Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AF

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Is Wikipedia a "How To" Guide?

As I'm very new to Wikipedia, I just wanted to check what the policy is regarding information containted in articles that seems to be a guide of the "how to" sort. When I first started using Wikipedia, there was a fierce debate on the suicide page about information that some felt was listing methods along with their pros and cons. However, of particular note to myself is the page on surveillance. There is an extremely lengthy sub-section on counter-surveillance, including lists of methods for performing it. Is this what Wikipedia is? It doesn't seem appropriate to an encyclopaedia (in my opinion), as there are ample "How To" guides available for any given subject, it would seem risky for Wikipedia to offer "advice" on such sensitive issues and it would seem highly difficult (again in my humble opinion) to maintain NPOV while telling people the right way of doing things. I would like to suggest and possibly make changes to this page, but wanted to check the relevent policies before doing so. Blaise Joshua 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, but am not sure, that "how-to" guides are meant to be on our sister project, Wikibooks, rather than here. Nevertheless, you are correct in your observation that Wikipedia does have a tendency to have things that print encyclopedias don't (how-to guides just isn't one of them).

Or wikiHow (not operated by Wikimedia, but takes how-tos). Invitatious (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I would agree with your opinion that Wikipedia should not be offering advice. The article on surveillance should not be in the second person (last time I checked, there was a guideline against the second person but these things are volatile), so feel free to rewrite the article accordingly. However, be careful to distinguish advice from information: simply stating what the methods are (big big subjective grey area here) is not necessarily a how-to, and could be just the presentation of fact. Neonumbers 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is definitely not a how-to guide.--Brownlee 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider your re-write/removal carefully, the information can be rewrote. Also source it, if that is original research it should be removed.--I'll bring the food 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I often wonder how many of these folks have ever actually seen an encyclopedia? OF COURSE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA HAS DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS.

My grandfather's encyclopedia circa 1915 had pages of details about building steam engines, radios, and making batteries for your radio using (then) common household chemicals, such as borax. It was fascinating reading as I was growing up.

--William Allen Simpson 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, William. Of course, most people could find encylopaedias to support their particular idea of what Wikipedia should and shouldn't be, including encyclopaedias that contain biased, incorrect or selective information on a given subject. Besides, it would seem way beyond the scope to have such information in every articles. Where would you stop? What about articles on surgery or dental work? The fact is, there are books and courses out there to instruct people on how to do things if they want to learn how to do something. Generally, it's not in the remit of an encyclopaedia to provide such instructions. Lastly, please don't shout by using caps. Your opinion and input is just as valuable without doing so and it just comes across a lot nicer : o ) Blaise Joshua 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a balance to be struck. Wikipedia is meant to represent the sum of human knowledge, but it is not meant to be a how-to guide.--Runcorn 10:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have for the past hour been doing Status Quo articles. I have done most of the albums. I am going to make a Status Quo template. I make a page about Matt Letley. I add in some information, not wanting to create a worthless article. Then, some admin goes ahead and deletes it within three minutes with no reason given, just deletes it. I appreciate the right of Admin's to delete it, but give me a reason, I have feelings to you know. I had a much more strongly worded letter drafted berfore this. Hol e in the wall 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For more information on circumstances where articles may be speedily deleted without discussion, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked there and there's no sodding information on it... I am really getting annoyed now. Hol e in the wall 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article. It was deleted as having "no assertion of notability," per WP:CSD criterion A7, but I think that was an error. The drummer for a band we have an article on is not obviously non-notable in any way. In the future, if you have trouble with such things, you should take it up with the closing admin or bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SCZenz! Just for future reference, where can I go to see reasons for deletion? Hol e in the wall 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

For valid reasons for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There are also systems of deletion without such concrete rules: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion can be used if someone suggests deletion and nobody objects, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion makes decisions about deleting articles based on community discussion. Speedy deletion is a rigid system designed to be used only for things that are entirely non-controversial, AfD is for things that some users may disagree with, and PROD is for stuff inbetween. -- SCZenz 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a similar complaint. I have made several articles, all notable in their own right. However, each and every one of them has been deleted, and most speedily deleted. As with Hole_in_the_Wall's problem, I respect admin's right to delete it. Granted they may not be as important as chemistry or the arts, but if I recall the original goal (I don't see it anymore on the main page, then again I didn't look that much) of MediaWiki was to provide a place for ALL human knowledge. I mean, it's not like I'm posting just gibberish. If Wikipedia wishes to have all human knowledge, then it must have all human knowledge. Therefore everything is notable. I know merging plays a role in this, and the meaningful articles I attempted to post could not be merged anywhere. This doesn't mean they're worthless. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is a great site for information, but it just seems a bit too selective and snobby. Perhaps the policies should be more open in the future if it wishes to encompass more information. Just a thought.

I haven't looked to see what articles you've been creating, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of all human knowledge. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which is policy.-gadfium 08:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that things can get speedily deleted before the author realises that speedy deletion has been proposed. The deletion does not show up in your watch list, so you don't know that the article has gone until you look for it. Inexperienced users will not know how to find who deleted it. Should deleting admins notify every (non-anon) article editor that they have deleted it?--Runcorn 11:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific American linking

Hi everyone. A representative of Scientific American recently began posting external links to online articles from the magazine. There has been much dispute about whether this is a good thing or not. On the pro side, Sci Am is a highly-reputable popular science magazine, and the links are all relevant and may very well provide useful information on the topic for users who want to learn more than our article has. On the con side, the Sci Am online articles have ads, so they are making money off the links, and the linking is massive and systematic. The representative recently posted the following text on the subject:

Hello, I represent Scientific American and I am responsible for the insertion of the new external links on Wikipedia to SciAm. I don't believe what we are doing is wrong but we have stopped inserting links at this time. Also, I want to clarify what we're doing and why. We are not using a spambot. A person is manually entering the links to the Wikipedia articles and we are not inserting articles just for the sake of spam or search optimization. We're only adding an external link when we believe it would contribute by providing additional information on the topic. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for many people and we would like to contribute by adding our content. Yes we acknowledge that by adding the links it will probably benefit us but that is not the reason we're doing it. The articles that we link to are all completely free and the user is not required to pay or register to view them. The ad unit several people have mentioned does promote a subscription but the viewer has the option to immediately close the ad. Visitors to our web site will view ads since it is partially advertising supported and we must do this to operate and continue to provide content to our readers. This is a user experience that is similar to visiting most other content web sites and blogs on the Internet. We are not trying to mislead anyone and have been completely transparent in our actions by not masking our IP and by using the user ID - Scientific American. We believe we are providing additional content on the topic, which I believe is valuable to Wikipedia users. We are not inserting links indiscriminately. We add external links at the bottom of the list not the top. We do not modify other links. We make the copy straightforward by just placing our publication name, issue date and title. We do not reinsert other links that have been removed by others who may view it as inappropriate. Also the next phase was to to add actual content to Wikipedia in topics lacking any substantial content. But at this time, we will not do that since it may be viewed as inappropriate. I hope I have been clear in our motivations and intentions. Finally, if many Wikipedia community members views what we're doing is inappropriate we will stop. Thank you --Scientific American 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from this edit)

I think we should discuss whether we find such linking desirable, and get back to the Scientific American representative only once we have consensus to avoid confusion (which there was some of in our earlier response). Previous discussions can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Massive insertion of Scientific American links and WP:AN/I#Apparent SEO/Linkspam to Scientific American articles. -- SCZenz 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To start of the discussion, here's my own personal opinion. While this is arguably linkspam, and certainly does make Scientific American money, I do not think either of these reasons to reject such links is compelling. On the contrary, we should encourage them to add more links if they want to, because Scientific American articles are good. Links to good, relevant external pages improve the encyclopedia, so I think Scientific American deserves an exception to our usual mode of linkspam enforcement. Ultimately, whether the encyclopedia is made better is the only thing that's important. -- SCZenz 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Don't these links fail criterion 1 of WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided": "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." In other words, aren't these the sort of links that would make fine references (if the articles were updated to include info from them) but are inappropriate as external links? — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Often the articles' info is more specific than I imagine being in the article; they're really "more information," I think. Anyway, don't we usually link to our references? If nothing else, having these links will let us use the material to improve the articles more easily. -- SCZenz 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If Amazon started posting links to there products, evry Wikipedian would be up in arms. How is this any differant. And why do the need a 'team' to ad links? Surely, if their articles were so relavent people would be doing it allready and SA wouldn;t need to do it. This looks super fishy to me. Hol e in the wall 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They are unquestionably trying to make money off of us and promote themselves. I claim, however, that their effort will be mutually beneficial. -- SCZenz 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To see what kind of links they're posting, see Special:Contributions/208.241.19.100. -- SCZenz 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the person at SciAm is editting the articles, it seems to me that using the ref tag would be a better use of the time. However, we often have external links to nytimes, guardian, and other on-line articles supported by advertising. AND we all love Google, a service supported by advertising, to verify references and notability. Quite different from Amazon, where a link doesn't actually contain information.

--William Allen Simpson 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazon contains Discographies, album covers, album reviews and information on the album. Yet I see no links of Amazon. Hol e in the wall 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a good thing. Most of the links are certainly good links on an individual basis, but it continues systematically, we're going to end up with every single one of our higher-profile articles on science linking to Scientific American. Remember, we try to keep the number of external links on our articles within a reasonable limit, so that means one less link devoted to someone else, too. I'm worried that this will, in effect, make Scientific American look like a sort of unofficial Wikipedia affiliate... No matter how good they are, I think we should avoid that. --Aquillion 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That just means we have to deal with each link added on a case-by-case basis (which we ought to be doing for every link anyway). I think it's clear that if the editors of a given article decide against keeping a given link, Scientific American isn't going to keep on reverting the decision to remove it. We don't have to officially sanction the process en mass, we can look at each link as it comes.--ragesoss 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh. What I kind of meant to say was that even if the individual links could pass on a one-by-one bases, the effect of having the overwhelming majority of science articles on Wikipedia link to Scientific American might be something we want to consider. --Aquillion 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the comparison to Amazon.com is a red herring -- we can use product identification numbers and link through a counterpart to the ISBN-book links that are already being used if we're concerned about vendor neutrality. That would not solve what's a crucial difference between products and articles -- mp3 players, software, golf carts, and virtually everything else Amazon sells is not itself really properly encyclopedic, and we would risk looking like a sales directory if we had articles and links for all that stuff on Wikipedia. Scientific American's content is, by contrast, by nature almost always encyclopedic -- scientific discoveries are about the world around us, and they are the historical core of what encyclopedias are about. To reiterate, a lot of links to amazon makes us a product directory, but a lot of links to SciAm makes us well plugged in to science. I would be tempted to say that the SciAm articles are unqualifiedly a good thing, my only reservation being that we might want to be cautious about covering research that is too new. If those who add the links take great care to deal with this latter issue sensitively, I see no issue with this kind of linking going on. --Improv 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Their explanation is much appreciated. But I can't say it makes me like any better that a commercial entity is adding links to their own site. Who will be the next? Wikipedia does not let affiliate programs determine its content — and links aren't even content. It'd actually be preferable they'd skip the links and start directly adding the relevant content to the articles. Links would neither be necessary nor appropriate then — not even for reference, when the creator of the referenced content itself adds it, think about it! Why would anybody with a financial responsibility to their shareholders bother to do such a thing? It still stinks of bargaining for advertising space, in their own interest they should refrain. Femto 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

VERY nice point Femto! I think that defeats SA's point completely. Hol e in the wall 20:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Femto, you seem to be saying that if an editor adds his own work, it doesn't have to be referenced. That doesn't work. If anyone, the author of an article in Scientific American, a staff member at the magazine, or a reader, adds material from an article, it must be cited as a reference. The issue here is not (or should not be) about using Scientific American articles as references. The issue is about external links.

I do have to say that external links to Scientific American articles will almost certainly be more relevant and useful than 95% of the external links we currently have, but that is more of an argument for agressively cleaning out poor external links than for letting Scientific American add their links. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean that a company only has to be the first to include some fact from their site into an article, and Wikipedia must provide a free link to them for all eternity? That doesn't work either. References are a help to the reader and an academic courtesy to the original source. But the facts are free, especially if chosen to be added by the source itself. Femto 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not for all eternity, no - it could be replaced by a different source later. But yes, every fact added to any Wikipedia article should be accompanied by a reference to a source, as per the Verifiability and Original Research policies. This applies even when they're added by someone with sufficient authority to make a statement, because we only have their word for it that they are that person or group.

As a separate issue, yes, we do undertake to credit every contributor for providing the information for all eternity, under the GFDL - that's one of the things that the History function is there for. TSP 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not for all eternity perhaps, but long enough for adding linked facts to Wikipedia becoming a lucrative business model! Other sites will be less reserved than SciAm. I also agree with below that the reference argument is rather moot at this point, as all we've got is links so far. Femto 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts may be free, but they have to be sourced. If anyone, including an employee of Scientific American, adds new material to a Wikipedia article based on an article from the magazine, then they need to reference the source. Again, this is a different issue from the one which was originally raised here, which is whether we want employees of online sources adding "external links" which are not direct sources for information in an article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, they need to reference the source. The fact remains that except for the few cases regulated by WP:OR, an editor of Wikipedia should never cite themself as source of the content which they add.

Say I wrote an essay on the history of bark beetles breeding in bohemian birches. I put it on my website. If you add the information from there to Wikipedia, you may add a cite as a courtesy to me, and as a help for the reader to determine the reliability of the information. This is the purpose of Wikipedia's references.

