| Village pump proposals post | | New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting: | |
| Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon:  in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. | |
« Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 |
[edit] Set interests to sort information faster Just a thought; I study biology and very often when i am on a disambuguation page, especially regarding an abbreviation, my interest is in biology. It sometimes takes a little while before i find what i look for. So i thought that it would ease my wikipedia surfing if i could set biology as my like main interrest, and maybe history as my secondary interrest and so on, and disambiguation-pages would sort the alternatives on disambiguation-pages and "search results"-pages depending on my interrests when i am logged on. Since most articles are tagged it seems alot of the work is already done, and when wikipedia becomes more and more complete the main problem would be to sort information to find the stuff that is relevant for you and sort away the irrelevant information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.229.227 (talk) 21:25, November 10, 2009 (UTC) - Disambig pages aren't generated dynamically. The text on those pages are entered in by people, just as all other pages are.
- It is possible to change them to dynamic pages and for a system such as what you are describing to exist, but... well, it would need to be developed first (and we'll completely ignore the performance issue that such a system could cause on a site this large).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Move to republicanism? Seeing as how we're way beyond the threshold of Dunbar's number here on en.wikipedia (as was recently pointed out to me), is it time to think about some formal governmental structure here? I'll freely admit that, as a self-admitted libertarian (and, in Wikipedia terms, an inclusionist) this is at least partially admitting to an ideological failure, but after a recent experience I think I can starkly see the issue in relief. In my opinion a huge issue here is actually fairly simple. Wikipedia is, somewhat by design (technologically), anti-social. We're actually encouraged not to interact on site, which creates a natural disjunction between all of us. The fact is though, that there are enough of us here that regardless of the social mechanisms that could be available to us that we would never be able to agree to the level of "consensus" on most issues. That's great for those who hold conservative positions on issues, but anyone who wants any change (meaning you) is likely to receive resistance... which is really anathema to the current consensus based system. When the loudest minority can prevent any changes, who is actually helped? So, after thinking on this long and hard, I've come to the conclusion that the best course of action is... to discuss this with what community actually exists here on Wikipedia. What do you think? Should we elect individuals to actual positions of power, in some manner? (actually, we already do with ArbCom, so should that be extended somehow?)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC) - Yeah, we should have structures for making the important decisions (i.e. on content and best practices), rather than the pointless structure that ArbCom has become (basically the Wikipedia drama club). Of course we do need to deal with bad behaviour, but that needs to be done on sight, quickly and effectively. When I say structures for making the important decisions, I don't mean people to make the decisions for us, but people to help the process along, judge what the results are and ensure they get implemented. --Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- The problem is not only one of scale, but of time. No one but fanatics has the time and patience to read or grasp, let alone participate in every important decision, which means that something like the Manual of Style, the Village Pump or the public sections of Administrators' Noticeboard, while open to all, in practice can't accommodate more than a few dozen people (if that) at any one time. I don't know about executive authority, but since I tend towards the pluralist, libertarian, inclusionist, anti-prescriptivist, hundred-flowers view of Wikipedia, and away from other common views here, I think it might be healthy to develop very loose political parties and allow them to campaign when those elections come up. I was eligible to vote this year for (I think) Wikipedia's board, but couldn't summon the will to plough through twenty candidates' statements and Q&A. I could be more active in the various associations, or start my own, but until they can organize as more than volunteer fire brigades to either Rescue Worthy Articles or Stamp Out Creeping Cruft on a case-by-case by case basis ["Help! Help! My Favorite Band's trapped in AfD; won't someone please, please rescue them?" "Don't worry, little lady, the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians will rally round to save the day! (without, of course, violating the Ban on Canvassing)"] and articulate a fairly-full programme, I can't see them as a democratically-workable conduit between ordinary editors (or readers) and the baroque workings of the Project. No one likes seeing a single article's Talk Page or open Requests for Comment artificially packed, but there has to be some way, without breaching that essential aim of the Ban on Canvassing, to let people know that Party X feels this way about this issue or that slate of candidates, while Party Y feels very differently, and here are the reasons why. And with a self-organized project like Wikipedia, I tend (from personal experience with vaguely-similar groups) to believe more in Robert Michels' iron law of oligarchy and Parkinson's Law than in the anti-party sentiments of Rousseau, Federalist No. 10 or Washington's Farewell Address. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well said, that pretty much sums up my own views nicely. Your central point, regarding lack of time, is really what gives me pause as well. I think that a large part of the issue here is that everyone is more used to a smaller, more tight-knit group. Usually most forums, web cites, games, etc... have a better defined central goal to them, which makes it easier for everyone to get along since most people will be there for whatever the "it" is. Wikipedia obviously has a much broader scope, and a much more political issue base as well, then basically any other internet site/project. So... I don't know. The ad hoc development of the Wikipedia community continues to more or less work as it has for the last 7-8 years, and nothing is likely to stop it (I'm not at all a doomsayer, or some sort of angry conspiracy type). There has to be something to make it better though, and with a group that is (and should be) as diverse as Wikipedia's I'm simply left wondering if some sort of Republican system would be a good solution.
- Just trying to brainstorm a little bit here, but ...maybe we could put an individual or small group in charge of what can be an RFC/centralized discussion, and somehow formalize that process more?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC) - Can you explain what you mean by Republican? You mean something like an elected parliament or congress, that would take decisions by formal vote-count if it's not clear what the position of the "community" is on some matter?--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, more or less... although as I said above the ideas here are extremely nebulous even in my head. I guess "representative government" would probably be more accurate.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC) - Um, there are so many on-and-off users, one-time users, IP addresses, users who dont come on more than once a week, etc that "representative government" would quickly become "representative of the users who come on several times a day". I think that would be very detrimental to those other groups, especially IP addresses and newbies, who already get treated as second-class citizens and proposals are constantly put forth at the Village Pump (two that I know of in the last two weeks) regarding limiting their ability to participate and make it harder to sign up to Wikipedia. The "fanatics" would have more control over any type of "government" as they would be more likely to vote. While it is correct that many, regarding the US constitutional set-up deplored and railed against the potential of "factions" and "parties", the very way in which the US Constitution was written meant that if parties had not formed the US Constitution would not have functioned at all, which some believe was the actual purpose of the Founders (to have a Federal Govt that didnt work and therefore couldnt mess with the states or people). The same, if we werent smarter than the Founders (and actually we are smarter), would happen here. Parties would not be good for Wikipedia, but if we were to set-up a "governing body" we'd probably have to have them in order to function. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government tried by Man"- Winston Churchill. There would be those "conservatives" who believe the letter of the "law" should be strictly interpretted and all policies and guidelines would be enforced to the letter and IAR, commonsense, and consensus would be thrown out. There would be "progressives" who stress IAR, common sense, and hold policy as more loosely as a "this is what you should do idealy, but if you want to tweak it in a different case, go ahead". Those two positions I can see as easily rallying two groups from the get-go. Heaven help us all if that first group were to win. I'd spend every dime I have on a new competitor to Wikipedia if they ever did.Camelbinky (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you actually have about three issues wrapped together here. At the top, well, I don't know about Dunbar's number; Brook's The Mythical Man-Month#The Mythical Man-Month would seem more applicable here. (Basically, an unstructured group of N people has N*N ways to communicate; as the group gets bigger communication becomes infeasible. This is implictly why "town-hall democracy" doesn't work at large scales – no one has the time to study all the issues.) But the solution to this is well-known: structure. Which, I hasten to add, need not be authoritarian and heirarchial. E.g., if a large group arranges itself as a collection of smaller groups (presumably the smaller groups have charge of or authority for certain areas or tasks), then only the smaller group needs to cross-communicate on the group's task, and the inter-group communications are simpler because because only a single channel is needed to each group. (Presumably the group has a spokesman or manager or some such external representor.) This should not seem novel, as it is pretty much how things are now on Wikipedia (though very informally).
The second issue stems from the inherent chaos of the idealistic "let everyone/anyone edit". I think we have plenty of evidence that not everyone is pointed in the same direction. Reality is more like a talented two-year old trying to stack some blocks while the rest of the kids run around, constantly knocking down his work. "Let everyone edit" arrays a lot of seeming randomness against any effort to order or structure anything. I don't think it is "anti-social" to resist this tyranny of the lowest common denominator of behavior (or goals). Sociality is the whole matter of how live in groups, which here transforms into the question of how to conserve the result of our efforts from the depradations of others. (In that sense I am all for "conservatism".) This leads to standards (e.g., references), the watchlist function, vandalism patrols, etc. For sure, this amounts to resistance to change. But consider the analogy of an electrical circuit (how appropriate!): certainly won't work without conductance, but also won't work without insulation. (Unless you want a big flash of self-destruction.) The third issue, of how to organize the group, which includes the implicit sub-issue of how to govern the group, is thus driven by the need to conserve our efforts (else why bother?) and to organize generally, and constrained by the effective impossibility of doing this through simple, universal consensus. Which then gets deep.... :-) I hope that helps to clarify matters. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC) - Why should the choice of government be driven by "the need to conserve our efforts"? After all wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so I would think it's main focus would be on facilitating collaboration, encouraging people to improve each others contributions.
- Of course maintenance of wikipedia is essential to guaranty the quality of its content, but restricting edits is not the only way to achieve that goal. And it should not in any case become the main focus of wikipedia, it would be like transforming a mean into an end.
- ...
- This has probably already been discussed a lot so I'll stop here, but I guess we're already seeing the 2 parties Camelbinky talked about ;-) -- Ryk V (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- The conservation (or retention?) of effort means our results have some kind of endurance. (Why even bother if our efforts have no persisting result? Aside, that is, from some kind of performance art.) I once saw a group that had to repeatedly re-visit and re-decide a certain question because they were not able to retain/conserve their collective decisions. It is not at all a matter of artificial restrictions (as distinct from "liberty!" in the Hobbesian sense) on the means controlling the ends; it is a matter of arranging the means in order to attain (and conserve) the ends. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the main issue which is, as I understand it : how to improve the decision making process on wikipedia, seeing as the current one, based on simple consensus, leads to immobility. The initial proposition was to elect a governing body by, for example, expanding on the idea of the Arbitration Committee. I actually think that the wmf:Board of Trustees (at least the part interested in wikipedia) would be a more fitting starting point : unlike ArbCom which mainly arbitrates disputes the board is already the closest thing wikipedia has to a governing body. Another existing project that could address part of the issue under discussion is the Wikimedia Strategic Planning. This is not a republican system as anyone who wants (and has the time and motivation) can participate. It is also designed to avoid the immobility seen on wikipedia by organizing participants into focused task-forces (obviously under the Dunbar's number threshold :-) that will assemble as much data as possible on their respective subject before discussing possible improvements. This process should allow them to avoid the kind of unresearched discussions sometime found on this page where each side gives its opinion without supporting it with verifiable data and without trying to address the other side argumentation, thus leading to no consensus. Contrary to what is implied on m:Strategic planning 2009, this project should evolve into a continuous improvement process. However, it remains to be seen how the decision about each proposed change will be taken (if someone know, please explain) : a vote or maybe a less formal submission to the community with all the adequate research and argumentation ... -- Ryk V (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC) - I'm sorry to be late here. Wish I'd have seen this earlier. I agree with the proposer -- the whole consensus thing is getting to be almost arbitrary. Appropriate results are never insured because there are so many people with so equal a say and so little structure. There's a reason large organizations need structure, and I'm not sure how Wikipedia is any different. I used to believe in the ideals, being as the proposer is, on the liberal side of things, but lately I've been losing confidence in this having the ability to remain a fair and effective system that actually produces results in the encyclopedia's best interests, and those of the editors.
- I posted a rudimentary administrative hierarchy proposal at Strategy Wiki a while ago, if anyone is interested. Equazcion (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Equazcion, you already know my view on Wikipedia and my dislike of any class structure so I'm sure you can guess that I must now take an opposing view on your hierachy system. Yes, a loud, tenacious minority can and often does prevent good changes (as you and I know all too well); but is the solution to that really to create a hierachy and more bureaucracy? A bureaucracy's first and foremost priority is to protect its "turf", once we create one it will protect whatever rights and abilities we give it and we'll never be able to destroy it, control it, or reign it in, it will appropriate new abilities it sees fit in order to do its job, whether we originally thought it should have those abilities or explicitely thought it should not, if it needs them for its job it will give it to itself. Arbcom was a mistake in my opinion and still is. We dont need more levels with more fancy titles and more rules and more bureaucracy that has nothing better to do than create more rules and enforcement, and editors out there thinking a fancy title gives their opinions more say (we see that problem with certain admins, and think about how hard it is to strip an admin compared to giving the title!). This is an encyclopedia, isnt our job to create and edit articles, this isnt an experiment in nation-building; I wait for the day when someone proposes a Wikipedia national anthem and flag.Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Perennial proposal. Activitiy on any single page tends to have rather less participants than Dunbar's number. Another way to put that: A wiki has its own structure. This is an interesting enough phenomenon that you could almost call a wiki a novel kind of political system all by itself. Yes yes, I said Almost. ;-) Most "Real World" political systems have already been proven to fail on-line, because -hey- on-line is a different environment. Wikis work better than most. I think the current community and system wikipedia uses is pretty much on its way to break the world record for longest-lived online community. (It has already broken the record for largest, AFAIK). If you want to (re-)introduce concepts that have already been proven not to work, or that work contrary to what you can do on a wiki? No thanks! On the other hand, would you like to design something that's actually better? I'm all ears! Just realize that we already have something of a system, and that system still sort of works (however badly), which is a huge accomplishment by itself. Try to figure why the system works, and use that to build on. Don't blindly grab random system X you read about in a schoolbook yesterday. ;-) - Existing System X probably won't magically transform the wiki into something useful. That's because most existing systems are not designed for online communities, let alone wiki-communities. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's unlikely.
- In fact, just blindly implementing any philosophy or paradigm has never really worked out too well anywhere or anytime in history. Don't start a cargo cult, Make sure you Know What You're Doing.
- Several traditional systems can lead to rapid death of a community (see even just work by Alvin Toffler for predictions and reasoning on this)
- Anything that will actually work is therefore likely to be either esoteric, custom designed, or both.
- What I said above: wikis are interesting. An empty wiki already has quite some elements of a successful political system. You can create projects rapidly and cross-link them. If people participate in the projects, you have a running system. Wikis are just at fast at politics as at writing encyclopedias. ;-) The trick is to get people to actually participate.
- I'm not married to wikis, (dangit, I demonstrated mediawikiwave at wikimania!). Other paradigms exist. Investigate them!
