Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 11
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
Use of wikipedia screenshots with the wikipedia logo in browser articles
This gratuitous use of the copyrighted wikipedia logo violates the non-free content criteria - I have started removing the logo from screenshots in category Category:CopyrightByWikimedia and would appreciate help from others, though screenshots that are not of wikipedia or are scrolled to where the logo is not visible would be more natural. —Random832 (contribs) 05:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I am really not sure what this is all about. Yours in puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand, either. Why would the use of the Wikipedia logo as an illustration on Wikipedia's own pages create a problem? — LisaSmall T/C 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find it very unlikely the foundation would sue itself for copyright infringement. Sceptre (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it wouldn't sue itself. It might, however, sue re-users of the content. However, I would think having the logo there is better than not having it - it's a form of attribution. --Tango (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the life of me I can't really understand why the WMF doesn't simply license their logos with a free content license of some sort. I'm talking in a fashion similar to the Linux "tux" penguin logo and the GNU gnu logo of the Free Software Foundation, to note existing precedence on a legal basis of trademarks that do have free licenses. I sincerely hope that eventually such an action will take place to get rid of this sort of pure nonsense even if this isn't the proper forum to address this issue. Logo copyrights and trademark usage are two completely different areas of law, and should be treated as such. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it wouldn't sue itself. It might, however, sue re-users of the content. However, I would think having the logo there is better than not having it - it's a form of attribution. --Tango (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find it very unlikely the foundation would sue itself for copyright infringement. Sceptre (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand, either. Why would the use of the Wikipedia logo as an illustration on Wikipedia's own pages create a problem? — LisaSmall T/C 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains that at the present time it's non-free content, and cannot be used in the way it is being used. (really, the use of wikipedia for general browser screenshots borders on WP:SELFREF anyway). The foundation has had YEARS to settle on a free license for these logos, and since they have not it is time to clean out the category. —Random832 (contribs) 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Still don't get it. What is a "general browser screenshot"? How does that differ from a "specific browser screenshot"? Or just a plain old "screenshot," which normally comes from a browser? Querulously, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- A bigger issue with screenshots such as those is not the use of the Wikipedia logo, but rather ones that include the whole screen, including bits of copyrighted software (browsers and operating systems). Mr.Z-man 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- By "general browser screenshot" I mmean a screenshot of a browser which is being used to show the browser, rather than to show the webpage. And screenshots can be of many things other than browsers and webpages, so it's not clear what you mean by "which normally comes from a browser". —Random832 (contribs) 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's nice to know that an organisation that's supposed to be promoting free information and has insisted that only free images should be used here can't even license their own logo so that it can be used on their own site. It's ridiculous that this should ever be an issue. --Tombomp (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
WP interfering with law enforcement?
Hal Turner is a well-known neo-Nazi internet talk-show host. In his article there is a rumor reported that he is really an informant for the FBI. It seems to me that WP should keep quiet about this, it is not well-sourced anyway, so that the people the FBI is trying to trap will not be warned away. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's already been removed. Law enforcement issues shouldn't be a consideration - it's not our job to keep things secret for the authorities unless a court tells us to. There are libel issues, though, and WP:BLP is quite clear about those. The sources are not reliable or notable enough to warrant including the accusations in our article. --Tango (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Some thoughts on taunts and provocations
It seems that as of late, there is an unfortunate practice of people hurling taunts and provocations. Unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to tolerate it when the target is a blocked user or someone otherwise not in the community's good graces. The practice is especially unlikely to attract criticism if the person doing it is an established Wikipedian. I think there are several problems with this.
For one, it does not set a good example. Nor does it help the situation, or promote the betterment of ongoing interactions, which in many cases have already taken a turn for the worse by the time a block is called for. Few people like to be kicked while they're down. And while it represents a chance to get the last word in that interaction, the target may feel a desire to get even – and if opportunities do not present themselves to do so directly, the person may attempt to do so indirectly, in such a way that others get caught in the crossfire. So, there are good reasons for the community to suppress this type of inappropriate behavior.
What would motivate a person to want to taunt a blocked user? Is the goal to get under their skin, so that they're just itching to say something uncivil, or (if their talk page is protected) evade the ban in order to respond? Perhaps in some cases, the person make the taunts does hope for this. After all, the more infractions they keep piling up, the less likely it is that they'll ever get unblocked. And that provides one more thing to taunt them about.
If someone has a history of doing bad stuff (and presumably banned users do), it is really in the encyclopedia's best interests to egg them on? Might it not be more effective to exercise some discretion by ignoring them, or perhaps trying to kill them with kindness? Or is it really not about the encyclopedia? Maybe it's just about feeding one's own ego and feeling good about getting someone's goat.
