methods, because the method to use should be judged on a case by case basis. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of cut-and-paste for article talk pages. User talk pages can do what they want and WP pages are a different issue. Article talk pages need consistency to avoid the mess resulting from mixed methods. Cut-and-paste is intuitive for all users and also flexible: sections of talk can easily be added to an existing archive when they are no longer needed. This cannot be done (for all practical purposes) with a move archive method. Ty 00:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support encouraging cut-and-paste method for article talk pages. For reasons, Ty stated it well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of cut-and-paste archiving for article talk pages, per Xenocidic. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for all the very good reasons given in the initial proposal. To answer The Rogue Penguin above, that there is more than one way to do it is a disadvantage in a majority of cases, because it increases the possibility of someone doing it the suboptimal way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support cut 'n paste as the default option for article talk page archives. R. Baley (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for article talk pages. I'm not sure if the point has been raised, but pagemoving also distorts an editors contributions when viewed through edit counters (e.g. 23 edits to Talk:article/Archive1, 10 to Talk:article/Archive2 instead of 33 edits to Talk:archive). This is unfortunate and could give rise to misperceptions i.e. in RfA "Editor has 340 edits to Controversial Article but only 10 edits to Talk:Controversial Article. This shows the editor is not willing to use communication to resolve disputes". Skomorokh 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support encouraging cut-and-paste archiving for article Talk pages. I would also like to encourage including historical revisions, diffs, and perhaps &offset= history links to increase transparency, as suggested above, but that can be discussed separately. Flatscan (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a good idea, in my opinion, to include diffs. I normally write the dates of archiving in the intro of my talk-page archives, and I have just turned them all into diffs documenting the actual archiving (the fact that I had the dates written already helped me tremendously with finding the diffs, needless to say). Waltham, The Duke of 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – More consistency, unified history, less trouble than re-creating the talk-page templates and erasing them from the archive each time. Strictly for the Talk: namespace, of course. Waltham, The Duke of 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for talk pages. TONY (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This poll if that is what it is should take place on the talk page of the page under discussion not on another page. This is a well established principle which has been in effect for a long time. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WT:ARCHIVE#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. For how much longer would you like it to run for? xenocidic (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message box standardisation

Last summer the style for message boxes in articles were standardised and the meta-template {{ambox}} was implemented to allow easy creation of such boxes. Some weeks ago we standardised the styles for image page and category page message boxes by deploying the {{imbox}} and {{cmbox}}.

Now we have coded up the {{tmbox}} for talk pages and the {{ombox}} for all other types of pages such as "Wikipedia:" pages. This means all the namespaces are covered.

These meta-templates in effect become style guidelines since they tend to be pretty well enforced. Thus everyone is invited to take a look at the new boxes and have a say at their talk pages. We would like more comments before we can declare a consensus and deploy them.

Note that we are suggesting some colour changes for talk page message boxes. For instance, this is a {{tmbox}} with the suggested style for "major warnings and problems".
We are also standardising the colours for "other pages". This is an {{ombox}} with the suggested style for "major warnings and problems".

Please discuss at their talk pages and not here. This is just an announcement.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Restricted materials no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Restricted materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Global rights usage no longer marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Global rights usage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a policy. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This began about 11 days ago, and the proponents had alraeady declared it to be policy. WOW! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent-setting inclusion criteria for lists, categories, or portals?

Hi all. I am locked in an epic struggle over inclusion standards for a Portal on a topic that tends to invite controversy in individual cases (never in the general case, though). Certainly there must be some guideline against unreasonable criteria and how to determine whether criteria is reasonable or not -- but I haven't been able to find it. Of course, I'm sure there must be other categorical topics that incur similar controversy (the best I've found is a discussion regarding categorizing people as LGBT). I'm hoping such cases exist; even better would be policies/guidelines. TIA. - Keith D. Tyler 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Parental Advisory