But I can add my knowledge to Wikipedia regardless of whether my site existed or not. Citing myself does not make me a proper source or increases my encyclopedic verifiability. Neither is it a courtesy to myself, it's a promotion. This holds true even moreso for publishers of franchised content from other writers. A link to their site, a secondary source, would neither be necessary nor appropriate, when they own the added content and have access to its primary references. Femto 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I find your argument very confusing. If a magazine article is used as the source for material in a Wikipedia article, then the magazine article must be cited no matter who adds the material to Wikipedia. You seem to be saying that if an employee of Scientific American should add material from an article in that magazine, he or she could not cite the article, but would have to cite the references listed in that article. That would be wrong. References in Wikipedia should only be to sources actually consulted by the editor adding or verifying the material. Citing indirect sources that the editor has not consulted would be wrong. Note that most articles in Scientific American are commissioned from experts in a particular field, and are not written by employees of the magazine. And this is all still hypothetical, anyway. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that, so long as the links are relevant to the article, and go into more depth than the wikipedia article, they can only be benificial. Ideally, the relevant content from the SA articles would be merged into the WP article, with the SA article then used as a reference - but failing that, pointing readers to a useful article to read next is the next best thing. With luck, it will prompt people to add content from that page back into the WP article (with appropriate references). I recognise that there is a money-making and publicity side to this, but I tend to focus more on the quality of WP articles than that. Responding to the external links point above: yes, it's nice to keep them down to a reasonable number, but if the external articles/websites will be of use to the reader wanting to go into more depth, then they should be added regardless of how many are currently there. Or will WP abruptly run out of space / words if we do that? Mike Peel 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Femto's points. Realistically, I'm not too worried; there are not all that many sites on te net that provide science content: one is lucky to find one or two for the obscure topics, maybe half-a-dozen for the more well-known topics. My goal is to have good information that is accessible, ad can be cross checked. This seems to fulfil that purpose. linas 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with Femto and agree with Donald Albury. I also think that it is a red herring to think about the scale of the thing: if each individual edit is good (according to the categorical imperative) then the sum of the edits ought to be good as well. The guideline WP:EL for links normally to be avoided seems a little odd to me: if the encyclopedia reaches a point where the articles it links to are superceded, then the links ought to be removed, provided they are not being used as references. In the meantime, if you can direct readers to another source, or even another approach, then so much the better. Let the individual editors (i.e. people with the article on their watchlist) make the call. There is no need for an overarching deicision about whether the links are a good thing or a bad thing.

Finally, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Scientific American is not. They take different approaches to things; Scientific American tries to write entertaining articles and we are trying to be an useful work of reference. Narrative is more important to them than to us, and it can only help to give Wikipedia readers the option of consulting their articles (provided, of course, they are relevant and the links section doesn't get too bloated). – Joke 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Knowing the high quality of Scientific American, I'm very happy to have external links to their articles in ours. They will only add to the value of our 'pedia. And I'm really glad that they are doing the work. Saves me from having to do it ;-). That this may also help them, is no skin off our collective noses. Paul August ☎ 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Allowing any organization to add self-links in articles' external links sections sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. At the very least it shows a blatent disregard for WP:SPAM, one of the few tools we have in the fight against the rising tide of spam here. What motivation does said organization have to spend time adding their links as proper citations when they can get away with simply dumping them en-masse, especially if someone is doing it "on the clock"? Ok, so Sci Am articles are often relevant and useful - but would it be so bad to request that Sci Am either add their links to the articles' talk pages (to allow other neutral editors to determine their worth), or add them as citiations? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Full ack. Allow it just once, and I foresee thousands of articles, each with highly relevant links to dozens of magazines. If relevant external content improves Wikipedia, the more the better? Where's the limit to relevance? Why bother with internal content in the first place? The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to create internal content, not to be a directory to that of others, even if someone might use it as a source at some indefinite future. Femto 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub. Scientific American is close to a best case for allowing an entity to add many external links back to itself. The problem would be in drawing the line between Scientific American and Weekly World News. So, I'm all for anyone citing any reliable, published source as a reference for material in an article. I think we need to tighten up on external links in general, however. I like your suggestion of asking SciAm to post the links to the talk pages and let the editors familiar with the page decide if they belong on the article page. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not discourage Scientific American. It is a good source and their links would benefit WP. Putting the links on talk pages could be a good compromise. Maurreen 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is Scientific American doing the edits should not be an issue, nor should their external motives. It shouldn't matter who is doing the editing, as long as the edits are good: that seems to be one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Since the links have generally been relevant, unobtrusive, free and useful, I say let them continue adding them, but ask them to ensure that they don't reinsert links that other editors have decided to remove. – Joke 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that a link to any relevant Scientific American article would improve our encyclopedia. Can anyone point to a single inapproprate link to any article, added by Scientific American? If not, then having them add the link to the talk page is just unnecessary extra work, for no gain. If they start making inappropriate links, then we can take action. Saying that they shouldn't be allowed to add links to articles, which we all agree are useful, is just silly. Paul August ☎ 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've come a bit late to this discussion, but my suggestion is that we let SciAm add all the relevant link they can come up with, and that we, as Wikipedia editors, then form a WikiProject to tidy up after them and turn the "external links" into chunks of readable prose summarising the relevant points of the article, and that have a link to the article as a reference for the information. In other words, they link to what could be useful content, and we then edit the articles to add any missing information from those article, and reference those articles if we judge them to be appropriate references for the new information. Does that sound acceptable? Or would that be too much like hard work? Carcharoth 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases, but please realize that is not necessarily the case that all the content from every SA linked article would be appropriate to add to our articles. Some articles might be linked for the purpose of "further reading". Paul August ☎ 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also a bit late, but I do want to add my $0.02. I feel SA are wrong on two counts:

1. If the writers there want to "contribute by providing additional information", they should do what all creators of content should best do for Wikipedia, and add content to it. If they are genuinely (and philanthropically) interested in adding to a topic, nothing at all prevents them GDFL'ing their content and boldly adding it right in. This would be the very best they could do for us. Especially pictures. Hint hint.
2. By acting in direct violation of several policies (most especially WP:EL,don't link to yourself), they are ignoring consensus on these matters, and behaving boorishly. However, my immediate reaction reading the first parts of this on the Project Physics page was that SA would immediately desist and apologize if detractors brought this to their attention -- an impression which was indeed borne out.

• I would like to also offer my counter to above arguments that SA should be excepted since "they are good" -- this is pure ad hominem. Obviously, if this were not SA but some obscure fanzine or Amazon.com, these objections would not be raised at all. And by allowing this particular exception to policies, we force ourselves into the unenviable position of eventually having to write a policy that covers which websites are "allowed" to do this, and which aren't... Slippery slope is the phrase, of course. Eaglizard 07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ps: I added an invitation to contribute content freely to User_talk: Scientific American, but somehow I doubt they'll start beefing up actual article content. 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I welcome Scientific American adding links to relevant articles, although I am a little concerned about setting a precendent. It isn't reasonable to expect them to contribute the material to the articles directly: it would be far more work for them, with less return, than adding a link. They could not simply paste the contents of their articles into Wikipedia, both because we have existing entries which would need to be integrated with, and because their articles, no matter how good, are phrased as magazine articles and not as encyclopedia entries. I also don't expect them to give up their copyright so freely. User:Carcharoth had a good idea a few posts up from this: encourage them to post their links, freely mine the articles for useful content (rewording so as not to contravene copyright), and convert the link to a reference. They still get the hits from click-throughs, and our articles improve.

I expect that New Scientist, Nature, Time, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer will want similar arrangements. We need to set up a suitable group which will evaluate such proposals and determine whether they are in our interests.-gadfium 08:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer? Never heard of it before today. :-) Thanks for mentioning it though. Obviously I had heard of Time and New Scientist and Nature. Any others? The list could get quite long. Carcharoth 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I listed a few fairly well known and respected publications, and then thought I should throw in a respectable publication which has only local significance in contrast. I have no connection to the CPD, indeed, I doubt I've ever read a copy, but if I chose a publication from my local area (eg Metro) then few Wikipedians would be able to say "Yes, that's a respectable newspaper/magazine". My point is that we couldn't make a comprehensive list, but we should provide a place for such publications to request permission to place links to themselves in our articles, and a way to evaluate those requests.-gadfium 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To Eaglizard: It is silly for us to object to an otherwise appropriate and useful link to an article, for no other reason than who it was added by. To discourage the adding of useful content (and a link is as much content as any other text in an article) because we don't like who added it, is placing other concerns ahead of those of our readers. I also doubt that SA is in violation of any policies, and if they are then those policies should be rewritten ;-) (Btw WP:EL is a style guideline, not an official policy, and it only says that self links should "normally be avoided", and I don't think that WP:EL, is really talking about this situation — the section discouraging self-links is mainly about POV issues.)

To gadfium: Bad precedent setting is really not much of an issue for Wikipedia, where current practice generally dictates policy, not the other way around. Current practice is that links are, more or less, added and removed on a case-by-case basis, as judged by the editors of each article, and this is how it should be.

Paul August ☎ 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Coming into this debate a little bit late, I want to add that I think it is a neat idea for SciAm to be adding quality links to Wikipedia articles. Particularly if the focus of the article is specifically about the Wikipedia article topic, I don't see what the real problem is here. I would likely try to strongly recommend that for SciAm to do this, they should voluntarily restrict themselves to only one or two Wikipedia articles per SciAm article, and avoid spamlinking dozens of SciAm articles for a single Wikipedia article. If done in moderation, I think this would be a fantastic thing for Wikipedia.

BTW, the same thing can be said for the New York Times, or even scientific publications like Nature or New England Journal of Medicine. A few high quality reference links to publications like these is something reasonable and indeed should be commended. And don't tell me that the New York Times doesn't have a single reference in Wikipedia linking to their website. Precedence is already on Wikipedia to permit these links, so it is really more of a manner of how and in what quantity should links like these be permitted. The whole Amazon.com debate is moot as Amazon.com already is listed as one of the ISBN links. As far as some companies making money off of Wikipedia, get used to it. While annoying advertisements aren't permitted for Wikipedia, commercial links certainly have been for some time. They must be on-topic, verifiable, and relevant to the Wikipedia article in question. A link selling viagra pills on the William Clinton article is clearly not going to be allowed. --Robert Horning 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents, I think it is fine for SA to add the links. I believe I've added links to SA articles, but I would not link to, say, Amazon. Bubba73 (talk), 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Without doubt, Scientific American is a reliable, reputable publication. It contributes good information in any area it publishes. While it may be the first publication to add links, it won't be the last. Wikipedia should provide guidence for such situations. My suggestion would be, All such links may be added in either 'Exterior Links' or 'Additional Reading of Interest'. The guideline would apply to employees of a magazine who are working on company time and are not the free, volunteer public. Looking at a few of the links added, they are good information, the article is enhanced by them. Terryeo 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would there be all this fuss if Scientific American had added something from the article, then cited it as a reference? What's the practical difference?--Runcorn 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth and opinions

If a certain point of view on a particular issue can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false (as is the case with some pseudosciences), do they require a mention? If something is proven, it holds true to all, so can a false point of view still be considered valid? --81.156.50.151 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is valid for us to report that, for example, some people believe in astrology — whether astrology is real or not. It's not our place to determine 'truth'; we just report on the major schools of thought on a given issue. It's certainly appropriate for us to note when a particular opinion is 'fringe' or 'mainstream', but we can't and shouldn't decide on the 'truth' of an issue. (We can apply some editorial judgement. If an opinion is in sufficient minority and far enough out on the fringe, it may not warrant inclusion. Obviously this has to be approached on a case-by-case basis.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Inclusion should be based on the extent to which something actually extends and is pertinent-how widely-spread something is. Michael 07:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

However, in many cases, we do determine truth, and we must in order to be a reasonably serious encyclopedia. For example, Earth states that the Earth is round. Even though there is only one notable viewpoint on this, we are still determining truth, and not just reporting on different viewpoints. I believe that in cases where there is only one notable view of the truth, we can usually report that as the truth. Otherwise we, as an encyclopedia, have very serious problems. --Philosophus ^T 06:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We report what the sources say. If there is only one notable view of the truth, there will be few reliable sources that say otherwise. But what is truth? It is a simplification to say that the Earth is round; it is a much closer approximation to the truth than the statement that the Earth is flat, but it is not exactly true. Similarly, few people would reject Newtonian dynamics, although we know that it is not exactly correct.--Runcorn 12:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Books in Wikipedia

Is there a policy or guideline about articles about books in Wikipedia? Any notability or any other criterion for inclusion of books? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. There is a proposed guideline though at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Deco 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW would preclude the addition of articles about self-published books and authors. They will almost assuredly be deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That would assume that the book is not notable. I believe that the small version of the Review of Particle Physics by the PDG is self-published, but it is likely that it is notable. We can't assume that being self-published means that a book is not notable. However, it is highly unlikely to be notable unless it has a large enough readership and enough reputable and reliable sources about it. --Philosophus ^T 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... Michael 07:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be over-prescriptive to have lots of rules about this; anything that should not be included ought to be picked up by the usual procedures for deleting articles.--Runcorn 12:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource—uploading unpublished documents

There is a certain document that is relevant for an article in Wikipedia. The document is open source; so it can be legally uploaded to Wikisource. The document has been cited in published works, but it is itself unpublished; so under the policies of Wikisource, it should not be uploaded. The reason for this policy is verifiability (as I understand things).

I would like to find a way to upload the document to Wikisource, but still maintain verifiability. The document was written by a professor at a university. Ordinarily, a simple solution would be to ask the professor to publish the document on his web page at the university. In this case, however, the professor has now retired, and he does not have a web page. (He is emeritus, and is still listed as being a member of the faculty on his department's web page.)

Another obvious solution would be to ask the university department to which the professor belongs to publish the document on its web site. In this case, however, the document was written for something that was unrelated to the department. The committee to which professor belonged for the context of writing the document has since been disbanded, and it does not have a web page at the university.

The document is on file with the university administration. So, could someone in the administration, or the professor himself, upload the document to Wikisource? I think not directly, because the identity of the uploader could not be certified.

So, could someone in the administration, or the professor, e-mail the document to a Wikipedia/Wikisource administrator? The e-mail address could be verified by the having the administrator get the address from the univeristy web site. I thought that this would give some confidence in the source of the document. (As a variant, three administrators could be involved: one to upload, the other two to check the upload.)

In any case, no matter how the document is uploaded, some third-party verification could always be done by having the third party e-mail the univeristy administration and asking for an original copy of the document. The central point that I wish to make is that some verifiability/certifiability is feasible, even though the document is unpublished, because the document is on file with the administration. And I would not think that this constitutes original research, because the document has been cited in other publications.

Finally, I don't think it's relevant, but the document is a page of text. Also, the language is Swedish (though the Wikipedia article is English). Presumably the Swedish Wikisource would be appropriate, although an English translation of the document in the English Wikisource would also be valuable.