Trolling is often defined as deliberately trying to arouse someone's indignation and annoyance. Could not some of this type of behavior be viewed as trolling? I've seen a lot of comments like "Haha, ur blocked luser," "Pwned! Sux to be you!" or in the words of Equazcion, "Enjoy your block." We might do well to avoid that kind of thing. Just a thought. Blueman onions (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, your very first posting to Wikipedia is to the Village pump, and starts it seems of late, indicating you've been around a bit. And the diff you provide is for a posting to the user page of blocked editor.
- Perhaps - for other editors - a bit of context is appropriate - the blocked editor (Larry E. Jordan), said that the deleted article (apparently at the center of the matter) had been sourced; when asked "What was the source", the response was that the article was deleted, and the editor asking about the source should get a copy from an admin. That's a pretty unresponsive answer - if the article were appropriately sourced, Larry should know exactly what the source was. So the editor replied, to Larry, I'd think you'd want to be more helpful than that. Enjoy your block. Perhaps not the kindest of words, but somewhat logical. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
copyright: designated agent?
The Wikipedia article on the Wikimedia Foundation indicates that the foundation offices have moved to California. Does this mean that the Designated Agent page needs to be updated, or is the Designated Agent still at the foundation's original office in Florida? Incidentally, this form lists a different address in Florida as the Designated Agent. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to Cary Bass that address is still correct. There's also a Registered agent who is in California[1]. Mr.Z-man 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which Florida address is the correct one: the one listed here, or the one listed on the bottom of this form where it says "Full Address of Designated Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement"? Or will both work? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to Mike Godwin,
- Which Florida address is the correct one: the one listed here, or the one listed on the bottom of this form where it says "Full Address of Designated Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement"? Or will both work? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
| “ | We're in the process of changing our Designated agent, but we can't change anything right now because it has to be approved by the copyright office. | ” |
Twenty questions - don't know where else to post this...
Anyone up for twenty questions? -- Denelson83 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Constantly pruning plot
It's like a war, man, a war to keep the plots of articles as summary and not blow by blow accounts. I stray away from Lord of War and come back to prune it to hell. Same with Balls of Fury. And just recently iIfound that someone had added 8KB of junk to the plot summary of Rambo and i had to hunt back nearly a month to find my version that kept it at a bare minimum. How can we fight back against this? The problem is that it's all in good faith, so it's not as if we can issue blocks or anything. but I'm tired of watching articles like a hawk to constantly pare back the plot to WP:NOT#PLOT standards. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might try putting an emphatic invisible comment immediately below the heading of each plot section, including citing that section of the WP:NOT policy. And perhaps if there hasn't been any discussion of the problem on the article talk/discussion page for (say) five or six months, post a note there as well, asking other editors to help out if they see the plot summary getting longer. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Question
Is there any instance of something happening on wikipedia resulting in legal action against a user? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 07:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia will turn over edit information (specifically, the IP address of a registered editor) when requested by a court of law. I'm fairly sure that has happened in a least of a couple of cases. As to whether that resulted in a civil lawsuit against the editor (say, for libel or defamation), I don't know. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Catz
ResolvedDoes anyone know what the article Catz is supposed to be about? --209.244.31.53 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was just vandalism. I reverted it. - DiligentTerrier and friends 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Defiled Wikipage
Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary#SEELE has been defiled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.108.192 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- What an odd thing to say about an edit that removed an image, in a article about a fictional topic. If you have a question about why the editor removed the image, I suggest posting at the editor's user talk page - that would be User talk:Willbyr. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Letter of assigment or approval
Does Wikipedia English and other Wikipedia versions do issue letter of approval or assignment as a sign to credit and acknowledge their editors?
219.95.23.85 (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. The most you're going to get is a barnstar or a small reward. Algebraist 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
10 000 000 articles in Wikipedia
Best regards, nejron (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone verify the stats as the info on stats was added by an anon.--Smaalbig (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- UPDATE: STATS LIKELY NOT TO BE ACCURATE. THE INFORMATION WAS ADDED BY AN ANON WHO HAS NO WIKIMEDIA HISTORY. THESE STATS DIFFER FROM THE STATS THAT ARE MEANT TO MAKE UP THE DATA FOR THAT PAGE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE VERIFICATION BEFORE ANY SITE PUBLISHES IT. I MAYY BE WRONG BUT I AM WARNING YOU THAT THIS MAY BE VANDALISM. --Smaalbig (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd guess that it's true. Per Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics, there were 9,790,407 articles as of 1 March 2008. Compare that to the 1 February 2008 figure of 9,558,178: there was an increase of 232,000 articles in the 29 days in February.
