This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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.
This has been attempted before but it's not a good idea to delete red-linked awards across the board. It would create bias against fields that are not mass media (sports, film, TV). For example, enwiki does not have many French academic awards, but there are many prestigious if boutique/local recognitions for academic authors writing in French. Imagine transwiking an academic bio from frwiki and discovering 3/4's of the awards are red link, it would not be an accurate bio. As always, a reliable secondary source demonstrates it was notable enough for coverage by the wider world, should anyone raise concerns this is sufficient. -- GreenC21:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This feels like a situation where what WP:LISTCRITERIA to use can be decided case by case, and I don't see the need for a guideline. For a French academic including French academic awards is reasonable while for someone like Beyonce the criteria can be notable award and or reported in a independent reliable source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Pop culture mass media, particularly music/film/acting, is problematic. The world is bigger there are awards for just about every field of study and most of them are acceptable. A general guideline that tried to resolve the mass media problem can create new problems in other fields. -- GreenC18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree it depends upon fields, and also that a good start towards rationality would be a mass removal of "and Accolades" . One guideline I have support is to not use minor or junior awards when major awards are present--but even this could be useful to show the development of a career. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the sourcing criteria - awards that haven't been reported on by anyone but the awarding body and the recipient are fairly useless from an encyclopedic point of view. Disagree with most of the rest - if an award has been reported on widely in the media, just because it lacks its own page on the wiki doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile including in the particular instance in which it's being reported IMO. I do think it is a good idea to have a policy specifically on the requirement to have independent sourcing of awards being given, though - it gives something easy and concrete to use for future decisions in the area. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're seeing this strange backlash to the word "accolade", which is actually useful. The two words are similar but not the same. An "award" is a thing which is formally bestowed as a symbol of praise or recognition, an accolade is simply an expression of praise or recognition. Awards are a form of accolade, but you can have notable accolades other than awards. For example, a movie being included in a notable "top 10" list is an accolade. A notable critic calling an album the "best album of the decade" is an accolade. An artist's design winning a contest to represent the olympics is an accolade. There are endless relevant non-award accolades that can, should be and are included in articles. I'm just as eager to jump on the Eeng bandwagon as anyone else, but can we please cool it a bit? Like no one's even providing an argument, Eeng just thinks it's "dopey", whatever that means. ~Swarm~{sting}03:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Accolade is like kudos. In the context of an article it's a strained way of saying recognition or something. It sounds like applause; in your mind's eye you can almost see the audience in evening dress with their tiaras and top hats, politely accolading. Call it a linguistic prejudice of mine. EEng05:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
A nomination is an accolade as well. That's why sections on this subject on film articles are generally called Accolades, which is more concise than Awards and nominationsEl Millo (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The way to get rid of fluff like the Bikini body or hair styling award isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater by entrenching systematic bias. We don't have articles on some or even all of the most notable awards in many fields or locations - e.g. Category:Gabonese awards contains only one article (Miss Gabon). Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thryduulf, no, I think that we should not have articles on pageants because they objectify women. We should take a stance against the morally repugnant world of beauty contests. But as I said, that's an ideal world. A world where the punishment for driving while black can be summary execution, clearly isn't ideal. Guy (help!) 18:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I suspect that many people share your view, enough for it to be discussed in reliable sources. That would mean that it should be covered here too. If Wikipedia can help raise awareness of this issue, wouldn’t that help bring us closer to an ideal world? You can’t fix a problem that you don’t know about.
I made this point at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Clarification_of_"notable"_awards_bodies but I think it bears repeating here to help shape this guideline. Awards are made up all the time, often with the goal of profiting/riding the coattails of the popularity of the nominees. In advertising, there's certainly a perverse symbiotic relationship between awards-givers and awards-receivers. The latter gets to pump their numbers ("over 100 awards and nominations!") while the former earns ad revenue while providing nothing at all other than 'recognition'. So what is recognition? The Oscars are prestigious because people in the industry agree that it is and respect people who win one, not because tiny golden statues are inherently prestigious. Another film award that's voted on by just as many people (let's say by people named Jim) that awards an equally golden statue would not confer the same prestige in the film industry because the people in that industry don't agree that it does, no matter how many cameras you point at it and press releases you throw onto the internet. I think reliable sourcing is key to establish this. It should be verifiable that an industry or academic award confers prestige in a field. It's easy to be dazzled by the shininess of an Award With a Proper Title (who doesn't love a gold star in elementary school, right?), but just because it has a name and a website doesn't make it automatically notable. Otherwise reliable sources regurgitating press releases about nominees and winners doesn't either (that's churnalism). If an award is notable, there should be reliable sourcing about the award itself and its esteem in the community. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I had made this comment on the talk page of the draft but I think the first bullet needs a bit more tuning. Obviously where the individual award is notable that's fine, but there are cases where the awards as a whole are notable, their nomination/presentation process each year may or may not be notable on its own, and the individual catagories may not be notable; a prime example is the British Academy Games Awards (And while some of the individual pages have been created, I can tell you they would not survive an AFD in contrast to the individual ceremony articles. We'd still clearly want these awards as a group, but the current way the first bullet is presented would not allow for that. --Masem (t) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not as negative on the word "accolades" as some others are, but I do understand the reaction. However, it should not be simply removed. As someone else pointed out, some awards are sufficiently prestigious that a nomination is worth noting, and that is not an award. I tend to use "Awards and honors" as a section heading, and a quick glance suggest that is quite common. You probably don't need additional examples, but in Jill_Hutchison, I include some items that are clearly awards, but some things that are clearly not. Induction into a Hall of Fame belongs (IMO) in such a section but it is not an award. Perhaps changing the title to "Awards and honors" would make everyone (ok, many people) happy.S Philbrick(Talk)14:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Awards and honors or Honors and awards or Recognition and awards all sound great. Just not accolades. Anyone who writes accolades, I'll unfriend them. EEng22:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Does the community still approve of NOTHERE blocks?
Latest comment: 4 years ago48 comments34 people in discussion
Since there's a TfD over this for some reason, I'll raise the question here: does the community still approve of blocks per WP:NOTHERE? I think we should still use them for a few reasons:
We're not a bureaucracy- if we stopped using them they'd just be replaced with indefinite disruptive editing blocks since disruptive editing is another catch-all category that means "we can block or sanction you if you're causing issues regardless of the exact policy reference."
It's use as a block reason is an accepted part of our practice that has been around for ages and retraining people to just say disruptive editing, POV pusher, etc. would take substantially more work than it would produce benefit.
DE and NOTHERE block indeed overlap. I have no particularly strong feelings on the matter as I use the two rather interchangeably, but sometimes it does feel like there is a somewhat nuanced distinction between the two. Removing NOTHERE blocks for purely bureaucratic reasons is not something I agree with, however. And as I mention already several times, starting with a TfD was POINTy and actively disruptive to the project. I recommend that the TfD be speedy closed and that the discussion shifts here. El_C21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I consider them reasonable interpretations of policy, and I philosophically really like NOTHERE blocks compared to "disruptive editing" blocks when it comes to dealing with the "I'm here to push an incendiary point" or "I'm here to do whatever I like" editors. It pushes the concept of them appealing it from "my editing wasn't disruptive" to "I am here to build an encyclopedia because...". It's a far better theoretical point to start people thinking constructively. ~ mazcatalk21:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Last discussion in 2015. The mention in Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia" is descriptive, not prescriptive. It briefly states that this is an often used block reason. That's an odd piece of policy. As mentioned in the TFD, WP:NOTHERE itself is a supplemental page, and as such "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Many of the NOTHERE things are mentioned in policy itself, like WP:MEAT and WP:DISRUPT, but not all, such as WP:SPA which is an essay. Especially who is a SPA can be pretty controversial, and this block reason has been used for such editors. If I was blocked, I'd like a strictly policy-based reason which can potentially be appealed. This is giving too much leeway to blocking admins, even if the individual blocks can be brought to AN. "You are not here to contribute to Wikipedia", while appropriate for outright trolls, is an opinion that should be derived from policy. And those policy violations should be the block reason. --Pudeo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
All of our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. They document practice agreed upon by the community, which is ultimately what consensus is. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Blocks should be justified on specific grounds that focus on clearly identified behaviours, such as listed under "Protection" and "Disruption" at WP:WHYBLOCK. WP:NOTHERE works fine as a general philosophy, but I think it falls short as a grounds for blocking. It is very broad and focusses on inferences about the editor rather than specific actions. Shifting NOTHERE blocks to cite more specific DE grounds would increase the procedural fairness of our block and block review process.--Trystan (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If a user is "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", then irrespective of whether or not a chapter-and-verse policy can be recited that they've broken, it strikes me as sensible that they not be allowed to continue editing in a way that is clearly not helpful to the encyclopedia. So yes, I approve of NOTHERE blocks at the moment. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Around for ages? Yes, and I still approve of it. My impression is that User:Fred Bauder (who is still around, though not very frequently, and no longer an admin) started using it as a block reason, and it caught on. Then, later, it was formalized into being mentioned in the policy. I too like it philosophically and, as Tony says, "practice agreed upon by the community" is what consensus is. Ancient Institutional Memory | talk22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC).
I often patrol WP:UAA and frequently encounter new accounts with clearly profane and confrontational usernames who immediately engage in gross and severe vandalism. I block them rapidly using the NOTHERE template and move on. I use it only in obvious cases. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Not keen on this rationale and you won't see me using it. What's the problem with blocking that clearly profane and confrontational username engaging in gross and severe vandalism for incivility and vandalism? Why do you need to use "not here" instead? wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Wbm1058, I mention the profane username and the vandalism in my block notice as well. I see the NOTHERE template as an umbrella tool to speed and summarize the process, especially when I see zero potential for redemption. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Some editors are plainly a drain on community time and energy. If they have no significantly positive attributes that build the encyclopedia then they are NOTHERE and should be blocked to reduce the burden on others. Sometimes we need to support established editors rather than hope that helpless cases might reform. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I recall having used this on users whose edits do not fall obviously afoul of our more specific policies, but whose edits show quite clearly that their purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. Even if this were not already codified in the blocking policy, common-sense and WP:NOTBURO support this approach. Vanamonde (Talk)02:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how we have this conversation without first reviewing data: who is being blocked for NOTHERE and why. Anecdotes are no substitute. Levivich[dubious – discuss]02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't look at all the blocks on that query list, but I checked some random examples, and all the ones I checked could have been described as something else, e.g. POV pushing, vandalism, incivility, web host, trolling. I really don't perceive of "not here" as distinct from our other PAGs. It also strikes me as not useful to have "not here" as a block rationale. (Why "not here"?) That said, it also seems to me that having a block rationale of "not here" is not harming anything; it just doesn't strike me as particularly useful. Levivich[dubious – discuss]02:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding DE vs NOTHERE, the latter implies less than good-faith (explicitly commenting on the user's goal) and likely immediately indef, whereas the former is possibly just a temporary drain despite good intentions (overlapping with CIR). I think of NOTHERE as a useful catchall especially when there are multiple problems without any one specific being bad enough alone to merit the length/strength of the block. Common case might be a pattern of low-level vandalism or semi-advertising that then responds to mid-level warnings with some abuse or trolling. That's exactly a bad-faith disruption with a block for more than one reason, rather than a good-faith disruptive effect or for excluvely one policy reason. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, but NOTHERE also covers good faith but unhelpful activity. Essentially it's for someone who is not compatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really, per WP:NOTNOTHERE. Differences that arise where both users are in good faith hoping to improve the project should not be mistaken for "not being here to build an encyclopedia". If they are acting in good faith but are misguided it is not a NOTHERE situation and should be dealt with differently. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The Clearly not being here section lists a dozen ways a user could be good faith, yet be unhelpful. If an editor engages in almost nothing else, they should be NOTHERE blocked regardless of whether they personally believe their edits improve the encyclopedia (which is the definition of good faith). Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I've seen NOTHERE threatened against users who have made minimal contributions to the encyclopedia and instead go to discussion pages and treat them like forums for things that aren't directly benefiting the project. It's not disruptive editing, but it is something that needs to be discouraged and I think NOTHERE fills that role nicely. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE blocks are unfortunately suited to certain users who make it plain they have a purpose other than building the encyclopedia. And they can be here with the best of intentions in purely editing to serve that agenda. They may be proselytizers of The Truth, or righting great wrongs, or correcting Wikipedia's (insert adjective here) bias, and more. To a certain degree, there is overlap between this and other block rationales, but it remains a useful tool especially for users whose problems are multi-dimensional. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra03:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I believe this is a good tool, and I fully agree with the reasoning given by Mazca, Naypta, and Vanamonde. —烏Γ(kaw)│04:17, 01 June 2020 (UTC)
NOTHERE blocks are a great tool when used for relatively new accounts (or sleepers) who clearly aren't operating within the same headspace as the rest of the community (that weird intersection between spammers, vandals, POV-pushers, trolls, bad actors, etc. - the cases where it's hard to tell what their goal is but where it's plainly obvious that they aren't here to improve things). However, sometimes I find they can be misused for newbies who still haven't quite gotten how things work here yet and just need some more rope. I mean the block would technically be appropriate due to the fact these types of users are frequently given advanced warning of their behavoir, but they never sit right with me. –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Broadwood-park is a good example of what I mean with this latter thing. The user is clearly trying to improve Wikipedia in their own way, so calling them WP:NOTHERE doesn't feel right with me. It's a sound block, yes.. but should it be? Idk maybe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I could not have said it better than Deepfriedokra. NOTHERE blocks are a perfectly reasonable general descriptor for users who are...well, not here to contribute to the project in good faith. I am not sure why the community would have a problem with us blocking users with that rationale. Such users are a common problem. It is not the same as DE. There may or may not be overlap. You can have a nondisruptive NOTHERE user, and you can have a disruptive good faith user. The important aspect of NOTHERE is intent. ~Swarm~{sting}05:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra has it spot on, and TonyB is correct as well: the user behaviors which lead to NOTHERE blocks will inevitably lead to a block under whatever rationale seems to the blocking admin to fit. In other words, those folks are going to get blocked, so why would be get rid of a rationale which is so useful and has widespread support, judging from the number of admins who utilize it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As one of the few non-admins chiming in, I agree that NOTHERE is perfectly in line with blocks that I would want admins to enact. Fundamentally every edit to this project should be to build the encyclopedia. If someone is not editing towards that end, they should not be here. VanIsaacWScont06:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocking is all about preventing a user from damaging/disrupting Wikipedia, and encouraging a more productive behavior. By blocking a WP:NOTHERE user, you prevent them from encouraging users to not build an encyclopedia, and if we don't prevent that, that will damage and disrupt our editing, collaboration, and productivity. So WP:NOTHERE as a block reason is perfectly acceptable. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Recently we had an editor who was using their userspace to run a Covid lockdown fantasy Eurovision game for their friends with no other contributions to the wiki. It wasn't very disruptive, but clearly NOTHERE. NOTHERE serves a purpose separate & distinct from Disruptive Editing. Cabayi (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Because most admins couldn’t tell you what that policy says and shouldn’t have to in order to block someone for acting in a way that obviously shouldn’t be allowed. Also, that policy exists because we don’t allow people to do these things, not the other way around. Even if there was nothing in any policy about people running a game in their user space, it’d be a 100% valid block. Wikipedia does not have due process or prohibitions on ex post facto laws. People are judged on how their actions impact the project, not based on rules that don’t exist. Our policies document accepted norms, but they don’t capture everything that could be harmful to an encyclopedia or collaborative project. If someone is incompatible with the project, they will be shown the door even if there’s not a policy line they are violating. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
As others have suggested, Deepfriedokra has summed it up pretty well. NOTHERE is perhaps something of an umbrella term, but it does cover a number of policies and can be appropriate where more specific block reasons are not. And if it's too vague in specific circumstances, a blocking admin can (and should) include additional information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Copied from my my response at the TfD discussion that preceded this FfC The NOTHERE rationale is useful when "there are multiple or nuanced reasons for a block not captured by single-reason block templates. If I believe the reason for a "not here" block may not be obvious to the blocked editor or reviewing admins, I will also include the specific points of WP:NOTHERE the block pertains to, either in the block log or as a supplement to the template on the editor's talk page". -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a recent example of a NOTHERE block that probably should have been vandalism-only. But, does any of this really matter? Is the blockee going to use this information for anything? Is anybody else going to use this information for anything? Do we keep statistics on how many of each kind of block is handed out? -- RoySmith(talk)18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
NOTHERE currently has a status of an explanation page which is, if I get it correctly, a kind of an essay. Would it be a good idea to elevate it in status? --Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I support its use, but that's a good point. The recent nomination of the template for deletion and the existence of this thread indicate that a more formal basis might be a good idea. Meters (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I've long thought we should elevate it to the status of policy, though such a process would likely be contentious. But it is already treated as de facto policy and is very widely used. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
One can be disruptive but still intend on building the encyclopedia—such an editor just has a disruptive way of doing so, be that edit warring, bludgeoning discussions, pushing unreliable sources, whatever have you. Fundamentally, the goal of every editor here should primarily be to build and improve the encyclopedia. If that's clearly not what you're here to do, this is the wrong place for you to be, even if you're not being overtly or intentionally disruptive. NOTHERE serves a purpose different than blocks for disruption even though there is often some overlap. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it serves an important purpose as a block reason in situations where a user's violations of policy would normally be borderline or would be approached more slowly and cautiously, but are pushed over the edge to an immediate indef by the fact that there is no indication that the user has any intention of contributing to our purpose, on top of their other violations. While their other violations could theoretically be given as the reason, in many cases WP:NOTHERE is the overriding reason why they are being indeffed, with the individual violations just being examples of that; that makes it useful to put NOTHERE front and center. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it remains a valuable tool, especially in edge cases, or in saving time in trying to categorize exactly what a user did wrong. It cuts down on bureaucracy, and allows us a catchall for new and innovative forms of nonsense. We can't create a blocking policy that forsees every possible malfactor, that's why we give admins NOTHERE discretion. If we removed NOTHERE, those blocks would still happen, but they would be ramrodded into other blocking reasons, such as DE or vandalism, and it would take up additional time and bureaucratic morass. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓06:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In most cases I expect that other criteria should be used, eg spamming, disruptive editing. But I don't think we have to get rid of NOTHERE. But then it is used it should be preceded with warnings, and accompanied by a reason for supporting NOTHERE. One issue is trying to interpret the mind set of the user, which is more problematic than just seeing what they are doing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
NOTHERE is the most basic reason to block someone from editing. It may show up in many forms, and where a more specific reason is dominant it is clearer to all if the specific reason is cited. Sometimes it is clear that the person is not here to help build the encyclopedia, but not so easy to nail down the specific behaviour that stands out, due to the variety of low-level problematic behaviour which all adds up to a negative effect on content and community. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Anti-harassment RfC
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The "regulars" at WT:RFC have been talking about some common problems we see in RFCs, and we are going to try a bit of an experiment this month. This month, you can ask for help with writing your RFC question at WT:RFC.
This is not required, but it may be helpful. We are hoping that by providing a little experienced advice, you will be more likely to end up with a clear result. I particularly recommend this when:
a group of editors is already in conflict or someone is saying that a proposed RFC question isn't 'neutral' enough,
you're starting a "major" RFC (e.g., significant changes to a policy or to a contentious article), and
you want to hold a vote on what the wording of a sentence should be.
User:WhatamIdoing - Good idea for a service. I think it can be a next step for some of the disputes at DRN. (Right now at DRN there is an IP who seems to be arguing against using an RFC because that would be an escalation from DRN, but it isn't clear what the IP wants, other than to write at length.) (Maybe the Dispute Resolution policies need to be revised to clarify that using an RFC is not an escalation. Going to WP:ANI is an escalation.) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I am basically the only user currently interested in systematically improving articles on Russian localities and administrative divisions. We used to have a set of infoboxes customized to our needs. A couple of years ago, all these infoboxes were taken to TfD and, against my objections, converted into wrappers. (All other users interested in Russia retired by the time). The group of users who spearheaded this was not really interested in the opinion of people actually using the template, they just outvoted everybody. We are now going into some technical details which I do not understand very well, but Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality now automatically calls some data from Wikidata. Now, today I discovered (at Taldom and Ozyory, Moscow Oblast) that these data is unsourced and likely wrong. For example, it shows the area, but it does not specify the area of what it shows, and Wikidata sources it to the Russian Wikipedia (which is not an acceptable reference). For Taldom, I went to Wikidata and just removed the unsourced data [2]. (I left of for Ozyory to show how the template works). However, I can not do it for every Wikidata item, as this data is added by bot, and I can not compete with bots in several thousand items. It looks like my options are:
Convince Wikidata that unsourced and badly sourced data must be deleted (not even deprecated) and never readded — would be a great solution but unlikely plausible in the current situation;
Keep removing bad data from Wikidata — sorry, I am not a bot, and I just can not do work of this volume, even assuming nobody accuses me in vandalism there;
Revert the template to the previous version - this would amount to ignoring consensus;
Remove infoboxes - they would be probably routinely re-added even if I add a notice in the article;
Leave it as it is - this is probably what I am going to do, but we now have several thousand articles which are not compliant with WP:V and some of them likely contain false info (I only noticed the problem because there was a reform of administrative division, and Taldom and Ozyory were vastly expanded, probably by a factor of hundred, in the area, and I have no idea what the current numbers mean);
Find a wizard who can modify the template to block import of certain fields from Wikidata - this would probably solved the immediate issue but the problem of course is people who voted for deletion of the template had no interest in fixing it, and I do not know how to fix it myself.
There are some wizards around who can help pretty easily to fix the issue of unverified/badly sourced data coming from Wikidata. Leave a comment at WT:Wikidata that you're looking for help. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This seems to boil down to the problem that Wikidata does not have the same sourcing requirements as the English Wikipedia. We can fix the one particular issue, but the general issue is much less tractable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is a long-standing problem, and I once almost lost my admin flag over it. I personally would be happy with the decision that Wikipedia only may import statements with also simultaneously importing their source, and statements sourced to Wikipedia in any language may not be imported (assuming this is technically feasible). However, unfortunately, in every Wikidata discussion users with extreme points of view dominate, and they are not interested in finding any middle ground. In the past, I used to to participate in such discussions and to explain how Wikidata works, but I stopped doing this a long time ago. It is useless and does not lead to any good effect.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I'd suggest creating a local (en.wiki) template like {{Israel populations}} which can be watched and protected so no-one can mess with it. I am not a fan of wikidata for the reasons discussed above. Number5717:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
But this is exactly what we had until a couple of years ago. Old {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} was only importing the commons category, which I have no issues with. It was taken to TfD and deleted. None of the people who voted delete were active in articles on the topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We have a user right that allows non-admins to send mass messages via the software's MassMessage tool. However, I just ran into a situation in which a user had sent a mass message via their own script. Common sense would seem to say that the user right's existence implies that you need the user right to send any mass messages and can not just ignore the process by writing your own script. There is also a precedent in which a similar mass-messaging script was unanimously deleted at MfD. However, I can't find any actual written statement anywhere that says you're not actually allowed to do that. Is this stated somewhere? If not, should it be? Is this a common sense addition that needs to be made to WP:MMS or do we need to hold an RfA to clarify that users are not allowed to send mass messages in any capacity without the MMS user right? ~Swarm~{sting}22:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Not that I've ever used it for multiple users, but I know what it does. Simply in the view history tab, select two revisions to compare, and then you can select any users with the selected revisions and in between can be mass messaged.
Unlike MediaWiki MMS, you just have to hope that all the users you want to mass message and in between your selected revisions, and just select the ones you want to message, ignore the other 99%.
I'm very sure the intention was not to bypass the mass message right, like how Twinkle was not intended to bypass the rollback right.