- Never underestimate the power or utility of a good programmer in an online community.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I tend to get a little worried when a self-professed-republican tries to call me 'conservative'. On the other hand, maybe I'm not the one to be worried <innocent look> - If anyone else, like me, is seriously (or even not seriously) worried about any move to a representative body that would create, maintain, enforce, and hand down policies and judgements for us, thereby taking that right from the Community at-large I have created a page here where we can show support for the basic ideals of Wikipedia that are most likely to be attacked by such a move. Even if such a republican form is never adopted it will still be of good use in giving a forum for those that agree with things like IAR, consensus, wp:notstatute, and common sense. It is a liberal view of Wikipedia as a place where all are equal editors with equal say and opposed to hierarchies or more bureaucracy.Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think there is a distinct sub-issue here, which really warrants a separate discussion. And I wish I had more time to get into this, but for a quicky overview: Are all editors – and implicitly, all editing – really equal? There is a certain sense or aspect where I think this should be the case (and this really needs to explicated), but in other respects (such as quality, depth, "tone", etc.) it is clear and obvious that editors and editing are not "equal". The connection with the separate issue(s?) of hierarchies/bureauracy/authoritarianism is that solutions for dealing with the first issue are being sought in the realm of the latter, but this need not be the case. In summary: I think (yeah, on a good day) that we need to better refine just what "equality" means, and to work up better (more nuanced?) possible solutions to some of the problems. In particular, I think the idealistic "everyone's equal, every edit is good" view needs some realistic reconsideration, but that does not mean submission to some kind of overlord. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I took a bit of a break from Wikipedia, but this topic is still here. It's funny how almost random, seemingly inconsequential thoughts can sometimes turn out to be more substantial then the more normal Village Pump topics, isn't it?
- Anyway, there's some good thoughts here, and their still percolating in my own thoughts. I think that it's important to point out that I personally don't think that anything drastic needs to change with Wikipedia. One of the things that I did during my "wikibreak" is to look around at the off-site Wikipedia related forums. My sense is that there is a tendency for those who have been "jilted" by what passes for the Wikipedia community to immediately jump to attack the site. I understand the reaction, but at the same time it's not constructive at all in my opinion.
- What strikes me at being the most problematic aspect of Wikipedia's "governance" is that there effectively isn't any. Currently, Wikipedia is essentially an Anarchist state, and it seems to be more so now then it was in the not to distant past. My (possibly, or even probably incorrect) personal perception is that "Jimbo" is less active now, but that he has acted as the single Wikipedia "Moderator at large" (for want of a better title) for several years. It seems to be appropriate for him to move on, or move away, for various reasons which I'm certain that many others are more familiar with then myself. However, that leaves all of us in something of an in-between period, and personally I'd rather see what I perceive as an ongoing transition be actively managed by us as a community rather then simply bearing through it in an ad-hoc manner, hoping for the best.
- As I sort of said in the opening post to this thread, I personally tend to hold onto Libertarian ideals. That being the case, I would love to see Wikipedia uphold as much of it's current "do what you think is right" attitude as possible. However, my Libertarian views are decidedly colored by a desire for structure, order, or (gasp) lawfulness. Chaos tends to bother me personally, and ultimately I think that rampant chaos is what is currently harming the Wikipedia project the most.
- As should be clear from my replies above, I don't have any clear answers myself. Since this topic has continued on for a while at least, I do think that it could be constructuve for more of us to comment here however. Thanks for reading!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC) -
- "Chaos" is a bit ambiguous, but in the sense of "entropy" – yes, in whatever we do, it is usually because we want something better than would be produced by merely random or chaotic processes. Which generally requires structure, etc. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] SiteWideMessages Extension:SiteWideMessages looks like a really cool way to publicize important polls, discussions, and elections. Dismissible notices can be sent out that appear on user talkpages. Multiple ones can be deployed at once, and they can be set to expire after a certain time. Individual messages can be set to only show themselves to admins; that could be used to alert admins when AIV is hugely backlogged, DYK is overdue, etc. Wanna turn it on? — Jake Wartenberg 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC) - Support. Should also help in cases like Flagged Revisions, where the criticism was levelled that people "weren't told". Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- That was mentioned in bug 20458http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20458 for a talknotice, but it's once again only aimed for logged-in users, we need something everyone can see (by going to any talk page for example). If we were to use it for specialized things, we'd need a subscription system - not all admins want to get a new message for AIV backlogs for example. Cenarium (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't agree that a subscription system would be needed. A bot posts to AN when DYK becomes overdue despite the fact that most of the people who see it are probably not interested. This is less intrusive and dismissible. And one could opt out of the whole thing with CSS. — Jake Wartenberg 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- You'd be surprised to how people react to messages, even the comparatively unobtrusive watchlist notices. A post to AN is nothing compared to a 'you have new messages' prompt then a UTP message, a post to AN is just another edit on the watchlist, nothing particular, or nothing if you don't watch it, not all admins are attentive to what happens on AN/ANI, most are not actually. I'm sure people would seriously be grieved by this, and no CSS magic could help this. Cenarium (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Besides which it's not really necessary to put messages on 2,000 admins' talk pages for issues that only require the attention of maybe 3. An opt-in list might be good, or perhaps some sort of "shift rotation" (30 admins notified each time)? Equazcion (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I didn't realize that it triggered the new message bar. Might be best not to use this for backlogs then. — Jake Wartenberg 00:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- This problem could be solved with preferences options though:
-
- do not show site messages (default unchecked)
- trigger the new message bar for site messages (default unchecked, not when above pref checked)
- This way we wouldn't need so much a subscription system for specialized messages. But it also means we shouldn't use this for general messages, because then those who do not want to see specialized messages won't see general messages too. So we could use the talknotice for general messages/community announcements (visible on all talk page, not just UTPs), which is visible anyone, and site messages only for specialized messages. I think it's the best approach, in terms of desired effects and technical feasibility. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – we have watchlist-notices, and some dismissible site-notices (for charity appeals etc.) – there should not be any more ways to spam users with material. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- To resume, support as long as there are the following Special:Preferences (misc) options:
- do not show site messages (default unchecked)
- trigger the new message bar for site messages (default unchecked, not when above pref checked)
- used as mentioned above. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Like any power tool, this is likely to be very useful in the right hands and potentially disruptive and dangerous in the wrong hands. Thatcher 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support I trust sysops to use this only when it is important. It seems to be useful, and a modification to the extension along the line that Cenarium suggested would make it intrusive to only those who want it to intrude on them. NW (Talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- We'd need probably a little more support for a site request, I'll go add it to WP:CENT. Cenarium (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Problem I missed this somehow...but anyway, I'm not going to say 'oppose' officially, but the way it looks, is that the ONLY way you see it is that you actually goto the talk page, right? (otherwise, if it showed a 'new messages' banner it'd render its point pointless). Well yes some people may get a lot, but I for one don't look at my talk page too often, and am sure others are like that too, and could easily miss messages because of this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- From the extension page: "Users will be notified they have a new message." Rd232 talk 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a nice tool. Try it, and if it gets abused or there are too many complaints or glitches, turn it off. Fences&Windows 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I think as an extension it should be made to "opt-in", being off by default and set in preferences. I think this is a great idea. I use an admin dashboard, but I think this can be a great enhancement. What sort of protection will be on this? Valley2city‽ 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but opt-in makes it seem a bit pointless. How many people are going to bother? Trust the community to use it sensibly, and allow people to opt out. Rd232 talk 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Feature requested, bug 21377http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21377. We can tweak the global preferences in the future. Note that the default is: displayed on user talk pages, but no new messages prompt. Important notices should probably also be added to the watchlist notice. Cenarium (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Please god no, as mentioned we already get enough cruft, why force more. And hopefully, they'd ask for more then 12 people to comment before enabling this. Q T C 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support so long as there is an opt-out, which should probably address most of the concerns raised by the opposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal: Allow Editors to be Administers in their own Namespace. Hello, My proposal is to allow users to administer the pages that are in their userspace domain. For example, I would be able to protect, delete, and do all other administer funtions as long as the pages had the prefix : User:Tim1357/ and User talk:Tim1357/. Tell me what you think. Tim1357 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) - Definitely not in the User_talk: space. User request is a valid reason for deletion and protection, so, this is really not necessary (nor technically possible)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Ingenious idea. If an admin warns you for vandalism, you just delete your talk page and create a new one, to hide the fact. If you don't like an article you just move it into your user space, delete it there, and poof! its history is gone? What a great way to create a lot of additional work for admins. Hans Adler 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) ^This. Convenient, but a veritable buffet for vandals. --King Öomie 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly in response to Unionhawk, yes it is technically possible, just might require a tweak to the software. Secondly in response to Hans, thanks for the sarcasm, it's always a pleasure to hear; but there are ways to get around such a problem. Articles created in userspace could be flagged as such, and deletion by the user could be allowed only for those with the flag. And that's just one example.
- I think this is a nice idea, but not across the board for all users, just those who have been established for a while. And admins would need to have the ability to override anything the user did.
- That said, I unfortunately doubt this feature would be enough of a priority to actually be implemented any time soon. Equazcion (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Too complicated for too little gain. –xenotalk 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The additional license given to users in their own userspace is a privilege, not a right. Allowing them special powers would run contrary to that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- To argue for the sake of arguing, saying something is a privilege and not a right is a way to show that an ability can be taken away as easily as it's given. It's not evidence against offering more privileges. Give the users the added privilege of administering their own userspace, and it's still a privilege that can be taken away, not a right. Equazcion (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Maybe "privilege" wasn't the right word. "Licence"? The current situation is basically that you can do things in your own userspace which you probably shouldn't be doing, but which you'll be let away with. That's quite different from giving allowing one to do things which are physically impossible for others to do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposals usually explain the benefit expected. This one doesn't. (Costs have been indicated above.) Rd232 talk 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC) - The illusion of power? Everyone would feel kinda like a little admin. Might boost morale :) Equazcion (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hans pretty much sums up the problem. (I can think of a few other really messy things that I won't describe further.) Easily abused, with negligible tangible benefit. Has the added risk of tempting users with no other admin-tool experience to wheel war in an area where they are least likely to be impartial: their own userspace. Editors 'experimenting' in their own space may need professional help to clean up after errors.
- Looking at CAT:CSD right now I only see one userspace page, and that's the result of a misplaced {hangon} template rather than a U1 request. The cost-benefit tradeoff does not seem worthwhile. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just like to point out that userspace CSDs are usually the first to go since they're generally uncontroversial, and don't require any real investigation. There are a lot of them, I think; they just get handled quickly. But I guess that still proves the same point, that the proposal isn't so worthwhile. Equazcion (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Very much thanks for the sarcasm... the whole purpose of this page is to shoot off ideas and look for meaningful feedback. Tim1357
It was a nice idea, but Hans Adler explained why it won't work. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) An alternative for this would be a "wiki-sandbox", a "project" where all users are given admin rights and can "play" with creating pages or accounts and then delete, restore, block, unblock, protect, unprotect... Of course, it would be a project created merely for this purpose, without any other tangible purpose or valuable content. It could allow users to see how do those tools works or "feel powerful", and yet keep all the potencial harm contained at a place where no effects can be done (even indirect or subtle ones) over the real projects. However, I don't know how much it would cost to run another project, even if just at a "testing" scale 200.68.71.147 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - There are many such test wikis that allow people to play admin, and above. I think even the Wikipedia test wiki allows it. –xenotalk 14:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- There may be some benefit from allowing users to delete their own subpages, so for example they can delete "User:John Doe/Why did I create this" without having to go through an admin. But if admins aren't bothered by these requests then I don't see any reason for a change.--RDBury (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the feedback, I suggested this because i feel bad asking admins to delete my user pages, but if they aren't bothered by it then I agree; there is no need for this. Tim1357 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In its defense, this idea is actually kind of nifty; perhaps not on wikipedia itself, but I can see all kinds of uses for it on wikia-like sites. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC) For all those who last saw me wearing a wikia t-shirt, that was because it was a perennial freebie swag handout! I even left room for it in my luggage! I swear I'm not in any way biased, honest. - Ok, if the pro-Hans group is worried about talk pages being deleted to "hide" warnings (which warnings are meaningless anyways and if you've been here for over a year you figure that out and then they dont scare you); then as someone mentioned- allow it users to be admins over subpages and not over their talk page. Are admins that insecure about their "power", which they have because we ALL, admins and regular editors and IPs, give that group called "administrators" power and can take it away just as easily, both strip from the group called admins and we can strip individuals. You worry about an article being moved from article space to user space and then getting its history deleted...then block that from happening. Instead of having a war of admins vs the common guy, how about you figure out how to let the common user control his own pages in a way that cant be used for evil? If we didnt give people powers just because a minority might abuse them then we would have no admins at all (because, yes, I see admin abuse at least once a month). It seems those that dont want users to have this ability seem to think of all of us as in the worst light. Really? That many bad seeds in Wikipedia? Good think we have soo many admins to keep us in line, without them we'd have all this vandalism and Wikipedia would crash, we'd be children with no parental oversight. The world would end because you cant trust non-admins with responsibility, because if they were responsible editors theyd want to be admins and have been promoted already!Camelbinky (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly support the option of giving editors with some history behind them the ability to delete pages that were created by them, in their own userspace, and are still there. Why should an editor have to run to an admin to delete every user-space page they put together as an experiment, and have finished with? bd2412 T 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Community, I have been thinking about all the time that fine editors spend combating vandalism, that they could instead be using for other things. I have also been noticing how good Cluebot is at finding various types of vandalism by itself. Now, as many of you know, Cluebot adheres to the 1 Revert Rule. That means: This bot will not revert the same article and user more than once per day. There is one exception: This bot will revert today's featured article or any page listed in the opt-in list for angry mode as many times as it finds vandalism. The bot will not revert to itself or one of its friends (MartinBot/VoABot II). I wanted to see how many editors here would be willing to lift/revise this rule as Cluebot has definitely proven itself (almost a Million Edits). I would love to see this wonderful bot allow users to spend their valuable time doing things other then hitting the revert button when a 12 year old decides to copy and paste "penis" 100 times on a page.