- Nice milestone. I hope the Wikimedia Foundation puts out a press release. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- We're aware of it, and Jay Walsh has been working on putting something together, along with handling news of the Sloan Foundation grant. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Note this is for all language Wikipedias. (Other WMF projects not included.) FT2 (Talk | email) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Issue with credibility of Wikipedia at a map on universal health insurance
A colleague, Tony, whose opinions I trust has raised an issue with a map here at
. There is discussion on the talk page over how to proceed, however, after some discussion it has been listed for deletion here Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_March_30#Image:WORLDHEALTH2.png. It is obviously a loaded and emotional topic so please be thoughtful about whether such a map as it exists can be NPOV or not and how to proceed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A list masquerading as a category
Category:Creepy is in the category needing help section. I put it up for deletion of category, where it is listed under April 1. But now I discover that the category is actually a long list. Is is just called a category but it is impossible to remove anything from it except by editing the category as an article. What is the best way of handling this? Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is being proposed for deletion; that's the best way to handle it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Explanation
So while searching for myself I ran across this:
It is a cache of a "Vidipedia" page. Now. Let me explain.
This is blatantly a copy of my user page, obviously old, as the wikidefcon thing says March 8th. But, the weird thing is that I never but that I am a "Vidipedian" on my user page- I put Wikipedian. So, is the WMF just messing around here? Testing by putting user pages up? And then taking them down? Why in the world would they put me in from a different project? And why would they edit my page and change that?
Other weird things-
- It seems like maybe other WPians have user pages on there. I did another search for Can't sleep clown will eat me (because he's famous), and got some pages, the cache was blank, but the snippets were there, so I can't tell.
- Google doesn't pick this stuff up, only Yahoo. I normally don't use it, it was a fluke that I used it tonight.
- Basically none of the pages at Vidipedia work. Maybe its that I'm using FF, but all searches end up blank, no special pages work, etc. At the bottom it says WMF, and I heard rumors about this, but is it even real?
So what I'm asking here is what is going on, and why was my user page there. Any ideas?
- ђαίгснгм таιќ 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:MIRROR - some of these sites replace all reference to "Wikipedia" in their pages with their own name. Template:Userpage contains code to attempt to get around that. —Random832 (contribs) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- They probably started with a copy of the WP database and made their own changes. See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)/Archive_8#Vidipedia.org. —Random832 (contribs) 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the blue box on my User page. It's sort of like a content warning, that just because your User page is on the mirror site, doesn't mean that you've ever been there. Corvus cornixtalk 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It does appear to be something of a mirror, as they've got contributions I made just a few hours ago.[3] My guess is they mirror the whole database except certain pages like their Main Page. Incidentally, this site may not be in compliance with the GFDL, I don't know for sure, though, as IANAL. See also [4], where Vidipedia has changed all the Wikimedia foundation's projects to begin with "MY". Also they replace all occurences of the word "research" with "retitle" which is a little goofy. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Compression?
Does anybody know if the wikipedia web servers use HTTP compression for faster downloads?—RJH (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably better asked at WP:VPT, where the developers hang out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is an established user?
When I wanted to edit Michael Jackson it was semi-protected. It mentioned that only established registered users can edit the page. what does it men by an "established" registered user? ExitRight (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- In this context, an "established user" is someone who has been here for about 4 days or so. Once you have been here for 4 days, you can edit semi-protected pages. Sometimes people will use the term informally to refer to someone who has been here long enough to be reasonably trusted. --B (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, you need to be an "autoconfirmed user" to edit semi-protected pages. That is, your account needs to be 4 days old. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What's with the wikipedia acronyms?
I don't contribute to wikipedia that much, so I find it hard to understand discussions on talk pages with all these acronyms floating about. Like AfD and COI etc. When there's a link e.g. WP:COI and I put my cursor over the link, a yellow tag pops up that I assume is meant to be helpful, but it isn't. It just repeats the text already in the link. It would be a whole lot easier if I put the cursor over WP:COI and it said "WP: Conflict of Interest". At least then It would be easier to follow some discussions around here.203.206.9.131 (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might try this acronym: WP:POPUPS. It's a tool which gives you previews of Wikipedia articles in popup windows, including full titles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- RayBrujo's suggestion is best, but if (for some reason) you don't want to register and implement popups (via the Gadgets tab at "my preferences"), you might want to bookmark the page Wikipedia:List of shortcuts. Then all you need to do is search that page for the acronym (e.g., "COI" or "AfD") via Ctrl-F or whatever works on your browser. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Glossary may also be helpful for learning common acronyms. Dar-Ape 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Traffic to Output Disconnect?
