Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 2

Policy Title

While we are discussing a major restructuring of this page, can we please consider dropping the word "policy" from the title (and just go with WP:Editing or something)? The current title of "WP:Editing policy" is confusing... When I first noticed that this page existed, I thought is was going to be about how to edit policy pages, rather than what it is about: how to edit articles. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy on Editing? Guidelines on Editing? Rd232 ^talk 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just WP:Editing? The prefix "WP" already says that it falls under the category of guideline/policy. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

nevermind... I see the problem... WP:Editing has already been taken by a style manual. Hmmm... Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuck with "Policies on Editing" then? Collect (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer to come up with something that does not have the word policy in its title (we don't entitle WP:V as "Policy on Verifiability" or WP:NOR as "Policy on No original research", after all), but since the obvious candidate has already been taken, I suppose that will have to do (unless someone can come up with a better solution). I do agree that "Policy on editing" would be clearer than the current title. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the current name balances with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Hiding T 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I notice quite a bit of overlap between WP:DP's "Alternatives to Deletion" section and WP:EP... I think the status quo is fine for the title of this page, but I'm open to good suggestions. Finally, an extra section here on The Editing of Policies and Guidelines might make sense, linking to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines but clarifying the specific issue of editing existing policy/guidelines. Rd232 ^talk 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What about starting articles?

So far, this policy deals purely with fixing existing articles... Should we discuss starting new articles? We could discuss things like a) researching the topic and writing the article based on what the sources say (preferred) vs writing what you think is true and then looking for sources to back it up (not preferred, but all too common) ... and b) drafting an article in user space while you line up sources, and moving it to user space once that is done. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:Starting an article and Wikipedia:Your first article (summary of the former). The obvious thing would be a short section summarising the main points and then linking to them. However these aren't guidelines or policy, they're just "help" pages, so I'm not sure if that quite fits, somehow. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tying this back to my previous issue about the name of the policy... if we don't broaden the scope and continue to keep this purely about fixing problem articles, perhaps something like WP:Fixing problems would be a more appropriate title. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to preserve

The "Preserve information" section as it stands is not feasible. "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." is simply too general of a statement considering the large number of exceptions. The lists provided are inadequate. Transwiki is not given as an alternative to plain removal of content, and violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not should be obvious candidates for removal, but that is not listed. Furthermore, why is "irrelevancy" with no link listed? Doesn't that essentially mean someone thinks the material doesn't belong? Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information—unless you think it doesn't belong! Finally, why is this a subsection of "Editing styles"? Is "Preserve information" a style of editing that we can choose to adopt or not? Surely there's no legitimate "Whatever you do, destroy information" style. It would be much plainer to reword along these lines:

When possible, preserve information that meets or can be modified to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Possible alternatives to removal of content include: rephrasing poorly-worded content, restructuring poorly-organized content, correcting inaccuracies, moving misplaced text to another article or unsuitable text to another wiki via the transwiki process, adding content to provide balance, and requesting citations for unsourced material.

That's a rough draft off the top of my head, please feel free to suggest changes or additions. If anyone thinks certain policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are important enough to warrant a mention, we can add those in. Pagrashtak 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and see also my comments in the next section --PBS (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The below conversation is getting derailed, and debating the policy/guideline status of this page is a separate matter from this rewording, so—we have one agreeing editor and no disagreements to this rewording. If there is opposition or a suggested change to my proposed wording, please speak up. Pagrashtak 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can wait little longer for more input from other editors. 3 editors don't really constitute a WP:CONCENSUS. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you post here original text next to your modification. It will be easier to think about it. Thanks. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for more input—that's why I asked for comments instead of editing the page. You can see the original text on the page now. Pagrashtak 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about User:Kww's suggestion in the next section? --PBS (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep a prose form instead of a bulleted list, but I like stating that removal is good in some cases. Pagrashtak 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Without looking down yet, and simply looking at the proposed change, I would be inclined to say with respects that no change is required. "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information" is as succinct and valuable as the Five Pillars themselves, and encourages editors to seek ways to NOT needlessly remove informations that might otherwise improve Wiki. Added references to changing guidelines unneccessarily complicates the simple and clean statement, and could actually encourage editors to remove informations if their subjective interpretation allows... quite the opposite of the intent of WP:PRESERVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I think this is an excellent idea. The only information worth having on Wikipedia is verifiable information, and I support the proposal by Pagrashtak. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

possibly controversial suggestion

While we are telling folks how to edit, ought we not also point out that "bigger is better" is not the WP byword. If a reliable source is given for a statement, the next one may well help. The sixth and seventh look like they are there just because someone found them. The eighth is just useless <g>. WP des not need every single source on every single subject. We should also point out that the purpose is to be "a" reference, not to be the sole reference ever needed on life, the universe and everything. Last we should explain that excessively long articles do not get read, that there is an ideal range for most topics as far as length is concerned. Collect (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, did you intend to say "If a reliable source is not given for a statement"? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, he's complaining about over-referencing. This is partly MoS and partly WP:OR territory - giving that many refs for one point raises red flags for the latter, and if it isn't it's just ugly and unnecessary. I'm not sure if that needs addressing here, or if so how.... Rd232 ^talk 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an area for Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Over-referencing isn't it? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The second part is that when articles get to 140K, they are "too long" and as an editorial policy we should should say that articles which are too long are unwise. There is no doubt that MoS and Editing Policy have a decided and proper overlap to be sure. It is not just over-referencing. Collect (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of MoS things we could add to this policy, but I don't see why over-referencing and article length are any more important than, to take some random examples: making articles accessible, image placement, section order, or summary style. Unless we make this a very general overview, and avoid duplicating the minutiae discussed in the MoS, I fear this policy will become a bloated and redundant mess. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that we want to avoid turning what are now stylistic recommendations into policy statements. There is a reason why MOS pages are considered guidelines and not policy. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Blueboar. I agree. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REMOVE?? Please, no

As if editors didn't already have enough shortcuts to point to when removing and deleting content, now we are adding a new "WP:REMOVE" shortcut to a policy which asks to try to preserve content? With the exception of WP:BLP, problematic material doesn't "need to be removed". It needs to be fixed, and only if there is no hope of it being fixed should it be removed. We really don't need this shortcut to tell people to remove stuff, enough people do it anyway even when they shouldn't. DHowell (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried changing the subtitle to more accurately reflect what this part of the policy says. However, as you agree, some material does need to be removed, so this is what the policy must say. How would you rephrase this? The current wording came from the extensive discussions in Wikipedia_talk:Editing_policy#Major_additions, so please don't just override everybody's work. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The "extensive discussions" over this new section involved less than a dozen people in less than a week. Please don't override the long-standing consensus that this policy has had for several years before it ever had encouraged the removal of content. As far as "overriding everybody's work", I essentially just took this paragraph's advice, and just removed the material I saw a problem with. If you think this is wrong, than perhaps this you can see why this section is badly worded. It is also highly redundant, e.g. mentioning original research and BLP content twice (once in the paragraph, once in the list of examples), and according to this, redundant material should be removed as well. The WP:REMOVE shortcut is just waiting to be abused: e.g. "Policy demands we WP:REMOVE problematic content" followed by edit wars with each side citing WP:PRESERVE and WP:REMOVE. No policy before this has ever said material "needs to be removed", only that it may be removed, and even BLP says "should be" not "needs to be". I also don't want to see AfD's saying "Delete, per WP:REMOVE". DHowell (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd quite happily remove every shortcut across Wikipedia because they've entrenched poor practise in debates for far too long and allowed things to polarise. I'd hope it might get people to move beyond "WP:PRESERVE", but then, seeing as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT still get batted at each other, I doubt that's possible. But let's at least hope things don't get kept or deleted because of shortcuts, but because of reasoned thinking over the merits, case by case. Hiding T 09:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'd think you'd have learned your lesson with WP:NOT#PLOT. :) I doubt we can get the shortcuts RFD'd, so I guess we're stuck with them now. DHowell (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't learn it right back at WP:V. Me, I just wish people would build the damn encyclopedia. Feel free to remove the shortcut and retarget it back where I stole it from. Hiding T 10:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the shortcut, and reworded the section heading and first sentence (yeah I forgot to log in before hitting save). I have further changes, but I want to see if these stick first. DHowell (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit wordy, but I'm fine with the meaning. I've simplified your first sentence to make it a bit less like legalese! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "may remove" is even better. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Yea, consensus! DHowell (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Preserve" and "remove" are yin and yan. And there is a lot of removeable material on WP. WP should not be a repository for every word in the Library of Congress. Really. Collect (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it a good idea to have two section "Try to fix problems: preserve information" and "Remove problematic material", it is better combined in one as it allows for a balanced approach.

Yes we don't want the content of an article deleted for no reason (we usually call that vandalism), but equally we do need editorial judgement on deleting some material either because the material breaches a policy or a guideline, or for some other editorial judgement.

Here is an example: Look at the article Liancourt Rocks and the comments in LAME. It frequently happens when there is a dispute from the real world is carried over to Wikipedia over a claim to a political fact. Instead of writing a balanced article both parties to the dispute will continue to pile on minutia to "prove" that their POV is correct and the other party to the dispute then adds further facts to balance the previous POV. The result is that one ends up with paragraphs and paragraphs of minutia which can be summed up in a slightly less frivolous but similar form to that of the LAME link above. Deletion can be justified by several guidelines and policies, but the main reason for deleting such reams of detail is it does not present any useful information for the reader of the article.

Another example: suppose one has a list of organisations that support an international UN resolution, but that list is wrong. The material should be deleted as inaccurate and not be preserved. One can explain ones reasons for deleting it on the talk page, if anyone reinserts it, but one does not need to do more than place a comment in the edit history. This is just as much a bold edit as inserting the information in the first place, and again unless there is a bold, revert cycle, most editors would not bother to explain such an edit in detail on the talk page before making it. As for this voiced concern with preserving information that is deleted on the talk page, this is not necessary because it is preserved in the history of the article for anyone who wants to access it, so there is no need to preserve it on the talk page. It may be desirable to place some or all of the deleted information on the talk page so that it can be seen and discussed easily, but this would usually be part of a bold edit cycle and not something that most editors would do automatically. --PBS (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is "not something that most editors would do automatically" is precisely why it should be in this policy. A bold removal of material can be seen as adversarial, but one can lessen the adversarial effect of removal by opening up a discussion about it on the talk page. At a fundamental level, this policy is supposed to be about editing in a collaborative, rather than adversarial, manner. We don't need to encourage people to do what they already do, we need to encourage them to do things which result in less confrontation and more cooperation. DHowell (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you are suggesting that this policy should prescribe how editors should behave and not describe what is usual editing policy? I do not see this as neccessary as information is preserved in the history of the article so there is no other reason than to preserve it on the talk page just for the sake of preserving it. --PBS (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that policy should describe editing practices which are beneficial and improve Wikipedia, and should discourage (if it describes at all) practices which do not. Edit warring is a common practice as well, should we modify WP:EW to be "descriptive" and say that edit-warring is perfectly hunky-dory at times? No, because it is demonstrably harmful. Vandalism is a common practice as well, should we modify WP:VAND to say "Sometimes it's OK to vandalize Wikipedia if you're really bored or want to tell us about your gay friends." Removing non-harmful material without discussion is often a problem because such edits get lost unless the page is heavily watched; harmful additions of material often aren't even noticed for a long time but at least will potentially be caught by anyone viewing the article—harmful removals almost never get noticed, unless blatant enough for a bot (such as ClueBot) to catch. DHowell (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Archiving or removing problematic material" - I see what TimVickers is getting at (especially in view of discussion above), but with the rare exception of oversighted edits, material is always archived in the page history. The problem is material getting lost in the archive, which is basically due to insufficient discussion on the talk page, supported by copy-pasting short sections to talk, or other methods such as pointing to an old version of the page, or to a userfied copy of problematic material. Some of those points are made further down in this policy, under Editing and Talking. Since the recent major restructure has made rationalisation/clarification/improvement of the policy more possible, maybe we should think about how to do that. But having done the legwork on the restructure I think it best to leave that to others. Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• As an April Fool, I preferred yesterday's reference to WP:RFP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

People can't argue this both ways, if this addition is "redundant" with what was there before, then it can't represent a change in the meaning of the policy. However, if it "overrides the long-standing consensus" then it can't be redundant with the previous text. Only one of these arguments can be true! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of the addition is redundant, and some of it changes the meaning. We can certainly argue both ways when there is multiple issues. DHowell (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As to how we summarise the BLP policy, it states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - this was summarised in this policy as "Questionable material about living people should be removed immediately, pending the outcome of subsequent discussion.", this seems fine to me, but how else would people suggest we summarise BLP here? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We could simply repeat the sentence without the parenthesis: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion." Or how about, "Contentious material about living persons not clearly supported by a reliable source should be removed immediately, before discussion." It doesn't need to be repeated in the paragraph and the list of examples, though. DHowell (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've targeted WP:HANDLE to the new section, but before I add it, I figure I'll check here. I think it is less contentious than WP:REMOVE, fits better with the overall thrust of the policy and uses language more conducive to debate than to conflict. Any objections other than "we don;t need no stinking shortcuts?" Hiding T 08:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• How about the eminent forgetability of this shortcut? I've already forgotten what it means halfway through replying. WP:REMOVE was clear: policy on removing material (only as a last resort if it's really bad and can't be fixed, and maybe temporary). It's sad that we think it can't be used because people will abuse it. I wonder though if maybe should hold off on replacing it. It's possible that the policy will evolve a bit more, and adding new shortcuts pre-empts that a bit. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that forgettable at my end, and these things have a habit of growing on you. WP:REMOVE wasn't clear, I agree with DHowell on that, and it is better targeted at the warning not to remove people's comments from talk pages, which is where I stole it from. There is another option, WP:IMPROVE. Hiding T 11:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well if we have to have one now, that would be better. It has a dual meaning that I can see: improve material if you can, rather than remove; if you do remove, it should be an improvement for the article. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I like WP:IMPROVE which has a good positive tone, in keeping with the general sentiment of this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: it's now WP:HANDLE, which fits the subheading. Rd232 ^talk 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So the evolution of lexicon is not accepted here?

Just wondering about this neologism policy. No new words accepted here? So then how is the evolution of lexicon covered?

Policy is Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. When (if) neologisms become widely enough accepted not to be neologisms any more, they're fine. Also Wikipedia is not dictionary, so we don't cover neologisms for their own sake (try Wiktionary). Rd232 ^talk 07:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem?