I started this a moment ago because I think it could be very useful. Although it's only really descriptive of other policies, and really plays a communicative role, rather than instructional, I think it would probably be best if it could be wiki-edited away until improved enough to gain the same community consensus as a policy - which is how I'm tempted to tag it.... all thoughts and feedback most welcome. Privatemusings (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a policy, though. It'd be more like WP:WIARM if anything. Furthermore, I can't see the need. For one, when certain people inevitably complain, we point them to WP:NOTCENSORED. Why point them to a page that just points them to another page? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ah - well this isn't about handling complaints at all! - perhaps the name I chose to kick off with has too many overtones, but I've been thinking for a while that an information page for teachers, parents etc. dealing with some of this stuff would be a good idea. I don't think the section in the 'not' article does the job very well at the moment, to be honest... it's intended to be a more comprehensive answer to the "should I let my child edit wikipedia?" question which comes up once in a while, do you think it helps at all in that way? Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nothing to enforce, require, or suggest on it, so I don't see how it could be a policy or a guideline. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah - it certainly doesn't offer any rules to follow or anything like that. I think though that it might be a good idea for a page like this to be worked on as hard as any policy, and that we, as a community, can come up with some sort of label along the lines of "This page documents official English Wikipedia advice, and is widely accepted." (clumsily cribbed from the policy template thing!) - thoughts most welcome of course.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically an essay. I've seen a few projectspace pages in the past few months that people didn't want to class as essays because of the "just an essay" attitude implying that "essay" means "irrelevant". I wonder if I should write an essay saying "essays are important"... :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's also been pointed out in the past that not every page in projectspace needs to be classified as one of the Great Three Things (Essay, Guideline, Policy), so who cares anyway! ;-P --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be more like one of the pages in the oft-forgotten "Help" namespace or a page like WP:Introduction. Mr.Z-man 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I think it might fit well as a link from the 'About Wikipedia' page, which is after all linked to from every page on the site! - I'd still like it to be as rigorously vetted as possible.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-"We".

Many articles about episode in a fiction TV series, movie, books, video games, ect. often use the word "We" or "Us" in an unencyclopediac context. Take the following (constructed) example:

Plot Summary Bobby goes to camp. At the camp, a girl walks out of the tent. We do not see who she is. Later, Bobby fishes. He does not inform us what fish he caught. The girl comes out and attacks Bobby. Then we are left with a cliffhanger, until the next episode.

See? I propose that a rule be set in place to prevent this. If one is already in place ( don't know how to check), it needs to enforced! Down with "We"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are rules in place. That's why we have WP:BOLD. See the "we", fix the "we". — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:MOS#Avoid first-person pronouns. "per WP:MOS" is an appropriate edit summary when making this change. xenocidic (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first person pluralis majestatis should be replaced by "the reader" or "the viewer" or "the listener" depending on the medium, and hopefully only as a temporary fix as such sentences should probably be re-written from scratch with a less awkward structure. — CharlotteWebb 16:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

post-AFD question

I was going to add an oldafdmulti template to Talk:Doug Bell to add the link to the second afd, but there's no clear indication whether the result is Keep or No consensus. From the 4 keeps and 2 deletes, and that it was closed in under a day (WP:SNOW?), I'm *guessing* it's Keep, but I'd like to be certain before I proclaim it in the oldafdmulti template.

