User talk:Wnt/Just Edit The Friendly Article

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. This should not prejudice a move back into W namespace if the essay is refined to gain broader consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Wikipedia:Just Edit The Friendly Article → User:Wnt/Just Edit The Friendly Article – This page was created by a single user to explain his own personal practice on how he likes to deal with violations of Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Wnt has public expressed his disdain for the "no medical advice policy". Ignoring whether or not this represents a WP:GAME violation, this is not a widespread or accepted practice. I have no problem if he wants to use the inspiration of reference desk questions, even properly removed ones, to improve Wikipedia articles, but this page does not have community standing, and therefore should not be hosted in the Wikipedia namespace. I am therefore requesting that it be moved to his userspace and any WP: based shortcuts to it deleted. Jayron32 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support move reflected in my prior comments here and here, I have broad concerns about this essay's content, but with regard to this move request I endorse moving it to user space. -- Scray (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my impression that Wikipedia essays in general represent opinions of one or a few users. Besides, I didn't find [1] to be wholly unsupportive of having such an essay. Wnt (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, what I supported was Wnt's desire to improve articles. Period. In the discussion he cites, I made no support over the hosting of this personal essay in the Wikipedia: namespace. Wnt is free to work on any articles he wants, and use anything he wants for inspiration to do so. I still stand by that statement exactly as it is written. It still doesn't mean that this essay belongs in the Wikipedia: namespace. --Jayron32 03:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support move Namespace requires more support than one editor's proposal to abandon a serious, protective guideline. Namespace and the WP: prefix give the viewpoint an apparent weight that is misleading. As for the proposal's brief appearance on the Ref Desk talk page as Wnt's way of getting around the prohibition on posting medical advice and opinions, not "wholly unsupported" represents only about a half dozen editors, few of whom approved and not one of whom, aside from Wnt, who approved unreservedly. A personal essay should stay in personal space, if it stays anywhere. Bielle (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, move it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The relevant policy is covered at WP:essay which states that "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." (emphasis added). There has been little support for this essay and, in fact, quite a few vocal oppositions. To my mind, and without commenting on the soundness of the essay itself, it seems clear that this essay reflects a singular opinion and should therefore be in the user space. Regardless as to whether the piece gets moved or not, I find it more troubling for the author to then "cite" it (as here) as if it could be used to justify a particular action. Again without regard to the merit of the essay, it seems quite disingenuous to write a personal essay that has little or no outside support and then justify an edit as "per" the very essay he personally wrote. Matt Deres (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being disingenuous here. I had started a section heading "WP:JETFA" which was still visible on the same page you linked, and had mentioned it several times in discussions since. It was my belief that some of the editors who have been hammering on these issues on the talk page for the past month would be willing to accept this as a compromise, at least with some modification.

My impression is that an essay should be started on a user's page if the user intends it to be his own personal opinion only, with minimal input from others, but if there is hope of developing it into a collaborative draft backed by several editors, then it should be in article space to indicate this fact. And I think it's also been talked to death recently that "per XXX" has no particular policy meaning; my point was to illustrate that this is the method I think will work going forward. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after reading Wnt's justification/defense in the following section I could no longer remain silent. Clearly gaming. Hell, I could respond to any taboo RD question this way. I'd take it a step further and sanction any responder who references a newly minted (or any) userspace "essay" to git 'round the rules. hydnjo (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

redacted?[edit]