I'm not going to debate over this, but I'll just say, see how it exactly works before calling it something, just like how you shouldn't call someone stupid because the "look" stupid. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you're making a problem out of where there is none... This is supposed to be a help in fighting vandalism (much like twinkle, which also semi-automates this); and this particular feature seems to be about giving messages to more than one user who are engaging in edit warring. If it were not done with this, I assume (and I remember doing so) it would be done manually, which is just not helpful when you're dealing with RC patrol... See WP:CREEP. In any case, if you have doubts with this, I suggest you politely ask the script's creator to pass this through the bot-approval policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a problem. No matter how big or small you consider this a problem, it was considered, a problem.
Of course, it may just be a plain misunderstanding, but now you see the use of the Multiple Action Tool is ambiguous. Is it another Mass Message Sender user right open to extended-confirmed users or just a way to semi-automate sending user messages/notices/warning? That's why we are here. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Script creator here - only just noted this thread. As Can I Log In and RandomCanadian have said, this tool is not intended to replace the mass message sender right - rate-limiting still exists. The goal of the multiple action tool is to warn multiple users/IPs/socks ext. who have engaged in a vandalism war or other issue (such as notifying good faith pending changes reverts, as if a user didn't check, they might not know what they did wrong). Previously, I'd have to open up the tabs of about 50 users all manually going through and warning them, which is very time-consuming. Perhaps the issue could be mitigated by applying an artificial limit of a small number of users, and only relieving this limit for mass message senders? There is no direct way to add users to the tool at the moment other than via a history page or by reverting a pending change (max users in past 10 revisions). No normal user can access the MAT tool with a custom list. As for why I used the MAT to send out a message, all the users there also have the script installed, and I can use software to determine these users to check for bugs ext. I could easily have sent a message through RedWarn itself, however, that would've caused disruption to the users of the tool via a pop-up dialog, so I have used talk page messages for some time. However, from now on I'll ensure to find an alternative method. Ed6767talk!00:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, probably will do that, but a built-in inbox may be useful too, so I'll have a think about it. But I definitely won't send out messages to users via a talk page note anymore. Ed6767talk!00:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not about that tool or the user behind it. Someone pointed out that a user had sent mass-messages via script, as can be viewed here here. Nowhere am I attempting to "go after" the user involved or "make a problem" about that incident, I was just explaining that I ran into that situation at PERM and that's the reason I'm bringing this up. I'm simply asking for the community's feedback on the general policy issue as to whether users are allowed to send mass messages via a script without the Mass Message Sender user right. The merits of the tool are completely irrelevant to that question. ~Swarm~{sting}02:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Swarm, I don’t think it’s ever been documented anywhere, but with the exception of twinkle/rollback, the general consensus whenever it comes up (one or twice a year) is that scripts should not be used to circumvent a permission the community has in place to restrict access to certain features on the MediaWiki software. This is especially the case for bot-like editing. The MfD you cited on this last year was an example for MMS, there’s the case with the super revert script at ANI a while back (tl;dr basically used rollback to block) and then someone who recently reverse engineered JWB to get around the check page. I don’t think it’s documented anywhere because we almost always deal with it ad hoc, but I think we have enough “precedent” to say there’s a general consensus against using scripts to replicate user rights. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
So we can circumvent the rollback right all we want. Yup we got 2 user scripts to do that. Next, to remove the rollback user group and bundle it with the (auto)confirmed user group. Let's just retry this in 5 years. Epic Genius (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC). It's been 5 years and 4 months. You can revert without explanation with rollback-like scripts, particularly TW rollback vandal, but you are not allowed to rollback with generic rollback. There is zero difference, yet its treated differently even though it's the exact same thing. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 03:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Rollback’s primary use these days is to prevent people from getting Huggle who shouldn’t have it. If you tried to copy Huggle’s code, alter it to allow you to use it without rollback, and then proceed to use it, you’d pretty much be guaranteed a block. Also, as an aside, all caps is usually considered rude on the internet, even in edit summaries. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There is clearly a lack of clarity and consensus regarding user scripts and their relationship to user permissions, and IMO, (pseudo-)rollback and MMS rights are not comparable. A rollback can easily be reverted via the page history, meanwhile, mass messaging would either require the tedious job of an editor to go into every single talk page that was edited and manually remove the message or the use of another "bot-like" script to remove the message. Ed6767talk!13:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Per isaacl above, I'd not be in favour of adding a specific line about this to policy anywhere, because there's no need for it. If a BRFA passes for a bot or script to do MMS-style messaging, then it ought to be permitted so to do. If there's no BRFA, it's prohibited already by the bot policy. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
So some general comments: there really is nothing specifically wrong with someone using scripts to help them make edits that wouldn't be considered problematic if they were made without a script. And arguments about a particular script are generally weak when other scripts can do the same thing (e.g. messages can be sent with things like AWB as well). Where this generally starts to become a problem is when the edits disrupt things - such as by causing impact to watchlists/recent changes/etc. Using MMS for large distributions avoids much as this, as the edits are flagged as 'bot' by the utility, indicating that they don't need to be reviewed as much. For other technical reasons, it is also preferable to use MMS for large distributions than to use a bot account to make lots and lots of direct edits. — xaosfluxTalk16:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Another advantage of using the mass messaging bot is that it has an opt-out mechanism for users who don't want any mass messages. I was going to elaborate that scripts that just make it a bit more convenient to make edits that you can do manually aren't generally a concern (the bot policy alludes to this). I agree that the potential for disruption is a key consideration in weighing if a script needs approval. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
What would be seen as a mass message? Sending a message to 10 vandals would probably not be considered a "mass message"; sending the same thing to 500 WikiProject members, many of which may not be interested in this, would be considered an overriding of the MMS policy. I remember this deletion discussion about an MMS script, so MMS tools, at least unrestricted ones, should not be allowed. There might be a policy breach if the MMS tool is sending more than ~50 arbitrary notices. However, 20 vandalism notes? I'd call that acceptable.
In any case the Multiple Action Tool, when used on a hist page to notify vandals, is probably acceptable. I believe that users should not be allowed to notify more than 50 users; if possible, the tool should direct such requests to WT:MMS or, if the user has massmessage rights, create a mailing list for them. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
There isn't a hard cutoff. As Ed6767 alluded to, a key consideration is how much work you would be giving someone else to do to reverse the effect of any problems that occurred. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Xaosflux. IMO writing down a "rule" for something that's discussed maybe twice a year – and produces genuine complaints from actually-affected editors less often than that – would be WP:CREEPy. If it's used sensibly, to send relevant messages to small-ish numbers of talk pages, I think it's okay. It should not be wrong to do with a script what's both fine and physically feasible without a script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Have been looking at this thread carefully for a bit to think of a good reply.
I have been testing (well at least have installed) RedWarn.
Once again, from my impression, sending mass messages is something that may or may not be a good idea. I have not cared so much for this, but maybe writing the message once on a talk page and pinging everyone involved may be a better approach because the message can be edited to filter errors out by the poster.
I see little point in anyone sending out messages to a large group of people. It may be perceived as spamming, which is not necessarily good. I remember a year or two ago the Arbitration Committee sent out a mass message to admins about securing accounts in error.
About the "Multiple action tool", I have not used it before. I see good reasons to send COI notices to many people, and I have before. But usually, those groups of people are so small that there may be little point to automate it entirely.
May be going on a tangent here, but I think the goal of RedWarn is to be an alternative to WP:TW, but I think Twinkle is never going to go away. Sure, there are some things that Twinkle can do that RW can't do, and vice versa. RedWarn is also pretty much "beta"; features may vary or may show up in places that they should not show up in.
I can argue about sending mass messages with scripts that it is extremely easy to do that with auto wiki browser as well. But once again, there is very little point in it, and it has a lot of potential for spam.
There is inherently a throttle limit in how many actions you can do in a given timeframe; I have tripped it on Wikipedia and on wikiHow before. So my opinion is, no, I do not think we need to automate sending the same message to a bunch of people with the multiple action tool on the English Wikipedia. I don't think it is super useful on any wiki at all, unless if you are sending out a newsletter. There are very few times when you have to do that anyway. Aasim06:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I can imagine sending out a COI notice to ~10 people, in which case this tool is probably more convenient than opening each talk page and using Twinkle. But @Ed6767: is there a mechanism that enforces the user group restriction (e.g. a non-autoconfirmed user cannot use RW, and a non-XCON user is technically unable to use the MAT? Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Eumat114, yes (see here for MAT, and here for the script as a whole) - as it's not hosted on Wiki, removing this restriction would be harder than a normal user script, requiring either a custom modified version of RedWarn or an addition user script that overwrites feature restrictions. For normal users without technical knowledge, bypassing the feature restrictions is a non-issue. If more restriction was required, an edit filter could easily be made to restrict MAT actions to extended confirmed users on Wikipedia's side too. Ed6767talk!01:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The lede of WP:Notability needs work. It's widely accepted that "notability" is not a measure of a subject's worthiness, but rather a direct consequence of the nature of Wikipedia. It is simply impossible to write a high-quality Wikipedia article on a subject that isn't "notable." Yet the first line of the lede says:
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
The phrasing here is misleading, and may contribute to the myth that Wikipedia determines the suitability of article topics on whether a subject is deserving of attention or respect. I suggest something more along the lines of:
On Wikipedia, notability is the term used by editors for whether it's possible to write an encyclopedia article about a given topic.
I am not proposing this specific phrasing, but rather offering it as a starting point for discussion.
The lede goes on to state that "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." I suggest we trim this back to just "Article and list topics must be notable," as again, notability is not a measure of worthiness. This line, as it stands, only further conflates the different concepts of notability on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
Later, it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if..." Again, the use of the term "merit" is misleading, as we're not judging goodness or worthiness. It might be better to say something like: "It is possible to write an article on a topic if..."
I think we can and should make this much clearer for those who aren't already familiar with the concept of notability on Wikipedia.
On the second point, there has been long discussions over and over that boil down to the fact that "notability" on Wikipedia is not the same as how it is usually treated in the rest of the world, and ways to fix that have been proposed multiple times but no good solution that gets away from the intent of the guideline has been found.That reason comes back to the first point and the issue of merit: the guideline is about allowing for standalone articles or not for a topic, and thus showing via quality of sourcing or the types of information in that sourcing that we would presume that we can build out that article more. That creates the presumption of notability that allows for the article to be kept or created, and allows for it to be challenged later should it be found impossible to actually build out beyond a few sentences (that is, after one proves no more sources are possible via WP:BEFORE). Notability doesn't tell us if it is possible that an encyclopedic article can be created but if we presume one can be. --Masem (t) 23:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
(And now that I see where this comment came from, in response to issues about how we cover underrepresented topics, that has been also discussed at length multiple multiple times at WP:N and most solutions would require us to weaken the application of WP:V to meet that, which is not going to happen). --Masem (t) 23:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
What if, instead of "possible," we said "likely to be possible," to make it clear that notability is a presumption and not a certainty? Also, I scanned the archives of WT:Notability and didn't see anyone making these particular points about the lede, though I didn't make an exhaustive search and might have missed it.
I do not suggest or support changing the notability guidelines to cover underrepresented topics, but rather to clarify the notability guideline with the hope of reducing the number of spurious claims of discrimination. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I acknowledged that in my response, didn't I? I'm responding to the concerns over the use of the word "possible" in my suggested phrasing. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The point of "warrants" is that it's not about whether we can have an article about the subject (we can, and do, have many horribly sourced and unverifiable articles about topics that do not meet our notability tests), but whether we should have an article. Your rewording is bad because it ignores that distinction, and talks about things that are clearly possible (writing bad articles about non-notable subjects) as if they were impossible. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The original draft would have said "...possible to write a high-quality encyclopedia article..." I omitted "high-quality" for brevity and because any "article" that isn't based on reliable sources isn't actually an "article" suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It's like If a tree falls in a forest, except the question is "if there is no reliable sourcing, is a person not notable?" It is well established that some people such as African Americans or female academics were turned down for articles because there was not enough sourcing, but that does not mean that they are non-notable figures. There needs to be an acceptance that WP:GNG can lead to this type of problem, which is a form of systemic bias.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually becoming more convinced WP:GNG is not the problem, but rather how WP:GNG is interpreted. If a topic fails WP:GNG, we cannot have an article on them. (Now, if you're specifically referring to academics, that's a separate problem, since academia apparently doesn't need to pass WP:GNG.) But often users downweight sources they don't understand or from countries they're not familiar with even though those sources perfectly contribute to WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C05:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Your last sentence there is an important concern. I've run into far too many AfD nominations for subjects relating to non-English-speaking countries where it's clear that the nominator didn't even look in non-English sources. For many languages, with the amount that Google Translate has improved, there's no excuse for not doing even a quick search in the relevant language(s) to see what appears. I think it's worth adding a note to the GNG that "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic" encompasses all reliable sources, not just English-language sources for which the full text does not appear online. −−−CactusJack 🌵20:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@CactusJack: This is already in WP:GNG - Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I would support it being added to the {{nutshell}} at the top of WP:N, as well as having Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede clarified at WP:BEFORE to include any situation in which there is a credible indication that there may be non-English sources available - not just those in non-Latin alphabets. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a huge problem, and it's not limited to articles about people. If one looks for sources on say, public schools in the united states, for instance, there are usually a plethora of sources easily found with a google search - so long as the school is one that educates white people. The newspapers of the segregated time often didn't acknowledge the existence of schools for African-American, Latino or Native Americans. Yet even middle-school sports often get regular mentions. The sources that exist are often difficult to access because they are rarely online. Editors have - until recently - been willing to give a free pass to high schools, but in almost every case, when integration occurred, the shitty facilities provided to African-Americans were downgraded to middle schools, which often were very quickly replaced. Their history is not recorded at all in the same way as white schools - it is simple to go online and find who won championships in every sport throughout history in most states....but the records of the black schools are not included, and are not available. Are these schools not as notable because their mention was suppressed by racists? By the current standards, they mostly are, making WP complicit.Jacona (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Which is why routine coverage is something that we do not consider as part of notability. Routine coverage doesn't tells us anything why a topic is important from the rest of the world's standpoint. We want coverage about the topic, not that name-drop the topic or are linked to the topic, so this would not actually happen. When it comes to something like schools, one thing we do have is the fact that we do consider all government recognized towns as worthwhile for an article as part of a function as a gazetteer - this is sorta above and beyond our notability principle - but this means any public schools should have at least one mention within these town articles as part of the education system there. Some schools may have unique standalone notability beyond that. --Masem (t) 13:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
My feeling is that this idea of "routine" coverage exists purely to promote bias. It allows AfD commenters to dismiss any topic they deem unworthy of an article as non-notable, because the coverage is routine. If the problem is that some forms of coverage that would otherwise be considered reliable independent and in-depth are too easy for insignificant topics to generate, the solution is not to magically pretend that it doesn't count because it's easy, the solution is to consider that maybe depth of coverage is not the right way to measure significance and use SNGs that can be more accurately tuned to the real markers of success in some area. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Exclusion of topics that are only covered by routine coverage is essential to the fundamental part of WP:NOT - We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is so much data out there today that we have to have a better standard, in certain fields and areas, that just name dropping and common coverage (such as high school sports) that we can expect. Defining what routine coverage is in some areas to make sure that AFDs do not incorrectly label sources as routine, or vice versa, can be done. This is probably where NCORP is the example to be clear of what are routine sources that are insufficient to demonstrate notability for organizations and businesses as to avoid self-promotion. --Masem (t) 19:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that routine coverage should be allowed for notability. I'm suggesting that our determination of what is routine is an obvious place for editors' biases to creep in, and that they do creep in. More, the idea of "routine" coverage is basically a patch for the fact that some unimportant topics get far more press coverage than some important ones. And the fact that we can't use press coverage without patching it in this way suggests that measuring importance by press coverage is fundamentally wrongheaded. In the old days, the philosophy was that anything that *could* be covered, *should* be covered. That has (rightly) stopped being the case, and the way we made it stop being the case was to arbitrarily declare that some coverage that obviously *could* be used as the basis of an article *should* not be used because it was too routine to imply any significance to the topic. But my feeling is that this leads to arbitrariness and bias. If we want to judge significance, beyond the mere existence of sources, we should do so explicitly, by clear standards that fit the topic at hand, not by editors' biases that too often amount to "I don't think that a high school female athlete (or whatever similar subject) could ever be notable so I'm going to declare that all the coverage we actually do have is routine", where "routine" is really a shorthand for WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any meaningful and reproducible classification of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't call it "routine coverage". After all, coverage of subjects such as elections, sporting contests, and cultural events is "routine" to the point that some fans can predict which tropes are likely to be invoked in that coverage before the events happen, but we don't reject that. Maybe we need a different term for this – something that differentiates between the routine-and-expected news story about spring gardening and the routine-and-expected news story about the spring elections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A minor correction: In fact we do reject coverage of elections, that goes in-depth into the candidate's background and opinions, as "routine" when the candidate loses, but not when they win. I think that's a clear tell that our definition of routine is really an excuse to judge the significance of a topic rather than something inherent in the sources themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I like this idea. In terms of wording, I'd suggest that it say …is possible to write a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article…". I could turn almost any CEO/scientist/activist's webpage into something that looks like an encyclopedic biography, but writing an article WP:based upon nothing except what the subject says about itself isn't neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Biographies based solely on personal web pages, LinkedIn profiles etc have been turned down in the past because of WP:PRIMARY and WP:COPYVIO. The trouble is that journalists are not interested in writing about some people unless they die, win the Nobel Prize or commit a mass murder. So there are inevitably gaps in the sourcing as defined by WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You're conflating notability and verifiability, which are two separate things. "Notability" is a measure of a subject's worthiness for Wikipedia. Verifiability is whether it's possible to write an article. Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 08:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago67 comments30 people in discussion
The behavioural guideline at WP:PE reads:"you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;" same as the general WP:COIEDITING guideline. Both are without inline citations/notes, so I am not sure how unlikely it is that anything can be done about it, but I think it should be changed to "you must not edit affected articles directly;" The exemptions are already listed at WP:COIU on the same page. A Partial block from the affected article seems an appropriate remedy to address violations.
Occasionally, paid editors do take the option of not being discouraged by the very strong discouragement, which presents an awkward situation. This would remove all confusion and make handling paid contributions a lot more efficient and straightforward. The community should decide once and for all, whether or not it is okay with paid editors making substantial non-urgent direct edits to affected articles.
Obviously, we'd need an RFC to actually discuss it; first, I wanted to make sure I am not missing something obvious that would end this proposal speedily. Usedtobecool☎️10:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Clarification One:
The proposal is not to outright prohibit all mainspace contributions from paid editors, just the ones that are both significant && non-urgent. This means they are still allowed to make the edits exempted by WP:COIU, as that section is not being changed, and the new articles would be forced to go through AFC, as creating a new article would be a non-urgent significant mainspace edit. This proposal also leaves the WP:COIEDIT section as is.
So, let me reformulate:
At WP:PE, let's change the bullet-points:
you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
to:
you must not edit affected articles directly, except as provided by WP:COIU;
you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
And, optionally, let's add after the last sentence of the last paragraph—You may be technically restricted from editing the affected articles for failing to adhere to these guidelines.