Suggestions as to how to properly proceed would be much welcome...!

—Daphne A 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: no, this is not how it works.

Somewhat longer:

• "I would like to find a way to..." – yes, I can see that. But, no offense intended, what I read is: "I would like to find a way to... circumvent WikiSource policy". First, this is the wrong place to ask that (this is Wikipedia, not Wikisource). At Wikisource the answer appears to have been no. If you want to contest that, you might try at meta: or the mailing list or the appropriate IRC, but this Wikipedia policy page is unlikely to give you an answer (and if it would, it would be of no value at Swedish Wikisource).
• Wikipedia is not the first publisher of original research. See WP:NOR. If you're speaking about a kind of textbook for a university course or so (that contains no original research), Wikibooks might be the right place, but then, if the material covered by that textbook has been published elsewhere before (which would be about the only acceptable proof for not being original research), why would you want/need to publish this particular textbook of this particular retired professor? If you need it as a source for some Wikipedia article, then just use those other publications containing the same assertions.
• On a related note, but this remark is probably of no significance if the previous condition can't be fulfilled: the copyright holder must allow to release the text under GFDL. There are procedures for that, see for example Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

So, my recommendation: find a *reputable publisher* outside the WikiMedia projects. Get possible copyright issues straightened out with the current copyright owner(s). Then, the source is published, and your fellow-wikipedians can go and see and assess whether it's a Reliable Source, whether it represents more than a tiny minority view, etc, and thus suitable to be used as a source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not an expert Wikipedian. When I registered here, the Welcome message pointed me to a page entitled "Where to ask a question", which in turn pointed me to the Village Pump. I realized that my question related more to Wikisource than Wikipedia, but I did not find a "Village Pump" at Wikisource; so I thought that perhaps this was the place to ask my question. Your presumption that at "Wikisource the answer appears to have been no" is not called for! I never asked the question there.

After reading your comment, I looked again at Wikisource and found that it has something like the Village Pump after all, but it is not called "Village Pump". Okay, maybe I should have seen it before. But I think that the user interface here is sub-optimal: for people who are starting out, using the same name on all the Wiki projects would be nicer.

With regard to what the answer to my question is, I realize from your comment that I did not word the question well. I will word it more clearly when I ask over at Wikisource.

—Daphne A 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I've newly registered an account here at Wikipedia, though I've been a site user and occasional editor for 3-4 years now. My question is, in Macromanagement (computer gaming) and Actions Per Minute, there is an occurence of "citation needed." However, I'm a bit confused as to why it is there. In both cases, I didn't feel any citation was needed because it is common knowledge that anyone who would be writing about this would have. For example, why is there a citation needed for "The game is broadcasted in TV, showing off pro-gamers' micromangement skills."? That's identical to saying you need a citation for "Baseball is broadcasted on TV, showing off how baseball players throw the ball." It just doesn't strike me as something that needs to be cited.

From the Actions Per Minute entry, "A highly skilled or professional StarCraft player would normally execute an average of 230 to 400 apm in a game, whereas most average players will most likely be executing below 150 APM.", while more applicable than the first mention, still doesn't need to be cited. The person who wrote the entry just knows this for a fact like I do. We didn't get it anywhere other than learning the game and watching the matches...

Thanks for any help. PGT.Endurance 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We still need a source for facts, even if you know them to be true, deep in your guts. [WP:NOR] forbids us from just stating things as true. Have a read through that policy and you'll get a better idea than anything I can say in a few words. --Jumbo 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you said and thank you for your response. However, I am still a bit edgy on it because I could throw up a source but it would simply be off of a message board or news post which a Starcraft community member or even myself wrote. However, is the point simply to point to an external, uneditable (at least as easy as Wikipedia), source? As I wrote, say I linked to one of my own official Starcraft community posts on a known Starcraft website, would that be considered a source? Thanks.

PGT.Endurance 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, you've put your finger on a problem with citing sources. However, we're pretty good at working out which sources are good and which are rubbish. Just quietly, but for Starcraft, I'd say that a forum frequented by expert players is about as good a source as we could possibly get for your APM figures. --Jumbo 04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much for your help! ^^ PGT.Endurance 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Everyone knows that baseball is broadcast on TV. I've never even heard of Macromanagement (computer gaming), and I would certainly be skeptical if someone told me it was broadcast on TV - I would want to know what channel it was on, and have a link to a site that could confirm it. Much better to replace the sentence with something along the lines of "Since May 2005, the TV show Macromanagement Rulz, which features players playing the game, has been broadcast on the US cable network ESPN. The third series is now in production." if possible. Stevage 10:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this, I saw in Valve Anti-Cheat "VAC1 swiftly became all but useless during this period of development, but since its 20 June 2005 launch VAC2 has successfully overseen a precipitous decline in the number of cheating players across the entire multi-player Steam library." By those rules, wouldn't something like this also need citation? Thanks. PGT.Endurance 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think it does, then put a template on it. I don't read every article on Wikipedia, and I have to say that until this moment, I had no idea of the existence of Valve Ant-Cheat. Again I recommend reading Wikipedia's policies - there's something in there to cover every possibility. --Jumbo 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Turning WIkipedia into a Political Debate - Multiple articles on one Political POV

Could someone help me understand if there is any policy about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for political POV? Multiiple articles have been created for the sole purpose of pushing a tort reform POV. There is already a long article on tort reform, and it just links to a multitude of other 'articles' (rants is more like it) on tort reform, under the guise of separate topics. I don't care what the personal POV is, a political debate has no place on Wikipedia, does it? It certainly is inconsistent with a *regular* encyclopedia. I have changed one article to turn it into a legimate article, which warrants an entry. However, the trend just propagates. I checked Encyclopedia Britannica online, and there is no article on 'tort reform' for good reason. The only references that are cited - both pro and against - almost all violate the guidelines of Reliable Resources. They are almost all political sites, either for or against tort reform. One 'reference' frequently cited on these articles is Tillinghast/Towers Perrin which is an interested party in the politics of tort reform with its operations as a major consultant to the insurance industry and as an insurance company itself with its reinsurance business. There are also lobbying groups (for and against) tort reform that are used as 'references'. This is not encyclopedic. THe nature of an article on a political agenda precludes neutral point of view references and invites polemic sources.

I am asking about this here, because this is not an isolated example, but a consistent pattern. Here is one example of an article that was originally created for the clear purpose of advancing a tort reform agenda, and not to discuss the actual topic itself:

Medical Malpractice -- The article previously had a very short 'explanation' of the elements of the claim (which were misstatements of law), with the rest of the paper a tirade about tort reform. I made corrections to the misstatements of law, and added a discussion on the incidents and types of medical malpractice -- citing both a medical journal and the Institute of Medicine. I also suggested that 'tort reform' not be included here. Below is a quote of what one editor added just today. However, he is not alone among a small group of political activists pushing this agenda.

This is under the heading "Malpractice Settlement Alternatives" (which makes no sense in itself since this proposal is not this at all) --

The group, Common Good has proposed creating specialized medical courts to improve the American system where almost 60% of all plaintif judgments are now consumed by attorney fees & court costs. These specialty "Health Courts" (similar to existing administrative tax or workmen's comp court proceedings)whose hallmark would be medically-trained, full-time judges making precedent-setting decisions about proper standards of care, would remedy the unreliability of our current system.

Proponents believe that giving up jury trials and scheduling noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering would lead to more people being compensated, and to their receiving their money sooner. Support for this alternative comes from sources ranging from The National Law Journal 1,the USA Today editorial page 2, The Wall Street Journal 3, Forbes magazine, the AMA, and the American College of Surgeons. The Harvard School of Public Health has been working with the Common Good initiative4in conducting research to answer unresolved health court policy questions by analyzing individual state constitutional impediments to health courts, doing projected cost analyses, developing a tiered schedule for noneconomic damages-which would have upper limits-and working out the standards for compensation.

Opponents of tort reform object to the idea.5

The entire paragraph is pro 'tort reform' with one sentence that "Opponents of tort reform object to the idea." Can ANYONE explain how this is NPOV? Also, the 60% reference is from an uncited report and the 60% is incorrectly reported and out of context. The actual report concluded that there was no effect on the cost of health care.

This is what these multiple tirades on tort reform end up looking like:

"Proponents of tort refom argue (fill in the blank)". -- then a long tirade

"Critics of tort reform argue (fill in the blank)" -- and inevitably a rebuttal tirade

Then there is a vicious edit war, with no real resolution because the article by nature is a political debate.

First none of these anonymous groups of 'critics and proponents' are sourced, but broad agendas are nonetheless attributed to them. Then the argument devolves into the tirade (on either side) with polemic references.

The articles become so unreadable and so argumentative that any iota of encyclopedic content is lost. Is there any policy at all on this kind of thing? Why is WIkipedia even including entries on purely political debates? jgwlaw 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that since I started editing this article I've only included one citation, as follows...

Tort reform supporters argue that lawsuits over socially beneficial practices increase the costs of those practices, and thus improperly deter innovation and other economically desirable activity. An example often cited is the medical insurance industry, where some governmental studies have shown a link between the rising costs of medical malpractice premiums and reduced access to health care[1].

The citation is a link to a 2002 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It was deleted in the course of a collaborative re-structuring of the article by jglaw and I, and no explanation was ever given as to why. Maybe the problem is that valid secondary-sourcing is being lost in edit wars, while leaving a lot of partisan detrius on board.

Certainly, "tort reform" is a political movement with social aims and contending factions, but so was the abolition movement, the prohibition / temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the affirmative action movement, the Whiskey Rebellion, etc. All were (and some still are) contentious political issues, but that does not make them "unencyclopedic." It just means we have to work harder.--HelloDali 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is covered at WP:NPOV, specifically the issue of undue weight. If an article is biased (and stacks of 'em are, Wikipedia, she ain't finished) then take action on it - if there are problems, there are plenty of places to find help about, such as request for comment if you need that as well. Most wikipedia editors are helpful people, but POV pushers are about. You'll find that most are well meaning, and that if you keep the faith, you can make the article work. WilyD 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As another editor of the Tort Reform article, I'd like to pose a few examples of the items in question. These were originally posted under the heading "The Tort Reform Agenda" (which I take to mean "list of stated purposes")

Caps on non-economic damages (e.g., monetary compensation for pain and suffering), punitive damages;

Limiting or eliminating the collateral source doctrine

Use of court-appointed expert witnesses and elimination of elections for judges (In other words, mandatory appointment for both judges and expert witnesses) ;

Limiting the applicability of joint and several liability in favor of proportional liability;

Reducing appeal bond requirements for defendants who file appeals when faced with potentially bankrupting judgments;

Adopting the English rule of "loser pays";

Limits on contingency fees;

Requirement that class actions that have a nationwide class of plaintiffs be tried in federal courts.

This list was deleted for the reasons jglaw describes above. However, when you click on each of the links in the above list, you'll notice that only two of the linked articles even make a passing reference to tort reform, and none contain NPOV tags. The list was intended to extend the primary definition to include a description of the most commonly proposed tort reforms, which I thought - and still believe - it did.

Clearly, it was not intended to "propagandize" anyone. Unless we can agree that most readers instinctively know what "collateral source doctrine" means, than we must try to inform readers about the meaning of the term. Anything less seems like censorship, in its most odious form. My suggestion would be (if jglaw still believes these linked articles to be polemical) to edit the articles in question, as the notion that tort reform advocates support the listed changes doesn't appear to be in question by either of us.--HelloDali 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely why we need the NPOV policy. Any article purely there for POV purposes needs to be re-written or, if there is nothing worth salvaging, nominated for deletion.--Runcorn 10:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. However, I would like to ass that, instead of attributing beliefs to the strawmen of "critics of tort reforms" or "proponents of tort reform," editors should avoid weasel words and name actual parties to the tort reform debate (e.g. insurance companies and business lobby vs. trial lawyers) and cite to those parties theorugh reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Places of local interest

Discussions about the large number of articles about schools, guyed masts, railway stations, and the like seem to happen frequently. I've written a proposal discussing such articles, and I'd welcome anyone who'd like to comment on it or edit it to help make it better to do so. TIA, JYolkowski // talk 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of words in other languages

I removed a list of translations of stevia into other languages from the Stevia article and put it on Wiktionary instead, but someone put it right back. Is there an existing policy on this? —Keenan Pepper 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that there's a policy, but my feeling is that etymologies and translations should be included if and only if they have some encyclopedic merit beyond face value. For example, I added lots of translations to Hodgsonia (which is in a shameful, half-finished state), but only for indigenous peoples and for the two imperial powers whose botanists first described the plant. In Stevia, there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic value in the Swedish translation... but the article has a paragraph on Japan, so I think the Japanese translation is relevant. Does that make sense? Melchoir 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I said if anyone wanted to mention interesting or important translations in prose, they were welcome to, just not a bulletted list. —Keenan Pepper 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally created that list because it has encyclopedic value to that particular article. Acquaintances referred to that article specifically to see what Stevia is called in their home country. Translations were also requested in the talk page. I travel globally and often have no way of knowing what a food ingredient is called in other languages. Especially for things like stevia and MSG, the terms don't translate easily from English. Therefore a reference is necessary.

True, the Swedish term and a few others were redundant, so I have removed them, and included prose -- a far better alternative than deleting the entire list. Including terms in other languages is appropriate, especially for a reference work about a food substance that has experienced political controversy.

What rankles me is that unlike others who have endeavored to edit this list, one individual made absolutely no effort to make it fit better into the article, and instead arbitrarily removed a relevant contribution that I spent some hours researching and assembling for the stevia article, not for Wiktionary. The revised restoration goes some way to addressing the concerns above. Relevant information should not be removed; if you don't like the way it's presented, then figure out a better way instead. Amatulic 17:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just tell me one thing: What is special about stevia that its article should have translations into other languages (and only certain ones, with no reason given for the choices), but most other articles shoudn't? —Keenan Pepper 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not singling out Stevia. I think any article should include alternate names (preferably in prose form as you suggest, but at least as a list to start out), if the article concerns a food substance that has been embroiled in controversy around the world. Take MSG for example. Even here in the U.S. I frequently go into Asian restaurants whose personnel barely know English, and don't know what "MSG" or "Monosodium glutamate" means. It's quite useful for me to know that it's called mi-won in Korean, for example, because I want to avoid it (MSG nearly hospitalizes a close relative, so I'm pretty sure it's not good for me either). Where did I find the Korean name? Wikipedia! Googling for "monosodium glutamate korean" results in many dead ends. It's nice to know I can rely on Wikipedia for things that really matter. I'd like to see the MSG alternate names list expanded further to European languages, but for now, listing only Asian languages is appropriate due to MSG's special ubiquity in Asia. But unlike MSG which is permitted everywhere, the permissions and bans on stevia are spread out all over the world, so it makes sense to have a somewhat larger list of names.