what do you mean by read the redacted article? μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why the essay is so problematic. It suggests responding to a question, which has been redacted according to policy, by providing links and/or fresh edits to an existing article. As this edit shows (note the "Per WP:JETFA" edit summary), the intent is to provide a link from the prohibited question to that content. If that's not gaming, I don't know what is. -- Scray (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far from gaming, the objective is to clearly follow Kainaw's criterion by providing information which, by virtue of being added directly to an article where it is relevant, is definitely not an individualized diagnosis or treatment. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that . . . when a question is deleted for violating one of the medical advice/prognosis/diagnosis criteria, we don't link to anything, and especially not to newly added text, sourced or otherwise, designed to get 'round the prohibition under a personal guideline. Bielle (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the text again, I see I didn't clearly rule out some of the scenarios suggested here, so I've added [2] in response to these issues. If someone mentions "sciatic nerve exploration" and you link to "sciatic nerve", you're not diagnosing anything. If someone reads at that article some general facts about sciatic nerve exploration, that's what Wikipedia is for. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone (as in this case) is asking whether their injury occurred during the accident that injured their hip or during the surgery ("...some of them tell me...)", then you link to the "Pathology" section of the Sciatic nerve article and freshly add specific content about sciatic nerve injury during surgery, this is pretty clearly an answer to a medical advice question, with possible medicolegal implications. The content added did not mention sciatic nerve injury during trauma. I am providing these details because it's the crux of this discussion - this is circumvention of our policies. -- Scray (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after an ec with Scray above) It depends entirely upon the context, Wnt. If the question were "I have this pain in my left leg. Do you think I need a sciatic nerve exploration?", we don't link to anything, not even "sciatic nerve". We delete the question. If the original question is "What is a sciatic nerve exploration?" then we could link to Sciatic nerve or, if we have an article, to Sciatic nerve exploration. Bielle (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there's something wrong with my additions to the article? I mean, that's normal article editing - it's open to revision in the usual manner. Also, do you think that this person is the only one who will look at that article seeking answers about sciatic nerve injury? Do you think that Wikipedia should allow "medicolegal implications" to frighten us out of writing articles about topics like this entirely? Wnt (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to editing an article, generally. I've already made clear why I strongly object to your behavior in this instance (and any attempt to standardizing such behavior, as in JETFA). Two different things. Feel free to go into the street and yell "fire". Don't do it in the context of a crowded theater. -- Scray (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That metaphor is flawed from the beginning - the kids who do it never really get prosecuted for shouting fire in a theater, because they simply say they smelled smoke, or heard someone else shout it first. And it is never applied to anything with any relation at all. How is providing neutral article content that may be helpful to one specific person anything resembling "imminent harm"? Wnt (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you keep slipping by the original point, which is that your personal essay has little or no support to be in namespace. Add whatever neutral and sourced material to any article as you will in any topic area to help any one. Just don't do it under a "false" policy rationale devised by you in order to provide an answer to questions we shouldn't be answering in the first place. Bielle (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition against putting essays in WP space in the hope of developing consensus. I never expected anyone to think of it as policy, though I have to admit, I did think that it would find support and eventually become a policy solution. So far, acting precisely as the essay suggests, the only outright opposition to the individual actions I took (as opposed to the idea in some general sense) has been some discussion about using the Article Collaboration template. I still don't really understand why the essay doesn't have stronger support. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good sign that you don't understand community consensus on this topic. -- Scray (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, put it this way. Suppose you do get this moved, and I make the same comments and edits citing "Wnt/JEFTA" or whatever. Will you be satisfied at that point? Wnt (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but if you are using it to give yourself permission to respond to a question that is otherwise even borderline on acceptability for the Ref Desk, then no, I wouldn't. I doubt I'd even accept it as anything other than your personal opinion, and would likely clarify that point every time you used it to justify something. You'd be more credible if you were not self-referential as though your personal, blue-linked argument is of more merit than anyone else's argument that lacks those magic blue letters. YMMV Bielle (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, I did not propose this move, but I support it. Separate but related are your recent actions regarding the sciatic nerve question, which (the actions) I considered wholly inappropriate and in violation of our guidance regarding medical advice (as I've explained above and on Talk:RD). If a question is removed from the RD based on medadvice and not restored by consensus, then there should be no other response on the RD; any other edit to that question (addition of links) would, IMHO, represent an action against consensus (and I would work through Talk:RD to determine whether others agree). I'm prepared to hear and follow consensus - are you? -- Scray (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not only would I not "be satisfied at that point" I'd be supporting any efforts to shut you down. I'm beginning to suspect that this may be gaming for its own sake rather than some altruistic venture. hydnjo (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last ditch effort to see if we can agree on anything[edit]

Can we agree at least on this much-reduced version? It's hard to believe we can't come up with some general consensus that it is a good thing to "Just Edit The Friendly Article". Wnt (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to restate that WP editors are encouraged to improve WP articles - and "JETFA" is not needed for that. The bright line, IMHO, is using other means to highlight such changes when made in response to a question or answer that's been deleted, supported by consensus, based on medadvice policy and guidelines. IMHO, JETFA would encourage gaming to the extent that it applies to deleted questions. -- Scray (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the original purposes of the Ref Desks was to use responses to questions to improve articles, so this is nothing new, except in so far as it singles out medical questions, and thus lands us in highly contested territory. It is hard to believe that medical questions could be more contentious than they already are, but this is one way to ensure more, and not less, argument. Bielle (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]