User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 20

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all you do!

NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Following up on this discussion, I have drafted text to propose to add to wp:Consensus#Through discussion:

Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports removal or reinstatement of content when the content is the subject of (a) a current discussion or (b) a prior discussion that reached consensus. In such cases editors should link to the applicable discussion. In all other cases editors should instead cite policy, sources, or another substantive basis for the removal or reinstatement.

I would appreciate your "pre-publication" thoughts and improvements. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, can you tell me a story about a dispute, and the outcomes you imagine if we do or don't have this proposal in the policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The text is designed to discourage "no consensus," "discuss first," and similar vacuous edit summaries and talk page assertions (I disagree so there is no consensus and I win) - the sort of activity that Francis Schonken engaged in. The recipient of such treatment could cite this text and say "got anything else?" At that point, one hopes, the discussion would turn substantive. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, I don't think it will fit the scenario you mention.

• You: Bold edit
• Them: I disagree, so there is no consensus and I win.
• You: Policy says that's not good enough. You can only revert if it's the subject of a current discussion.
• Them: Yeah, well, this discussion right here is "a current discussion", so I win again.

It might be more pointful to try to convince people to adopt a rule that "'No consensus' requires at least two people on both sides of a dispute. When only one editor holds a viewpoint, the consensus is against that viewpoint." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

Lack of consensus, standing alone, only supports removal or reinstatement of content when the content is the subject of (a) a current substantive discussion or (b) a prior discussion that reached consensus. In such cases editors should link to the applicable discussion. In all other cases editors should instead cite policy, sources, or another substantive basis for the removal or reinstatement.

Is that better? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, in practice, I don't think that will help. All of my objections are always, automatically substantive.

Also, you last sentence seems to rule out common sense. Is "bad grammar" a substantive basis? Or "confusing"? (What if it's perfectly clear to you, but I can't figure out what it means?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Boy, you are a tough customer. Let's say you're right and my proposal won't have the benefit that I think it will have. Do you have any concern that it will make things worse? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, I see only indirect losses with this (e.g., loss of transparency, because a newcomer will read the rules and then have to discover that the written rules aren't the real rules). It's more pointless than problematic.

I think that there's some potential for doing something that's actually useful on this subject. If you want to explore this, try (off wiki, if you want) re-writing your idea into a series of if...then statements for both sides, and see if that produces useful insights. For example, "If you were a bold editor and you got reverted with an explanation of 'no consensus', then you may/should/must..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying for more of a generic policy statement rather than a how to. For that see Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_solely_to_"no_consensus"#How_to_respond_to_a_"no_consensus"_edit_summary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, IMO generic policy statements tend not to affect behavior as much as a handful of "Do not" statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI

A discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice

Template:Parenthetical referencing editnotice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Derogatory words

I'm concerned with your repeated statements about editors choosing wording in order to be derogatory. I also don't see relevant sanctions notices here on your talk page. Could you please stop making such statements, avoid the assumptions they are based upon, and make it clear you're aware of WP:ARBPS? --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, there are multiple sources saying that the word pseudoscience is derogatory and that is over-used to make a derogatory statement about things that aren't technically pseudoscience. I and other editors have cited some of them on wiki. You are not enough of a Pollyanna to believe that Wikipedia editors are somehow immune to this process. We need to stop using pseudoscience as a catch-all term for bad science, superstition, religion, and other subjects. Just because you can find two books by one author who says feng shui is a pseudoscience rather than a collection of superstitions doesn't mean that one author is correct or that putting his view in the first sentence of the article is WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Lots of terms are considered derogatory by some. You really should indicate sources, rather than say that they exist in a discussion somewhere.

I didn't say that the term wasn't derogatory. To say that terms are being chosen to be derogatory is a problem. --Hipal (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, I'm convinced that we have some editors who want to denigrate some subjects.

As for sources on the word, consider:

• "Since the derogatory connotation is an essential characteristic of the word "pseudoscience", an attempt to extricate a value-free definition of the term would not be meaningful. An essentially value-laden term has to be defined in value-laden terms." [1]
• "definitions of pseudoscience range widely among authorities depending on their personal criteria for an acceptable scientific method, and the only consistently clear quality of pseudoscience is that the term is derogatory" [2]
• "“Pseudoscience” is a derogatory term skeptics use to refer to a cluster or system of beliefs whose adherents, scientists argue, mistakenly claim is based on natural laws and scientific principles" [3]
• "Pseudoscience is a pejorative term used to denote practices, beliefs, or systems that appear on the surface to be scientific or “sciency,” but which are rejected by the mainstream of scientists." [4]
• ""Pseudoscience" and "pseudoscientific" are unavoidably defamatory words" [5] (p. 496)

I'm pretty sure that you can find more such sources if you spend a few minutes with your favorite search engine. I'm also pretty sure that you will not find any reliable sources that claim it's a term of praise or appreciation. I've never seen any that even claim the term is merely neutral. We use derogatory words to label things that we think are bad. So long as we're using the correct derogatory word(s), then IMO that is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs, but it's not an issue. We don't avoid or whitewash content because something may be seen as derogatory.

I'm convinced that we have some editors who want to denigrate some subjects If that's going to be your argument, you better provide strong evidence to avoid finding yourself facing sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that any editor who has spent any time around the noticeboards could disagree with me. We assume good faith; we do not assume that editors are unbiased or unmotivated to have articles reflect their disdain for politicians from the "wrong" political party, for subjects on the "wrong" side of geopolitical disputes, etc.

I don't think that representing the majority POVs as being the majority POVs is "whitewashing". I think that representing a minority POV as being the majority POV is a violation of NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to use such bad faith assumptions as rationale for your discussions, expect that they'll be used as evidence of your assuming bad faith of others in order to influence policy or content. --Hipal (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, would you like to explain how you think I'm making bad-faith assumptions?

"Bad faith" on wiki usually means that someone believes that another editor is deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia. I've been saying that editors are deliberately trying to improve articles, to the best of their ability and knowledge, under the belief that their edits are fully supported by every policy, by saying that bad things are bad. Where is the bad faith in my statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I started this discussion with, I'm concerned with your repeated statements about editors choosing wording in order to be derogatory. --Hipal (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think that editors would use a word that, according to the reliable sources above and elsewhere, is "value-laden", "derogatory", "pejorative", and "unavoidably defamatory", if editors don't actually intend to disparage the subject. Most experienced editors are good writers, and we don't normally use a derogatory term when we don't want to derogate the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith. Don't make such statements without evidence. These are policies. --Hipal (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, are we agreed on these statements of fact?

• The word pseudoscience is a derogatory word (see, e.g., all the sources above).
• Editors are using that word in articles.

Separately, do we agree on this assumption?

• Editors are using that word in articles intentionally, rather than accidentally.

Do you disagree with any of these statements? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This line of discussion appears to ignore the relevant policies entirely. I don't want to see you dig yourself any deeper. --Hipal (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, it would help me understand why you say that it is a violation of some unspecified policy(ies) for me to say that editors are intentionally using derogatory words in some articles.

Some of the logical options include:

• you don't personally believe the word is derogatory, no matter what the reliable sources say about that;
• you don't believe that editors are using this word in articles (I include this merely for completeness); and
• you believe that editors are using the word accidentally, or at least without being aware that it is a derogatory word.

It's just a guess on my part, but I suspect that the real disconnect is:

• you worry that editors maybe aren't supposed to use any of the thousands of derogatory words in articles

but that's not actually true. We're supposed to use derogatory words such as criminal, disinformation, and pseudoscience – if and when those terms are well-supported by and given due weight according to reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, this line of discussion appears to ignore the relevant policies entirely. I'm assuming you are familiar with WP:ARBPS. Given your experience editing Wikipedia, that should be enough.

Please do not continue making comments that contain accusations or insinuations that editors are adding content in order to further their personal biases rather than presenting the viewpoints verified in reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal,I'm not willing to pretend that some editors spend a huge amount of time on fringe and pseudoscientific topics, and to fight tooth and nail to get certain labels in articles, merely out of a disinterested, impersonal desire to present whatever viewpoints happen to be present in reliable sources. We are not such angels, and their editing patterns don't align with it. We have editors who add "it's pseudoscience" whenever they can find a source for it, and who never agree to remove that statement, no matter what other sources say. (We also have editors with the opposite viewpoint, although they seem more likely to limit themselves to a single field.)

I think you need to quit threatening editors who don't share your viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not willing to pretend No one is asking you to.

I think you need to quit threatening editors who don't share your viewpoint I've made no threats and expressed no viewpoints other than to follow policy. I'd hoped that would not be in question. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You are asking me to pretend that some editors aren't motivated to denigrate subjects, and your comments about my belief (doubtless one shared by anyone who's spent any time at Donald Trump) being block-worthy violations of policy and sanctionable under ARBPS are threats. If you didn't intend to communicate these things, then you need to work on the clarity of your writing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL is quite clear that such contentious labels are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Terjen (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not continue making comments that contain accusations or insinuations that editors are adding content in order to further their personal biases rather than presenting the viewpoints verified in reliable sources. What's unclear about this? --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, what's unclear is why you keep telling me to do what I'm already doing. This makes me believe that you don't think I'm assuming good faith. In reality, I am fully convinced that every editor who adds a sourced statement about something dubious being pseudoscientific is acting in good faith. I believe that it's possible for an editor to say, with the absolute best of intentions, in a deliberate attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, that nearly all forms of altmed are a long list of disparaging, derogatory, belittling words. Pretty much everything ever listed at Alternative cancer treatments deserves those labels. I cheerfully and in the best of faith disparaged and derogated a number of them myself some years back, when the article was in much worse shape (and more of a list) than it is now.

"Good faith" means that I'm trying to improve the article, including trying to improve the article by saying that the subject is bad/immoral/pseudoscientific/quackery/racist/sexist/scam/every derogatory (but still formal/encyclopedic) word you can think of.

"Good faith" does not mean that I succeeded in improving the article. "Good faith" does not mean that I am unbiased. "Good faith" does not mean that I'm not POV pushing. "Good faith" does not mean that I don't pull up Category:Alternative medicine and see how many of those I can find a WP:PARITY-compliant source that calls it my favorite derogatory label. (Or, in other contexts, Category:Religious belief and doctrine and figure out how many I can call heresies, or Category:Political people and see how many I can call fascists, or whatever subject area interests me.) As long as *I* believe that my edits improve Wikipedia (e.g., by labeling as much altmed as possible as being quackery), then I'm acting in good faith.