I, and others, want to know what to look for (or avoid) when I go abroad. For example, Singaporeans (who are all English speaking) may want to avoid stevia because Singapore bans it; they might want to know the name for Steviawhen traveling abroad (as many Singaporeans do) to avoid stevia-tainted food. Conversely, I'm sensitive to sugar and I avoid artificial sweeteners, so I seek out stevia wherever I go.

As to the choice of languages, the ones listed are the only ones I could find. There simply may not be a name for stevia in, say, Croatian.

One thing that might let me cut down the list dramatically is to simply state that most other languages refer to stevia literally as "sweet leaf." However, I have not yet verified that the names I listed translate literally as "sweet leaf" except in a few cases. Another thing that will help is be to reorganize the list by country, which would consolidate the four Indian language names. I am doing so now. Amatulic 15:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It helps to have an alternate tranlation of the subject of an article, to facilitate searches. What if someone hears a term, and wants to find out what it means, on Wikipedia? -Freekee 16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Modifying Wikipedia:No legal threats to include Wikipedia and the Foundation

I suggest that Wikipedia and the Foundation be added to Wikipedia:No legal threats. Currently, only legal threats to against users are covered. The only mention of Wikipedia or the Foundation is, "If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation." Since threatening to sue Wikipedia or the Foundation causes many of the same problems that the policy describes, I think it should be modified to explicitly cover them. -- Kjkolb 13:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please follow up at Wikipedia_talk:No_legal_threats#What_about_legal_threats_against_Wikipedia.3F. Deco 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR on linkspam

There's a persistent pornlinkspammer with multiple socks for something called thesexlane.com, mainly active on Oral sex and Webcam. I've repeatedly reverted him. Am I violating the rules here? Do some others want to keep an eye on these articles for awhile? Fan-1967 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to blatant vandalism. If the user has not defended their edits and is clearly editing in bad faith, you shouldn't have a problem. Deco 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's only ever used for spamming, it might be worth asking to add it to the link blacklist... Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Gee, that would have been easier in the first place, wouldn't it? Blacklisted. Fan-1967 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested on essay on coordinated vandalism

After some observations and discussions with User:Harmil, I think that we could benefit from a more coordinated and organized response to incidents like Colbert's call for vandalism of Elephant. I've written an essay that discusses how existing policies apply to such situations, so that useful information can be at one place. See Wikipedia:Dealing with coordinated vandalism (or WP:COLBERRORISM for "short").

I'd like to note that this is not an effort to formulate any new polices or guidelines. Also, although some of the comments are based on actions I'm concerned about from the handling of the Colbert incident, this page is in no way intended as an attack on any user who was involved. The goal is to do things better next time.

Please help improve the essay! If it ends up being useful, perhaps it can be linked from templates like {{P-protected}} so that users dealing with the issue have a reference—and observers and potential vandals have some idea how we deal with such things in general, and why. -- SCZenz 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Company Pages

A two part question for newly created company pages. 1. For ones that seem just like a promotional blurb should they be speedily deleted and if so, what db tag is best used? 2. For those that look like they should stay, but are in non-English speaking countries and are wrriten with a lot of spelling and grammer mistakes, (and sometimes border on being unreadable) what it the right thing to do (possibly a cleanup w/date tag)? --Brat32 03:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no speedy category for companies, so I usually Prod them (use as detailed a reason as possible, specifically citing WP:CORP. Then I watch the articles. Often they actually will accept the Prod and not challenge it. Other times, not, which is why we have AFD. Fan-1967 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Point added to WP:ASR

FYI, I added this obvious fact to WP:ASR, since this question seems to come up a lot lately. -- SCZenz 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this addition. Deco 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An observation on citing sources

This is something that has been bothering me for some times now. It seems that there's more articles with no sourcing at all than there are properly cited pages. I know I've read the formal policy, which states that -everything- needs to be sourced and verifiable. But in practice.. Well, honestly, in practice, the "citation needed" tag is only ever really used to point out specific lines the editor disagrees with or doesn't fit their POV on the article in question. And many edits take place with no mention of a source whatsoever.

In particular I'm thinking of many of the articles on media, like games and movies. Many of the articles I've seen in that vein have no "references" section at all, and few seem to at least have an "external links". It might not be as bad as I'm thinking, because after all, I tend to notice the absence of a references section more than I notice the presence, so it might not be as big an issue as it appears, but I do notice that, at least half the time, the citation needed tags I run across are just lumped onto statements that put the article's subject in any sort of bad light, or are otherwise... I don't know.. unpleasant? Not necessarily untrue, and possibly verifiable. And I realize that burden of proof is on the original editor, so unsourced stuff can always be removed if they're of questionable veracity, but it doesn't seem to me that the tags are actually used for that.

I dunno, I think I guess I want to know the difference between policy as it is written here, and policy how it is actually put to practice. Errick 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As articles mature, they get closer and closer to the criteria specified at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Most articles are, let's say, immature. Including verifiable references is one of the steps on the path to featured status. We'd rather have some content than no content, which means we'd rather have content with no verifiable references than no content. If you think statements are particularly suspect, please mark them. If you can add references, please do. It's all part of the wiki process. In the fullness of time, all articles will inexorably advance toward featured status. Many editors seem to be less willing to simply delete something that looks suspicious than mark it with a "citation needed" tag. Eventually someone will either delete the statement or add a reference.

The policy is that all content should be from verifiable sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The guideline reads "If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you. Simply provide any information you can."

"In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors."

It says you "should". Its not a policy that is enforced, or not, it is a guideline that is followed, or not. Hyacinth 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, and it says, Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Unsourced negative material about living persons must be deleted immediately (that is policy). In other cases it is considered courteous to use a variety of means for dealing with unsourced material: requesting citations using {{unreferenced}} or {{fact}} (or it's synonyms), moving the material to the talk page if it is obviously questionable, or simply deleting it immediately if it is clearly original research, or if it is outrageous, nonsensical or offensive. Using sound judgment to pick what to challenge is fine. Selectively applying the verifiability policy to push a POV would violate the principal that the verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view policies must always be interpreted in conjunction with each other. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy proposal: Naming conventions (Finnish)

I have written up a rough policy proposal for a Naming convention for Finnish proper names: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Finnish), and am now posting a link here as per WP:HCP. Please give your input! Elrith 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Massive addition of guitar pages

I have seen a large number of guitar model pages being added in the last day of so, all by the same person. e.g. ESP LTD KH-602 and ESP James Hetfield. This seems like a thinly disguised attempt to put a manufacturers catalog in wikipedia. --Brat32 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, equally likely, a zealous guitar enthusiast. Don't bite. Deco 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, a note that some of these 'articles' might not be appropriate for Wikipedia wouldn't be out of place.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the first few, I thought they were normal. At this point the number of them seems more than an enthusiast. But I'm too new to go and tell him to stop. --Brat32 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this guy work for ESP? And can't these "articles" be combined into a single "ESP guitar models" article? -Freekee 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's possible he works for ESP. The original ESP article that all the others point to, reads like promotional company literature. Wikipedia really should do better with security. Require verified logins, and show IP addresses recently used. He's posting as QelDroma06 which doesn't seem to exist, and there's no way to trace his IP to his company, if that's where he's posting from. Amatulic 01:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can afford to keep calm. There's not much contention for the ESP LTD KH-602 namespace, and who knows, we might end up with a raft of articles on guitars. Oaks & little acorns & all that. Equally, after a period, the articles could be hoovered up into a single article. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Template:Portal

Late last month, I noticed that users from Philadelphia had added the portal template to several hundred articles, many of them tenuously related to the city. I thought its application was rather excessive, and after looking around a bit, I found a discussion between several respected contributors that obtained consensus for a limited set of articles and categories where the template should be used. When I asked the users from Philadelphia to back off a bit, they replied that since it was not policy they had no reason to comply with my request and that I was being overly bureaucratic. Since that time, the template has been added to hundreds more pages, putting the total at close to 600 articles, with no signs of slowing down. So, I guess it's necessary to develop a guideline designating appropriate uses of the the template. Thoughts? - EurekaLott 04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

There is a place to find other wikipedia from uzbekistan yes? I shall (want) to order/make a new asscosiation for uzbek wikipedians? yes or no or maybe --Uzerbaaji 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you could keep an eye on the usbekistan article and its discussion page and when someone posts something send that person a message. Good luck.Steve Dufour 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's possible to create an Uzbeki notice board, which would help coordinate edits to articles relating to Uzbekistan. Would you like this? I would be willing to help you get started. --Improv 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia material on my own website

I've read through the agreement and have become very confused on how to use information from here on my website. If I come across an article and image that I want to use on my website, what do I need to do in order to use it on my site? I notice that some topics have several sections. What if I just want to take one section?

63.95.36.13 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks has the general description. That's more intended for the wholesale re-users of Wikipedia content, but the basics remain the same.

For separate articles (or sections of articles) a description can also be found in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations, which needs to be read in conjunction with the relevant sections of the GFDL. --Francis Schonken 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy on quoting opinions?

Does wikipedia currently have a policy/guideline on quoting people's opinions on a subject? If so, I think it might need to be advertised more prominently. If not, we should perhaps consider making one. JulesH 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously published information from reliable sources. Opinion, fact, or any information. WP:V Terryeo 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by quoting people's opinions on a subject (in articles? on talk pages? whose opinion, famous people? other editors?) and why there needs to be a policy? Thanks, Kjkolb 08:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, WP:RS#Some definitions is quite clear about quoting opinions:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. [...] (Note: this is in fact a quote of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, recopied in the WP:RS guideline)

And:

An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

And:

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, [...]

Now, "direct quotes" of opinions (e.g. expressed in an autobiography) are usually primary sources too, so:

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

None of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline clarifications supersede the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy of course, for instance (from WP:NPOV#Undue weight):

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

This means that not every "verifiable" and "quotable" opinion is necessarily included in Wikipedia. It might be a "tiny minority view", even if printed in a reliable source. Or the WP:NOT policy might provide a ground for barring it from Wikipedia, etc. --Francis Schonken 08:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I've noticed quite a lot of vandalism lately, as Wikipedia is becoming more and more well-known. It wasn't just at the Elephant article, which appeared on the Colbert Report, there were many others. Why can't a policy be set in place that allows only registered users to edit articles? We could even let unregistered people edit the talk pages and ask questions, just ban them from editing the articles. Gary 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. We're not disabling anonymous editing. This must come up like 3 times a month. Deco 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed and usually rejected resoundingly. Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users. Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement (related poll: 8 for, 56 against). There are probably more. Powers 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position either way but feel urged to make a prediction. Wikipedia begin with a handful of editors and hardly any guidelines. The editors were of like mind. The quantity of guidelines necessary to get good articles, to guide new editors and to reduce editing conflicts has increased and continues to increase. There will come a time, eventually, when the policy of anon editing will limit Wikipedia's usefulness because editors will, in good faith, be convinced certain articles must include their point of view. I'm saying many anon editors in edit conflicts with many other anon editors in controversial articles. But that is a long ways down the road, anyway. Terryeo 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a discussion of this on a single page somewhere, aside from the endless proposals and manifestos for blocking anon editing? (If not, I'll write one). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How to send a message to Wikipedia's owners?

I am having a problem doing this. Someone I know complained about the article on her and I checked it out. It seemed to me that this was an attack article, on a person without much public importance. I tried to do something with the article itself, including requesting its deletion, but I found myself having to confront the attackers as (almost) no one else seemed to care.* I sent an e-mail message to the address that is given for people to complain about what is written about them. However this e-mail did not go through. Is there some other way to let them now that there is a potential problem? Thanks.Steve Dufour 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of other people did try to help.

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (third nomination). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It seems clear that you don't like the article. You've repeatedly tried to have the article speedily deleted as an attack page, without citing inaccurate or false claims, and that will go nowhere. It has been nominated for deletion three times and kept each time. Clearly, many editors on this article (including you) have agendas. This is common with controversial people. You have the right, under WP:BLP to demand that everything in the article be factually accurate, properly sourced, and verified from reliable sources.

Thanks for pointing that out, Fan. I just checked out BLP and it seems to cover a lot more than just that point.Steve Dufour 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If verified, sourced facts paint a negative picture, that is not a justification for deleting the article. As far as complaining is concerned, you can go to User:Jimbo Wales and click on "Email this user" but I don't think you'll get anywhere. Fan-1967 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I did try to have it deleted; not because it is false -- I have no reason to think that it is, but because it is a personal attack against an individual. I have read the policy about biographies of living persons and the one about attack articles and I don't think this article belongs on Wikipedia. I have strong personal feelings since I know the person so I will not do anything directly with the article anymore.

I tried to help by changing the wording to make it less attacking (and by adding a link to a personal web page by the subject) but when it was changed back I lost my temper and tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack article (db-attack), when the tag was removed I put it back twice. For this I was threatened with blocking as a "vandal".

BTW the article is Barbara Schwarz. Here is the first paragraph:

Barbara Schwarz, née Bretschneider, is an illegal immigrant from Germany living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She is known for filing a record number of requests under the United States Freedom of Information Act, for filing a large number of lawsuits, and for posting a large number of articles to Usenet newsgroups.