Our policies on paid editing are already a joke, and making them stricter would do nothing but make people feel good about "doing something". After blocking 300 socks in one case at SPI some years ago (yes, 300) I came to the conclusion that simply outlawing paid editing isn't going to work. It is so painfully easy to sockpuppet, to create multiple accounts without getting caught, tightening the rules would only overburden the already overburdened SPI system. Creating 100 sock puppets that are difficult to link to each other does not require much skill, just patience, and a little monetary motivation. "Outlawing" paid editing makes as much sense as the War on Drugs, and has the same effect; makes it more profitable, thus alluring to those looking to make a profit. As I'm sure this will fall on the collective community's deaf ears, I will just leave it at this. Dennis Brown - 2¢19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, I have added a clarification to my original proposal above. I am not proposing outlawing it, but, yes, it seeks to tighten the rules a bit. User-centred policing is less effective, true; and perhaps, UPE is more of a problem than some wikilawyering DPEs, but it's the latter this proposal is concerned with, and I do believe the proposed amendments would clarify the matter a bit without changing the status quo for the good faith DPEs. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I would generally support this. See Special:PermanentLink/946560078#Conflict_of_Interest_Editing for one example of a paid editor arguing that "peer review is not mandatory" because of the current wording. However, it must be clear that removing incorrect information about living persons is always allowed, and that doing so is exempt from both the edit warring policy and the discussed COI guideline bullet point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The last big thing related to COI editing I'm aware of was WP:TOUSL in January, in which the community very resoundingly asked the WMF to take legal action against Status Labs. @Doc James: you mentioned that you planned to share that discussion with the WMF board; if you feel like taking a break from COVID-19 stuff, could you catch us up on how that went? There is also some recent stuff happening at AFC (from Sulfurboy) and the Article Wizard (from me) about paid COI disclosure. I'm not well-informed enough on the policy to make a judgement here, but Dennis Brown's comments above seem reasonable; my general sentiment is that we may be close to reaching the limit of what we can do on-wiki, and that the more productive path may now be through WMF legal. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, I have added a hopefully clearer version of my proposal just below my OP. I don't think there is much else to miss other than the very small few sections linked in the proposal. So, I do believe you can form an informed opinion from reading the proposal alone. Best, Usedtobecool☎️08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Although a lot of paid editing is problematic, paid editing isn't necessarily problematic. I think the current disclosure requirements adequately mitigate the risks, and that our existing policies are as good as they will ever be for handling problematic paid editing (unfortunately, not very effective, but no better than any alternative). --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. That is the equivalent of saying "Although a lot of dictatorships are problematic, dictatorships aren't necessarily problematic". We must avoid conflicts of interest even if they may do some good faith edits, just like we must avoid dictatorships even if they may do some good faith policies. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr I am not proposing any sweeping changes with any ambition to fix the larger issues. I am seeking to clarify a rather, in my opinion at least, simple point, that nonetheless creates an awkward situation with paid editors who seek to wikilawyer instead of working within general community expectations. I have added a clarification to my original post, hoping it helps. Best, Usedtobecool☎️08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I would endorse a proposal to change wording to unequivocally require paid editors to go through the AfC process when submitting new articles. I'm on the fence as to whether an outright ban on mainspace editing is likely to help much. signed, Rosguilltalk03:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I'd support that. Even with NPP, I cannot imagine a situation where I'd be okay with a paid editor creating a page without going through the additional scrutiny of the AfC process. {{u|Sdkb}}talk03:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I have zero issues with paid editing. I have a lot of issues with paid editors that bring serious WP:COATRACK or WP:NPOV issues. And since a lot of my time is dedicated to the AfC project, I've become particularly bitter towards said editors. The aforementioned reference by Sdkb was my suggestion that for AfC articles that are created by PEs that there be an easily visible temporary notice on the draft page that would be removed if and when an article is accepted. As it stands now a PE or COI editor only has to disclose on their userpage, and that can go unseen in the typical AfC process. I also have issue with some language in policies, particularly the word "should". See my convo with DESiegel[3]Sulfurboy (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Sulfurboy it does get tedious having to check the draft talk, then the creator's user and talk pages and then other significant contributors too. Yes, exactly, not all, but I am seeking to change a few of those fuzzy imperatives to definitive ones. Added my proposal Mark II at the end of my OP above. Best, Usedtobecool☎️08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Paid editors who are making apparently good-faith efforts to comply with our disclosure and other policies should not be demonized, and marking their contribution in this way will only increase the pressure to omit disclosure and just hope to avoid being detected. I think it is counterproductive, and I oppose any such marking. I agree that COATRACK and NPOV violations need to be addressed and corrected, but this is true whether the editor is an employee or merely a fan of the subject. Indeed fans may well be more intransigent in POV-pushing. I think that Sulfurboy's proposal if I have understood it correctly, would be a mistake. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
DESiegel, in case yours was not wholly a response to Sulfurboy's proposal (indenting), I would like to clarify that I do not seek to change the status quo for good faith paid editors who are already complying with the community expectations. Here, by community, I am largely referring to WP:NPP and WP:AFC folks; it is widely understand in that area that paid editors are supposed to put their articles through AFC and propose substantial non-urgent mainspace edits at the talk page, but because the actual guideline is worded weakly, paid editors who don't want to, don't have to adhere by those expectations. My proposal seeks to eliminate that loophole for wiki-lawyering. I have added a clarification to my original proposal to hopefully make that clearer. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, It is my viewm that to make an AfC review mandatory, for any editor or group of editors, under any circumstances at all, would be to damage what reputation AfC has left, and to harm its value for its actual purposes, helping inexperienced editors to create valid pages. At hte very lest, paid ewditors should have the option of seeking an individual non-paid editor in good standing to do a one-on-one review of a draft outside the AfC framework as an alternative to going through AfC. Any proposal, which makes AfC mandatory I oppose as strongly as i can. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs12:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The only realistic way to remove paid editing and the problems associated therewith is to increase the limit of edits required for new article creation to mainspace. 1500 mainspace edits and 6 months time (above extended) should be used. The number of articles that are being added by ~10 edits and go COI accounts will become zero. There are no VITAL articles that have not been written. So if an article incubates in Draftspace, there is no emergency need to create it at once. It is not like we are lacking the articles on the states of USA that need to be created asap. Most vital work is done and we have prolific article creators. The argument that we need new editors does not work on this scenario as most (99%) of these ~10 edits and go writers just create one article and then leave, so leaving the bar low is not inviting new editors, it is just creating a mess. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I can think of no better way to ensure that we cease to get new editors than to adopt the above proposal by MistyGraceWhite. I would strongly oppose it if it were seriously proposed, and I doubt that the Foundation would allow it to be enacted and take effect. It would certainly mean that Edit-a-those, many of which are focused on creating new articles, (and for which I routinely grant confirmed status on the spot) would have to cease or drastically change. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@User:DESiegel I may be wrong. I have not seen any data from editathons. Is there any data which is available for non admin editors to see from editathons. I would like to specifically see the number of new editors with >2000 mainspace edits that have started editing from editathons. I find it odd that an editor MUST get their article onto mainspace at once. What is the rush? Anyhow, can you give out the data from editathons on new editors who have become part of the project? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
MistyGraceWhite most edit-at-hons, or at least the ones I have attended, (which are linked on my user page) record the list of attendees, and the articles created or changed. But if there is a central compilation of these results I do not know where it is. It would be possible to use individual event reports to compile such data, but rather tedious. So no, I cannot provide such data off-hand. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@User:DESiegel without this data, how can we actually evaluate the impact of editathons on the project? I mean if editathons in their current form are not bringing in any new editors who help wikipedia, then why fight to keep that form intact? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
That is a different question, MistyGraceWhite, and one more properly addressed to those who organize such events. It is my belief, without having attempted to analyze data, that such events are good for our overall reputation and a better understanding of what Wikipedia is, whether they bring in large numbers of new editors or not. I also suspect that the editors they do bring in are valuable, but again i can't prove this. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the question misses the boat in another way as well, by focusing on new-editor-at-editathon retention. Even if zero of those newbie editors ever return, let alone reach several K mainspace edits (lack of gain for our long-term editor pool), and even if there is no reputational aspect (lack of gain for Wikipedia site and movement), edit-a-thons often create viable new articles (gain for our readers). DMacks (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree in the strongest possible terms about Misty's suggestion. It seems a real case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Given we'd have to create a new userright, I can't imagine the WMF would be particularly obliging. I wouldn't even support EC. If there was some intermediate option I might consider that, but the community has indicated a firm opposition to expansion of protection/permission levels Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely with every comment DESiegel has made in this discussion. The problem is not paid editing or paid editors, the problem is breaches of the content policies (NPOV, etc). The two groups "editors who are paid to edit" and "editors who make harmful changes to the encyclopaedia" are overlapping sets, one is not a subset of the other (and the same is true for more specific types of harmful edit). We should never prohibit any editor from reverting obvious vandalism, correcting obvious BLP errors, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I have added a clarification to my original post above. Sorry for the misunderstanding; the proposal doesn't seek to outright prohibit all mainspace paid contributions, just the non-urgent substantial ones. Best, Usedtobecool☎️08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: I still oppose that. While it is right to discourage paid editors from making substantial contributions to mainspace, outright prohibiting it in all circumstances will not benefit the encyclopaedia. Examples include implementing a discussed consensus, clearly non-controversial changes such as accessibility improvements, reference fixing, etc. that might be regarded as "substantial". Paid editing is not synonymous with POV editing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I would support a wording change from "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" to "you must not edit affected articles directly, except when your edits are unambiguously uncontroversial", which would draw a far clearer distinction between acceptable and unacceptable edits (and there is always WP:IAR for edge cases).
I am strongly opposed to Misty's proposal to raise the editing threshold for article creation, which is far too broad and would cause too much collateral damage to good-faith article creation. However, if it were modified to solely focus on a narrow subject area which proves overwhelmingly likely to contain poor article creations by new editors with a COI, I might support it. For example, if it could be shown that 95 of every 100 articles by new editors on, for instance, live businesses that began operating under three years ago were excessively promotional, then a requirement for AfC review before an article on a topic meeting the criteria could appear in mainspace would make sense. – Teratix₵12:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Teratix that is exactly what I intended to convey. I am not seeking any changes to WP:COIU. I have added a clarified version of my proposal to the bottom of my original post. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the modified wording is that it gives the impression WP:COIU is a comprehensive list of scenarios where paid editing in mainspace is acceptable, which, as Thryduulf's above examples of acceptable paid editing in mainspace not technically covered by COIU show, is not actually the case. – Teratix₵01:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I would support both proposals under "Clarification One". The current phrases, "you are very strongly discouraged" and "you should", are functionally equivalent to "you may" when it comes to enforcement. The proposed phrases, "you must not" and "you must", actually have teeth. — Newslingertalk11:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The current wording is correct: there are circumstances in which they may make those edits, because doing so improves the encyclopaedia. Completely prohibiting all such editing would be to the strong detriment of the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with respect to the first bullet point ("...editing articles directly") and strongly disagree with respect to the second bullet point ("...Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly"). {{Request edit}} is available for paid editors who wish to make changes to articles, although Teratix's suggestion ("except when your edits are unambiguously uncontroversial") is reasonable and resolves most to all of the circumstances you're referring to. I see no reason that paid editors should create articles directly in mainspace, instead of having them vetted through AfC. The AfC process works very well for maintaining article quality in the presence of a conflict of interest. — Newslingertalk02:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Once again though you seem to be conflating "paid editing" and "POV editing". They are not the same thing - while paid editors have a clear COI regarding the person or organisation who paid them, that doesn't necessarily translate to POV editing or that the conflict extends to every edit (e.g. when a paid editor reverts obvious vandalism their and our interests align perfectly). Additionally, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm opposed to AfC, given that I've never mentioned it? My opposition is to blanket prohibitions that will not only not help the encyclopaedia and actually hinder it by making it more likely that paid editing will be undisclosed. Deal with the problem content, not the method used to create it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The larger point, and one that seemed to be missing, is the fact that the stricter you make the rules, the more you push paid editing into the shadows, where you have NO control. If anything, it makes it more profitable. No rule or rule change will make paid editing go away, there is simply too much financial interest in it. Again, making rules so we can say "so at least we tried" tend to backfire, badly, and in this case will overload SPI even more than it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢14:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
We can accept that unwelcome practices such as vandalism and sockpuppetry will never be totally suppressed while still endorsing and enforcing policies and guidelines which prohibit such practices. Why not for unacceptable paid editing? – Teratix₵01:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
We already have policies and guidelines prohibiting unacceptable paid editing, nobody is proposing to remove them. The problems we have currently are from those that do not follow the existing rules so making it harder for those to be followed will just mean fewer people follow them while doing nothing about those that already don't - i.e. it would make things worse. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't see how the proposed changes will make it any harder to follow the paid editing policies. – Teratix₵03:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Upon reflecting on this more, I think it's chasing after the wrong problem. COI-related difficulties generally come from the editors that don't self-disclose, so changing the rules for the ones that do doesn't help (and I'm not sure paid editors are significantly worse than editors who are self-promoting or writing about their friends). signed, Rosguilltalk03:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill and Dennis Brown: We seem to be on similar wavelengths. I'll highlight in case it got buried that Doc James replied to me above that WMF does not seem to have delivered any response to the 100+ editors who asked nearly unanimously for WMF Legal to take action against Status Labs back in January. How about we head over to our new WMF pump page and start talking about that? {{u|Sdkb}}talk10:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly oppose MaisyGraceWhite's proposal. First, it will immediately drive new editor retention down to near zero. Second, it goes against the basic principles of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which includes creating new pages. Third, coverage on Wikipedia is still frightfully thin or even nonexistent especially in topics affected by systemic bias. CJK09 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I think MistyGraceWhite is on to something, although the parameters are certainly negotiable. We have a substantial problem of sockpuppets and SPAs, and we have basically unlimited flexibility to tweak the degree to which new editors may be required to demonstrate their willingness and ability to contribute to the project before receiving specific tools like the ability to create pages in mainspace and pagemover rights. BD2412T14:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The "must" proposal I very strongly support. If we just say "shouldn't", every single paid editor will think they're the exception, since, well, they're being paid to think so. "Must not" doesn't have any such wiggle room, while still leaving space for things like reverting obvious vandalism. No one's going to complain if a paid editor reverts the addition of random strings of profanity anyway. I also see the merit in upping the bar for new article creation. Autoconfirmed is a pretty low bar to clear for someone being paid to do so—make ten minor uncontroversial edits and set up a calendar reminder four days later. (This is not hypothetical; when I delete spam articles, this is often clearly exactly what they did.) Raising the bar to even EC would dramatically raise the amount of effort to create socks and sleepers, and if nothing else that would mean the paid editors will have to charge more, operate slower, and lose more when a sock is caught, which may help to discourage the practice. Creating an appropriate mainspace article is hard; the number of editors who could do so after ten edits is probably quite small. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
None of it works. Sorry for being such a skeptic, but it's a joke if you think any of these proposals will stop paid editing. See the following: [4] and [5] - and weep. And that's only one site among many. They even predict that volunteers will be a thing of the past and that paid editing will win out. Money talks. How do you silence it? There's only one way and that's registration with validation. Sorry but that's it in a nutshell, and I haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise, especially not more failed bureaucracy. AtsmeTalk📧22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I am getting a lot of Nirvana fallacy vibes from the comments. I didn't expect to solve all our conduct and content issues with regard to promotion with this proposal. I did not identify this as the worst problem we have, or the proposed as the best solution we can have. I identified a very particular problem: A guideline that limits contributions from paid editors in good faith and rewards the ones who have no respect for community norms. Despite what the guidelines say, it is the norm that paid editors are expected to use edit requests for every edit that is not urgent enough or trivial enough to forego peer review from an independent editor. With the guidelines we have, editors who want to respect these norms wait for weeks/months waiting for a response to their edit requests while those who don't, can continue to edit the articles directly, and since AFD is not cleanup, there is nothing preventing them from making the article whatever they wish to make it after sufficiently exhausting any good faith neutral editors that may be watching into quitting. Which one do you think would Wikipedia be better off with, and is that the same one that will win out in the market competition? We should stop acting like a bully, showing our muscles to good faith paid editors and resigning to those that won't be tempered by our very strong suggestions. If one believes paid editing is the future, or an essential evil, it is all the more reason to level the playing field in favour of more-collegial, more cooperative ones. My proposal may not be perfect, it may not be the most urgent, it may not be the superlative of anything, but would we be better off, if marginally? Now, I do take the point about whether those kind of editors would be more likely to prefer UPE over compliance, and if they are, is handling them then likely to be harder or easier than with the status quo? Honestly, that was the discussion I thought would be the most relevant on whether we go forward with this. Usedtobecool☎️21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you when you say we cannot stop paid editing and that we should reward those who play by the rules and not those who don't. The problem is that this proposal will not do that - indeed it will make it harder for those who do play by the rules (in some cases, it will make little to no difference in others) and wont make a jot of difference to those who don't. The way we solve the problems with paid editors is to focus on non-neutral editing by all editors (paid and unpaid, disclosed and undisclosed) rather than spend our energy on ineffectual measures directed at editors. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favour of you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly, but not inclined to back banning paid editors editing in mainspace altogether. Creating articles is an incredibly difficult process, and to be honest, I've never seen any paid editor successfully create anything approaching an encyclopedically-neutral article in mainspace - the AfC process offers not only review, but also a process by which advice can be given to those who are genuinely interested in positively contributing. Those who are disinclined to follow our rules will make articles in mainspace anyway that will be speedy deleted, and those who follow them won't mind having to wait a little while for an AfC reviewer. On the other hand, there are cases where paid editors genuinely contribute to encyclopedia articles that already exist in mainspace, and I don't think we should discourage those - especially given that that might perversely encourage people to hide their paid editing, in contravention of the ToU. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the whole idea of paid editing has completely subverted Wikipedia. It has turned it, from what should been the vision and idea of an egalitarian project into a two tier project that enforces inequality at every level and delivered 10000's of article that are completely COI and can't be trusted as fact, but are nevertheless defended to the limit by industry. On one side we have beautiful paid articles, mostly non-entities and companies with tenuous notability to the volunteer side, with reams of stubs, from people and events and history, that have utterly changed the world, but will probably never be expanded. One side is increasing in size, while the other is decreasing. Paid editing is a booming industry and they are getting larger, while we are getting smaller. That is the future. I don't think the POV editing and paid editing are synonymous. Occasionally you come across paid articles that have not been looked at in months and they expand them right out, effectively with no barriers. I've seen 60k articles on 12-15 person companies. We are essentially tinkering around the edges, when a wholesale change is needed. More bureaucracy is not needed, although the idea of putting it all through Afc is ideal. I think we need registration. We can track what is being done, otherwise the future is going to be very grim. I think having registration will not drive drive retention down, or the flow of newbs. The number that is coming through the door, is slowly dwindling anyway, the honeymoon period is long over, while the paid crowd are increasing every day. They have made the conceptual move, why don't we. When you look at NPP now, only about one, out of every 6-8 articles are not paid. It is quite hard to find them. Sure, there is a large cadre of folk who still believe in the project and work to improve Wikipedia, but they are in minority now. While industry has power and money to do what it wants, that is their will, we are losing power, while they are gaining it. scope_creepTalk08:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It has 7-8 years now since wee started talking about this, and nothing has been done. The idea of WP:PAID is a failure as it is largely ignored. Its a catch-22 or catchata-22 situation, round and round in a circle we go, with no end in sight. We should be looking for innovative solutions. They are always going to be here, so we should use them: e.g. perhaps to support and maintain portals (with educational input) and all policy applied. Or if you want that article, then expand 1 stub first, or we have difficult article, write it up for us. We could have the "1 for 1" rule. 1 new article in an area that is not serviced properly for one paid article, or 1 expanded article for 1 paid article. There is so much good work that could be done with such a rule. It has a number of advantages, and deals in realpolitik, instead of the jaundiced condition we operate in now. It's sightly socialist and mercenary, in its approach, but industry has access to resources we can only dream about and would even the balance, somewhat. We could engender the idea of a company Wikipedian, who is paid to write complex articles and could be made competitive, with quality as the metric. They've longed talked having a historian in places like Microsoft, to document the company's path. Almost overnight the idea of stubs would disappear. There is articles I known of artiles that don't get written, because they are too complex. One of them is Forfeited Estates Commission. In Scotland, after the rebellion, the commission came in and sold a bunch of stuff, estates mostly. There is 400 documents about it, apparently, and very little on it. Hence there is no article. Huge articles like that, that could be made into a series, and happily done by a paid editor. scope_creepTalk09:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If paid editors can't edit then the concept becomes self-contradictory. As Wikipedia is billed as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, this would not be sensible. Consider some recent examples:
I myself had another article at DYK recently: fever hospital. This used an image from the Wellcome Library which has paid staff working on the release of such images and generally supporting Wikipedia. Following my activity, I noticed mainstream media picking up my crop of the image and using it in their pandemic coverage.
Another current discussion is about the Internet Archive. It appears that this is not content with snapshots of the entire internet but now wants all the world's books too. The issue is a bot which is being run by a paid editor and there seem to be other paid editors active in the discussion too. In this case, I tend to oppose the activity but the matter is debatable.
These examples show that the paid editor issue is not just a matter of the puff pieces which come to the attention of the NPP. Crude and draconian policies are not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
They are all academics and/or in the public sector, which is by far the minority, and welded to the belief of the common good. Certainly in the UK, the public ethic is based on that belief. The value to paid editors is only google rankings and that wouldn't change. We don't have control of Google, but their mantra is quality of content, and their doubling down on it for the last few years, so that won't change. I just wish we could try something practical instead of the roundabout conversations that lead nowhere, while they are singing and celebrating, at our expense. The thing that worries me most is that we have less and less people looking at them, as time goes by. scope_creepTalk10:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
We will never make progress on this issue so long as we continue to allow the good-hand sockpuppets of paid editors to stymie every effort to control them. The pig does not vote to abolish the trough. —Cryptic10:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem with these progressivly more restrictive versions of the paid editing policy is that it is making no impact on the amount of paid editing - only on the amount of visible paid editing. There continues to be very high demand for paid edits - a quick scan of Freelancer.com gives 348 open jobs related to Wikipedia, and while a minority of those are not related to direct editing, the vast majority of them are. Mostly we have three categories of paid editors: people working for a company who could be better seen as COI editors; people who are knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and try to engage in disclosed paid editing; and those who are hired by a company specifically to edit Wikipedia but engage in undisclosed paid editing. The first group is normally unaware of our policies and generally can be convinced to accept the "should not" as equivalent to "must not". The second group do care, but there are very few of them. The third group doesn't give a damn about our polices, are very hard to detect, and will ignore our policies no matter what we change them to. The problem is that as we continue to make it harder and harder for the second group to exist, the demand for paid editing doesn't decrease - it simply moves to the third group. Insisting on AFC is a decent move, but banning edits to mainspace will significantly increase the demand for undisclosed paid editors. We've already made disclosed paid editing almost impossible; this would make it that much harder. For me, the discussion should be around how do we target the third group - what techniques can we use to identify socks, close down undisclosed paid editors, and either reduce demand or make paid editing visible enough that we can effectively manage the problems that come from it. - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
My main concern about banning paid editing outright is that it will encourage those editors to try to hide their identification, making potential CoI issues harder to detect. As for increasing the requirement to create a page to 1500 edits, that seems a bit excessive - extended confirmation should be enough. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this proposal for a variety of reasons and I can easily wax on about how we need to incentivize corporations to use legitimate means to contribute to Wikipedia or the stellar contributions by legitimate paid editors such as User:CorporateM. However, as written this proposal would effectively ban all Wikipedians in residence as well as WMF employees acting in their official capacity (what if a Wiki Ed coordinator needs to edit an assignment that's been mainspaced?) from editing articles in a fashion apart from the WP:COIU exceptions list. This proposal is currently untenable without significant amendments to clarify the status of WIRs and WMF employees with respect to this new absolute policy. Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 08:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In my view, the right approach is to (1) make disclosures easy by allowing corporate accounts (e.g. User:IBM) (2) make submitting edits easy by allowing COI editors to opt-into pending changes, where they will get a prompt low-drama approval cycle from a large pool of un-involved editors (3) prohibit all direct editing "on behalf of the article-subject" with the exceptions above (4) pursue unlawful black-hat efforts with behind-the-scenes analytics, litigation, and on-wiki investigations. Clear rules and simple effective processes reduce the confusion that black-hat providers prey on and make it easier for companies to follow the rules voluntarily. However, the lack of (2) casts a shadow on (3). Hope this helps. CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I am against this proposal. I do not wish to further discourage paid editing. Paid editing is not necessarily bad, it can improve Wikipedia. I have seen some excellent writing from paid editors that far surpasses the quality of average unpaid edits. The real issue is one of Conflict of Interest and Bias. I think that any future efforts would be better made focusing on how to ensure that paid edits are constructive rather than vilifying them. Lineslarge (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Such rules only affect declared paid editing. Wikipedia does not have a problem with declared paid editing, it has a problem with undeclared paid editing. Making it more difficult and onerous for declared paid editing just increases undeclared paid editing. In short, making it more onerous for declared paid editors INCREASES Wikipedia's paid editing problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)
Color choices for maps
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am genuinely curious if colorblind people or people with Achromatopsia can tell when an area in a map is highlighted to indicate where that area is relative to a larger geographic area. For instance, in Cochise County, Arizona, the "Location within the U.S. state of Arizona" map. Can we systematically add a small text overlay to show where it is? Why are we relying solely on color? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion: a Codification of all policies of the that govern Wikipedia
Latest comment: 4 years ago45 comments17 people in discussion
I'm a new user and it was kind of duanting to see all the policies that Wikipedia has. What if we codified all of Wikipedia's policies and popular essays so that it would be easy for new users to know all of Wikipedia's policies. If you're a new user it could take days or weeks to read all of the guidelines Wikipedia has which each are ~30 min reads. This codification could over-simplify Wikipedia's policies. Yes, I see there are essays: Wikipedia:Summary of important policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset -- they don't address everything. I also suggest to tie this into the Template:Welcome. There maybe some organizational inertia.
Hi, while your idea is forward looking in concept it has several problems:
Any codification is a fork of the Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Generally accepted practices/essays and would quickly become out of date. We're contstantly revising and updating based on experiences we have.
very few new editors are going to spend ~10 hours reading through codifications to understand all the nuances of the corpus of behaviors before making their first edit.