I was also going to add ===Doug Bell (2nd nomination)=== above the :{{la|Doug Bell{}} like all the other AFDs, as well as remove "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}}", but the template says No further edits should be made to this page. Would a regular user get in trouble if editing just to do this sort of maintenance with a clear edit summary? Balsa10 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, the AFD was withdrawn (sarcastically) by the nominator, so "speedy keep" would be the most descriptive result. To answer your second question, "no further edits should be made" means "no further comments should be added (or removed)". Sometimes you have to read between the lines. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a very strange AfD. It was nominated and closed by the same editor, who is not an admin -- actually a newbie. It was closed the day after it was opened after only a few votes. It seems that the nominator/closer was very emotional about the subject and after initial votes went against him, he threw in the towel. I've seen some odd activity at AfD recently with more non-admin closings than I prefer to see. I'm also reading at the talk pages for notability guidelines that AfD is out of control. It sems to me that there should be some type of administrative oversight here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you definitely need to just do what needs to be done and not worry about the fine print when something needs to be cleaned up and you're reasonably sure you know what needs to be done. I removed the AfD sort template; you can work on the formatting if you like.
To Kevin Murray: definitely a strange AfD, but I'm not following you about this fitting into some sort of larger pattern of AfD chaos. This seems like a single emotional editor who needed to get something off his chest. Darkspots (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Darkspots et al. Just wanted to make sure. I also didn't know that non-admins can close an AFD, though I'm guessing you mean only when the nominator withdraws it. Balsa10 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:NAC and Wikipedia:Deletion process. And tread lightly, and prepare to get smacked around if you do decide you are a good enough judge of consensus to close them. Which I think, by bizarre coincidence, is exactly the experience that administrators have when they close AfDs. Darkspots (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like a harassed admin without the hassle of getting nominated, eh? ;) Thanks for the links and the caution. Balsa10 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no user right for evaluating consensus. It only requires a brain (and arguably only half of it). — CharlotteWebb 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any user can close an AfD whose outcome is absolutely clear. If there is any ambiguity, it's best to let an admin do the closure. I avoid doing non-admin closures unless the nom withdraws (and there are no supporting Delete comments), or the 5 days are up and there is an overwhelming Keep consensus. Deletes have to be done by an admin anyway, so there's no reason for a non-admin to close anything that would result in Deletion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, while WP:NAC is only an essay, a non-admin closing with Delete, even with clear consensus, would make more work for the admin, as they probably (again guessing) wouldn't know to delete an article for an already closed AfD. Also, reading that essay's "Pitfalls to avoid" on stuff admins do after deleting an image, I've noticed many uncommented-out image links to deleted images. Granted, it's a small percentage, but why does it happen? I don't know who deleted it or why because image URLs have no publicly accessible deletion log or What links here to find the relevant IfD. Balsa10 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins closing an AFD as "delete" doesn't save any work for the admin who deletes the article, whoever actually deletes it is responsible for it, so they should still review the discussion even if someone else closed it. I'm not sure what you mean about images, they use the same deletion log as everything else. The majority of images are deleted because of licensing issues, so there won't be an IFD. If there is no log entry, the image was probably uploaded to and deleted on Commons. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a publically accessible deletion log for images too? Whenever I click on an image redlink, it offers me the option to upload the file, but no deletion log or What links here link. Balsa10 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT - update

In reply to the RfC on the status of WP:ATT (see above) we have had only 15 editors opine... hardly enough for anyone to determine consensus. Furthermore the responses are essentially deadlocked, with no consensus emerging between marking the page as "failed", marking the page as "Essay" or marking the page as "Summary"... We really need a lot of outside input on this so we can reach closure on what the status of the page should be. Please help. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Plagiarism

New discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism

This is a follow-up to this recent ANI thread (and the bits before it). We currently don't do much to address possible plagiarism, as opposed to copyright violations. In fact, Wikipedia:Plagiarism is currently a redirect to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. We do have a bit at this section, but nothing covering and explaining plagiarism. We do have User:Andries/Wikipedia:plagiarism and User:MPD01605/Template:Plagiarism. I would like to challenge Wikipedia editors here to create something at Wikipedia:Plagiarism (ie. turn the redirect page into a guideline or policy) so we can address these concerns better. Some resources (remember not to plagiarise them!) are: here and here (lots more exist out there). Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to contribute to this now (I'm about to get on a plane, and will be away for a few weeks), but I wholeheartedly concur with Carcharoth's suggestion. I've long thought that it's a great error that Wikipedia, which has help and advice on a whole multitude of other things, often with much redundancy and repetition, has absolutely nothing to say about plagiarism, even though this is one of its greatest weaknesses. See also the Editor's Guide to Wikipedia, which merely says for "Plagiarism," see "Copyright." This is an intolerable lacuna. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than have a separate article, would it not be prudent to either rename Wikipedia:Copyright problems to something like Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Plagiarism (actually that doesn't work so well). But should be discussed there as it is an overlapping issue. There are so many separate pages that I stil haven't found some. Examples can then be spun off into a separate page, like Tony's writing excercises, illustrating what is acceptable and what isn't. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS:To add, that page seems to have a backlog and is possibly undervisited, so bolstering it and directing folks there to learn about how to avoid writing in a plagiaristic fashion would increase traffic and hopefully get issues resolved more promptly. Just please keep it centralised. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well the first question is: what constitutes plagiarism? Other than "I know it when I see it", what is our working definition? Franamax (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. Plagiarism is a distinct concept from copyright. Although in some ways the two overlap, it is certainly possible to plagiarize public domain material. DurovaCharge! 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Carcharoth, where should we discuss a working proposal? And Franamax, it's possible to plagiarize public domain material. Imagine walking up to a theater company and asking them to consider a production of "your new play", Hamlet. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's actually the issue of PD copying that we need to define. It's easy enough to call a copyvio, it's the broader issue of copying others works that we need to address. I do have a lot of Hamlet memorized though ;) Franamax (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definition A (I wish I could say I copied this from somewhere :) :
  • "Plagiarism is the copying of material produced by others, either verbatim or with only minimal changes, without attributing that material to the original author. Material can be plagiarized from books and other printed media, websites, and GFDL-licensed works, such as the work of other Wikipedia editors. The copyright status of the work is irrelevant, directly copying a public-domain work is still plagiarism unless the original work is noted. Material in infoboxes (corporate data, species taxonomy, etc.) is not considered as plagiarized." Franamax (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have a suggestion for where we should work on this? Franamax (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, suggest Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. DurovaCharge! 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the problem, If it is copyrighted then we have Wikipedia:Copyright problems if it plagiarism of public domain work we have {{unreferenced}}. The only other consideration I see is that most public domain plagiarism (i.e. EB1911) is not appropriate for Wikipedia in its plagiarized version so it needs to be modified and modernized. As original work is not accepted in Wikipedia all materiel is sourced from some place, any work submitted as the persons own work would be deleted as WP:OR. So what is the problem that needs to be addressed? Jeepday (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible to reference a public domain work while still plagiarizing it. Let's say you copy/paste a paragraph create a reference, but you quote it without stating that you're quoting it. For example, imagine the blockquote at Felbrigge Psalter without source introduction or blockquote format--presented as if those were the Wikipedia editor's original synthesis instead of the cited source's actual text. DurovaCharge! 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a spectrum between outright copying (Wikipedia:Copyright problems) and original research (Wikipedia:Original research). At various points, you have plagiarism and failure to attribute and you also have various forms of synthesis, varying from normal synthesis from sources, to synthesising sources to create an original position (WP:SYN). It's probably more complicated than a spectrum. And there are GFDL and PD points mixed up here. The key thing is to write about what others have said, but to credit and attribute them, and say you are quoting when you quote, but not to introduce original material. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already have a guideline: Wikipedia:Citing sources says

Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for direct quotes ...

Oddly, Wikipedia:Verifiability does not say that right now, but the guideline still does. Failure to rewrite source material in your own words without attribution is plagiarism; perhaps the guideline should say that, but as it stands, it covers the issue fully in 6 words. In an ideal world, ignoring the style guide shouldn't get the attention of WP:AN/I. Persistently (but arguably not disruptively) ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability will probably get someone an RFC.