Thanks again.Steve Dufour 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• She's a friend of yours, and you don't like that negative information about her is reported, but let's face it. She is a notable person; she has made herself that way. It would be impossible to have an article about her that omitted those facts. Adding personal opinions, or links to personal webpages, is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article, and you would be the first to complain if one of her critics did so. If it were false, or even unverified, you would have a case, but from what I can see every line of that article (and every line of the paragraph you quote) is sourced and verified. Fan-1967 19:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:External links:

What should be linked to:

1. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

2. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy if no "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

It seems to me that her webpage, which displays some of the letters she received from her freedom of information requests, would fall under point 2 and be something that should be linked to. As I said I will not do anything more with the article itself.Steve Dufour 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• What's displayed on her webpage, controlled by her, unverified by Secondary, Reliable Sources, has little weight. Again, if her critics posted sources like that against her, I think you would complain. Fan-1967 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not dispute the information given by her "critics" (or "attackers"); I have no reason to think anything said about her in the article is untrue. That is not my problem at all. She is not important enough to have an encyclopedia article. (Would you like to write the World Book Encyclopedia and ask if they are planning an article on her in their next edition? Or would you like to suggest to Wikipedia that her article be made a Featured Article?)

If her work filing for a large number of freedom of infomation requests is important then it seems to me that a page showing the results of some of those requests might be worth making available to readers. It is the website she choses to present to the world. If that means it is her "personal site" then by Wikipedian policy it should be linked to the article.Steve Dufour 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right that a link to her personal website is appropriate in the article about her (but only in that article, of course). However, please drop the "not important enough" argument—the Wikipedia community has already shot that down three times in three failed deletion attempts. Wikipedia also obviously doesn't limit itself by what print encyclopedias include, so what World Book would or wouldn't do is irrelevant; if that was the extent of our coverage, we would have all went home a year or two ago. Postdlf 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the issue? If the article is about the person, and the person has a blog/website/whatever, it's pretty much a no brainer that it's a primary source... straight from the horse's mouth, if you'll excuse the expression. Adding it to my watchlist now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If you really think a link to her site on the article would be a good idea could you please add it. It has been added and taken off a large number of times in the last few days. I have said that I will not edit the article any more so I can not add it myself.Steve Dufour 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the URL http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html

Any article that is good enough can become a featured article. I don't think that the importance of its subject matter is a major consideration.--Runcorn 22:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanna take bets on when Barbara's article will be one?Steve Dufour 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. Please note that one reason I am doing this is because Barbara doesn't seem to have a full grasp of how Wikipedia works so she can not understand how to make these complaints herself.

You know, it amazes me how these kinds of difficulties arise. Wikipedia is quite useful to a lot of people. There is simply no need for editors to write poorly referenced, inflammatory articles. Our policies and guidelines, if followed, present published information to readers. If out policies and guidelines are followed, inflammatory articles would present inflammatory publications, previously published. That's the whole thing, don't you see? If we editors rely on previously published information, if we quote, cite and state previously published information (from reliable sources), then there is an immediate target for the reading public to look at for the source of inflammation. Just stick with our policies and guidelines, people, and our productivity will remain high. Terryeo 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Sections

I need some clarification on this issue... does wikipedia consider criticism to be encyclopaedic content? It seems fairly evident to me that: (1) criticism can not be "true" nor "false" -- it is an opinion; (2) the motives of those who post criticism are not known, referencable, or verifiable; (3) criticism is necessarily biased (violating WP:NPOV); QED (4) criticism is either off-topic or completely inappropriate in most instances?

A mini-edit war regarding the placement of an off-topic tag on the criticism section of a particular article (I, of course, stopped editing when I realized the cirucmstances), and the more I think about it, the more I believe that the content is inappropriate entirely (though my point is simply the existance of the off-topic notice).

What do you guys think? A CC: to my talk page (or at least a note to come look here) would also be appreciated. Tnx!

/Blaxthos 05:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I gathered that the article you are referencing is Bash.org. I have to say that the Criticism section is distinctly POV and the "response" section is just as POV. In my opinion, neither is needed. Above all the article has an Original Research problem with nearly all the sources ending up being "example quotes" from the website. I've tagged the article and voiced my concern on the talk page. Agne 06:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a guideline proposal: Wikipedia:Criticism. Don't know if that would help. Or Jimbo's quote on that proposed guideline page:

it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

--Francis Schonken 07:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems worth noting for unbiased observers that Blaxthos is the admin of bash.org, the website that the article is about. He has a definite axe to grind in trying to make that article look biased -- he thinks ANY criticism is biased against him. 81.1.73.247 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this whole matter revolves around verifying the items listed in the criticism with reliable sources--otherwise it is just original research. Agne 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

About Fair Use Policy

See Talk:Quotation#Korean_law_and_Fair_use.

My english is not good, so understand it. :)

I think, image quotation are to be permit in All language Wikipedias. In All language Wikipedias, text quotation is not prohibited. right?

text quotation is free? -> To quote a image is to be free. of course, in fair practice.

User can quote copyrighted image in only a few language version wikipedia.

But in my legal mind, logical mind...

ALL language user can quote copyrighted text. but, a few language user can quote copyrighted image. It is wong legally.

User can quote copyrighted text? If it is so, User must be able to quote image, moving image, etc. TO ALL LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA.

fair use image is only US? It is wrong. ALL country permit it.

Do you know a contry that prohibit to quote a text to make a work? I don't know.

TEXT QUOTATION is OK? so, IMAGE QUOTATION is OK. -- WonYong (Talk / Contrib) 12:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

'Fair use' on Wikipedia is constrained by United States law, because the main servers are located in the United States. 'Fair use' (or equivalent concepts) varies by country. 'Fair use' on the English language Wikipedia is restricted more than may appear to be required by U.S. law for a variety of reasons, discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use. The official English language Wikipedia policy on 'fair use' is at here. Other language Wikipedias set their own policies, but are often more restrictive than the English language WP, reflecting the law of the countr(y/ies) where a majority of the speakers of that language live. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with naming a series of articles

Not sure where to put this I'm posting this here and at RfC for politics and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). There are several articles about inter-state relations (e.g. Sino-American relations), but no clear naming convention. For instance, why is this article not American-Chinese relations? I have proposed a solution, but I'm not sure what everyone else thinks about it. From Talk:Sino-African relations:

The only thing that makes any sense to me is to take their shortform names in English and use alphabetical order. "African-Chinese relations," "Sino-Russian relations" (from "Chinese," of course), but I'm not sure what to do with America. I guess we would use the shortform name "United States" rather than "America," making "Iranian-American relations" and "American-Vanuatan relations."

There is not a dispute per se about the names, but I suppose I'm not clear on them and there is no obvious standard (although the alphabetical seems obvious to me.) Anyway, can anyone help me out here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Essay articles

Fictional works often have an article describing their elements, but sometimes an interpretation or opinion is "explained" by the author, as if it were definitive. Since the examination is not fact, one has to accept the analysis as one out of several interpretations, still being a point of view but being general eough to be accepted in the article. One has to acknowledge the article is presenting a point of view. I've noticed this essay style writing in House of 1000 Corpses and Othello. The article almost becomes an editorial, acceptable enough to not be removed.

The other type of POV in articles is Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters in video and computer games. Not the subject, but the "in subject." What if it were an article for nudity in videogames, sharp weapons in videogames, martial arts in videogames, etc? The pairing of "this instance in this subject" could be infinite. Humor in movies, female characters in literature, non-costumed characters in comicbooks... yes the presentation can be verified and factual, but isn't it more of a thesis, an essay, or a presentation?

Both of these types of articles seem to allow POV and opinion as a way to offer subjective but verifiable description. What do you think? Should there be more like them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihavenolife (talk • contribs) .

Certain statements in those articles (like the heaven and hell section of Othello) describe particular interpretations without citation or balancing alternate interpretations. This is probably a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and you could use this policy to help push for reform. Other statements, such as comparisons to earlier versions of the work, seem to engage in less speculation. Deco 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Desdemona (Othello). I just see a subjective description of the character.

Wikipedia:Don't be shy

After getting the creation of this a little bit wrong and having Tyrenius help me avoid a lot of hassle, Wikipedia:Don't be shy is currently an essay. It's not currently a proposal, as it needs to be polished up first.

The essay originates from an editor querying why we have "Be bold!" and recieving a reply from me to the extent that it's probably because it sounds better than the above. They then commented that they like the above more, and hence after a quick edit, their wish was granted.

As far as I can tell, Be bold is aimed more at editing articles, and at encouraging significant contributions. Don't be shy (also availible via WP:SHY and WP:NOSHY, add more if you like) aims to support people in making smaller but useful changes and, more importantly, in joining in with the community, such as talk pages.

The essay is currently in it's infancy and I'm working on expanding it. But as we all know, wikis work best with other people digging in and lending a hand. Please feel free to help me work on expanding this to be a gentle encouragement to new people. LinaMishima 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in AfD

In Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, we say, "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it."

I propose that we amend that to: "As a general rule, don't close discussions in which you have been involved. Let someone else do it."

I often find that the "consensus" decision by which admins close AfD discussions is suspiciously agreeable to their own vote in that discussion, and not necessarily reflective of the actual consensus. It's usually not too big a deal but it's still, in my judgment, improper. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year pronunciation is a recent example.

UPDATE: I was just made aware that Wikipedia:Deletion process says, "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." --Hyphen5 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish

I am an admin who thinks its time to leave WP (addiction issues). I see here Meta:Right to vanish that I can delete my user page and talk pages in an attempt to "vanish." It seems odd that I can remove all record of my discussion history (except for Admins who can view/restore). Is that true. Can I just *POOF* delete my pages and disappear? (follow up, can I get a permanent block on my account if I'm concerned about wikiaddition?).

People tend to disagree with deleting admin talk pages because they often contain important historical information. But otherwise yes. You can have you user page deleted, your talk page blanked, and I'm sure you can find someone to block you if you really want. You can even ask that your admin bit be removed. Dragons flight 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I delete my talk page & archives, with the understanding that admins can view/restore the pages if they need access? 24.29.141.11 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, depends on what's on them. If someone who's been involved in a lot of contention with other editors makes the request, admins will naturally be suspicious that the person wants to cover their tracks, and might not agree to the request. Fan-1967 01:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on blocking for mass page moves

• Wikipedia:Mass Moves - user blocking solely on the grounds of mass moves

Discussion

NOTE: The response to this essay is spread out on a few different pages: Village pump (policy) (here), on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, and on Village pump (proposals). I'll try to handle this better if there is a next time. --Ben Houston 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. There is another thing. I have about 150 pages on my watchlist, so I try to watch all changes, especially by anon users. One thing I do for anon users is check their talk page. I was checking an edit by User:207.200.116.198 today, and he as at least 16 "last warnings" and two "only warning". (How many "last warnings" and "only warnings" does someone get????) But it is an IP address used by AOL users, so I have no way of knowing if the person who edited today is the same one/ones that previously got all of the warnings. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ADD: Plus several other warnings, including a NPA from me for this user's attacks on someone else. Bubba73 (talk), 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DITTO: On first reading, I missed: "I clearly believe that the ability to contribute anonymously/pseudonymously must remain an option." I don't like that. I think every editor should have to register and agree to a policy statement. Bubba73 (talk), 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Anything that encourages people to behave themselves and has the potential to benefit Wikipedia's general reputation can only be a step forward. If it works for Amazon, it can work for us. I wouldn't mind shelling out a few bucks to have my identity verified. --Jwinius 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some interesting ideas but I definitely have to say "don't go there" in terms of either a) asking people to pay to join up (it's hard to tell if this is an actual suggestion in your essay) or b) use credit card or any similar piece of ID for verification. The first goes against what Wikipedia is all about and the second is troublesome from several different standpoints - one of which you mentioned as credit card bias, but even if we aren't talking credit cards, not everyone has a drivers licence, Social Insurance, etc. The idea of requiring real names is intriguing. People want Wikipedia to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia and as a research tool, yet there is some loss of credibility when you have an article on nuclear physics written by someone identified as, well, 23skidoo for example. The problem here, though, is that many users want to be anonymous so that they can contribute to articles they don't personally want to be associated with (for political or personal reasons). We might lose people's input. And I know several users who use pseudonyms for their edits (not handles but actual names) for this very reason. 23skidoo 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• 100% with you here, Ben. I voiced similar frustrations here, but your proposal goes the distance needed. Michael David 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, 80%: No fees, no credit cards (some can afford neither). Actually, there are some instances where a person may not wish to use their real name. I know, as a psychotherapist, I would rather not get into disputes with persons I’m working with professionally (we do that enough in the room). I’d be satisfied if every Editor would be required to have an informative User Page that tells us something about their fields of interest end expertise. Michael David 21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My paraphrase of the arguments that Jimmy Wales has repeatedly made against proposals of this type is that committed POV pushers will gladly jump through hoops to edit, but casual users who might provide the counterweight to them will not. -Will Beback 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How about at least requiring an email verification of all editors? I verified my email address - it costs nothing except a little time. The current policy seems to be "anyone can edit - no matter how stupid you are, no matter how uneducated you are, no matter how wrong you are, no matter how much of a joke you think it is to enter nonsense, no matter how much time you take away from good editors, and no matter how much you hurt the WP." Bubba73 (talk), 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I misreading the "Outsourced Identity Authentication" section, or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia spend potentially a million dollars a year -- an amount equivalent to its entire current annual budget -- on verifying people's identities? --Carnildo 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

23skidoo, it is by pseudonymous edits that Wikipedia's coverage of Physics remains respectable. Crackpots, who would always be willing to give their real names, will often harass identifiable editors outside of Wikipedia. Would you really be interested in editing articles if every revert of some crackpot's changes resulted in threats, letters to your employer, and possible frivolous lawsuits? --Philosophus ^T 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to just refer such harrassment to the criminal legal system? Restraining orders with respect to all communication as well as editing of Wikipedia, if one makes the case that is where the harrassment occured, could be found -- and might even be less work that a continuous battle against a determined foe who operates outside of the behavioral norms of society. It makes sense to me to integrate Wikipedia back into the structures of society in which it operates, at least with respect to identities and the applicability of criminal law, rather than continuing to view it as its own isolated island with an ever growing bureaucratic overhead. --Ben Houston 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That assumes that I have enough time and money to deal with the legal system of the editor doing the harassment, and that the harassment is enough that the legal system would care about it. In many cases, the harassment isn't legally actionable. --Philosophus ^T 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am 100% in favor of requiring people to register a user-name. I think it is silly for us to do back flips working with IP addresses. We need to be able to leave a message for someone and know that it is reaching the intended person. However, I am against any requirement to use real names. There are too many crazy people out there and we already have issues with Wikipedia disputes spilling over into the rest of people's lives (See User:Katefan0 for one example). Johntex\^talk 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to crazy people: Wikipedia should not be considered an island isolated from society. Crazy people should not be tolerated, it strange that the norm on Wikipedia is a relative powerlessness (and so many things resonate from there), crazy people should be dealt with via the criminal law system -- harrassment, stalking, threats results in restraining orders, criminal records and imprisonment. Without the well developed criminal system to rely on, society would significantly worse off -- one shouldn't believe that Wikipedia is so strong that it must deal (burden?) with such things alone. --Ben Houston 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Did you notice this a few topics above?