I do not believe that any editor has ever added a sourced statement that a subject is pseudoscience without that editor believing this statement improved Wikipedia. I believe that every single one of those edits was made in good faith.

Having (hopefully) read this, do you still believe that I have accused anyone of adding these claims in bad faith (i.e., for the purpose of harming Wikipedia)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

[6] I don't get the impression that editors care whether they are using the word precisely, so long as they can use this derogatory word. I should have left diffs from the start.

I don't see any good coming from continuing this discussion. Sorry I didn't include diffs with my very first statement. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal, using words imprecisely ≠ trying to hurt Wikipedia. That is not a claim of bad-faith editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see any good coming from continuing this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

mail

Hello, WhatamIdoing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I/O Psychology

WhatamIdoing, I write, once more, to ask your help. I view you as a neutral editor. I am involved in a dispute with another editor, Patriciamoorehead. She has reversed a particular edit I made in the i/o psychology entry. And reversed a compromise edit I offered. We go back and forth. I don't see a way out of the dispute without calling upon an experienced, neutral editor. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246, sorry for the late reply; I'd overlooked this. I wonder if this dispute might benefit from the application of some time. Let it be m:The Wrong Version for a little while (even a couple of weeks), and work on another section of the article. Then go back and try the smallest possible edit to the disputed area – even a slight copyedit. Let that rest for a few days and see what happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I value your advice. I tried a compromise edit but the other editor even reversed the compromise edit. You have many more edits than I have. I respect your experience. The disagreement is about the content of one sentence, not of a magnitude that a "wrong version" complaint should be filed. I will follow your advice and leave the sentence alone for two or three weeks.

In May and June, I worked a little every day editing the psychology entry. It is not that the facts were wrong although a small number were. The writing needed to be clearer. My thinking is that clear, informative writing will attract readers, readers who won't quit reading after they get through the first paragraph. Clear, informative writing could even attract high school and college students who use WP to consider psychology as a major. Iss246 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If attracting students to the field were the goal, I wonder whether it'd be effective to consider working on related articles. Articles like Friendship or Control (psychology) might be interesting to that audience, and psychology has a lot to say about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability versus due weight in medical topics (and science more generally)

I'm trying to stay away from that page for a bit (I've sunk enough of my limited wiki-time into it), but I wanted to say that I found this comment of yours insightful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @XOR'easter. If you have thoughts on what we should write for a "MEDDUE" or "SCIDUE" page, please let me know. There is the general issue (let's call it WP:Verifiability and due weight), but I think that it's simpler in the hard sciences, because facts about a source (e.g., the reputation of the publisher, whether it's a review – information that's independent of what the source says) give you a bigger clue about the overall level of acceptance in the field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll mull it over. Spelling out the different categories of sources that one finds in the hard sciences could be useful for multiple purposes, and offhand I don't think we do that explicitly anywhere. (There have definitely been times when I've been cleaning up articles and wondered, "Why is this cited to a random website when textbooks exist?!") XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

One of my goals in starting Wikipedia:Biomedical information was to address the idea that systematic reviews are best. They are best – if you want to know whether a treatment works. But you're never going to get a systematic review on whether the best name for a certain medical condition is X or Y, or whether the first description was published in 1919, or whether a treatment is socially acceptable.

I'd usually rather have information cited to a website than to nothing, but textbooks are great. I wish that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library could get access to a couple of reputable medical textbooks. Imagine how much we could do, even if only one editor was allowed to use it at any single point in time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Template:COVID-19 pandemic and open up all the collapsed boxes. I'm not sure how many links there are, but my text editor says the wiki text has 1539 pairs of open brackets. Wrt Covid, DUE left the building and went somewhere nice on holiday quite some time ago.

There are too many editors with Covid blinkers on and agendas to promote (on all sides) for there to be any chance of a reasonable debate on this issue right now. I think better to accept Covid-19 is an outlier and just make sure that what people write about is as accurate and fair per reliable sources as we can. The dogma that works for both common-or-garden and controversial biomedical topics is broken for Covid, and not proving to be acceptable to a large number of editors. If we are too dogmatic about Covid, then that mob will wreck the guidelines and good practice used and seen elsewhere. -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideological contributions to Wikipedia

Hi there, it's a long time since we've really been in contact, and I've been mostly absent from Wikipedia, so I'm sorry for making a comment out of the blue. I'm very concerned about a small number of editors - generally just 3 - who are systematically making changes to Wikipedia articles to align them with 'gender critical', anti-gender perspectives. These perspectives generally introduce an undue certainty about specific narrow norms in relation to the meaning of biological sex. Affected pages include sex, gender identity, intersex, hermaphrodite, specific traits like 5α-Reductase deficiency and true hermaphroditism. I've just reverted a set of changes to 5α-Reductase deficiency. Because there are 3 editors, it is easy for them to team up on other editors, and change pages with low numbers of active editors. I'm not sure what to do about this, and I hope you might have some ideas - thank you. Probably I should ping User:Alison as well. Trankuility (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trankuility, thanks for the note. It's always good to see you on wiki.

Short-term, it may be helpful to post notes at the obvious WikiProjects (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies).

Long-term, we probably need to update Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles to mention intersex. I started an informal list on its talk page for all the things that we should remember to discuss. Feel free to add a line to the list.

For the general articles, I suspect that the old-fashioned approach of WP:YESPOV is going to be the only functional path forward. This means something like "In East Asia since forever, a woman is anyone who dresses and behaves that way. In the Western world since the 1990s, a woman is anyone who claims to feel like a woman. In Africa and the Middle East and for nearly all of recorded history in the West, a woman is anyone with the female genitalia" – in other words, presenting all the beliefs, without anointing any culture's belief as the One True™ definition of sex or gender. Usually (not always, but usually), when people see their personal beliefs represented fairly alongside other beliefs, then they quit trying to cram their beliefs into the article. This requires a certain amount of intellectual capacity on the part of the editors (enough intelligence to understand that some people see bacon and think "unclean" and others see bacon and think "yum!" – or, in this instance, that different people have different conceptions of sex and gender, and that these other definitions aren't wrong), but most Wikipedia editors are smart enough to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. I will look at the Manual of Style page when I have time. In the meantime, thanks for putting your oar in on several of those pages. Trankuility (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Remember context matters

Keep in mind about the whole WP:CONTEXTMATTERS policy.CycoMa (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

CONTEXTMATTERS does not mean that you can reject a med school textbook because you've decided that it's a "biology" article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you need to be an expert in biology to doctor?CycoMa (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The physicians I've talked to believe themselves to be experts in biology; the biologists I've talked to believe themselves to be an expert at most in a narrow subset of biology.

I don't think it has anything to do with your insistence that a MEDRS-compliant med school textbook cannot be used to define human biological sex, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware that article is talking about sex from various species. Yet you are making an argument we need to focus more on humans. I’m surprised you understand why that’s problematic.CycoMa (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also do you have sources for that? I mean do you need to understand more than human biology to be an doctor?CycoMa (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Do I have sources for what? For my personal conversations with other people? For MEDRS saying that medical textbooks are "excellent secondary sources" and recommending them whenever we want to present the "prevailing medical or scientific consensus" in an article? For something else?

As for whether you need to understand more than human biology to be a doctor, the answer is yes. Specifically, you need to understand both the non-biological "arts" of medicine (e.g., how to help people gain confidence in your advice; the many different things that people mean when they say "no"), and you need to understand non-human biology (e.g., how to culture various bacteria; what conditions promote or inhibit common fungi; how radiation affects DNA). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me just clarify I’m not saying medical sources shouldn’t be included in that article at all. It’s just they aren’t ideal. Not to mention I don’t think the sources you provided are due weight for that article.CycoMa (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry about this.CycoMa (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Page size

Hi there! Just FYI, this page recently passed the 200kb mark, and you may want do some archiving. Only mentioning it since I saw your note at the top. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @Firefangledfeathers. I really enjoyed the discussion with User:SmokeyJoe, but it did turn out to be long. If we say twice as much next time, and if I listen better, we might someday solve all the world's problems (or at least all of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)'s problems).  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Solving global problems takes at least 600k bytes and three tables I'm afraid. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I really am sorry about what I have said back there. Medical sources are fine for articles like sex.

It’s just some medical sources on the biology of sex and gender contradict each other at times.CycoMa (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I went to some wiki projects and notice boards and I guess the sources are fine.CycoMa (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me recommend WP:YESPOV to you. Sources that look at a question from different disciplines will often have slightly different viewpoints. It's often best to include all the significant viewpoints, rather than trying to declare that one profession has the One True™ answer, and all the others are wrong. Evolutionary biology can tell you which size gametes means male or female; medicine can tell you that you can "diagnose" the biological sex of an individual human, even if that person isn't producing any gametes, and that the diagnostic method has nothing to do with gender identity. (This, of course, is why we specify "biological sex" in some articles, because that lets us clearly differentiate between independently measurable aspects of the physical body vs. other definitions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I guess how I said came off as aggressive. I’m not really against the inclusion of medical sources in general for that article. I probably should have worded it better.CycoMa (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I was honestly thinking about including medical information. Like maybe a section for it.CycoMa (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa, I don't think you want to have a separate section about medical information. I'll leave a note on the talk page with an idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As expected

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&diff=next&oldid=1034524426 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

I hope you are well. I was wondering whether you might be interested in becoming an administrator? I think the project would benefit if you were one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, @Ncmvocalist. I am not interested in becoming an admin. So long as I'm still at the WMF, I don't really want to have advanced user rights on any of my accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Psychology

User:WhatamIdoing, I write to ask you to look into a disagreement I have with editor Brokenrecordsagain. The disagreement is in the psychology entry. They are inflating the contribution of i/o psychology to research on work and health, echoing past disagreements with another editor. Another user, Psyc12, is involved in the disagreement. Although I don't see eye-to-eye with Psyc12, they are more knowledgeable about psychology and more reasonable than Brokenrecordsagain. The disagreement involves text in the Health, well-being, and social change section of the psychology entry. The talk page documents the nature of the disagreement. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iss246, assuming that the remaining dispute is the difference between "about half" and "most", then you can't use that source to make either claim. "Here are the names of some graduate programs" does not allow you to make any claims about how many of them are organized this way or that way. If a better source can't be found, then you all will have to remove the sentence.