So, no need for a new page, in my opinion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fails to cover cases where people still give a source, but chose to rewrite the information instead of quoting it directly. Insufficiently rewriting from a source, or poor rewriting from a source, is still plagiarism. We don't have anything covering that, and we should have. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, I hear you saying we should have a policy for plagiarism of public domain works, but I am not hearing you say why. It is not illegal and lack of citation is already covered by established policy. Lack of a policy does not indicate need of a policy. Jeepday (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is our goal to make an enyclopedia, I think we should draw the line regarding plagiarism with the law. Forms of "plagiarism" that are unfashionable in academic circles but are legal and do not damage our GFDL license should be fine. Now where that line is I do not know. 1 != 2 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if some Wikipedia editor found some PD source somewhere, copy pasted it in, and with minimal changes got a featured article, and claimed the work was all his, would that be acceptable? Not all PD sources are old. US government PD sources are possible as well, for example. It might be legal, but it is very dodgy ethically. Also, there is the issue of plagiarism of copyrighted works. Not all those examples are copyvios. There is a grey area where rewriting makes something no longer a copyvio, but it is still plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gah! I'm doing it now. Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Please? Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a wholesale example, consider how much we've used Public Domain This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). Attribution still matters. It's a simple question of intellectual honesty. There will of course be violations, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to do right.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The comment above is of the sort that makes my little academia-addled head explode. What some might call 'unfashionable' might also be described as 'dishonest', 'deceptive', 'unethical', and just 'really, really, slimy'. I would be so bold as to say that if we're unwilling to adhere to minimum, widely-held standards of academic honesty, then we are failing to achieve our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Any project worthy of that name must take proper attribution seriously. On a project like Wikipedia, where the only compensation any of us is likely to receive for our work is recognition as authors, the importance of giving credit where it is due should not be difficult to understand.
Since when did we decide that any process or policy on Wikipedia ought to be defined by the minimum standard acceptable under the law? That's the territory of sleazy lawyers and greedy slumlords. We set standards that are appropriate to the nature of the project—to its goals and ideals. Wikipedia: The Free, Legal, but Unethical Encyclopedia just doesn't have quite the same ring to it. We keep telling people that this project is a serious scholarly work, that we want to build a trustworthy, honourable legacy for the good of humanity. Well, we have to walk that walk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarising while still being verifiable is possible.. Consider the following (all names and texts are completely made up) text which is the opening of the journal paper "Money does not Stink" by Jack Daniels : "In economics, it is common knowledge that money is important (Jones, 1970); therefore the transfer is money is often studies (see, Smith, 2000; White 2001)".
Now consider the exact copy of that line into a Wikipedia article without any reference to the Money does not Stink paper. Plagiarism: YES (the editor did not collate the sources, and the prose it not that of the editor), Verifiable: YES (we have Jones, Smith and White). Arnoutf (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above, I'm still having a hard time seeing why plagiarism should be a concern for Wikipedia beyond copyright concerns. I just don't see author attribution as problematic when everyone here contributes pseudonymously (effectively so even if your username happens to be your real name) and no one has ownership over an article. The moral concerns would seem to arise only if someone tried to gain some benefit from a third party (perhaps to get a job?) through representing that what they posted was their own original words, which is a contributor's own responsibility, not Wikipedia's. Perhaps if someone could draft a proposed plagiarism essay/guideline, it might lay out exactly what the concerns are and what we think we should be telling contributors to do or not do, as well as to point out some identified instances in which plagiarism has occurred and the problems that resulted. Postdlf (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From concerns expressed elsewhere, I get the impression that some academics see their work plagerised on Wikipedia. They don't complain, but someday someone might. It can't be nice to see stuff that you have written being put into Wikipedia practically unchanged (if it was unchanged it would be a copyright violation) and without any attribution. The reverse side of the coin is that said external authors can then be accused of plagiarising Wikipedia, when in fact it is Wikipedia that has plagiarised them. Does that begin to make sense now? Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the academics are living, then their work would be copyrighted and would be infringed if incorporated verbatim or "practically unchanged." Short of that, these concerns all seem very vague and hypothetical unless we can point to specific documented instances of complaints and problems. Postdlf (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Most copyrights for academic work are with the publisher, not the author.
(2) Plagiarism may not be illegal (in all cases), in any case it is unethical. Do we want to allow unethical behaviour on Wikipedia? Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Living academics (or others) may choose to contribute their works to the public domain, or they may do it as a condition of employment (consider the works of U.S. Government employees, for instance). We could stuff as much of their work as we wanted to into Wikipedia without any attribution at all and never infringe a copyright. Nevertheless, we would still be very much in the wrong. It costs us nothing to give credit to other people for their work; why would we not? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While editors on Wikipedia have chosen to voluntarily contribute their time, effort, and intelligence to this project – and many of us have chosen to do so pseudonymously – we have no right whatsoever to make that decision on the part of other people. That is the chief moral concern. (Incidentally, while few editors here would expect to see any sort of direct financial benefit from our contributions to Wikipedia, there are certainly other benefits which accrue. In a community like this one, there are significant social rewards to making contributions. An editor who claims the words and ideas of others as his own is garnering undeserved respect and reputation; he may also enjoy an undeserved reputation as a subject matter expert whose opinions may improperly sway editorial decisions here. The saddest part is that an editor who made identical contributions but with proper sourcing and attribution would probably be just as highly respected and valued.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent responses to speedy delete

I have been patrolling a lot of new pages and I have been seeing the need for some more standard procedures. Forgive me if these have already been discussed -

  • Pages that have been deleted three or more times should be indefinitely protected
  • "Attack page" names should be protected the first time they are deleted, "Brian is an ugly fag" or the like, as it is unlikely anyone will use this name for a serious article
  • Editors who create attack pages, editors that repeatedly re-create pages, and editors that repeatedly remove speedy templates, should have consistent action taken against them by the deleting sysop (at the very least warning templates).

