Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-16/Discussion report

Discussion report

Discussion report for this week

Experimenting with new pages to prove a point?

The experiment to see how new users who create viable new articles are treated (see last issue), has been criticised after allegations that a participant was using the trial to disrupt Wikipedia and prove a point. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Newbie treatment at CSD followed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556's issues with the creation of articles Magic pen (software) & Huntsville (game). During the discussion it was noted that the experiment was driving some participants away from doing new pages patrol, although Angr noted being inspired to become a patroller on the strength of it. Most participants in the debate agreed that there were lessons to be learnt from the experiment, but that it was now time to review and discuss the data collected to date. The initiator of the experiment, ϢereSpielChequers proposed to:

pause the creation of new articles whilst we discuss some of the implications, any safeguards that users might suggest, and of course the data collected so far.

Policy report

There was vigorous discussion this week on how to classify policy pages at the Policies and guidelines talk page. In this discussion, Dank suggested that, over time, three things happen on most (but not all) policy pages: they eventually supersede other pages on the same topic, they lose material that doesn't have broad support, and they gain material that is helpful and informative. Dmcq distinguished "general principles" (such as WP:5P) from policies ("fairly specific but still based on principles") and guidelines ("very down to earth").

In the previous section, Kotniski would like to see less emphasis on ArbCom and enforceability in the analysis, and points out that pages generally get marked as policy because they contain some very important principle, even if not every statement on the page inherits this importance. WhatamIdoing thinks that "What would ArbCom do?" isn't a useful way to think about the content policies, since ArbCom avoids content issues. Blueboar adds that some pages that are currently marked as policy probably shouldn't be and points to WP:The rules are principles as a good essay on understanding policies and guidelines. Ohms law is "completely on board", but believes the discussion is still too "theoretical". Camelbinky stresses that policies are not always preemptive; that is, if somehow a clear consensus against current policy develops in discussions elsewhere, such as the village pump, then policy should be changed, no matter how fundamental the change.

New Proposals

Should Wikipedia:Notability (news events) be promoted to guideline status?
A10, "Duplicate of worthy content", has been suggested as a new speedy deletion criterion.
There is a proposal to modify SecurePoll for the upcoming ArbCom election, where users' votes would be revealed after the election closes.
User:Juliancolton has started WikiProject Community, with an aim to generating proposals on how to improve the Wikipedia community spirit.
{{Leave feedback}} is a proposed feedback template to be added to Help pages in the hope it will, in the words of User:Rd232 "encourage feedback from newbie users and collect it in one useful place"
A proposal has been made to tweak the project banners of inactive WikiProjects so they display differently to that of active ones. Examples of the display can be seen at Talk:Mystery Train and Talk:Cirque du Soleil.

New process launched

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations has been launched as "a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles, typically over a long period of time, and to systematically remove this infringing material." The process was the idea of User:Moonriddengirl, who noted that "Wikipedia has several processes in place for dealing with limited copyright concerns--single articles or files, even a small grouping of these--but no workable process for dealing with massive multiple point infringement." The process opened on November 12, adopting many of the cases from the now superseded Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys.

Polls

ArbCom are seeking responses in a discussion regarding the recent Audit Subcommittee election.

Deletion round-up

In a mass AfD, Check Game, along with about a hundred other games from US TV show The Price Is Right, has been nominated for deletion, generating a mixed response
Following an overturn result at deletion review, human disguise has been nominated again for the second time this month, generating significant discussion, including a trout
Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood shooting, has been nominated per WP:ONEEVENT in a high traffic discussion
In need of experts is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene, which discusses whether the chemical chain 3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene is notable
Can we categorise uncategorised redirects?
This week's too long didn't read award goes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Mafia