I was just skimming our Alexa traffic results and was surprised to find that 17% of visitors go to es.wikipedia.org, second only to en (53%), and far above fr (5%), de (3%), pl (3%), ja (3%), etc. Now right off the bat there isn't a direct connection between % of visitors and relative size of the projects, othewise the English Wikipedia would be much bigger than it currently is. But are there any explanations for why the Spanish project is still so much smaller than the other big ones, which themselves attract less than a 1/3 the number of visitors compared with es.wikipedia.org? I understand we had the early defection over the advertisment rumors, but that's been years. Just to note, I'm purposely ignoring the % of visitors by country, because those numbers could be skewed by second language speakers, expats, etc. Joshdboz (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a very interesting question and I'm not going to pretend to have the answer to this, but I'll throw some thoughts at your question anyway in case it leads to something useful. I suppose Enciclopedia Libre probably doesn't have much to to with it. Other things to consider are that readership and contribution are not necessarily in high correlation: perhaps people don't contribute because they don't have the knowledge to do so (either technical or topical), or maybe online resources in Spanish are not as good comparatively as in some of the other languages you mentioned, so a larger proportion of internet knowledge seekers end up on Wikipedia, without significantly increasing the number of people who desire to edit. None of these particularly make sense, even to me, but perhaps I have sparked a thought that makes more sense? I look forward to more comments on this. Dar-Ape 08:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What is Wiccan?
It currently redirects to Wicca but the article doesn't quite say what it is. Shouldn't the link be turned into a disambiguation page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wiccan is basically the adjective form of Wicca. A behavior that practicioners of Wicca follow would be called a Wiccan behavior. It can also be a noun used to describe such a person; a Wiccan practices Wicca (though some prefer other labels instead). Notice that the term is used in the second paragraph of the lead of the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. But shouldn't the link become a disambiguation page, like Indian, American, Brazilian, German, etc.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It could go to Wicca (disambiguation), which does contain a link to Wiccan (comics) as well as Wicca.--Father Goose (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll do that now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It could go to Wicca (disambiguation), which does contain a link to Wiccan (comics) as well as Wicca.--Father Goose (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. But shouldn't the link become a disambiguation page, like Indian, American, Brazilian, German, etc.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Rubenstein Public Relations
I have had contact with this PR firm, one of the most influential and largest in the United States, since I worked with them at the Tribeca Film Festival last year (and will again this year). Like any good PR firm, they would like to work with Wikipedia. They realize they should not edit nor change articles to suit their clients interests, but they would like to know what they can do to contribute to Wikipedia. For instance, my work with them at TFF creates for us a lot of GFDL images of celebrities. They would like to forge a closer relationship with the Wikipedia community, and I have gone to a few lunches to discuss with them some ideas. A collaboration with PR agencies can create a wealth of opportunities for Wikipedians in the English-speaking world (such as attending film festivals), put us closer in touch with their clients' perspectives (which would help with some of our BLP issues), and improve the site as a whole. If anyone is interested in discussing the possibilities we might be able to have working with them, or have suggestions of things we would like, please leave it on my talk page. Dave --David Shankbone 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Systematic Portal to Wikipedia
Knowledge 2008: Encyclopedic Portal [5] is a systematic portal to Wikipedia. It is part of Knowledge 2008 [6]. Knowledge 2008 is an ongoing R&D project aimed at mapping human knowledge and facilitating efficient information searching. It is based on theoretical and empirical studies. Currently, the project is composed of six parts: Map of Human Knowledge [7], Portal to Human Knowledge [8], Smart Search [9], Encyclopedic Portal [10], Overview [11], and Academic Forum [12]. Please feel free to reflect. Chaim Zins, researcher & developer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.215.156 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a question here? Corvus cornixtalk 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
2007 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament
In the article about the 2007 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament why does it list an asterisk by 3 teams and 2 asterisks by 1 team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookietoo (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly the kind of question to post on the discussion/talk page of the article. The editors who really care about asterisks are far, far more likely to read that page than to read this one. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarism/GFDL violation?