The problem is this: if editors needed to log in to edit, WP would lose a bit of it's "mistique". As far as building a good encyclopedia is concerned, that mystique isn't really necessary any more... it would probably do just fine if no editors were allowed to edit unless thay had created an account before 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (for example), perhaps requiring potential new editors to get 10 references from people with more than 10,000 edits in order to get an account!

There's gotta be a happy medium somewhere. Maybe just make a rule for IPs (and IP ranges) that have 4 strikes against them, and permanently block them. Banning IP editors in general seems a bit extreme. Not banning IPs that have exhausted the community's patience smacks of superstition. We can keep the good and swat the bad. Why does it have to be all or nothing? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason why people have to be able to edit as IP addresses. I am not interested in the project having "mystique", I am interested in building a useful encyclopedia without wasting time on busy work like trying to figure out if an IP adress is still being used by last weeks vandal or not.

Allowing IP editting provides miniscule benefit, and causes considerable harm, therefore, simple Return On Investment mathematics dictates that we get rid of it. Johntex\^talk 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - see WP:AGF. Also, I have been targeted for identity fraud on a couple of occaisions because of information I have posted on the internet, so if I was forced to use my real name, I would just stop using WP. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - the proposal doesn't say that real names must be used to edit Wikipedia. Besides that point though, how would you deal with the various issues discussed in the article? --Ben Houston 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote: "a "Real Name" attribution that is automatically displayed with their user identity (in edit histories, and watchlists) and on their user page.".

Also, for the record, it is easier to block IPs than to block usernames, as users can easilly create accounts, they can't easilly change IP addresses unless they are AOL, or have a dynamic IP. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you quote is out of context -- I am referring in that sentence to people who verify their identities will have their usernames denoted as verified (like a little icon or something) in various places were it is diplayed. In another part of the essay I did write: "Thus, even though I propose moving away from anonymity/pseudonymity, I clearly believe that the ability to contribute anonymously/pseudonymously must remain an option." --Ben Houston 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But when you block an IP, you don't know that you are blocking a person. You could be blocking 100 people, or zero people if they have another IP adress to switch to. Johntex\^talk 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Or even more than that. From personal experience, I know that it is possible for IP addresses to have 300000 people using it. Click on the link to the talk page of my IP address to see this. If you block all IP addresses from editing Wikipedia, and a single IP address can have 300000 users, then imagine the countless good-faith editors that will be unable to contribute (thereby making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia) for want of quality contributions from scattered vandals using IP addresses. What effect will this have on the quality of Wikipedia? The gain will not compensate for the loss. Therefore, I am totally opposed to this proposal, obviously a case of mass IP-profiling encompassing millions of people, only more serious as the anonymous editor/s does/do not only receive/s an unwarranted vandal warning but a permanent block. I agree that there might be significant gains, but how many times more significant will the damage be--the loss of several million good-faith anonymous editors? You may argue that these users can simply create accounts, but there are many people who do not do so for personal reasons that may elude other editors and that are private anyway. 202.156.6.54 08:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There exists a foundation issue about this. Kim Bruning 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering"? I wasn't making the point that anonymous contributions should be prevented but rather a shift towards encouraging the use of real identities that fosters personal responsibility. It is actually a finding in social psychology that individuals who feel anonymous (either by wearing hoods as done by the KKK or as part of a large crowd) feel less responsible for their actions. I notice Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on it but here is a relevant description from the American Psychological Association magazine and writen by its former president [2]:

People's aggression can also increase when they feel anonymous--for example if they wear a uniform, hood or mask, Zimbardo said.

"You minimize social responsibility," he explained. "Nobody knows who you are, so therefore you are not individually liable. There's also a group effect when all of you are masked. It provides a fear in other people because they can't see you, and you lose your humanity."

For example, an experiment in 1974 by Harvard anthropologist John Watson evaluated 23 cultures to determine whether warriors who changed their appearance--such as with war paint or masks--treated their victims differently. As it turned out, 80 percent of warriors in these cultures were found to be more destructive--for example, killing, torturing or mutilating their victims--than unpainted or unmasked warriors.

What's more, a person's anonymity can be induced by acting in an anonymity-conferring environment that adds to the pleasure of destruction, vandalism and the power of being in control, Zimbardo noted.

I'm going to try and express this concern in a different form at some point -- I think I covered too much ground too quickly in this essay. --Ben Houston 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure you remember that anonymity and pseudonymity are of differing degrees of problem and that you will have to deal with each differently. I would think that anonymous IP editors feel less personally accountable (and hence less responsible) for what they do. But if you edit long enough under a pseudonym you identify with and become invested in that fixed identity. Considering the great divergence of feelings behind either blocking unregistered editing, and "requiring" (whether by pressure or rule) real name editing (something I personally would never comply with), I'd suggest focusing separately on changing the former policy. Postdlf 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't comply with "real name editing" either, as I would likely get harrassed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists who refuse to accept Wikipedia policies of verifiability, reliable sources, and NOR. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with pseudonyms, but the fact that one IP address could be many different people is a big problem. How about (1) All editors must register to get a unique name, even if it is a pseudonym, (2) all editors have to read and agree to a policy statement, and (3) each new editor has a probationary period - any edits must be approved by an established editor before they are made visible to the public. Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just loopy. How could you ever make sure a user isn't a sockpuppet? And wouldn't "approving" edits be a much larger strain on the community than simply reverting vandalism when it's found? And who would be doing the approving if not the community at large? Over half of the IP edits I see are valid. While permanently blocking those that cause vandalism seems like a good idea to me, why not extend the benefit of the doubt to those who edit with good intentions? SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Johnny here, but I'd say that from my own personal experience more than half of the anonymous edits I see are valid. In the articles on my watchlist there's a good number of IP edits every day, the significant majority of which are solid improvements (adding new information, correcting factual mistakes, correcting typos or spelling errors and sometimes even reverting vandalism). Of the rest most are bad, but good faith, edits (unsoruced or just plain erroneous material or stylistically wonky additions) and only a relatively small proportion are outright vandalism. I'd say the vandalism:worthwhile addition and flawed editing:solid editing ratios are pretty similar between IPs and registered users and POV-pushing is if anything more prevalent amongst registered users. I will admit that I tend to suffer the same prejudice a lot of editors do as regards IP users (I'll tend to check edits by IPs first, assuming they're more likely to be problematic) but when I actually reflect on what I've seen I can't say I can rationally justify my assumptions. --Daduzi ^talk 05:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

• Anything is an improvement over the current situation. With the amount of time, energy, effort and wikiserverspace wasted on defending against IP vandalism , this seems like wonderful proposal.

• FYI, I added to my own "broad, sweeping statement about IP vandals" before anyone else lept for the WhackingStick of WP:CITE. It's just based on my own, relatively new experience on WP.
• See also Muppet Wiki User Name policy. The Five and Out Rule seems like a good way to have WP:AGF for the casual "Hey, I found a typo or other obvious error" editors.
• Of course, I also know that the odds of taking proactive steps to prevent IP vandalism are about as good as Pigs in Space.

•  — MrDolomite | Talk 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Blocking policy

I move that blocks should only be issued in cases of vandalism. It is written in the policy, that for other issues (POINT, NPA, civility etc.) an editor should only be blocked in extreme cases and that all blocks should only be preventive. The common practice, however, is that the admins block very easily, issuing punitive blocks all the time. If a long-time trolling or other misbehavior occurs, there should be a process established to block the user, not just a 1 admin's decision. Ackoz 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree punitive blocking is wrong, I think putting such strict guidelines would cause problems if someone is causing other types of problems. 3RR, for example, is not vandalism, but can only be stopped by blocking the users involved. Fagstein 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Punitive blocking is wrong and used quite often. Ok, 3RR would be a good reason for block, NPA and civility are almost never good reasons for a block. I am Ackoz, just forgot to login. 85.70.5.66 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One who knows a few things about being blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some admins really abuse of their blocking power. Fortunately there's always balanced admins who will promptly undo an unfair/unreasonable block by another admin. Those who block irresponsibly and arbitrarily should be admonished.--Húsönd 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some blocks I have seen are strange...Once, I saw one that was for one second. Michael 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been blocked before, too. And read some of the discussion which admins agreed that a range of IP addresses needed to be temporarily blocked. And felt, at least once, that my being blocked was counter-productive. But I don't believe a hard line rule could be made that would cover every situation. I would instead say, the way to make Wikipedia work best is to be quite careful about who is given admin power, to block. Blockages are fairly common, but the admins who are complained about for their blocking are fairly rare turkeys, compared to all the admins there are. heh. Terryeo 08:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Add more compulsory information to the blocking templates?

(Note: this follows from a post at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Extend the blocking templates to give more information.3F)

As it stands, the various blocking templates give differing amount of information, most saying that the user has been blocked and giving the reason (e.g. Template:Test5 or Template:Blank5), most of which optionally let the user know where the problem edit occurred, some additionally telling the user how to oppose the block (e.g. Template:Vbc) and some additionally telling the user how long they have been blocked for (e.g. Template:Sockblockdodge). The one which seems to give the most information is Template:Block-reason, which gives the length of the block as well as (optionally) the reason for the block, and the page that the block is based on.

I would like to see every block template always providing the following information:

• The reason for the block (along with a link to the appropriate policy statement)
• The page(s) the block is based on (if applicable)
• The length of the block (and/or the date when the block expires)
• How to oppose the block (using {{unblock}}, along with a note that the user can still edit their user talk page, or contacting someone at Wikipedia:List of administrators)

All block notices should also link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy (most already do, but some don't).

The reason for having the first two is obvious, as they're in general use. (Note that I think that it should be possible to base a block on multiple pages, normally as a 1-2-3-block count.) The length of the block is currently not given in the majority of templates, which I think is likely to cause confusion amongst most people who get blocked as they won't know where to find this information and hence won't know when they can start editing wikipedia again. The information on how to oppose the block is vital in the case of any unjustified blocks, and this information should always be given at the same time as the block to avoid discouraging editors by making them search for the information on how to unblock themselves. (Note that this will likely cause more work at Category:Requests for unblock, but that's probably good.)

This change would entail adding several compulsory sections to the block templates, which would obviously impact anyone using them, hence the reason for me posting this here for comment.

It may also be an idea to move to a single block template (or a set of block templates with the same functionality but different visual designs), such that the use would be something like {{subst:block|NPOV|Page1|Page2|BlockLength}}, in any order. This is not required for the above suggested changes, however.

I should also add that I don't use the blocking templates myself - I am not an admin - and that these comments come from me seeing the blocking templates in use on various user talk pages. Mike Peel 10:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any comments? Or should I be bold and just make the changes? Mike Peel 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of flags, in particular U.S. flags

The current state of copyright tagging of U.S. flags at federal, state, and local levels is a bit of a mess. There's no clear picture of exactly what status these flag images may have as a group.

• For federal flags, I think we can safely assume that all such flags are PD by way of being a work of the U.S. government. We have {{PD-flag-US}} which is obsolete, but that does not have the same meaning. We could use {{PD-USGov}} but a more specific tag in this case might be useful. I'd suggest the possibility of re-writing {{PD-flag-US}} to apply to this class of PD flag images. Alternatively, there is {{PD-US-flag}} which is not on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and does not seem to have been through much review. Is that accurate?
• For state flags, we again have {{PD-US-flag}} but no other tag. A number of state flag images are tagged as being PD by way of copyrights having expired, but there's no assertive base for the tag on the various images. I.e., the flag was first made in its current form in the 1800s or some such. Some are noted as coming from the open clip art library, etc. It's scattershot.
• For local flags, there's even less direction. Some discussion has arisen about the flag of St. Louis and the general issue of local government flags at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyright_of_US_city_flags.