At this point, given the history, I think you should assume that all "new" accounts are the same guy. The long-term solution to his problems likely lies in getting multiple "formal" sources to take Cato's approach to Carthage, and just endlessly repeat that OHP isn't just a part of I/O because it's illogical to think that any interdisciplinary field could be just a part of one field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you user:WhatamIdoing. I explained my original edit regarding justifying the sentence that about half the OHP programs in the U. S. are within i/o programs. I placed the explanation on bottom of the psychology talk page.

But there is a larger issue in the Health, well-being, and social change section of the psychology entry. I would like you to weigh in on that larger issue.

Echoing disagreements with a previous editor, BR keeps using the psychology entry to inflate i/o psychology's contribution to research on work and health in the twentieth century. If i/o psychologists were so keen to improve worker health, why was there a need for OHP to develop? I/o psychologists, in the few occasions when they were interested in health, they focused on fatigue because fatigue reduces productivity. There are rare exceptions. Arthur Kornhauser is an example of an exception. Unlike most i/o psychologists, who were on the side of management, Kornhauser was on the side of the health of labor. I would appreciate your applying your editorial judgment on this larger issue. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you continue to monitor, and weigh in on, the edits in the Health, well-being, and social change section of the psychology entry. It needs the help of an experienced editor like yourself. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, I ask you to weigh in on a discussion taking place on bottom of the psychology talk page. I value your judgment. I don't know what your judgment will be. I was hoping that there could be some resolution to a disagreement. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Irish people

Hi, I reverted your edit to the article, because it refers to people living in the Caribbean, not in Ireland. Denisarona (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Denisarona. I've moved it to the correct section as a result of your clarification. The existence of modern generations never explain the "Origins and antecedents" of our ancestors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is just to let you know I will not be responding to your e-mail. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I don't need any sort of response, not even to say that you read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources that superficially seem ok, for the GNG, but are not

Hey WAID. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

(Sometimes, if I switch tabs to check things, this tool loses everything written)

I hope you don’t think I am obsessed with male genital regions, or think that I think you you have a particular interest, but I want to ask for your further opinion, relating to Manscaped MfD. It compares with Tommy John underwear. I think the reason for similarity is that superficially impressive sources, including Bloomsbury, Forbes, even The Wall Street Journal, let slip sub-standard journalism sometimes.

I think the theme is that the typical (male) journalist/contributor, probably with unusual confidence in personal knowledge of the subject area, and a feeling that this is not a critical topic, and a sense that things “men’s-health” should get an easy pass, is prepared to write these things with a lower-than-usual threshold. This, in particular, reads to me like a tongue-in-cheek parody of journalism. An article about the over-the-top YouTube saturation promotion on a giggly topic, with giggly images to match.

Our recent discussions have considerably depressed my confidence in explaining what exactly is wrong with these sources. I think that we agree that something is wrong, but it is a challenge to explain it in simple terms to others?

What do you think of the sources for the Manscaped draft? Do you agree with my conclusion of “not suitable”? What would be your reasoning?

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @SmokeyJoe. I spent about five minutes looking at the article and a couple of sources, and so far I have two questions for you:

• Do we really want Wikipedia editors to decide when a reliable source is engaging in "sub-standard" work? It's one thing to say that Source 1 is contradicted by Sources 2, 3, 4, and 5, or that Okay-ish Source should be rejected in favor of Much Better Source, but the part where we say that, based on our personal experience of media over the last couple of decades, we think these sources (although apparently getting all the facts right) were wasting their ink on this subject is a problem.
• Is there anything about WP:WHYN that isn't met by this collection of sources? Based on the draft, it seems to be possible to write an article that accurately and fairly describes the subject to a reasonable level.

As for what to do with this draft, I'm a m:mergist, and turning it into a one-paragraph entry in a List of male grooming companies or a List of razor manufacturers would suit me/my biases. Another approach might be to name-check them in an article about the charity they promote or in Manscaping (merged to hair removal as a result of this 2009 AFD, which non-mergists might wish to reconsider the wisdom of).

Also, I suspect that you will be interested in this Wikimania talk about the risk of relying on independent reliable sources, when some entities have both the incentive and the power to influence the sources we're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hi WhatamIdoing. As this thread is still here, it feels better to continue here. I hope you find this.

To go back to the old discussion of gut-feel for non-independence of NCORP sources, may I invite you to critique my contribution here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's always good to see your name in a discussion.

I've only taken a quick look at the DRV discussion, but I'm seeing the same themes. You seem invincibly convinced that independent sources can never have a positive opinion about a commercial subject. In this case, you have declared "a very close perspective" on the basis of sentences that do not appear to refer to the author's personal experience at all, beyond declaring the local building's appearance to be "unimpressive". You "expect" dispassionate sources even though the actual guidelines say that is not a requirement. You declare that there's "Not a chance" that the writer picked up a case and decided that it weighed less than some other camera bags. (Also, you're re-litigating the subject at DRV, rather than explaining how you would have assessed the consensus on the basis of comments previously posted by other people.)

I wonder: Under what circumstances would it be possible for a newspaper to write that $Local Business employs 25 people, and have you not complain that this was obviously taken from the company and the whole article is unusable promotional puffery? If "the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa" is very close perspective, promotional puff, not dispassionate, etc., then how would you write that sentence to communicate the same facts and meet your standards for sounding like an encyclopedia article?

I'm not unhappy that the article was deleted. (I'd have encouraged editors to downplay the first source because it's the local newspaper writing about a local small business.) But I think you are expecting the sources to be encyclopedia articles, too, and I think that is ultimately non-functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am convinced, but I’d prefer the wording that I am convinced that close-perspective all-positive (POV) reviews, of products that are being actively advertising, are to be highly suspected of being non-independent, and that I presume non-independence in these cases in the absence of a claim of independence. A distant perspective comment on the product will have no knowledge of the number and location of the employees. Expecting almost-encyclopedic sources for sources for commercial products *is* very functional, functional in the deletion a lot of commercial-product articles.

I am very concerned that you don’t agree with my approach. I am also concerned that I am arguing against User:Jclemens, who also I find is otherwise never wrong, although often taking a different perspective to get to the same conclusion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But if you're writing a comprehensive encyclopedia article about a business/brand/product, then giving some idea of the number of people involved would be relevant and appropriate information, right? So why shouldn't independent sources cover that information? If you're writing a local-business-makes-good article, you'd want to give some notion of the economic impact on the area. FAC would reject an article about a large multinational corporation if it included no information about its staff, but you seem to be thinking that no good source has a right to think that's relevant, newsworthy information, because nobody with a properly distant perspective could know how many employees it has, or where they work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources for comprehensiveness and bringing the article to FA standard are different to sources that demonstrate WP:CORP notability. The dispassionate, distant-perspective writing that demonstrates notability of an actively advertised commercial product is probably not particularly a reliable source of facts. Once notability is established, then relax on independence in favour of reliability. I note that this article was previously deleted per WP:G11. I am now advocating for a redirect to Camera bag, where it can be covered in the context of many brands of camera bags. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the FAC crowd would agree that there is anything "relaxed" about their sourcing standards. If it's good enough for FAC, it's good enough to scrape by AFD. It is not possible for a subject to meet FAC and yet be non-notable.

I think there's a logic failure in saying that people close to a subject will get their facts wrong. Have you ever talked to a dedicated fan of some pop culture phenomenon? Have you generally found that they were unreliable about what Harry Potter said, or which album was the one with the famous song, or what the boss level is in that video game?

I would be very interested in hearing what you think the primarily purpose of independent sourcing is, if you feel like it's something you can put into words.

On a tangent: The fact that it was once deleted as G11 means nothing. When I can bring myself to look into it, I find that a lot of G11s are not "unambiguous". I just pulled the G11 tag off of Bournemouth 7s Festival. Is this new article an example of Wikipedia's finest? No. If it were printed in 10.5 pt Times New Roman on page 5 in your local newspaper, would you think it was an advertisement with misleading formatting? Also no. Therefore, it is not a G11 candidate. Unambiguous advertisements look like "Buy our product now for low low prices!" Self-promotion and covert advertising are not unambiguous. They could be ads, but they could also be a newbie's best effort at writing an actual encyclopedia article. The fact that they could be something other than advertising means that it is not unambiguous. (The difference between advertising and PR work is something that I wish more editors understood.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The only thing to relax is the stringent expectation of independence for the WP:CORP required two WP:GNG sources required to establish Wikipedia-notability. I recall that you were not fully onboard the table at WP:SIRS? Do you dispute that the two GNG-meeting sources must be independent, as well as "Significant", "Reliable", and "Secondary"? I think the community does hold to this for NCORP topics, and not for non-NCORP topics such as the natural sciences or distant history. Given this notion of a stringent requirement for independence for the two NCORP GNG sources, I think it is fair to say that this stringent requirement is not there for all other sources.

Did I say "people close to a subject will get their facts wrong"? I don't believe that. I think that the closer you are to the source, the more likely you are to have the facts. More independent can mean more difficult to be reliable.

The primary purpose of independent sourcing? The context here is topics at the edge of Wikipedia-notability. The principle driving WP:N is the expectation that others have already written about the topic. The word others implies independence. Two independent sources are required to demonstrate that at least two others have written about the topic. If "yes", the threshold is met, and a standalone article for the topic is allowed. If "no", if there are no two sources independent of the topic, and independent of each other, and at the same time reliable (meaning published in a reliable publication; I would prefer to swap this word for "reputable") and significant (eg WP:100W, not my favourite fight), and secondary (meaning the author has creatively injected transformed information on top of the known facts, eg comment, contextualisation, criticism or analysis), then the topic is deemed "non-notable" and deleted, or merged. The primary purpose of independent sourcing is to establish that others have already written about the topic, and Wikipedia is not leading the way. It is the method keeping promotion out of Wikipedia.

In another context, independent sourcing is important for facts that are contentious or in dispute. That is a very different context. This context would be the norm at WP:MEDRS I guess.

I agree with you on G11. I merely meant to comfort myself on the article having had a troubled history that can't be blamed on me. Have have engaged at WT:CSD on G11 a fair bit, I consider it a messy like sausage making, and note many good Wikipedians far on both sides of me on the questions of laxity of G11. User:RHaworth used to be extremely liberal. User:DGG is regularly probing XfD to find the community position, which is confused. Those who hold the hard line of literal objectify at every word of G11 do not spend much time on deletion fora, lest they go mad, I think. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I read your previous post wrong. You seem instead to be saying that the least-trustworthy, most know-nothing source, the one that is, in your words, "probably not particularly a reliable source of facts", should be the one that we anoint as the reliable source. When I rephrase it this way, I suspect you will not think that it's a good idea. The ultimate goal should be figuring out whether we can write a policy-compliant encyclopedia article. If the sources that determine notability are not usable in the article because they've got their facts wrong, then you could end up with a scenario in which a subject is notable but the article will be empty, because you have no reliable sources to support any statements of fact.