It is stange that this policy does not explain the problem which it is seeking to address, namely unsourced content. I propose inserting the following excepts from WP:V and WP:OR to make this clear:

Dealing with problems

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

I don't think this policy provides any useful guidance if it does not explicitly describe the problem it seeks to address. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop inserting this before anyone has had a chance to comment [1]. See (ironically) WP:EP#Editing policies and guidelines. Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this is confusing and unhelpful as proposed, because this isn't the problem the policy is seeking to address. Some of these points may be useful added some way, but not like this. Anyone else? Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rd232... if that isn't the problem this policy is seeking to address... what is? Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be added. The page is a bit woolly otherwise. In fact, it really shouldn't be a policy because it doesn't actually say anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And indeed its policy status has been disputed recently. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah apologies, I thought that the content was sought to be *removed* not *added* as I remember the line regarding expected behaviour is to find sources. Unomi (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy has a perfectly clear - purpose: it's about how to behave in terms of editing and discussing content. I'm not fundamentally opposed to adding the new points, but there are existing section where they can be integrated, and they can be written in a style appropriate to this policy, not confusingly copy-pasted from elsewhere. Let's clarify what those points are first, then draft something to do add, collaboratively, instead of rushing headlong into a poor addition. Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... If that is the purpose of this policy then I want to reopen the debate on it's staus. I don't think Behavior is something that we can or should mandate at a policy level (we have behavior guidelines). I thought the purpose was to supplement WP:V and WP:OR by outlining the different ways we can deal with unsorced material. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This policy is definately a behavioural policy. But I would have thought that citing sources is the sort of good editorial behaviour that we would want to encourage. We could amend the wording shown above to make it more encouraging, but I think this policy is a bit wishy-washy about citing sources and needs to be beefed up in this regard. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with clarifying source citation etc, but I think it clearly belongs in the WP:HANDLE section, and should be written from scratch, to fit the context of the policy. As part of that it might be worth redrafting that section entirely, keeping the existing points but making it clearer and integrating these concerns properly. Rd232 ^talk 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is still being used to justify retaining information (good bad or indifferent) see more recent links to Wikipedia:PRESERVE --PBS (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well (a) that's probably more in the nature of the shortcut than the policy it links to and (b) maybe merging WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE sections would help a little - there's a lot of overlap. Rd232 ^talk 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear it gives undue to weight to preserving content, with no mention of Wikipeida's cornerstone policies that require content to be sourced. I think this should be addressed with the wording proposed above. Either the wording should go in as it is, or a variant is put forward to address this imbalance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The policy at the moment over focuses on dealing with problems with material that already exists... but it should start with noting the correct "behavior" on adding the material in the first place (ie, read the sources, summarize what they say... and cite them when you add your summary). Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Go easy. Some editors don't like the sight or sound of the c*** word. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"it should start with noting the correct "behavior" "... maybe. But it should either be done as I said above (integrated within Handle/Preserve sections) or else as a new introductory section before Dealing with Problems, clearly linking (probably in See Main style) the policies being summarised. I'd prefer the former - I'm wary of creating needless duplication and there's a risk of that with the latter. Rd232 ^talk 08:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft something and lets have a look at it then. I guess from the double revert you are not happy with the above wording. What wording would you happy with? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar's suggestion is the way forward. If as Rd232 has suggested the two sections WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE are merged into one then it can have an introductory paragraph along the lines BB has suggested of "read the sources, summarize what they say... and cite them when you add your summary" then the section will be of real use as a guidance to new editors. BTW I still think this page should be a guideline and not a policy because while it remains a policy page it will always have the potential to cause confusion between the wording here and that of the three content policies (just as was the case with WP:ATT). --PBS (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that information should be cited at the moment of entry into wikipedia, I also think it is important to note that WP:PRESERVE is central to the editing policies, and that removal should be predicated on a good faith attempt to find sources. WP is not a game of gotcha, and what at one point might have seemed uncontroversial or unlikely to be contested might not hold true today, or in the future, this does not mean that a source for the information does not exist, nor should it mean that research 'leads' should be removed. Unomi (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree with both Unomi and Rd232. There needs to be both a statement that citing sources is the preferred manner of adding information, with an understanding that unsourced material is not outright deleted without prejudice. We're building an encyclopedia, we need to institute practises which allow that process. We need to be very clear that deleting material without a good faith attempt to find sources is actually more unacceptable than adding unsourced information, because of WP:BITE. We need to coach new users that they need to cite sources but also coach established users that they need to look for sources before they remove. That way we act in a responsible manner in our stewardship of teh encyclopedia. Hiding T 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• This section is founded upon a false premise. This policy does not address issues such as verifiability because these are well covered by other policies. The essential point of this policy is that we are not perfectionist. This is a fundamental policy because it is inherent in the Wiki method that our editing is incremental. It is not unusual at AFD to see it suggested that an article should be deleted so that a fresh start may be made. This is not our policy as that would be a different technique - the method of the infinite monkeys who produce numerous flawed drafts which are discarded until they produce the works of Shakespeare in one attempt. 99% of our articles are less than good quality but this is accepted as we will steadily improve them over time. Anyway, Gavin's point is a digression which is not appropriate here. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The essential point of this page is that we edit towards a goal, not that we are not perfectionist. The page which makes the point that we are not perfectionist is Wikipedia:The perfect article. The ability to completely rewrite a page from scratch is one we allow our editors, we don't shackle good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia through policy. Hiding T 12:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are lots of cases where information should not be kept because it is a synthesis, or just wrong. This happens a lot with list type articles, often because the name of the article makes it impossible to create a list that is not a POV nightmare, for example List of massacres.--PBS (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am increaingly coming to the conclusion that this is a policy in search of a purpose... or perhaps a better way to put it is that it is a policy with unclear purposes. We all seem to agree that it is needed, but no one can agree on why it is needed and what it's purpose is.

To my thinking, the page should be a "best practice" guide on how to edit articles... soup to nuts... starting with how best to add new information (research, summarize, and cite), and pointing the reader to WP:V and WP:NOR for more information.... Then discuss the "best practice" on dealing with uncited information, pointing out that that there is a ballance between leaving it and deleting it (as is well presented in the current PRESERVE and HANDLE sections). I would then discuss how best to deal with problematical cited information (at some point pointing the reader to NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's needed qua policy. A guideline or essay, perhaps, but it really ought not to be a policy because it says nothing definitive. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, it is a terrible load of waffle really. I'm tempted just to delete it. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to tempt you some more. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See above #Demote to a guideline there was agreement on the talk page to change it to a guideline, but after it was done it was reverted and a number of editors objected. -- PBS (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How about a more friendly opening to this section:

Dealing with problems

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is why it is good editorial practice to provide a reliable source that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, citing sources is necessary to substantiate material within articles, and the best way to do this is to use inline citations.

Verifable evidence in the form of citations is necessary to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. For these reasons, material lacking a reliable source may be removed.

If any editor might objects if to material being removed without giving them sufficient time to provide references, consider the following alternatives to dealing with the problem of unsourced material, which may help to address these concerns in a sympathetic way.

I think this reaches out to editors on all sides of the debate, and invite you to make suggestins and amendments on how this can be improved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Been there! See this edit Revision as of 15:14, 22 March 2009 There are editors who don't think that this policy should be subservient to the content policies. The trouble with you suggested wording is that even if it was inserted, if the content policies change which effect your paragraph then this becomes yet another place to edit war over the change to the content policies. If you insist on it, then I think it better if it is stated in this policy that if the wording of this policy is inconsistent with the three content policies, this policy should be updated to be consistent with the content policies. --PBS (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

All policies and guidelines are "subservient" to the content polices, or rather they depedend upon them for their existence. The reason why Wikipedia has content and style policies in the first place is to enable any editor to create or contribute to an article without having to get permission from an editorial board or a cabal of administrators.
The only way editors can demonstrate that their contributions are compliant with the core content policies (verifiability, original research and Neutral point of view) is by providing inline citations - and that is not going to change anytime soon. We could run an RFC to see if the rest of the community agrees that citing sources is best practice, but to be honest, its a no brainer. I think all we have to do is agree on the wording. If anyone can better the wording that I have written[3] based on the above, please feel free to make improvements. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"All policies and guidelines are "subservient" to the content polices", no they are not, for example the Naming Conventions are in a semidetached house next door to the content polices. Policies are polices, and are not subservient to other policies, which is why it would be better if this was a guideline or there was a specific statement in this policy making it so. --PBS (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I would say that WP:Naming Conventions is a content policy/guideline... as the name of an article is part of its content. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding information
Editors are encouraged to add information to Wikipedia, either by creating a new article where one does not exist or by adding missing information to existing articles. However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia needs to be Verifiable and must not be original research. We demonstrate that information is verifiable and not original research through citation to reliable sources. Editors need to be awair that unsourced information might be challenged and, if no source can be provided, might be removed. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an "inline citation" at the time the information is added (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for assistance on the article talk page).

I would place this as the first section of the Policy... so that it's structure would be: 1)How best to add new articles and information (ie how to avoid problems from the start), 2) How best to deal with problems with existing articles and information. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this would be an improvement. In particular, I agree there should be some sort of heading, because this is more about preventing problems, than dealing with them. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think this wording is wording is as good as any. Lets face it, there is nothing contraversial about citing sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict?

There appears to be a conflict in the policy here, so I'd like some feedback about how people would handle this case:

Say someone puts a highly PoV edit on an article, but includes in it some verifiable sources and some new facts that could be integrated. The policy seems to conflict on this case. On the one hand:

"Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't. Try to preserve information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot."

On the other:

"For example, material that contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view may be removed."

This seems to be a conflict, and I've seen lots of salvageable material lost as salvageable pov edits are completely reverted. I'd be interested to hear people's views. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

the solution is to add material from other POVs to produce a balanced article. All POVs should be represented. We can't judge between them. If it should happen that all the available material is negative (or positive), then that would be the consensus NPOV--and would be by definition a non-controversial topic, and nobody would have problems with it. DGG (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not all POVs. Fringe theories get less weight.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Depersonalize the POV edit so that it is not an assertion of the POV point by the WP article, but rather an assertion by the WP article that a reliable source reported some person/organization notable and/or credentialed in relation to the article topic asserted the POV point. (2) Expand the article to assert reportage by reliable sources of assertions of differing POVs by similarly notable/credentialed persons/organizations. (3) Per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, in determining proper weight consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Also see WP:BALANCE Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

rm contradiction of multiple policies/ redundant

However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages (see also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals).

Removed this, as it contradicts several current approaches, including documentation at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD, etc. The practice as described is somewhat problematic, and the practice has been discussed extensively at WP:CONSENSUS (see archives there). Even if it weren't problematic, it is still redundant with our policies and guidelines page.

To centralise discussion, and simplify policy pages in general, the topic of modification of policy/guideline/essay pages should be merged to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Some people may (strongly) disagree with this, I would STILL urge them to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines so that we have one single location.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Has this change been agreed upon somewhere? — Ched :  ?  14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim, sorry for the "extra" section, I was in "edit mode" before I saw your post. Personally I am opposed to making changes this large unless there has been a discussion first and consensus has been reached. If that has already happened, my apologies. — Ched :  ?  14:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2*) See the WT:CONSENSUS archives for why "discuss first" is not a viable approach to obtaining consensus. People really tried to find a way to make it work, and it just doesn't even work in theory .

Anyway, further discussion -> Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines.

If you have further questions, shall we discuss them there? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reverted, but I think a change of this magnitude should be done after an RFC, and possibly a CENT posting. — Ched :  ?  14:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is essentially what the section is claiming as being a best practice, correct?

This text has snuck in redundantly at several locations, so I'd like to centralize discussion. Would you care to go to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I strongly disagree with your approach here. Changes to a policy page should be discussed on the relevant policy talk page. I may find your changes to be for the best after discussion, but at this time I disagree with this change. I also believe that telling people to "dig through archives" is a bit counter-productive in this case. I'll have a gander at your link later, but for now I just wanted to note my thoughts on the talk page of the policy that was just changed. Cheers, and best of luck with this. — Ched :  ?  15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you agree that continuously repeating old discussions or even repeating the same discussion at 2-3 different locations is not very productive. The original discussion does exist, and can be found in the indicated archive. I'm not sure why this page duplicates the procedure as described at WP:CONSENSUS and I don't know why the text was wrong . I'm open to discussing the text at any location, either at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines where there is current ongoing discussion (and I have copied this talk page section there) , or Wikipedia talk:Consensus where the procedure was discussed at length and discussion can be found in the archives. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth I also disagree with the removal of this information. Policies and guidelines aren't the same as articles and I believe that it is the current practice to be less bold when editing these pages, and I think there is a strong consensus for this. I would support a reversion of this removal, but as a discussion is already underway I think we should let it take place before getting into an edit-war. ThemFromSpace 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(Hey guys. It's true that changes to policy are discussed at the relevant policy page - but, in this case, this is the relevant policy page. The wording seems to be about editing policy, which is of course not the same thing as the article editing policy. In cases where two policies conflict, the policy which actually covers the topic is the one to go to. There's a link here from the other page, though, so notification should not be a problem. Let's get back to the discussion now :)    M   18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The following:

To prevent scope creep, two polices should not cover the same topics. Content should be within the scope of its policy.

is included in this policy for very good reasons. Kim is right that this belongs here. It's not a substantive ("large") change because policy wording is being moved to the correct place, not removed (which would be a concern). If someone wants to add the substantial wording to this policy while we discuss, that should be perfectly fine, but probably unnecessary.    M   18:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the section to this policy, and marked it under discussion. The section was added to the editing policy only a couple of months ago.    M   19:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would M and Kim please stop removing material over objections? The section is correct, according to the "descriptive as well as prescriptive philosophy. As a matter of fact, people are not encouraged to be BOLD when it comes to editing policy, because the policies need a degree of stability. Most editors do not rush in with substantive changes to policy pages without consulting on talk. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And please ... stop bouncing things around, pointing to "archives" (without an actual link even). Page change discussions belong on the the talk page of the page being changed. Period. Full Stop. — Ched :  ?  19:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC) thanks Slim

The material was added here only a couple of months ago. This has led to a very serious issue, a policy fork, where two policies contradict. We shouldn't have to call an RfC on where this issues should be discussed, I've stayed out of the discussion and simply moved the entire section, without modification to the correct page. If PROD mentioned a CSD, substantive changes to that CSD would absolutely not be discussed at PROD. Again, this was inserted in its entirety only a couple of months ago.    M   20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you supply a link showing when it was added, and also how it contradicts any other page? It ought not to, and if it does, it's the other page that needs to be fixed.

The problem, M, is that you and Kim are trying to make some fairly radical changes to policy pages, then trying to remove contradictions from other pages. Streamlining (as in copy editing) policies is a good thing, but radical changes cause confusion without having much of an effect, because people will carry on doing what they were doing anyway (in keeping with "descriptive as well as prescriptive").