I know that there is Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance but this is the first time I've ever heard of what appears to me to be a published book with some content violating the GFDL of wikipedia. In particular this part of this book, is awfully similar in at least one section to our article Islamic terrorism (at least as it was a while ago). To me, it looks like this part of it violates the GFDL. There may be more, I haven't looked into it. At the very least, it appears to be plagiarism since I don't think wikipedia is referenced (I don't have the book but I can't find anything from a brief look through and search via Google). It's possible we copied from the book, this was what I originally thought but the book was published in October 2007 Amazon, ours is from June 2007 (probably earlier, I didn't look that hard). More significantly perhaps, while some parts are missing, other parts have been there since at least February 2006. Of course, it's still possible that either it was contributed completely by the author of the book to wikipedia, the author got the permission of all the authors or the author came up with it independently. But the first two seem unlikely to me based on the fact that this appears to have been worked over quite a long period and it's a very busy article, meaning it likely has a large number of authors. The third thing seems unlikely to me since the wording is far to close, even ignoring the quotations. Of course the final possibility is we copyvioed from one or multiple sources, which were also used by the author but I have no idea on this since I haven't looked into it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's actually a bit more then I thought, I can't help wondering if you search for the right version you may find that part of it is a complete copy of our article. It's unfortunate the pages between the index and the part I'm looking at are missing, perhaps it does say 'the following is copied from wikipedia and is released under the GFDL'. But this seems unlikely to me since it switches from material that looks like it's copied from us to the next paragraph about being indebted to someone without any divider Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Censorship of article discussion pages
I have experienced censorship on a discussion page of an attempt to talk about a proposed addition to the article. The editor did this twice thought I tried to explain on the edit summary and it seemed self-explanatory to me. Rather than start a revert war, I called for a third party who pumped on exactly why was I pursuing this line of discussion? That is, as an editor, I had to "clear" my topic of discussion with the discussion page "owner." There was no assumption of good faith on my part, but in fact, the automatic presumption of good faith on the censor! Is there a policy related to the censorship of discussion pages? I've seen vandalism and scrawls of children reverted and was happy to see them go. My entry definitely did not fall into either category. We need a policy to refer to, or, in lieu of that, a WikiPolicy discussion page to continue the discussion with the editor and the third party to determine exactly who has the right to censor discussion articles and why. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- No one "owns" article discussion pages. Having said that, there are inappropriate topics. For example (and I've not looked at your edits), suppose you start a section about an internet rumor that X is (well, whatever - a cocaine abuser, a pedophile, you name it). You propose to discuss (on the article talk page) whether such rumors should be included in the article. But the discussion itself is a WP:BLP violation; you really have the burden of proof of coming up with at least one reliable source to even be able to legitimately start the discussion. (Google includes article talk pages in its search results, for example; even discussing something on a talk page gives it some credence.)
- It's not clear what you did to get the opinion of "a third party", but you might ask for one more opinion at WP:EA. And if an experienced editor there tells you that you're out of line, please listen. (On the other hand, if you're not out of line, you'll probably get assistance.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, they (finally) agreed that my topic was reasonable, but I had no idea that discussion pages were so rigorously censored. I did have a legitimate reference which also got deleted second time around. I just had no idea you had to fight to discuss something. I have a few edits under my belt and watch a few pages. This is a brand new experience for me. So you have to get at least one person on your side before entering a new topic on the discussion page? Most discussion topics I've seen are questions from newbies trying to get information in order to understand the article. Articles are not usually written by "professionals in the field" but by people learning "on the fly." These newbie questions are not generally censored later. Up to half the discussion is usually people arguing with each other over changes. They are not usually censored later. So, Wikipedia is jake with discussion censorship. Who knew?
- More importantly, you have to get "permission" to enter into the discussion on the page if you are a newbie? I hadn't realized that.
- Your edit here appears to be the start of this issue; frankly, looking at the edit, it is nothing more than a statement, and has no indication that you intend to add anything to the article on that topic. Your edit summary here states that you intended to seek references, but the statement includes nothing about seeking out references. Your next edit to that page claims censorship, despite an explanation in the edit summary that removed the section here indicating that the section was discussion unrelated to improving the article, as interpreted by Mdsummermsw (talk · contribs). Calling this censorship is rather incorrect; it's a case of trying to avoid soapboxing on the talk page. I would suggest that you lay off the "censorship" claims and continue the discussion of developing the section collaboratively. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The talk page of articles is intended solely for discussion into way to improve an article. They are specifically NOT intended for discussions of the subjects of articles, or any other such general discussion. Therefore if you want to discuss something other then ways to improve an article, then you will definitely have to fight to discuss it, and you will almost definitely lose. There are plenty of places on the internet you are entitled to discuss whatever you want, wikipedia isn't one of them. The only things we discuss on wikipedia on the whole, are ways to improve wikipedia. I agree with Tony above, you really should lay of these censorship claims and work on trying to improve the article Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've deleted dozens (or more) of "wikchat" postings on article talk pages; I did one this morning, for example. (I'd do more if I spent more time editing articles, I'm sure.) Leaving such stuff in place simply encourages others to post the same sort of irrelevant material, clogging up article talk pages and setting off false alarms with those who monitor articles and related talk pages for changes. Per What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- In low traffic talk pages, it's fairly common that some leeway is allowed. However particularly on high traffic talk pages, off topic discussions are deleted all the time. If you check out something like Talk:Evolution or Talk:Global warming or simply some very high traffic ITN item (like a school shooting). As you can from this discussion, it's relatively uncontroversial (at least amongst those who understand policy in this regards) since our talk page policy is clear, and is there for a reason. I personally don't encourage it much, since it can just make things worse, it's often better to just allow someone to say something OT then to get into a long but often extremely silly 'censorship' argument with someone who doesn't understand policy and it does no real harm anyway (except on/relating to BLPs where off-topic posts should usually be deleted with a vengence). But I won't object when it occurs and it is definitely sometimes necessary and from the look of the Communism talk page, it was necessary there. Presuming yours was really the first post to be deleted, then all I can say is they had to start somewhere. There is a lot of OT discussion on both sides already there so I don't see anything one-sided about the behaviour there. Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather notorious around here for being a fervent advocate of free speech and opponent of elements in Wikipedia that like to censor things, but I think in this case the people opposing your talk-page comments have a point you should heed. The talk pages are for discussing the article, and how it can be improved, and not for making points of your own about the article subject. People are constantly, and correctly, removing comments from the talk pages of pop-star articles saying things like "Pop Star X rules!!!!!" or "Pop Star X sucks!!!!!", or "I'm Pop Star X's #1 fan!!!!!". Similarly, the talk page of "Communism" is not a place to make one's original-research theories about how communism can't possibly work, or alternatively to propound one's beliefs about how communism is the only reasonable way to organize a society. If you write such potentially contentious things in the discussion page, the burden is on you to explain clearly how the point is actually relevant to the article, such as by presenting reliable sources that have made such points and thus arguing that some mention of that point in the article would be justified. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Google providing its own article summaries
This is interesting. I just noticed this today. Searching Google for Marcus Aurelius, Wikipedia's article was at the top (naturally!), but instead of the usual page excerpt, the text beneath was, "Illustrated biography of the emperor in this online encyclopedia."
They do it for a few other sites as well ("Full text of the twelve books, from the MIT Internet Classics Archive."; "Offers a brief biography, drawn from three encyclopedias."): [13]. And they do it for some of our articles: "Open-source encyclopedia article provides personal, business and political information about the President, his policies, and public perceptions and ..." (George W. Bush), but not others (such as Microsoft).
How long has Google been doing this? Have I just not noticed?--Father Goose (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Accoridng to what I just heard on IRC, they've been doing it for a few months for a 2 reasons: It prevents vandalism of high-traffic articles showing up google searches, they're all high traffic articles, and in thier opinion it sounds less boring...--Phoenix-wiki 11:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The information is from the Open Directory Project, I believe. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Today's DYK
Just a comment... Today's "Did you know" says... "...that Manitoba Provincial Road 373 became famous after a band from Norway House won an award for an album named after the highway?" No mention of who the band was, or what the award was. No mention in the article, either! Fortunately it has a link to a website that provides the answer. Even so, I found it strange that such a vague reference should be the highlight of the text of a DYK. Perhaps the article's editors were afraid to spell out the details, in case they were flagged as non-notable, but I think both band and award should be okay to talk about at Wikipedia, especially since the band received the award. Maybe this was a test to see if we're paying attention. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Biography subjects
Hello all. This is a gentle reminder that when an article subject apparently edits their own article, we need to approach the situation with care and tact. While it is perfectly possible that some people may be trying to whitewash their articles, we have an ever-increasing number of biography subjects who have tried to fix factual inaccuracies or attacks in their articles and been reverted and insulted. Yes, WP:COI and WP:AUTO are guidance, and it's fair to point people towards them, but it's also very important that we ensure we don't stand in the way of fixing genuine problems. My personal advice to article subjects is to register an account, identify via WP:OTRS (send mail to info-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org) to avoid impersonators, be open about who they are, engage on the discussion page, and not to edit the article directly other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact. Anybody who attacks or taunts an article subject on a talk page is liable to end up in some very deep trouble, so please restrain the impulse to bite, even if they are (as they may be) obnoxious. If an article subject is obnoxious, it may be the result of genuine hurt caused by issues with their article. If they keep being obnoxious, please keep being pleasant, and summon aid from the admin community via a polite and neutrally worded note ("X is expressing difficulties with his article, but the content is well-sourced and X is becoming agitated", that kind of thing). If we are very careful to be beyond reproach in how we handle article subjects when they arrive, it makes any subsequent dealings via OTRS and - in extreme cases - lawyers, very much simpler. Your co-operation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 20:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles with notability questions - Help by Wikiprojects wanted
Wikipedia currently contains more than 15.000 articles with topics of unclear notability, tagged with notability concerns during the past 10 months. WikiProject Notability is working to clean up this massive backlog, and to sort out what should be done with those articles.