Wikipedia is complicated. It needs to be a certain level of complicated to function. You can be here for years and make mistakes; really, no one ever stops making them, just take a look at the apologies given out daily on WP:AN/I. There is no way that you can learn every policy in five minutes, or ten, or even thirty. Then, you're likely to forget them, but think you remember what they say until you breach one of them. (Happened to me today: MOS:DABORDER/WP:PTOPIC.) So, what we should do is be more tolerant of errors, which I'd say most of us are. Yes, absolutely read the five pillars and the other useful pages in the welcome template. That'll tell you 95% of what you need to know. But Wikipedia policy and procedure can't be mastered in an afternoon, or a week even, or a year (unless it's all you focus on and don't do any content creation). And as Hasteur noted, they'll go out of date. An editor time warped to now from 2007 will mess things up royally. (You're saying I'm not supposed to use thousands of curly braces anymore, but just use Lua modules? What has the world come to?? Take me back!) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: Good point -- but again this codification would be simple. In fact, it would need to be an oversimiplification. Therefore, updating it would not be a problem. Second, the five pillars does not cover everything they are too broad to give a new user a preview of everything. As a new user myself, I think Wikipedia has developed to be as complicated as the U.S. Code -- and I think a lot of people could agree! Giving someone 5 bullet points wouldn't tell them everything about U.S. law. Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Codification doesn't mean simplifying policies; it means writing them down in exact detail. If you actually mean we should have more high-level summaries of policies and guidance for new editors, as has been pointed out, there are a lot of help pages that do this already. Adding more will just add more pages that will likely lie dormant. isaacl (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly—how can we guide new users to find the existing information? There are already existing discussions on this topic, which would be a good place for you to learn more about the problem. isaacl (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The analogy with national laws works in one sense. Very few Americans study the U.S. Code rather than just get on with their lives guided by some basic principles, even though they are subject to it. In the same way editors here should simply get on with editing based on some basic principles, such as the pillars, and only concern themselves with the detail of policy when they need to. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are intentionally not devised this way. All of our policies are descriptive of existing consensus, and a consensus that is actively changing with every edit we make. Eventually they get outdated and we update them, either via an RfC or through bold editing. Regardless, Wikipedia doesn't have a codified set of rules because it wasn't designed that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a very old and very good idea, and I think there is a very good answer. It is WP:5P. On the welcome templates, I agree. The welcome templates are not quite serving. I recommend a simple welcome, a prominent link to WP:5P, and a constant reminder to the welcome template editors that every additional word and link serves to diminish what is already there. Having read a simple welcome message, apart from BOLDly improving articles, or possibly responding to the welcomer, the best thing for the newcomer is to read WP:5P. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
OP is not wrong, and is raising an issue that has been raised a million times before, because it is a real outstanding issue that the community never really addresses. The problem is: you can't codify a tangled ball of yarn. And that's what the policies and guidelines are. Before they can be codified, and before we can make any kind of welcome template or new user tutorial that will actually quickly teach new users about them, the PAGs need to be completely rewritten and simplified. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Change of the suggestion of Codification
Yes, yes, yes. But this is NOT what I want. What I want to create an easy-to-read, simple version of the policies of Wikipedia. It is not intended to create a beaurocracy. By making Wikipedia the land of "no firm rules", Wikipedia has created a matrix of policies (or whatever you want to call them) which are very difficult to understand. Think of my proposal as an "in-a-nutshell" that would be codified to make it easier to refer back too. Again, this codification would be simple, so it would not have to be updated very often since it would be broad. It would be intended for new users. Creating a complex matrix of pages that contain policy dissuades new users. This would not be an attempt at standardizing policy. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 00:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding simplicity: many users have tackled the issue of writing simple summaries. Some key questions are, have you read any, and if not, why not? Were you trying to find them and unable to? What might help you find them? Given that many people eschew reading instructions, what might be a good way to capture the attention of new users to learn some essentials? On a side note, if you're changing your suggestion of codification, then it would better if you didn't once again say "this codification would be simple". isaacl (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia is somewhat long. New users want to get straight to editing. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 01:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That's the basic problem in a nutshell: new editors want to get straight to editing, and tend not to read instructions, no matter where they are placed. Before proposing yet another set of instructions, you need to think about how to resolve this problem first. (And now that you know about existing guidance, it would be desirable if you would familiarize yourself with them before suggesting replacements.) isaacl (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
We need a landing page that is very simple....not a gigantic 67 page tutorial or a wall of text page or pages with images that overwhelm the text for purely decorative reasons. Hard balance....we have some editors that believe a click bait style is good (Meaning -click load - click load - click load etc.) Then we have those thinking a huge page with everything is good. What is needed is one page with no more then 4 paragraphs (size of a lead in an article) because we know most people will not scroll more then 2 times or click next in modules more then ones.--Moxy🍁01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Look at 5P and tell me, without clicking through any blue link, what policy pages I should read next if I'm trying to get up to speed. The page is good but in terms of connecting to the "Dummy's Guide to WP", it mixes "definition" wikilinks with "policy" wikilinks and thus not that helpful. --Masem (t) 02:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Near the bottom, which is not far below, is a navigation template "Wikipedia key policies and guidelines".
"what policy pages I should read next if I'm trying to get up to speed"? The answer is Mu (negative). One should not start by reading the policy pages. However, if a newcomer really wants to, they will surely find the policy navigation template, and they are most welcome to begin to wikt:knock oneself out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking something real fast that talks about our goals ...how to edit...how to add sources...how to resolve disputes. All made up of exerpts from our 4 main help pages...something like..
Extended content
The goal of Wikipedia is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. Wikipedia does not publish original research: an encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already published in the wider world. So we require that information be verifiable in reliable external sources.
To edit, click the Edit tab at the top of a Wikipedia page, or click on the blue link ([edit]) to the right of a section heading. This will take you to a new page containing the editable content of the current page. Wiki markup is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for such things as hyperlinks, tables, columns, footnotes, and inline citation.
References (citations) are most commonly placed by inserting the source information between <ref> ... </ref> tags, directly after a statement. When one Publish changes, that will display in the text as a footnote (e.g.[1][2]). There are a number of tools available to help with citation placement and formatting such as the RefToolbar.
If you ever make a change that gets reverted (removed) by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus. While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with civility and assume good faith on the part of others. Edit warring (repeatedly overriding or reimplementing contributions) is highly discouraged.
We need to make the intro of help pages contain serviceable information. Let's stop making potential editors have to scroll before there is info on the topic at hand. Drop walls of hatnotes, trim nutshells, drop banners that lead to others pages before the page in question is even seen. Banner blindness is real problem.--Moxy🍁13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
After the zoom conference on editor retention and the data presented about how potential editors navigate Wikipedia's back side we need to take a better approach. The data shows us that the majority of people if they don't find information instantly aren't going to click and click and click away to find it. So our welcome template would be a good start. As you point out above the welcome templates just lead you to pages with more links to pages with more links. The tutorial isn't being used and our main contributing page has gotten bloated over the years. So perhaps best to welcome people with real serviceable information instead of telling them to go to page that leads to 66 other pages or to a page that is huge wall of text that tries to cover everything. Template:W-contributing would be a good start of us giving real info of the bat. We could merger a few pages....but what do you think should be covered. Did you go over the massive tutorial or the huge contributing page? What was of value to you in those pages? Are you looking simply for info on our rules or info on "how to" as well? --Moxy🍁14:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: I believe I just went to the five pillars of Wikipedia, the contributing pages and tutorial pages were so long that they dissuaded me from going to any of the other pages. I thought would be better just to figure it out. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 14:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I see... we recently removed the five pillars and the simple MOS from our main welcome template..perhaps that was a bad idea. We are going to have to revise what was done recently but we need input on what is working before we can tell the community what is best.--Moxy🍁14:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: Perhaps I may have been introduced with a different template. But so be it. I wanted to read the 5 pillars b/c the page was aesthetically pleasing. These pages need to be pleasing to the eyes of new editors. It makes the difference. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
You know I think that it would be best if the new welcome template have even smaller excerpts from those four Wikipedia policies that you mentioned. An introductory message is best put concisely. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 14:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes your correct your welcome was the teahouse template not related to the change to our main {{welcome}} template...nevertheless its disappointing to hear the only page that you found appealing was removed lately. Please fell free to edit Template:W-contributing (its not used yet) to what you think might work....as all here is a work in progress. Sometimes we go backwards but a new set of batteries should get us moving forward again. --Moxy🍁14:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this discussion happening. Improving introductory resources is an area I've devoted a lot of effort to, and it's something we've historically been very bad at. Here's my view of what tends to happen:
A prominent policy page becomes extremely long, partly through instruction creep but mostly just since it's necessary to have a lot of rules for an operation as complex as Wikipedia. So someone decides to create a simplified version of the page.
Some simplified help pages languish in obscurity and fall out of date, but those that do achieve some prominence quickly expand (since every niche rule is someone's pet peeve, and they add it), until they're not much simpler than the page they're supposedly simplifying.
Someone then decides to start another "actually simple" version of the page, and the cycle repeats (obligatory xkcd) until we end up with ten different supposedly-but-not-actually simple versions of the policy page, and each falls into disrepair because limited maintenance energy is split.
Efforts to merge the duplicates get stymied, since although there's agreement that consolidation would be nice, each author wants their own page to become the standard one.
More aggressively merge duplicate content. Imagine the nightmare it'd be (both for readers navigating and for editors trying to avoid wasted effort) if we had ten different pages of varying levels of detail on [insert controversial mainspace article of your choice]. That's our situation here. We need to end the culture that says it's fine for every mostly-duplicate page in our sprawling how-to/info/help/essay/etc. network to stick around.
Add a prominent banner or other notice at the top of major policy/guideline pages to the single simplified version, to help both newcomers and instruction page editors find it.
Make efforts to keep simplified pages simple, such as adding an edit notice that will appear above the edit window when someone is making changes to a simplified page and other proactive measures.
If we follow those practices, we'll at least set ourselves on a path to improvement over time. And of course, the more folks that help us out over at the Help Project, the sooner we'll get there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk09:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
These are more reasonable steps. We should probably also get better at putting in links in the summarised one to the niche rules sections. I did find an issue with certain things like image help that we have a good simple guide, and then one Everest-sized jump up to the full documentation, with nothing to ease finding what I wanted within the full document once I'd learnt the basic guide. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Just have to start using it to welcome people...then we can ask what they liked and did not like.--Moxy🍁17:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The graphic jumps out and is the most visually compelling part of the template. Is "you can revert twice without getting into trouble" the key thing to bring to new editors' attention? Schazjmd(talk)17:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The 3RR bit is actually wrong. "The 3 revert rule says that two editors should never revert each one another's edits three times. Breaking this would constitute edit warring." Three times is not breaking 3RR (and also it suggests that it only applies to reverting one other person's edits). But frankly, I wouldn't have that sentence there at all - it is just suggesting to new editors that getting into revert wars is OK as long as you stop, and that's not the message we want to be getting over at all. I'd remove it. Black Kite (talk)17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
P,TO 19104, I am puzzled that after less that a month of editing, and under 1,000 edits, you feel qualified tot ell us how to change the way we work. Guy (help!) 16:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I am puzzled that after 14 years of editing, and over 148,000 edits, you feel justified in biting a newcomer offering good faith ideas. Newcomers are perfectly qualified to comment on the experience of being a newcomer. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, put it down to having seen an enormous number of "brand new users" who turn out not to be new at all, and also seeing several people with not many edits who give us lengthy advice on how we are completely wrong about policy and end up banned. Guy (help!) 18:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion
Hi all, a bit of shameless plugging here, but I just wrote Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project/WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, which I was hoping would be a summary of something that is sometimes said at ANI/ArbCom/block declines, but hasn't really been summarized in one place. Something like WP:NOTHERE, but for people who are here in good faith but just aren't a fit for Wikipedia and unfortunately end up blocked. Anyway, thoughts on it either on the (as of yet non-existent) talk page, my talk page, or here would be welcome. I normally don't really try to promote essays, but I thought this one might be relevant to more than just my talk page stalkers (and apologies for having the ego to be willing to think that ) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the essay, because with the namespace and colon, it reads like it is announcing that Wikipedia is not compatible with a collaborative project. :-) Maybe something like "Not everyone is compatible with a collaborative project". isaacl (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally think the current name is fine (obviously, I wrote it ) but I’m not necessarily opposed to a different name, but I’d oppose both of those. Don’t like the first on stylistic grounds and the essay is more meant to focus on individuals who act this way rather than specific behaviour so I don’t think the second fits. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Nutshell added. Not convinced on a need to rename: our other essays and supplements here follow short declarative phrases (e.g. “Not here to build an encyclopedia”, “competence is required”) and the suggestions seem pretty clunky to me. It’s in project space though, so up to everyone. I just don’t see the colon as being any more confusing than any other page like this, and don’t really like the alternatives above as they’re pretty clunky in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Original Drawings of People Based on Multiple Copyrighted Works?
Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion
I need editors and administrators who are very knowledgeable with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to clarify something for me. There are several instances on articles where drawings or simulacrums of living people based on (presumably) copyrighted works have been substituted for a fair-use photo or even no image at all. I want knowledgeable editors to clarify if and how this is acceptable. Specifically, I would think that this falls under original research. There have been instances where original drawings have been deemed to be unacceptable because they copied a copyrighted image too closely and other instances where original drawings have been featured on the main page. There have been other instances where the issue has caused confusion among editors who have raised BLP and OR questions. And more recently I've come across a simulacrum of a living person "based on photographs".
I want to be absolutely clear on how these issues mesh with the policies on no original research, BLP, and usage of copyrighted material. Yes, I'm aware that WP:OI states that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". My contention is: don't hand-drawings always introduce biases and original viewpoints (cf. "unpublished ideas") within the work, no matter how careful and honest the artist is? Blemishes are ignored, asymmetries are corrected (even unconsciously), and the portrait will generally always portray the subject in a flattering light through the artist's personal choices of composition and lighting.
A photograph, on the other hand, has much less chance for this. Now, if you base a drawing or simulacrum on multiple copyrighted photos, does that somehow eliminate the problem of derivative works—as in: to get around the copyright issue, you "use" as many copyrighted works as you can and somehow dilute the problem away? I hope you can see how confusing this is for me. Is it or is it not better to have a low-resolution photograph under fair-use of a living person than an original drawing by a Wikipedian editor trying (in my opinion) to skirt around the copyright or difficulty in photographing problem?
What a person looks like is not copyrightable, it is what the photographer captures that is, and that's the derivative work we want to avoid. (There are places where individuals do have express control on their personality rights, and this is a caution we give to reusers of images, but does not prevent use from creating and offering images) What we want to avoid in a original image of a person is a drawing that is too close to a given photograph in terms of pose, angle, expression, and other factors that would be unique to the photographer (not the person photographed) that could cause the derivative work concern. Eg, tracing over a photo and then creating a painting or similar that otherwise keeps that same pose would be too close as derivative. Ideally, the image created by the user should be of a pose that is not close to any of the ones they're starting from. If one had a full side profile view photo, and a full head-on view photo, creating an image at 3/4ths view would be fine.
The other side is that the end result should be fairly recognizable and not unduly abstract, oversimplified, demeaning, praising, or the like. Taking a person and then making an original drawing but giving them a scowling expression would not be acceptable. Nor would be trying to noticably de-age or age them up. This is not as straightforward to evaluate as the first point but this should be considered. And this is your point about biases that we should avoid. For example, were I to draw a member of the Christian church living today but somehow not able to get a free image, adding even a small halo effect around them would be wrong. --Masem (t) 18:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Even assuming that we're talking about a drawing that doesn't infringe on the copyright of any of its source materials, I'd question its informational value. It's one thing if it's by a notable artist, but if it's not then we get into very subjective questions about whether it's an accurate depiction. Regardless, the derivative copyright question is so sticky that a prophylactic rule may make sense. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
When done skillfully and carefully to avoid copying the copyrightable aspects of the original photo(s), drawing is a perfectly valid way of obtaining free images. Even photos cannot avoid the creative hand of the artist; although one may attempt to achieve a realistic look when editing, colors are certainly subject to variation (e.g. The dress), and the choice of composition affects the relative sizes of elements in the frame in a way that could arguably be misleading. So I wouldn't count out a drawing for the sole reason that it is a drawing; editors should evaluate drawings case by case to ensure that they are faithful to the original photos without being too similar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
South American couscous with broccoliThere is another problem, one that comes with all images at Wikipedia: If you don't know what the person looks like, how do you know the image is accurate? If someone really wants to troll Wikipedia, images are our weakness because we don't hold them to WP:V or WP:RS the way we do text. I would argue that verification and insisting they come from reliable sources (even if a different set of policies than we have for text) is the only way we can prevent absolute falsehoods with images. I don't have links in front of me, but we have been fooled before. Most of the time, our Fair Use images are from sources that are reliable, so more reliable than many Free works. Hand drawn images that some guy named Bob drew based on some images he saw? No matter how well they are done, I wouldn't like that. That is a Pandora's Box, and that isn't even considering the copyright concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have long had a niggling concern that images are not subject to the policies that apply to article text, but the concern has not been strong enough (or I have not been brave enough) for me to open this Pandora's box. We even encourage original research in this area. I also have a concern with the statement by the proposer here, "a photograph, on the other hand, has much less chance for this". Until a few decades ago it required some skill to manipulate a photograph (think of those Soviet photos with Trotsky removed or airbrushed images of models) but these days anyone with a computer or a smartphone can do so pretty easily. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
You can upload an image of a fake (troll) mathematical algorithm and it is more likely to stick around than text. Or take an image of one plant, and post it in an article on a similar plant of another genus and it might stay in the article for years before being noticed. It's easier to fact check text, by far. Our policies on images all revolve around copyright concerns, not verification or the source being reliable. In fact, the source for all user generated images are not reliable sources, including the many images I have uploaded. Again, if I wanted to troll Wikipedia and insert a lot of crap information, I would do it with images because they have very little oversight. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think a hand drawn image is OK if faithful and if the artist has primarily used their own eye sighting of the subject. If the image relied on a copyrighted image or video, it is a derivative work. Relying on many different copyrighted works doesn’t work, that would be fair use of the multiple other images, and the artwork would not then be a study of the subject, but a study of the multiple other images, and the only correct use of the hand drawn image would be to illustrate coverage of the multiple other images. Do you have, can you link, an example of a hand drawn image based on multiple identified copyrighted images, that someone argues is a free image? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It is simply not true that any work based on a copyrighted work is subject to copyright of the original copyright holders. For an example, see c:Commons:Fan art#There is no copyright in a commonplace pre-existing element, where HP books.png is clearly based on the Harry Potter series but uses no copyrightable aspects of it. A person's likeness is not copyrightable, and if you combine several photos taken from different angles then all you have left is the likeness. I think a useful test is this. Let's say you're given a drawing like File:Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi painted.jpg but are not told what its sources are. On one side is the actual list of source photos A, and on the other side is a fake list of source photos B (not fake photos, but real photos of the subject which were not used to create the drawing). Ask people to guess which is the true list of sources. If people can't tell, then I think it is safe to conclude that the drawing has transcended any individual creativity present in the source photos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s a boundary issue. It is not “simple”. The following statement is simple: “Whenever you take an existing image and modify it to create a different image, you are making a “derivative work.” —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess that User:King of Hearts are talking at slight cross-points? The Wikipedian-made image is a derivative work of a copyrighted work, but I guess that being a derivative work does not necessarily mean that the copyright owner of the source material can make a claim of ownership of the derivative work. User:King of Hearts gives some examples, some things are not copyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
All you did was remove the background from font and a simple geometric shape, really just a matter of nonrectilinear cropping. That's a completely inapt comparison with synthesizing an accurate yet somehow non-derivative portrait of a human being from multiple copyrighted pictures. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Once AI becomes sufficiently advanced, we'll probably be able to mine copyrighted photos of people en masse to create free derivatives. If we start with 10 non-free images, we can split it in half and use only 5 of them to generate the composite. We then present Mechanical Turk users with the 5 used on one side and 5 decoys on the other. If the results are statistically indistinguishable from random guessing, then we accept the generated image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠07:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
OP's Opinion: From what everyone has written, I gather that the best practice is to take editor-created images of people on a case-by-case basis, but that dishonesty or bias is much harder to catch and correct in imagespace as opposed to textspace. -- Veggies (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Little background about me: I've edited Wikipedia on rare occasions over the last 15 years, usually when I saw something wrong while reading on Wikipedia. People often ask me why I don't create an account. The answer is simply that I don't feel like it. I've never created one and probably never will. There is no reason for me to ever create one. One of the biggest reasons I was drawn to Wikipedia was its vision of creating the greatest encyclopedia by the common people (that has never happened before in human history).
Edits by IPs are much more likely to be wrongly reverted - wrongly assumed to be vandalism or assumed to be incorrect - than editors with an account despite the fact that their edits are correct (improvement to Wikipedia) (with reliable sources cited too). IPs also often get mocked from established editors. I'm only talking about correct edits from IPs. Vandalism and incorrect edits from IPs are not within the scope of this concern. Evidences are shown here: 1, 2, 3. All three cases involve an IP's edit that was reverted multiple times and later was determined to be actually correct. I'm an IP that is familiar with Wikipedia. I know how to navigate and get to the right venues to fight back and keep my edits from being reverted. Most IPs are not familiar with Wikipedia. When they see something obviously wrong, they make an edit to correct it, but soon enough, their edits would be more likely than not to be wrongly reverted by some patrollers. And that would be the end of the story. They don't know any way to argue back and probably would get blocked if they're persistent about it in the wrong venue (and no, arguing in the article talk page doesn't work; I've tried it that way many times and failed). I do wonder how many millions of edits (of IPs) have been wrongly reverted since the beginning of Wikipedia. How much better Wikipedia would be now if this systematic discrimination against IPs never happened? Maybe, we would have a big community of IPs in Wikipedia by now if things were different.
No one has apologized for their mistake in all 3 cases. I feel like this has become a norm here on Wikipedia that people don't feel the need to apologize when they make a wrong assumption about an IP. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. This undermines the very principle of Wikipedia, "anyone can edit". With the current status quo, it is more like "anyone can edit but be prepared to get discrimination if you're an IP". IPs are contributors too, and they deserve the same respect and treatment as other editors with an account. Judge IP's edit from its contents, not by the fact that it was edited by an IP. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of principle, yes, every edit should be judged on its merits regardless of who made it. As a matter of practice, yes, IP edits get increased scrutiny because, even excepting vandals and discussing only good faith contributors, IP editors are more likely to be inexperienced, unfamiliar with policy, and make mistakes. As a matter of practicality, if it's that burdensome then register an account. It requires probably 1/30th of the time it took you to post this. It doesn't require an email. It doesn't even require that you actually use the account for more than a single editing session.
Wikipedia is a pragmatic enterprise. So I mean. Sorry. You wan't anonymity then you get it. It's not a perfect world and we can't have all the up sides of what we want without the down sides. You're not practically going to change the organizational culture of 300,000 contributors because of the inconvenience of taking ten seconds to register an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree IPs should get increased scrutiny. However, increased scrutiny isn't the same as reverting edits that are correct (edits that improve Wikipedia). IP's edits are reverted even though it's correct. I never said inconvenience was the reason for me not creating an account. If I want to, I would do it even if it takes 10 hours. You didn't get my point. And most IPs (sporadic contributors) will never have an account. Even if I have an account, that wouldn't help any other IP. And no, I'm not going to change the IP discriminatory culture of Wikipedia, but big change started from the smallest thing. First thing first, I want to bring this issue to the awareness of as many editors as possible. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean, we're already aware of it. Having had an account rename a few years ago, even with a fancy pants signature, I can tell you that I got a lot of increased resistance from people I'd worked with for years, just because I was suddenly a name they didn't recognize. I suspect that part of that is likely just a tribal human thing. GMGtalk17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
One of the principal ways of achieving WP:CONSENSUS on a change on Wikipedia is the WP:BRD (bold-revert-discuss) process. How can you discuss a topic over any period of time, knowing you're talking to the same person, with a user whose broadband router rebooted and they got allocated a new DHCP IP, or they moved out of range of their mobile phone mast and got a new IP, or they're on IPv6 which switches IPs in a /64 range apparently on a whim? Cabayi (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "how"? I did successfully reach consensus many times over the last 15 years as an IP (the 3 cases above are just examples; consensus was reached in all 3 cases). You're missing the point. I can reach consensus because I'm familiar with the in and out of Wikipedia (which venues to use and such). Most IPs don't, so their correct edits being reverted by patrollers would be permanent. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I concur with your observations. I would also add that this type of scrutiny/discrimination also applies to editors without userpages (distinguished by the red links in their signature—like mine). I have over 8,000 edits, but I noticed that the weight or respect of my contributions seemed to slacken by some people after I deleted my userpage. It's unfortunate. -- Veggies (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Veggies: you can always just redirect your userpage to your talkpage, if you are just wanting to make a statement by having a redlink - then a side affect of that statement may very well be increased scrutiny because in general no userpage==new editor. — xaosfluxTalk16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Veggies: and xaosflux. I want to make it clear that increased scrutiny for IPs is actually great. However, that's not the same as increased rate of wrongly reverted edits, which is a bad thing. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I see you (or someone with a similar IP address to you) casting aspersions on other editors, on Wikipedia, and boasting of your own personal credentials. None of these have any place on Wikipedia, and it seems to me like you are WP:FORUMSHOPping due to not getting your way at WP:ANI. Elizium23 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't an aspersion when someone failed to understand physics and wrongly reverted an edit. Nah, my ANI was closed because I used the wrong venue. I then used Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and got my way many times over there. I'm all good. I already got it my way, so no need to forumshop (false accusation). I'm just trying to spread awareness about IP discrimination. It seems to me that you get salty because you're one of those sysops that like to discriminate against IPs. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As has been explained to you, online communities are reputation-based. And you, as a set of octets with no talk page, have zero reputation when I am reviewing my watchlist or recent changes. Now that I've met you, and clicked through on your contributions, your address shows in purple, which for me is a negative reputation. So yes, I discriminate. Discrimination is not always a negative concept. I am sure you discriminate between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, or steak and chicken. You discriminate between night and day. Only unjust discrimination is wrong, and you're not in a protected class.