JohnnyMrNinja 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you for most circumstances, but I think it should be left to admin discretion in each case. I always warn repeated page re-creators and have blocked several, and I think that's a simple matter of good judgment - standardization would seem unwieldy to me. For the first and second points, the appropriate response depends - sometimes salting is the right way to go, but sometimes either an attack page or a repeated re-create will be located at perfectly useful titles, especially if they're just a person's name (which they often are). In that case, it's best to just block the abusive account, since it will have re-register and autoconfirm to re-create it with a new account anyway (if they do persist in doing that, salting's the only way to go). Have you noticed problems with admins not taking action in these cases? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidaniel, Mars2025 are a couple I can think of right now. It would also be nice if {{db}} would show as a speedy even after someone deleted it. Several editors had a constant struggle to keep a template on Cody Potter long enough to get it deleted (it kept being removed by the creator and a sock puppet) until I brought it up at the notice board. JohnnyMrNinja 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the last point, there's no reason only the deleting admin could warn for creating attack pages or removing speedy templates. I think we even have warning templates for those already. Mr.Z-man 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor removes speedy templates, the {{uw-speedy1}} series is useful. I have placed those templates on very obvious sock puppets (newly created spa accounts) as well, fairly successfully. You can report repeat offenders to WP:AIV like any other vandal. Darkspots (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. It's easier to deal with the recreations of an article on a hopelessly non-notable subject if they dont try to vary the name around. DGG (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I guess I would be against "sticky" {{db}} templates for anything but attack pages, because it's very important to be able to quickly remove inappropriate speedy templates. I think quickly getting an A3 template off and the right wikilinks, cats, etc. added has saved a newbie or two, at least I hope so. Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't worry about editors who get confused when it doesn't seem like deliberate obstruction. People simply do not read the templates all the time, and I try to figure out what they intend to do. Since the usual thing that happens is that the hangon tag replaces the db, i just go ahead and judge the article. Obviously if someone keeps going things wrong its something else. Salting i keep for cases where there is repeated really nasty blp vandalism. Otherwise I find that I have better luck with an informal notice, saying something like "enough already, , I'm a person not a computer program, and I'll be keeping an eye on this." Many people seem to think all our templated notices are assigned by bots and can be treated as just annoyances. DGG (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there's certainly no harm in protecting a title like Brian is an ugly fag from recreation, it's usually not particularly useful to do so either. Most such vandals usually get blocked fairly quickly and then they don't come back. If they do come back, they usually don't use the exact same page title—we would get Brian is a fag, Brian is a stupid fag, Brian is a stupid ugly fag, etc. Salting the page titles may just not be worth the effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark all edits minor by default

I just offered a friendly suggestion to an editor that he uncheck "Mark all edits minor by default" since, even though he gives descriptive edit summaries, the bold "m" on every edit could be a factor in or cause disputes with controversial or any major edit.

I've noticed this sort of thing before (with a Thanks! when the user is pointed to My preferences, Editing, "Mark all edits minor by default"), and it makes me wonder why it's a preference. Why would someone who doesn't already have things like WP:TW mark all edits by default?