Looking at your explanation of the purpose (I agree with you that the purpose of independence wrt to notability is somewhat different from its purpose wrt NPOV), the goal is to find that "others have already written about the topic". To achieve this, we have to establish some sort of division between "the subject" and "others". We also have to establish what it means to "write about the topic".

For some subjects, the first is a trivial bar: subjects like Algebra and Potato and Friendship can't write about themselves, so if anyone's written about those general subjects, it's an independent source. For others, it's mostly obvious: If the subject is Bob Business and his Big Business, then reject anything written by Bob, his company's website, their press releases and advertisements, and anyone else connected to him (e.g., his accountant, his lawyers, his stock broker, his family). There are some potentially tricky scenarios (if his cousin happens to be the head of an industry group, would a trade magazine article written by the cousin get classified as "subject" or "others"?), but overall it's not too hard to draw a line.

In the instant case, I think that all three of the authors/publishers would have to be considered "others". One might try to argue that the local newspaper isn't really, truly "others" – perhaps, if you did some digging, you'd find that the professional journalist who wrote it has a child attending the same school as one of the company's employees, or that the editor who approved the story has a neighbor who works there – but that argument is unlikely to impress Wikipedia's editors.

That leaves us with the "written about the topic" part of "others have already written about the topic". Perhaps your concerns could be described as "If you repeat any information that you got from the subject, then you are no longer truly 'writing about the topic'. You're just repeating what the subject said". Does that description resonate at all with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be a failing case where the best GNG sources are repeating unreliable facts that can’t be verified by any primary source. I think these could not be called good enough on the basis of unreliability.

What it means to "write about the topic"? I think that’s easy. It means to produce a secondary source, which means the author has added their own creative content.

"If you repeat any information that you got from the subject, then you are no longer truly 'writing about the topic'. You're just repeating what the subject said". Almost. If you Only repeat information that you got from the subject, then you are just repeating. On the requirement for adding secondary source content, secondary source content has to be added, but repeating prior information doesn’t poison what’s added. It’s the “independent” requirement that is subject to poisoning by a revelation of non-independence. E.g. The author asserting the inner motivation of the CEO (how does he know this?) implies an undeclared private conversation, and in the absence of an explicit declaration of independence, I will assume non-independence, especially if it’s all near-perspective writing.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If the company website (a primary source) says "25 employees", and the local newspaper (independent) repeats it, isn't that a fact that can be "verified by a primary source"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes.

The company website is a very reliable source, and at worst you could explicity reference it as "The company website stated that it has a staff of 25 employees".

If the newspaper repeats the staff count? Is this a newspaper story, or a newspaper report? If the newspaper story repeats the staff count in its story, then this is reliable secondary source information and it is textbook compliance with WP:PSTS, and is worthy of inclusion in the content.

If this local newspaper is scrounging for meeting the minimum WP:GNG threshold, and the words "25 employees" copied from the company website is required for that story to meet the required 100 words of "significant coverage" (if you subscribe to that essay opinion). If the story meets your requirement of "significant", then would count it as a GNG-complaint source, subject to someone convincing me that it is too local. (Do you have a favourite link for defining a "local" newspaper?) SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to assign primary/secondary status to a single short sentence. The question here, though, isn't whether the repeated fact is secondary; it's whether it's possible for the newspaper to repeat a bare fact about a subject, which the journalist learned from that subject, and still be independent of the subject. Is the journalist still "other", or is the journalist now affiliated with or part of the subject? That is the definition of independence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Why would the local newspaper be scrounging for GNG on behalf of the subjects of their articles? We can't even assume that any of them know that essay exists [and it's certainly not generally accepted on wiki]. Unless you believe that mainstream media is engaged in a big conspiracy to stuff Wikipedia full of garbage articles, we should assume that the goal of a bog-standard local newspaper is what the reliable sources [e.g., journalism textbooks] say it is, namely to report what happens in their area while hopefully not going bankrupt.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi WAID. Can we refresh a little bit. I have lost track of where we agree or disagree, and where you seem to be asking new unexpected questions.

I believe that I am explaining a simple explanation of WP:PRODUCTREV#2, although I am not sure why you ask some questions. When confused like this, I tend to err on overexplaining.

Yes, it is possible to go to the source for specific facts and still be independent. However, the significant content must not come direct from the source. The "25 employees" is not an independently obtained fact. My approach is to remove all non-independent information, and then count what's left, count the words/sentences/paragraphs, and use my judgement on whether it sounds independent.

Wikipedian article proponents may be scrounging for GNG sources at AfD. Not the newspaper itself.

If this local newspaper is scrounging for meeting the minimum WP:GNG threshold,

If an AfD "keep" !voter is using this local newspaper story as one of the two minimum GNG sources,

-- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is about this part:It’s the “independent” requirement that is subject to poisoning by a revelation of non-independence. E.g. The author asserting the inner motivation of the CEO (how does he know this?) implies an undeclared private conversation, and in the absence of an explicit declaration of independence, I will assume non-independence, especially if it’s all near-perspective writing.

Before I start, I want to say that I'm assuming that the first sentence I quote here is related to the following sentences (i.e., more than it is to the preceding sentences). If that's wrong, please tell me.

Now: You talk about "a revelation of non-independence". You think say the specified content "implies an undeclared private conversation". About this, I have some questions:

1. Does something merely "implied" constitute a "revelation"?
2. Do you expect journalists to always explicitly declare how each piece of information was obtained? What proportion of reputable news sources write "In an interview with this reporter, the politician denied the allegations", vs just saying "He denied it"?
3. Why does this information imply a private conversation? (I believe those are generally called "interviews" in the news business?) If the journalist says "the main focus for the new CEO of Big Corp will be controlling costs during the coming quarters", why do you jump to the conclusion that there was an undeclared private conversation, rather than a public earnings call, a press release, a statement in the org's annual financial reports, information obtained from outsiders, or just a guess?
4. Does interviewing the subject make the interviewer non-independent?

I still haven't figured out what the difference is between "knowing what you're talking about" and "near-perspective writing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

1. "Implies" can have a range of strengths, and a revelation is something strong. What I wrote was a bit loose.

2. I would like journalists to always be transparent about how they obtained their information. Some tolerance is reasonable; an explicit declaration is not always required if the information is readily obtainable, and not surprising or contentious. My expectation of journalists is low, due to the ever declining pay and conditions for journalists. One place I expect a declaration is where a journalist is giving a positive review to a single product.

3. A private conversation is an unreported conversation. Formal terms are "on the record" and "off the record", but in this case, I guess it is for conciseness that the reporter states what was in the CEO's mind and skips saying that the CEO said it, or wrote it in his biography. A worse possibility is that the CEO wrote the whole thing, and the reporter has copied it. Or the company PR person wrote it, for the journalist to publish (I have seen this happen, and it published in a national newspaper; I know from the PR people that the journalists won't respond if they don't pre-provide the story). There's a perspective difference between the CEO's inner motivation, and the a focus on controlling costs. A CEO will readily declare their main focus to be controlling costs, but really the CEO wants the senior staff to focus on controlling costs. I am skeptical of any journalist's information on a CEO's inner motivation, unless it's an analysis of the CEO's finances.

4. Does interviewing the subject make the interviewer non-independent? No, but every bit of information that comes from the interviewee is non-independent of the interviewee, and should be cut from the story content for the purpose of counting word/sentences/paragraphs for depth of content. Once the topic is found "Wikipedia-notable", you are then free to use all of the interview material.

"knowing what you're talking about" vs "near-perspective writing"

Did I contrast these phrases?

Knowing what you're talking about is about? Are we assuming DIKW pyramid terminology here. If you know what you're talking about, what you are talking about is the information, and your knowledge is a higher level understanding, which means that you are more reliable. More reliable than the speaker on information that they don't know.

Near-perspective writing is a literary narration technique, commonly contrasting near, medium and distant. Near means the narrator is in the head of a character. Medium means the narrator is in the same room. Distant means the narrator is more than a stones throw from the scene. Near perspective product reviews means that the writer is seeking to put the reader in the mindset of actually using the product, and is a more persuasive promotion than medium or distant perspective writing. Near perspective is also the least objective, eg "it felt so good". SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Okay.
2. I think we should trust an independent source to be independent even when the individual article doesn't explicitly declare that. I also think we should trust a non-independent source to remain non-independent no matter what they say. Reciting a ritual incantation like "The company gave me this for free but all my opinions are my own" – which seems to be the kind of disclosure you're asking to be made in every news article – does not make you non-independent. Also, we're not here talking about product reviews: the example of record is about The author asserting the inner motivation of the CEO, which is not generally something that can be purchased with a credit card (unless we're talking about the self-help-business-books section of a bookstore).
3. Once a newspaper reported has put that information in the newspaper, how can it still be "unreported"? There is certainly a history of PR-written news articles; you can read about my favorite example in Accident. But I suspect that your PR friends mean something other than providing word-for-word, start-to-finish copy for whole articles.

@SmokeyJoe, when we say that notability requires independent sources, do you think that really means independent facts or independent sources (i.e., independent authors and publishers)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think, “facts” aside the word is “information”, notability requires independence in all aspects. The author, the editors, the publisher, the publishers financiers, and the information flow to the author. If the author has misrepresented themselves as the source of the opinion and the information was supplied by PR, or if their opinion is influenced by reward, then it is not independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it theoretically possible to have an "independent in all aspects" source that reports the name of a company's CEO? Because ultimately, that information is going to originate with the company, and no matter how long or convoluted the path is, whenever and however that fact reaches the author, the information ultimately flowed to the author from the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The name of the CEO is not a problem because it is a fact and cannot be an author opinion. It’s the secondary source information that has to be independent, not the facts, for the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So on the assumption that the dividing line between Fact and Opinion has never disputed (not the best articles, are they?), let's say that we have a reliable source that says:

• "BigCorp manufactured one million widgets last year. They are the largest widget manufacturer in our country."

Are both of these sentences facts? Are either of them opinions? Are we agreed that the second (i.e., a comparison) is analytical secondary content?