--Tim1357-(what?...ohhh) 02:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - It's not the number of edits that would prove its worth, but the accuracy. 1RR is probably to allow editors to correct false-positives. That said, I've never actually seen it make a mistake. Equazcion (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, Ive never seen it make a mistake either!Tim1357-(what?...ohhh) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support it on a trial basis, until more is known about what it could do. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not taking a position at this time, but rather just explaining why it has a 1RR... If a human reverts something they think is vandalism and and they are undone, the person might re-evaluate their choice and come to a different decision. A bot, however, will always reach the same conclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- This might be reasonable, but a dry run should be done first. The bot would post to a page each diff that it would revert, but didn't due to the 1RR rule. The main issue with this is that the damage caused by an error can't be simply repaired by reverting the bot, as there's WP:BITE issues to deal with as well. One possible way of dealing with the issue ThaddeusB notes would be to give second or later reverts a higher vandalism score so that borderline cases wouldn't be picked up as vandalism the second time. Mr.Z-man 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, why didn't I think of that? Only edits that it is SURE are vandalism (i.e. have a very high 'score') would be reverted. And one other thing, despite repeated attempts, I cannot seem to get ahold of cobi to tell him about this, someone needs to do that. Tim1357--(what?...ohhh) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Z-man's approach sounds reasonable, as a toe in the water: let's see how many false positives there are. Incidentally, does the bot take page visibility into account? Rd232 talk 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- So how do I move forward with this? Tim1357 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- User talk:ClueBot Commons, I think. Rd232 talk 11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Z-man, let's see if there is a problem here that needs solving before taking the handcuffs off. –xenotalk 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded. Is there actually a problem that this proposal solves, or is it merely a solution in search of a problem? Shereth 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at. The proposed trial - listing (a random sample of) reverts Cluebot doesn't do due to 1RR restriction - will tell us to what extent the 1RR restriction limits Cluebot's effectiveness, and whether the restriction could be relaxed in some way to enhance effectiveness. I can't see how else you would know. Rd232 talk 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Both of us simply agreed that having this listing is a necessary first step before lifting the restriction. –xenotalk 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Textual communication, eh. Rd232 talk 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is kind of after-the-fact, but as long as cluebot continues to follow the "never revert to myself" rule, I can't see lifting the 1RR having a negative effect. --King Öomie 17:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- True, I think. But doesn't it also mean lifting 1RR won't have any positive effect? Well maybe not, but it certainly limits it. That would be another area worth exploring - how many cluebot edits are foregone due to that rule, and what do they look like, and how many false positives. Rd232 talk 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- As a small, unscientific sample, I took a look at ten consecutive ClueBot edits from a month ago. None of them were reverted so I doubt that 1RR makes much of a difference one way or another and it seems to me better to allow humans to override the machine rather than the other way around. A bigger problem is that ClueBot would undo a vandal and the vandal would then immediately go in and make a completely different vandalism edit on the same article which would then often have to be reverted by a human. Perhaps instead of changing the 1RR rule there should be a cooldown rule to block an anonymous user whose edit was reverted from making a change to the same page for 15 min. Users who really are trying to make constructive edits will probably be annoyed but willing to wait a short period of time before trying again but I think a vandal won't have the patience.--RDBury (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds improvable - I'd say Cluebot could treat 1RR as meaning it won't revert the same change twice in one day, by the same user on the same article. Different changes by the same user should be caught equally. How many false positives for that? ... Incidentally, where's the bot creator/owner? Does he know about this discussion? Rd232 talk 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindent)To follow up, I did another survey on 30 consecutive ClueBot edits (not including any of the previous sample. 28 of the reverted edits were from anonymous users. Of those, 7 users made follow-up vandalism edits on the same page, i.e. within a short time of making the original vandalism edit. Some of these made repeated edits for a total 10 follow-up vandalism edits. Of these 10, 9 were reverted by a human and 1 was reverted by a different bot. To respond to rd232, there wouldn't have been any false positives for his proposed rule in thie sampled edits. But I should note that while none of ClueBot's edits in the sample were reverted, some of the follow-up vandalism was very close to the original vandalism.--RDBury (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC) PS. I left a note on User:Cobi's talk page.--RDBury (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - Another followup, just to cover all the bases I looked at the 3 reports on ClueBot's false positives page. It appears then the users making the edits did the edit over rather than reverting Cluebot's revert. In all cases while the edits weren't vandalism, they were controversial and aggressive and usually re-reverted by a human. Maybe there should be a some instruction to direct users to try suggesting the change on the article's talk page instead of re-doing the edit.--RDBury (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Response by Cobi After going over this discussion, I see a few suggestions here: - Make the unreverted caught vandalism public for further review. This will be trivial to do.
- Turn 1RR off (turn the bot into angry mode).
- Interpret 1RR to mean 1 revert per user per specific edit data per article per day. This means I have to store the edit data for the day. This can get large in RAM.
- Add a cooldown. This needs to be done with MediaWiki, not ClueBot.
I'll create a page shortly for ClueBot to post unreverted caught vandalism to. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - The bot will create a page at User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism when it first has an unreverted caught vandalism. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Score
1 a bunch for the bot so far... Can you tell it to log new entries on a new line rather than blowing out the old ones? –xenotalk 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - Second that - maybe with a limit of some kind to prevent the page bloating unmanageably. Rd232 talk 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you have it so the bot doesn't clear the contents of the page whenever it adds new ignored vandalism.? That way we could see just how much vandalism is not reverted because of the 1RR. It would be nice to see how long that page gets after a week. Tim1357 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The Possible Vandalism log is a good start. You say "Interpret 1RR to mean 1 revert per user per specific edit data per article per day. This means I have to store the edit data for the day." I had imagined you could compare a user's edit with any prior edits they made that day; is that too computationally or bandwidth-wise intensive? Also, is Cluebot's user warning message (this one) editable? I think it may be improvable. Rd232 talk 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - Special:Prefixindex/User:ClueBot/Warning -- Cobi(t|c|b) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. Is that linked from the bot page? I did look there. Anyway, I've proposed a revision at User talk:ClueBot/Warnings/Vandal1. Rd232 talk 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the 1RR makes the bot miss an average of 130 vandalism's a day. Tim1357 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just curious, have there been any developments on this? Equazcion (talk) 08:05, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Bug vote Question: do the developers pay any attention to the voting on bugs at Bugzilla? If so, would it be worth making an effort to identify (perhaps via RFC) some bugs the community thinks particularly important, and then get people to vote for those? A general discussion on management of bugs might be helpful, as there isn't (AFAIK) any single place on Wikipedia that discusses these. Rd232 talk 10:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - I guess they pay some attention, but generally they don't much care about (or are quite unaware of) what users feel they need. There really ought to be a forum for proper on-wiki dialogue involving both editors and developers, so that solutions can be arrived at constructively and action taken to implement them. Bugzilla doesn't really work in this regard. --Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes developers do pay some attention to votes, but it is usually not a very compelling factor in determining developer behavior. Most of the bugs with a lot of votes are "supported" in the sense that yes we'd like to do that, but often the changes required are complicated for one reason or another and so no one has picked up the project. I agree with Kotniski that the community (on both sides) could probably benefit from an on-wiki discussion forum (at Mediawiki.org?) for feature requests, as bugzilla is not a good medium for the community to express it's preferences. Dragons flight (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, they're pretty much ignored by us. We keep voting enabled, as it makes for a good bookmarking system if you don't want to necessarily be on the CC list for a bug. As far as using it to establish priority/importance, I've never once looked at the number of votes. As far as discussions with devs...I'm hesitant to suggest using mw.org as a discussion forum as we pretty much use that for documentation; very little discussion takes place there at all. ^demon[omg plz] 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - I think the structural problem is more that very little discussion between devs and editors takes place anywhere. A few devs visit forums like this, but its very ad hoc, and many devs never visit. Right now there isn't anywhere that is really set aside for community discussion of new features, so we end up with VPT threads that quickly disappear, hard to find Wikipedia: pages, threads on Meta, and chatty bugzilla entries that aren't very helpful. If you've got a better suggestion about where to have the community discuss the development of Mediawiki rather than mw.org, I'd love to hear it, but it seems the most logical of the wiki spaces to me. Dragons flight (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the developers are most active on IRC in #mediawiki, it's easy to ping most of us there. The wikitech-l and mediawiki-l lists are good, and Bugzilla is the ultimate place to discuss bugs/feature requests. Of course "me too" comments are unhelpful and clutter discussion, but on-topic posts to Bugzilla are certainly welcome. I can tell you that most developers aren't interested in wading into massive enwiki discussion, they're long-winded and prone to losing focus. Typically, we like shorter discussions that cover the essential points :) Perhaps we do need a place on mw.org where we can list stuff of specific importance to various WMF communities, linking to bugs/threads/whatever so we can get a quick and condensed version of what the community needs. ^demon[omg plz] 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, there are ways for individual Wikipedians to "ping" a dev. This is fine for pointing out bugs. It's not great for asking for new features. If JohnQWikipedian comes up and says: "enwiki needs more flying monkeys", it is hard to know if that is merely his opinion, or really an opinion of the enwiki community, and if it is a community opinion how the demand for "flying monkeys" compares to the need for "sexy starfish", etc. So, in general, only the very loudest and most insistent requests (often made through multiple channels) actually sink into the developer consciousness and get attention, while many other good ideas get filed into bugzilla only to disappear into obscurity. I agree that most developers don't want to be sorting through piles on discussion. They want to have a result / summary to work from. That's fine. But right now though, we don't have a good process for identifying/discussing which features it is that the community wants so there isn't a good way of producing a credible summary. Dragons flight (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good summary of the problem. So, what can we do about it? How can we produce results on What The Community Wants? RFC? WikiProject? New Village Pump subpage? I found Wikipedia:Feature request (archive) linked from Wikipedia talk:Bug reports and feature requests, so some effort to do this has been made in the past. Rd232 talk 08:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a bit more complex than has been suggested (and this is why bugzilla doesn't work). It's not that users get together and decide what they want, then they tell a developer, and the developer does it (or in practice, doesn't do it). There needs to be developer involvement in the discussion from an early stage, so that the dev can explain what's easy, difficult or totally unfeasible, what side effects might come up and so on, and so that users can modify their expectations on this basis, and so that a consensus is reached involving users and dev(s) that can actually be acted on in a fairly short time-frame. Anything that splits users and devs into two separate communities is a bad thing and leads to warped priorities - we're all on the same side here, working for the same goal, and there needs to be full and effective cooperation.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - It's a valid point on needing that sort of input, but it's surely unrealistic to expect devs to spend substantial time involved in such discussions. There are WP editors who know a lot about the software and its use - getting them involved in such a centralised discussion would help a lot. And if necessary specific questions can be asked of devs, via some established and preferably public/recorded (not IRC) channel, and hopefully answered. Is there such a channel? Is there such a centralised discussion? Not to my knowledge. Rd232 talk 11:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's a need, but I don't agree that's it's unrealistic to expect devs to join in discussions. We're working together - we should all be talking to each other. Devs must and doubtless do discuss things so that they know what's expected and what's going to work - at the moment I suspect that the time they spend on discussion is spent discussing with each other, which serves only half the purpose. The sickness is well illustrated by the comments above where it's admitted that devs pay little attention to votes on bugzilla. They live in their own world; they think they know what's wanted and needed, and are contemptuous of anyone telling them that the priorities should be different. This isn't a criticism of anyone personally; it's presumably the system that brings about such attitudes, and we can try to change that system. (Though I'm not too optimistic about it happening unless some very senior dev recognizes the problem.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah it is an interesting clash of cultures. However, what the wider community (and this goes for most popular open source projects) often forgets, is that the developers are there to code and most of them do this for free. It is their love for a project that makes them want to work on it. Now from experience I can tell you that there is nothing more unmotivating for a developer than wading trough discussion after discussion of complaints and rants. Most of it is crap you can't use, and most of all, it cuts into the limited amount of time you have available as a developer to donate to the project (every hour you read, you cannot write code). This is HUGELY underestimated by most people, because most people are used to companies where people get paid to deal with your problem.
- Fragmentation of the communication methods also comes into play. Think about this: the developers publish news via blog, communicate via IRC, discuss on the mailinglist, keep score via bugzilla, document via wiki. That are already 5 systems you need to keep up with that really have nothing to do with actually writing the code (another 3 systems (svn/codereview/commitlogs) to keep up with). Entering into discussion with non-peers however would be the most time consuming of all that and is yet another platform you need to keep up with. It's not that it's not possible, but it's chaotic and hard to implement in a way that isn't too obstructive.
- The most common solution is to have people in between. A type of "ambassadors" who understand enough about the technology and the community to clearly and appropriately communicate ideas and bugs to developers and communicate back the issues that developers run into delaying a feature for over 6 years. This is quite common in businesses, but in volunteering work, it's work that only few people volunteer for. I used to spent hours a day on a forum of an open source project trying to be a bridge. So much that I almost didn't write any code myself at some point, but at least OTHERS were getting some work done. In essence that is also what you see on VP/T. People on IRC and the mailing-list who are not developers, try to create a bridge between en.wp and the developers, but it's a big project and a lot of communication.