Someone has a quote about "editing as an IP is like walking around dressed as a moose, in a forest full of moose hunters, during moose season." Well, that is pretty apt. If you don't want to create an account, then it is your choice to remain at zero reputation in this community. We cannot artificially accord to you reputation if your IP keeps changing and you won't create an account. That's just beyond our technical power to do. Sorry, mate. Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not just about me. It's about all IP contributors in Wikipedia. This is unjust discrimination in my opinion when a legitimate improvement to Wikipedia is reverted just because it was made by an IP (it wouldn't be reverted if it was made by editor with an account). Yes, it's beyond technical power to do, but it's not beyond individual power to do. If each and everyone stops the IP discrimination, this problem would be gone. That is not to say it's an easy thing to do. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Given the trivial cost of ceasing to be an "IP contributor", it's hard to get to excited about "discrimination". Just register an account. Or not, as you like. But if you see there are advantages to having an account, I don't have too much sympathy if you decide not to take them. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not just about me. This is also not about trivial cost of creating an account. This is about all IP contributors, and most of them will never create an account due to many different reasons. Stop the discrimination instead of forcing all IPs to get an account, which is impossible to do btw. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If they don't, that's fine. There are associated costs and benefits, which are up to them to weigh. You're correct that if an improvement to Wikipedia is reverted because it came from an IP, that's a bad thing — for Wikipedia, not for the editor personally.
There is no "justice" question here whatsoever. There would be no injustice if Wikipedia simply chose to allow edits only from registered users. For practical reasons we don't do that, because even a slight increase in the barriers to entry might discourage someone who would otherwise do a toe-dip, and we might lose out on that person's contributions. But it would not be unfair to that person. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a bad thing for both Wikipedia and the IPs. Being discriminated against is not fun, and yes, that was a bad thing for me as an IP editor. Discrimination happened to me many times already. It is also a concern because it affects Wikipedia very negatively. Small effects add up over a long period of time. How many millions of constructive edits have been reverted over the years? Your argument on justice is kind of moot. It's like saying everyone is equal under the law, but if you're black, you will get discrimination. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The effect on Wikipedia we can discuss. For the effect on you personally I have next to no sympathy. You can register an account, or you can stop complaining. Or you can not register an account and keep complaining, but then you needn't expect me to take your complaints seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not just about me. It's about all IPs. I didn't ask for your sympathy. I'm asking to stop discrimination. Effects on IPs aside, effects on Wikipedia is quite huge if we're talking about a long period of time. Either way, it's the same problem whether you ignore personal effects or not. 171.253.130.71 (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's about all IPs, but they can also register accounts, so I don't have much sympathy for any complaints about "discrimination" from them either. It's not like it's a fundamental characteristic. Just register an account; then you're not an IP anymore.
It's not at all the same question if we're talking about the effect on Wikipedia. That's a discussion we can have, minus this nonsense about justice. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
They can create an account, yes but it's impossible to force all IPs to create an account. That doesn't solve anything. Plus, this goes directly against Wikipedia's principle of anyone can edit. You can ignore the justice part, whatever. The problem remains exactly the same. Wikipedia is negatively affected by IP discrimination regardless of which effects you want to acknowledge. 171.253.130.71 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Who wants to force them to create an account? I certainly don't. I'm just pointing out that they have a very easy remedy. It doesn't at all go against Wikipedia's principle that anyone can edit, because anyone can create an account.
The issues are somewhat different if you want to talk about the effect on Wikipedia. There are costs in terms of good edits lost, but there are also benefits in terms of collaborative editing, which is more effective if you know whom you're talking to (not necessarily in the sense of name and address, but at least in the sense of being able to draw on past interactions rather than having to deal with each edit from square zero). As I say, that's a discussion we can have. But the noise about fairness is going to get in the way, if you keep pushing that angle. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Your easy remedy is forcing all IPs to create an account if they don't want the discrimination. I'm not pushing any angle. I'm looking at the problem from an overall point of view. IPs can collaborate with editors on editing, creating an account is not needed to do this. You can talk about the pros and cons of creating an account and its effects on Wikipedia, so far so good. But at the end of the day, it's the exact same problem whether you ignore personal effects caused by IP discrimination or not. 171.253.130.71 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Strange, I edited as an IP for months - IPv4 and IPv6 alike - and I did not encounter unjust discrimination from editors. Occasionally I was reverted without explanation; I'd make a case on the talk page and the edit would be reinstated. It was no big deal. I think you're projecting. Elizium23 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not just about you. Just because you haven't experienced unjust discrimination, that doesn't mean most other IPs haven't. Plus, you're an experienced editor, so you know the in and out of Wikipedia. You know how to raise your concern properly and which venues to use (article talk page doesn't always work on this matter; plus, most IPs don't use article talk page anyway). Most IPs don't, so their improvement edits that were reverted would be permanent (most of them probably don't even check if their edits are reverted afterward). 14.169.157.34 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying all good (improvement) edits by IPs are reverted, but it happens to a good amount of edits by IPs compared to editors with an account. Some of my edits are not reverted. For the reverted ones, I know which venue to use, so I can get my edits un-reverted. Most IPs wouldn't be able to do what I did, and that is the problem. Reverted edits are permanent even though edits originally by IPs were actually an improvement to Wikipedia. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to echo what everybody has said, in theory, we judge contributions purely on their merit, blind to who wrote them. That being said, there's no doubt that edits by IPs get greater scrutiny, as do edits by users with redlinked user pages, newly created accounts, etc. It cuts the other way as well. There's some users who I respect greatly. Sometimes I'll see something I disagree with then notice one of those people wrote it. That doesn't mean I'll automatically go along with it, but it certainly means I'll stop and invest more time to understand where they're coming from. This is reality. You're free to edit as an IP, or not have a user page, or whatever. But, recognize that doing those things will affect how people view your contributions. Again, this is reality. -- RoySmith(talk)16:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, greater scrutiny is not the same as reverting correct edits (improvement to Wikipedia). You can have greater scrutiny for IPs and new users AND also not wrongly revert a good correct edit at the same time. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, the WMF plans to suppress the visibility of IP addresses to protect the privacy of anonymous edits. Such edits will presumably be treated in a generic way and IP editors will have even less of an identity than they do now. If editors want to be taken seriously as individuals then they should create an account. Otherwise, their edits will be ranked alongside all the other anonymous edits. If you want such edits to stick, I suggest that you attach impressive sources and edit summaries to them. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
IP addresses or complete anonymity, it doesn't matter. All of them deserve respect and the same treatment as other editors with an account, not discrimination. Sometimes, a good constructive edit with reliable source and a good edit summary still can get reverted by a patroller (it happened to me many times already). 14.169.157.34 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
They do in theory, but in practice, discrimination happens. By saying they don't, it implies that discrimination against IPs is a good thing to you? 14.169.157.34 (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
They don't "deserve" equal treatment, not even in theory. Discrimination against IPs may be good or bad depending on the effects on Wikipedia. But it is not under any circumstances a "fairness" issue. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia's official policy to discriminate against IPs, so in theory, they DO deserve equal treatment. In practice, they don't get equal treatment due to discrimination. 14.169.101.188 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There is also no official policy not to discriminate against them. In fact there are some areas where they are officially discriminated against (for example, they can't create articles). No, they don't "deserve" equal treatment, not even in theory. If they don't like it, the remedy is simple. --Trovatore (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no official policy against or support discrimination. However, it's common etiquette to not discriminate (except in areas with official policy such as article creation). 14.169.140.90 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you, OP, that Wikipedia has strayed way too far from its mission to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Hell, if I were in charge I'd even remove all the restrictions on creation of new articles by IPs and new accounts. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's culture has become increasingly bureaucratic, and as policy creep continues the discrimination against IP edits will only get even worse. I had something similar, but not quite analogous, happen to me a few days ago. I had gotten myself locked out of this account (long story...) so while I waited for the devs to restore my access, I created a temporary account User:CactusJack2. On my main account (this one), for a few months now I've been working on sorting through hundreds of mass-generated microstubs on California "unincorporated communities" that aren't actually communities and never were. Basically, about a decade ago, a few editors mass-created articles for thousands of locations listed on the GNIS database, which in addition to communities contains numerous non-communities including things like bridges, railroad sidings, individual farms, etc. Anyway, I redirected one of these non-communities to an appropriate redirect target, and left an explanation in the edit summary. It was almost immediately reverted by an editor using Huggle. When I explained the edit on that editors's talk page, they did not respond. If that happened to me in my handful of edits on a brand-new account, I'm sure it must happen constantly to constructive edits by IP editors. I think that many Recent Changes patrollers are far too agressive with their reverts. Too many times I've seen good faith, and even constructive edits rolled back or Huggled by someone who likely didn't take more than a brief second to look at the change and the edit summary. It would be nice if we could find a way to tamp that down. Maybe we could start by being stricter about who gets rollback - rollback misuse is rampant from what I've seen. We could even consider restricting the Twinkle 1-click revert buttons to editors with rollback permissions. −−−CactusJack 🌵18:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion may bear more fruit if we address it from the perspective of overzealous recent changes patrolling instead of framing it as a matter of justice. The former is a very real problem. −−−CactusJack 🌵18:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would be at least potentially a more productive line of discussion. I don't know whether "overzealous recent changes patrolling" is really a big current problem, but it's the kind of thing for which evidence could be produced and evaluated. As far as "anyone can edit" goes — anyone can register an account, so it does no harm to "anyone can edit" to have registered accounts treated differently from IPs. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If we required registration, it would be "Anyone can edit. First you have to register." I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with that. I would probably be against it as a practical matter. But there'd be nothing unfair about it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia's current slogan is "anyone can edit", not "anyone can edit. First you have to register." It would make more sense if they change their slogan to the latter if they want to legitimize IP discrimination. Second, unjust discrimination is always unfair. If you disagree, we can agree to disagree. 171.253.130.71 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
"Anyone can edit" doesn't exclude "first you have to register". You also first have to click the edit button. Registration is not a lot harder than that. We could ban all non-logged-in edits and still honestly keep the motto "anyone can edit". As for "unjust discrimination is always unfair", of course; that's what "unjust" means. But discrimination against IPs is not unjust. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That is your own interpretation. Anyone can twist any phrase into a different phrase that is supportive of their view. It is "unjust" when constructive edits (improvement to Wikipedia) are reverted "just because" it was made by an IP. The same constructive edits wouldn't be reverted if it was made by an editor with an account. 171.253.130.71 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not unjust to give greater scrutiny to edits just because it was made by an IP. However, greater scrutiny and reverting constructive edits are not the same thing! The first one is a good thing while the latter is a bad thing. 171.253.130.71 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's one of many possible solutions. The best solution would be all editors judge IP's edit solely on its content regardless of its creator. That probably will never happen. Maybe, setting a higher bar to become rollbackers. And, take away rollback tool if it's being abused. For example, a rollbacker repeatedly reverts constructive edits by IPs (or anyone) should get his/her tool revoked. Maybe, even have a policy against IP discrimination and spread awareness around. IP appreciation month awareness or something like that. 14.169.157.34 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No one cares if you're a physicist. If you want to be a tourist here, fine, but if you can't be bothered to create a meatball:SerialIdentity why should anyone bother to trust your expertise? If you aren't willing to stake your reputation on your edits, don't expect others to volunteer their time fact checking an edit they find suspicious. Most reputable academic journals outright refuse to publish anonymous submissions for this reason. You cannot walk into your place of work wearing a mask, hand an anonymous report to your boss, and then get angry when she treats it with suspicion or rejects it outright. If you want to be treated in a professional manner, engage with the community in a professional manner by establishing a serial identity. That should not be a requirement of course---I've argued against it elsewhere---but it's no accident that contributions are viewed with less suspicion when they come from editors who stake their reputation on their work. — Wug·a·po·des23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Even if I create an account, that does not nothing to solve the IP discrimination problem. It's not just about me; it's about all the IPs. Forcing all IPs to create an account is an impossible solution. 14.169.101.188 (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not an impossible solution; there are millions of websites where you need to register before participating and they operate just fine. It's not strange to tell someone to create an account. It's not the solution you want, but that doesn't mean it's not a solution. In fact that solution was proposed last November. Though you may view the treatment of IPs as a problem many people do not agree with you, and some even believe we should have harsher sanctions for IPs. Simply asserting your perspective is the correct one and telling us to change the community to align with your perspective is not helpful. We work by consensus here, and you will need to convince a lot of people that our culture of treatment towards IPs needs to change. We're having a hard time doing that to deal with far more important problems like harassment, so it's hard to get hyped about inconvenienced IP editors.If you stuck around, you'd notice that many people are trying to fix this problem and have been working on it for years. You'll notice in the two discussions above I was one of the more staunch defender of IP editing. Personally speaking, I make it a point to welcome every IP that I see making helpful edits in my topic area. Editors and administrators have been admonished for biting new comers, and our rollback policy already states that it can be taken away if repeatedly used to revert helpful edits. The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee works very hard to welcome new editors and encourage more editors to do so. People have been working to improve our welcoming templates, introduction pages, and interface messages so that they are less formal and off-putting for potential editors. Plenty of people are working to change the culture and make Wikipedia more friendly to IPs, but it is hard work that takes more than a disgruntled post at the village pump.When you repeatedly and explicitly refuse to join a community, the community tends to get upset when you tell them how to go about their business. It's especially hard to take this post seriously when one of your examples shows you saying you hate Wikipedia and the OP reads like your personal gripes about WP:BRD. You have not stumbled onto a new problem. As this thread shows, many people are well aware that IPs are not treated the same as registered editors, so forcefully and repeatedly telling us about a problem we're already working on while refusing to join or help is annoying to say the least. Rather than showing up to complain, try helping by offering solutions or new ways of thinking about the problem. Instead of telling us what to do and then leaving, join us and help make the change you want to see. — Wug·a·po·des00:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to spread awareness here, which is a possible solution in itself. I did offer a few other possible solutions somewhere in this long discussion. The best possible solution is of course to stop IP discrimination altogether (impossible solution yea). Registration solution will likely turn away many IPs that edit for the very first time (no one is going to create an account to fix a typo they see while reading; this could be a gateway experience to become long time editor); no consensus happened for a reason. IPs are a part of this community too (I did join the community as an IP). I'm feeling disillusioned with Wikipedia because it has betrayed its own principle of "anyone can edit" (some long time editors have this feeling too due to various different reasons). I said hate editing Wikipedia, not hate Wikipedia (there is a difference). I'll come back to edit from time to time as an IP. 14.169.140.90 (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I hereby declare Monroe's law: Chance of revert approaches 100% as number of reviewers approaches infinity. From my experience, every single edit by every single editor will be disagreeable to some other editors, as no statement can be pleasing to everyone. Theoretically, that means that any edit will be reverted if it's reviewed by enough editors. Edits by IPs are critically reviewed by more editors than edits by registered users, for the reasons already stated in this discussion. That may explain at least part of the perceived bias against IP edits. While I have no evidence this is the main cause, we also have no evidence it is not a significant factor. --A D Monroe III(talk)01:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Wugapodes, this place (like all communities) is reputation- and trust-based. Who can remember a string of ten numbers, assuming they are not a dynamic IP? Where I edit in the WWII Balkans space, at least 90% of IPs are vandals, disruptive and/or abusive, so many established editors in the space revert unsourced additions and any deletions by IPs on sight, and scrutinise sourced additions by IPs very closely. I encourage IPs that make constructive edits to get a username so they can build trust with the other editors that are in the space, but I always suspect that the reason many IPs won't register is because they don't want to be accountable for their edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"the reason many IPs won't register is because they don't want to be accountable for their edits," you got a wild accusation right there. The vast majority of IPs will never create an account due to many different reasons (one of the possible reasons could be they never thought about creating one). Most IPs edit very sporadically, maybe a few edits per year. It's not much per IP, but it adds up due to a big number of IPs editing over the years. 14.169.101.188 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The OP's IP's concern is interesting, but it would be more impressive a concern with examples that are theoretical physics or mathematics. I think there is a philosophical non alignment between historiography (and I assert an encyclopedia is an historiographical document) and theoretical physics and mathematics, with regards to the meaning of "knowledge". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The given examples in fact are in theoretical physics. Anyway, it's a problem in ALL topics, not just in theoretical physics or mathematics. 14.169.101.188 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been a registered Wikipedia user for almost 5 years. My first edit was as an IP about seven years ago. I registered an account so I could make contributions and gain access to additional features.
AFAIK I don't think there is "discrimination" against IP editors and editors with no user pages. Those are signs that the editor may be new, but it does not mean that the editor did anything wrong. Their edits are more commonly misunderstood, so they clarify a bit more in their edit summary when they reinstate their edit. I ask them "Can you maybe explain the edit you made to X" or something like that. Aasim18:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but anyone who thinks ips and established registered accounts are on equal footing needs to spend more time editing while logged out. I edit as an anon as a matter of course if my connection is insecure; I've been rolled back without apparent reason more times than I can count, several times been ignored outright on talk pages of semiprotected articles, and once had a (now-former) admin use semiprotection as a weapon of first resort in a trivial content dispute. You pretty much have to accept that you can only make edits you don't much care about. —Cryptic19:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic, A suggestion about insecure locations: Make yourself a second account. For example, I have User:RoySmith-Mobile, which use on my phone. I can't recall the last time I logged in from a public terminal, but if I did, I'd use that account as well.
And, I'll echo what you said about equal footing. As an admin, I spend a lot of time evaluating other editor's behavior. I can't tell you everything that goes into forming an initial opinion, because I don't completely understand how my brain works. But, I can tell you that IP is a factor. As is a red-linked user page. Or a low edit count. In an ideal world, I'm not supposed to care about those things, but in the real world, they are factors. I'm human. -- RoySmith(talk)23:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been following this discussion closely, either. My perception is that many think of IP discrimination as roughly equivalent to racial, gender, age, etc. discrimination, completely missing the fact that one's race, gender, age, etc. are not personal choices. IP discrimination does exist and will always exist, I don't like being on the receiving end of it, so I avoid IP editing. Problem solved, and I reject all attempts to make things more complicated than that. ―Mandruss☎22:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be more at issue than just simple discrimination against IP editors. At Quark the IP, who seems to have been posting from two dynamically-addressing ISPs (IPv4 and v6), edit warred even after starting a talk page discussion. The article was protected from an "IP-jumping edit warrior", who also was cautioned at least twice for their incivility on the talk page (their edit summaries containing some gibes, as well). Dhtwiki (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Why IPs get all the blame from an edit war? Everyone involved shares responsibility. And, there was taunting from both sides. Dynamical IP addresses have nothing to do with this. In the end, consensus was reached in favor of IP edit contents. Resistance to the original IP constructive edit was most likely due to discrimination against IP. Would the edit be reverted if it was from an editor (with an account)? Probably not. You also cherry-picked 1 example out of many. 14.169.140.90 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You get the blame because you kept trying to change the article after a discussion started (which you did start, but after being asked to do so, after your first couple of attempts to change the article) but before agreement was reached, which is in violation of the WP:BRD cycle we try to follow (although often not that well). Your vitriol was greater and was probably first, or you would not have received the cautions you did. I think that dynamic addressing has a lot to do, because it sometimes makes it infuriatingly difficult to get in touch with disruptive editors, as opposed to an IP editor whose address doesn't change, and can easily seem devious. At issue was whether the article stated with sufficient precision whether quarks were found other than as constituents of hadrons, which was not a major flaw in the article, although you seemed to think it so (I didn't see an Aha! or D'oh! moment when others realized how badly things had been misstated; in other words, I didn't see you winning some major point). I took the first example you gave; were you less prone to doing something similar in the other articles? I didn't look at them all. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't about winning. It was about making an improvement to the article. The issue was more than that; it seems that you didn't read all of the discussion. In the end, 90% of the points I raised were incorporated into the article. There was violation from both sides. There were a lot of false accusations against me too. For example, they accused me of using unreliable sources; I later proved them wrong. Anyway, that was beside the point. The point is that consensus was reached, and IP discrimination has occurred. If you want to play the blame game, I could have said that they started the edit war first because of IP discrimination. Your point about dynamic addressing is moot since I wasn't a disruptive editor. I received the caution "only" because I was an IP, which was a discrimination. Others have experienced discrimination as an IP too, read up their stories somewhere in this thread. 14.169.248.131 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I sometimes edit as an IP, if I am in an unsecure environment and all I want to do is fix some typos then it makes sense in security terms and I don't get problems doing such edits. However there is a (small) community overhead to my not logging in, we have a reputation based system and my account has earned a sufficient reputation that my edits are unlikely to be seen by hugglers et al. That lack of scrutiny reduces my chances of being accidentally reverted, it doesn't eliminate the risk, and I know it has happened at least once in my last few thousand logged in edits. By choosing not to create an account, or not to use an account, IP editors use more of the time of their fellow volunteers, and will experience a greater number of human errors by those patrollers than if they had created an account and built a reputation for doing good edits. This is not discrimination, and is a feature not a bug. If we as a community were discriminating against IPs, why would 31 hour blocks be mostly for IPs and indefinite blocks usually for accounts? ϢereSpielChequers13:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You can dress it up as a feature, but it is still discrimination. Most blocked editors are not indefinite, which is only used for the most destructive editors (they're rare, not common). There is a good reason to not block IPs indefinitely; an IP can be shared by many different people, especially in public location. 14.169.248.131 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A very large proportion of blocks of accounts are indefinite. There are of course valid reasons as to why we rarely if ever give 31 hour blocks to accounts and frequently do to IPs, and the converse is true of indefinite blocks. As to the issue that one IP can resolve to many different people, that's why IPs can't earn trust the way accounts can. We simply don't know if the next edit from the same IP will be from the same person, if we suspect an account is a role account with multiple potential users, we block it. ϢereSpielChequers18:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Your way of counting is misleading. If someone has 100 sock-puppet accounts that are blocked, that's 1 person being indefinite blocked. The number of individual being indefinitely blocked is very small compared to the total number of blocks. 14.169.139.205 (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
One reason that IPs get reverted more frequently than registered users is that IPs are significantly more likely to add information without including a citation to support it. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a big difference between good reverts and bad reverts. Bad revert is reverting constructive edits (with reliable source) simply because it was made by an IP. 14.169.248.131 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
By the same logic, an account is not a person, it is an account. Also, an essay does not represent Wikipedia community as the whole. 14.169.144.195 (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
But your comments do? You have commented 27 times in this thread, far more than any other editor. That's assuming (1) all 14.169.x.x addresses are you, and (2) you haven't used any other addresses here. (An excellent illustration of one of the benefits of registered editing, by the way. There is no doubt which two comments are mine.) See WP:BLUDGEON, an essay which represents the view of a very large part of the Wikipedia community. ―Mandruss☎00:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I never claim my comments represent Wikipedia community. And, I like to reply to others' comment. It's not against the policy, so I don't have to agree with anyone on this matter. 14.169.144.195 (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing nefarious about the concept of reputation. IP numbers are hard to remember. Therefore a reputation tends not to be associated with an IP number. And IP numbers change. It is not entirely prejudice and discrimination when IP edits are looked at skeptically. You'll have to do better than say "The answer is simply that I don't feel like it. I've never created one and probably never will. There is no reason for me to ever create one." The elephant in the room is—why don't you create an account? You also say "One of the biggest reasons I was drawn to Wikipedia was its vision of creating the greatest encyclopedia by the common people (that has never happened before in human history)." Wouldn't that be entirely irrelevant? You could do everything with a user-name that you could do without a user-name. The whole point to calling yourself "KidJackFromAppomattox" is so everyone will associate your future edits with your past edits. A WP:USERNAME is a memory device. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
You're missing the whole point of this long discussion. I understand and agree with the concept of reputation. However, there is a big difference between greater scrutiny (for IP since they have less reputation) and much greater rate of reverting constructive edits made by IPs. It would really help if you read the whole thing or at least most of it. Like I said many times, me creating an account doesn't solve this problem since there are millions of IPs that will never create an account for many different reasons. 14.169.144.195 (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
You're missing the only point that matters in my view. Since we will never legislate fair treatment for everybody (I suggest you take a crack at writing that policy, right here in this thread, so you can be shown exactly why that would never work), and we're not going to repeal human nature, we are stuck with IP discrimination as one of the many human failings. Wikipedia is composed of flawed human beings, not robots. That would appear to leave you with two choices: Continue to whine about IP discrimination indefinitely, or choose to avoid it for yourself. Unless you're a person for whom arm-waving about injustice feeds some psychological need – a person who actually needs to be mistreated – I submit that you would be happier in the long term with the second option. I further submit that other unregistered editors can fend for themselves without your unsolicited advocacy. ―Mandruss☎04:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Creating a new "successful" policy is not an easy task okay. And actually, most IPs cannot fend themselves due to not being familiar with venues in Wikipedia. Most IPs would give up (or don't even know) if their constructive edit was reverted. Trust me, I had to jump through many different venues and many hours of discussion to reverse the revert. It happened to me many times (more than 3 examples I listed); other editors (who sometimes edit as an IP due to insecure connection) did testify this same experience too. Most IPs cannot do this (they just don't know how to do it) and most likely would get a block if they're persistent about it. It's a significant problem when one considers the sheer number of edits made by IPs. Even if we only include constructive edits made by IPs, it's still a big number (a significant factor in improving Wikipedia). 14.169.144.195 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There’s too much discussion going on here that concerns the correctness of what the OP said. Wikipedia is not a forum, and that’s not what Village Pump is for. 14.169.144.195, with all due respect, this is the is the Policy page. The burden is on you to propose policy changes to solve the problem. Our job is to discuss them with you and explain our viewpoints on your suggested changes. MrSwagger21 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Did you actually read most of the discussion? Most of it concerns about IP discrimination. Most admit that it exists, but it's almost impossible to change this culture. A few tried to discredit my claim; needless to say, they all fell flat due to misunderstanding or lack of valid arguments. And about the proposing policy, I'm trying. It's not easy okay. I offered a couple solutions somewhere in this long thread, but they didn't garner much support from the other editors. 14.169.144.195 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
14.169.144.195 I actually did take the time to carefully read through the entire discussion, as I always do. The bulk of the discussion was complaints about IP discrimination, talking about whether or not it’s a problem, whether we can do anything to fix it, whether we even need to fix it in the first place, etc. I had to dig deep to find some actual proposed policy changes to solve the problem. But that’s what this page is for, policy changes and discussion of such. I know it’s difficult, but you should really come here prepared with ideas. That way, when someone challenges you, you’re ready to debate your side. You suggest something, we discuss it, and if it’s not agreed upon, we move to the next suggestion. And I’m just trying to be honest here, if no one shows support for your proposed policy changes, it’s a good indicator that it’s either not something anyone is interested in or it’s a problem that most users don’t think needs fixing. MrSwagger21 (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
14.169.144.195—it is true that edits should be evaluated on their own merits. But names are attached to many things, and names provide a point of orientation, and this name-association applies to edits. The same thing, to a lesser extent, would take place when encountering two hypothetically identical edits by two different registered accounts. If I know XYZ to be a jerk but ABC to be a good editor, I am going to be predisposed to react favorably to the one I know to be especially competent. A registered account is simply a good way to retain the natural tendency to rely on knowledge of a person. And there is no good reason that I know of to strip away that bit of humanity. You will have to explain to me what the advantages are of nondescript identities in the form of strings of numbers. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is any advantage to being an IP. I'm simply asking for fair treatment for IPs (no discrimination). You can be predisposed to react favorably to an editor with good reputation, so far so good. I actually don't have any problem about that statement. You can be predisposed to react negatively to an IP with 0 reputation (also no problem to me so far). Let's say someone takes a step further, he/she reverts a constructive edit due to the negative predisposition (maybe they overlook something or maybe they just make an assumption such as most IPs are vandalism so let's just revert them all to save time!). This case would be a clear IP discrimination. This is where the problem starts, and that's what we have been discussing in this very long thread. 14.169.144.195 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There are none so helpless as those who will not help themselves. The solution to your gripes has been presented to you multiple times here, it costs nothing but a few seconds of time, much less time than you have invested here. People who face real discrimination do not have the ability to easily change the circumstances that lead to that discrimination. You seem far more interested in maintaining victim status than anything else. Cavalryman (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC).