The million-widgets number will always come from the company. The manufacturer (and its associated employees, etc.) is the only one who actually knows how many widgets they manufactured in a given time period. The analysis is dependent until that fact. Is that second sentence an independent source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Both sentences are purported facts and can be proven, or falsified in a non-creative way. These are sentences that I discard when looking for two running sentences of secondary source content.

I would accept the following two sentences: BigCorp manufactured too many widgets last year. They are the most demand-unaware widget manufacturer in our country.

For notability issues, I don’t care where the facts come from, only the opinions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source document. Every article should contain secondary source information. Especially for-profit companies, not so much natural science or distant history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If you require opinions, how can we demonstrate notability for something like that people talk about but don't really think it's worth publishing opinions about? Consider, e.g., newly described species (thousands each year, including a few dozen mammals) or the routine and rather boring expansion of the List of exoplanets discovered in 2021. Are they just not notable unless someone says something opinionated about them?

Do you expect to use the opinionated statements in the article, or is the opinion something that needs to exist but won't be used?

Also, just to check, you are aware that other editors utterly reject any sources that could possibly be construed as expressing an opinion, right? (I'm definitely not saying they're right, but they do exist.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Natural sciences and distant history are the two big examples of where no one cares if there are no secondary sources. I call these “traditional encyclopedic topics”.

Planets, geographic features, like sports teams and athletes, are notability-controversial.

For this purpose, opinion is synonymous with anything creatively transformative that makes a secondary source, including analysis, contextualisation, ridicule, satire. Usually, we use “comment” not “opinion” as the bland term. But it’s all about secondary source vs primary source content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have trouble with “praise” being in the list of the creatively transformative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules should be the same for both sides. If we require opinions to be expressed for one subject, we should require opinions to be express for all subjects.

Maybe we should talk about what value the "creatively transformative" sources have for our purposes. Do we actually need that, or is this just a barrier we've thrown up to exclude some subjects?

(If disparagement like "They are the most demand-unaware widget manufacturer in our country" counts, then praise like "They are the most demand-aware widget manufacturer in our country" should count equally.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

All my experience at AfD etc is that the community treats commercial topics harder than others.

”Harder” means less leniency on notability guideline fine text. Yes, it is an editor subjective decision to raise the barrier against promotion-prone topics. The bias first lies in what editors choose to send to AfD.

On disparagement vs praise, logically presented criticism is well received, while less logical praise looks like native advertising and draws suspicion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"BigCorp dominates the widget market with overwhelming satisfaction of customer demand. According to their last five annual reports, they produce and sell 1 million units per year, with 99.6% daily availability of the 5 most popular sizes, and guaranteed supply within five days or the item is free."

This is all-positive (critical comments could be made but aren't), and the facts coming from the non-independent annual reports is not a problem. I would call this GNG-compliant (barring word count, separable fact count concerns). The perspective is distant. I would look for the slogan string "overwhelming satisfaction", and make sure it was not a pre-existing company statement, I want to believe that thee two words were created by the reporter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And if this paragraph is followed by "So I decided to test it for myself, and here's my experience", then what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(I spotted this on my watchlist). As a photographer, I was rather surprised that anyone might think Lowepro wasn't notable (I'm using the standard meaning of the word, not the Wikipedia threshold). If Wikipedia wasn't Wikipedia and hired, I don't know, some longstanding editor of a photography magazine or other industry expert like someone from Photokina, to write encyclopaedic articles about photo gear and brands, Lowepro would not struggle to be covered. Their products are in every shop that sells photo gear. I've owned two of them (a tiny belt-bag for when compact cameras were a thing and their SlingShot bag for DSLR gear). They invented the padded camera bag in 1972, and I reckon they are the primary brand that others compete with for market share. Yes I don't understand why camera bag is not an article as it is very much a thing and I'd really expect an encyclopaedia to tell me about the different kinds, major developments/history and important brands. This seems to expose a limitation of how Wikipedia is written and sourced, rather than highlighting a topic that knowledgeable people would exclude from an encyclopaedia and where the only reason Wikipedia has it is because of companies trying to promote themselves, say. My feeling is deleting it is more about algorithmically following rules rather than trying to write the best encyclopaedia.

My experience of photography magazines and online resources tells me you will struggle to find encyclopaedically neutral coverage of companies and brands. The huge ones like Canon/Sony/Nikon will get fairly neutral articles about market share and technological innovations. For detailed knowledge about the company or brand, there are sometimes interviews with important employees (or even owners). These interviews are respectfully done. Sometimes the interviewer will ask why the company is behind their competitor or doing or not doing things that other companies are doing. And these may or may not be fully answered. I don't expect neutrality within the interview. I wouldn't expect the writer to be highly critical. I don't understand why the size and location of a company suddenly makes the writer non-independent, as if research of one's subject was a bad thing. For example Sigma Corporation infobox gives the location of the headquarters and number of employees.

Another point I think worth saying is that really all the manufacturers of camera gear are making good stuff. Sure, one may decide that a brand is more expensive than you want to pay, or that another is better value for money at a given place in the market, but there isn't much that is awful. So there really would be a lot of positive things that an independent person could say about their camera bags, and plenty people effuse about equipment that they think is wonderful. I have not seen "dispassionate distant-perspective writing" or an attempt to "know the mind of every serious photographer". But I'm absolutely sure that "Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro" is true and walking into a photography gear shop, you'd have to be blind to fail to notice half the bags on the wall were Lowpro. -- Colin°^Talk 12:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

When I google camera bag reviews, I get a lot of reviews of a range of brands and products that includes Lowepro and comments on that brand generally. Eg “Lowepro is somewhat legendary in the field of camera bags, renowned for its clever design and tough build quality.” SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. It is ironic that although I commented that most photo gear is good (if expensive) there are some brands who are notable business failures. The biggest of course is Kodak who went bankrupt. Minolta had patent problems and sold their camera business to Sony. Pentax merged with Hoya and then got sold to Ricoh. Olympus cameras crashed in corporate corruption scandal and got sold to JIP. Meyer Optik Görlitz was a defunct German lens manufacturer that had their brand brought back from the dead in a controversial Kickstarter campaign, went bust, and then relaunched. You get written about "dispassionately" if your business fails, or you launch dubious expensive products trading off an old German brand. But if you just successfully dominate your market making good quality gear, your Wikipedia article gets deleted. Perhaps they need to do a North Face stunt so that "Just about every Wikipedian in the world knows about Lowepro" :-) -- Colin°^Talk 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

My point is that I can find fair GNG-compliant sources, in the context of “camera bag”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Three sources

I didn't want to really discuss this at VPR because I did not intend it to be a general discussion on notability. Regarding three sources or more, that is from my interpretation of "multiple reliable sources". Multiple means several, several means "more than two but not many". Ergo, three as a minimum. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, it's been discussed many times over the years at WT:N, and the usual interpretation is "two" – often with the caveat that if there are only two, they need to be strong (or the case needs to be obvious, e.g., a newly identified organism), but the potential for two sources to be sufficient is rarely disputed.

Also, wikt:multiple#Adjective says that the word means "more than one", and if that didn't accord with professionally written dictionaries such as this one, I might wonder if that definition were written by an editor during a notability discussion.  ;-) But since it seems to be the primary definition elsewhere, then I think we'll have to accept it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Intriguing. I've definitely been in corners of the wiki where the standard is three, thank you for enlightening me. It seems that perhaps here could be clearer guidance on the actual notability page... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, it is my impression that clearer guidance is not exactly wanted. After all, if everyone knows what the actual rules are, then how will I impose my preference on your article? Clearer guidance could result in someone writing an article on a subject that I think is inherently unsuited to Wikipedia. The section immediately above this one asks a similar question: What if the sources do technically exist, and we could technically write a decent, non-stub encyclopedia article about this trendy men's fashion company, but the subject just doesn't feel encyclopedic to us, and we (rationally) expect that nobody will care about the subject at all in ten years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Here's that notability essay page I threw together. I think "guideline" was the wrong word to use in the discussion.Americanfreedom (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Americanfreedom, I don't think your proposal works (as a practical matter), and I am convinced that it has no chance of being adopted.

Your item #2, for example, says that every single patented product deserves a separate, stand-alone article, because getting a patent for your product requires that your product be "novel" (i.e., a new idea, or "unique" in your wording), and the patent itself is a reliable primary source for the fact that the product is unique. Millions of patents have been issued. More than 1,500 have been issued on products that use smiley faces. I'm going to guess that you didn't intend to say that the English Wikipedia should have separate articles on each of those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing Well it's only a early rough draft hastily thrown together to illustrate a point. If it was a no-go I would've just abandoned it. Americanfreedom (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Americanfreedom, would you please tell me what kind of product you'd like to be writing about? I've spent a lot of time writing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines over the last 15 years. One of the things I find is that people with a particular "thing" in mind can be entirely correct about it, but they hadn't thought about how the sensible thing for their subject area doesn't work for other things. So, for example, you'll get an editor who writes about history saying that books are the best possible source, because in history, a scholar's best work is usually a long book, and the academic journals are less important. But then an editor who writes science-related articles says the opposite: journal articles are best, and books are worse, because books aren't peer-reviewed and are often out of date. They'll both try to make the rules fit "their" subject, because they don't understand the needs of the other subjects.

I think you might be dealing with the same sort of situation, in which the rules that would be perfectly reasonable for commercial products like (e.g.,) prescription-only medications make no sense for commercial products like (e.g.,) designer clothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:WhatamIdoing Well, I guess all I really wanted was a general notability essay for products/services. There wasn't a specific TYPE of product/service I was trying to write about. I have broad interest in all kinds of products and services and would like to take a crack writing about a variety of them, but I didn't have a notability essay to consult. Also, sorry for the late replies. I have a life outside a digital encyclopedia. (Not to imply you don't).Americanfreedom (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Americanfreedom, we already have a set of notability rules for products and services. The rule is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and it basically says that the standards for products and services are the same as the standards for writing about a business. That is, you basically need:

• Independent sources written by at least two different people (separately)
• At least one source must be from someplace other than the subject's hometown (if it's a local business/product)
• The sources need to contain a lot of information about the product.
• The sources must not be certain specified low-quality sources, such as product reviews on someone's blog.

There are no "if it has X objective quality, then it's notable", but it's also true that there are no such rules for businesses, either. We could easily say that every publicly traded corporation with a billion dollars in profit is notable – because all of them actually are notable – but we don't write the rules like that. We write the rules to focus on what you need to write a decent, neutral article, which is sources.