Many of these 15.000 articles fall into the scope of one or more WikiProjects; and subject matter experts, or speakers of foreign languages, can often provide valuable input as to whether a topic is notable: Sources may not be available in English, or merge options may not be apparent to the non-expert reader.
I have therefore prepared a list of those articles, ordered by their assigned WikiProjects. It is based on a database snapshot of March 12. I'd like to encourage all members of a WikiProject to look through "their" articles, and see whether e.g. articles can be merged, whether sources can be added, etc. All help is appreciated.
For further information on notability sorting, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
Many thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- This must have been a mammoth task. You have my heartfealt admiration and sympathy (in having to deal with this back log). As to what to do with these articles... Obviously, the goal is to improve the articles, but there comes a point where waiting for someone to come along and actually do so is futile. I would say that any article that has not been worked on for two months after being tagged for lack of notability (an arbitrary time frame, but one that I think is realistic) should be deleted without prejudice (ie the article can be recreated at a later date by someone who might write a better article that actually establishes notability). Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would have to strongly disagree with deletion of non-notable articles based on this criteria alone. I have seen articles that have languished for as long as six months (or longer) before somebody picked up the ball and started to really move with the article... even when the article was a stub. I have also heard from numerous places that have explicitly griped about how some overzealous admin here on Wikipedia is on a non-notable rampage deleting fairly notable articles simply because they are completely unfamiliar with the topic.
- I know this gets into the inclusionists vs. deletionists debates here (and I'll admit that I tend to hang in the inclusionists camp), so I'll leave this where it lay. All this said, I admire this attempt to try and sort through the nominated non-notable articles by wikiproject, as perhaps a method of getting those with knowledge of those topics to help scan through the nominations for relevance. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Trying to move this away from the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate (I actually fall in the middle in that debate, generally agreeing with the inclusionists when talking abstractly, but frequently agreeing with deletionists when it comes to specific articles)... perhaps I misspoke. I don't think these articles should be summarily deleted... but I do think they should be nominated at AfD. The reason I suggest nominating such articles is that the threat of deletion often sparks a flury of work on the article... as editors who normally would not bother to work on the article, but who like it and want it included, shift their priorities in an attempt to earn a "keep" result. I know this isn't the purpose of AfD... but it is a very common occurance. We can use that to our advantage. Granted, there are many things we should do before nominating... It is a last step in a long process... but if it will help to achieve our goal (having someone work on the article) we should not rule it out. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this gets into the inclusionists vs. deletionists debates here (and I'll admit that I tend to hang in the inclusionists camp), so I'll leave this where it lay. All this said, I admire this attempt to try and sort through the nominated non-notable articles by wikiproject, as perhaps a method of getting those with knowledge of those topics to help scan through the nominations for relevance. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- This seem a very strange way to develop a project- distracting an editor working on a well thought out schedule, from the important to work on the urgent. If deletion is not the intention then to suggest that it is, is neither open or honest, and ultimately totally non productive. ClemRutter (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest that deletion should only be called into play if the topic is patently non-notable. If the subject may be merged into a larger topic, redirection is much better than deletion (as other articles may link to the non-notable topic, and redirection is cheap); this also allows for recovery of the history and recreation of the content should someone come at a later time to edit it. --MASEM 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the relevant WikiProjects were notified (e.g., posting on their talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics. Perhaps you could request a bot to help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, I'll do that at least for the larger projects. Unfortunately, there's some limit to automation here: What I can find automatically is the project banners - that's how the lists are generated - but there seems to be no easy automated way of finding the associated project. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a simple automation answer: Have a bot get rid of all the Notability tag boxes. If nobody cares enough to actually take a look at the article, then the article is not a problem; leave it alone until it gets AFD'd, improved, or merged.