- The usability team tries to communicate more directly with the community by having feedback pages on their wiki pages, but because they never answer anything there, it seems more like a dumpground for opinions. It would be good if they indicated there that they had at least read the feedback. This is something for the new CTO to deal with and put some energy into. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with all that. Hence my vague idea to try and create a better filter within the community on what we want to communicate to devs. If we could periodically agree on some key points via that filter (maybe a monthly summary?), and have a clear channel for communicating those key points (maybe via "ambassadors"), giving small amounts of useful information to devs, we'd be getting somewhere communication-wise. Rd232 talk 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- We could try. Do we know who the new CTO is, by the way, so we can ask him/her what he/she thinks about all this? (Or following on from what the DJ says, could the "usability team" - again I'm a bit vague on who they are - in fact taken on the role of "ambassadors"? Though I'm really unconvinced by people who say that developers' time is wasted by talking directly to their fellow wikians - the rest of us have to do it - though I'm not suggesting they should trawl through other people's discussions.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is no new CTO yet :( The usability team is really not suited to take on the role. They have a dedicated task, and they should not defer from that too much. Also, we as wikians kinda do the same. The AbuseFilter and the anti vandalism bots for instance are a part of our "filters" for dealing with stuff we don't really want to deal with. We need to come up with a system that will filter for the developers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the problems is the popular use of "bug" tracking software to report both "bugs" (malfunctions) and "not bugs" (feature requests, complaints about "antifeatures", etc.). The latter being situations where the software is working as designed but it's producing behavior that some find undesirable or annoying. This makes the less tech savvy users view anything they don't like about the software as a "bug" even though it may be working properly. Also, I never liked the term "WONTFIX" which seems to be saying "yes we know it's broke but we're going to leave it broke". IMHO no report on a "real bug" should ever be "WONTFIXed". If the developers of mediawiki, or any software for that matter, decide not to change a "not a bug" or not to implement a feature request for whatever reason, a better term for closing such reports might be "AINTBROKE". If it is a bona fide malfunction that simply can't be corrected in the current version of the software then it should be called "CANTFIX". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - Hmm, that would just be a name change. It would be better to have a meaningful assessment for each bug or request - how much work it would require, what its priority is, and consequently how long we can reasonably expect to have to wait for it to be addressed. At the moment we just don't know - and we're left to make workaround decisions which often depend on how long the bug/featurelessness is going to remain in place.--Kotniski (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unless the change is deemed to be so important that its assigned to a paid developer who actually does have an obligation to meet deadlines or the person making the estimate is about to start working on it immediately, any such estimate would typically be a wild guess. For example, it took about 7 months before someone got to bug 18019http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18019, but the fix itself only took about an hour to do. Mr.Z-man 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that situation's pretty common. It's really frustrating making these requests, knowing that they won't take much time to solve, but getting no response as to when anyone's going to get round to them. Anyway, who does the deeming? Surely users' votes should be the main criterion when deciding what's important and what isn't? --Kotniski (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I share your frustration and have found that in most cases Bugzilla is a graveyard for feature and improvement requests, with or without voting. It seems that the only way something gets implemented is by getting a developer interested by other means. Of course this is frustrating and unprofessional, but reminiscent of other community-driven project such as Firefox. Cacycle (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well we seem to agree on the problem... How about this, as a starting point discussion on doing something about it: (a) Wikipedia:MediaWiki/Discussion (b) Wikipedia:MediaWiki/Discussion/For Developers. B would be updated infrequently, perhaps on the first of every month, as a summary of the current views and questions emerging from A. After each update, devs would be notified, maybe via IRC, and asked to comment/reply. Rd232 talk 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - The problem is more the work ethics of the developers which is mostly driven by personal interests and choices, higher priority fixes, and sexy new features. It is also not really possible to enforce any additional work on volunteers from outside. The only solution would be a self-imposed agreement between developers to clean up the Bugzilla backlogs in a systematic and serious fashion, perhaps guided by the number of votes and the date of the request. Cacycle (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. Well-structured communication of the community's priorities, as a sort of peer pressure, seems more likely to be achievable, and to have some effect. Rd232 talk 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you can't force volunteers to do anything, but peer pressure works wonders (except that something someone said above implies that developers don't consider editors to be their peers, hmmm...) Though I think it's important to bug the new CTO (or perhaps the people making the choice of CTO, if the process is ongoing) on this issue; someone who's getting paid - by us, in a way - ought to be even more responsive to the needs of the project. --Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well if we're not peers, then surely we're customers or something? Either way, a clear, brief, occasional exposition of what we want ought to have some significance for them. Rd232 talk 20:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, we are different groups. That has always been the problem. Sets of volunteers, dedicated to an encyclopedia, but all with different amount of time and skills. The developers don't work for us, they donate TO us, to help us write (or maintain). To structurize those donations in a useful way is almost a form of art. Only the element that structurizes might be steered by us. This used to be brion, but he was less of CTO, than he was an engineer. Lets hope that with a new CTO we can influence that focus and improve the communication. And sure, we can invite and discuss, but it's not like the developers are unreachable, unreasonable or without focus. Perhaps it would suit the community to once in a while venture out of their comfort zone of wiki just as much as it would benefit developers to be active on wiki. We forget that as "hostile" or strange as some consider the core developer community, our own community is bound by similar rules and conventions, that can be difficult to understand for outside developers. And we need to remember that we are just one wiki in over 1000s that are benefitting of the work of the developers of course. We may be important but we are certainly not the only wiki with opinions. We cannot expect developers to participate in all 200 language variants of wikipedia + all the other installations. I don't think a Wikipedia:MediaWiki/Discussion would work, but I do think that we should make a plea to the future CTO when he comes aboard to make this communication one of his focal points. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- "I don't think a Wikipedia:MediaWiki/Discussion would work" - why not? You say we can't expect developers to "participate", but that's not what I proposed. I proposed developing a sort of Monthly Memo, which they would hopefully read and ideally respond to. The memo, after being produced each month, could be pushed anywhere more helpful than en.wp, if it makes any difference. And you say the developers are not unreachable - maybe not, but precious few people have any idea how to reach them (and that's probably a good thing - we don't want to flood them). Rd232 talk 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- As I mentioned above, if I were organizing I would lean towards having something like mw:Feature requests as a organizing front, which would be a wiki environment accessible to the community, but also a single point of reference rather than having every wiki community develop their own feedback mechanism. One advantage is that Mediawiki.org is one of the places the developers "live". A drawback is that Mediawiki.org has not historically been used for much discussion and it is unclear if people would really embrace it for that purpose. Regardless of location, I think the solution needs at least two functional pieces. 1) A discussion forum to consider various proposals and strive for consensus about what is wanted and technically reasonable, and 2) a review process to summarize what is approved and propose implementation steps that need to be taken in a way that provides clear and direct guidance to developers. Ideally members of the technical staff would be involved in both pieces, but especially the latter. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
As a foot note to the above discussions, I would be rather surprised if the CTO hire had "helps coordinate between editor and developer communities" as a much of a requirement. Wikimedia is top ten web destination with hundreds of servers in multiple data centers. I would assume the CTO's first priority is meeting the hardware needs of the organization and coordinating foundation software initiatives to make the best use of available hardware. Yes, there is a strong managerial and communication component to the CTO job, but working with editors would probably be low on the list of communication priorities compared to working with developers and foundation staff. More realistically, one might hope a staff developer (but someone less highly ranked than CTO) would be put in charge of facilitating community-led initiatives. Dragons flight (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What we could do is maintaining a list of enhancement requests, by topic, relevant to the English Wikipedia; it could help to coordinate the efforts at the community-level and developers may find interest in one request or another; it may be a step towards a better communication between the community and the technical staff. Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal I have an idea. What if the Foundation asks the developers, the sysadmins, the staff, the en.wp community, the commons community and 5 other smaller language communities to write a "Plea" to the next CTO? Describing the main issues and problems they would like the next CTO to take into account. That way the new CTO can get an overview of the challenges, opinions and emotions of the different groups he will need to work with. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - That's probably worth trying, but I see no reason why it should compete with my en.wp Monthly Memo, to give my proposal above a crappy handle. Rd232 talk 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WP:DevMemo I've created WP:DevMemo as an attempt at implementing my idea of a structured discussion on communicating with the developers, and generally organising our thoughts on what we actually want. Comments please, and pitching in, and watching the page. Rd232 talk 15:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Floating an idea (knowing it'll be shot down, because nothing changes here) It's rather easy to gauge how up-to-date a published encyclopedia article is by its publication date. but not so easy with a wikipedia article. So what about a "last updated" field on the mainpage? Sure, it wouldn't be foolproof, but at least it would be a better guide than the one that doesn't exist now. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - I think we already have this, in the footer of every page: "This page was last modified on...", to the right of the Wikimedia logo. Equazcion (talk) 05:24, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I see that stamp actually isn't on the main page though, if that's what you were referring to. I wonder why... Equazcion (talk) 05:27, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- It is on every (non-Special) page, including the Main Page—but the Main Page has some CSS to make it disappear, at least for both Monobook and Vector, each in their respective MediaWiki:Foo.css page. To put that on the Main Page would be as simple as deleting a line or so of code in each page and waiting a month or so for the caches of unregistered users to expire. Now, I don't see what the usefulness of this would be, since that would only reflect the last time that the Main Page was edited, not the whole of Wikipedia—and the whole of Wikipedia is edited so often that such a piece of data would likely be largely useless anyway. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't understand why anyone would care were it implemented. Can you explain, Malleus? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's hidden away in small text at the bottom of the page, I agree, where probably nobody ever looks. But I was proposing something of equal prominence to the FA bronze star. --Malleus Fatuorum
-
-
- Seems to be some confusion here, probably my fault. I'm talking about a prominent display of when each article was last updated. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you want the 'last updated' stamp to be more prominent. I could agree there. I never really notice it. I think the present display is just for technical attribution and reference purposes, rather than something practical that people are supposed to notice. Could be something to consider. Equazcion (talk) 05:48, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- That I can see getting shot down (forgive me :P ). While I agree that the information is interesting, I think that neither the average reader nor the power-user will benefit from this proposed change—the information is already there, just it's not in the reader's face. Putting it in the user's face rather than leaving it in the footer is either a) annoying for the reader, who has more chrome-text to ignore, b) a usability failure for the newbie editor, who would therefore have more chrome-text to read, or c) annoying for the power-user, who will likely hide it as irrelevant, since for any decent page analysis they'd use the history page anyway. I don't see the use nature or use frequency of the feature as justifying a more prominent placement. Are there particular benefits to making it so prominent? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 06:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)When you consult an encyclopedia, do you care if it's the 1911 edition or the 2009 edition? If you don't, then of course my suggestion falls on deaf ears, as I knew that it would. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument. It's natural that I would care about the difference between a 1911 edition and a 2009 edition, but it's silly to expect there to be such a sizable distinction if the difference in time is a second or two at most (as I mentioned) as opposed to the 98 years you give as a straw man. It is a reasonable assumption that the encyclopedia as a whole was last edited less than five seconds ago. For individual articles the difference is more interesting, but still of trivial use for most readers, and therefore not useful in a prominent position. I would broadly advocate making the interface as simple as possible, and this proposal seems to run counter to that principle. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The "silly" argument is the one that you've just put forward. If I'm looking at an article on, say, the 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire, and I see that it hasn't been updated since 2005 then I know immediately that it's out of date. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not silly, because I specifically said "For individual articles the difference is more interesting, but still of trivial use for most readers". I like the availability of the information, but I don't think that it needs to be made more prominent. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) A lot of times when I'm reading a article, usually after having looked up an obscure topic, I'll not notice how old the revision is. I've found myself wandering in the history of a page and being surprised by how long it's been since the page was updated. That can really cast an entirely different light on an article. I think the time that information was last updated is crucial, and is usually obvious in other mediums. The stamp doesn't need to be so prominent as to be bothersome. Just a time and date, perhaps as Malleus suggests, in the upper-right corner, small, where FA icons go. Equazcion (talk) 06:21, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Attempted and failed. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- The majority seemed to be in support.What made that discussion a failure? Did you ever try filing a bug? Equazcion (talk) 06:24, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- The majority was in support of adding an "elapsed time" field next to the existing "last modified field", but not for making either field more prominent. A bug for adding said field was filed: [1] --Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's too bad. I really think the mockup has promise Equazcion (talk) 06:31, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC) →
- This should really be revisited. It seems very intuitive to me, even expected on web sites now, on pages where information get updated. Equazcion (talk) 06:33, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- That mockup is exactly the sort of thing I want to see. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not me. I'm unsure of the merits altogether, but I'd definitely oppose "2 hours since last edit" style, a last-modified-style "This version dated xx/xx/xxxx yy:yy" would be better formatwise. I'm unsure not least because many articles don't really need much updating, and others need it a lot, and so the reader may not know how to interpret the last-modified; and it will definitely encourage dummy edits to bump the last-modified. Rd232 talk 07:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(retab) To be honest, having anything more than what we currently have right now seems kinda pointless. Pages are getting edited all the time. And, as any college student will tell you, no one is using Wikipedia as a source for a paper or project (using Wikipedia's sources however is an entirely different matter). I'm not opposed to changing it around, I just don't really get why it's an issue. Articles of significance, from what I've seen, getting updated regularly, and articles of some random obscure thing may not get updated that often simply because there may not be any real info that can be added. Anakinjmt (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC) If, as appears to be the case, this isn’t going to be changed, perhaps there could be a user script for those of us who do want to see this displayed prominently at the top of the page? MTC (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - This will never be implemented due the need to cache pages and time based variables negating that affect. Just like {{{currentuser}}} variables that people want this will never happen server side. This would make every page un-cacheable due to the variance in time. If this is implemented it would have to be done with client side JavaScript. βcommand 11:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen sites use the calculated "time since" on pages that have changed within 24 hours, switch to a "yesterday @ [time]" for pages changed 24-48 hours ago, then just show the date and time for everything after that. If the "time since" only needs to be calculated and cached for pages that changed in the last 24 hours, I think that'd be relatively little strain on the servers. Equazcion (talk) 13:33, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between a minor edit fixing a typo or reverting vandalism and an update where someone has reviewed the article. So if this goes ahead I would suggest ignoring minor and rolled back edits. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I threw together a script at User:Anomie/lastmod.js to put the last modified date in the corner. But do note that it doesn't even try to determine whether it's really "last modified 2 years ago, except for a vandalism+revert/interwiki bot edit/minor punctuation adjustment 3 minutes ago", as that would require far too much effort downloading past revisions. Anomie⚔ 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - That's awesome Anomie, thanks! Looks nice. This would be nice to include in gadgets. I still think it should be considered as an across-the-board implementation though, in MediaWiki. Equazcion (talk) 15:51, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that the spot where coordinates are usually located btw ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I just went with the positioning suggested above, if someone has a better suggestion I'll see about changing the script. Personally, I wouldn't want that to be enabled for everyone, but it should be easy for someone to gadgetify if there is sufficient demand. Anomie⚔ 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we instead be encouraging readers to check the history of a page to ensure that A) It is up to date, and B) hasn't been vandalized seconds before they load it? This is the reason wikipedia is looked at as semi-untrustworthy: because you never know when you are viewing a vandalized page - Unless you check the history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - As a frequent disambig fixer, I am quite certain that the date or time of the last edit often bears no relation to the degree to which the article is up-to-date. I'm sure I've made edits where the only thing I was doing was fixing a disambig link to an article that otherwise had not been touched in years - but it now indicates that it was edited very recently. bd2412 T 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WikiContest (or WikiTournament) Very simple:
The WikiCup is held every year, which may be a very long period (in my opinion). How about an event within a month? (could be also in periods of two or three months). Like the WikiCup, each participant with his flagicon (but in this case, can be repeated). Two categories: minor league —in which only mainspace edits, page creation and minor edits are counted (individually) and major league —in which previous is considered, but also more points for upgrading to featured status, GA, DYK, etc.
Also, contributions to other wikimedia projects could be considered for users with global accounts (to verify the right). These could be uploading images, translations (from or to another language, news, etc...) which may form part of an actual series of contributions to an article here. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 14:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC) -
- Anything that encourages article creation is a good idea. I'm all for it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, I agree, but making a contest/tournament out of it may encourage mass-creation of articles just because a user wants to increase their contest/tournament standings. Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game site. Guoguo12 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is certainly nothing that prohibits someone from setting something like this up. However, it is a lot of work so don't be surprised if no one volunteers to run it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I can't say I like this idea. I see too many editors getting huge edit counts by adding indiscriminate trivia to articles. This is something to be discouraged rather than encouraged. I agree there is a need for more recognition efforts of editors, especially for some of the more thankless tasks such as fact checking. But I would rather see an award for making a single very good addition rather than 100 bad ones.--RDBury (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- These kinds of games should not be encouraged. That one of the goals is to encourage development of articles is a good thing; the notion of awarding people with prizes, even if they are nothing more than a silly graphic to post on their userpage, is not something the project should condone. But I'm just a grumpy fun-hater, so feel free to ignore me :p Shereth 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Wowow, now, I never thought or talked about awards... Actually, when I posted this proposal here, I totally forgot about prizes or recognitions. I see you two talked about awards, and now that I think of it, maybe using just the existing awards (if desired) is just fine, I mean, we don´t have to create new ones or neither even give them forcibly. About that thing of the non-totally-enciclopedic edits, well I think it should be encouraged the making of more constructive edits instead of discouraging games which aims to that. But that´s just my opinion of something that I wanted to come up with. More opinions would be also apreciated again. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, in any kind of contest/game/competition there is an inherent award. To use a broader example, even if the Yankees had not been awarded a trophy for winning the World Series, they would still be awarded the title of "World Series Champion" for the year. A winner of a monthly WikiTournament, even if no one bothers with creating a trophy graphic to paste on their talk page, is still awarded with the title of "Winner of WikiTournament November". That's what I was getting at, really - it is my philosophy that we should not be in the habit of doling out titles/awards/recognitions, particularly when they might be sought out as a reward for winning something. I have no issues with the Barnstars that are granted individually for services already rendered. Again, it's all just my opinion. Shereth 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here's another thought. Some editors have taken it upon themselves to recognize editors that they view as "outstanding" with a Wikipedian of the Day/Month type award. To me this sort of arrangement is acceptable because no one is competing for the title; it is not granted based on reaching a certain set of goals/criteria first (or best), but rather is granted by identifying someone's existing contributions and rewards them for making good contributions without any anticipation of a reward. Therein lies the difference. I'd have no qualms about a group of intersted editors forming a kind of task force to identify good Wikipedians and "reward" them with being recognized as such, but formal competitions are not the sort of thing that I believe should be encouraged. Shereth 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A prize, even if it is a fancy barnstar, gives a goal to reach for. Why do we have an edit count? Why do we have barnstars that you "qualify" for by edit count/longevity? Prizes make people feel good, and they drive their ambitions. A prize just gives people, in all their vanity, something to attain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Perhaps I just prefer encouraging those editors whose goal they wish to attain is a valuable and reputable encyclopedia over those editors whose goal is a userpage full of barnstars and DYK question marks and shiny FA stars ... but again, that's just me :) In my perfect little world there would be no edit counts, no FA stars on userpages ... but I understand Wikipedia is not my perfect little world and that I am probably just being too serious for my own good. Shereth 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If Wikipedia only had editors who were working purely out of selflessness, we would not be nearly as successful as we are now; we may not have been successful at all. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think a 'game' like this one is a very good way to encourage editors to make a valuable and reputable encyclopedia. Even if their goal is only to have a barnstar, I don´t care as long as it helps to improve wikipedia. And yes, there are some edits which are not much valuable like the trivia sections, but we could find a way to avoid that and use this game to the benefit of wikipedia. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Improve the external links section Hello, I recently had the pleasure to talk with the former chair of the board of Wikimedia Foundation Anthere. I explained the interest of having the Webzzle Explore permalinks (or button) in Wikipedia pages and now we would like to get your opinion regarding this value proposal. To show you a demo of what it could be with your agreement, we added the links to 2 pages in French and in English. Please keep them for the next 15 days in order to discuss the topic together. English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_%28wine%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne,_France French http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_de_Champagne http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_%28province%29
Either you find it interesting and we can work together to improve Webzzle, either you do not like and we won't go further with Wikipedia.