(I don't need quick responses; please do live your real life.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIDoing (Kinda wondering that myself at this point), I guess ultimately I was trying to propose a that particular section be split out into it's own essay which sounds pretty unnecessary now that I type it out. Sorry for inadvertently stirring the pot.Americanfreedom (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem. It's good to have people ask questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts? Part II

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Fresh_take_on_"unless_the_reason_for_them_is_obvious". Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

rules that say gay editors can't be blocked

Hi WhatamIdoing I noticed on Iridescent's talk page that you said you prefer rules that say gay editors can't be blocked. I'm not comfortable inserting myself in that conversation, but I'd like to note that the UCoC doesn't prevent blocking users for saying that they are gay. It lists sexual orientation as one of a list of characteristics for which no expectations shall exist in regards to the respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship as the foundations of behavior. That does not offer protection against discrimination, and no protection against laws that criminalize homosexuality. In fact, the ToS explicitly says that applicable laws may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content. In Mauretania, Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan saying that you are gay has dire consequences, including the death penalty. Local administrators might well be in compliance with the UCoC and the ToS if they ban someone for saying they are gay. Such admins would simply be applying the local applicable law.

A more principled stand, should the WMF want to take one, would be to say: These are the protected classes (age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field), and kind of discrimination against a member of such a class is prohibited, regardless of what the local law says. I would welcome a such clear, unequivocal statement. But the UCoC doesn't do that. Vexations (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @Vexations. The paragraph you refer to says "behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on [...] sexual orientation". Deciding that people who say they're gay must be expelled from the community because of that statement does not sound like "behaviour...founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship" to me, and it does sound like negative "expectations based on [...] sexual orientation" to me.

I am not aware of any law that requires volunteers to block out and proud folks from editing Wikipedia. Are you?

If you are looking for the WMF's policy, rather than the movement's policy, then you may be looking for m:WMF Resolutions/Nondiscrimination. It applies to users (including editors) as well as staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

There are no laws that specifically mention Wikipedia, as far as I know, but there are laws that criminalize normalizing homosexuality, such as the Russian gay propaganda law for example. Vexations (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If we are unaware of any laws requiring volunteers to take action against an editor who says that he is gay, then I think that we should not be claiming that admins would, even hypothetically, "simply be applying the local applicable law" by doing something that we have no reason to believe is actually required by any local law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not buying that. No country writes laws specifically requiring Wikipedia volunteers to do anything. But there's the Hungarian anti-LGBT law. The idea behind those laws is similar. Children may not be exposed to homosexuality. If such a law has been already for something as idiotic as removing a gay character from a videogame, it's reasonable to consider the effects such laws can have on the rights of LGBT people to express themselves on a website that is accessible to children. It is good that we have the Non discrimination policy, (I had forgotten that it exists) but rather unfortunate that it doesn't appear in the UCoC in any meaningful way. Vexations (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, no country has written any laws requiring volunteer moderators on any website to do anything if any person posting there says "I'm gay". The politician Péter Ungár is gay and did not vote against the law you linked to, which seems to mostly be about daytime television, children's toys, and corporate advertisements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Came here wondering the same thing as above. I have to say, that that interpretation of the UCoC text really seems like a stretch to me. ("respect, civility ... without expectations based on [...]" as meaning that admins can't block based on the listed attributes.) :/

Incidentally, the mentioned WMF policy has been specifically for staff and contractors since at least 2017. See wmf:Non-discrimination policy.

(The dialogs between you and Iridescent are always super-informative, by the way. I feel like it's one of the most interesting-information-dense sources around.) --Yair rand (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That example was one of the reasons that the UCOC was proposed. It was not the most significant – AFAICT the biggest reason is because the small affiliates and event organizers asked for a more generally applicable version of the m:Friendly Space Policy as a time-saver for themselves – but it was one of the known problems that people thought needed to be addressed by the UCOC.

I don't think it's a good idea to back down from requiring "behaviour...founded in respect, civility, etc." to "You can't have a rule that says you block anyone who discloses that he's gay, but you can still revert all his edits, call him names, report him to parental/educational/religious/governmental authorities, and otherwise do anything except blocking him that you think might be effective at driving him out of the project". It might take us a while to figure all this out, but I do think this is a step in the right direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It is hardly helpful to have a code that is so open to interpretation that to go from what it says to what it means in practice requires an advanced degree in hermeneutics. I find that translating something, as I've done with the UCoC, forces one to really carefully read the text. After spending several days wrangling with it, I still don't know what "altering the correct way of composing editorial content" or "imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize" means and neither does anyone else, as far as I can tell. Vexations (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of us wikilawyers have the practical equivalent of that degree, so I'm not too worried about that. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is open to interpretation. The Wikipedia:Five pillars are open to interpretation. What Wikipedia:Civility means in practice is a regular source of disputes here. We seem to muddle along somehow, though, and I imagine that will be true under the UCOC as well.

I'm not sure what "altering the correct way of composing editorial content" means; the rest of the sentence indicates that it's something about creating non-neutral content. If the draft was created by someone on wiki, we could figure out who wrote it and ask for more information. It may be a reference to WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. That would be "composing" a bit more in the visual arts sense or the philosophical sense, rather than in the sense of how to write brilliant prose. (I suspect that the original author is not a native English speaker.)

The second seems easier, though: Don't declare that certain groups of people (e.g., women, indigenous people, adherents of the "wrong" religion) are never notable or have to meet unusually high standards; don't put Category:Gay men inside Category:Criminals; don't systematically put disparaging banners on articles about people with the "wrong" beliefs or from the "wrong" group. Those are all "schemes on content" that could be used "to marginalize or ostracize". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You touch upon an interesting point there; as far as I have been able to tell, the UCoC was not written as a wiki, and its authors have never responded to requests for clarification. Vexations (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that it was drafted by committee off wiki. Several of our policies and guidelines were also drafted that way back in the day (the first revision of WP:RS had two thousand words, and begins with a claim that it is a settled rule), and they seem to work for us, so that's not necessarily evidence of a problem, but it does make it difficult to know which person to ask if you want to know what the intended meaning is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

PEarley (WMF) was able to provide some additional clarification, quite similar to your understanding. I agree, that must have been what the drafters tried to say. Vexations (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that you followed up on that.

Patrick's pretty awesome. It looks like he hasn't updated his enwiki user page since about two promotions ago. I should pester him about that some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Recently you seem to have edited in Psychology related topics.

Requesting you to visit Draft:Irrational beliefs and inputs and expansion help for the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with JHelzer and several other editors at Draft talk:Irrational beliefs#Related Articles, that this concept is better handled as a small part of a larger article. It might also make a reasonable disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite web

Thanks for the note; I'd forgotten how TemplateData worked. I had "Name of the website" already included but with no value set for the parameter, so when I searched for work naturally it didn't return anything. Out of curiosity I just tried searching in the "Add more information" search box for other fields that I already had - "last1" and "URL access date". The former gave me "No unused fields", and the latter gave me "Unknown field", presumably because "URL access date" isn't a valid parameter, even though it's the displayed name of the parameter. Wouldn't it be more sensible if (a) searching for the string used as the name of the parameter worked just as well as searching for the parameter; (b) instead of "No unused fields", all used fields matching the search string, headed by "Fields already used" or something similar, were displayed; and (c) if a search string such as "work" matches some used and some unused fields, it should still list the used fields, though after the list of unused fields? In the case of "work", because I had not used e.g. the "format" parameter, there was a list of unused parameters matching "work" and no indication that some matching parameters were already used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that Johanna Strodt (WMDE) will be interested in your idea. Wikimedia Deutschland is working on some changes to the template dialog box. Among other things, they're changing a medium-sized box that looks like this into a large box that looks similar to the existing complex transclusion dialog box to make it easier to add some parameters. ("Complex transclusions" are multiple templates stacked together; you'll see it in Altruism#See also, if you try to edit the columns in the visual editor.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That looks like it would be an improvement; thanks for the links. Johanna, happy to give specific examples & screenshots to explain why I was confused with the existing dialog box, if that would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I'm very sorry for replying so late! We're actually already very far along in our development process. If everything goes well, the improved VE template dialog will be deployed to a few wikis next week. It would be wonderful if you could then have a look at it and tell us if the changes we made are actually improvements for you. We plan to take the feedback from these few wikis and improve the dialog some more, and will then deploy our changes on all remaining wikis probably in the first months of next year. Hopefully, that'll make the lives of many people easier when it comes to working with templates. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can; thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as it's still possible to edit all of a complex transclusion, and assuming that we're talking about the wikis that have already put thousands of hours into defining TemplateData, then I agree that it will be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Reliable medical sources please old

Template:Reliable medical sources please old has been nominated for merging with Template:Reliable medical sources please. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Following up re: posting external link

Hi!

I'm not sure if this is the right way to contact another (please let me know), but I've followed your helpful instructions regarding asking someone else to add my external link to the Dish Network wiki, however, no one has replied despite some time. The original post you had kindly replied to is this: [links/Noticeboard]. Please help?

Thank you! GebienD (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your (?) Red Hen Press Maintenance Tag

Dear WhatamIdoing,

I've made a good faith effort to address the (your?) 2017 maintenance tag on the Red Hen Press article requesting:

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."

I've added reliable citation sources, but not for every single person mentioned (e.g., in the list of authors participating in their reading series), which seems excessive, and ridiculously time-consuming. I'd like to remove the maintenance tag (or have you remove it), but only if you agree.

Thanks!Books2read (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This is  Done, @Books2read and @JBW. Thank you for adding citations to that article. When I tagged it, there were zero cited sources in the article. I appreciate the substantial efforts you made to improve the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome! I see that there's still a "citation needed" in brackets after footnotes 10 and 11... Books2read (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Books2read, I didn't look at that section. You should feel free to remove that yourself. In general, that tag is meant to be replaced by a footnote in the same edit, without waiting for someone else to check. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I will do it, thank you. Books2read (talk)

DYK nomination

Hi WAID, as you know, several of us were impressed by HLHJ's work and when you suggested a DYK nomination I thought it'd be good to act on your suggestion so I went ahead and did it, never having done that before. But looking at what's going on at the nomination discussion now, I'm surprised by how much hassle this has been. I'm really struggling to understand the arguments of the 2 editors who are opposing it. It looks like they're very experienced at this DYK thing, and if they're opposing it I imagine there must be good reasons, but I'm struggling to understand them. Are things normally this difficult? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @DrVogel. I don't think that DYK is normally this difficult, when such a well-written and well-sourced article is presented. (Perhaps the nitpicking over the hook explains why so many of the hooks are boring, though.)

