User:Nbound/RoadsEssay

This page may still be expanded

Introduction

Recently in reviews there have been three seemingly new issues which have been declared by some editors as in appropriate. These are:

1. Extra sections in general
2. Chronological "bouncing"
3. Undue weight of topics/subtopics

And now we have a push to form these into guidelines or rules required to reach the higher echelons of our quality rating system.

Firstly I will discuss why this prescriptive approach is a bad idea, and how it hurts the articles and wider projects. This is really the main problem I have with the entire thing, the fact that I also dont agree with the specific contentions in generalist terms isnt necessarily relevant to the argument, and the second section could even be thought of as optional, though it will likely still interest those forming opinions on the subject.

Secondly I will focus on these three points specifically and why they should not be ratified as guidelines or rules. This is much smaller than the first and may be expanded to cover specific arguments.

Importance of issues and focal points of interest are highly subjective. I would suggest the people most equipped to set out their article in an appropriate manner are those who have taken the time to research the road, and those with the real world links to it. This section sums up my personal thoughts on these sections.

This is not a spur of the moment decision, another wikipedia "drama", or some kind of "political" ploy. Considerable thought has gone into choosing my position, and I hope that this shows itself in the following sections.

Section I

The prescriptive approach and its wider implications

Within the roads project we have a small number of prescriptive content stipulations; basically these state that all roads and routes should have an infobox of one kind or another, they should have a description of the alignment taken, and they should have a history section detailing the general history of the structure. These largely apply to all Wikipedia articles in general terms, and are relatively uncontroversial.

Wikipedia itself, in terms of the presentation of that text is already relatively prescriptive, few people can honestly say they have mastered every facet covered in the MOS. The remainder of our roads specific prescriptive guidelines fall into this field. (How do I present the information in this infobox? How do I present the information in the RJL? Why cant I bold that? Dont put that route marker there!)

As far as the review process goes, the intended product is an article that meets MOS requirements, the applicable criteria, and that meets general uncontroversial standards of spelling, wording and grammar.

So whats wrong?

Throughout Wikipedia, the extended structure of the article is largely left up to the editor(s) creating it. As all of us are aware, to understand the context of content applicable to each road you must know the road relatively intimately. The further one is removed from a road, the less likely any appraisal would be accurate. Similarly; roads, like cities and landscapes are tied to our sense of place, we will all inherently find local roads more interesting than those across the state, nation, or globe. Our own personal biases (cultural, philospohical, pre-formed stereotypes, etc.) and also our specific areas of interests further affect the value we assign to roads and sections of content, and it is inappropriate to claim any opinion in these regards as more valid than any other. Most of us are fine with a little compromise here and there to make readers feel more comfortable if there are specific problem areas in an article, though its certainly impossible to please absolutely everyone.

Editors on wikipedia fall into various groups (described here). And prescriptive content guidelines tend to favour one group over another; the problem is that any of these groups, if the focus is shifted in their favour - tend to be detrimental to the greater project. Similarly, there is often very little that the various editor types all agree on. Ensuring one philosophy always has the upper hand alienates editors which do not necessarily share the same opinion. No editor wants to put in multiple hours of work (and lets face it, large articles may be days or weeks of research and typing), to then be told that they need to remove information. Or that theyve focused to much on a topic that is probably integral to the roadway. Of course, sometimes we miss things and a friendly pointer wont hurt (tell me more about those historic bridges you mentioned? You've already explained the 1964 deviation in some detail - theres no need for a further summary).Editors which do not agree are more likely become frustrated with the review process, and therefore abandon it; as in their eyes it no longer achieves its stated purpose. Alienated active editors are relatively likely to be very conservative with their future editing pattern, while less active editors are more likely to leave the project entirely.

Wikipedia already has substantial guidance on article content and balancing, it is actually quite inappropriate for us to go beyond what is prescribed by the community with our own local consensus.

Sure, but if its warranted, we'll allow it? right? - perhaps... but who decides that? Even the most fair and balanced editors are still going to have problems in unfamiliar areas. Similarly, what rules will we use, who will interpret them, how will they be interpreted. What appears to be an open and shut case to many, may need to be argued at length to possibly convince others. Most of us at some point have hard to already argue a position we would consider clear to convince others, why encourage further combative behaviour. Similarly, nominators may choose to request editors that likely disagree with some of the content no longer review their articles, or worse again, form review cabals with editors sympathetic to their choices. This is not the kind of review environment I find particularly appealing or helpful to the project at large. For the most part, right now, there is very little issue with who reviews what as long as the review process give the outcomes mentioned earlier (the intended product is an article that meets MOS requirements, the applicable criteria, and that meets general uncontroversial standards of spelling, wording and grammar.)

But who gives a shit about <thing>? - Well you might not, but others might... and similarly, if you find a step-by-step overview of changing route alignments is similar to watching paint dry; or an Environmental impact section is likey scooping out your eyeballs with a a rusty spoon; even somone who loves reading about some section in their home state will probably be bored to tears on some road with the same section on the other side of the planet. - hell, one of the most basic arguments if its kept separate to some extent (subsection/section depending on content amount), then its easier to skip it!- This is why we structure articles at all. But we dont write these articles for us, we write them for everyone. Locals, fellow countrymen, and randoms who just swing by. For these higher echelon articles, people are not expected to be kept wanting in its content. Its not upto us to declare things as "not interesting", thats not how Wikipedia works. In the most generalist view, these all provide extra context (So thats why the ploughed through those wetlands? Heh, compared to <local road> this road seems quite congested? Wow, thats alot of fatalities, no wonder they plan to upgrade that section! Wow there is a lot of historic bridges along this route! This road has contributed a fair bit to our culture! and so on and so forth).