The fact that this notability system is such a ridiculous mess shows that the system doesn't work - it should be abandoned. Spend your time improving or creating articles, not polluting wikipedia with swaths of pointless labels. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, hiding the problem doesn't contribute much to solving it, I'd say. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's not a problem! (But we veer alarmingly close to the inclusion/deletion argument, so I'll shut up). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Citations - Buzzards versus Santas
The Problem: Editors are currently free to swoop down into any article, drop some variety of unsourced tag, and then circle like buzzards waiting for the article to die. I am speaking hypothetically of course, no WP editor would ever behave this way. The Solution: It seems that one possible solution to the massive number of unsourced tags is to have other editors play Santa. By this I mean an editor who finds (by chance or design) a good RS should be able to fly in, drop a gift in the form of a citation template, and then dash away all. "Santas" would not create inline references but merely provide the citation and let the primary editor(s) of the article determine how best to use it. A {{SantaWasHere}} template might be nice to add so that primary editors would know a gift needs opening. Low Sea (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you wish to add citations, that's very welcome. Apart from that, the solution is just to assume good faith. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Others have disagreed with you and stated that general reference citations not integrated (via inline references) are meaningless. Low Sea (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
- Not sure why that's considered "meaningless"... Where an article does not have sources, but I find substantial coverage, I often add a citation to the article, even if the current article content is not directly based on this source. It would go into the "References" section or, better even, into a "Further reading" section, such as here. That doesn't make a first class article, but it's sufficient to establish notability, I think. And it keeps the article from "dying", as you can see from the history. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with that perspective but note the following[14]. I am not sure what the right view is on this matter and so I started this discussion to see if there was support for my idea. I am good at finding citations, but not so good at integrating them so I would like to play Santa myself (and see others with skills like mine do the same). Low Sea (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as far as I can see the citation was not discarded as useless, it was just moved to a different section. Sources fulfill two purposes on Wikipedia: First, they are used to verify the content of the article. Second, they establish notability. For the first purpose, of course inline citations are better. For the second, a mentioning in the "external links" or "further reading" section would suffice; it's a good base on which editors can later expand the article. If everything else fails, just post a message on the talk page saying, "the article might be expanded using the following sources". Hardly anyone will object, whether it's Christmas time or not. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- (RantModeOn) I would sure like to think so too, and maybe my experience with one editor has left me a little singed around the edges, but as I said I do not know what the right view is on this matter. In the 2 cases where I played Santa I found my contributions dismissed as unacceptable due to format, the unsourced tags restored, and to put a cherry on the top I was called "lazy" for suggesting that someone more qualified than myself should integrate the quotations. Put simply I feel editors like myself ought to be able to offer citation sources without being criticized and called lazy if we feel the citation can be best fitted into the text by a subject expert. I guess I am trying to ask is there any support in existing policy or precedent to say being a "Santa" is OK? What ground do I stand on the next time my gift is rejected? If the ground is not there then why should I or others bother -- for the "fun" of having sand thrown in our faces? (RantModeOff) Low Sea 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)
- Well, as far as I can see the citation was not discarded as useless, it was just moved to a different section. Sources fulfill two purposes on Wikipedia: First, they are used to verify the content of the article. Second, they establish notability. For the first purpose, of course inline citations are better. For the second, a mentioning in the "external links" or "further reading" section would suffice; it's a good base on which editors can later expand the article. If everything else fails, just post a message on the talk page saying, "the article might be expanded using the following sources". Hardly anyone will object, whether it's Christmas time or not. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with that perspective but note the following[14]. I am not sure what the right view is on this matter and so I started this discussion to see if there was support for my idea. I am good at finding citations, but not so good at integrating them so I would like to play Santa myself (and see others with skills like mine do the same). Low Sea (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why that's considered "meaningless"... Where an article does not have sources, but I find substantial coverage, I often add a citation to the article, even if the current article content is not directly based on this source. It would go into the "References" section or, better even, into a "Further reading" section, such as here. That doesn't make a first class article, but it's sufficient to establish notability, I think. And it keeps the article from "dying", as you can see from the history. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Others have disagreed with you and stated that general reference citations not integrated (via inline references) are meaningless. Low Sea (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
- As someone who spends most of their time at AfD, one of the things I see a lot is people not even bothering to put unsourced tags, instead just going straight to trying to get it deleted. Personally, I'd rather see this buzzard-like behavior from editors than simply throwing it right into the proverbial fire of AfD. One excellent example was the recent AfD nomination of Nomophobia. The nominator assaulted the article as a neologism and for its lack of sources, I went on ProQuest, pulled a few out of the list, put them into the article, and it was all good. AfD wasn't the place for this. I'd like to see something like this. Celarnor Talk to me 18:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Having a "santa" process certainly seems, at first glance, to counter balance the "buzzard" process outlined by Low Sea. There are a few different benefits:
- Division of labor. As mentioned, there are editors that are very good as sourcing and editors that are very good and writing/synthesizing. So, this would allow the tasks to fall toward those that have more appropriate skill sets/interests, thus maximizing their efficiency.
- A yang to the yin of buzzard behavior (though the word "buzzard" works as a description in this analogy, I don't think it is a good word generally as it goes against WP:AGF).
- Possible reduction in AfDs. The efforts that go into AfD are very valuable, but they are a big stick. Any article that could avoid AfD helps the encyclopedia by both its own improvement and by reducing the work load at AfD.
- Having a "santa" process certainly seems, at first glance, to counter balance the "buzzard" process outlined by Low Sea. There are a few different benefits:
- - Gwguffey (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs a new process - anybody is welcome to go ahead and add sources at any time. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)