We developed Webzzle for 4 reasons: - 1 - Extend the use of Wikipedia. With the Webzzle Explore feature in a Wikipedia page, the Wikipedia editors can add more value to their content and offer the end-users the possibility to find more related relevant knowledge regarding the topic of the Wikipedia page. - 2 - Improve the relevance of external links. Webzzle ranks external links using a new "mutual-rank" technology. Webzzle uses concepts, Objects and Objects Structures instead of keywords and list of keywords to describe a content. Each action of a contributor is used to score a content. By analogy, It's similar to the Google PageRank but in 2 dimensions (URLs and Users). The score of a URL is calculated using the scores of the users who qualified it and the score of a user is calculated using the scores of the URLs he qualified. It's a virtuous system solving the problem on how to score URLs and Users in a social network. We work on that since 1999. The technology has been developed by a start-up and used at the CNRS (National Center of Scientific Research, as famous as NASA in France) to qualify and find expertise, document and Web resources regarding a specific topic. Like a mutual insurance business, our ranking technology works very well if they are more community users than spammers per topic as it should be the case if you like Webzzle. The quality increases as the number of users and URLs increase. - 3 - Reduce the work of editors. A link qualified with several concepts can be relevant to other Wikipedia pages automatically. Editors can benefit from the work of other editors without doing anything. The more editors will qualify links in Webzzle, the less the workload to maintain external links will be and the best the quality will be. - 4 - Remove spammers from Wikipedia. Today, commercial sites want to appear in Wikipedia to benefit from the traffic. Instead of removing these sites from Wikipedia all the time, we propose to put them in Webzzle. If these links are good, they will naturally get a good Mutual-Rank score. If they are bad, they will not be presented in the first results (after some run of the mutual-rank algorithms). FYI, most of the links in Webzzle today come from a virtual Webzzle user. We use this user to fight spammers too. This user has the ability to be over-weighted in order to increase the quality. We also have a “Trust-Rank” mechanism used to put to 0 the score of a user acting as a spammer. The Webzzle technology is patended. The technology is free to use for non-competitive projects. We look forward to having a positive talk with you. Xavier Vaucois. xavier (dot) vaucois (at) webzzle (dot) com - I'll just say this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Effectively wanting editors to outsource these things to a third-party does not help the ideas of generating a free (as in speech) encyclopedia. Q T C 08:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with OverlordQ on this one. Also, if the software isn't open source, you'll have a hard time convincing the community to jump on board. We're rather leery of non-free (Speech & Beer) solutions to problems. 76.123.56.217 (talk)
- I'm also really unclear what this is solving. Aren't we just introducing a link guide this way ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Since the Webzzle link in Champagne (wine) has been reverted twice:
-
-
-
- This results in a bunch of links, similar to most search engines. I poked around, but I don't see how these links are generated or ranked, so I don't see anything that differs from Google or Bing. We do often link to pages in the Open Directory Project, which is clear in how links are added and allows folks to suggest or change links. I just don't see the use or advantages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like the point of this is to add spam for this "Webzzle" rather than remove it. This thread on wikitech-l may also be relevant. Anomie⚔ 13:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am here to discuss with you. I posted this long message just to explain and invite discussion following a constructive talk I had with Anthere. DMOZ has links in the same manner as Webzzle. In our case, the links are set by editors (with the Save feature you can find on our site). I think DMOZ is a directory that was good, that ages now and that does not benefit from the effort of qualification of editors. We propose to build a collaborative system benefiting from new mutual-rank technology, a kind of DMOZ using collaborative technologies and Google ranking technologies if you want. Regarding patents, I gave them away (public domain). Anyone can use the technology. I put that sentence because I wouldn't like to see a dishonest person doing a Web Explorer based on the same technlogy. It's also very important to understand "why use Webzzle?". Me too, I use Google. But what do you do to go on the Web from Wikipedia in general ? On our side, we go back to Google and launch several combinations of different keywords and open many useless pages. With Webzzle we could enjoy the benefits of the work of editors through a "Social Search" if you want. There would be an engine not to get on Wikipedia, but leave with more quality. It's a new use of Wikipedia. Regarding spam, I repeat that if the editors qualify the links in Webzzle, the real spammers will not be presented thanks to the mutual-rank technology. Finally, since the time of the link on Wikitech, I had the chance to explain at least to Anthere and this is why I propose to talk about the interest of Webzzle for editors and end-users today. Don't you really think the value proposal is not worth for editors and end-users ? Webzzle - We are having the beginning of a good talk on the french bistro. On the English version, is anybody interesting in having a new section in Wikipedia to put DMOZ and Webzzle links ? Does anybody want to experiment a demo with me ? 12:53, 5 November 2009 User:88.166.5.153
Webzzle [edit] Disambiguation pages are not articles Per Wikipedia:What is an article?, disambiguation pages are not articles. But why do we continue to count them as ones?? This has been brought up before and garnered support and concensus, but never implemented. I believe they can easily be counted separately from actual articles by adding a tag such as #DISAMBIG, just like #REDIRECT. These can simply by transluded through the templates on ever dab page identifying it as such. Can we please implement this to prevent us from continuing to believe that dab pages are articles? Thanks, Reywas92Talk 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) - What's the practical issue at stake here? Are you concerned about the total article count that Wikipedia claims? Or what? Equazcion (talk) 00:35, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Who says we are counting them as articles? AFAIK they already aren't, so I'm not sure what you mean. PC78 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Disambig pages are not counted as articles currently. MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage details the templates which place disambiguation pages into Special:Disambiguations, which again, aren't counted toward current article count. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well I thought they still counted at Special:Statistics and other counts. Can you point me to a discussion or other page that says that? They show up at Special:Newpages. And Special:Disambiguations lists articles that incorrectly link to a dab page, not dab pages themselves. Reywas92Talk 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- You are mistaken. As reported at Special:Statistics and in {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, "content pages" are every page in a content namespace (for enwiki this is just article space) with length greater than 0 and which is not marked as a redirect. There is no exception in code [2] for disambiguation pages. Dragons flight (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- An issue here is that while redirects have a clear technical meaning in all wikis, the concept of "non-content" article space pages (such as disambiguation page, index pages, list pages, or other things) currently has no clear definition in the database. Instead it is a purely content based distinction created by local contributors. This means that as one moves from one wiki to another, one may encounter different expectations about what should count as a "content" page. A label like #DISAMBIG might make sense here, but it wouldn't make sense on site not using disambigs. A more general label like __NOTCONTENT__ might makes sense. Developers generally would like solutions to be broad enough to work for all Mediawiki wikis. For the sake of argument, suppose we were to create a NOTCONTENT flag, are there uses for this other than the article count? Dragons flight (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- In defense of disambig pages, they're almost articles: they contain visible, encyclopedic content, including wikilinks, see-also sections, sometimes contain footnotes, infoboxes, and sister project links, and except for the additional MOS rules, we write them the same. None of that applies to redirects. • Anakin (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Disambig pages should not contain infoboxes or footnotes. The full guide is at WP:MOSDAB. They're meant to be as simple-as-possible, purely a signpost at the crossroads.
- I've replied further to Dragons flight at his talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well some do have infoboxes. Personally think I they're better for it. See Connor for example. The alternative is to split it into two (three?) articles, which seems less navigable. • Anakin (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's a disambig page mixed with a {{surname}}/{{given name}} page (hence containing Name infoboxes). WikiProject Anthroponymy advises us to list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Splits_from_disambiguation_pages after splitting, or add them to Category:Disambiguation pages in need of being split.
- The WikiProject Disambiguation says "These are also not disambiguation pages, although short lists may be embedded on disambiguation pages until they are long enough to split off." Opinions vary, on how long is "long enough" ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand now. Thanks for the links. • Anakin (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Random article suggestion It would be cool if we could edit the random article link to only give us random article in categories we like, or areas we like to help out. like if we are on the welcoming committee, random unwelcomed user.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - If people seem unwilling to respond to this proposal, be assured that it is most likely not because they disagree with it per se, but that it has been looked at in the past and, as of now, there exists no sufficiently "clean" way of implementing this in the current software structure. Or, I believe not, anyhow. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like an interesting job for an outside website to do, rather like the suggesting some music based on your past selections. Probably not something the man and a dog running wikipedia would want to get involved in though. They always have the search box for straightforward things they are interested in and then click on see alsos. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Butchering of whole sentences (with sources) just because someone didn't think they "looked" right I refer to the butchering of whole sourced sentences from introductory passages - or otherwise - that someone - often very frequent visitor of a page - comes in, deletes completely and puts as a reason "it was too long for the introductory paragraph" or "it doesn't look right there". example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA&action=historysubmit&diff=323590547&oldid=323556736 If you think you are so right about it, then at least incorporate it to the rest of the article (since it wasn't redundant). Butchering whole sentences just because someone didn't think they "looked" right or even when they don't perfectly follow etiquette of positioning in the article but when they are sourced and not redundant should be an "offense". This is not about a single occurrence, this is a trend, I don't refer to the above example or the above individual, but to the trend having people watching pages and deleting indiscriminately sourced information just because it doesn't "look" right. I suggest a rule denying that. The excuse "it didn't look right there 'cause that etiquette rule says so I blatantly delete sourced information that isn't redundant should stop. Sure, wikipedia has plenty of editors and someone may eventually come and make a perfect submission obeying every single etiquette but having such a large group of elitists deleting sourced information just because it didn't "look" right, it drives people away from wikipedia, it brings its work back and in the end it destroys its productivity. As in evolution in nature, there is not "perfection form the drawing board", evolution is a process of amendment. --fs 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - It looks like the sentence that was "butchered" was added by you in the previous edit [3]. I have never been involved with that article at all, so I can give an outside opinion: it does look like the sentence you added is out of place in the lede. Especially with well-established, long articles (DNA is 97kb), new additions need to be carefully integrated into the article, not simply added to the lede. Otherwise, articles get "overgrown lede syndrome", like a tumor on the side of a tree.