Please note that I have been very careful to do this neutrally - I have simply moved the wording to the correct policy.    M   20:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You saw on the policy template RfC that people do want changes to policy to reflect consensus. They do not want people rushing in with major changes without discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about that. This is about where the discussion should take place. I'm more worried about a policy fork than I am about a (non-policy) RfC over the wording of a heading. Can we all agree, at least, that a policy fork is a bad thing?    M   20:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see this as a policy fork? The policies and guidelines page, and this page, should say the same thing regarding seeking consensus before making major changes to policy. There is widespread consensus that BOLD is not sensible when it comes to policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a fork. Two places saying the same thing, or two places saying something different; it's still 2 places, thus, a fork. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some local consensus that 'changes made should reflect consensus' does nothing to discourage bold edits, but instead urges caution. I very strongly disagree with this, from personal experience and from observation. However, the long standing consensus, from the policy pages (not template talk) is that editors should feel very free to edit policy.    M   20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say there is a poll on a page that is suggestive of a possible local consensus. However before even getting into that, I'd like to wait to hear back about admissibility of global consensus (or consensus across multiple locations) in general, as apparently some people have complex issues with those concepts? (see below) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The relevant archives are Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_5 and Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_6, of course. (edit: Looks like there might be yet more relevant data in earlier archives, but this is enough for starters)

Is it the position of Ched and/or Slimvirgin to explicitly reject all other consensus written or unwritten, with the sole exception of text written on this page? If so, why? If not, which sources do you find acceptable? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against consensus in the least, I'm all for it. A little background on my initially coming to this page. I have many of the policies and guidelines on my watchlist, simply so I can follow along as changes are made. I saw a huge chunk of text deleted from this policy, and simply wondered what was going on here. I have no issues whatsoever with "tweaking" the wording of a policy or guideline, but someone simply removes a paragraph out of a policy page, and I consider Wikipedia:Editing policy a very important policy, then red flags go off for me. From my vantage point it looks like you're pointing to archives on WP:CONSENSUS talk pages that are dated over a year old. Now I'm not trying to be critical here, I see that you've (Kim) been here much longer than me - actually since the beginning it appears. I'm not understanding the whole flow of this change. Shouldn't something this major have come from a recent RFC and posting on WP:CENT? I looks to me like it is attempting to change how we are going to make changes to policy and guidelines - THAT simply makes it even more critical to get a very large set of eyes on this I would think. I don't mind changes in the least, I'm just seeing this as "large scale", and not finding the background that I'd normally expect to see on a change like this. — Ched :  ?  13:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI - OK, just looking here, and it looks like that paragraph was added sometime in May. I haven't found the exact edit, and I haven't found anything that discusses adding it either. I didn't notice it when it did get added, and I'll try to follow along with this talk page conversation for a few days to see what develops. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by Rd232, as a summary/duplicate of Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines. Sounds familiar? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In that you mentioned that page - yes. As far as the actual change to this page - no, I didn't notice it when it happened. I think something that large should have been noted on this page at the time it was added. I have a little "lookie-see" at the links above over the next few days. I'm kinda working on a (hopefully) FLC at the moment. Cheers and best. ;-) — Ched :  ?  16:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're doing your homework. I can't ask more than that. :-) I just wanted to affirm that I'm doing mine too, as opposed to doing things randomly without consensus or forethought. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: as the editor who originally added the section, I should point out that it was and is a WP:SUMMARY-style link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, not a fork. If the summary is out of date, update it. If the main policy article it points to should be changed, please discuss there, not here. As to whether the text Kim Bruning removed [4] contradicted the destination; I don't think so. Over there (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes) it says "Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time." Seems to me about what the text here said, maybe with different emphasis. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries :-).

* The target page you linked is currently in flux, so what it said now and what it said then can vary somewhat.

* Your additions were according to policy

* The text that was here at the time did contradict some other places, unless my memory is bad, but apparently that isn't very clear, so you can't be blamed for that.

* A lot of work in WT:CONSENSUS archives 5 and 6 backs me up, should backup be needed. (The outcome has actually been translated across many wikis. It's really quite cool! :-D )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. If policy on tis issue is in flux enough that there is contradiction with places other than the destination (of the summary here), that's unfortunately messy, but it could surely be handled without as much discussion here as we've had. Rd232 ^talk 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuation

Just to be sure I'm not going to surprise anyone, and to break potential deadlock or filibuster: I will continue editing at 16 august, 20:00 UTC, on the grounds that "-seeing as there is no further contest to my position within a 24 hour period- my arguments will therefore have been (provisionally) accepted". By taking a new BOLD step after 24 hours, the WP:BRD cycle can continue into a next iteration.

Under WP:CCC, feel free to edit,revert, or discuss at any point in time, before or after the announced edit. Anytime you do so, the clock will reset.

The intent is not to force through any particular change; the intent is to apply the rules in a useful, good faith manner to prevent people from saying: "Oh, I happen to like this version of the page, so I don't need to discuss anymore." --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure where to post, but I just want to note that I support the position which allows "actual editing of policies" rather than a "discuss on the talk page first". There's no real reason to prevent people from actually being able to edit policies to reach consensus, and preventing it can actually impair the consensus process. Hiding T 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In theory, I agree with BRD. In practice, I tend to follow the "discuss major changes first" concept... even at articles.

The reality is that, when it comes to policy pages, even relatively minor edits are almost always instantly reverted, with a comment that it should be discussed first. In other words, the end result is the same no matter which way you go... changes to policy pages will end up being discussed before they are accepted.

So, to me the question is this: Since any major edit to a policy page is going end up being discussed anyway... why not advise editors to simply skip the Bold and Revert steps of BRD and go right to Discussion? Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:CONSENSUS archives 5 and 6 (already linked, above, for your clicking convenience) for all the gory details. Short (tl;dr) version: It doesn't work. (or at least, not very well) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, and in more detail, if you are using the BRD, and not the regular WP:CONSENSUS cycle, you *expect* to be reverted. BRD finds out who to talk with as quickly as possible, and then you talk with them.

If you start by just posting on the talk page, you will be at a disadvantage, since now you don't know who the Most Interested Persons are.

In fact, it usually pays to at least try to use the regular consensus cycle first. If your edit is uncontroversial (per WP:SILENCE), you will remain in the regular edit->edit->edit cycle, which is the most efficient way to proceed.

If you hit a revert, you can always divert to BRD at that point, and end up in discussion, which is where you would have been in the first place anyway (so there's no harm trying).

In all cases, beware of breaking the feedback loop that is essential to wiki-editing (see WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BRD for flowcharts). If people stop making edits to the page itself, it becomes very hard to attain consensus. (so there is some harm in not trying)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from my experience, it is very difficult to obtain consensus for any major change to policy and guideline pages, no matter what you do. I suppose the point that I am trying to make is that it really does not matter whether we tell people to go ahead and be bold, or ask them to discuss first... the end result is that they will end up discussing the issue on the talk page, and should expect any major change to be strongly resisted (and probably rejected). That's the reality. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Aka. "Give up, it's hopeless anyway"? ;-) Why so negative?

Actually, I do see large numbers of changes in policy pages stretching back for quite a while. Have you considered what those people might be doing right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Because it doesn't :) This view at first discouraged me from trying to clean up policies. It's nearly impossible to do cleanup without touching or uprooting substantial points. I worried that my work would just be reverted by people who thought that changes should be discussed first. Since then, I've removed at least 20KB from policy pages. Chop 5k off for markup, that's 2800~ words, 15 times longer than this message. CSD is hit by 1000 viewers a day, though surely most of them skim, PROD, 100. 2700 words take 15 minutes to read, each editor, each day. 1000 hours per year saved? I've received a bunch of thanks, along with a couple of menacing 'did you get consensus' stares. (Oh, and I really managed to kick the hive over at otrs when I suggested it wasn't a policy, but that was at talk.) I've also found it substantially harder to fix things by starting with the talk page (it's easy to find reasons why something should stay the way it is). The "helpful advice" that you should 'check consensus before making changes' needs to be taken out back and shot.    M   17:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim... who said my comment was negative... I like the fact that it is very, very difficult to make major changes to policy!

M... Interesting... I tend to work on the core policies, NPOV, V, NOR (and what could probably be called a "core" guideline, RS), and very, very few bold edits are accepted without a lot of discussion. Perhaps the difference is that the core Policy pages are watched by more people, and have already undergone a lot of the clean-up edits you are talking about?

In any case... I don't really care whether we go with BRD or with "Discuss first". I don't think it will change the reality of what happens either way. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be that it is sometimes very, very difficult to make major changes to policy, but that's not because the pages are policy pages, but because such a major change would require a change in consensus. I'm not sure I understand why consensus building processes can't be used to determine whether consensus has changed. Perhaps someone could clarify that? Hiding T 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Some pages are a lot harder to change that others. We should note that, but yes, we don't need to say 'check with your parents first'.    M   21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything we do here will change reality. We're just documenting it, and best practices therein, aren't we?

Could you please explain how making it difficult to edit a page helps the wiki or the encyclopedia? I've heard it said before, of course, but I can't quite grasp the logic behind it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think discussing first makes it any more difficult than being bold, being reverted, and then discussing. If anything, going right to discussion makes it easier, since you have not waisted time and effort going through the first two steps. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first two steps are not wasted.

You see, there is no mechanism to directly discover who has a page watchlisted, so you use a kind of ruse. You make a bold edit to the page, and see who shows up. The person(s) who show up are the Most Interested Persons (let's say you find just one other for now). If you negotiate with them directly, you can typically reach a partial consensus with that person within 24-48 hours.

Sure, it's a consensus of just two people at first, but every journey starts with a single step.

You can then continue the cycle back to BOLD, and find the next person. Your new negotiations will give you a consensus with 3 people. If you BOLDly put forward that new consensus position on the page, you'll soon have your 4th person.

Wash, rinse, repeat with nr. 5,6,7,8, etc... until soon you'll have established a consensus with everyone who bothered to show up.

This is a fairly systematic approach, since everyone who is interested gets to say their piece, and they get to negotiate a satisfactory position with others. Note that you certainly can't just ram things through; you'll need to be prepared to adjust your own position from the start.

After you've reached consensus once via WP:BRD, you have more trust between people, so WP:AGF becomes easier, and you can go back to "proper" WP:CONSENSUS based wiki-process for the page (because AGF was the prerequisite). That particular process works in a different, but very pleasant way, which we'll hopefully be able to demonstrate here or somewhere nearby in a little while <knock on wood>. :-)

The reason you are accustomed to agonizingly slow work on policy pages is because people aren't running BRD on them often enough, frankly.

Slowness is not a good thing. Consider a computer game with a low Frame rate, which is caused by the computer taking too long to handle each iteration through the main game loop. Such a game becomes very hard to control. The faster you go through the loop, the more responsive and playable the game becomes.

The same is true for wiki-editing of policy. If we make sure we get feedback incorporated into a policy page as quickly as possible, the policy page is less likely to lag behind consensus.

At the same time, and seemingly almost at odds with the above; I'm taking my time here. There's no huge rush . As long as we adhere to consensus procedures, we're *still* likely to come out ahead in time. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There isn't much that's really new in this post, it's basically a combined summary of many of our older wikipedia policies

Kim... I would say the exact same process occurs when you discuss the edit on the talk page first... you post a message with suggested language. People who watch the policy page see it and respond. If they hate it they say so (hopefully telling you why)... if they essentially like it, but want to play with the wording they say so and suggest changes. I see absolutely no difference between starting with a Bold edit and starting on the talk page. It is simply two seperate ways of approaching the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So if they both work, why should we guide against one? Hiding T 15:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well... I can think of two reasons for preferring the "talk first" approach... first, it seems to have local consensus at many (not all) policy pages. Second, discussing first helps prevent edit wars (unfortunately, all too common on policy pages). That said, I actually agree that we don't need to advocate either approach in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, you will typically discover different groups of people, and those people will have rather different initial attitudes, depending on what action you took first. If someone has just reverted you, they have already proven themselves willing to act based on their position. *That fact alone is a very important piece of information, use it.*

Next to that, there is a chance that you will be able to make an uncontested edit early on.

If you are lucky, you might even be on a page that isn't deadlocked, and is controlled by "mainline consensus"; in which case you may be able to continue making further edits unopposed (presupposing you are acting in good faith and your actions are logical)

x	edit first	discuss first
no revert	edit successful	no edit
revert	no edit	no edit

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This may work in theory... but in practice it is all too often more like:

x	edit first	discuss first
no revert	not bloody likely - go to disussion	does not apply
revert	edit war, entrenched positions, policy page locked by admins -go to discussion	does not apply - discussion instead
end result	No consensus reached - continued argument	consensus reached - edit made or not made based on consensus

--Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your table has a flaw. When you enter at discuss first, at some point, an edit will be made. At the point the edit is made, WP:CCC applies, and you will then re-enter the table at edit-first. The table then predicts you will get reverted, and then you end up in the left hand end result (no final consensus). There is no way to attain stable consensus with your table (!). So I very much doubt that your table is accurate. (Unless you can show that (relatively) stable consensus is uncommon these days)

There are flowcharts in the WP:CONSENSUS archives, I think you'll be able to find one to fit your table. Or you can try drawing one.

Note that the brief table I made only states the result at the end of the first iteration.

Here's a (trivial) simplification.

x	edit	discuss
no revert	edit successful	no edit (attempt to get to edit)
revert	no edit	n/a (no edit)

inferences:

1. the only way to make an edit is to make an edit. (Trivial truth).
2. discussion on its own will never lead to an edit. (Trivial truth).
3. if we do hold a discussion, the objective of the discussion is to end up in the left column, (make an edit). This edit can then be either reverted (and we'll need to try discussing) or it will be accepted.
4. If the edit is accepted, we have a (stable) consensus. (some caveats still apply)

This version of the table doesn't argue whether you should edit first or discuss first. It merely shows how to get a stable consensus. ;-)

But then; I have already pointed out that editing first allows you to glean extra information about the situation. Now you know the name of one person, who is willing to revert you. If you can convince them not to revert again, your next edit will stand; at which point WP:SILENCE applies. (remember, this is an iterative process: in The first few iterations, WP:SILENCE might apply for an astounding 5 minutes :-p The period tends to stretch after a while)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have correctly identified the flaw with my table, but it is still how things happen in reality... the reality is that it is almost impossible to get a major change accepted, and you usually do end up with no consensus (or rather competing accusations that the other side's version does not have consensus) no matter which model you use.

Your charts work very well... from a purely theoretical perspective ... Yes, this is how things are supposed to happen. I am mearly pointing out that theory far too often does not work in reality.