I'd like to see some input from people knowledgeable about the copyright status of specifically U.S. flags. --Durin 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I also found some related discussion at Template_talk:Flagimage#Copyright_redux--Durin 18:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... how about copyright expired worldwide since the original author died more than 70 years ago? Just a guess -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's a case by case basis. Flags, especially non-national ones, change on a regular basis. I was hoping for some more widespread law that could be the basis for an easy to understand and apply tag. --Durin 12:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• National flags are automatically PD (or at least free for any use) by way of at least one if not multiple international treaty/treaties, state, provincial, local, etc... flags are much much tricker and have to be done on a case by case basis that I think it would make it pretty much impossible for us to create a template for such flags. Cat-five - talk 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"U.S." and "UK"

I know that general policy is to use the abbreviations "U.S." and "UK", but what is the guidance for when the two occur in close proximity. Having mixed usage looks very odd. Should we standardise to either "U.S." and "U.K." or "US" and "UK" depending on which version of english is being used in the page? Or should we stick with a mixed usage? Bluap 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick with mixed usage. It is consistent and it emphasises the point that there are valid varieties of English. Sumahoy 21:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"U.S." as opposed to "US" also disambiguates between the country and a capitalised version of the pronoun "us", which might occasionally be useful: A headline reading "Computers can help US to work more efficiently" is ambiguous, for example. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point to where that "general policy" is documented at? I'm really interested, because recurrent edits to just change the piping of United States (as in "is a U.S. band" to "is an American band" and back and forth and again and then some more) are really annoying and unconstructive, but it's hard to quote something more authoritative than Use of the word American. We now have a hard policy or guideline about that, or are the US-centric still running the show? -- 62.147.37.34 23:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

""America" in that context adds ambiguity. Brazil is in America, as are Mexico and Canada. 86.129.77.199 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They never, ever refer to themselves as "American" in that context. They have "Canadian" and "Mexican" and "Brazil"; all the USA has is "America". --Golbez 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's at WP:MOS

Just a note... In the UK, it's quite rare to call the country "the UK". Far more often it will be referred to as "Britain". Whether that is correct or not is beside the point. I rather fancy that the proliferation of "UK" is due to the analogy and association with "U.S.". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently moved from the UK to the U.S., and was surprised that I consistently described myself as being from the UK, instead of being from Britain or from England. Bluap 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles about ongoing enterprises

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises concerning editing standards for business and organizations. It is based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and follows the same principles. Fred Bauder 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As written, that policy was very favorable to companies, to the point of encouraging "puff pieces" about companies. I've tried to balance it a bit. But unless there's a serious legal problem in this area, it seems unnecessary. --John Nagle 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect URL's

It is common to get around blocked URL's by using redirection addresses. Latest example is an outfit called thesexlane.com, that has repeatedly inserted linkspam into articles like Webcam and Oral Sex. Since that one's been blocked, they use redirection URL's, like myftp.biz, zapto.org, no-ip.net, and redirectme.com. It appears there are occasional uses of these domains in legitimate articles, but it seems there ought to be direct links to any legitimate content. Question: should we disable these domains that exist only for redirection? Fan-1967 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disable these domains"? We probably shouldn't link to them. Are you suggesting some automated process? Fagstein 08:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a global blacklist of "bad" links -- if I understand correctly, the proposal is that we add these redirect sites to the list. That sounds pretty reasonable, to me; I can't think of any particularly legitimate use for them, on Wikipedia. Don't forget tinyurl.com and urlcut.com, either. Luna Santin 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a while back there was some debate over whether linking tinyurl.com is ever legitimate. Not sure what the final consensus was. Deco 08:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the answer is no, it is never legitimate, if you want to link to a site then link to it, don't link to somethiong that redirects somewhere. i would never click on a link such as tinyurl, and i will always delete them when i see them, and i would encourage others to do the same. See Tinyurl#Criticism. Martin 12:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added all the domains listed on [http://www.no-ip.com/services/managed_dns/free_dynamic_dns.html] to the blacklist. Naconkantari 18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I can take Webcam off my watchlist (but I'll keep an eye on it for a while just to be safe). Fan-1967 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are actually a few articles for websites located at no-ip, which IMO makes them pretty questionable, or articles that link to some content there. I have Prod'ed Sleepers.no-ip.org. Others include: FMDC (prod'ed by MaxSem), Anonycat, Blue Sphere, Direct Connect (file sharing) (fixed), Socionics (fixed). Fan-1967 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Administrators open to recall on CFD

I would like to call people's attention to the fact that I have nominated Category:Administrators open to recall for deletion. CFDs rarely attract much attenion, but as this one deals with the policy issues surrounding the possiblity of voluntary administrator recall, I feel that it deserves to be considered by a broad audience. Dragons flight 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Michael 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch

When did Special:Linksearch get created? Has it always been around? Only I asked for something like this a while back (about a year ago), and no-one seemed to be aware of this then. Is there a history of Wikipedia anywhere that records the dates when various functions were added? (Posting here because someone mentioned this link a few posts above). Carcharoth 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall exactly, but Brion added this 2 or 3 months ago (for no apparent reason :) ). Maybe the Server admin log can tell you more about things like this. --Filip (§) 11:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And here it is. :) --Filip (§) 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! Carcharoth 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional character notability

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Clarification of "notability" for fictional characters and its subsections contain some discussion about revising the WP:FICT guideline to require secondary or tertiary sources for standalone articles abnout characters or other fictional elements, and to require that such articles contain no more than half plot summary / backstory, in order to ensure an out-of-universe perspective in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments are welcome. — TKD::Talk 10:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:EGG

What do you think?--Eggplant^WP:EGG 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should update your signature to point to User:EggplantParm/Wikipedia:Eggplant, or just link it off your userpage. -- nae'blis 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed template for articles needing update at a particular time

Template:Update after - Described at Wikipedia:Updating information, this is proposed as a partial replacement for the much-misused Wikipedia:As of convention. 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal research; unverified data

Moved from main page talk:

I hope I am placing this comment in an appropriate location. In a section on the Semitone (music), I removed a reference to the Reimann Hypothesis because it is still neither proven nor disproven.(This seems to be in agreement with the basic Wikipedia principles.)

Have you considered a new section, in which the following two areas might be presented: 1) Conclusions and applications which result from yet-unproven theories (such as "super-string theory"). 2) A place for the results of independent research.

I believe that this could greatly enhance Wikipedia, making it not only the best source of reference for already-known information, but a source of fresh ideas and theories, by which human knowledge could expand in exponential proportions. Discussion pages could make this most viable, since any erroneous contributions would be weighed and challenged, and if unreasonable, quickly defeated.

For example, if Einstein were to present E = $mc^{2}$ to Wikipedia, it would probably be removed because it is both the result of original research, and lacking in verifiable references. In effect, Wikipedia would be masking viable thought and theory.

Perhaps an easy way to accomplish this, allowing personal research and unverified data to enter established articles, would be to use a specific font for each of these two areas. (Another method might be to used specifically coloured fonts for reference indexing, to express the nature of a reference, e.g. Blue = verifiable; Red = yet unverified; Green = result of independent research.) Of course, another approach would be to create an "Appendix" of articles based upon unverified data, and another for "Original Research".

Having personally arrived at several "original theories" in the fields of Math and Music, I think it would be wonderful to have such a highly-recognized source as Wikipedia in which not only to present them, but also to have them tested and challenged by others. (I am not not interested in personal recognition, or profits...simply a means of sharing the results of my research with others.)

Such a move could prove highly profitable to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia automatically gains copyright on such material, it stands to generate tremendous profits. (For example, there is a $1,000,000. prize offered for the proving or disproving of the Reimann Hypothesis, not to mention the untold revenues resulting from it's practical application.) Wikipedia could potentially become the "owner" of virtually all new knowledge and theory.

I trust you will give these ideas some consideration. Prof.rick 22:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it would certainly be great if we could demonstrate new theories, if we don't have verifiable sources the confusion and clutter in articles would be unmanageable. Unfortunately, there are a lot more crackpots and jokers in the world than genuine researchers and theorists, so it would be impractical. JodoYodo 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research.

And, to share ideas unrelated to Main Page, please go to the Village Pump. Thanks. -- PFHLai 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Prof.rick, I'm afraid you are perhaps deliberately misunderstanding what is meant by original research and "unproven" theory. Of course Einstein couldn't just write up his theories on Wikipedia, but if he published them in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, they would become eligible for coverage. As a matter of fact, he did. You also misunderstand copyright as it applies to Wikipedia and the GFDL. All Wikipedia contributors retain copyright to their work, it is simply licensed to Wikipedia. If you want to share your ideas with others, many have been successful using blogs. --Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to confuse the issue, it was not always this way. Even Einstein was unused to the anonymous peer-review of American physics journals.Physics Today 58 no. 9, p.43 . In fact, Einstein was used to a system where you publish first, then wait for replies. --Ancheta Wis 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a fascinating link. Thanks for that. Carcharoth 09:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion on the appealibility of bans

On Wikipedia:Banning policy it states that bans from Jimbo can't be appealed, while Wikipedia:List of banned users states that people so banned can appeal to the Arbitration or to Jimbo. Does anyone know what the exact situation is, or is it more of a "you can try..." thing? 68.39.174.238 10:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom cannot overrule Jimbo, as Arbcom's powers are delegated from Jimbo. If a user was banned by Jimbo, the only possible appeal is to Jimbo, in the sense that anyone can appeal to a entity that made a decision to reconsider that decision. However, I suspect that Jimbo will not consider any appeal unless there are relevant facts that he was not aware of, and that would materially alter his assessment of the situation. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That really needs to change. It is no longer appropriate for one person to have an effective dictatorship. Is it even legal now that Wikipedia is a foundation? Has anyone looked into the legal aspect? Landolitan 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy and pasting without attribution

I posted about this a while ago, and not much came of the discussion. I'm still concerned that not enough people realise the need to not copy and paste without attribution. The example at the time illustrates the problem. See the warnings at the top of Talk:History of Greek and Roman Egypt, Talk:Ptolemaic Egypt and Talk:Aegyptus (Roman province), pointing out that the History of Greek and Roman Egypt article was split using copying and pasting, but that this was done without attribution.

An example of the problems this has caused is the issue discussed at Talk:Ptolemaic_Egypt#Monarch_and_Nomarch, where I had to delve all the way back into the history of the original History of Greek and Roman Egypt article to find where the incorrect change from nomarch to monarch took place. This is a classic example of copying and pasting without attribution obscuring the article history. Indeed, if I had not spotted this, it would have been extremely difficult to work out where the text had been copied and pasted from.

Does anyone agree with me that this is a problem that needs to be stamped on hard? Editors need to learn early on that copy and pasting chunks of text around Wikipedia without attribution is a very bad idea. Is there a suitable way to drive this message home? Carcharoth 09:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally always attribute such moves in the edit summary but one BIG problem is you can't add a comment to an edit after the fact. e.g. you found where the copypasting took place in that instance but you had no way to mark that edit with where it was copypasted from. Plugwash 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Customer opinion sites

I've just posted a concern about linking to customer opinion websites on WP:WPSPAM:

What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?

For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines (all links). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link:

• 2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources"
• 9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself."

I wonder if there's a parallel here with the WP:BLP policy which is applied to biographies of living people... And has recently spawned a Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises proposal?

Your comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Customer opinion sites. Thanks/wangi 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of debate on the CD-version, previous header MIA

friendly.... --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Didn't i say "school friendly" with repect to the CD version being non editable? I certainly don't endorse censorship. David D. (Talk) 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I just noticed that further up I did use the term kid friendly. While i don't endorse censorship of articles like Harry Potter, i find it worse that they the kids lose access to the rest of the encylopedia over a few articles. If it is a case of limited censoship, using standard school guidelines, vs no wikipedia in the schools, I would bite the bullet and make a school version. The censorship battles can come later. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Those schools that banned Wikipedia are not going to unblock it since it's open edit. There's other things that annoy schools about Wikipedia, like that it's open edit and kids are editing their high school's entry with vandalism like "Mr. Foo is a poopyhead" -newkai | talk | contribs 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Right. Above i wrote: "I am assuming the CD version 1.0 is probably a step in the right direction for a children's edition. It also has the advantage of being a non editable version, so it may also be more school friendly too". David D. (Talk) 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I want a wikipedia without debates about debates over what wikipedia should contain, can I toby this section? Kotepho 23:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The Wikipedia is not being discussed here. That content remains the same and should not be censored. David D. (Talk) 23:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Creating a non-editable version of wikipedia is not the best idea, because that would go against the entire purpose of Wikipedia. The most likely purpose that anyone can edit wikipedia is to make the information as up to date as possible. It would be too much of a burden to have to inspect all edits, because Wikipedia probably would not be able to afford it. School principals should view all articles that explain the purpose of Wikipedia. They should know that information that is obscene or innaccurate will not last for more than a few minutes. Content should not be changed, as it would reduce the quality of certain articles. If there is a childrens wikipedia that is separately created, adults should still be able to edit it, because if there were any restrictions on editing, it would take a lot longer to update articles. Most children probably couldn't afford to wait months after a hurricane to read about it. It would make their assignments a lot harder, because they would not be able to get it as easily. I understand that Wikinews exists for that purpose and that other websites tend to write about those things immediately. It would make sense for some articles to be uneditable but it would be complete nonsense for others. There is infact already a feature that allows webpages to be rendered unchangeable, but administrators need to use it a lot more.

Version 1.0

Why would you doubt that a non-editable version of wikipedia is worth while? What about the Version 1.0 project? With regard to hurricanes there is more to wikipedia thatn current events. Not too mention other sources other than wikipedia are available. Of course there would be limitations but are you saying that is better than nothing at all? David D. (Talk) 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Icon ads spam making it like Wikipedia promotes commercial sites

Regularly, ads icons are inserted in front of external links, that make it look like Wikipedia treats them special, promoting or endorsing those sites. This gets worse now with the templates used for external links to IMDb, MusicBrainz, etc.

• Diff of the latest insertion of an icon ad in the template for MusicBrainz external links
• Last.fm spam icon (fair use) This external links icon ad for Last.fm keeps popping up right and left.

We really could use a specific, explicit point of policy against this (and a direct WP:ICONAD or WP:SPAMICON or something), that could be immediately cited in the edit summary for removing or reverting this spam without long discussions with each "new user" doing the spamming for those sites. We could also mention it in bold as a NoInclude warning in the related templates, so as to remove plausible denial to future offenders.

-- 62.147.37.34 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And in some cases, it might be a breach of the associated comany's trademark policy. --GunnarRene 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone *dis*agree? Alright. Try removing the icons on a couple of pages, and see who responds. Then contact me. (Don't get into an edit war!) Kim Bruning 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that our external links shouldn't have icons which imply promotion or endorsement on Wikipedia's part.. I removed the Musicbrainz icons a while back but they were replaced by User:CyberSkull, who feels that the images aren't promotional. Rhobite 00:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning:

• Well, for instance User:CyberSkull (the uploader of the MusicBrainz spamicon) seems to strongly disagree, since he sneaked it back into the template 3 or 4 times: there's no official policy about that, so he just put it back from time to time. I've no idea if he's connected with User:Preacher Bob, the "new user" who just happened to have the idea of putting back the very same icon into the template [3], resulting in Wikipedia endorsing MusicBrainz on 400+ articles for 10 days.
• A good soul removed all uses of the Last.fm spamicon, so I nominated it db/I1 (there are two hi-res versions), and now it's gone. I'm not sure about the MusicBrainz spamicon, I can't see useful uses for this 16x16 icon besides using it for spam again, others may disagree.