- Now that the text you added has been removed once, I would suggest discussing your proposed addition on the talk page. But do try to find a way to integrate your addition into structure that has already been developed for the article, rather than simply ignoring that structure. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also as an outside opinion, such a lengthy remark to make the basic point that the analogy is not perfect seems excessive. Analogies are never perfect and rational readers will understand this. I think that editors are obliged to treat such contributions respectfully, but not required to work them into the structure of an article where its not clear that they would be useful at all. I think Tim Vickers did a good job in this instance. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed original songs based on daily Today's Featured Article I'm interested in starting a podcast of original songs written for kids and families, and in which I would write and publish a new song each day. I though it would be interesting for each song to be inspired by whatever happens to be Today's Featured Article at Wikipedia. Naturally, I could simply do this and leave it at that. Recalling "In Popular Culture" sections from many Wikipedia articles, it occurred to me that this might be a possibility here, adding mention of the song in the featured article itself. I'd imagine doing so in a way that was consistent across the articles but also, of course, in conformance with Wikipedia protocols. Yesterday, I contacted Wikimedia Foundation about this, and they told me that the Village Pump was the appropriate place to discuss this, as such proposals are resolved not via email by anyone in particular but, rather, within the community of editors. They also expressed this concern about a possible conflict of interest, noting that referencing the podcasts in front page content might be seen as promotional. They encouraged me to discuss this here at the Village Pump prior to implementation to avoid my intentions being misconstrued and/or my account being blocked from contributing and/or my website being blacklisted from inclusion on Wikipedia. I certainly don't want to -- and will not -- do anything that would be contrary to accepted policies, nor anything that would endanger either my account or my website(s). Hence this post, in good faith, to discuss the idea. Any feedback would be welcome. Thanks. - The podcast, fine, but in popular culture sections are sometimes frowned upon (like this...). I think no, since (no offence) the podcast is probably not notable enough to mention without making Wikipedia an indiscriminate source of endless information.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't think there's anything to prevent you from doing a song on the featured article, or anything else for that matter. However it would probably be better to post it to your own website or something like YouTube, not Wikipedia.--RDBury (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Get rid of PROD I've been thinking about it for a while now. The process involved in PROD, while ideally designed to reduce the workload at afd, leaves too many articles open for deletion that simply don't have anyone watching them. Articles that have inherent notability (such as many facets of geographical locations. Towns and such in countries that do not have any involved English editors) can often be deleted without notice to anyone. These articles are not "less important" because they do not have any sources, or because they haven't changed in several years, or because they contain a bare minimum of information. These articles have broken the ground where other editors will one day expand upon and fill in information. In short, PROD only determines that nobody is watching an article, not that its deletion is uncontested. All non-speedy deletions merit some discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - I don't know of an admin that would delete an article through PROD that they believe has poor reasoning to be deleted... I don't totally disagree with you, but there are people who watch WP:PRODSUM too.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds more like an argument of deletionism versus inclusionism. As noted above, WP:PROD doesn't automatically delete pages after seven days. It still comes down to a judgment call by the acting admin. --King Öomie 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Admins should not be deleting article on-sight merely because they are an expired PROD. Spurious nominations can (and should be) declined. Shereth 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well you can look in the deletion log, and ask an admin to have a second look at deletions that look as if there ws a prod on a notable topic. Do you have some examples you would like restored? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are assuming an admin opens the article and looks at it. There are several different tools designed to allow one to delete entire categories (like old PROD categories) without the bother of having to manually open each page. Dragons flight (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- That would be bad, and I would be disappointed if that occurred (without review). People have been shot down at RfA's for missing a single CSD borderline case. If we have admins deleting entire categories of content without review, that would be a very bad example. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would expect that an administrator deleting all expired prods without bothering to look at them would be admonished, if not desysopped. That's a severe misuse of tools. -- Atama頭 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well perhaps you should talk to the frequent deleters of PRODs and ask them about their process. (The history of PRODSUM makes it easier to identify who is is really doing the deletions.) For example, NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) is a frequent closer of PRODs and often deletes 20 such pages in a single minute. I would assume he uses a tool to accomplish deletions at that speed. Now, he could have reviewed every one of those beforehand, in which case there is no issue. Historically though there are certainly examples of people using tools to clear deletion backlogs with no review. For example, I remember someone deleting some 700 disputed fair use images without looking at their content or considering the validity of the dispute. Such people can get yelled at, but they are rarely desysoped. Dragons flight (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that when I was an admin, I often handled several days of PROD at a time. I'd open up dozens or hundreds of tabs, go through them all (removing more than a few nominations, although in general PROD seemed pretty accurate & I consider myself an inclusionist) either editing them or opening up the deletion field, and then I'd make a second pass. So even though the log would show many deletions a minute (and even per second if I was typing particularly fast), I was still reviewing them all exactly as they should've been. Doing it this batch way saved me vast amounts of time because I didn't have to wait for several seconds of loading & rendering time for each page. From the outside, I don't think there's any easy way to see whether NuclearWarfare is employing a batch method or not. (Although I suppose you could look to see whether there are miscellaneous edits or PROD removals in the 20 or 30 minutes preceding a mass-deletion.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:52 10 November 2009 (GMT)
- oppose if an article has no one watching it, I don't see it as much of a step towards creating a genuine article on the topic. Stubs are good up to a point, as sort of an outline for future development, provided it's actually a good outline. But I would think that the unwatched status of unwatched stubs might be correlated with them not being particularly good outline items. In cases where that's not so, the article can always be recreated. There's a legitimate concern that the editors who do care might have large watchlists and not notice the PROD, but that could be dealt with by formalizing the courtesy notices into a requirement. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Prod is a valuable process. There is a group of regular prod patrollers who could always do with extra help. I regularly prod patrol, and in my experience the vast majority of articles deleted by prod have no chance of meeting our criteria. We delete maybe 60-80 articles per day via prod, and I rarely deprod more than two from a single day. Prod avoids the drama and sucking up of time of editors that AfD involves, and it is less severe than speedy deletion. Admins don't just blindly delete expired prods as they can contest the prod themselves if they see fit, and any prodded article can be restored at any time. Another option if you don't have the time to properly improve a prodded article is to move it to the Article Incubator. Fences&Windows 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I wonder what basis Floydian has for this argument, as it doesn't seem to match what WP:PROD states or how proposed deletions are actually processed. Articles that do not have any sources, haven't changed in several years, or contain a bare minimum of information would be as unlikely to be deleted via PROD as they would via AfD or CSD. As said above, every article deleted through PROD has been reviewed by an administrator who uses his or her own judgment regarding the deletion justification given when the deletion is proposed. Should we get rid of speedy deletions because someone might incorrectly put an A7 tag on a notable article subject that isn't being watched? -- Atama頭 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - PROD helps keep the workload at AFD manageable. Users' time is not an infinite resource, we should allocate it to discuss articles that actually might warrant a discussion. If anything we need to use PROD more. Any article deleted after a unanimous AFD could potentially have been PROD'ed. Mr.Z-man 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Alternative: WT:PROD#Userfy PRODs instead of delete?. Rd232 talk 00:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The basis I have, which initially got me going on this idea (aside from my own opinion that as long as an article isn't utter BS of defamatory than it usually deserves a place here) was the over PRODing of articles by Less Heard van U (who is an admin I believe, and may have been deleting those articles after 7 days), who was doing so solely on the basis of A) a lack of sources and B) a certain size requirement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you think the articles should have remained, tell the deleting admin, and they should restore it as a contested PROD.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's an issue to take up with the admin, or his/her behavior. There's no benefit to changing our policy based on one incident. BTW, you can see who deleted an article in the logs. Would be best to do that before making accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
PROD was intended to replace AFD and CSD. Somehow that process stopped halfway, and now we have 3 systems, instead of one good one. I wonder how much time it would take to take things a few steps forward again, sometime soon? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) - Kim, I think your memory is betraying you on this one. I don't believe anyone seriously proposed PROD as a replacement, but rather it was originally proposed as a way to take some of the load off a chronically overworked AFD. Dragons flight (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know at least some folks (like me ;-) )wanted it to be side-by-side and then eventually replace, because AFD at the time was really bad, and admin deletion sucks in general. AFD has improved since then, CSD hasn't. It might be nice to actually work on updating the systems with what we've learned since last time, and simplifying besides :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why we need multiple systems and huge bureaucratic structures for deletion proposals. There should be one template that you stick on the talk page if you think a page warrants deletion. Have a bot date these templates, then an admin comes round after the appropriate time and decides what to do (based on the arguments given, if any, plus his/her own knowledge about wider consensus). No fuss (well fuss about whether to delete the page, obviously, but no additional complications spawned by the process itself). Ah, but that would be too simple, we have to let the wikibureaucrats have somewhere to play... --Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have to let 'em play at all! I think you could sort of treat it like a hygiene issue analogous to -say- malaria at the panama canal: Eliminate the breeding grounds for them and/or the vector (simplify and tidy areas where too much bureaucracy has encroached), and inoculate people against them (by getting people to understand IAR and consensus as early as possible)
- Do you think we can still stamp out the disease? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC) To be clear, I'm not sure AFD is as much of a problem area as it was years ago. I think the bureaucrats have retreated to other areas.
- Getting rid of PROD would at least concentrate the problem in one area (AFD), rather then spreading it out. The real issue with the current deletion process is simple: it's not structured enough. Surveys and widespread general opinion have shown for quite a long time now that at least the perception, if not the reality of, our current deletion process is simply too random. I know from my own personal investigations that the admins who regularly participate in AFD definitely have a brain on their shoulders, and there is at least a DRV process now in order to take care of the more egregious deletion problems. Those two items make me fairly confident that the majority of deletions that do occur are at least defensible. The fact remains that the process itself is still far too random, however. We all know that there are articles that almost every would agree should be deleted, yet when those articles manage to be identified they can still be difficult to delete. More serious is the fact that many "borderline" articles continue to be deleted on a daily basis. What some deletion advocates seem to (continuously!) fail to grasp is just how permanent and therefore demoralizing and damaging deletion is to author/editors... I don't want to turn this into more of an Inlcusionist rant then it already is, so I'll end here by simply saying that I support deprecating the confusing and unnecessary PROD procedure.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - FWIW, the majority of deletions are via CSD. In terms of deletions per day, there are about as many articles deleted via PROD as via AFD, and about 10 times as many articles deleted through CSD as AFD and PROD combined. Mr.Z-man 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. Honestly, I only use PROD if it's only borderline CSD. Most of my prods get deleted under speedy criteria.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 05:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that you guys are right. Nobody is disputing the point that probably 99.9999999+% of all deletions are perfectly acceptable... but, none of that matters. The 0.0000001% of deletions that are not acceptable are the ones that are noticed, and the fact is that they should be. No matter how much potential good that the proper deletions gain the project, the fact is that the few instances of bad deletions do enough damage to far outweigh the good. At least, in my opinion.
- There are those who take similar views and create an ideology that "all deletions are bad", which is just as much of a problem as doing nothing with the current deletion process is. I personally feel that a temporary moratorium on deletions (and a short one at that, possibly even just a few hours) is at least called for. However, that action is predicated on the belief that we can and should actually make a change that will better the project as a whole. Article deletion for it's own sake shold be stopped. Preventing article deletions for the sake of preventing deletions should be stopped as well. The process as a whole needs to be tweaked, at least, and intentionally slowing it all down certainly couldn't hurt (although, admittedly I do recognize that doing so will anger a certain percentage of the editorial population). At the very least, if all but the most egregious deletions take 7 days (or possibly even a couple of days longer)... who or what is harmed by that?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - I would say that even if 5% of deletions by Prod were erroneous, the system is working fine. When people notice that their article is gone, they generally contract the deleting admin, and the article is restored. Abductive (reasoning) 07:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, no... anything as "in your face" as deleting articles simply cannot stand up to this line of thinking. If we were talking about normal open editing procedures then I would agree with the point that you're making here, but the simple fact is that we're not.
- Article deletion needs to be treated with the same... "respect" (for lack of a better word) that blocking is treated with, and for the same reasons. I'm not arguing that the deletions are a mistake at all, just as the vast majority of blocks are perfectly acceptable. However, in the exact same manner that good blocks still create controversy and emotion, deletions will and should cause the very similar reactions.
- Think about this: if there was some sort of a "speedy block" policy/procedure being proposed, what would your reaction be to that? Granted, the analogy is far from perfect here, but at least give it a chance.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - I guess I was just wondering why you seem to have a problem with the lack of a formal process for PROD and not for CSD, even though PROD can be overturned by anyone for any reason at any time. Why are you assuming that all of the bad deletions come through PROD? It isn't a "speedy" procedure at all, so your analogy doesn't make any sense. PROD takes as long as an AFD. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, if I had my druthers, I would prefer to severely restrict the use of CSD, along with simply switching the PROD procedure to use AFD instead (which is effectively what we're talking about here). I don't really believe that any change in the deletion process is possible, but this at least started a discussion about it. It's just... complicated. For newer editors, and especially for part time editors (which, in my view, are probably the most important editorial members of Wikipedia), the fact that there are three different processes with a fourth follow up (CSD, PROD, AFD, with DRV to follow up) is simply confusing and overwhelming. The WP:DELETION document is in a perpetually confusing state. Whether someone comes along and decides to start one of the deletion processes on an article is way to random, and CSD and PROD almost always occur too quickly for non-regular editors (and even many regulars) to really follow the process (never mind the fact that there are simply too many deletion discussions to really follow). PROD does take as long as AFD, but it's a mostly silent procedure so the perception is still there of fast change.
- Anyway, as I said earlier I don't really think that there are many bad deletions, if there are any at all. This isn't actually a discussion about reality though, it's a discussion about perceptions. All of you who oppose this proposal are on solid factual grounds, but the fact is that doesn't change the perceptions of those who are supportive. We're talking past one another still, at this point.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Oppose. The proposer has brought up some hypotheticals, but I don't see any evidence that clearly notable articles or stubs are being routinely deleted via the PROD process simply because nobody is watching them. Sure, it could happen, but it's very unlikely. The system works, there is oversight to it, there's a strong fail-safe worked in to curb abuse (anyone can ask for it back at any time, an article can only be marked with a PROD once and only if it meets certain criteria.), and while having three separate processes can be confusing to outsiders, it's not that hard to explain things. I'm not entirely convinced PROD is necessary anymore, to be honest, since I'm not sure the problem it was intended to solve exists anymore. But I see no reason it should be dismantled because of what might happen in theory (if we're doing that, let's drop CSD first. In theory, one could get the main page deleted that way). --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Most PRODs in my experience are merited (and I deleted hundreds if not thousands of PRODs), usually have been looked over by a second user (excluding the deleting admin), and they do us a genuine service in considerably lightening the load on AfD, letting people focus on truly borderline articles. The userfication proposal has merit, but that's a separate issue (though I encourage Floydian to take it up next!). --Gwern (contribs) 00:57 10 November 2009 (GMT)
- Oppose I regularly partrol PRODs, and regularly deprod about 5-10% of what's PROD'ed. I routinely restore prods per request... just check my talk page archives. The problem may be with individual admins not doing their jobs well, but not with PROD itself. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's too easy to stop, if anyone really cares. Unschool 06:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. PROD is vital for its drama-reducing effect on the deletion process.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, but that's not to say that the process doesn't need serious improvement. Unwatched and uncared-for pages are a problem (I've seen many decent articles go), and the deletions shouldn't be done blindly. That said, the process has its place. As an idea it's much better than what AfD has become. Let's delete AfD instead. I'm not kidding. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] SPOILER ALERT disclaimers My suggestion is to install a functionallity that displays a "SPOILER ALERT" note on pages that might contain spoilers. For example, the "The Office" page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_office gives cast distribution for UK and US versions of the show, per season. There, in Season 6, it points out that the manager's function in the US version is shared between Michael Scott, and Jim Halpert - clearly a spoiler for those who haven't watched the Season 6 episodes yet. I am sure this example is by its logic widely valid for much of Wikipedia's content. I thank you for taking time to go through this suggestion, and I hope it will be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.162.33.13 (talk • contribs) - See WP:SPOILER.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was such a feature, and it was discussed and removed MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- More specifically, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. There's even a specific User Warning template for adding such disclaimers, {{Uw-spoiler}}. --King Öomie 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you have lots of time to kill, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive index may be a fun read :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to take a vacation day to get through all that. Holy crap. --King Öomie 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly are "spoilers" anyways? How can you objectively identify a "spoiler"? How can you tell when the "spoiler" is no longer a "spoiler"? The problem with so-called "spoilers" is that some individuals will view anything beyond the series existence to be a spoiler. There is far too much interpretation involved. Besides, people needs to grow up and understand that if they read plot details, which are almost always clearly defined on Wikipedia, then they are "spoiling" themselves. If you read the summary of an episode that you have not seen, then it's your own fault for getting "spoiled". —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- "people needs to grow up and understand" -- I participated somewhat in the spoiler debate, and this notion was repeated often throughout. It's an unreasonable request. It's demanding that our audience bow to us instead of us to their needs. Most comprehensive movie listing sites, review sites, etc. with movie plot descriptions don't include spoilers, or include them but hide them, or don't hide them but show a warning. There's no reason to demand that when people then go to just our website, they should suddenly expect something different. I agree though that the logistics of implementing an objective system are tough to crunch. Wikipedia's decentralized editing makes it nearly impossible, as anyone can say that anything is a spoiler, and there is really no objective evidence either way. I've thought about a general disclaimer though, perhaps included in all articles that describe a story work, to inform visitors who would reasonably not be aware of our rules, to expect spoilers in all such articles. Equazcion (talk) 14:02, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- We have that, linked on every WP page. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's included on all pages, with no special differentiating mark on articles that describe stories. The link to the general disclaimer is mostly ignored anyway. Due to the nature of plot descriptions in general on the web, Wikipedia's special rules regarding them should stand out. As strange as it sounds, people know by now to necessarily expect objectionable material in websites, but not necessarily full disclosure of movie plots. That may yet come as a surprise to many people. Equazcion (talk) 14:38, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Including an mbox at the top of most articles which contain plot outlines seems to be a reasonable compromise, to me. We clutter up all sorts of pages with stickers telling our readers about editorial issues, I don't see why something that could actually be pertinent to a reader would be objectionable.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - The difference is that templates for editorial issues should be temporary - they're removed when the problem is fixed. A spoiler warning template would be permanent. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- {{spoiler}}. What a lot of drama that stirred up when 4 or so individuals AWBed them out of existence. When people started talking about the actual use of T:spoiler, they came to the (imo right) conclusion that these are encyclopedia articles, and encyclopedia articles (Britannica, Encarta, etc) don't warn users when they search for an article that there will be spoilers in the article they are reading. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone always uses that "their supposed to be temporary" excuse but, come on already... Technically that is true, but there are hundreds (probably thousands) of articles with various tags from 2007 and earlier. The "their only temporary" thing is a good thought but reality is sort of biting it in the butt.
- @Izno: I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, but have you actually read Equazions replies above? It doesn't seem that you have, based on this response.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Well, first, if no one really disagrees with that... As for Equazion's note, I discounted the arguments. What is customary on the Internet doesn't need to hold to us, and I see little reason why it should. From a usability perspective, this is a poor argument, but I make it just the same. WP is bound only to the WMF's rules and our own. One of the arguments used for the deprecation of T:Spoiler was that if one of the headings in the article says "Plot", it's implicit that there will be spoilers. If you don't want to read them, read around them (the Table of Contents is useful here). You can still read articles which are fictional in nature without reading about the plot. And as I said before, we should hold ourselves to the standard other encyclopedias have... and that standard disallows the inclusion of "spoiler" notices.