That doesnt mean that these sections have to be included for every road, or even most of them. The information may not be available, if your road was created 200 years ago, theres hardly going to be an EI! Some short backround in rural <state> is going to benefit little from much AADT data.

Maybe the only Environmental Impact (EI) information available is for a recent deviation, it might be upto you to then see how much of an impact that had on that deviation's alignment. Little to none and they just went with whats cheap? Not much point mentioning much about the EI. Maybe they had to divert around the habitat of the endangered amphibious fish caterpillar bird which is only found locally? Maybe there were protests! Maybe laws got changed one way or the other because of a roads EI (its happened!). Would be a reason to include that then!

Why not have a section for everything then? - Well no, lets use some commonsense... as is generally applied elsewhere.

So, youve got all the answers do you? - Hell no, the only people with those answers are the ones who steward the particular article, whether individually or as group. You should retain your control over your content, not me; Ive never heard of your road. I probably dont care much about its history in any great deal, who its named after, why they built it when/where they did, how busy it is. You probably dont care too much about those things on my roads either. Im cool with that, and I definitely appreciate your reviews. If you have structuring information I may even take it into account (heh, my section on <thing> only has three lines; I agree, theres little point keeping it separate), but it should never be forced, as formal rules, or informally as part of the article review structure.

We just shouldnt be enforcing a particular philosophy as roads article law, we shouldnt be extending the review process beyond that which it was intended, wilfully ignoring published information that others will find interesting just because we dont particularly, we shouldnt be pushing our own biases on other editors, or all roads articles. These decisions are left upto stewarding editors (either singular or plural). Using a random (in the context of the road) opion to place a value on what is "good" and what "isnt good" is only going to lead to poor articles. These kind of "rules" go against the entire point of Wikipedia.

Implications

• Alienates editors (Decreased activity or no longer active)
• Favours particular philosophies that arent necessarily shared (inappropriate)
• Leaves content decisions in the hands of editors which may not necessarily understand the contextual nuances of a road. (A group of editors on the articles talk page, or a singular editor who has researched the topic, could be overruled by a reviewer with a partial understanding or tangential interest)
• Inconsistent application due to inherent biases within all editors/reviewers. (lack of context - cultural/personal biases and the like)
• Combative behaviour from editors being required to plead specific exceptions or reviewers attempting to back up their decisions
• Potential for exclusion of reviewers themselves and potential for review cabals and other nasties to form (or in general, politicisation of the review process)
• We are going to see well written articles full of content fail at reviews, because they dont meet <editor x>'s expectations
• We are going to see well written articles full of content fail at reviews, because they dont meet <editor x>'s expectations, despite <editor y> having passed an article of the same structure -time period- ago.
• We are going to see well written articles full of content fail at reviews period/full stop
• It needs to be noted that existing high quality articles would need to be checked over (or at worst re-reviewed) by non-steward editors (editors not associated with the roads) to ensure they conform to any new standards made. From what I can see quite a few already do not meet what is being suggested. It would be inappropriate to maintain two standards depending on age of promotion
• Even amongst those who feel a prescriptive approach is warranted - agreement between these editors will be hard to find. (Hey! When I supported this, I didnt quite mean that!, Well I do think that is boring, but THAT isnt!?)
• Articles become based on opinions rather then whats published in reliable sources
• Reviews no longer serve their purpose: the intended product is an article that meets MOS requirements, the applicable criteria, and that meets general uncontroversial standards of spelling, wording and grammar.

So what can we agree on?

All editors wish to see their roads do well, remain engaged in the roads community, and have their contributions (as admin, editor, reviewer, project organiser, mapper, shielder) valued.

Our goal should be to support these aims to the best of our combined abilities.

The best way to do this is to maintain a friendly working environment without drama and inappropriate controls. Foster an approachable community where one can rely on advice. And not place value judgements on editors' contributions because they dont follow your particular wikipedia philosophy. No single editor or group can decided

I hope that you agree, or at least found my contribution worth of consideration. I hope that we all can continue to work well, creating interesting road articles within the relatively friendly environment that exists today. I hope we can continue to grow that, with closer working ties and joint projects.

May we all work for better roads articles into the future.

Section II

Extra sections

EI is available in reliable published sources, the largest part of the planning process (these documents are often dozens to hundreds of pages long), defines where and why a road will be placed beyond the general "we need a road there" requirement, sometimes this information cant be easily meshed with the history, at least not without creating walls of text, and making finding the information more ambiguous.

Various traffic information (and road safety/quality information) provides context as to usage levels, build quality, and so on... No, I dont believe we should include all these stats in every article. Only traffic data could really be argued as applicable to all roads, and even that may only deserve a very small mention on many roads.

Strictly speaking all sections could be merged into general desciption and history sections. Even the proponents of banning sections have articles with multiple non-standard sections - why? "they are justified". Well Im sure you think they are... (and I agree that they are too, even at the very worst instances I recognise I dont necessarily have the research/cultural context to make these judgements - I certainly wouldnt fail your article because of it), lets extend everyone that same courtesy. Think of all readers, not just those who like the same things about roads as you do.

Chronological "bouncing"

The main point to make here is that readers are not idiots. Like plenty of other higher ranked articles (including roads) on Wikipedia, restarting a timeline for a particular theme is not an issue.

Undue weight

None of the guidelines in wikipedia relate to this except for minority views on things. That kind of argument rarely if ever even comes up on roads articles. If theres published information it needs to be summarised and inserted. Its not upto us to cherry pick or place value judgements on things that particular editors find interesting or otherwise.

Questions?

Please post them in the mainline discussion