It's not just about me. It's about millions of IPs out there that will never create an account for many different reasons. Me creating an account does nothing to solve the problem. You seem interested in maintaining the systematic discrimination than anything else. Instead of telling the victim to change, maybe the discriminator should change. 14.169.139.205 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
14.169.139.205—you say "Instead of telling the victim to change, maybe the discriminator should change." Couldn't I just as well say to you "Instead of telling the discriminator to change, maybe the victim should change"? Aren't you assuming that you occupy the moral high ground? Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not here to discuss moral code. However, IP discrimination goes directly against Wikipedia principle of "anyone can edit". 14.169.139.205 (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Nor am I here to discuss "moral code", 14.169.139.205. You are saying "Instead of telling the victim to change, maybe the discriminator should change". But couldn't I just as well say to you "Instead of telling the discriminator to change, maybe the victim should change"? Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Make a policy that officially bans IP discrimination. Anyone gets caught 3 times in reverting constructive edits by IPs should be blocked for a week the first time (also take away their rollback tool because they can't use it properly), and it goes up for subsequent offenses. Its effective is similar to that of the paid edit policy (I know some people think it's a joke, but it's better than nothing); I know we can't catch all violaters, but hey, at least we can catch some. People get blocked for 3RR. This problem is as severe as edit war (its effect on Wikipedia is quite significant if we consider millions of constructive edits by IPs), so I see no reason to not apply the same policy. If someone can't handle not to revert constructive edits by IPs, they probably shouldn't be doing patrol work and let others do it and focus on writing articles instead.
Idea not policy: create IP appreciation month with banner in Wikipedia. This is as a good venue to promote IP discrimination awareness. If more people are aware of it, the problem will become less. I know some people already are aware of it but not all. Some even outright deny IP discrimination exists, so spreading awareness is important I think. Also, give active IPs some barnstars and thank you note on their talk page during IP appreciation month. Editors show appreciation to other editors by barnstars and such but never to IPs despite the fact that some IPs make a significant amount of contribution to Wikipedia. This is something we can at least try to improve on. 14.169.139.205 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Both should be unnecessary. This sounds like woke rubbish. (Let me clarify: There are a lot of "woke" things that are good, maybe even necessary. This is not one of them.) First, how do you seriously judge whether or not there's IP discrimination, especially if the IPs being discriminated against turn out to be long-term abusers who're trying to exploit this policy in an effort to finally get rid of the administrators who stop their bullshit every time? Second, how do you square this with WP:No open proxies, which specifically targets IPs (as users cannot be directly blocked just for using open/anonymising proxies)? Third, how do you set this up to prevent harassment from IPs in the more aggressive areas of the encyclopaedia? —A little blue Boriv^_^v2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-219:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
First, I don't see how this affects admins ability to deal with long term abusers. Their edits are not constructive edits in the first place. Admins can block abusive IPs at will; that's not discrimination. That has nothing to do with the problem I've been discussing. Second, I don't see how this relates to IP discrimination. Open proxies may be blocked if being abused, which has nothing to do with the problem I'm talking about. Third, harassment from IP and constructive edits from IP are totally two different things. Constructive edits by definition are in article space and can never be a harassment. 2402:800:4316:4657:982C:477B:40EA:B161 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(1) Not sure why you're conflating good-intention IPs together with long-term abusers. They're 2 very different groups of people. When LTAs' cover-up gets exposed, go ahead and block them. Not sure how IPs with constructive edits are related to the bad group of users. LTAs can pretend to be good intention IPs, but their cover will be exposed sooner or later because they're not here to improve Wikipedia. Real good intention IPs are here to improve Wikipedia including me. (3) I'm also very confused that you're conflating hounding to constructive edits. Constructive edits are not hounding by definition and occur in article space only. Hounding usually involves following someone around to cause a disturbance in his/her discussions. 14.186.0.140 (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
(1) I'm conflating them because, up until they "activate" (so to speak) it's very difficult to tell a subtle LTA from a legitimate editor. (3) Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress[...]may become a very serious matter[.] (Emphasis added) —A little blue Boriv^_^v2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-220:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
(1) I still don't see any problem here. When they "activate", we can trace back all their edits and revert everything and block them. I'm not sure how is this relevant to the issue at hands here. I can also argue that it's very difficult to tell a subtle LTA from a legitimate account editor. (3) Hounding by definition occurs in discussion space, not main article space. Hounding has nothing to do with constructive edits on main article space. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Because I actually show them a problem that they think is serious in which you may not realize. Your accusation of me being a troll just shows that you're a troll now. You ran out of valid arguments against me and now have to resort to using low-hand tactic by calling out name and false accusation. Your trolling actually needs food to work, which people wouldn't give it to you. No one is calling me a troll except you, the troller. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. 2402:800:4316:4657:982C:477B:40EA:B161 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't call you a troll but I agree with the above comment that "This sounds like woke rubbish." You could create an account but instead you choose to complain about "mistreatment". Please see the article Woke. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
First, it's not just about me. It's about ALL the IPs. I think pretending to ignore the problem is more rubbish. IPs make millions of constructive edits over the years, how many of those were reverted wrongly? Probably a lot, and that's a serious problem hampering improvement to Wikipedia. From my experience as an IP, my constructive edits were reverted quite often for NO reason at all. I usually had to fight back to reserve the edit (I always could reverse the revert because my edits were always constructive). Read above, other fellow editors had similar experience to mine when they edit as an IP when their connection was insecure. I may not have the best idea, but at least, I tried to do something about the problem instead of ignoring it. I could just stop using Wikipedia and get on with my life, easy solution for me, but I stay here to do the right thing. 14.186.0.140 (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
14.186.0.140(talk·contribs·WHOIS), instead of making unsubstantiated claims, can I suggest you conduct a study that demonstrates exactly how many constructive and unconstructive contributions are made to English Wikipedia by IPs annually verses how many by registered users and how many are reverted, with definitive facts and statistics we may be able to assess the validity of your claims. Cavalryman (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC).
here you go, statistics from last year. Without IPs editing for the last 20 years, Wikipedia would be swarmed with typos and minor errors. We need to appreciate their big contribution, and IPs deserve the same respect as other editors. All IPs make about 800k edits per month in English Wikipedia alone (that's a lot! Significant factor in making improvement to Wikipedia). 27.4% of those are reverted. A good question is how many of those were constructive edits that were wrongly reverted? Quite a lot in my experience. I've been editing Wikipedia as an IP for 15 years on rare occasion, and every single time my edit was reverted, it was guaranteed to be a bad revert. Don't believe my words? Fine, go read about other editors' experience when they had to edit as an IP due to insecure connection. They've shared their story in this thread up above. 14.186.0.140 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
So far as I am aware, all IP editors have the ability to make an account, and there are undoubtedly some editors who do make an account but choose for varying reasons to still edit as IPs at times. However, irrespective of what may stick when added to an article, any editor, IP or not, can initiate a talk page discussion proposing improvements to any article. BD2412T02:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually involved in an incident right now where my edits to a talk page were/are being reverted. I'm reporting the editor for doing so, but it seems IPs get stepped all over. Not certain why. Anyone can edit, and assume good faith. Anything other than that is just making excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It's all talk. In reality, initiate a talk page discussion DOES NOT work for IPs. It will get ignored. I even left a message in the user talk page, also got ignored. I had to jump through many different venues to get attention from other editors to reverse the revert. I'm not the only who had this kind of experience. Other editors had the same experience when they had to edit as an IP due to insecure connection. Read up their experience somewhere in this thread. And, IP discrimination is a good thing because all IPs can make an account? Most IPs will never make an account for many different reasons. Don't ask me why, go ask the millions of IPs. 14.186.0.140 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
And why is that? Because if an IP initiates a discussion, doesn't like the way it's going, they often just reboot and come back as if they are a different editor. While it's not true of all IPs, many choose to edit as IPs in order that they can behave badly and get away with it. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to tell good editors from bad when they edit as an IP. Jacona (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Because of IP discrimination, that's why. So you're saying millions of people edit as an IP for 1 reason only, and that's because they want to behave badly and get away with it?? That's a wild accusation right there. If anything, I think it's easier to get away with an account (people can always make more accounts). It's not very difficult if you look at their edit contents, not the fact that the edit was made by an IP. By the same angle, it could be very difficult to tell good editors from bad when they edit as an account too if they're sneaky about it; for example such as long term abusers. 14.169.133.156 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You cherry-picked your sample. I can do the same things and pick some vandalism from account editors. Look at this statistics, only 27.4% of total IP edits in English Wikipedia are reverted monthly. So yea, most IP edits are constructive edits. Even those edits that were reverted, it's highly possible that many of them were constructive edits that were wrongly reverted. I agree that IPs should be given greater scrutiny since most of them have 0 reputation. However, greater scrutiny is not the same as reverting constructive edits (improvement to Wikipedia). You can give greater scrutiny to IPs and not revert constructive edits of IPs at the same time. 14.169.133.156 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The sample is pretty typical, and it was easy to find a group of instances in a short time. Registered accounts who edit like that are typically blocked very quickly. Some of them, once blocked, go straight to editing as IPs. BD2412T16:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Typical yes but not the majority. Anything is typical if one focuses on looking for it. My statistics proves that most IP edits are in fact constructive edits. Registered accounts get multiple warnings before getting a block. Same with IPs, I don't see any difference. Also, some of them (accounts), once blocked, go straight to make more new accounts. What's your point? My point is IP discrimination exists, and we as the community should stop the discrimination or make policy against it or at the very least not condone it. IP discrimination has a serious consequence for Wikipedia. 14.169.133.156 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I also reject the proposition that "arguing in the article talk page doesn't work". I have seen plenty of IP edit requests on semi-protected articles responded to, and, where they are valid, fulfilled. BD2412T17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Your case is a little different from my case; no edit is reverted in your case. My case goes like this: an IP makes a constructive edit -> gets reverted for no reason -> IP goes complain on article talk page and the revert-er talk page then gets ignored -> end of the story for most IPs, reverted constructive edit is permanent -> Wikipedia's loss. They're not familiar with Wikipedia like me; they don't know which venue to use to reverse the revert. I had to jump through many different venues to reserve the revert; it wasn't an easy journey. It happened to me multiple times, and every time, I had to jump through a hurdle of obstacles that other regular editors wouldn't have to face. My constructive edits should not have been reverted in the first place. It's no problem when it happened once or twice, but it happened a lot signifies a systematic discrimination against IPs. I'm not the only one here with this experience. Other account editors had the same experience when they sometimes edit as an IP. They've shared their stories somewhere in this long discussion. Read up if you like.
Most of the editors here do not deny that IP discrimination exists. They just think either that any solution is impossible or IP discrimination is the way of life (just live with it kind of mentality). 14.169.133.156 (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
IPs in this thread can be forgiven for not realizing this, but everything that they are complaining of happens to registered editors quite frequently. Editors get reverted irrespective of whether they are IPs or accounts because another editor disagrees with the edit. I suppose that an editor who has only ever edited as an IP can only assume that since their edit was reverted, the one doing the reverting was treating them differently. Bear in mind, of course, that there are plenty of instances of IPs reverting edits by other IPs. BD2412T20:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This happens to IPs a lot more often on mundane topics. Account editors get reverted on controversial topics mostly. For example, there was hardly anything controversial about what I edited. I fixed some scientific facts in some physics articles with reliable sources, yet my constructive edits were reverted multiple times on many different articles for NO reason at all. In the end, I was able to reverse the reverts after jumping through many different venues. Regular editors do not get this kind of discrimination I got. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's all me. So what? Last time I checked, Wikipedia still allows IPs. Admin for 15 years, so what? "Wikipedia's administrative tools are often likened to a janitor's mop," it's nothing special. I don't care if you're an admin or not, your opinion weighs as much as an IP or an editor. I've been here just as long. And no, that was the third time in the row my constructive edit was reverted on 3 different articles for no reason. In the end, I was able to reverse all the reverts, so it proves that my edits were constructive in the first place. You keep digging up past discussions to prove what? What's your point? There was name calling on both sides. The fact that you single me out (I was the only IP), it kind of proves that you're discriminating IP yourself. Deny it all you want, but your action speaks louder than words. I was able to reach consensus in that discussion. It's irrelevant to the issue at hands. Do you deny that IP discrimination exists? It seems like a lot of other editors disagree with you. Most people agree that it exists, but they don't think it's important enough to warrant a solution. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
And stop acting like you all are above the civility standard. Editor Nick in "RfC: Make Biting Newcomers A Blockable Offense" below, "They're being stupid or their proposal is idiotic is the only way to get through to them that they're, well, wrong, being stupid or their proposal is idiotic." This garners some support from other editors. It just shows that in editors' eyes IPs are nothing but trash and vandalism, which is not true. That sentence echoes IP discrimination pretty well to be honest. People forget that all IPs make very significant contribution to Wikipedia over many years. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Aside from yours, I see little or no opinion here that a policy solution to IP discrimination is both needed and workable. You appear to be blind to that fact, and it's time to shut this down.The choice whether to register an account remains yours. Registration consumes about one minute of your life, and it requires that you divulge no personal information, not even a throw-away email address. Once registered and logged in, you rarely have to log in again, so rarely as to be entirely insignificant. The only differences will be that you will then have a persistent identity and you will be free from any IP discrimination. There is no reason for you to continue unregistered, except "because I can" – and because doing so allows you to maintain your victim status. ―Mandruss☎22:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
14.186.0.140 has documented BITEy behaviour, the reaction from some seems to be, well that's how it goes. While I think anonymous edits being mishandled is far from the biggest problem Wikipedia has with respect to being welcoming to new editors, I think we should at least hold ourselves to higher standards than that. — Charles Stewart(talk)12:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
"Hold ourselves to higher standards"? What does that mean, Chalst? 14.186.0.140 has said they have been here for 15 years. They say "Most IPs will never make an account for many different reasons. Don't ask me why, go ask the millions of IPs." But I am asking them "why". It's a simple and relevant question—why haven't they created an account? Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You should go ask the millions of IPs why. The question to why I don't is kind of irrelevant to this long discussion (I'm just 1 IP out of millions, so it's quite irrelevant). It doesn't do anything to address the problem. As long as Wikipedia retains its open policy, people have the right to edit as an IP (without discrimination is what I'm working for here). Forcing all IPs to make an account would guarantee to lose A LOT of edits from IPs. Most IPs will not create an account to just fix a typo they see while reading (this could also be a gateway experience that leads them to become good long-time editor for Wikipedia, so you lose out some potential great editors too).
Since you keep asking, I'll tell you one of the reasons why I don't. I edit Wikipedia "rarely" for the last 15 years, so I never really see the need. If I was required to create an account, I would never have made a single edit in the first place. I don't plan to become regular editors; I'll just edit whenever I see a typo or something wrong while reading Wikipedia.14.169.133.156 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
14.186.0.140—you say "I don't plan to become regular editors; I'll just edit whenever I see a typo or something wrong while reading Wikipedia." There is no definition of a "regular editor". We are discussing registered and unregistered WP:ACCOUNTs. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That's one of my reasons; I don't care if you don't like it. And again, you're arguing in an irrelevant angle here. You either have to try to make an official policy that require "everyone" to have an account to edit OR I and millions of other IPs have the right to edit as an IP. IP discrimination exists (or do you deny it?). IP discrimination has a serious negative effects on improvement of Wikipedia. I'm here to discuss possible solutions (and bring awareness to it), the community as the whole can decide what to do. You don't think IP discrimination is a problem? Cool, that's your opinion. 14.169.133.156 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is is time to require all mainspace editors to have an account?
This has been discussed many times before, but never, to my recollection, in the context of a means to prevent discrimination against IP editors. Obviously, if mainspace editing was limited to registered accounts, there would be no mistreatment of IP accounts in that space. BD2412T16:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The exact proposal as this failed last November. I'm pretty sure most editors (if not all) started as an IP fixing typo and minor edits. It could be a gateway experience to later become long time editors. Nobody would make an account to fix a typo. Other editors probably had similar experience (except that I'm still an IP). You would lose out all IP edits + all potential editors from gateway IP edit experience. I wouldn't edit Wikipedia in the first place if IP editing wasn't allowed. This is no doubt a solution to IP discrimination, but does the benefit outweigh the cost? Absolutely not! 14.169.133.156 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
On balance, probably not. "Mistreatment of IP editors" is not a problem in need of a solution; they can simply register, and if they don't want to, they have no cause to complain. In some ways it would be nicer if everyone would register a unique account so that others wanting to discuss issues with them could have a fixed name to address, but this is probably not worth putting an extra barrier to entry, even a tiny one, as it could mean we miss out on good long-term editors. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Make a policy that officially bans IP discrimination. Anyone gets caught 3 times in reverting 3 different constructive edits by IPs should be blocked for a week the first time (also take away their rollback tool because they can't use it properly), and it goes up for subsequent offenses. Its effective is similar to that of the paid edit policy (I know some people think it's a joke, but it's better than nothing); I know we can't catch all violaters, but hey, at least we can catch some. People get blocked for 3RR. This problem is as severe as edit war (its effect on Wikipedia is quite significant if we consider millions of constructive edits by IPs), so I see no reason to not apply the same policy. Its effects may be even bigger on Wikipedia than edit wars. If someone can't handle not to revert constructive edits by IPs, they probably shouldn't be doing patrol work and let others do it and focus on writing articles instead.
When an account editor makes a constructive edit and his/her edit is reverted for no reason at all. It's called harassment or disruptive editing. For IPs, it's often ignored, so IP discrimination has become the norm, and people just shrug it off as the way of life on Wikipedia.
Note: this is not the same as the section "RfC: Make Biting Newcomers A Blockable Offense" below. Biting newcomers is too vague and can be exploited by trolls. What constitutes biting? Whereas, my proposal is very specific and hard for trolls to exploit. In cases of dispute, the merit of an edit can be judged fairly whether it's constructive edit or vandalism by a group of fellow editors (normal users). If there are sufficient evidences of at least 3 reverts of constructive IP edits, that person should get a block per policy.