The reality with the "edit first" method is that major edits to policy pages are almost always reverted. (In fact, most minor edits to policy pages are reverted). In far too many situations, the next thing that occurs is that everyone gets their dander up, an edit war takes place, until finally an admin steps in, locks the page, and tells everyone to take it to the talk page. By this time, people have entrenched within their relative positions, and the discussion goes nowhere with both sides saying that the other side's version does not have consensus (instead of trying to compromise and build a new consensus), until one side or the other gets tired of the debate and gives up. Now wait a few weeks... someone from the other side will inevitably come along and change things back to their preferred version (claiming that they are returning the policy to "consensus"), and the entire debate starts all over again. I have seen this happen time after time.

Now, with the "discuss first" method, the reality is that you begin not only with a proposed change, but with an explanation why you think the change is needed. This starts the discussion off with a calm rational tone. People are are less likely to get into entrenched positions and are more willing to think about your proposal. They may still disagree completely, or they may only disagree with the wording (in which case they will make alternative suggestions), but the important thing is that they will explain why they disagree (or why they prefer an alternative). However, because you have begun in a calm tone you invite others to respond in kind. Everyone is attempting to determine consensus right from the start, and every one is more willing to compromise to reach a new consensus.

Yes, the "discuss first" method can take longer, but once the consensus is reached and an edit is made, it tends to last. In fact, from my experience there is a greater chance of determining and reaching consensus with the "discuss first" method than there is with the "edit first" method.

Both are equally acceptable ways to edit... but "discuss first" has a better chance of achieving a satisfactory result. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are contrasting doing Bold alone, versus doing Discuss alone. And I'll grant you, it does sound like you have the discuss part down pat.  :-D

In my experience, it's when you combine bold edits and sensible discussion together that you actually become very effective indeed. This method is particular to a particular kind of system, known as a wiki ;-).

And indeed, at times bold actions will get people's dander up. In fact, in one particular set of circumstances, that's exactly what you want. This is when you are looking for the Most Interested Person(s), specifically when you want to restore AGF. Bold->Dander_Up->Revert->GOTCHA!

Have you ever gone hunting for MIP(s) ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find that the most interested people will reply to a proposal on the talk page, and that playing GOTCHA games is a good way to ensure that people don't assume good faith. It is more likely that everyone will assume good faith if you discuss things from the start. I get the idea that you think that if you start with discussion then no edit is ever made. I have found the oposite to be true... It is far more likely that an edit will be made if you start with discussion, while if you start with a bold edit it is more likely that people solidify their opinions and reject compromises. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not getting any feedback on my actual point after several posts, so I'm going to assume miscommunication, and just cut to the chase. Have you ever considered exploiting the phenomenon of there being Most Interested Persons (MIPs) ? If you can convince all Most Interested Persons, you will automatically have consensus, or at least something that looks so much like it as to be indistinguishable, as per WP:SILENCE. Or do you believe that seeking out MIPs is an evil machiavellian plot of some sort?

I'm looking for some kind of response that you know what I mean by MIPs, and/or have actually used the concept in practice.

If not, we are talking past each other in a quite spectacular fashion.

So my question to you, have you ever sought out a MIP and talked with them? Or do you have no idea what I'm babbeling on about and are we talking past each other? ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard the term before... but I am assuming you mean people who are the most interested in whether the policy page changes or not. Am I wrong? Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. In that case, you may have missed something.

For starters, read WP:BRD carefully, as the term is defined there.

BRD is a specialized technique, the whole of BRD revolves around that one point: find the MIPs, find the MIPs. Because it is the MIPs who are doing the reverting in the "in practice" that you speak of.

The BRD game plan: Find the MIPs. Placate the MIPs. When all the MIPs are placated, the page you are working on will no longer be reverted (except for vandalism, etc.), but instead, all reasonable edits will simply be accepted. After all, if no one wants or needs to revert the page any more, then it is near-trivially true that the page won't be reverted.

I think you're telling me you've never actually experienced that state on policy pages before? That's very interesting! Have you experienced it on other pages?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have re-read BRD and know what you are talking about ... and MIPs are indeed the same people who would respond to a proposed change if you did things by the "discuss first" method... so locating and placating the MIPs occurs in both methods.

As to your final question... Nope, I have never been involved in an article where every reasonable edit has been simply accepted and no one wants or needs to revert the page any more. But then, I do tend to edit in fairly controvercial topic areas, areas where there is a high percentage of people with strong POVs and even POV agendas to push. As for Policy pages, I can't even envision a policy page that would ever reach that state.

In any case, I am not saying that BRD wouldn't work on Policy pages... I am mearly saying that I have found that "discuss first" is the approach that gets better results with the fewest fights, and is the approach that is preferred by most of the editors who keep policy pages on their watch lists. I certainly don't think we should mandate one approach over the other, but I do think it is good advice to tell people to talk first and edit later. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? That does not compute. :-/

Since the key defining characteristic of an MIP is their will and ability to revert, how do you know that you have a MIP as defined by BRD if they do not actually revert?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait... this discussion is starting to compute... in a horrible way (not your fault though). I've got some thinking to do... --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To help you compute... I don't define MIPs by BRD (and actually, I don't think BRD is defining what an MIP is; it mearly talks about one way to identify them). I think you are wrong in thinking that MIPs are defined by reverting... but there is another way to identify an MIP... the fact that they will respond to a proposal on the talk page.

To adapt the language and format from WP:BRD to the discuss first model:

The assumption is that Most Interested Persons will have a page watchlisted (which also means they have the talk page watchlisted) or will quickly discover if a proposal is made.

1. Have courage and propose your change on the talk page, giving your best explanation for why you think it is needed.
2. Wait until someone responds to your proposal. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a consensus.

Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While your BB-MIP (BlueBoar-MIP) certainly has some interesting properties, and is certainly useful to know and talk to at times (Guess what I'm doing now? ;-), it's not the same MIP as specified in WP:BRD. You need the other kind, the kind that did the revert. Why? Because BRD is not good. When caught in a BRD cycle, your goal is to exit the BRD cycle. You do so by identifying and placating reverters.

Given sufficient time, even the worst BRD cycle will likely come to an end on its own. So whether you try to end it by introducing invisible pink ponies or by singing kumbayah, you may eventually claim "success". ;-) It might take a long time, though. If you would like a BRD cycle to come to an end quickly, it helps to attack the root cause. Reasons to want to end a cycle quickly might be to free up people to do other things, or you might need productive work to happen on some particularly essential piece of text, or people might be getting too heated and angry, and you would like to cool them down a bit.

While it is possible to deliberately initiate a BRD cycle when tactically prudent, you often end up in a BRD cycle by accident. It helps to have means to deal with BRD either way.

Incidentally, if I'm reading your descriptions correctly up to this point, a lot of the pages you have worked on and have practical experience with have been locked in BRD mode the entire time you have been working on them. :-/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Did I mention BB-MIPs are cool and interesting people as well? I would love to discuss those in more detail in a new thread, anywhere on the wiki, and if you don't start one, I just might! The reason I didn't do so in this particular thread is because I'm trying to focus on getting one particular procedure sharply defined. One thing at a time! :-)

Sorry Kim, but I just don't see this distinction... I think the MIPs who revert in the BRD cycle and the MIPs who respond to proposals on the talk page are the exact same people... hell, you're talking to a very good example of one. I have no hesitation about reverting an edit I think is seriously flawed, especially on policy pages. I also have no hesitation about discussing a flawed proposal on the talk page. It's the exact same thing for me. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough as it stands, that means you're a reasonably decent person. Would you revert an edit that was not flawed at all? What would you do with an edit that is not bad, but can fairly obviously be improved? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"identifying and placating reverters". I think that, on policy pages, is entirely not the point. BRD in mainspace is about building content, and quickly cutting through roadblocks to building content by identifying people who care enough to object to specific things. On policy pages, the aim is not to build policy, it's primarily to reflect current practice, and secondarily to change current practice by discussing possible changes to policy. The aims are different, and when it comes down to it, BRD - with its underlying "need for speed - must remove roadblocks" philosophy - is perhaps just not that appropriate for policy space, where stability has a recognised value. Better means of developing policy are needed, sure, but that's more about wider coordination than about Editor X getting change Y through on page Z because they placated the reverters. Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm! Do you know the difference between static stability and dynamic stability? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Wow, it's been ages since I've actually managed to make a redlink in casual conversation :-/

No. Care to enlighten me by turning the redlink blue? Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

continuation 2

M, your copy editing has been welcomed, but when you've tried to make substantive changes, you've been opposed, even on little-watched pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The removal of 2700~ words is probably not copy editing. Which pages are you talking about? PROD? CSD? Perhaps Wheel War - now merged?    M   21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Examples? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose all of this comes down to one question... do we want to stress how things are supposed to work (edit first), or do we want to stress how things actually work (discuss first)? Theory or Practice? Or, (perhaps best) do we want to remain silent on the topic? Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) What do you mean? If you've ever done wikiblame (look it up if you're not familiar; it's a pain to use though so coding your own version might work better for you) to look at the history of policy changes, a *lot* of substantial wording is added using edit-first. The great irony here is that the section in question was added using edit-first[5] only a couple of months ago, and is now being upheld by a number of parties as legitimate.    M   19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And we probably would not be arguing about it now if the person who added it had discussed it first. All I am saying is that the arguments so far seem to be between the ideal of how things are supposed to work vs the reality of how things actually work (or at least how things actually work at the various core Policy pages that I have been involved with). Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the issue as an aside at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 2#Policy Title (and I believe someone else raised the issue before that - it wasn't my idea originally AFAIR). Nobody seemed to have an opinion either then or for 3 months after I added it. And being just a WP:SUMMARY-style thing, controversy quotient seemed low enough not to require making a big deal of it. Incidentally, most of this discussion may be valuable, but seems pretty substantially off-topic for this page. Perhaps it could be moved somewhere else. Rd232 ^talk 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Here I'd be very interested to learn if you have ever looked up or used wikiblame? Also, after this period of time, the edit very much falls under WP:CCC, unless I am mistaken. Any other assumptions would appear to be speculative at best. Or do you believe CCC to be false or incorrect?

No I have never looked up or sued wikiblame (what is it?)... as for WP:CCC, I don't think it is false or incorrect... but I do find it is over cited by those who want a change to occur (and overly ignored by those who don't want the change to occur). Far too often people make a claim about what is or is not consensus without working to actually achieve it. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

CCC is only one part of this nutritious breakfast the wiki process. If used in isolation, of course it won't work ;-) .

I'm interested to know what blame/annotate implementation M has used, perhaps (s)he could print/dump/copy output for a few policy pages? So that Blueboar can take a look?

I've also heard good things about History Flow, but I'm having some trouble finding a running version. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@Rd232: basically the text as copied has issues, but you couldn't know that! :-) WP:CCC cuts both ways, you did what seemed like a good idea at the time, and WP:SILENCE says you had (local) consensus for quite a while, if I'm reading you correctly :-)

Finally: If you read back, you'll see that one of the first suggestions was to move the discussion to a more central location, but there was quite adamant resistance to that request at the time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the obvious place (to me) to move it to is WT:Consensus, or possibly the talk pages of other policies which you said in the previous section were contradicting WP:Consensus. What policies are those anyway? Rd232 ^talk 09:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, my 2 cents, having had no previous involvement in this discussion: what is the problem with saying that small edits can be made immediately, more substantial edits should normally be raised on talk first. MIPs can certainly be identified by discussion, and if the discussion doesn't go anywhere, BRD can still be applied. But the need for policy to be stable for people to use and rely on strongly suggests we should discourage people from (but not ban, which is too strong) making substantial content changes without any prior indication that others agree or at least don't object. Rd232 ^talk 09:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you identify a MIP most quickly; given that the defining characteristic of a MIP is that they are willing to revert?

I'll discuss the other points later, if you wish. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I see it MIPs can also can be identified by how vocal and vociferous people are about proposed changes; or even who bothers to say anything at all. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that that will find you some very exceptionally interested persons at times; how do you propose to find the MOST Interested Persons, those who will actually revert changes to the page? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise. (a) MIPs are not merely those willing to revert, and (b) those willing to revert are not automatically MIPs. A: some MIPs will (at least sometimes) discuss rather than revert if it seems there is some wider agreement, but it's weak and they disagree. B: There are enough people who'll revert changes for "lack of prior discussion", but won't actually substantially participate in discussion. Anyway, after proposing on talk there'll either be silence (so -> BRD) or disagreement (so -> work through) or agreement (so -> edit) or partial agreement/development (so -> eventually implement agreed proposal). I see no advantage to editing first, asking questions later; WP:DEADLINE. Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(rm) : If you look in the section above, you'll see I'm having essentially the same conversation with Blueboar there. Would you care to join in? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if this page was a guideline or an essay. It has been nothing but trouble for all this year because it overlaps with other policy pages and leads to lots of debates over how best to make sure that it does not contradict other policy pages. -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly this page has resisted certain factions for now? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know you think it should be demoted and have for a long time. But in fact the trouble is not with this page, which merely summarised another page, but with policy flux/contradiction elsewhere, so this shouldn't really be an opportunity to rehash that discussion. I suggest moving this discussion somewhere else (maybe WT:Consensus), and if people think it helpful/necessary, we can ditch the present summary section and make it a See Also, until things are more settled. Rd232 ^talk 09:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Having this page as a policy is a structural problem that is not going away. It is exactly the same problem that we had with WP:ATT which was finally soved by giving it an explicit status where it could not be used in consensus building exercises, as an alternative to the content policy pages. Even if the content of this page is altered so that it in no way contradicts other policy pages (something which has only been done partially), as soon as those pages change the debate over those pages has to be repeated here with no garantee that the outcome will be the same. It is a huge waste of time for eveyone involved. If this was a guideline then that could not happen as polices take presidence over guidelines. Saying "I suggest moving this discussion somewhere else ..." does not solve the porblems of inconsistency between this page and other policy pages. --PBS (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Why does the debate *need* to be repeated here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Serious question. I might actually agree with you here, you know ;-)