Finally, can a user get in trouble for continually marking major edits as minor? Gotyear (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user mainly makes wikignome-type edits, then they won't need to mark many edits as non-minor. I use my alternate account mainly for testing Javascript in my own userspace, so I mark almost all of its edits as minor. It would be fairly rare on the list of things people will get blocked for, but you could feasibly get in trouble for marking non-minor edits as minor, especially if the edits are controversial. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of assuming good faith. As long as an editor is not abusing that preference, there's no problem. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I have seen a few cases of a person having it checked by mistake, presumably when combing through preferences and not knowing what it is or experimenting, because I think it's off by default. But your cases make sense for where'd it be useful (and I'm now exposed to the idea of WP:GNOME :), and it's not an "Are you sure?" Red Button kind of change. Gotyear (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N (Political Parties)

Hey all. At User:Doktorbuk/pp I am currently drawing up with other editors guidelines on notability of political parties, something we seem to miss at the moment. I would like, in time, to bring this from my userspace to a policy proposal position, but am just careful about creating a new article without the proper links to , amongst other places, areas like this Village Pump and others. Could someone advise how I get this amendment to an existing policy now onto a more "official" setting? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy about articles vs. lists

I have trouble understanding most things about Wikipedia policy. This article, Additional materials on Che Guevara, should it not be a list rather than an article? Also, should it not list books by author's name rather than by book title? Also, is it comprehensive? Is there any way of telling? Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 14:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bibliographies by subject might have some examples worth following. Yes, books should be sorted by author (lastname, firstname). The {{cite book}} template will help ensure correct formatting. Comprehensive, I have no idea. "Click here"-style links (like the one above the first section heading, or any other situation where the reader's understanding depends on a non-obvious link target) should be avoided for a number of reasons including their uselessness in a printed edition (which may sound far-fetched but consider that the content in question is a list of books...) — CharlotteWebb 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun problem - What does "their" mean in this policy subsection?

I am trying to prevent an edit war on a minor but ambiguous policy point. I need input to determine what the object of a pronoun is in a subsection of the WP:V policy. Under the rules about using self-published sources the following is stated:

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
    1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
    2. it is not contentious;
    3. it is not unduly self-serving;
    4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
    5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
    7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

My concern is with item #1 which says "their notability". My question is simply this, does the phrase "their notability" mean "the notability of the self-published and questionable sources" or "the notability of the topic of the article those sources are used within" ? Is there another interpretation that is correct ? Can you provide any examples to support your views please ? I am open to all arguments in a search for the truth of what this policy means. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, it appears to me that "their" is referring to "Self-published and questionable sources", because that is the topic of the list. If "their" is meant to mean otherwise, it should be replaced with a clearer word or phrase. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume it means the subject of the article. We don't require sources to be notable, so the alternative wouldn't make much sense. I agree it should be clarified though. Mr.Z-man 01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the current wording has ended up there mostly by mistake, and may be due for rewrite. Here is how the wording came to be what it is:
  1. The section formerly allowed self-published sources to be used not only just about themselves, but also only in articles about themselves, and the notability requirement was that "the information is notable".
  2. The wording was changed to require that the material "is relevant to the person's notability". At this point such sources could still only be used in articles about the source or its author, so the source or author could be presumed to be notable. The intent appears to have been that the material had to be relevant to the thing for which the author or source was notable, not on some other subject.
  3. After several changes in wording, the notability requirement was changed to "it is relevant to their notability", with "their" replacing "the person's or organization's", where that person or organization is both the author of the source and the subject of the Wikipedia article in question.
  4. Less than a month ago, the policy was changed to remove the requirement that such sources could only be used in articles about themselves—such sources can now be used for information about themselves even in other articles. The editor making the change seems to have not recognized, however, that this change removed the justification for assuming that the source would be notable.
So, the original intent appears to have been that the source (which could be presumed to be notable since it had a Wikipedia article) could only be used as a source of information relevant to the thing for which the source was notable. The removal of the limitation of such sources to articles about themselves has rendered the existing wording ambiguous if not outright misleading. It needs to be changed. The requirement is not and cannot be that the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article, because self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability. Per Wikipedia:Notability, only reliable sources can be used to establish notability, and per WP:V self-published sources are not reliable sources.
If we want to require self-published sources or their authors to be notable, we should say so explicitly, and could then require such sources to be cited only for matters relevant to the reasons why they are notable. The wording should be clear that such sources cannot be used to establish notability, however.
I think instead that we should not require sources to be notable. I'm not sure what requirement we would then impose instead of this strange "relevant to notability" rule. It's not clear to me that it shouldn't just be deleted. What we really are constraining here is whether the information that the citation supports is suitable for the Wikipedia article, not whether the citation itself is appropriate. It seems to me that this is a matter of editing judgement and perhaps other policies and guidelines, not WP:V.--Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with Z-man -- the alternative does not make sense. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the material used is relevant to their notability; the subject of the article, of course. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and related articles. Articles about a book if written by the author of the book, etc.DGG (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From a grammatical POV, it is indeed ambiguous, and could refer to the sources. However, since it's the subject of the article that is at question, "their" has to refer to the subject, not the sources. The word "material" refers to the sources, and further strengthens the view that "their" refers to the subject. That view make much more logical and pragmatic sense. Mr. Z man is correct that we don't require the sources to be notable, just reliable, independent, etc. The policy does need to be recast to remove ambiguity in that statement. For example, as as the simplest proposal: "the material used is relevant to the subject's notability;" — Becksguy (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest caution with that wording, as the "subject of what" becomes recursive ambiguity. How about "the notability of the article's topic." ? 208.43.120.114 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my long comment above. The original intent was that a notable source could only be cited on matters relevant to the thing for which they were notable: you could only cite a self-published work by a famous physicist on matters related to physics, for example. Given that sources are not required to be notable anymore, the purpose of this requirement has been lost and it is not clear that there is any need for it now.--Srleffler (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Srleffler, i have read your comment above and also note the discussion from here. If consensus is that #1 can be removed that is fine and eliminates the problem. If such consensus does not exists then the wording needs to be non ambiguous. I would note one error in your comment however when you say "The requirement is not and cannot be that the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" ... just because something is relevant (related to) to a notable topic does not mean it is the support for notability itself. Imagine that i write an article on some (hypothetical) private lawsuit against the taliban in the world court for breach of contract. I establish notability by citing several major newspapers. If i include a quote from a video of the complaintant saying he used to be a taliban trainee that is a self-published source that is relevant to the notability of the article's topic but in no way is that source used to establish notability. On the other hand if i include a quote from video of the guy saying he is a big fan of cindy lauper that is non-relevant material. I previously proposed the word "germane" (relevant and appropriate) to avoid confusion on this topic but there has been resistance to that word. Perhaps we could say "the material must be related only to the notable topic(s) of the article." ? 208.43.120.114 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity on talk pages