Idea not policy: create IP appreciation month with banner in Wikipedia. This is as a good venue to promote IP discrimination awareness. If more people are aware of it, the problem will become less. I know some people already are aware of it but not all. Some even outright deny IP discrimination exists, so spreading awareness is important I think. Also, give active IPs some barnstars and thank you note on their talk page during IP appreciation month. Editors show appreciation to other editors by barnstars and such but never to IPs despite the fact that some IPs make a significant amount of contribution to Wikipedia. This is something we can at least try to improve on. 14.169.133.156 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Who determines whether an edit is “constructive” or not? Editors can legitimately disagree on this question. Indeed, for this to work, we would need to define what a “constructive edit” is. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A group of editors or an admin can determine it. It's the same as who determines an edit is "disruptive" or not? There is no clear definition of disruptive edit either and often disputable, yet it's being used to block people. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose any proposition that puts IP editors above regular editors, as this one would. Note that WP:3RR already exists and would apply, without respect to whether the rolled-back editor was an IP or a registered editor, in cases where the conflict is confined to a single article. BD2412T20:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not putting IPs above regular editors. There is no regular editor discrimination. Discrimination happens to IPs often, so they kind of need protection since they don't know the in and out of Wikipedia to fend off themselves. It's like if your house is on fire, the firefighter is not going to water spray the entire neighborhood. We got to focus on the affected group of users. 3RR is mainly a solution for edit war (it doesn't solve IP discrimination), and a constructive edit being reverted multiple times count as 1 in my proposed policy. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose and somebody please close this. 14.169.133.156, this kind of repeated "I didn't hear that" behaviour in repeatedly demanding to solutions to a problem nobody except you appears to believe exists and refusing to listen to anyone explaining to you why you're incorrect on this occasion, has long since passed out of "legitimate concern" and into "intentional timewasting and disruption". ‑ Iridescent08:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comment makes it clear that you did not bother to read any of the discussion before making false accusations of wasting time and disruption. If anything, my time is the most wasted here, yet I don't make any false accusation. Please read before you attempt to make meaningful comment. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of editors here do admit that IP discrimination exists, but they think any solution is impossible. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very very nice. This is a clear demonstration of IP discrimination. When an account editor proposes something that has failed like a million times, nobody closes it. When an IP proposes something, false accusation flies around (without reading anything) and gets closed real fast. Don't be surprised when new user is non-existence because you guys kind of treat IPs like trash. 14.169.181.110 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So here is the banning/blocking policy on making edits behalf of such user, WP:PROXY.
Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.
In a nutshell, you are not allowed to make edits solely behalf of banned/blocked editors, so you must have an independent reason for making such an edit. The only time when it would work is when a non-blocked/banned editor has consensus with a blocked/banned editor, so then making such a change is allowed because you do have an independent reason. But by the time there is consensus, the non-blocked/banned editor will have made the change soon.
So note that many people know about this; I'll just note it here for anyone to discuss the {{Edit partially-blocked}} and the WP:PROXY policy.
I believe you meant to link to the WP:PROXYING banning policy, not the policy on open proxies. In any case, I created the template at the off-wiki request of another editor, who can comment if they feel inclined to. In my opinion, partial blocks are used quite differently than full site bans/blocks. There are many cases where partial blocks are used instead of page protection, and in those cases it makes sense to have a clear method to allow non-COI edit requests. I think it's a fairly clear case of WP:IAR for a policy that hasn't been updated to match current practice. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh boy, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks, and now WP:PROXYING. Another partial block RfC is coming. A follow-up RfC should be held to discuss any additional partial blocking policy elements not discussed in one of the survey subsections.— JJMC89 (T·C) 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC.
We don’t have RfCs on theoretical issues that no one has actually raised a non-theoretical concern about. Policy is based on practice, not vice versa. Let the practice develop and then if it needs to be documented, we can do it when the need arises. Likely without needing an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh my God... why do we have this? I am going to list the template at WP:TFD right now to see what should happen to this template, since it seems like there is a debate as to whether T2 applies. We can always have the template undeleted later down the road should consensus for such a template arise. The reason why we have proxy-editing disallowed FTMP is because an editor is partially blocked because the changes that they are introducing to the page is disruptive or controversial. Once the matter is resolved, then the editor can have their partial block lifted. We had an RfC earlier about partial blocks, and there was strong support to enable the feature. I disagree that the policies and guidelines are out of date, and this template does not seem to be associated with a policy or guideline. Anyone is free to participate in the TfD right here. Aasim23:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:PROXYING clearly doesn't apply when someone is blocked from editing a particular article for edit warring or other reasons, especially when they are explicitly told they may make requests on the talk page. This template should be put into general use for that purpose, and I oppose its deletion. – bradv🍁23:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm also going to say that that "independent reason" aspect of WP:PROXYING is almost always interpreted as a low barrier, so long as the "productive edit" criterion is met (I imagine that if all your editing was that, it might be more dubious, but I know of no non-sock/meat instances of that). The Community litigated the case of a fully blocked (except TPA) editor listing proposed edits on their TP and other editors choosing to implement them - that one ended up as NC. But a partial block case is way less controversial as "their TP is only for unblock requests" argument wouldn't apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC: semi-blocking schools
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
Myself I work on a school. Because of frequent outright vandalism, the school IP range gets blocked. Would it not be a great idea if a new mode of blocking would be introduced: MODERATED. In that way, every edit made from such an IP address would not become visible before it is moderated and found to be legitimate. Which would not be a lot of work and maybe the teachers of that school could help out.
The main point is to educate children about the processes of collaboration and improving the quality of information together.
This proposal would take the fun out of committing vandalism so there would be hardly any left.
No, that doesn't do the same thing. Pending changes is article based. The request here is for a tool that is user/IP based. SpinningSpark12:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a brilliant idea for any shared IP that has a mix of problematic and good edits. ϢereSpielChequers12:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, forced moderation would not help. Vandalism would still be attempted, it would just not be widely visible. It would still involve the same amount of work to clean up. It's the school's responsibility to control the use of their IT facilities by students, not Wikipedia's. We just get lumbered with the task of cleanup when the school doesn't do its job. There's a lot the school can do if they really want to. Firstly, you can encourage your pupils to create individual accounts. That way we can block the miscreants without blocking the whole school. You could reserve an IP in your range just for account creation and other supervisory tasks, not availabe on general use machines, so that at least that one didn't get blocked. The school could regularly monitor the talk pages of its IP addresses, or even better, set up e-mail notifications, to see if they are getting warnings and track down the perpetrators. The school could regularly monitor the IP address histories to see if anyone is editing without a WP account.
Schools don't have to do any of this, but if they don't, it's not our problem. Come back and ask for help if the above suggestions aren't working, but otherwise, I'm not seeing the need for yet more process weighing down our volunteers here. SpinningSpark12:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Spinningspark, should schools do more to stop students vandalism? Sure. Will they, universally? Probably not. The students vandalising Wikipedia are also the ones who are probably not going to listen to teachers saying "create your own account to edit Wikipedia". And since schools won't do it, it is our problem, because there's accessibility issues to blocking entire school ranges (and this is not a step taken lightly), while at the same time IPs create vandalism edits across Wikipedia, many of which aren't going to be caught by RCPs. We're doing the cleanup anyway, after the fact. This suggestion just makes the cleanup step before the edits go live, and stops edits sneaking by RCPs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, it hides the vandalistic edit and forces it to be dealt with by RCP. If it is visible to all, someone else might fix it, and by the way, I see an awful lot of vandalism get reverted/corrected by IPs. This will load down RCP further and increase the delay. So what happens if someone else makes a good edit before the IP edit is reviewed? Does the IP edit get automatically accepted? If it doesn't, this significantly increases the chance of a good IP edit being edit conflicted with a subsequent edit. Does the later editor get forced into accepting or rejecting the earlier edit? Or is it left to RCP to try and work the IP edit back in manually? Either way it ends up a mess for a problem that can be straightforwardly solved by the user creating an account. Sorry, I don't want a page to look different to different people and potentially create no end of confusion to solve a problem user's in schools can fix for themselves.
On your comment "students vandalising Wikipedia are also the ones who are probably not going to listen to teachers" telling them to create an account. Well whoopee, in that case blocking the IP will block the precisely targeted group we want to shut out. SpinningSpark16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well whoopee, in that case blocking the IP will block the precisely targeted group we want to shut out. Those particular editors, absolutely. But everyone at the school? Perhaps not. Just because one kid is vandalising Wikipedia doesn't mean we should end up blocking the entire school, which might have kids who do wish to contribute positively. Also can't expect the school to contact OTRS to get a resolution after the ban - many schools (across the world) just won't bother, lack of technical knowledge, language barriers, or just not bothering. I see your points re. the pending changes issues, I'm certainly not saying it's without problems (heck, perhaps the problems exceed the benefits), but I do see an issue with blocking entire school ranges because one kid is vandalising wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I Log In, the backlog is only problematic because of how pending changes is used. I think, in its current form, it is quite useless and basically edit requests. We have more PC reviewers than rollbackers, yet people are reluctant to accept edits that aren't obvious vandalism because they're not completely sure if statement should be in the article (perhaps requires experience on the subject matter, or the edit may be controversial). It's not part of PC's job description to vet this, yet if people approve an edit that some find to have NPOV issues etc they're met with angry talk page messages etc. PC should just be a line of defence against obvious vandalism and unsourced content, just like RCPs do. The only real difference is that RCPs simply need to overlook (ie: do nothing about) an iffy edit, and that's fine, but PCs have to take action to approve it, and that's not fine, apparently. Pending Changes is scalable, people just need to look at its purpose differently. It shouldn't be edit requests. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the type of thing that would work well if the pending changes (PC) system worked better. However, school vandals often make a string of vandal edits onto the same page. If it's just them, that wouldn't be an issue, but they often get mixed up with other incoming genuine edits. Anyone active in PC knows the massive fiddle handling intermixed positive and negative edits. Unless and until a smoother platform is created (a Wishlist item that got some support 2 years back but not top 10), I'd reticent to support either this or deferred changes in general, despite significant positives. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this in principle, but pending changes needs work and technically speaking it won't happen, based on my experience in trying to bringing Deferred Changes to life. To get this to work requires either a change to FlaggedRevs (ie pending changes), an extension no developer wants to touch for reviews, or requires a new extension to replace pending changes in a better-designed form (will take interest and funding from WMF, and a lot of time). Neither seems likely to happen, at least in the short term, and I would think that the latter (although far more effort) is more likely than the former, since I'd imagine WMF don't want to further encourage the use of FR and make it harder to undeploy (which seems to be the direction it's heading). WMF have interest in schools and outreach, so I think there's a chance interest can be gathered to make a start on the latter at least, but even that won't be on enwiki anytime soon (likely would take years to see it deployed on enwiki). So, while I like the idea, I think we need to be realistic on the technical, and administrative, barriers.
In the meantime, perhaps an edit filter for such problematic IP ranges works as a middle-ground to blocking it outright. Then, the log of all edits by all schools known to frequently cause such issues can be viewed more easily by RCPs. Their edits will still go live, but it'll just highlight them better and make sure they don't slip past. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
RFC on BLPPROD
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Apparently I cocked it up, meaning Legobot may not have posted it to all the places it should have been. Anyway, input there is requested and appreciated. Adam9007 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Make links open in a new tab
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most usually links are only clicked for a quick reference, and it is unlikely that you're finished reading the Wikipedia article as they're quite long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
This is bad for accessibility. On mobile you should have an option to open in a new tab by long-pressing and selecting the 'new tab' option; on desktop you should have access to either right-mouse-click and select the same or if you have a mouse with 3 buttons, middle click. It won't be happening for everyone. --Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
If your mouse only has two buttons then clicking both together will often function like a middle button (at least on linux). Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this option is any more relevant to Wikipedia than to web links in general, so it is best left as something for the reader to control in the browser rather than anything that we should be setting on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Leave this as a choice for the user at the browser level. Some browsers have an extension that does this. Also, holding down the control key often causes a link to open in a new tab. — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No, bad idea. Sites that forcibly open new tabs are actually quite annoying when that wasn't wanted. The back button on most platforms gets you back to where you were before, so its usually a non-issue, and as others have pointed out, opening a new tab is not that difficult. SpinningSpark18:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose: This is a woefully bad idea. It is a non-issue, as most mobile browsers already have back buttons. Besides, if this idea gets implemented, then it will just lead to tab clutter. SuperGoose007(Honk!)00:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Philanthropy as a peacock term
Latest comment: 4 years ago41 comments20 people in discussion
There appears to be a huge number of BLP articles that use the word 'philanthropy' to describe a bit of charitable giving. Is this arising because folk don't appreciate the distinction, or because they are engaging in puffery? Is it something that needs to be addressed or should this misunderstanding be allowed to slide? Acousmana (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"Philanthropy" tends to suggest at least some scale, with some definitions requiring it to be "generous giving". Almost everyone gives some money to some charity at some point, so labeling someone a "philanthropist" just using some giving as a source is meaningless... and a tactic often used by people editing BLPs with promotional intent. I always set as a minimum standard that some reliable third party source uses that as a descriptive term for the person involved. This isn't hard to do for, say, Bill Gates, who donated billions of dollars and is involved in the running of a large charity, but it separates out Joe Sportsguy who once gave his old bottle cap collection to a museum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The word philanthropy is inherently vague. I think we can use the term if its use seems adequately supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
well, distinction has to do with scale, and not that I generally quote wikipedia on anything but this definition kinda sums it up: "Philanthropy is different from charity, though there is some overlap. Charity aims to relieve the pain of a particular social problem, whereas philanthropy attempts to address the root cause of the problem." So, arguably, one addresses symptoms, the other causes - with the latter generally requiring substantial financial input. In terms of puffery, per the examples Nat offers above, I agree with this view, you'll see celebrity pages where various "philanthropic" endeavors are listed in a PR-like fashion. Acousmana (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
You say you'll see celebrity pages where various "philanthropic" endeavors are listed in a PR-like fashion. If they are listed I think that alleviates the problem, because then the reader can judge for themselves. The vague, unspecified "philanthropy" poses the more problematic edit. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
sorry I should clarify, I am taking primarily about sub-sections using the heading 'philanthropy,' here's an instance of a recent edit I feel is a good example. I don't believe PewDiePie's charity efforts can rightfully be called "philanthropy." Acousmana (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"philanthropy" (and its derivatives) need to come from secondary sourcing and cannot be used as seemingly synonymous terms for "charity" by WP editors. It definitely does have an implication of long-term and "largeness" in that charity, not just a single-time event or the like, and so we should rely on secondary source for a BLP or BIO to determine when the term is appropriate to use. --Masem (t) 16:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with Masem. The term is subject to inflation of its true value. If a celebrity gives a dollar to a beggar, they can technically call that philanthropy, but it would be misleading for them to go around and brag that they engage in philanthropy. I have worked on "Philanthropy" sections in some articles, but only where the subject has given very large amounts over a long period, and has been involved in structuring charitable work beyond just making donations (for example, musicians organizing benefit concerts). I would support a standard requiring description of the work as "philanthropy" in reliable sources, and some level of activity beyond just giving money to label activity as such, even if it is technically correct. BD2412T16:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds kind of creepy to me. Philanthropy is just a word in the English language, to be used properly or improperly. We have to exercise our own judgement. If some examples are given of the alleged philanthropy and some sources characterize it as philanthropic or by related terms, we should be allowed to pass that on to the reader. Philanthropists need not fit a stereotype. The word of course means love of humanity. I think the more pertinent question is whether a hateful person can be considered a philanthropist. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"Philanthropy" and other terms like "savant" and "protégé" can all be taken as synonyms of other common words (say like charity, expert, and student, respectively) but they all have nuanced implications that wikipedia editors should not introduce themselves as it can be taken as original research. As long as secondary sources are using the specific term, that's fine, but even if they are talking large amounts and over long periods of time but never call it "philanthropy" we should not call it that, we can just write the factual details as closely as possible to imply that. --Masem (t) 16:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A philanthropist is someone who reliable sources call a philanthropist. If they don't use that term, then we shouldn't, either. How much they gave, over what period of time, to whom, and in what form... are all irrelevant. That guy that gave his bottle cap collection to the museum is a philanthropist if the sources say he is, regardless of what we editors think about it. We summarize secondary sources; the only thing that matters is whether the secondary sources use that term or not. I believe this "rule" ("follow the sources") is true for any word used to describe anything in any article. If the sources use the word, we use the word. If the sources don't use the word, we don't use the word. Levivich[dubious – discuss]17:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Though as a caution, this should be evaluated based on a survey of sources reporting on the person (as for any type of label or subjective term). Say 10 reliable sources talk of this celeb donating his bottle cap collection to charity, and only one source uses the word "philanthropy" (or derivative), every other source just calls it a donation , that would not be enough for us to call it that. If all ten call it "philanthrophy" then we're fine to use it. If its 3-4 of those ten say it, then we may need to use attribution. I'm throwing rough numbers here, just that following the sources does require surveying those sources to determine to what degree they agree, and not just finding one source and claiming "there we go". --Masem (t) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
That's true and an important point: we should use a word if the consensus of reliable sources is to use that word, not just if one or a few RSes use the word. Levivich[dubious – discuss]17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
i agree re:rationale with regard sourcing on the matter, but how did we arrive at a situation where it seems to be common practice now to use the word 'philanthropy' as a sub-section heading for bits and bobs about charitable work/contributions? It just leads me to assume certain folk think this sounds more significant - puffed up - than the alternative. Acousmana (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I believe that is exactly the intent of many of these edits and the creation of these sections: to puff up the subject's status as a benefactor of all humankind. The most shameless one has been the article on Michael Milken, whose PR machinery, including lawyers, have been trying for years to force Wikipedia to treat Milken as a philanthropist who once worked on Wall Street and made a few mistakes, rather than as a man best known as a Wall Street vulture, self-described "predator" and convicted criminal who now gives away some of his money. --Orange Mike | Talk18:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Then the guidance language merely needs to say Use the term "philanthropy" or related terms cautiously, favoring actual instances of philanthropy as supported by reliable sources. One should be cautious about using the term philanthropy as a section heading. This must be substantially supported by reliable sources".Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Presumably we are within policy to challenge and remove any unsourced or only self sourced assertions of philanthropy from BLPs? ϢereSpielChequers19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
in terms of challenging sourcing, covered, but I'm still curious how we arrived at this naming convention for sub-sections on charity stuff, and is something explicit required in the naming guidelines to counter this? Acousmana (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The term "philanthropist" is horrible and basically goes into the bio of every millionaire (because every rich person donates). At some point, RS will stop using the term (it's just puffery), but unfortunately until then, it seems like our hands are tied. That said, there's an upside to the "philanthropist" term: it's a good way to identify pages with serious COI problems (pages that are written like ads) that need cleaning-up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
As a note for anyone using this term as a way to identify puffery, equivalent South Asian subjects are usually described as "social workers", a term that has a very different meaning in my native British English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record, not too long ago I changed the header in Michael Jordan from "Charity" to "Philanthropy", because his activities in this arena go well beyond writing checks to charities, and to match the "Philanthropy" header in the Kobe Bryant article. I think there's a distinction between describing a set of activities as "Philanthropy" and describing an individual as a "Philanthropist". By the way, where do we fall on "Humanitarian"? BD2412T02:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Masem sums it up best; we have to go with what the consensus of reliable sources are saying. Of course, we have to bear in mind that the richer someone is, the more power and influence they are likely to have, and even generally reliable sources may be more inclined to describe their good deeds and charitable giving as "philanthropy". I have edited extensively on BLPs of billionaires, and have removed "philanthropist" from the lead of many where there is simply not enough elsewhere in the article to support it. In the same vein, I have often changed "entrepreneur" (another peacock term) to "businessman/woman" in the lead. Edwardx (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You mention the lede. Inclusion in the lede requires even more substantial support in sources than the use of the term in a section heading. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not a matter of policy; it's just a matter of English usage. "Philanthropist" is a conventional word for a person who gives to charity and other such words would naturally have similar connotations – altruist; benefactor; donor; patron; &c. I consider this the mot juste for people such as Leonard G. Montefiore and so would oppose any attempt to stigmatize the usage per WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
"it's just a matter of English usage" - you mean a matter of appropriate, and properly sourced, usage of an English word that is subject to misuse as a section heading. There are folk who give bucket loads to charity but it's nothing more than a tax hack to them. So let's not be naive here, puffery is at play, that's the reality of the word's usage in a great many instances. Acousmana (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Obervation: As with many things Wiki, context matters. Not everything that impacts BLPs as promotional has an equivalent in the past. This discussion seems to be missing historical context focusing too narrowly on recency. For hundreds of years women were not allowed to work in the public sphere except in benevolent or charitable capacities. Removing the ability to write about their philanthropic endeavors in effect would erase the history of half of the population and skew the totality of our world view. By all means, follow what the sources say, but requiring a majority of the sources to spell out that their community work was philanthropic or charitable is absurd. They weren't paid for it, it was wholly voluntary, and undertaken to improve the lives of others in a time when there were few government safety nets. Dismissing philanthropy as a "peacock" term, simply on the basis that it now generally equates to monetary support, is not a good idea. I can see it leading to lots of edits erasing women's contributions. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The distinction I would personally make is that "philanthropist" is an occupation, so in order to qualify as one, someone needs to devote a significant portion of their time to their giving (which normally entails a greater degree of involvement with dictating where their money is spent), whereas someone who just throws a bunch of money at something would not qualify. I'm not sure if that's the dictionary definition, though. I agree with others above saying we are tied by what reliable sources say, and also that we ought to apply a strict standard — e.g. one source using the word is not enough to demonstrate that it is the consensus of all reliable sources. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Requiring sources describing someone as a "philanthropist" (or their activities as "philanthropy") should suffice. BD2412T21:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
+1 to what SusunW said. I mainly create biographies about pre-20th-century women. Back then, women philanthropists didn't get paid to be philanthropists. It wasn't an "occupation". It was a calling. So context matters. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
agree that context is important, but so to is critical and fair assessment of the word's usage across Wikipedia, donor-advised fund utilising tax dodgers cannot be fairly described as "philanthropists" - unless of course RS's describe the subject as such. Acousmana (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Not all philanthropy involves giving money, though. A celebrity spending time visiting sick children in the hospital is bypassing more profitable uses of that time, which can not easily be calculated. BD2412T01:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not sure this is really a policy issue, to be notified here. That's an issue for the local talk, for editors there with input from WP:COIN, WP:NPOVN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion
It was recently suggested to me that there are possibly different interpretations of WP:1RR affecting different parts of the encyclopedia. Please consider the following scenario that I think might help tease out problems and differences in interpretation. Then answer the question: Who, if anybody, violated 1RR? Assume the content added in diffs 1 and 3 is completely unrelated and that the edit summaries accurately describe what is being done.
12:24, 5 July 2020 Example A (talk·contribs) . . (157,437 bytes) (+1,228) . . (→Top: add info)
12:38, 5 July 2020Example B (talk · contribs) . . (156,165 bytes) (-972) . . (Undid revision 961210665 by Example A (talk): Partial revert. This is too much detail for the Lead and this info is already in the body. I moved the bit of actually new info to the relevant section in the body)
12:47, 5 July 2020Example A (talk·contribs) . . (158,996 bytes) (+2,831) . . (→See also: Add new section )
13:21, 5 July 2020Example B (talk · contribs) . . (156,165 bytes) (-2,831) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Example A (talk): We try not to do "Trivia" sections on Wikipedia, and the National Enquirer is not a reliable source. )
13:42, 5 July 2020 Example A (talk·contribs) . . (158,996 bytes) (+2,831) . . (Undid revision 961211487 by Example B (talk): This is obviously relevant.)