Personally I am not particular fussed over the recent discussion you have been involved in on this page, as I see the merits of both points of view, but I do see that like the other discussions that have taken up a lot of time this year on this talk page, they would have been much shorter if this was not a policy page with the potential to contradict better established policy pages. I presume that one of your concerns is that as a policy page the wording used on this page has the potential to undermine the consensus policy page, just as WP:PRESERVE as it was phrased earlier this year weakened WP:PROVEIT -- PBS (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I moved this discussion to WT:Consensus? Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... which discussion? The one about "edit first" vs. "discuss first", or the one about demoting this page to guideline? (I assume you mean the former, but I thought I should ask)... I don't object to shifting venue, as long as we don't end up with two conversations going on at different pages about the same issue (that usually ends up with two different and conflicting interpretations of what consensus is)... so if we do shift, please make it very clear that we are no longer discussing it here. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course the much longer discussion on edit first v discuss first. And I was thinking of an actual move of the existing discussion, not just a continuation of it elsewhere, to ensure a clean break. Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But if we are not discussing it here on this talk page, then presumably we are not going to change the wording on this policy page, as it is usual to discuss changes to policy pages on the talk page of the policy. To turn it around to make the point: I am sure that most people would disprove of an agreement on this talk page being used to claim that there is a consensus to alter the WP:CONSENSUS page. --PBS (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 can correct me if I am wrong... but I think the idea behind shifting the discussion is that the debate over whether it is better to "edit first" or "discuss first" (or if they are both equally valid approaches) is one that is better determined at WT:CONSENSUS... and that this policy should reflect what is determined at that policy. Once the issue is determined there, then we can conform this page to that determination. So, you are correct, we would not change this policy until consensus is reached at that policy. For the moment, we would tag it as under discussion (pointing to the discussion at WT:Consensus). Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As this page has existed since 2001, I'm a little confused about people implying it's somehow not well established. It seems to me that there have been so many attempts to change WP:CONSENSUS and the policies and guideline page, that a stable page is needed where the policy on how to edit is discussed, and there's no reason to discuss changes to it elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem on my end.... perfectly willing to discuss the issue on any page, this one or that. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that this policy page is merely supposed to summarise policy from elsewhere. If policy is in flux or in a state of contradiction (as opposed to merely under discussion), that needs resolving elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering where that idea came from, that this page was supposed only to summarize other pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the "Editing policies and guidelines" section, not the whole page. Rd232 ^talk 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

what I see on policy pages when they are edited without discussion is policy creep--the hope that a change will not be noticed, and gradually changing the overall policy very substantially, usually in the sense of over-complication. I agree that it is sometimes necessary to demonstrate what a change would mean by doing it--but a major change that affects the meaning should be done simultaneously with discussion. It shouldn't wait till it's challenged: make the change per BOLD, and start the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, BRD suggest that you post your explanation first and then make your BOLD edit immediately after that... this is to avoid someone reverting you with a "discuss on talk first" comment while you are in the middle of writing your explanation. But DGG is essentially correct... if you are going to do a BOLD edit, it should be simultanious with discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You can often get away with being lazy, especially if you're actually in a clean WP:CONSENSUS cycle; but The One True Way to do it is as Blueboar says. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And having made a change, you're not supposed to revert if someone removes it, which boils down to "make sure your edits have consensus." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The remover is also not supposed to remove it, because (assuming good faith otherwise) it is certain that their edit does not have consensus either.

Whatever the case may be, if the situation occurs, you are going to end up in a BRD cycle. In the BRD cycle, your objective is to prevent the situation from recurring, and to end up being able to edit freely again. This is not easy by any means. While part of it means trying to convince the other, it also means listening and changing your opinion on a matter, until it matches their position. That's *hard*; even for the wisest among us. But it's the only way to acquire enough trust to be allowed to edit freely again. And if there is more than 1 person? You'll have to wash, rinse repeat, until you have a consensus among all of them. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that it also means the other person listening and changing their opinion on a matter, until it matches my position. It's a two way process. At least that is the theory. :>) Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're assuming (or at least hoping) that the other party has also read WP:BRD carefully, and is following the same steps. If they're not, we can always try to explain it to them. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course in reality, everyone assumes that "I right and everyone else is wrong"... and so I should just keep reverting to my... er... the consensus version. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether the person is nice or not ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly very satisfying to destroy things if one is not capable to contribute anything worthwhile or does not understand the subject. If the article has been in existence for a while and has been viewed by thousands of people , some are likely to be experts in the field, it would not be advisable to delete anything. Usually the "editor" is not capable of interpreting the refs present or does not understand the subject . If there is a conflict the matter should be in the talk page and refs given that contradicts the article . Realize there are people that go to church and others that do not, so merely have a difference of opinion or believe should not be a reason to eliminate an article, but in itself is a reason to have articles about the matter. Tags should be referenced also for a specific reason , other than not wike style or i do not think that other people should think this way. If a subject is important to them they will let you know if you deserve some respect.Wdl1961 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's refocus

We have let the discussion drift off into a discussion about the BRD cycle process in general, and have lost sight of why we are discussing it... so to refocus the discussion: The issue is whether to keep the current language in the section on Editing policies and guidelines, which currently says:

• Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages

Please note a few things: a) this section is talking about editing policy and guideline pages...not editing articles b) this key part of the section is talking about making changes to the substance of policy (ie where the "rules" outlined in the policy whould be altered) c) the policy is not saying we should never use the BRD cycle to resolve disputes ... it mearly says that that you should announce your desire to make the change first to see if there are objections.

The reality is that there probably will be objections. Strong ones. That is a good thing. Policy is not something that should be changed easily. Policy reflects the consensus of a very large group... the entire Wikipedia community... and while that consensus can change, it does not change quickly. Policy pages should not be changed because one editor does not like something that it says. It should not even be changed because a small group of editors do not like something that it says. Policy should only be changed if the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community has changed. The best way to determine if the consensus of an entire community has changed is discussion. Lots of it. Now... if it can be determined that the community consensus on a policy has changed... the community is quite willing to let the admins and policy wonks who regularly tinker with policy pages have their fun and figure out how best to word that change. At that point, the normal BRD cycle comes back in to the picture. BRD is great for achieving a local consensus on wording.Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is wrong at every step of the way, and is based on a very very large number of misunderstandings about how the wiki works, in practice, no less. I'm patiently stepping through each part, one baby-step at a time.

People have not agreed to take the discussion to WT:CONSENSUS, have not agreed to merge back to WP:CONSENSUS, have apparently not read the archives at WT:CONSENSUS (5 and 6), and I really have no idea why.

So the process before us is going to be exceptionally slow, exceptionally wasteful, and exceptionally redundant.

But if people insist, then I'm quite patient and willing enough to take the time to rehash months of discussion that have already occured before, and to do so on multiple pages simultaneously, with every single person in turn.

I'm quite willing and ready to grasp any reed of sanity, of course. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to insist on reading the WT:CONSENSUS archives if this discussion was at WT:CONSENSUS. As it is, it's in a kind of limbo. Really, can't we move it there? PS WP:Consensus makes no explicit reference to editing policy, and I think there's a strong argument for handling that separately, based on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes. The latter may itself be revised, though I don't immediately see the need for it. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain Kim. This problem is due to the fact that this "Editing policy" is largely redundant with our other more important policies, which is probably the reason why so few people give this policy any attention. One possibility is to just ignore this page and let it sink back into obscurity, another would be to nominate it for deletion and see if the community actually think it has any useful function. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Either that or editing policy should actually be the core policy. (hey, it's a wiki, we're supposed to edit it!) ;-). Hmmm <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are only two kinds of policy - editing policies and behavioral policies. This page tried to summarise all our editing policies, as well as telling people how to write articles. This is why it is such a mess. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely summarising policy for newbies (and others, but especially newbies) is a longstanding objective. If the page overlaps too much with another page doing the same sort of summarising that's different. Rd232 ^talk 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:5P tries it all, and has been moderately successful ;-) (though it seems to have exploded and gotten messy recently) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... because people seem to want this discussion at WT:CONSENSUS... I have started a thread for it. See: WT:Consensus#The "Discuss First" option and Wikipeida Policies.

I propose that we suspend further discussion here while things are discussed there. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I so second that motion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Get consensus first"

... is not an intelligible objection to a good edit.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very much capable of improvement, and an edit that improves them should be left to stand unless an intelligible, specific reason for disagreement is provided. Bureaucratic paralysis does nobody any good.

In this specific case, Kotniski's excellent edit to this page should be left to stand unless a good objection is raised.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give Blueboar time to voice his reasons for his reversal, and then consider if they are appropriate. It was an edit war on this very page that suggested that discussing changes to policies before making them was probably a good idea. -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a very bad idea, actually, leading to stasis and crystallisation where there should be fluidity. My position is that nobody has raised any specific objection to Kotniski's edit, and reverting without raising an objection seems obstructive to me. How long do you suggest we should wait?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold editing has its place... so does prior discussion. Both are valid editing methodologies and so both approaches need to be mentioned. The key here is that however you start (whether by being bold or by discussing first), if objections are raised (and being reverted IS a form of objection) everyone should go to the talk page and work it out.

Note, this applies to editing articles... for policy pages one should always discuss (or at minumum explain) edits first. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why should one discuss first, on policy pages or off them? The whole point of the Wiki model is "you can edit this page".

  That's tangential, though. Please list your specific objections to Kitniski's edit.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the last few discussions on this page... also read the follow up discussions at WT:CONSENSUS. As for Kitniski's edits... I think you are assuming extreme opposition where it does not exist... please look again at my last edit, where I modified Kitniski's edit in an attempt to reach compromise and consensus, instead of simply re-reverting ... in other words, I followed the BRD cycle exactly as you are arguing people should do... in fact you were the one who broke the BLD cycle by then reverting my bold edit. Or does BRD only apply to some edits and not to others? Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've read them; I've had this page watchlisted for ages.  :) I'm also aware of the follow-up discussions at WT:CONSENSUS but have not, as yet, felt the need to participate.

  The benefit of Kotniski's edit is that it simplifies and clarifies what should be simple and clear. Its effect is to cut the amount of text, and that's strongly to be desired, because as matters stand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are so voluminous that nobody will ever read them all. It's a result of years and years of WP:CREEP, and what Wikipedia actually needs is a great big bonfire of red tape.

  My position is that you have the best of motives for trying to avoid the savage trimming that I would like to impose on this page (of which Kotniski's edit is just a small part), but I think the level of detail this page presently contains is not just unnecessary, but actually damaging, because all this text clouds and fudges the points this page should make.

  I think in a perfect world, "editing policy" would say something like:

  1) Cite your sources when you edit;

  2) Try to cite other people's sources for them, and discuss the matter with them if you cannot;

  3) In conflict, try in good faith to reach the correct conclusion, which is not the same as saying you have to compromise with someone who is wrong;

  4) Bear in mind that YOU might be wrong;

  5) Remove on sight any content that is a breach of copyright, a breach of personal privacy, or a breach of the five pillars; and

  6) Treat any other content with respect.

  In any case, I would like to get this page down to under two hundred and fifty words. It should be clear and simple and transparent to new editors without so much waffle, vacillation or discussion of special cases.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. This is all pretty basic stuff - we should state the message clearly, without giving the impression that there's some complex philosophy involved. (Though I have no objection to the current version of the paragraph in question, as reverted to by PBS.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, actually it turns out I do - it added "minor" in the sentence "other editors don't have to be consulted before you make minor changes". I just removed this (it's quite acceptable to make even major changes without consultation, as long as you realize you might get reverted).--Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, these are the recent changes to date. Those seem fine, except for the introduction of a sentence 'The principle of burden of proof needs to be given particular weight in such cases.' That's clear as mud. It needs the WP:BURDEN principle ('The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.') elaborating. Rd232 ^talk 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that achieved by having the wikilink to BURDEN? Or do you want to say something explicitly here? (The wording sounds a bit strange anyway - it's not a specific editor that needs to provide evidence - though I suppose the intended meaning is clear enough.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only clear if you already know what you're being told; if you know what the policy being linked to (in piped form) says. Clear as mud to a newbie. Rd232 ^talk 07:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't we expect newbies to know how to click links? But go ahead and improve the wording further if you can. (What was there before was even worse.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if the link weren't piped, so it's not clear what the significance of the link is. 'burden of proof' in normal language is quite different from WP:V's burden of proof principle. Anyway I've clarified it. Rd232 ^talk 08:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've tweaked for best practise. I would think we all agree that best practise is to revert and explain why you have reverted rather than to simply revert. Hiding T 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have died down, and there was some tightening of the language this month, but nothing drastic. WP:CON and WP:POLICY are pretty quiet this month. Is anyone planning big changes soon? I'm trying to get a sense of whether this page in particular is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll assume we're stable, for this month at least. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

The tag at the top says policy, but the template at the bottom lists it amongst guidelines. Pcap ping 10:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The template appeared pretty confused, so I fixed it. Pcap ping 10:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing material based on WP:NPOV

We seem to be in a slow edit war over whether to include WP:NPOV in the following:

• Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view may be removed.

Those who want to not mention WP:NPOV in this context point to WP:YESPOV as justification for taking it out. Now, it is true that YESPOV states that we should not remove content "solely on the grounds that it is POV". However, that is not what we are dicussing here. Here we are talking about material that contradicts a policy. There is a difference between removing material "solely on the grounds that it is POV" and removing material because it violates an aspect of the WP:NPOV policy. For example... we can remove material that gives Undue Weight to a minority or fringe viewpoint... as such material is a violation the WP:NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If somebody added a section detailing the flat Earth view to the Earth article, this would be removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Earth article tells us that "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth..." and this seems fine. Space is limited in this large article and so we have spin-off articles such as Figure of the Earth and Flat Earth and these develop the various ideas on this matter. This should be the thrust of our guidance per WP:PRESERVE — that minority and specialist views and perspectives should be dealt with in such ways rather than simply being suppressed. What we are building here is a enormous pyramid of knowledge, from the general to the particular, and there is usually an appropriate level at which to cover a topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, so if somebody did add a section on "flat earth theory" to the Earth article, it would be removed from the article per NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the amount of space given to this aspect in the article seems to be mainly a matter of size. NPOV requires that we cover the flat earth idea in the article as it would not be NPOV without it. Our editing policy generally favours inclusion rather than exclusion. The edits being disputed here lack consensus and so should be removed. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really... WP:SIZE is focused on the over all lenght of an article... WP:UNDUE (which is a part of WP:NPOV) focuses on the appropriateness of including material, and how much it is discussed. It says that sometimes the right amount of discussion is no discussion at all. Of course, this has to be judged on an article by article basis, and it all depends on the article topic and the nature of the material in question. My point being... sometimes material can be removed for not adhering to the WP:NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference either way; WP:NPOV rather than this page governs what material should be removed as POV, and not specifically mentioning NPOV on this page doesn't blunt the effect of that page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is some newbie casually perusing this policy might think that it's ok to remove POV material per se because they haven't delved into the particulars of WP:NPOV; we can't expect everyone to be the policy wonks we are, amigos. In my experience, there are plenty of POV edit warriors who are more than happy to sweep inconvenient truths under the rug and out of articles on their topics of interest, but that hardly serves our mission as an encyclopedia. If the main concern is WP:UNDUE -- which I think ultimately calls for re-sectioning rather than removal of content (we do in fact have an whole article on the Flat Earth) -- then perhaps we should be more straightforward and point directly to that policy and explain that re-sectioning of content is vastly preferred over deletion. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have an article on Flat Earth... NPOV is not about whether Wikipedia covers a topic... it is about how we cover a topic within a specific article. The Flat Earth theory is notable enough to have an article on it... but that does not change the fact that including a long in-depth discussion about the Flat Earth Theory would not be appropriate in the main Earth article, and we would be giving Undue Weight to a fringe viewpoint if such discussion were placed within the context of the Earth article. If someone added such material to the Earth article, the material could (and should) be removed per WP:NPOV. Perhaps a better example would be if someone added a lot of material on the Creationism to the article on Evolution. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to everyone to say something like "V, NOR and NPOV are the 3 core content policies", with the goal of sending them over there rather than arguing it here? 209.6, I understand that NPOV doesn't necessarily mean removal ... but that's a pretty deep topic, could we argue it at NPOV rather than here? - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the secton in question has been edited to read:

• Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that contradicts our content policies of verifiability and no original research, or gives undue weight to a particular view may be removed. (bolding mine)

I think this is very acceptable compromise, as it covers what I see as being the most common situation when we would remove something for violating WP:NPOV (with most other NPOV violations, we would probably rewrite the material so that it was more neutral, as opposed to removing it). Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible restructuring

Some ideas are being floated at WT:Be bold about restructuring pages in this area, including possibly moving some information to this one. Please comment (preferably there, since that's where the discussion already is). --Kotniski (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should move that discussion over to here? One suggestion I've made is for a change to the title of this page, to make it clearer what its scope is intended to be ("Editing policy" could include practically anything). Unfortunately I don't have a good title to suggest - does anyone?--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time a renaming has been suggested... see WT:Editing policy/Archive 2#Policy Title... we couldn't come up with an answer then either. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Try to fix problems: preserve information"

Does this sentence accurately reflect our approach to articles with massive amount of unsourced information? Interested in hearing from not the usual suspects - which is why this will be my only comment here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you think I am a "ususal suspect" or not... but I'll comment anyway. The answer (as is often the case) is "Yes... but". There is a balance that must be struck between WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE. It all comes down to asing: "Do I, in good faith, think the unsourced information is likely to be accurate?" If you do think the information is probably accurate, then work to fix the problem... source what you can, and then tag what you can not with a {{cn}} tag... so that others know what still needs sourcing. If, on the other hand, you question the accuracy of the information... either tag it with a {{fact}} tag or remove it (depending on the material and article in question). Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just had this quoted at me as supposed proof that Wikipedia does not allow editors to flag problems (images with busted FURs, in this instance) if the flagging editor is capable of fixing the problem. I think a re-write might be warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's very good form to, for instance, do at least a minimal search for sources before removing something that is dubious but not implausible. (And if you find those sources, add a quick ref.) That said, you're not obliged to expend effort to improve the encyclopedia.

How much time would fixing the FURs in question have taken?--Father Goose (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good form, yes... required, no. If this is being misquoted then we should clarify. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How to handle a "massive amount of unsourced information" is a good question. Adding a lot of unsourced content and putting the burden on others isn't very fair. It's not such a big issue when it's a more manageable amount of things. However, if the material is not controversial and seems plausible an overall cleanup tag and additional steps to draw editors to the article might be the appropriate tactic. If it's more questionable, maybe move it to the talk page. If it's especially questionable, just deleting it with an explanatory edit summary and adding a new talk page section also explaining along with a WP:DIFF might be a good thing to do. Шизомби (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to fix problems rather than flagging them, but "fix problems if you can" is in the imperative tense, and the section is scattered with "should" and is being understood by some editors as a requirement -- as in, if you can fix the problems, then you must.

Fundamentally, I think this needs to be re-written to change the tone. We want to name alternatives to removal (because this sort of education is important) while still respecting the fact that we're volunteers, which means that no volunteer has the right to demand that some other volunteer provide their sources, fix their FURs, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... in essence you are correct. Although WP:BURDEN does imply the right to demand a source for the return of unsourced material that is removed. Any suggestions on how to word it better? Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nobody has the right to demand that others fix their work... but the other extreme is deleting stuff in place of fixing it. Some people use "tagged for months" as a justification for deleting stuff, when finding sources might be a minute's worth of work. An inadequate FUR leads to deletion of an image... how many minutes to just fix the FUR, if possible? I happen to feel that snap deletions without even the slightest attempt to fix a problem are a form of bad faith that are harmful to the encyclopedia and the community.

Constructive behaviors should be urged. Not compelled -- but certainly urged, and this page is just about the only place that such behaviors are urged. Most other policies outline "content prohibitions", and lately, those policies have become the [slap in the] face of the encyclopedia to most new contributors. If it's a question of a tremendous amount of work to fix a glaring problem, then no one can be expected to do that work, but simple fixes instead of snap deletions is the "best practice" that is really worth emphasizing.

Hopefully we can strike the right balance.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No one needs to fix anything. The purpose of this policy is to convey that a Wiki only works if it is allowed to be imperfect. If we gut this policy then we have turned this from a Wiki into something else entirely, something that I am afraid is already in the process of happening. Sure a few editors will still drop perfect featured articles into mainspace now and then when they want to pass their RfA or something, but that's not the way that 99% of our content gets written. Gigs (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that people look at policies as being equivalent to "The Law"... I know this is not correct, but it is how many editors view them. By emphasizing "best practice" in a policy, we run the risk of people misconstruing it. They view the policy statement as saying: "This is in a policy, so you must do this", instead of the intended "Consider doing this, as this is a really good thing to do". Without all sorts of caveats and explanations, we end up inadvertantly "legislating" best practice to the point where it becomes must practice.

I think we can mention best practice, and even urge it... we must clearly label it as being such. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Preserve information" is not a mere "best practice", it's a fundamental tenet of successful wiki-style collaboration. The whole point of a wiki is to improve on what's here, little by little. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we want to improve our articles... but sometimes the best way to improve them is to remove something... to not preserve it. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Blueboar that the problem is that many people look to policies as being "The Law", and this isnt just a small number of disruptive users, it is a sizable MINORITY of users who are VERY vocal about it, making up for the fact that they are outnumbered. This leads to arguments where policy=law believers dont care about anything not spelled out in policy and "we" lose arguments to them because we voluntarily take out important things that spell out common sensical ideas and uses, like preserve; because we think its common sense and not needed; it IS needed because policy=law believers need to be hit over the head with things in order that they listen to it. Preserve information is, as Gigs states, a fundamental tenet (and one in my world outweighs the "holy" (and wholly useless) 5P that policy/law believers love to quote). How many places and in different wording styles do our policies state "Wikipedia is a work in progress", "Wikipedia doesnt have to be perfect right now", "good faith contributions that arent done per accepted process or style are still valid", and so on that all taken together mean "we arent perfect, but we fix what we can". If the information isnt hurtful, there's no reason not to take time to cite it, fix grammar, whatever instead of just deleting the information; if its deleted then newbies and editors new to the article wont know that there's this piece of information out there that is valid and just needs a citation. Alot of times I've seen info removed because its dubious, I Google it and find a source and I put it back in, takes two seconds. Why cant everyone do that from the beginning? I have yet to see anyone state WHY they should be allowed to remove information without first trying to find a source for it. Being lazy isnt an excuse.Camelbinky (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... I don't think anyone has suggested we "take out" preserve... I certainly haven't. I do think it needs to be reworded to make it clearer that what it is discussing is "best practice" and not a mandate, but I would oppose getting rid of it all together. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am worried that this is often how it starts, watering down the language. As What has stated regarding the current language and the fact we are volunteers "which means that no volunteer has the right to demand that some other volunteer provide their sources, fix their FURs, etc" instead of deleting the non-sourced information; conversely shouldnt it also mean that as volunteers no other volunteer should take away another volunteers contributions based solely on failure to live up to our standards? Tagging I'm fine with, its the actual removing of information I have a problem with. There should be equal burdens on removing and returning information, not lopsided. If someone is too busy to look up a source and just removes it, then what makes them think my time is less important in finding a source for it, just because the original IP or newbie didnt know our way of doing things? So my precious time is used on finding sources for information that already is here instead of finding new information and creating new articles; because we cant agree to combine WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN in a way that makes things equitable to both sides? Meanwhile that other editor moves on to 100 other articles and strips more information out that may get lost for years before someone else finds the info and puts it back in, when instead a source couldve been found right away by the deleter and the info saved. Cant we combine the two relevant sections of policy?Camelbinky (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

...shouldnt it also mean that as volunteers no other volunteer should take away another volunteers contributions based solely on failure to live up to our standards?' Nope... well... sometimes.... it depends on the contribution, what standard it fails and the degree of the failure. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

OK... I have a concrete suggestion that I think will help... Simply swap WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE. I think this would slightly change the emphasis that is placed on PRESERVE without deminishing the substance ... Swapping would mean we first tell editors that removing material is allowed (and in some cases necessary)... but then tell them that doing so is often not the best solution. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer the emphasis the current way: "Fix"..."except when you can't."

As I understand it, the problem being discussed at this moment is that some people are trying to misrepresent the policy. If so, the problem lies with those people, not with the policy. Does the policy itself state anything wrongful? If not, we shouldn't change it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can somehow make it clear in WP:V that a challenge of material must have some good faith basis in policy or guidelines, then I'd be more inclined to change the emphasis in this policy. As long as WP:V is written in a way that implies it can be used as a blunt instrument for removing text for no particular reason other than the lack of citation, then we should not de-emphasize WP:PRESERVE in this policy. Gigs (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation happens with all kinds of rules: my latest AfD had multiple one-line "delete, non-notable" !votes that did not address the fact that they were in conflict with what WP:N actually says. It seems that some people can't navigate our Kafkaesque jungle of rules and regulations. Some people make honest mistakes. Some people jump to conclusions or don't realize they haven't thought things through. Some people take wikilawyering too far. Some people are being dolts. Unfortunately, none of these problems are addressed by a rewrite. :-)

Anyway, my thanks to Blueboar for being polite and constructive. I'll take a look at the pages and get distracted by something shiny halfway through. --Kizor 10:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"...removing text for no particular reason other than the lack of citation"... You see I don't view "lack of citation" as being "no particular reason"... I see it as a very specific reason. More over it is a legitimate reason to remove text. Granted, removing uncited text is not the only option, but sometimes it is the best option... and even in situations where it might not be best option, it is still a valid option. In short, it isn't wrong to remove unsourced text.

We also need to remember that there are a lot of other reasons to remove material besides being unsourced... It might be OR, or give Undue Weight to a particular view. It may duplicative, irrelevant, or redundant content. It may be a copyright violation. It may contain a prohibited or inappropriate external link. These are very valid reasons not to preserve information.

With the stress on PRESERVE, however, we give the impression that it is in some way wrong to remove material that should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give that impression at all. It says what it should say, that editors should attempt to preserve text first and foremost, but sometimes it's best to remove it if it's unsalvageable. What you have the ability to do and what you should do are often two different things. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may not give you that impression... but it certainly gives me that impression.

"...editors should attempt to preserve text first and foremost..." I disagree... yes it is nice if editors attempt to preserve text when warrented, but first and formost editors need to determine whether the text warrents preserving. Preserving text isn't an automatic default. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside... Hope you all have a Happy Christmas... even if you don't celebrate the holiday! Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

• PRESERVE, contrary to comments made above, says nothing about preserving text (words). It is entirely about preserving information, for which most editors should mentally substitute the word facts in most situations. Words do not need to be "preserved" simply because someone typed them, but information (e.g., this event happened on this date, these people were involved, these things were done) should generally not be deleted unless there is some actual (policy-based or common-sense) reason to remove the facts. Wikipedia is (eventually) the sum of human knowledge, not a collection of whatever words individuals wanted to say.
• "Don't actively delete facts (without some good reason, like you think these 'facts' are wrong)" is different from "Not only are you required to keep those badly written sentences, you personally are obligated to clean up the mess in the article." Both WP:NOT and common sense says that volunteers can't be forced to fix other people's mistakes -- but this sentence, in its current form, is being misinterpreted: "It is already policy that you should fix things if you can and flag them if you can't (verbatim from WP:EDIT), they are already under obligation to do so."
  We need to clarify that this section represents a recommendation for what (usually) produces the most overall benefit for the encyclopedia when the information is believed to be valid. PRESERVE is not a requirement that you can use to badger editors into leaving {{dubious}} "facts" in articles, or to stop flagging images with bad FURs, and so forth. (Furthermore, there are occasionally times when a tag is better than simply fixing the problem, since most of them direct editors to the resources they need to learn how to fix it themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these two basic points. But all our policies coexist with all our other polices, and there are many times when they will be need to be balanced against one another. At those times, if someone claims that one policy "trumps" others, without trying to bring other editors around to their reasoning, they're just stonewalling.

It's always good to refine the wording of policy if it's producing confusion, and even more important if it expresses a position that is not essentially a consensual one. But changes to an otherwise sound policy to counteract a specific wikilawyer just ends up being a form of wikilawyering itself.

I still don't see anything in WP:PRESERVE that suggests that fixing is mandatory... just strongly encouraged -- which is as it should be.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you support a few small changes, along these lines?

Preserve information: please consider fixing problems if you can, or flagging them if you can't. Try to preserve accurate, encyclopedic information. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should normally be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts.

This doesn't begin to address the primary problem (that a paragraph written about the need for copyediting is being misused in other contexts), or even the secondary problem (that a good deal of copyediting needs to be done in this paragraph), but at least it takes a baby step in the right direction.

If it were entirely up to me, I'd See also: WP:HANDLE (yes, the very next section) and re-draft it to something like this:

Preserve encyclopedic information: Some knowledgeable editors are not adept at writing or formatting. Avoid removing accurate, encyclopedic facts and concepts solely because they are poorly presented, are ungrammatically expressed, or are improperly formatted. Instead, if the facts or ideas would belong in a "finished" article, please improve the writing style, repair the formatting, or tag the problem for the attention of other editors. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors building upon each others' efforts.