I'm not certain that you actually need to do anything else with it. The process should theoretically be able to finish without anything else from you. I am certain that you could step away for a day or two without any irreversible harm. Sometimes it helps to let a discussion sit for a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you help me as usual ?

Hello WhatamIdoing, I want to continue administering the Haitian Wikipedia. Can you help me by inciting contributors to vote? Thanks!--Gilles2014 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @Gilles2014. It looks like we only have five days to get a response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the test?

At Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WhatamIdoing_issues I asked:

What more evidence would you want that I am not the only one who finds the requirement that edits be "explained" in the current text confusing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You replied:

Perhaps you could try to find any two other editors who are willing to explicitly and directly say that they can't figure out how to write an edit summary as a result of this sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion ensued and then you asked:

Have you attempted to locate two other editors who find the existing sentence unclear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you had proposed two different tests, so I asked you:

Are you now changing the proposed test to "locate two other editors who find the existing sentence unclear"? 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you please respond to that question either here or at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WhatamIdoing_issues? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw your comment when you posted it. I have replied there. I encourage you to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Nobody seems to have any appetite for the changes you still hope to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you very much for assisting me with my first Wiki contribution!

Respectfully, Darryl

GebienD (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ideas and WMF

Hi,

• Thank-you for taking the time to respond to the ideas I am raising on Portal and mediaWIki, I appreciate your viewpoint from working I think in the past in WMF, and as an editor; it helps me reformulate idea and understand the mindset of other editor,s I think my background may be very different from some of the editors, I know my WP experience is far less, and my evidence based/classification/research approach is very different from the Wikipedia space, but closer to main,.

• Some background may explain why I am exploring certain ideas I am. I have been wiki-gnoming since I think 2009,which actually gave me some small pride , and at the same time watching how Wikipedia works and why closely. I am currently COVID hiding as I have asthma and diabetes, and have had some non-Wikis stuff.So, I started wondering a few weeks ago about whether wiki-gnoming was pointless, as all the reports I could find the showed the amount of errors increasing.

• Process improvement, error reduction/quality/, and fairness are very important to me, and were instilled by my dad and by working on a dairy farm of all things. I think, as is probably obvious by now, in terms of points, and classifying things into tables; excel. SQL, and use cases are my close friends.

• I have spent my life working in Australian Supply chain/Education /Manufacturing improving processes with multi-national/ESL staff based in multiple countries. In process improvement, my work was to simplify and improve the quality of processes, increase accuracy of data, organizational change, and help set internal; KPIs which did not allow a manger's pursuit of bonuses sub-optimize the company as whole. Personally,, I strongly believe in fairness - employees should not feel powerless because of a lack of information, should be able to control their work and should feel pride in what they do. There were some things I only recently began to understand about the culture, and grok why this was so important. Anyway thank you for your time, and any advice would be appreciated Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk to you about these ideas. The "metrics problem" has long confounded the community. Part of it is because we don't think of ourselves as having different jobs. Thus it's hard to automatically interpret certain metrics, like the percentage of deleted edits. If most of a newcomer's edits were deleted within minutes, that would indicate a problem. If most of a New Page Patroller's edits were deleted within minutes, that could indicate that he did a very good job of tagging attack pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverting a redirect

User:WhatamIdoing, I need a little help. I would like to revert a redirect of a journal; however, I am not sure how to accomplish that. The instructions on WP are confusing.

The journal, Occupational Health Science (OHES), was redirected to the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP). SOHP and the Springer Publishing Company are actually the publishers [7]. The editor redirected the journal to SOHP when the journal was in its second year. According to the editor, OHES was insufficiently notable. Although I disagreed back then, I did not contest the editor's move too much because it was early in the journal's existence. However, now the journal is going into its sixth year and has come to be indexed in PsycInfo among other indexing vehicles. The editor and contributors are important figures in the field of occupational health psychology. The contributors publish papers of contemporary relevance (e.g., "Musculoskeletal Health and Perceived Work Ability in a Manufacturing Workforce"; "Ethnic Differences in Context: Does Emotional Conflict Mediate the Effects of Both Team- and Individual-Level Ethnic Diversity on Emotional Strain?."

Please explain to me how I can undo the redirect. Once I have reverted the redirect, I would start a new WP entry for OHES. Thank you for your help. Iss246 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @Iss246. If you want to know whether the journal meets Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) standards, then you're probably better off asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals.

In general, though, the information you shared here is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether something qualifies for a separate Wikipedia article. What matters is whether anyone unconnected with the subject has written about the subject. This can often be difficult for academic journals. Perhaps you can inspire academia to make life easier for Wikipedia editors by publishing more "Reputation of Our Field's Journals: A Comparison" articles. A couple of charts and a few sentences each about a dozen journals could be extremely valuable. It would presumably also help students and other people who are new to the field, so they know more about the journals they're submitting to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Patronizing

Just as a side note I woud like to ask you to keep this kind of patronizing: [23:48, December 7, 2021] away from me. I'm quite good at deciding what I should and should not decide. Thank you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to ask people to respond to an RFC, then you should have already responded to the RFC yourself. It's not good to tell people that they should make the effort to post their opinions when you apparently don't want to make the effort to do that yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you feeling it too?

No, not Christmas in the air - but the growing mood in parts of Wikipedia that the "rules" needs to be codified so that editors can proceed by rote (and in a way according to the proposers' likings, of course). I groaned when I saw a proposal (should've kept a link) that some article should have restrictions imposed so that only "green at WP:RSP" sources could be used.

I wonder why this is. At a time when, in the outside world, the rule of law is increasingly been seen as nakedly subject to partisan skewing, maybe that attitude is infecting Wikipedia too? Control the process and you can control the content? Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this has been going on for at least the last five years. Unfortunately, it's probably one of those unstoppable changes, comparable to how political parties can disappear when a country's demographics shift. There is more pressure on the system than there was when we started editing, and a feeling like there is less margin for error. In 2002, nobody knew or cared what Wikipedia said. In 2012, editors felt like Wikipedia was more popular, but we also knew that teachers still routinely told students not to rely on it. Now, editors believe in Wikipedia's importance to the world (and especially the English Wikipedia's importance to the English-speaking world), and this makes everything, and especially the first few sentences of each article, seem like it's a high-stakes decision. Editors want to get it right, and, like most humans, they also believe that what they like/believe/support is the right way.

In addition to our internal feelings, there is also more external pressure on the system. The English Wikipedia (but not other languages) gets more spammy submissions than we would like. We get more advocates pushing on article content. A few advocates happen to align very well, but many don't, especially in "political" topics (whether that's about politicians directly or about politicized subjects). Wikipedia is under pressure to promote the correct views about every disputed subject. And if you want to make sure that Wikipedia is consistently promoting the correct views, then you need to write down a rule that says we've decided the correct view on _____ is this view. I have recently been contemplating whether the MOS should differentiate between "scholarly" and "scientific", because so many scholarly subjects aren't the kind of science that we describe at Science. (They're Wissenschaft, which is also the word that German kids use to describe [natural] science class; the philosophers use the German word to indicate that it's a broader subject than the modern English concept of science.) Do I think this would help readers understand what's meant? Yes. Do I think it's stupid for the lead sentence of Linguistics to link to Science, especially since we have a source, written by a reputable linguist, that says that when linguists use the word "science" they mean that it is – well, not what the English Wikipedia article says at the top of Science? Yes. Do I think that having yet another rule will help us in the end? I'm still thinking about that, but overall I have spent a lot of time writing policies and guidelines, and I believe that they are ultimately effective.

What I think we could do (but won't) is to stop citing The Rules™ at people during disputes. Most people learn the policies and guidelines by seeing some other editor cite them. Instead of saying something like "Hey, instead of just reverting back and forth, how about we talk this through? I think this article would be better off if we...", we land on editors with "You have to follow WP:BRD instead of continuing with this WP:TE WP:EW over your WP:FRINGE WP:OR idea." We aren't trying to make the article better. We're trying to win the game. Creating rules that favor our "side" is part of this effort to win the game.

Your 'green at RSP' story reminds me of one of our fundamental sourcing problems: we bias Wikipedia's contents by deciding that certain kinds of sources are better than others. This is probably the right choice for most scholarly subjects, but it is probably the wrong choice in political subjects that involve marginalized communities. This is a hard problem, especially when you write for a global audience. The nearest equivalent to a "newspaper of record" for some small communities is probably a self-published social media page. We define social media posts as being potentially reliable for individuals and businesses talking about themselves, but as basically unusable for groups/communities talking about themselves. I don't have a solution. Our current approach might well be the best option. But we need to acknowledge that our rule constrains and biases which parts of reality we can include.

Separately from the bias problem, the existence of RSP is itself a problem. It wouldn't be a problem to have a decent index of previous conversations, but the promotion of RSP has accelerated a shift from "this source is reliable for this specific sentence" to "this source is reliable in general, and the specific sentences don't matter for reliability (only for NOR and NPOV purposes), and mindless removal of everything even slightly tainted is Defending the Wiki". Headbomb's script, for example, probably does a lot of good, but I don't actually remember the last time I saw a Frontiers journal that didn't turn out to be acceptable by all the usual metrics. The mere fact that the script flags the journals for double-checking leads lazy editors to bad decisions. RSP does the same, only on a wider scale and with less savvy editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(I have just removed that link from Linguistics.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lots to unpack there, but on RSP we are on the same page. Relatedly, I just now noticed at the top of RSN it says: "In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable" [my emphasis]. That's a problem right there. Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I notice an excessive need for rules a long time ago on Commons among a few editors there. Commons has a lot more European editors and a lot fewer American ones. I put it down to culture differences, like with some other attitude differences (e.g., Law of Jante). It could also just reflect a mix of personality types. Like if someone misbehaved, there might be a call to have some rule about it to prevent it. Generally Commons has very few rules, so this rarely gets off the ground. Recently an editor got caught canvassing votes for Featured Pictures on Commons, and the recruited canvassers were (mostly) adamant that their vote was as valid as everyone else's. I'd seen this once before where editors from a certain geographic area think that "helping a friend out" in this way is entirely acceptable. Most of the regulars disagreed and followed the attitude that votes should be as neutral has we can humanly manage. One or two suggested then that FPC needed a rule against canvassing. The person caught canvassing initially denied it, so a rule against it might not have prevented them. It would be as effective as having a rule that "Prime ministers should not lie about Christmas parties that take place in their official place of residence". Nobody reads the rules anyway, until there's a dispute.