13:45, 5 July 2020 Example A (talk·contribs) . . (159,223 bytes) (+227) . . (→Trivia: Add another source)
13:46, 5 July 2020 Example A (talk·contribs) . . (160,172 bytes) (+972) . . (Undid revision 961211493 by Example B (talk): This is important and people need to know. )
Also, is Undid revision 961211487 by User A (talk): This is obviously relevant supposed to be Undid revision 961211487 by Editor B (talk): This is obviously relevant?, since the edit being reverted appears to come from Editor B. * Pppery *it has begun...00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I would say B based on my current understanding of policy. However, I would say that A has been on the whole more tendentious throughout this hypothetical scenario, so I would welcome a redefinition that puts more of the blame on A, without destroying the fungibility of consecutive reverts. Probably the main issue is that A did not follow WP:BRD, and continue to insert their edit which has been objected to. I would support a form of 1RR where any edit that disrupts the status quo counts as the first revert. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Editor B broke 1RR because the edits at 12:38 and 13:21 are non-consecutive edits that reverted actions of another editor (in this case A, but it would make no difference if it was two different editors). Editor A only broke 1RR if the edit at 12:47 reintroduced some of what B removed at 12:38, and I guess we are meant to assume that it didn't. I believe that there is no room for another interpretation here. Zerotalk06:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
B broke 1RR. Note that the timestamps here are in the reverse order from what you would normally find on a history page; the bottom revision is the latest, not the top. B broke 1RR when they reverted two of A's edits separately. A's reverts are unwise, but would break 0RR, not 1RR; there's no fundamental difference between plural small reverts and one big consecutive revert. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
B violated 1RR when they made a second revert in 24hrs at 13:21. A has only made one revert, which are the three consecutive edits at 13:42, 13:45, and 13:46. This scenario illustrates well the "first mover advantage" resulting from a 1RR page restriction. Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
A different scenario (1RR)
08:24, 14 April 2020 Sample user (talk·contribs) . . (157,437 bytes) (+3,228) . . (→See also: Add a new section on Honors and Awards)
10:51, 14 April 2020 Sample user (talk·contribs) . . (159,929 bytes) (+2,492) . . (→Honors and awards: Expand)
⋮
25-100 intervening edits
⋮
12:38, 5 July 2020Example A (talk·contribs) . . (154,209 bytes) (-5,720) . . (→Honors and awards: remove this)
12:47, 5 July 2020Example B (talk·contribs) . . (159,929 bytes) (+5,720) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Example A (talk): Unexplained blanking)
13:21, 5 July 2020Example A (talk·contribs) . . (154,209 bytes) (-5,720) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Example B (talk): This is not a hagiography. )
Two questions on this one:
Did Example A violate 1RR?
Would your answer be different if there had been more or less time and intervening edits before the first removal? (Example: 3 days with 5 intervening edits, or 1 year with 500 intervening edits)
1. Yes - The 12:38 edit removes text added by another editor, and thus is a revert, making the 13:21 edit a second revert in 24hrs. 2. Yes - if it were 3 days with 5 intervening edits, that makes it clearer that the first edit is a revert. If it were 1 year and 500 edits, it would be practically impossible for an editor to even know who or what they were reverting. This illustrates well the problem with 1RR, but also, more broadly, the problem with the entire concept of "revert" and why Wikipedia should throw that nonsense overboard. The rule should be that you are not allowed to repeat your own edits more than once every 24hrs, irrespective of whether your own edit is adding content, removing content, or both. If that were the rule, then there would be no 1RR violation here, nor in the scenario above (which is how it should be). Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
repeat your own edits Until yesterday, exactly this was how I noobishly thought the word "revert" would be applied in determining RR violations. PJvanMill)talk(20:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, editor A broke 1RR. It would be a 1RR violation even if the time between the two blocks of edits was much greater. Editor A does not need to search the history to know that the 12:38 edit was a revert. However, if we interchanged insertions and deletions so that 12:38 was an insertion, then technically it would be a revert if the stuff had been in the article before and someone had deleted it. From time to time at ANI it has been recognised that it is unreasonable to expect editors to check the history a long way back in such a case, but the absence of a definition of "long way" gives it an unsatisfactory arbitrariness. Levivich's alternative proposal is interesting. Zerotalk01:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Zero0000, thanks for commenting. Just so I understand you correctly, do you endorse the view that wholesale removal of material always counts as a revert because it is undoing the work of some previous editor(s)? Like what if that section had been added to the article 5 years ago and had been modified by other editors along the way? Or what if the deletion at 12:38 had just removed a sentence or two instead of blanking the section? Would that also be a revert? ~Awilley (talk)21:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not Zero, but in my view yes, any removal of content always counts as a revert per the definition: an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Removal of content always undoes other editors' actions (note this doesn't say "another editor's actions" singularly). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Request for comments
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I thought there was a policy against doing list articles with religious affliction, should this one be kept or killed? Govvy (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't get lists and categories confused. There is definitely a consensus against categories that are unrelated intersections of two attributes. Such categories are routinely deleted at CFD. The relevant guideline is WP:OVERCAT, especially WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:NARROWCAT, and possibly most relevant here WP:OCEGRS. I don't think there is a similar consensus on lists. SpinningSpark21:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I think I do remember the sports categories regarding listing them by religion so that's where I might of got my wires crossed, saying that, I still feel like this list seems trivial and unnecessary, shall let someone else deal with it. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The OP was just about lists of people by religion per se, about which there is no prohibition, just a caution. This particular intersection of religion and position held is a different question, though I'll note that demographics and diversity among members of Congress is certainly a widely covered topic. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The relevant guideline for this question is WP:LISTN. The issue for a List article (as opposed to a category) is whether the list’s topic (in this case, Buddhists in the US Congress) is notable enough to stand on its own. THAT is determined by sources. If there are reliable sources that discuss this particular intersection of religion and political office (in reasonable depth), then the topic is notable enough for a list article. If not, then the article should be nominated for deletion (or for merger into some related article). Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That's one possible analysis for lists, but not always the right one. LISTN makes clear that it's sufficient but not necessary, particularly where we're dealing with lists of X of Y. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
RFC:DOY change to pending changes reviewer instructions
Latest comment: 4 years ago56 comments14 people in discussion
The proposal failed. While there was strong support for it from editors involved in DOY articles, the community in general felt that problematic editing on these articles was not at a sufficiently serious level to justify special rules for them. Several editors pointed out that the proposal went significantly outside the established boundaries of PC patrolling. Some even felt that the very principle of rejecting edits solely because they lacked an inline cite was not constructive. SpinningSpark11:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviewers should note that all new entries added to days of the year articles require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE.
Background (DOY change to pending changes reviewer instructions)
In October 2017, a discussion at WP:WikiProject Days of the year reached consensus that day-of-the-year articles are not exempt from WP:V and that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE were updated to include that language.In July 2019, the language Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE. was added to WP:RPC. There has been an objection to the addition of this language on the grounds that it contradicts WP:RPC, specifically It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting.
Opinions (DOY change to pending changes reviewer instructions)
No - For a number of reasons. While verifiability is important, it is outside scope of pending change in general.
For example the purpose of protecting a pages with pending change is persistent vandalism, BLP violations, and copyright violations. In fact reviewing pending changes says It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. Reviewing pending changes is not to curate content or check sources which this new directive would require lest you have your review rights striped.
We could also look at pending changesThe process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content and Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above which if reviewers are required to verify sources and content this would be a problem.
In the end I think it is not what pending change was setup to do. If a reviewer wishes to follow that guildline and either add a source or revert that is their choice, but it should not be something that reviewers are forced to do. Now I understand what they are going for, and verifiability is something that everyone should strive for but this is not the way to do it. I am also not comfortable making an exception for a specific niche. Generally I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but one could be made here. I think it is also telling when that guideline is not required for DOYs sister project WP:YEARS. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I view the change as requiring minor effort on the part of reviewers in the interest of improving day-of-year articles for readers. Checking for BLP violations or copyright asks more of reviewers than this check, a simple "no citation, don't accept" decision. I don't interpret the language as requiring reviewers to verify the information in the source, just to see that a source is included in the edit. The DOY articles have accumulated a lot of cruft over the years; I added cites to events on a DOY article and had to remove a number of the old entries because the target article didn't support the statement or the target article lacked a reference to support the statement. The effort to make those articles verifiable directly supports WP:5P. Editors are slogging through each of the DOY pages to verify each and every item; it's a slow, tedious process and is made even more difficult when more unsourced content keeps getting added. When a DOY article has pending changes protection, I think it's reasonable to ask that PC reviewers reject an edit that doesn't include a source. Schazjmd(talk)15:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes - Normally, when people add a new entry without a citation and are told they should have added a citation, they say "Sorry, I didn't know that". But even with a warning message on each date page, contributors still do it because they haven't noticed the message. Occasionally, however, the response is "But X accepted the change, so it must be all right." When you go to the reviewer and point this out, they also respond "Sorry, I didn't know that." There are two points PackMecEng has made that need to be addressed. One is that the instruction to check for citations in a DOTY article (and other types of article will gradually follow) does not, in my opinion, go against the statement: "It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research", which applies to specific policies which are not at issue here. The second is that the reason all DOTY articles have the requirement for review in the first place is to protect them from vandalism, which typically consists of anons adding entries such as "10 July 1963 - my brother's birthday". Or "6 January 1975 - Lil Young Rapper, the greatest singer of all time". This happens every day and sometimes one article will have such an entry repeatedly inserted until the person doing it is blocked. There is little point protecting an article if reviewers decide that there is no need to prevent entries like these. I would have expected that reviewers would be grateful to be reminded about guidelines they hadn't known existed. Deb (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
No. - I am inclined to concur with PackMecEng. PC specifically refutes areas like this from reviewers' tasks, and verificability is fairly core to that. I also feel that stating that requiring this source check is just part of vandalism reduction - that's very dubious tying up. Reviewers would prevent edits like "my brother's birthday" etc etc, but filtering out vandalism like that does not require ensuring an inline source, because the categories "vandalism" and "does not have an inline source" only have a minority overlap. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes - Like Deb, I have been a major contributor to the DOY articles and pending changes on them. She's summed it up nicely. There's an additional factor though. Those pages were cesspools of incorrect information without any sources. Publishing incorrect information is about the worst thing we can do here as an encyclopedia. In addition to the vandalism, we're trying to prevent more incorrect information being added while we clean the pages up. Like the vandalism that Deb referred to, hardly a day goes by without me or the other active members of the project finding incorrect, unsourced information being added to these pages. Asking change patrollers to help with this very problematic area is not a heavy lift. Nobody is forcing folks to patrol these pages, but if you do, please keep in mind that this is a known, chronic problem. If you're going to be active on these pages (like accepting pending changes), it would seem wise not to contribute to problem. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
No. When I'm handling pending changes, I'll almost always do my best to verify the changes being made as well, but it shouldn't be a requirement - which is what this is making it. That fundamentally changes the role of pending change-protected articles, as PackMecEng quite rightly points out. There's no reason to make days of the year articles different in this regard to any other article, at least that I can see. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The section you are quoting from WP:DOYCITE is a warning to the user and is accurate. It doesn't ask the reviewer to do anything so I don't see the relevance here. Deb (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The relevence is the section from that you want to add to reviewers is asking them to comply with DOYCITE. To comply with DOYCITE you have to verify the source. Make sense now? PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No, because that's not what the instruction says. It just asks reviewers to note that a citation is required, rather than accepting something that blatantly goes against DOYCITE because you feel it's too much work to look at the change before accepting it. Deb (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, when it says "require a direct citation" I take that as it requires a direct citation. How do you know if it is a direct citation? You check the citation to see if it supports the info. You said "rather than accepting something that blatantly goes against DOYCITE" well how do you accept something that is not against DOYCITE if you do not check the source? You cannot. PackMecEng (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, yes. But the reliable source in that Wikipedia article can be used. Just accept that DOY pending change if it's verified in that article. If you don't like not having a direct reference, then copy and paste it from the article. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Can I Log In: I think we may be saying the same thing. All the person who adds the event to the DOY page has to do is use a decent source. It can very easily be the source in the linked article, but it must be present on the DOY page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Can I Log In:, in that case, the DOY folks will just go and revert the addition as soon as its noticed being unsourced. Better off not accepting it - which is exactly what we're discussing. Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be suggesting that reviewers do additional work by going to the linked article to check if there's a reference there. Wouldn't it be easier if you just checked that the new entry has a citation included? Deb (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. It seems to me like you've got the wrong end of the stick. Deb (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was right, you have got the wrong end of the stick. You're opposing on the grounds that you are being asked to do something you are specifically not being asked to do.Deb (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Up to semi-protection and be done with it seems to be the best solution. Pending changes almost always creates more work and controversy than needed, and I have never once seen a circumstance where it is superior to semi-protection in achieving anything. If these really are as bad as @Toddst1 and Deb: say the solution is semi-protection, not pending changes. The whole point of pending changes was that it would allow good faith contributors to contribute while protecting articles. It doesn't actually do that. It just creates more work for people. If you have non-confirmed user+PC reviewer+person reverting PC reviewer because they don't follow the citation guidelines, you're having three people do the work of one person. That's just idiotic. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree. I'm constantly protecting individual articles for that very reason, but so far I've only gone up to a 3-month protection. Deb (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think continual standard SP is needed, but SP that runs for the week before and after (where we get the vast avalanche of twaddle) would avoid most of the issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You probably haven't seen our always massive semi-protected edit request backlog. About 250 request are answered after 4 days (with about a backlog net change of +/−10 each day), and I think people still answer edit request wrong, and about 500 pending changes are accepted after 6 days, and about 20 of them are DOY, and yet the pending change backlog is fine. What major (dis)avantage does it have? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If you really want to know: it’s a nightmare from a technical angle. It will regularly make it so not even sysops can edit the page due to the way it stores potential edits. To edit in these circumstances you have to use twinkle to revert back to the last edit before it got stuck in pending changes, usually reverting several edits by established users actually improving the article in the process.It permanently stores the revision in the live history of the page, which on things like BLPs is an issue (DOY has this problem on recent deaths and birth years.) This may require either revdel or suppression.From a non-technical standpoint we give out PCR like candy (my standard for granting is if the person has a pulse), which means that ordinarily the people most active in reviewing are the least familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines since it’s functionally the first user right anyone gets because admins don’t care about it since all it does is restore to individuals the ability to answer an edit request. It also is easier to use than semi-protection so instead of getting rid of junk edits you instead create work that ordinarily wouldn’t exist. Anyway, most admins use pending changes rarely because of the issues with it, but if there’s a place where most of the pages are already under PC, they can just be switched to semi-protection. If there’s enough disruption to merit pending changes there’s enough to merit semi. If people don’t think there’s enough to merit semi-protection then PC likely should just be removed since it’s more difficult to deal with than actual live edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
No, the PendingChanges instructions should not be over-complicated by adding advice (not a guideline!) from a single group of editors about a small subset of articles. It might be good advice, but WikiProjects do not get to make up their own rules about what needs to be cited and what doesn't, and then impose their rules on the rest of the community. Unlike DOY's non-binding advice on what needs to be cited, the rule against WikiProjects setting rules for "their" content actually is one of our rules, written down in an actual guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No - after reading this discussion, I think it's better if checking for a source were encouraged, but not required, for reviewers. I don't see checking for "a source" as being really helpful. It has to be a reliable source. Who cares if a sentence is unsourced or sourced to a blog? It's functionally the same. In fact, I think sourced to a blog is worse than unsourced, because it gives readers a false sense that the statement is properly sourced. So requiring reviewers to ensure there's a ref tag seems pointless, and requiring reviewers to verify there is an actual reliable source is too much. Hence, I think the best is to encourage, but not require, reviewers to verify sources, not just ensure that there is one. Levivich[dubious – discuss]21:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussion (DOY change to pending changes reviewer instructions)
Oh dear, this is my fault. I added that to the page as a newish user after realizing all the edits I accepted were getting reverted, and asking Deb if it would be a good idea to add. A few months on and I realize it's not as simple as that. Some thoughts:
There's the issue of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The consensus that DOY pages require a citation was reached on the DOY wikiproject, not in a forum with a project-wide scope. I read ANI archives sometimes when I'm bored at work, and I believe I saw a case where someone requested a user be sanctioned for repeatedly adding unsourced entries to DOY pages, but the request was declined because WP:DOYCITE was only a local consensus. (Having trouble finding that case now though).
That said, it's my understanding that the consensus to require a citation (as well as to PC protect the pages) arose in response to a large amount of incorrect entries. While the PC guidelines say It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on... verifiability... before accepting, they also say reviewers should take special consideration of the reason given for protection and attempt to uphold it. We can accept unsourced content, but in this case, should we? Lots of vandals like fiddling with dates, lots of people get their info from dodgy sources that might have the wrong date, and an incorrect date for anything involving a living or recently deceased person is a BLP violation and forbidden by the PC guidelines.
There are a number of users who patrol DOY pages and revert unsourced entries or add sources if possible. So unsourced entries aren't going to stay there for long regardless, and removing the advice to PC reviewers just passes the work on to a handful of users from WP:DOY when it could have been dealt with right out of the gate.
Softening the language might be an option. "Required" is probably too strong for something with only local consensus. Perhaps something along the lines of Note that the Days of the Year WikiProject reached a consensus in 2017 that all new entries to days of the year pages should have an inline citation.
These are just some half-formed thoughts, I don't feel strongly enough to weigh in on the actual RfC at the moment. Spicy (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
While an optional part added to the "but good if you this etc" would certainly be more preferable, I'm a little concerned at the logical expansion from this. Local consensus (or even project consensus on things like MOS etc) requires quite a few things that could be handled by reviewers, but would start stacking up really heavily. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I find the resistance a bit disheartening. Rejecting new entries to DOY without a citation (1) asks no extra effort from PCR, (2) is for the benefit of the encyclopedia and the readers, and (3) helps other editors who are working on the daunting task of making DOY articles verifiable. I accepted a number of pending changes on DOY without citations before I noticed the reverts; when I asked for an explanation and learned what the project was attempting to accomplish, I was happy to cooperate because it improves the encyclopedia. WP:NOTBURO, WP:IAR. Schazjmd(talk)14:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
* Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no March 32nd, it's quite straightforward. If it's a new entry, I would undo the change with an appropriate edit summary to inform the editor what is wrong with it. Deb (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Same as Deb. If we weren't asking for inline citations for new entries, I would check that there's an article and that the specific information was cited to a reliable source, so in this example I would still reject the edit because YouTube is not a reliable source. Schazjmd(talk)18:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
SchazjmdFor demonstration purposes, you must pretend everything is true and complies with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. For failure to do so, you will not be sued of your life-savings.
John, a wikilink is not a reliable source. I would undo the edit to the DOY page with a note saying the entry needed a direct source. Some of us have gone through and cleaned up existing pages like May 11, but we have so much backlog in the other pages, most of the DOY participants are not cleaning up new additions that lack a source, just reverting them. Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
AGAIN, WE GET IT. A wikilink is not a reliable source. Have you noticed that in the wikilink, it contains let's pretend that it'sa reliable source? That means it's a verified statement. Either you could 1) accept the pending game; or 2) copy the reference over. Reverting it is not an option; it's the equivalent of vandalism, removing sourced content. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I fear that you DON'T get it. If it doesn't cite a source, it is not sourced content. If Napoleon's birth date was sourced in an article on the Duke of Wellington, you would still expect a citation in the Napoleon article, wouldn't you?Deb (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
No no no you don't get it. This is not a bureaucracy. If you do think so, then start fork of WIkipedia that is a bureaucracy. How many newcomers have you all bitten? A record ammount? It is possible that you have caused us to have less productive editors just by reverting on DOY articles. If there is a problem in a DOY article, then JUST FIX THE PROBLEM IF YOU CAN! * Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself. Since apparently Deb wants to be a John Quiñones, fine, I'll do this What Would You Do? scenario. So no citation for Napoleon's birthdate in that article, but there is one in Duke of Wellington. We'll unlike you all who are always on a reverting rampage, I would FIX THE PROBLEM and copy the reference over to Napoleon's article. Problem solved. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me explain this to you in small, manageable steps. Step 1: You agree that, in the circumstances described, the article on Napoleon should have a citation and that it would not be enough to link to another article and expect the reader to go there to check that it is correct. Step 2: You agree that citations should be added to DOTY articles for all entries, i.e. fixing the problem. This is what we are already working on. Step 3: You agree that this is a time-consuming task. Step 4: Can you now see why we would remove any new entries without citations that appear in DOTY articles while we are working on this? Deb (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Or I do. It is providing a citation on behalf of who ever added it. Also you need a comma after WP:BURDEN. If you went to school, that is house cause and effect sentence strucutres work. And you used one colon too many. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removal of unreliable sources
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
About two month ago, there was a discussion about royalark.com on RSN, and it was deprecated. I then noticed that the nominator went on a spree to replace the sources with a {{cn}} template without removing the information it supported. To me, that behaviour seems extremely unethical, like plagiarism. You can't just use a source to add information to Wikipedia and then completely wipe out the source without removing the information it supported, right? Is there any policy to stop people from replacing deprecated sources with "citation needed" template? Regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]04:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed retaining the source but marked as (potentially) bad or improveable is better than removing it as it can help with locating better sources. For example looking for other sources published around the same date can make it easier to narrow down searches, and sometimes the content of the bad article can help locate better ones. After all we deprecate sources because we can't trust that everything in them is correct, not that everything in them is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I"m afraid I disagree. Particularly when it involves BLPs. If it involves a BLP, I'll probably remove the text as well. If it doesn't, I remove the deprecated source and add a cn tag. Doug Wellertalk13:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Doug Weller on this. In my experience of India stuff, {{Better source needed}} or {{Unreliable source?}} are rarely ever addressed and even {{Cn}} tags tend to lie around for years. Pretty much every source would be reliable for some small statement, somewhere, but ascertaining the reliability in exceptional cases is just not worth the effort: if the point matters, it can be reinstated with a source that is generally accepted as reliable and absence of such a point is often more of an encouragement to source it properly than inclusion of a tag against a source that we know is very dubious for many things. I also do not see why sources such as royalark should continue in External links sections: if we deprecate them as sources then it does the reader a dis-service to suggest they go take a look. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Spinngspark below - either remove the source and text or leave both but mark as needing a better source (with a general preference for the latter unless there is a specific reason to believe the text is incorrect or potentially controversial), however even better would be to replace the source yourself. If you want tags to be dealt with by others quicker, then make it as easy as possible for them to find a better source - my previous comment explains why leaving a potentially unreliable source helps with this in my previous comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course we do not leave the statement without either source or tag. Equally, we should not now - at this stage in the Wikipedia lifestyle - be tolerating poor sources in any form. Hence, {{cn}} is infinitely better than {{bsn}} etc and, as I tried to explain, the former is more likely to generate a remedial action than the latter. If anyone thinks I don't generally look for sources etc then they would need their head examined - just yesterday there is stuff at here and here, for starters, and the removal of a recently added bsn here because (a) the source is unreliable and (b) the tag should never have been placed anyway as the info is already sourced in the body. What I said above, and which Spinningspark seems to have completely misread, was Pretty much every source would be reliable for some small statement, somewhere, but ascertaining the reliability in exceptional cases is just not worth the effort, eg: even joshuaproject is going to be reliable for some stuff but determining on an article-by-article basis is "just not worth the effort" so bin it. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The source, however bad, remains the source of the information. Why would we want to hide the source from readers and other editors? Your claim that you always make a good faith attempt to find another source only makes this worse; prima facie, the cited source is then the only source of the information. Do you have any evidence that {{cn}} is serviced better than {{bsn}}? I can't see why it should be. SpinningSpark12:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Removing the source but leaving the information is a very bad practice. If we doubt the information is accurate then the text should be removed along with the source. If not, leave the source in place and tag it – or find a better one. Don't assert that it is "not worth the effort" of finding a source and at the same time complain that "tags tend to lie around for years". Why shoould anyone else bother to do the work you can't be bothered with? SpinningSpark14:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is intended as a response to me but you do quote me, so perhaps you should re-read what I actually said. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
) but I’m not necessarily opposed to a different name, but I’d oppose both of those. Don’t like the first on stylistic grounds and the essay is more meant to focus on individuals who act this way rather than specific behaviour so I don’t think the second fits. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