I read the guideline on Wikipedia:Profanity; this article, however, solely deals with profanity in articles. Is there a guideline on profanity on talk pages? If so, I would like to know what it is. If not, I volunteer to write one. JeanLatore (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the profanity is aimed at a person then WP:CIVIL already applies. If the editor is simply saying that they have had a gosh-darned fraggle-snack of a day then who gives a fat's rass if they say fying fluck? We are all supposed to behave like adults, and adults sometimes cuss. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it isn't being directed at someone in particular (whether it is an editor or anyone not involved in Wikipedia), it's fair game. People may not appreciate you participating in an AfD saying "Delete that motherfucker!", but technically speaking, there aren't any policies being violated (doesn't mean it's a good idea, though). Personally, I swear a lot more in my userspace than I do elsewhere on-wiki, and I think that's the way people should behave (and by and large, they do). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page is disgraceful :-(

Hi All,

When I started using Wikipedia as an editor, I made some innocent mistakes, mainly adding pages with minimal information in the purpose of coming back and adding data whenever I have time. At that time I thought that it is a good strategy and I did not know the policies in this regard.

As a result, all of those pages where deleted and I got a lot of warnings in (My Talk) page.

I have came a long way since then. But my (my talk) page is a disgrace and I am ashamed to have the page with all those warnings!

Is there a way to reset it?

Jaber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaberm (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or just edit the page to remove the warnings, archiving them is not required. Anomie⚔ 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes/References

You'll see something like


You see the a b c d? We don't know excactly what a b c d refering to, because the referencer will just appear as:


What we need is something like:


As you can see, with out my proposal, you don't know WHERE the letter (a b c d, etc.) is refering to.

Ok, so I have a few limitations, such as the pointed hat\accent\carat\lambda does not look like what it does in <references/> and I could not internal blue link [2], [2c], or [2d].

Please post this on Bugzilla, since I don't haven an account, thanks!68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=220958247"