-- 62.147.39.143 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

MusicBrainz is a nonprofit organization with goals in line with wikipedia. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. So what? It still looks like we're endorsing their links over others, which is something that it seems most of the community disagrees with. --james^(talk) 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ick! "Spamicon" has a nice ring to it. This should definitely not be allowed. Are they at least ((subst:))ing them to be nice to the poor servers? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This should not be allowed. It resembles the way some outlets promote their commercial partners, so it will mislead readers about Wikipedia's position. Landolitan 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SB_Johnny:

• That's probably because "spamicon" sounds like "favicon" (besides, they're all website favicons uploaded to Wikipedia). This reminds me when WinZip was the first to find out how to inject their icon into Windows 95's context menus.
• About the templates for external links to IMDb/MusicBrainz/etc., no they aren't substed, but that's not a bug. Templates such as template:imdb title embed the bulk of the URL and let editors just type the database ID part - so, if IDMb changes its URL format, all our broken links could be fixed just by updating the base URL in the template.
• ...of course, thinking in black hat mode, that could also be the basis for a wide and nasty attack - just changing the URL in the template with a URL to a porn/shock/virus site would immediately apply to thousands of article links, and affect uncountable readers, without visible defacing. Maybe that sort of templates should be protected by default? But that's another topic...

-- 62.147.39.143 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats given the ability to desysop?

Originally posted to wikipedia-l and wikitech-l.

Hi there,

I've today developed an extension based on Special:Makesysop that may be a solution to the problems (at least on en: ) with the process of gaining adminship. Part of the problem with adminship is that it is somewhat difficult to remove. This extension may change that. The extension, as currently configured, allows local bureaucrats to desysop a user. I believe that this is sensible. If we can trust bureaucrats to set the sysop bit, why shouldn't we trust them to remove it? Additionally, desysopping is quite a political issue, and generally requires the intervention of somebody *familiar with the situation*, not an outsider who has simply been informed. Therefore, I suggest that we use this extension to allow Bureaucrats to desysop users in serious cases of abuse of powers. A different process for desysopping may need to be developed to accompany this - and a policy on when bureaucrats may use this ability.

Questions, comments and requests for demonstrations are more than welcome. Werdna talk criticism 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see bureaucrat's able to "suspend" a sysop's powers for a reasonable time period - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As a technical matter, something like this seems pretty much agreeable, to me -- the bigger concern would probably be the policy and/or process involved in using what we might call Special:Desysop. I know there's a current proposal at WP:RECALL. Luna Santin 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of this being implemented, subject to certain conditions. Firstly, bureaucrats may only desysop on order of the AC or when the admin is going seriously, seriously crazy, i.e. if waiting six hours or so for a few AC members would cause serious damage. In the latter instance, the matter would ipso facto be immediately referred to the AC. So yes, this seems an eminently sensible technical move to me. However, the procedural safeguards must be put in place. There can be no space for "community desysoppings". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need to make it a suspension rather than a removal but I strongly suggest that such actions be immediately and automatically reported to the arbcom. It should then be up to them to determine if the emergency desysopping be treated as temporary or permanent. Plugwash 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't use a technical solution to solve a political problem, i.e. don't introduce bureaucrat desysopping just because "adminship is difficult to get" on this Wikipedia. 86.134.116.228 10:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that desysopping by a bureaucrat should only be temporary and that ArbCom should make the final decision for now. Eventually, it should be made easier to have someone dysysopped, but we need to be sure that the process is fair to the admin while being responsive to the community (note: I am an admin). It is currently very difficult to get desysopped. You have to go really nuts or piss off someone who is powerful and/or influential.

It would be difficult to reconfirm every admin, so I suggest that when a certain number of users sign a petition for desysopping an admin, he or she would have a reconfirmation RfA (the signers would be subject to the conditions below). Even if you are an excellent admin, you are going to accumulate a few enemies just by doing your duties, and an average admin will collect more. Therefore, I do not think the 80% pass and 70-80% discretion of the closing bureaucrat of RfAs would be appropriate for a reconfirmation RfA. I suggest that the standard be: 70% support is an automatic pass, 60 to 70% is up the the bureaucrat's discretion and less than 60% is an automatic desysop. Requiring the bureaucrat to give a reason for desysopping someone who got more than 65% and not desysopping someone who got less than 65% might be good. Those who participate in the RfA and who sign the petition should have accounts that are at least one month old and have at least 50 edits. I think that this system would be much better than leaving it up to ArbCom. They already have a lot of cases and operate much more slowly than RfA, they are very experienced users and often admins, which means they do not represent the whole community and there is a danger of cronyism, and they only desysop for extreme offenses, when there is a need, I think, to desysop people who are consistently committing minor to moderate offenses and are rude to everyone but their friends. -- Kjkolb 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

English Language

I'm sure this has been done and re-done, though I couldn't find a debate on it off hand. Surely the standard form of the English language should be British English as laid out in the OED as "English English" is commonly considered as the international standard, used across the world by organisations such as the UN. cf: International English article. As this is an international project, despite the servers being based in the United Statesand demographicallymany users may herald from the United States... As we must remember America does not constitute the international community. Bensonby 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been hashed and re-hashed, and the current standard is that styles are not changed from one to the other without substantially good reason, that each individual article be internally consistent, and that articles about certain subjects belong with a certain style, such as using American style in United States and British style in United Kingdom. The American style is used by hundreds of millions of people, perhaps more people than the British style. Note also that there are different styles for Australia and Canada too, which combine some American style, and that English style in non-English speaking countries such as Japan is affected by American style as well. "International community" is a vague sentiment, and there is no agreement for any of these styles being better or predominant. —Centrx→talk • 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear, makes sense broadly and it will continue to be contested. Just couldn't find a coherent absolute debate, just found lots of snippets here and there. Cheers. Bensonby 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new template for possible copyvios

There was recently a discussion on the Template talk:Copyvio page, dealing with a situation in which you think that there might be a copyright violation in an article, but you're not at all sure. Currently, the two most straightforward options are to use the {{copyvio}} tag, which kills the article for a week, or to just start a discussion on the article's talk page, which might not be noticed for quite some time if the article is infrequently edited. It was suggested that there be a cleanup-style template for these fringe cases, that would let readers know about the possible problem without killing the article and without using a whole screen's worth of space. Strictly as a mockup, I went ahead and created a {{PotentialCopyvio}} template. But it later occurred to me that the current split between "just talk about it on the talk page" and "kill the article and investigate" might be for legal reasons, so I'm not sure if this should go further. Kickaha Ota 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New RfD name

In what I believe was a misguided decision, Redirects for Deletion has recently been renamed Redirects for Discussion. The logic was that since CFD had undergone that change, RfD should too. The problem is, RfD and CfD are completely different. When a normal editor wishes to rename or merge a category they must list it on CfD, hence, categories for discussion, not just deletion. But one someone wants to change where a redirect points to, or turn a redirect into an article, or do anything besides delete it, they should do it themselves, with appropriate discussion on the redirect's talk page. This renaming of RfD obscures its purpose, and risks gumming it up by implying that it is a place for "discussion" of redirects. I really see no benefits to this name change and quite a few problems, but the administrator who renamed it no longer wishes to discuss it. To me, the correct name being "Redirects for deletion" seems straightforward and clear. Am I wrong? What does the community think? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the rename muddies the waters. I doubt it will matter too much, because I think most people just remember it as "WP:RFD" rather than trying to type the name out. I'd also agree that there should be a redirect from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (since that's going to be a likely typo). But I'd agree that as long as "delete" is the only sensible request, "deletion" is a more sensible name than "discussion". Kickaha Ota 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Disclaimers in articles

To help preserve NPOV in some controversial articles, is there ever a situation where a form of "disclaimer" can appropriately be included in the text?

The following is a part of the introduction to a section in the pseudoscience article. Take a look before preceding:

• Fields regarded as pseudoscience

Here is an example of my "disclaimer" (the bold part):

N.B.: Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community; see the individual articles for more information. The mention of a subject on this list is not per se a declaration that it actually is pseudoscientific. [4]

It was later deleted with this edit summary as justification:

N.B is well intentioned, but that sort of thing is unencyclopedic. Anyway, it's fairly obvious that the subjects currently listed are uncontroversialy pseudo. [5]

I believe this edit summary says something about NPOV and is itself evidence of the need for this particular disclaimer.

I happen to agree that the subjects currently listed are uncontroversially pseudo, but I don't believe readers should be forced to buy that position, even though I personally and privately think they should come to that conclusion. They just need to do it on their own. It is not my job as a Wikipedia editor to add or remove information for the purpose of causing the reader to accept my personal POV. That's where disclaimers can help to preserve NPOV. They effectively remind the reader that it is their responsibility to determine the truth of the matter.

There is a lot of history to this particular article describing pseudoscience, since it actually describes a particular POV. Maintaining NPOV - while presenting and preserving the POV of the subject of the article - has been difficult. It has been made even more controversial because of the persistant efforts of believers in the mentioned examples of pseudoscience, who force their POV on the article by consistently deleting their favorite quackery, or at least watering it down. This is sometimes done by redefining the conditions for inclusion in the article, so that precisely their favorite quackery is suddenly and legitimately preserved from inclusion. Such efforts also result in a failure of the article to accurately present and describe the subject itself. These editors even attempt to change the meaning of pseudoscience, by including these obviously mainstream scientific subjects as examples of pseudoscience: immunization/immunology, and modern medicine. (To see multiple real examples of attempts to subvert the article to one pseudoscientific POV, as described above, look at all the edits (and edit summaries) to the article itself from just this one editor.)

The paragraph above (Nota Bene....) is especially important, because it allows subject matter to be included without forcing the reader to accept the POV of the article.

A suggested wording follows in its own section. -- Fyslee 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Example of NPOV disclaimer

I would like to propose the creation of an "NPOV disclaimer" for Wikipedia articles. (Feel free to improve it.)

Far from all readers are aware of the existence and implications of the NPOV policy. It is important for them to understand it while reading articles. If this disclaimer doesn't stand on its own, it can be included in the existing Wikipedia:General disclaimer.

Proposed NPOV disclaimer

NPOV disclaimer

Wikipedia does not pretend to be the arbiter of truth. Articles at Wikipedia are supposed to be governed by Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. This means that articles must present significant and often opposing viewpoints, including possibly false and misleading ones. Therefore the inclusion of information in an article must not be taken as proof of any factual accuracy of a viewpoint, but only as a presentation of the actual existence of a viewpoint, regardless of whether it be true or false. It is the reader's responsibility to determine what they consider to be the truth of the matter, and also the reader's obligation to thoroughly investigate matters for themselves.

Well, what do you think? -- Fyslee 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you propose to put this disclaimer on all the articles, or only on the articles that you (or someone else) happen to dislike? The Wikipedia:General disclaimer already says (in boldface) that Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information here, and (in plain ol' normal type) that "nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." I don't think that calling out any one particular policy (like WP:NPOV) that might or might not contribute to inaccurate information in the article. In fact, your proposed disclaimer might conflict with the existing disclaimer, because your disclaimer says (or at least strongly implies) that the inclusion of information in an article can be taken as proof or evidence of the existence of a viewpoint that supports that information, whereas the existing disclaimer says that the inclusion of information in an article might just be completely wrong. Kickaha Ota 19:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture criteria: an ongoing problem

There is still far too much ambiguity regarding what defines an FP. This is immediately obvious simply by comparing the criteria listed in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, with those at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. In the former, the criteria clearly focus on how well an image contributes to its corresponding article(s). At the latter, it's almost entirely about image quality issues. And the Wikipedia:Featured pictures has yet a third set of criteria ("shocking" etc). Because of this, you get all manner of opinions on whether a nominated picture should be advanced to feature status or not, and it's all highly subjective and amateurish, because the criteria are simply not clear. You also get photographers who put the promotion of their own pictures above the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole, nice though their pictures may be. These issues must be addressed and resolved if Wikipedia as a whole is to improve. Jeeb 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of the above is that a clear policy is needed regarding the role of images in Wikipedia, which there currently is not. Jeeb 22:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy: privacy of article subjects

Wikipedia:Privacy_of_article_subjects

Policy Proposal: Admin Recall

I have put up a proposal for a new policy/procedure at Wikipedia:AdminRecall. rootology (T) 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CREEP. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect assertation and unfortunately quite wrong, Zoe. This new policy (WP:RECALL) is the missing half that RfA should have had long ago; admin status as lifetime appointment without community and peer review and oversight is a bad thing, and no one should at any time have a bulletproof attitude about their work nor status on Wikpedia, from the "n00b" editor the veteran admin--same rules for everyone. I advise everyone to please read the proposal end to end, and the comments that are alread in place on the talk page, which has already apparently attracted some high level attention. rootology (T) 07:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We fear abuses, but the point in this WP encyclopedia is also that, the more non encyclopedic, non notable, not good written pages we tolerate, the more we attract abuse. See also the talk page for this proposal. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied, but I admit your comment about certain types of editors being trolls based on the type of article they work on confused me greatly. Basically, this Policy idea is to give the community--admins and editors--a fair, balanced, and hard to abuse method of reversing RfAs if the community has lost faith in a given admin to execute their duties. rootology (T) 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. Federal judges in the United States are given lifetime appointments to specifically protect them from retaliation for making unpopular, although correct, judicial decisions. The same applies here. Admins should not be subject to recall to prevent retaliation for enforcing the policies of Wikipedia and the decisions of Arbcom, etc. Any admin that is truly harming Wikipedia will be soon gone without any need for a recall. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, by it's nature it's currently a lifetime appointment, and the odds of an admin being successfully recalled for something completely frivilous are highly unlikely. I honestly do feel that giving the community (admins and editors alike) the ability to oversee who has continued administrative action is a good thing. Admins who do not abuse the system, policy, or their peers, would have nothing to worry about. The revised policy is below, and the link to the shortcut--if 31 users with a history of tenure and editing experience, including 3 administrators, feel that the admin's behavior or actions warrants a reexamination of their status as an admin, should that not be granted? rootology (T) 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, the Policy has been updated as follows (in a nutshell), shortcut WP:RECALL:

"If 31 users in good standing with established time and editing track records (10+ months experience, 2000+ edits each) agree that an admin is due for recall based on their actions or activities (1 filer, 30 certifiers) that admin is then subject to a binding RfA recall vote. Three of the certifiers must be active administrators. No admin is subject to Recall more than once per nine months." rootology (T) 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Active discussion continues~ Please pitch in, and read the great pro and the con arguments on the Talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the policy proposal has been wildly revised and updated; if you didn't like it before, please take another look. -- nae'blis 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)