The bit about moving information to the talk page would be added as another option to the "what to do" list. However, while having a paragraph with neither any run-on sentences nor any comma splices is appealing to me, I'll settle for just adding the underlined words in the first blockquote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So I better understand what you're proposing, can you edit and revert the policy, so I can see a diff?--Father Goose (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support a small change to the section lede: "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." (emphasis on added words). I don't like the changes proposed by WhatamIdoing, words like "please consider" gut the policy. Attempting to preserve information is a requirement, but removal is an option. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that attempting to preserve information is a requirement.... certainly we are not required to preserve information we know to be inaccurate or outdated. There are clearly times when not preserving the information is the right path to take. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Being required to attempt preservation is different from being required to preserve. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No... if I know something is inaccurate or outdated, I am not and should not be required attempt preservation. I should remove it or (if warrented) replace it with accurate modern information. The problem with saying something is required is that requirements are thought of in "always/never" terms ... but the question of whether to preserve or remove information is more of a "sometimes/sometimes not" determination. Yes, sometimes the best thing to do is to try to preserve the information (if I think it is correct or likely to be correct)... but at other times trying to preserve the information is not the best thing to do. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 5 19:59, 5 January 2010 January 2010 (UTC)

No one here is saying that, except you. Your constant straw men are tiring. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Does this help clarify things? Gigs (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my concerns are at all "strawman" arguments... I think they go to the very heart of why WP:PRESERVE is in conflict with so many other policies. For another example... it conflicts with WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE we don't preserve information if it gives Undue Weight to a fringe viewpoint. In fact, removal does not even have to be Policy based... an editor may simply feel that the information is irrelevant to the article's topic. The simple fact is, there are a lot of situations where we don't try to preserve information, and are not required to even try. Yes, there are also situations where we should try... but none where we are required to try. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"...editors should attempt to preserve text first and foremost...", absolutely not. Editors should try to improve the article first and foremost. If the text seems to improve the article, keep it. If it does not, remove it. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saying "preserve text" is imprecise. What's implied here in my discussion is preservation of factual content. For the record, I'm OK with all of your (Tim's) recent edits as of the 19:59, 5 January 2010 version. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, this policy isn't in conflict with any other policy. What is in conflict with the other policies is indeed the strawman I'm talking about: the idea that you continue to put forth that this policy somehow restrains people from improving articles by removing bogus and unsalvageable parts. That is not what it says, and if anyone is reading it that way then they should be trouted, and if you point me to them I'll go trout them personally, because they are failing at reading comprehension. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've come across people misusing this policy, see here for one editor who seems to wave the WP:PRESERVE link around as if it were a magic wand. However, as you say, you can only write text that will be understood by 99.9% of the people who read it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the policy text has changed greatly since January 2009, and the particular language quoted in that case no longer exists (and was probably too absolute sounding back then anyway). Gigs (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

well-meaning mistakes identify text that can be misread

"Even well-meaning mistakes identify text that can be misread/misunderstood" is an excellent point worth some prominence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think being able to infer what the "mistake" was intending is a rare skill, so I'm not sure it's useful to advise people to do it. Separately, it's very awkwardly worded in its present form, and I can't figure out what the mistake was intending how to broaden it into a principle that would resonate with most editors.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One case is where somebody "clarifies" the text to clearly state a meaning you did not intend with the original. This shows you that the original text was ambiguous. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but not that often. Isn't there a more general way we can state this? Maybe "Even well-meaning but poor edits can draw attention to an area of an article that needs improvement"? Though I still wouldn't put that text in the lede -- somewhere in PRESERVE, perhaps.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can think of a better way and better place to say this, then by all means please do so. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still neutral on it, so you'd have to be the one to suggest what should be added where.--Father Goose (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Kendrick7 has made some substantial change over the last few days (difs here). Some of these changes may be fine, but since WP:PRESERVE has has recently generated a lot of heated debate and discussion, we should at least ensure that there is consensus for them. That said... some of the changes are definitely not fine. I particularly object to merging WP:HANDLE into WP:PRESERVE... the two sections counter-ballance each other and should be seperated. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this heated debate and discussion. I prefer Kendrick's version. When I provide a shortcut to WP:PRESERVE I expect it to emphasise the importance of retaining information for future work, not stating the opposite of this long-standing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look on this talk page and in the archives. Also look at recent discussions at WT:V. I definitely do not prefer Kendrick's version (although I do not object to all of his wording tweeks). When I provide a shortcut to WP:HANDLE, I expect it to emphasis the importance of adhearing to long standing core policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV ... and I expect it to point out the fact that (in accordance with these policies) sometimes information can and should be removed (ie not be preserved). Both WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE are needed for this policy to be complete and accurate. They ballance each other. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• When people want to refer to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, they refer to them directly; they do not use the strangely-named WP:HANDLE which is redundant to those policies and so is not needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to toss this to an RFC... and I request that you leave WP:HANDLE (as is) in the policy until this RFC has had some time to run (so that any editors wishing to comment can see both sections and comment appropriately.) Please do not remove it again. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the version which you prefer is unacceptable as it seems to subvert the long-standing sense of WP:PRESERVE. Kendrick has sensibly restored this and, as I support him, you seem to be at a 2:1 disadvantage. We shall see what the RfC brings us in the way of further opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. WP:Handle has (under several names) been part of this "long standing policy" for over a year! It was first placed into its own section with this edit made last April. It has been fully discussed several times since then, has been cited in page discussions on WT:V and other policy pages. To remove it you will need to demonstrate a clear consensus that it no longer has the support of the community. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Boldly reverting to Jan 15 edits

I just reverted back to Jan 15, this is a policy after all, and needs some consistency. lets try to make a community decision on this first, then we can change it. I hate seeing any page protected. Ikip 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why not revert to last May[6] before the changes we are discussing? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL how about to 06:53, 18 October 2001? when the page began. Not to make light of your question :) I just thought that was a good place to stop, Fram had just reverted a anon, and at a glance (I maybe 100% wrong) it seemed stable. Anyone is welcome to revert me to any date they want, but lets talk this through please? The edit history is not going anywhere. Ikip 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC should this policy include both WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE

We seem to be in an edit war over WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE. So to resovle this: Should this policy a) stress WP:PRESERVE, b) stress WP:HANDLE or c) stess both sub-sections equally?

If the last... should the two sections be merged or should they be left as seperate sections?

• I feel that both sections are equally important and need to be given equal stress. You can not tell people to preserve information without also explaining when not to do so. They should be left as seperate sections to highlight this. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• WP:HANDLE is redundant and should be removed. The good point of WP:PRESERVE is that we should not be careless with contributions as, even if they are not yet perfect, they may usually be put to some good use by editing, merger, incubation or whatever. We need no special advice here on deletion which is covered extensively elsewhere and has no shortage of uptake. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge of these redundent sections. While Blueboar is correct in that the information in both sections needs to be stressed so as to encourage editors to actually try to fix problems before arbitrarily deciding not to do so, there is no need for this instruction to to be repeated twice. In that regard, Colonel Warden is correct in that the two sections both offer the same advice toward seeking soulutions to perceived problems. Tieing these redundent together is sensible clarification of policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge of these redundent sections. Per Michael and Colonel. Thanks. Ikip 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Blueboar. The changes put too much emphasis on preserving material. Sometimes it's important to get rid of it. It's important to explain when preserving seems sensible and when it doesn't, in separate sections. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• It seems to make far more sense to have both sections on the same page, as they refer to different sides of the same coin. (And where did the shortcut WP:HANDLE come from - can't we use something a bit less opaque?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski... are you saying you think they should be seperate sections on the same page (as existed before the recent edits that are the subject of this RFC) or merged together as was done in Kendrick's recent edits (as seen [7]).

The shortcut name came from the title of the section when it was seperate ... "Handling problematic material". I agree it was not the best name for the shortcut and have no objection to changing it. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I hadn't properly understood the question. I don't have any strong opinion on whether there should be two sections. Preserving information should probably be the principle that we stress (though the exceptions should be stated clearly too).--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Preserve is all that matters The reason this policy exists is WP:PRESERVE. There are other policies that talk about the removal of information in far more detail. The policy on policies states that "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders". Since WP:HANDLE is largely a reminder and list of other policies that allow the removal of content, it should not be emphasized. All that said, I don't feel too strongly about the current edit war... I don't think either version changes the meaning or spirit of this policy in any serious way. Lets just not forget the reason this policy exists. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And that is the underlying problem here... The underlying concept of WP:PRESERVE was flawed from the biginning because there are multiple situations when it is better not to preserve information. WP:HANDLE was added in an attempt to resolve this flaw. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of our oldest policies; I wouldn't call the overarching idea flawed. For example, there are plenty of POV warriors who think it's ok to "improve" an article by deleting content with which they happen to disagree. While they can attempt to wiki-lawyer over the exceptions, this policy is the sole bulkhead against their attempts to torpedo WP:ENC. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support We clearly need balance and clarity. It's no good talking about what should be preserved and what should be removed on different pages, it is vital that both aspects of editing be on the same page, whether or not more detail is elsewhere. I think that separate sections is much clearer than merging them. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support restoration to one section (The splitting of these is fairly recent, imo.) These are just two sides of the same coin. We should preserve content; but not every jot of text is content. Nonsense isn't content. Un-sourced libel is verboten per WP:BLP. Just on an informational basis -- linking a n00b to WP:HANDLE as things stood for a while might really confuse them, because it would be hard for them to get the full picture of our commitment to preserving content unless they happened to scroll up. Thus I don't see the wisdom of completely divorcing WP:PRESERVE and its exceptions. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is 10 months ago: "recent"? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. Frankly, I don't see a problem with either version. However, if people want the direct link to WP:HANDLE, I've created a variation on Kendrick's merge that presents the two sides of the coin more clearly (while still containing them both in the same section): [8].--Father Goose (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• That looks OK to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Two comments on Kendrick's variation... 1) it lacks a clear statement that sometimes you shouldn't preserve material. I really think we need the opening line of WP:HANDLE in the text:

• "Though some problems can be fixed without removal, in other cases you may need to remove problematic material. For example, material that contradicts our core content policies of verifiability and no original research, or gives undue weight to a particular view may be removed."

2) If we do present both of these concepts in the same section, we need to edit the section title so it balances the two concepts (so it does not give more weight to the concept of Preservation over the concept of Removal. Perhaps just the unadorned: Fixing problems?) Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, as someone said, that giving weight to the concept of Preservation is the whole point of this page. We have lots of other policies that imply that certain things need to be removed; surely we can afford one that stresses the very basic concept that we generally prefer to keep stuff rather than throw it out?--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not if doing so ignores or conflicts with what is stated at all those other policies. The entire point of WP:HANDLE is to resolve that conflict. The simple fact is, when it comes to material that violates one of our core policies, we don't "prefer to keep stuff rather than throw it out"... as those policies note, we actually prefer that it be removed. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite - we actually prefer that it be kept but brought into line with those policies (sources found, language made neutral, different viewpoints added, etc.) Of course there are cases where that's impossible and where removal is the right answer, but the point of all this is that removal should tend to be a last resort rather than a first.--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and No... what we really prefer that it be brought into line with those policies... period. Sometimes we can do in a way that preserves the information, sometimes we can't... and sometimes we shouldn't. It really depends on the specifics of the material in question. To give a few examples of when you shouldn't preserve... 1) if an editor is certain that a bit of unsourced information is inaccurate, then removal is appropriate (Yes, there is the possibility that the editor could be wrong, and the information actually correct, but the burden for demonstrating that this is the case by providing a source falls to those who wish the information to remain in the article, and not on the editor who removes it.) 2) Some times mentioning something at all gives it Undue Weight, in which case it can and should be removed, period. 3) If the material constitues Original research, then removal is appropriate right from the start.

I do understand the point of WP:PRESERVE... but the statement to preserve is incomplete... what we should be telling people is: "Try to preserve information that does not violate a Wikipedia policy." Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But even that's an incomplete statement, as lots of information that violates a policy can still be preserved through modifying, not removing. I agree that we don't want editors quoting "preserve" as though that could simply slap away all other policy concerns. But WP:PRESERVE doesn't need to be balanced against WP:REMOVE, it just needs to be phrased in a way that does not imply "preserve no matter what". Honestly, I think it already manages that.--Father Goose (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, Blueboar, make changes to the proposed variation that would help to satisfy your concerns. Maybe we can BRD our way out of this disagreement.--Father Goose (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will think about it... but my problem is that I actually think the version as it currently is (ie with two seperate sections) is best. The current WP:PRESERVE, makes the case for when to preserve information very well... and the current WP:HANDLE explains when not to preserve very well. I don't mean to be obstructionist, but that is where I would start. Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still pointlessly duplicative. BLP is mentioned twice, for example, so I'd still rather see this streamlined. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not against streamlining... I would be against streamlining in a way that upsets the ballance between the two concepts. Blueboar (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I only see one concept here. Sort of like the old Simpson's line from Reverend Lovejoy: short answer "yes" with an if, long answer "no", with a but. Should we preserve information? For years, the answer has been: Yes, if it isn't A, B, or C. Splitting the sections starts us down the road of: No, but don't just vandalize to your heart's content (pun intended?). I just don't like where this split is taking us. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And that is the problem... you do only see one concept, when you need to see two... The two concepts are Preservation of information and Handling problematic material. They must work in balance with each other. Should we remove problematic material? For years the answer on our other policy pages has been: Yes, if it is A, B or C, and perhaps when it is D, or E (whether to do so depends on the situation)... and occasionally even when it is F and G. You can't discuss Preservation without discussing situations when it might be best not to preserve. Both are needed. I am very flexible on how we describe this balance, but I insist on maintaining the balance. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

regardless of all the rules the decisions made are not going to be much better than the knowledge of the subject by the admins .Wdl1961 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins are just janitors, Wd, try to keep that in mind. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Blueboar. First off, "handling" seems to be an attempt at a euphemism for "removing", and I don't like euphemisms in our policies to begin with. Given that, our other policies have never encouraged immediately removing material from the encyclopedia except for WP:BLP violations, but that's the only exception that I'm aware of. WP:V and WP:NOR say (last I checked) that we can eventually remove material that can't be substantiated by a WP:RS -- there's a whole system of tags which support that slow and deliberate process. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I take that back -- WP:VAND would be the other policy which permits removing nonsense, etc. I still don't see a need to carve out anything more here than the exceptions which have long already been a part of WP:PRESERVE. (Arguably, WP:BLP violations are merely a special type of WP:VAND, so it's really the same issue.) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget material that is clearly POV or gives WP:Undue weight to a particular viewpoint. The point is, multiple policies and guidelines tell us that there are times when you should not preserve problematic material... you can not stress preservation without taking these other policy and guideline statements into account. There has to be a balance. I am very flexible on how we achieve this balance... as long as we do achieve it. Blueboar (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view." And, no, we don't need to summarize every other policy in this policy. Our policy on policies specifically discourages it. This policy is about preservation and improvement of imperfect material. That's its only reason for existing. We don't summarize this policy in other policies, and we shouldn't summarize every other policy in this policy just because you disagree with it and want to weaken its message. Gigs (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gigs. As for NPOV, Blueboar, let me track down the guy who created the WP:YESPOV shortcut.[9] (Comes back in wearing a fake mustache and a sombrero) ¡Hola amigos, I am Kendrico-Siete! Am a here to address the vaquero known as Azul-Cerdo: I do not t'ink NPOV sez what you t'ink eet sez. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (with sincere apologies to the third episode of I Love Lucy, Speedy Gonzales fans, Conando fans, and politically-correct Mexicans everywhere.)

From WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. The point is, sometimes it is the correct thing to do to remove material for POV reasons. Yes there often other options... but that does not negate the point. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is really just that that language needs work, imo. What should matter is whether a POV is independently notable, not an ambiguous head count of how many living people (??) actually hold that view, and if so there's plenty of room to have an article. I've stubbed out enough articles on various medieval heresies (e.g. here and here) to know the current language is flawed. You'd probably have to delete half the history of religion article the way WP:UNDUE is current written! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but I don't want to leave my little heresy stubs, which were difficult to barely source to begin with, out on a raft in the sea. There are bigger fish which have a slim minority of living adherents: Branch Davidianism, perhaps Zoroastrianism, even the Whig Party all wouldn't "belong in Wikipedia" per the current wording of this policy, since they describe merely "a viewpoint [that] is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." When was the last time you met a member of the Whigs? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The bigger point is that this is exactly why the policy on policies discourages summarization of policies within other policies. There's no way we can capture all the subtleties of the other policies here. We should just link to them and be done with it. Gigs (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but this is in fact the editing policy. However underlinked it is, it does need to summarize to some extent the various subservient policies. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you work on the language I quoted from UNDUE above... it is a quote from Jimbo. It thus needs explaining, not improving.

We also need to take into account situations where there isn't a policy violation involved in removal of information... but simply an desire to make a better article. Information may simply irrelevant or trivial to the topic of the article. The simple fact is, not all information should or needs to be be preserved.

I think the key to the WP:PRESERVE section is to tell editors to think twice before they remvove something... and to tell them that they definitely should not remove material for no reason. I agree with that. But if there is a good reason, then editors need to be given the option to remove.

Yes, The various policy and guideline statements that allow us to remove material can be abused... but so can WP:PRESERVE. This is why WP:PRESERVE needs to be ballanced with WP:HANDLE... and why WP:HANDLE needs to be ballanced with WP:PRESERVE. Neither can stand on its own. This shouldn't be a case of one concept taking precidence... we need to do both at the same time. This is the balance that I am insisting upon. As long as we achieve this balance, I will be happy with any rewrite of these two sections. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, well, Wikipidia is a collection of verifiable points of view, not a collection of true facts. WP:V not WP:TRUTH. If Jimbo momentarily forgot that and said something off the cuff, fine, but such a lapse shouldn't be taken as gospel. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since we are talking about a policy page, WP:V is irrelevant. Policy pages reflect WP:Consensus .... WP:Verifiability is not required. I would say that there is a fairly strong consensus in favor of maintaining some sort of balance between preservation and removal... to avoid the abuse that can occur at either end. What we are struggling with is the best way to express that consensus in words. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, my azure porcine friend. I'm happy to move forward with breaking this up into multiple subsections, as long as we are all honest about supporting the WP:5P. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"azure porcine"... Hah! :>) Well done. And yes, I fully support WP:5P. Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Duplicated or redundant content"

After splitting out "irrelevance" into a paragraph of its own, we were left with the above bullet point in WP:HANDLE. Even if we remove its redundancy (hah), I think it's still important to explain that a) the lead can duplicate content in the rest of the article (it's meant to be a summary of the most important points), and b) various amounts of redundancy between articles is also permissible, and even necessary.

Rather than explain all that, which would expand a short bullet into a paragraph, I decided to just remove it. I have to hope that no one's going to seriously edit-war over including the same info twice in a single article. I'd rather just call this one a no-brainer and leave it out of a list that's not meant to be comprehensive anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't edit war... but I might revert after some discussion. I do have a problem not mentioning dealing with redundant or irrelevant material at all. Removing irrelevant material is simply good editing. I agree that redundancy is perhaps too complex a topic for a bullet pointed list, but there are times when redundant material should be removed.

That said... I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. If a concept is too complext to discuss in a bullet pointed list, I would suggest it is better to abandon the list format rather than to abandon discussion of the concept. It seems "bass-akwards". Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I have reworked WP:HANDLE to do away with the bullet point format. This will allow us to expand on things if needed.

I don't know about the suggestion to move material from article to article. Cut and paste merging of text is tricky to do in a way that preserves attribution. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either Father Goose or I are talking about simple cut and paste merging of text. I think we are both talking about a more thoughtful and appropriate set of edits. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's sufficient attribution to mention what article the information is being imported from in your edit summary. If the original article gets deleted, that breaks the chain of attribution, but the tension between attribution and deletion is an unresolved question on Wikipedia in general. The consequences of it seem to be almost nonexistent anyway -- who's going to sue Wikipedia for containing information in one of its articles that was typed into a different Wikipedia article, for which the contribution history is no longer visible?

Removing the bulleted list works for me; I've touched up your changes a bit.--Father Goose (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with your "touches". Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On attribution, the concern isn't so much that someone could sue WMF, but rather preserving the ability for people to reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL and comply with those licenses. Our free content mission is sabotaged if it's impossible to comply with our free licenses because we broke attribution requirements all over the place. You are right, the primary risk is if the source history gets deleted through article deletion, which probably becomes more likely if someone just gutted the article to move parts of it elsewhere. :) Gigs (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Must be removed vs may (and sometimes should)

I'm OK with all the recent changes, except this one. Specifically, material should never be removed simply because it has WP:NPOV problems ("material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is POV"), should only sometimes be removed because of WP:V problems (contentious, or negative unsourced BLP claims), and WP:UNDUE issues might be better addressed though addition rather than deletion, though sometimes deletion is appropriate there as well. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I added the language "if it cannot be otherwise fixed". "May (and sometimes should)", on the other hand, is very confused language. If it's really unverifiable, or just flat-out badmouthing of the subject, there's nothing to fix. In those cases, it's not "may", or "should", it's "must". We should clarify what it is we mean to say here instead of using ambivalent language.--Father Goose (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Our policies describe best practices, they don't dictate that people "must" do anything. Even our most extremely prescriptive policy over at WP:BLP only says that people "should" remove contentious unsourced BLP information. You may see it as ambivalent, but it will be read as a very prescriptive mandate if we make it say "must". Gigs (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Should", then, but not "may or should" -- that's the particular ambivalence I'm speaking of.--Father Goose (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Should" isn't really accurate in that particular sentence, because it mentions WP:UNDUE, which is part of NPOV, and NPOV says specifically not to remove material on its behalf. Maybe if we added a qualifier earlier like "blatantly contradicts core policies". Gigs (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I think we are facing here is that we are trying to apply firm "rules" for something that doesn't have firm "rules" (and to my mind, shouldn't have firm "rules"). The determination of removal vs non-removal is very dependant on the individual situtation. Sometimes problematic material should be removed... and sometimes problematic material shouldn't be removed. Whether statement X should be removed or not depends on the nature of statement X, the nature of the article/section in which statement X appears, how serious the policy violation is deemed to be, whether the editor who comes across statement X thinks he can fix the problem by editing or not, and a host of other questions. There isn't really a clear line where we can say: "remove this... don't remove that." We need to find language that gives flexibility to our editors on this... allowing them to deal with problematic material as the specific situation calls for and they think best. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Best page to explain "Cooperative editing"?

I'm wandering around trying to find one and a search didn't help. WP:Cooperative editing needs to link to whatever is most relevant so we can suggest this to editors who need to read it. Help appreciated. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is WP:Cooperation and WP:Collaborations, neither of which are what you are likely to be looking for. I don't think we have a page dedicated to describing how to edit cooperatively.--Father Goose (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes in WP:HANDLE

On Feb 21st, Kendrick made several major changes to WP:HANDLE (as seen in these difs)... in my opinion his edits essentially gutted that important part of the policy. I tried to re-establish some balance with these edits, which Kenrick has objected to and reverted. Therefore, I have returned the language back to what it was prior to both of our editing. It looks like we are back to square one.

I will make this clear... I feel that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE are equally vital to this policy. They balance each other and I will strongly oppose any attempts to deminish one or to push the other. I am quite flexible as to the wording... but not at all flexible on maintaining the balance of concept. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you offer specifics on what was bad about his changes, or what was good about yours? I'm hoping for something like [this change to this line] had [the following effect] [which is bad/good because]...--Father Goose (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My main objection to his rewrite is that he completely removed all mention of the fact that there are times when it is both appropriate and necessary to remove problematic WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE violations (which I see as being an important point). My edit was an attempt to return some language to this effect ... I also liked the way my edit made it clear that the choice of removal vs preservation often depends on the seriousness of the violation, in the context of a specific article.

I can't give a more detailed line by line breakdown, as it was Kendrick's edit in it's entirety that I have a problem with and was trying to fix. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Earlier changes have integrated much of what used to be in WP:HANDLE into WP:PRESERVE. WP:PRESERVE is now written in a way that clearly indicates that removal is fine if it needs to be done. If anything we should just move WP:HANDLE up to point to the same place as WP:PRESERVE. To be honest I've never seen anyone cite WP:HANDLE outside of this talk page. I disagree with your changes that add emphasis on tagging... in my mind fact-tagging should only be done if you believe the information to be accurate but controversial enough that a citation really is needed. I don't agree with using fact tagging on information that an editor believe is incorrect. If an editor thinks something unsourced is is factually incorrect, it can be removed immediately. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked. WP:HANDLE only has 26 incoming links not including User talk pages. It is in 78 pages if you include user talk, but that is only because it was used for a short while in a user's custom welcome template. On the other hand, WP:PRESERVE has about 1500 incoming links. Despite your claims about "equally vital", reality bears out the a different picture. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This assumes that one should judge the sections "vitalness" by how many incoming links it has. I don't judge it that way. I judge it on whether it accurately reflects both the language and intent of our core policies. I also suspect that the reason why WP:PRESERVE gets lots more incoming links than HANDLE does is that this is the only policy page that discusses a need to preserve, while there are multiple policies (and better known core polices at that) that discuss the need to sometimes remove. Thus, in discussions over whether material should be preserved or removed, those who wish to preserve have no choice but to point to WP:PRESERVE, while those who are arguing to remove do have choice... and will point to the better known (core) policy statements. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. This policy has two core messages: "Try to preserve and improve information", and "Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect". WP:HANDLE is a redundant summary of other policies, as you point out, which is why no one ever cites it. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... you see I don't think WP:HANDLE is redundant at all... it puts WP:PRESERVE into perspective relative to other policies. People may not cite it, but it is an important caveat to mention to those who are pointed to WP:PRESERVE. It gives a needed ballance to this policy. It says... sometimes you should preserve, sometimes you should remove. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then lets say that within PRESERVE. Gigs (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, Fr Goose and I were discussing these policy sections at WT:Consensus the other day. I repeat here what I said there: Bad information should be removed, not "preserved". Good information that happens to be poorly presented should be preserved (and the presentation fixed), not removed. I object to most of Kendrick's changes, which include:

• An unqualified, direct order to "preserve useful information", which is inappropriately prescriptive and which will be quoted as an absolute "policy requirement" that prohibits removing any information that any editor deems "useful," even if it is unverifiable. (Additionally, this may also violate WP:NOT#HOWTO, since instruction manuals are clearly useful; this wording problem, however, is not Kendrick's fault).
• Removal of the BLP exception from the PRESERVE section: We all know that many editors, when pointed to a specific subsection of a page, stop reading when they get to the end of the subsection, and this exception is sufficiently important to be worth repeating.
• An assertion that massive violations of WP:V or WP:NOR, even if the reverting editor knows that the information is completely unverifiable, should always be fact-tagged rather than removed: So if I go to myocardial infarction and type "Nearly every man will experience a heart attack at some point during his life," then Kendrick's version of this policy requires you to add {{fact}} after this serious error, rather than removing it, because it doesn't meet his too-narrow exception for "libel or nonsense and vandalism".
• Removing WP:DUE from the list of acceptable reasons for deleting information: DUE is a significant, policy-based reason for deleting verifiable information. In fact, Kendrick seems to have removed several policy- and guidelines-based reasons for outright deletion of unencyclopedic or inappropriate information.

One thing that I liked in Blueboar's change was the emphasis on editors using their best judgment, instead of applying one-size-fits-all solutions. Sometimes -- particularly in well-developed articles -- preservation of every scrap of "useful information" that is added makes the article worse, not better. Also -- it looks like Kendrick has a bit of a history with this section. See his efforts to in an ancient (pre-BLP) version, an unblock request that demonstrates basic misunderstandings, and, for that matter, a lengthy block log involving similar problems. Changing policies to support your own actions, instead of changing your actions to comply with policies, is not always appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the tagging point. We should only be tagging information that we think to be verifiable and accurate, and removing (or correcting) information we believe to be inaccurate. Strongly disagree regarding WP:UNDUE. That policy in fact cites this one when it says explicitly that it should not be used as a justification for removing information. I don't know where you got the idea that it's a reason for deleting verifiable information when it says that it explicitly is not. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd kindly supply a quotation from DUE that supports your view of it? I just read every word in that section and didn't find anything that says it cannot be used as a justification for removing information -- and when faced with four screenfuls of details about a non-notable and tiny-minority view in a mainstream article, I see no possible method of complying with DUE without removing the "depth of detail, quantity of text" that DUE prohibits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view". "should not be removed" links to WP:PRESERVE. Gigs (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, let me give you a scenario: You go to Myocardial infarction and discover that a good-faith editor has added four screenfuls of "information". The information is sourced to a prominent AltMed magazine and is therefore "verifiable". The import of the "information" is that the best treatment for a suspected heart attack is to take white willow bark and drink some water. It cites a "study" by the author that says 20 clients have done this, and EKGs done months later showed that none of them had any sign of heart damage.

I am defining this information as complying with WP:V. I am defining this information as massively violating WP:UNDUE and being unable to comply with WP:N, so it can't be split into its own article. What would you do with these four screenfuls of sourced text? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

An older version read "Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV"." Gigs (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When we remove material due to WP:UNDUE, we are not removing it "solely on the grounds that it is POV". We are removing it on the grounds that discussing it gives that POV undue weight. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: WhatamI's comment that: "Bad information should be removed, not "preserved". Good information that happens to be poorly presented should be preserved (and the presentation fixed), not removed"... That could be a nutshell for how PRESERVE and HANDLE work in tandem... I would love to see something like that stated in the policy. Blueboar (talk)

I'd agree with that; but I think the main point of this policy, which should also be included, is that if you're not sure whether information is good or bad, you should give it the benefit of the doubt. (Unless it's defamatory to someone living.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)