User:Alex Shih/ArbNotes/Infobox

Home   Talk   Workspace   Subpages   Archives   Logs

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
• Read through Talk:Harry_Lauder#RfC_on_infobox
  • Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/Arbitration_report
• Attend to Talk:Mary Shelley to identify any patterns that can be addressed
• User:RexxS/Infobox factors

Motion (Infoboxes)

I) Remedy 4.3.8 has been introduced, and the Arbitration Committee hereby authorize standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to the English Wikipedia use of Infoboxes, broadly construed.

II) Any challenge of existing consensus over infobox on a specific page must meet the prescribed list of criteria. Failure to meet the criteria would lead to the challenge being dropped, and any subsequent disruption would be dealt with by uninvolved administrators.

Infobox notes

• It's important to note that Infobox disputes are not always about yes or no to Infobox. As pointed out previously in en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/Arbitration report,

Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include a vast amount of irrelevant or inappropriate information from the article.

1. There has to be a way to inform new editors on the intricate nature of Infobox. Preferably in the form of edit notice, if possible.
2. If a previous Infobox discussion has already taken place, it should be clearly linked in the article talk page to prevent recycling the discussion once again.
3. Once these two conditions are established, discretionary sanctions should be put in place for persistent incivility and poor conduct.
4. Editors and administrators should be reminded that inciting incivility should be treated the same as being uncivil. Editorial decision of main contributors shouldn't be dismissed as ownership, if the challenge is not specific to the article itself. Instead of reminding, editors should refrain from discussion about Infobox in general. More clerking from uninvolved administrator should be encouraged once a standardized guideline is made available.

• It's equally important to understand that opinions expressed in the Signpost are no more than opinions, and often fly in the face of reality:
  • Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields ... is a completely evidence-free assertion. The statement ignores the whole field of digital humanities: "the study of the humanities with the recognition that the printed word is no longer the main medium for knowledge production and distribution" – as well as the fact that thousands of articles in liberal arts fields have infoboxes. Nobody can generalise about whether any particular category or discipline is suited to infoboxes or not. That's why we have the article-by-article policy.
  • ... where they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article ... By their very nature as a concise summary, infoboxes are bound to repeat information already in the lead, just as the lead repeats information already in the body of the article. In neither case is that an argument against having an infobox or a lead, as the differing presentations of redundant information is an important purpose in each.
  • ... are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader ... Nobody has ever presented a case where the presence of an infobox misleads or oversimplifies a topic for the reader. There are many cases where a particular field could oversimplify or mislead, but that's part of the debate about whether to include a particular field. It is intellectual indolence to exclude an infobox in order to avoid a discussion on which fields are suitable.
  • ... include a vast amount of irrelevant or inappropriate information from the article. This is the same argument about which fields to include and rarely has any bearing on the decision to have an infobox.
• As for the suggestions:
  1. Most pages have no edit notices and I don't believe that editors read them unless they contain a device to draw attention to them. Editors naturally focus their attention on the text editing area, and I suggest that a hidden comment at the point where text would be inserted is superior to an edit notice in its chance of being read.
  2. Linking to previous discussions is a good thing. But you cannot prevent discussions from being repeated under threat of sanction without breaching one of the fundamental principles of editing: Consensus can change. You can draw attention to previous discussions, and you can require editors to familiarise themselves with the background before commenting; you can even establish guidance that expects a certain time to have elapsed before a discussion is revived, but you cannot set a decision in stone that cannot ever be challenged under threat of sanction without also setting your judgement above that of the editing community. And that is unacceptable.
  3. Discretionary sanctions are a crazy way of trying to deal with a complex problem. DS differ from ordinary sanctions in only two ways: (1) they are are more difficult to reverse{[snd}} and I've seen no suggestion that sanctions against editors in the infobox field are being reversed; (2) one administrator at AE can take a decision regardless of anyone else's opinion. If that's the reason you want DS, you need to think again. Anybody who trusts Sandstein's judgement over that of the whole community needs their head examining.
  4. The decision to have an infobox or not requires weighing the strengths of various considerations against each other. It is a mistake to debar general principles from those considerations. To give an example, all infoboxes contain metadata, and it is ridiculous to suggest that the value of metadata cannot be taken into consideration in reaching a decision because it's a "discussion about Infobox in general". All of the rationales need to be judged to reach a fair and balanced conclusion.