So I just wonder whether perhaps there's always been an obsession with rules and using rules to win battles and perhaps there's another reason you are noticing it more recently. -- Colin°^Talk 10:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It could just be down to the topic areas I'm interested in, and the fact that COVID-19 seems to have caused an influx of "politicized" editors who seem much more willing to try and do battle by waging a meta-war to try to nobble the "rules" - and maybe seeing this encourages some other editors to do likewise. Luckily these skirmishes (around MEDRS/BMI) eventually came to nothing because there were sufficient adults in the room. But the way things are going I do fear as the focus on Wikipedia intensifies from politicized interests, that the line might not hold. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that the world has gotten more polarized, and therefore editors (being part of the world) have gotten more polarized. I don't think we can stop that process. Maybe things will be different in 20 years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, is it too late to update the survey? Q8 offers 1–3, 4–6, 9–10, 10+, but is missing 7–8. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good catch, it was intended to be 7-10 from the beginning. Woes of not having a reliable assistant to proofread everything (as I am bad at catching minor details like this). Tnx for pointing this out, fixed - it shouldn't skew the data much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Obtaining an image which is most likely subject to copyright

Hello, as the title may suggest, I am looking to obtain an image for an article regarding the antibody nirsevimab. The image is found here, on slide twelve. It's from Sanofi's R&D Investor event. What do I need to do in order to obtain this image? Contact the company's media department? And is a non-free use rationale required when uploading? Appreciate your help. I've asked another member of the medicine wikiproject but I thought I'd ask you too Obama gaming (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that it will be possible to claim fair use (under our rules; specifically, I think it will fail WP:NFCC #1, because with sufficient effort, a volunteer could create something similar). Therefore, the easiest approach is likely to contact their media department and hope that they wish to be helpful. You should probably ask at Commons to find the correct help page to send them. (I couldn't find a sensible one just now, but I'm sure that several exist.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I was thinking the same. I have experience with NFCC use but only for album art. Where should I ask at commons, do they have a help desk/teahouse similar to here? Obama gaming (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe start with c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, and if that doesn't work, then there's always the c:Commons:Help desk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Perhaps you'll be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources, as I know you've had good thoughts on these matters in previous discussions in the archives. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable

User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you've advice to spare

Hi WhatamIdoing. I am moving towards initiating an RfC regarding policy content you added to Wikipedia:Consensus back in 2011. A draft is in my sandbox if you would be willing to have a look, and perhaps offer advice on moving forward, or not. If you'd rather not, I'll understand. You are welcome to comment at my sandbox, or ping me here if you prefer. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Cline, I'd love to hear more about why you're thinking about this now.

Also, as background information, that section is meant to be a convenient summary of other, pre-existing rules. For example, the deletion policy says the no consensus = keep. The one bit that I've always been doubtful of is how to handle disputed article content; I don't think that the summary (added later by another editor) is as nuanced as the actual rules. To the extent that this section differs from or exceeds the certainty of the "real" rules, then it is IMO this section that should be changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

My interest in doing this now is multi-faceted, and specifically relates to "contested admin actions". I have been involved with helping set up the new forum at wp:xrv and this discussion piqued my interest in researching the matter more closely. Until then, I believed, as many (if not most) believe: that no consensus outcomes universally resulted in no action being taken and the status quo being maintained. It's all I ever saw and it was often repeated in various discussion closures by a wide array of different editors. When I saw that provision, realizing that it's been in place for years, and yet I missed seeing it (like it was literally hidden in plain sight). I wondered how many others were ignorant of its existence, and on balance, how many were aware of it but chose to ignore it. I also imagined Wikipedia, if all these years, questionable admin actions had been reverted by no consensus instead of maintained intact, and the Wikipedia I'd imagined was a lot better place than the reality I see. The bottom line is that I'd like to see that provision become the norm but it never will unless a clear community consensus desires that as well. I posted these questions to Arbcom and the response there was basically take an RfC to VPP and go from there. And so, here I am. Incidentally, the no consensus admin action provision was one of the two examples you included at the outset and I am curious if you know of another policy that expands on that provision? And, do you stand by it today? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Cline, I think if I were writing that today, I'd separate general admin actions (e.g., blocking a vandal or adding something to the spam list) from AE actions. We tend to defer to AE admins, partly because having your actions overturned discourages admins from helping out at AE, and we need those admin more than we need initial/short-term consensus. It might be truer to say that a disputed general admin action (e.g., blocking a large IP range) would get reverted, but that a disputed AE admin action (even if it was the same action) would be retained in the absence of evidence of consensus.

I'm also no longer certain that a general statement can/should be made, because there are so many potential scenarios involved. For example, in that initial edit, I wrote that disputed admin actions are overturned, but also that no consensus at AFD means keeping the page. In the case of an admin restoring a deleted article in a no-consensus situation, that initial edit tells you to keep the page (because AFD keeps in that case) and to delete the page (because disputed admin actions are reverted). Perhaps that situation won't happen often enough to matter, but it illustrates the potential problem with sweeping rules.

I think that the main value in the section is telling people that the default response is not always the status quo/fait accompli. WP:ELBURDEN is the simplest example: disputed external links get removed and stay removed until you have a consensus to include them. It does not matter what the status quo ante bellum was; the rule is to remove disputed external links.

Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to track down the discussions that led to that section's creation, and they might be useful to you. If I were searching, I'd probably start at WT:V's archives, but beyond telling you that there were multiple discussions, I don't actually remember where all of them happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful reply, you have been a great help. I understand the reservations you've expressed and share your opinion that this is not something that should be viewed as if one size fits all. I think the verbage allows for exceptions, like you described, where it says " ... the action is normally reverted." I think I'll preemptively allay that concern by mentioning that normally does not mean always. I will also do some more research, but I think review of AE, checkuser, and oversight actions is an Arbcom prerogative. If it's not, perhaps it should be. Thanks again and be well.--John Cline (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's another example, which might be cleaner in some respects: Some pages (e.g., site-wide JavaScript) can only be created or edited by admins. Imagine that two admins have different ideas about what should be done: X and not-X. They change the page back and forth. There is no consensus (yet) for either approach. So which action gets reverted? Under the stated rule, if we assumed this was a "normal" case, then we would revert both, which is impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

While I am completely out of my element wrt site-wide JavaScript (knowing nothing about such an animal) I can speak to the example regarding a couple or three things that resemble behavior I do recognize. First, I'd hate to assume two admins reverting each other back and forth could ever be considered normal. Even on unprotected pages where anyone can edit, such edit warring (in accordance with wp:adminacct) is a "breach of basic policies" and has led to Arbcom cases and the loss of administrator rights. Even worse, since those pages are only editable as an admin privilege, the edits would constitute an administrative action. As such: if admin A created the s-wJS as X and admin B reverts it to not-X, once admin A reverts it back to X (without prior discussion leading to a consensus for X) admin A is in clear violation of wp:wheel and subject to the loss of administrator rights, even for a first time offence. Furthermore, if admin B continues the process and reverts the page back to not-X (without achieving consensus for not-X) they too are in violation and both admins are subject to loosing their respective mops. Anyway, in writing this reply, I've come up with a sure enough clear example for when the normally reverted no consensus action should definitely not be reverted and at double risk of tldr, I'm going to lay it out in summary now. Admin A blocks editor Z, admin B objects, unblocks editor Z, and opens a self-review of the action at ANI, admin C closes the discussion and properly determines that no consensus exists to endorse or overture the reviewed action. IAW wp:noconsensus the no consensus closure of the contested admin action should normally be reverted but, like I said, normally does not mean always and this is an example of one that should not be reverted because if admin C reverted the action of admin B, admin C would be in violation of wp:wheel because it says that any administrator that restores an admin action that had been reverted by another administrator without achieving a consensus for restoring the reverted action first would be in violation and clearly, no consensus is not consensus for. With that, I wish you peace my wiki-friend, may you be happy and well.--John Cline (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your story about admins A, B, and C sounds very plausible, and it's easy enough to imagine all three admins trying to do the right thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Can we stop using the word 'deprecate'? It doesn't mean what the WikiDefinition of the term is, and it's almost always confusing usage for that reason. More generally, I think the two options could be worded clearer. Something like:

1. Retain the policy provision as-is and apply it in practice, so if there is no consensus regarding an administrative action, it is reverted
2. Remove the policy provision
3. Replace the policy provision (with what?)

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice, I agree and will make some changes in compromise. I am trying to stick with two options for statistical reasons alone.--John Cline (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "deprecation" is not a useful word on wiki right now, if you want to actually find out what people think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hello WhatamIDoing and ProcrastinatingReader. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that the RfC is in its final stages of development and invite you both, if interested, to participate in the before-RfC discussion taking place. You can review the draft at Wikipedia:Consensus/No consensus RfC 2022 and the discussion on its tslk page. Watchlist the page if interested because it will be a live RfC very soon, I believe. Thank you both for your help. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's still a bit too long. e.g. the "Publishing responses" section seems to just be an intro to how to respond to an RfC, so probably a bit unnecessary given most people responding know that already. The longer it is, the less people will read it, and either comment without reading or not participate at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've made a few changes and posted several comments on the talk page. IMO this is not ready to begin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Technical issues

In this search-query, Mediawiki returns Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 7 as the second hit. Then, the particular lines with the word "Indian" is shown in a snippet. Followed by 255 KB (36,991 words) - 02:57, 28 September 2021.

I assume that Archive 7 has 36,991 words and a page size of 255 KB but it is from July-August 2008. Nothing happened on 02:57, 28 September 2021 except in being edited by some bot which fixed Lint errors. However, this corrupts the very purpose of providing a date. Can you turn off non-archiving bots from affecting the last-edited date? In this case, the date will become 26 January 2009 (due to an editor, mistakenly editing archived discussions.)

This is an issue that affects every discussion board from AN to RSN to FTN to NPOVN to talk-page archives: Some or the other bot has been going around fixing new errors every few years across the last decade and these dates are picked up by the search tool. I hope that I am making some sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, this is probably a better question for WP:VPT. I think what you suggest is impossible. My own workaround for this problem is to add a date (like "2021") for conversations that I'm trying to find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)