Besides, I have this sneaking suspicion people have gotten used to finding spoilers in the text. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - The cleanup tags that were added in 2007 can be removed at any time once the issue is fixed. A spoiler tag, unless we create some policy disallowing spoilers, will never be removed. Lasting an arbitrarily long time is not the same thing as being permanent. Mr.Z-man 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- 6 on one hand, half a dozen on the other. I understand completely the distinction that you're drawing, but it effectively means nothing. On a purely intellectual level this argument is strong, but it quickly looses it's strength when held up to the (current) reality.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - No, long-lasting is not the same as permanent. They are 2 totally different things, they are not simply 2 different descriptions of the same concept. With a very few exceptions, templates like you're proposing document a problem with the article. Containing spoilers is not a problem or an issue that needs to be resolved. Mr.Z-man 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try this again: I understand what you're saying, and technically you're correct of course. The problem is that the fact that your technically correct effectively has 0 impact. I understand that the argument that you're making here is persuasive to you and several (many?) others who agree with you, but what I'm attempting to communicate to you is the reason why it is not persuasive to those who are not already persuaded by it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Re Izno: "What is customary on the Internet doesn't need to hold to us...WP is bound only to the WMF's rules and our own." -- Of course it doesn't need to. But being bound by something is the last reason any changes occur on Wikipedia. We make changes when we feel they may be more intuitive to users, not necessarily because of some perceived obligation (generally). I'm not sure where this sneaking suspicion you have comes from, nor what it has to do with WP:OR. Regardless, whether or not you want to put forth the pedantic argument that people ought to expect certain things from this site, for whatever reason, this should take a back seat to what most people actually do expect. It's not our job to shake an index finger at them and tell them they should have known better. If you instead just want to say that permanent notices on certain articles would be an eyesore, I would say that's something that could be dealt with. The possibilities for the type of appearance such notices might have are virtually infinite, and I think a compromise could be reached that satisifies everyone, if we can come to an agreement on the general need for some such notice. Equazcion (talk) 23:00, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Given the amount of previous discussion on this topic, I think you're severely underestimating the amount of effort it will take to reach any sort of agreement. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
The previous discussions regarded spoiler alerts on specific sections of content, to be determined by editors; which I'm conceding is not feasible. I'm hoping that an across-the-board generalized warning on applicable articles will be more widely acceptable, since that wouldn't invite the infinite contention over content that was a major practical argument against spoiler notices in previous discussions. Equazcion (talk) 00:21, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC) - The current WP:Spoiler guideline states:
Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers. - You're essentially proposing a reversal of this, which is one of the key parts of the guideline. Mr.Z-man 00:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm proposing a reversal to that. Equazcion (talk) 00:41, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- To allay worries that this would look like a permanent maintenance tag, here's a crude mockup of the type of warning I envision. I'm not sure if there would need to be a software tweak or if it could be accomplished in a template, but this is just one idea. Equazcion (talk) 00:51, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- This is just as bad, as that means we'll have spoilers on pages like Romeo & Juliet, Dante's Inferno, and Canterbury Tales, since these all have narrative, and, because the way this reasoning works, if even one person considers revealing of a narrative of spoiler, it has to be marked. And those these examples beg the answer "well, obviously more contemporary works need spoilers", when do we draw the line? What about works published in the last 2 centuries, like Sherlock Holmes, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. ??
- People that come to Wikipedia and complain about spoilers are using Wikipedia for the wrong purpose. We are, by nature of a tertiary source, need to cover every aspect of a topic in detail, and that includes the plot. If someone is coming here to find out if their favorite actor is in a movie, that's not our job, that's IMDB. If they want reviews, Rotten Tomatoes. Etc. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not if even one person... I was thinking more along the lines of placing the warning across the board in every article that describes a story. Again, the reality of the situation should dominate over our ideal wish that people understand what we are before they get here. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I meant: you really thing that we look professional having spoiler warnings on an article like Romeo & Juliet? --MASEM (t) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think we started not looking professional when we declared that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Wikipedia is a quirky place, and this would be another quirk. I think it's worth the trade-off of having a spoiler warning on Romeo and Juliet if it means being able to place one on Usual Suspects, Memento, and Fight Club to avoid really ruining someone's potential experience with a work of cinema or literature. Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is a quirky place, and this would be another quirk." So adding spoiler notices is a quirk? I'm pretty sure you used the instance earlier that "everybody does it". Make up your mind please. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, spoiler notices aren't quirky. A spoiler notice on Romeo & Juliet would be. Wikipedia is unique in that in order to avoid constant arguing over which stories deserve the warning, we'd have to put it on all of them; hence the quirk. This is in the interest of accomplishing the same practical goal as other sites do with selective spoiler warnings, which is to avoid ruining the story for the unsuspecting reader. Equazcion (talk) 02:32, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question regarding WP:NODISCLAIMERS, since it was brought up in this discussion and it seems to be the main idea behind why we cant have spoiler warnings. Has anyone thought about cleaning up the language on it? The lead is written like one person sat down and wrote an essay, not what I am used to seeing in some of the more "famous" guidelines like RS. Was there really as big a consensus regarding its wording as we are led to believe in this thread here (and actually the way the guideline is written it already does not instill confidence that it has the consensus of the Community-at-large behind it, very wishy-washy terms).Camelbinky (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you F-ing kidding me? "They are using Wikipedia for the wrong purpose"? Wikipedia is used in whatever manner our readers need it to function, not in the manner we say it is to be used for. Do you really think that readers shouldnt come here to find out what movie an actor on tv played in? In the last three weeks as new shows have premiered and I couldnt remember "where do I know that actress from?" (like the blonde lady in the V miniseries), I came to Wikipedia and looked up the show and the cast list. Did I misuse Wikipedia? Really?Camelbinky (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- WP is defined by the people that edit it (that's why we're at this policy page, right?) with the encouragement that readers convert themselves to editors to influence the work. But, on the other aspect: there is no reason we cannot be there to answer "where do I know that actress from?", but we cannot, by virtue of being a complete work, be there to answer "where do I know that actress from without learning any other details of other roles that she may be in?" --MASEM (t) 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I thought I've been writting articles in order to make this the fullest and most complete source of information for our readers. Thank you for letting me know that our real purpose and goal is to write articles that convert readers into editors. I'm suppose to be a recruiter through my writting. When did Wikipedia become a cult? I didnt get a robe, and I dont know the chant.Camelbinky (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, you are spinning my words. We, those editors that participate in building articles and working out content and other policies and guidelines are the community that works to improve WP. Any reader is free to join - anonymous or not - if they feel they have something to contribute or believe that WP can be improved by doing something differently (such as this discussion right here). Those readers that become editors (which we all were at some point) is the only way we get feedback and work other viewpoints into consensus. If we just went off what any reader wants to see in WP - including those that do not participate in building it - we'd decide our content based on page views, and our guidelines and policies would be drastically different; notability would likely not exist and there would be much weaker requirements for things like reliable sources and article quality. At the end of the day, it is those people that choose to participate in this discussions that guide what WP should and should not contain (that's why it's a wiki, and we aren't driven by page views), barring any from-above requirements from the Foundations. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually oppose any type of "spoiler warning" on Wikipeda. For one, I personally believe that there are no such things as spoilers to begin with. And if someone doesn't want to know the plot of something, they shouldn't be reading things labeled "Plot", episode summaries, or character descriptions. Spoiler warnings are a product of the knee-jerk paranoia that has equated any and all plot details as "spoiler". Wikipedia should not surcome to this senseless paranoia that has been embraced by the rest of the "Internet" because it may offend the occasional reader. We have a very specific "no disclaimer in articles" policy in affect across Wikipedia. But this proposal effectively puts a disclaimer on all articles that contains any form of narrative fiction. Why are plot details more deserving of article disclaimers instead of offensive images, offensive content, potential liable content on biographies, medical articles, and articles on controversial topics? —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - The reality of readers' expectations should trump the admittedly dominant ideal among long-established Wikipedians that everyone should come to Wikipedia already understanding full well what it is and what its standards are. This is a fantasy, and one we shouldn't be imposing on everyone else. The "If they didn't expect this, they shouldn't have read this" argument is pedantic for the sake of pedantic. You may consider plot summaries to be full plot synopses, but on most sites this is not the case, and people therefore don't expect it. Distasteful content is expected on most of the web by now, and libel is something that's flat-out not allowed here so we shouldn't really be warning people to expect it. Spoiler content is something that readers both reasonably don't expect with no warning, and it is our very policy to include in articles in all cases. Equazcion (talk) 03:37, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I think most readers of Wikipedia know by now that articles contain spoilers and have come to expert them. The fact that many other websites have indulge in this paranoia doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. In fact, Wikipedia shouldn't. If you indulge in the paranoia on this one area, then you have no bases to refusing indulging in the paranoia of other areas. So you still haven't explained why an in-article spoiler disclaimer is more important than other potential disclaimers. —Farix (t | c) 03:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Readers who have read Wikipedia articles containing plot summaries may expect it, but people who are new to Wikipedia or haven't read such articles before won't. I have explained why it's especially important: Spoiler content, based on its treatment elsewhere on the web, is not something people expect to happen upon without some warning; and it is our very policy to include all available spoiler content in every applicable article with no warning. If it's our policy to do the opposite of what the average reader expects of a website, I think we ought to offer an especially visible warning regarding it. Equazcion (talk) 03:56, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- How content is treated elsewhere on the web is not the concern of Wikipedia, nor should it be. And again, I do think that there are very few people who don't understand that Wikipedia contains full plot details and don't contain any form of warning about them. Disclaimers warning about comprehensive plot details are silly after all, and its time for this paranoia over them come to an end. —Farix (t | c) 04:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- How content is treated elsewhere should be our concern in a secondary way, because of the way it influences people's general expectations. Calling the idea "silly" is just not something I can argue with, as it's no argument at all. I could say your opposition to the idea is "silly" too, so where has that gotten us. Equazcion (talk) 04:10, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I also firmly oppose any kind of spoiler warnings or disclaimers being added to any article. If you look up an ENCYCLOPEDIC article about a topic and somehow do not believe it will contain the entire plot, rather than a teaser, that's your own issue. Live and learn. There are no spoiler warnings in any encyclopedia that I've ever seen, and adding it here would be extremely silly, IMHO. We are not a review site (and there are some that do spoil works), we are not a database site like IMDB, and we are not a book catalog. We are an encyclopedia. It is common sense to expect full plots. Further, if we start doing this disclaimer where does it end? Do we add disclaimers to every controversial type topic to warn people it may upset or bother then? Shall we hide all images with disclaimers that they may be disturbing to some viewers? Of course not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are also no articles about cats with fraudulent diplomas in any other encyclopedia; nor even articles on every movie ever made. We call Wikipedia an encyclopedia but it's nevertheless something unique. Moreover the very fact that we call it an encyclopedia rather than a forum may make people especially expectant to not see spoilers, since other official-sounding sources like newspapers and review sites don't show them. I'm of the opinion that we should be tailoring our standards based on what readers, rather than we the established editors, would rather find most useful, instead of saying "tough luck, this is how we do it". Equazcion (talk) 05:12, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Thus far, you seem to be alone in this view that readers don't expect spoilers. Can you actually point to evidence that shows this to be true? I work almost entirely in fictional articles, and only a very very small percentage of edits attempted to remove or indicate spoilers were in the article, and I can count on one hand the number of talk page discussions where a new editor asked about the spoilers. Versus 100s of thousands of page views. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not everyone who sees a problem will attempt to remove it, nor even realize they have the ability to so much as comment on it. I think many of us established users operate under certain false assumptions about what the average Joe stumbling across a Wikipedia article in google results knows about Wikipedia. Most of my family and friends had no idea they could edit Wikipedia articles until I told them they could, and they still don't fully comprehend the concept enough to even try, though they read its articles often. They don't even realize there's a community behind it all that discusses article content. I don't have any evidence, and I don't really think gathering it would be easy; we do have a policy against spoiler warnings, so when anyone so much as sees mention of that, for instance in response to another user's complaint, they won't comment themselves. Yes I do seem to be alone in this particular discussion, so far, however past spoiler debates have been rather divided in the community; I think once this discussion gets more eyes it will hopefully attract more support. Equazcion (talk) 05:28, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
A notice that says "Warning!: If you read this article to which you have navigated, you may find information about said subject."? If I want to read up on the latest Dan Brown novel--despite the implausibility of the scenario--if I go to an encyclopedia to read about it, I should expect ... wait for it ... information about it. Conversely, if I don't want to read information about it beforehand I wouldn't search for said article. {{spoiler}} warnings to tell readers that the encyclopedia (Wikipedia) has information about the topic for which they've searched seem pointless and wasteful. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - To repeat, most websites and thereby readers don't expect said information to contain spoilers if no warning is given. Of course information on the subject is expected, but "information" on a book or movie, when referring to websites that generally provide said information, tend to do it in a way that doesn't disclose plot surprises and endings that are critical its its enjoyment. Equazcion (talk) 06:01, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I've never had this experience, so I have no basis for comparison. If I'm looking for information about Perry Mason, I expect it to be comprehensive; if it's not, or if information has been redacted, that resource is worthless to my expectations. Conversely, I recently searched the tubes for when the next Star Trek: Myriad Universes book is coming out; I expected my search results to return with all information available (to include plot "spoilers"), and somehow managed to find what I was looking for (Shattered Light, Summer 2010) without spoiling myself as to its projected content. My experiences drive my input; if I'm looking for information, I expect to find it without having been editorialized, redacted, or quarantined for my "protection". FWIW. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- We're not talking about censoring or altering anything, only adding a warning; as most sites already do. Equazcion (talk) 06:21, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- It just seems pointless (to me) to warn readers of an encyclopedia that they may accidentally read about what they've just looked up. I don't suppose I've made it clear above, but to clarify my reasoning and points, I've never encountered a "spoiler warning"--with the exception of earlier Wikipedia--in my fifteen years online. I suppose that's why I find it jarring and unnecessary in the first place, but especially so in an encyclopedia. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Show me other websites that give complete plot synopses of movies with no warning, then. There aren't many, to my knowledge. IMDb is the most obvious example. Movie review sites and newspaper writeups don't give spoilers at all, so there's no need for a warning. Equazcion (talk) 06:39, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- If the only reason for adding these disclaimers to articles is "other sites do it", then it's makes for a very poor argument. Even though it is common for other sites to included unverifiable information, original research, and non-neutral points of view, Wikipedia has policies prohibiting such content from being included here. Also, adding a disclaimer to every page containing any form of plot detail is utterly useless and defeats the purpose of the disclaimer in the first place. All you are basically saying is that an article contains plot details, which for any article that does contain plot should be self-evident either by the article topic or it's lead sentence. —Farix (t | c) 06:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the only reason, that's an oversimplification. I've brought the fact that most other sites do it to make my primary point, regarding what most people expect. Equazcion (talk) 06:54, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, your argument is that because many sites use such disclaimers, people expect the disclaimers everywhere. Of course that is a false expectation on their part as there are many sites that don't use such disclaimers either. And you have yet to provided a good argument as to why plot disclaimers are more important than other disclaimers for controversial or potentially offensive content on Wikipedia. The thing about disclaimers about plot details is a form of paranoia. Not because those actually reading plot information actually care about "be spoiled", but because they are afraid others will "be spoiled" if the disclaimers aren't present. —Farix (t | c) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, honestly, I get most of my media-related information (TV shows, films, etc.) from Wikipedia nowadays, so I don't troll around looking for other sources usually. Memory Alpha does immediately come to mind though; every episode, film, character, planet, and character biography is rife with spoilers without any warning as to their presence. Their only concession is that since only what's on screen is Star Trek canon, plot information cannot be included until the airing--not to prevent spoilers, but to only include aired canon. If I think of any more, I'll amend my comment here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) ¶ I've been editing non-fictional parts of Wikipedia for 18 months and my edit-count (which presumably includes talk-page chatter, MoS debates, user-page experiments and Ref. Desk contributions) exceeds 5,000. But I didn't know that most Wikipedia articles about stories include spoilers, which is indeed contrary to what one sees elsewhere on the Web, in newspapers and magazines, or even in every encyclopedia. And Wikipedia's an organism that will grow into a more-than-encyclopedic form that no one can predict, so if people want to use it as an alternative directory, why not serve them? (I don't like geographical articles cluttered up with every school and restaurant; but there's no reason in my opinion that such lists couldn't find some space here.) My own preferred solution (as if this issue had no history) would be fold up plots in a template if this could be done reasonably aesthetically. I might like to know more about Coriolanus or Timon of Athens, which I've never seen or read, without knowing their dénouements the first time I read or see Act I. So I don't think it's silly to put an alert on Romeo and Juliet (or West Side Story); there's a first time for everyone, and we have some very young readers. For me the two issues are (1) finding an alert that doesn't look too jarring, inconspicuous or tacky, and (2) (since I don't want to cramp other editors' style) where to put one when a whole discussion necessarily includes the plot's end versus where the end only comes up in a single section like "plot". A third, minor, point is some alternative wording to "spoiler alert", which is well-understood in a broad, but still-limited, universe. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia must present information in the manner in which its sources present it. This is the core of the NPOV policy correct? Estreme example meant in humor- Mike is an asshole (by the New York Times, Fox News, LA Times, Washington Post, several biographies); so Wikipedia must write "Mike is an asshole" with appropriate references. So why cant we take that idea of "present in manner in which the sources present it" and actually check our references and see how the sources we are using are presenting this very information. IF the majority of our sources seem to be using warnings on this information, then yes we have an obligation to continue that process. We do similar with our photos, we have to use tags on them as they GFDL and other restrictions that may apply; why not a similar idea in this case? I think it is a sensible step in this discussion. Anyone willing to do the legwork and do a check of a good crosssection of sources from various media articles? As for WP:NODISCLAIMERS- I mentioned before its crappily written and really we shouldnt be dismissing this proposal based on it; any guideline that tries so hard to convince you it is right has a problem and this one looks like it was written by a paranoid individual who thought any minute someone might try to change the wording, plus it pretty much discourages you at the bottom from ever being bold on it, another sign the writer was paranoid about others disagreeing, not many policies outright tell you not to be bold.Camelbinky (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your line of reasoning has merit but in the case of plot summaries, they basically all come from the primary source -- a viewing of the movie or reading of the book. Other sections like analyses etc. come from third-party sources, or should, but plot summaries, for the most part, don't. Equazcion (talk) 06:49, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) Books, films, etc. do not come with spoiler warnings. Plots come from there, so we are presenting it as they do. Now if you mean other sources, then the majority of them to NOT use warnings, they simply don't include "spoiler" information at all, when it comes to reviews of fictional works. So by your reasoning, we should remove plots all together, which of course is not a valid option. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Collectonian above and vote for complete information, with reader discretion assumed. The argument that 'it might spoil the fun' is not valid because the reader doesn't need to access Wikipedia before the work itself. If there is a book to read, for example, then the reader has the choice to read the book first and not be worried about spoilers! REINCARNUT (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily one or the other -- read the the Wikipedia article or watch the movie. People read up on things like books and movies first in order to get some idea of what they're about, for instance to decide if they want to see/buy/read it; hence other sites' descriptions that don't include spoilers. Equazcion (talk) 07:04, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. But then we will have to define 'some idea'. Wikipedia articles on films have an information box for the basic information. Then there are sections with descriptions or notes about different aspects of these films, including cast, production notes, etc. These sections include plot. So apart from advising reader discretion, I don't see a way to include AND not include. The onus has to be on the reader. My two cents. REINCARNUT (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 07:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion is a warning to be placed on every page that has a plot description, with no decision required regarding content. See the image above. Equazcion (talk) 07:17, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I did take note of the image earlier. But again, like someone else has argued here, anything could be a spoiler. Sometimes, just knowing who is in the cast can be a spoiler. Sometimes a line about where the film is set can be a spoiler. I do not subscribe to an argument that a reader has to be safeguarded against content. For argument's sake, if the article were on history and specifically about a war. Wouldn't it be a 'spoiler' to say who lost or won? As with all Wikipedia content, I say that reader discretion should be assumed. Perhaps then, the way to deal with this is to have a bottom disclaimer to appear on ALL content on Wikipedia, something to the effect that any page may contain spoilers? REINCARNUT (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 07:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's an unreasonable jump, from creative works to history and sports, to assume that if people don't expect spoilers in one that they also wouldn't in the other. This proposal is only regarding said creative works, as no one has ever suggested otherwise. If someone should at some point complain about spoilers in history articles, we can deal with that then, but I don't see it happening. Equazcion (talk) 07:34, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed about the unreasonable jump - I did say it was for argument's sake. My point still is that Wikipedia, as I see it, only offers to provide information. The reader has be bear the onus of choice of what he/she reads. I do not agree that Wikipedia should influence the reader to read one part or other (unbiased POV?). So, why should there be disclaimers specifically for fiction? Are they equally available/suggested for other content? There are graphic images, for example, on Wikipedia which may be considered unsuitable for public display. The are discussions on several controversial subjects that include information that may be considered unsuitable for 'general audiences'. While I partially agree with the 'so far so good' approach of "if someone should... we can deal with that then", I am of the view that we should be able to preempt such requests to make a stable(r) system. A precedent only creates more instances of the same, or similar, requests. The 'consensus' argument also illustrates my point. There will be people quoting prior consensus to revert to it, just as there will be people quoting consensus as a reason to change! My vote remains for no spoiler warnings :-) REINCARNUT (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, some people DO consider sports to be spoilers. Certainly, when the Olympics are time delayed, newscasters will often tell people to turn their heads or use mute if they want to be surprised by the broadcast that night. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support consensus No disclaimers. Wikipedia's purposes, first and foremost, is to inform-not coddle or protect some fragile psyches from spoilers. I've never understood the hyper-sensitivity to spoilers. If a person is foolish enough to read the plot section of a film and have it "spoiled", they're not going to be seriously harmed or scarred for life. On the contrary, they still learned something even if it is to be careful reading Wikipedia. AgneCheese/Wine 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- What if the average person does exhibit expectations you've deemed to be foolish? Would you still call it foolish? I don't thik we should be acting that superior. Equazcion (talk) 06:52, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- It is impossible to assume what expectations do or do not have. Wikipedia is in the business of being an encyclopedia and providing information. That is it. We are not in the omniscience business of assuming whether or not our readers feelings would be hurt if they read the plot line of a movie they haven't seen yet. AgneCheese/Wine 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, we don't try to please readers at all costs; I'm sure many would find how-to, censored, dictionary and other non-encyclopedic content helpful/useful/etc, but we still exclude that content because our first and foremost loyalty is to that of being an encyclopedia. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- The question of how to be an encyclopedia is constantly being debated. "We are not in the omniscience business" -- You're doing the same, in predicting what people would expect of an encyclopedia. I'm simply predicting something different, so we disagree. Neither of us is acting on any more hard evidence than the other. Equazcion (talk) 20:20, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
- My "predictions", if you wish to call it that, are based on simply what an encyclopedia is--a source of information. Your predictions deal with the realm of feelings-i.e., that people's feelings are hurt if they read a plot description. Your entire argument is based on predicting people's feelings which is a far cry from the simple assumption that people know what an encyclopedia is. AgneCheese/Wine 04:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] spoiler warnings break 1 - Wouldnt using the information straight from a movie or book to write a synopsis in Wikipedia regarding the plot be using a primary source, if it hasnt been put in a secondary source then we shouldnt have a "plot section" at all. That would solve the entire problem. Oh, and I'd like to point out about this "consensus says no disclaimers" as Agne states- when WP:NODISCLAIMERS became a guideline in 2005 it specifically stated that spoiler disclaimers were the exception. That exception was put in there in like the third edit by the actual writer of the essay on his/her namespace, and most importantly it got promoted to guideline with that exception. So consensus at one point said it was fine. I'd like to know more about this "consensus" that got rid of it. Was it only two or three editors? Too many people here are saying "that its consensus" and going with it just because "its always been that way". Well it hasnt. Perhaps people shouldnt fear change and realize this is a wiki and things change, status quo sucks.Camelbinky (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume good faith that Agne27 didn't mean to taint the pool by suggesting the consensus is and always was a certain way, but that he was stating instead his agreement to the last established consensus shown in policy. Primary sources are actually allowed to be used, carefully, in Wikipedia articles. See WP:Primary source. Equazcion (talk) 07:07, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- You can review the two rather large RFC's that occured in 2006 to remove spoilers warnings here and here. It certainly was done with more than just a handful of editors, and probably one of the few obvious cases of where large-scsale consensus worked to decide the outcome. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- "don't use" on "Plot", "Plot summary" and "Synopses" passed 48 to 35. There have been questions raised afterwards about whether or not this actually "worked" to establish "consensus". Equazcion (talk) 07:15, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Masem for finding those for me, I will enjoy reading editor's reasons for removing them, perhaps they will change my mind. I agree, Eq, that primary sources are useful, I guess I was being a bit POINTY, but really in alot of these articles its pretty much like you are reading the screen play itself its overly detailed and many, especially in the area of cultish tv shows like Futurama they get close to (and often cross the line) into OR when they bring in things like "in episode 2 Xis implied to have happened in y's past but in episode 5 person y mentions the she was in the Congo at that same time!" If no secondary source has found it necessary or informational or notable enough to do synopsis of the plot of X show or Y movie or Z book, should we? And if there are (which there definitely would be easily found reliable synopsis plots of classics and other important books, movies) then we should present the information as the source does, and most are not including "spoilers" in my experience, and if they do have a spoiler then we should present it as the source does (with or without a spoiler warning, whatever the source does). So, yes, I am saying that plot sections are unnecessary trivia.Camelbinky (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a valid, reliable plot summary and OR. People adding OR is not going to change with a spoiler warning, instead the OR should be removed. Removing plot is just not going to happen. You can not reasonably have an article on a fictional work without the context of its plot. Just because other sites or sources do not give the entire plot does not mean Wikipedia should be limited to only giving a teaser. The work itself is a valid source for its own plot, when properly done. And no, they are not "easily found' for most notable works, except for the handful of classics and works discussed in an academic setting. Plot summaries are not trivia, obviously, they are a core part of any fictional topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have actually put forth this argument before, Camelbinky. It would indeed solve the problem if we would abdicate control to secondary sources over which plot details are necessary to include. It would have the bonus effect of cleaning up plot summaries that inevitably grow with fandom detailing. And, it would also solve the Romeo & Juliet problem; classic stories would have their endings spelled out in many secondary sources, so they could be included. This is definitely something worth considering, IMO. Equazcion (talk) 07:49, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- You are never going to convince the significant number of editors that get involved on fiction articles to not include plot - they're already discontent at strong-arm notability enforcers for having to restrain coverage of fiction (whether they are right or wrong). A plot of the work is part of the work's complete coverage, something that we need to provide. Telling that they can't discuss plot in the context of avoiding spoilers will be completely ignored. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I never said they wouldn't be able to include plot, just perhaps not plot derived from primary sources. It wouldn't only be a matter of avoiding spoilers, but keeping plot sections up to a standard of quality. Relying on users to just watch a movie and describe it isn't all that encyclopedic in my mind. It seems incongruous with our standards for other material. Equazcion (talk) 19:24, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- If the secondary source, by itself, is not encyclopedic in nature as Wikipedia is intended to be, then the content is not an 'exact match'. If, for example, a plot for a movie published on such a secondary source does not contain anything about its ending, then it is an inherently incomplete plot description! A movie logically has an end and a plot should include it. REINCARNUT (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 08:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a one good argument for the inclusion of spoiler warnings of some sort: People get spoiled on Wikipedia countless times every day. The question is, should we do something about it? I'm the proud owner of a very sharp knife. Should I put a sticker on it reading "Don't stab yourself."? You may be thinking now that this is not an accurate comparasion, because it should be obvious to any intelligent being that they shouldn't stab or otherwise hurt themselves with knifes, but little children do just that every day. You may also think that it's not an accurate comparasion, because it's not obvious that Wikipedia articles will contain spoilers, but it's explicitly stated in the subtitle of every article: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Yes, that is a spoiler warning. If a reader doesn't know that an encyclopedia is a "comprehensive reference work" and can't be bothered to look the word up in a dictionary, then that reader is proceeding to read an article the nature of which they don't know. It is a risk they are taking. It is a risk they choose to take. If such a reader gets spoiled, then I'd say they didn't care enough about not getting spoiled in the first place. As for disallowing plot sections that are purely referenced to the primary sources, that is an issue worth discussing, but not here. If you think that primary sources aren't good enough, start a discussion about it, don't just use it as an excuse to get rid of spoilers. Goodraise 16:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's never been an encyclopedia that reported on every movie and book ever made, along with everything else under the sun. People's interpretations of how an encyclopedia ought to do that are original, since this is an unprecedented tool. The claim that people should expect a complete plot synopses, just because that's the conclusion we've come to in deeming encyclopedic coverage for movies, is unreasonable. No one else does this, and there's no reason anyone else should expect it. Knives are not unprecedented; There are lots of knives out there and everyone knows what they do. As far as primary-referenced plot sections, what you call an "excuse" I call a possible solution to the problem, so I don't see any reason to discontinue discussion of it here. Equazcion (talk) 19:24, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- A solution to which problem? You either don't want primary sources to be used, because that would make Wikipedia, at least partially, a secondary source, in which case this is the wrong place to discuss it, or you don't want spoiler content and are using the primary sources as, yes, an excuse to get rid of it. As for Wikipedia being unprecedented, you're of course right. Wikipedia is unprecedented, but only to some degree. There's been encyclopedia's out there long before there was even internet and what they all had in common was that they were comprehensive reference works. A reader who comes to our articles has absolutely no reason to believe that we would exclude the ending or important plot twists from our encyclopedic coverage unless they are not aware what an encyclopedia is, in which case it is their own fault. If you really don't want to get spoiled, be careful what to read. Goodraise 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not using primary sources for plot summaries would solve a host of problems, one of which is the question of spoilers. There have been encyclopedias before, but not that included movie plots. You might think expecting full synopses should be everyone's expectation; but that's just your opinion, and there's been no past evidence to back it up. In fact if anything, evidence is to the contrary. Even the "Internet Movie Database" doesn't post spoilers in plain view, and warns of spoilers on every link that may lead to them. Along with all the other official-sounding information sources on movies, none handle movies like we do. If there is a precedent, it doesn't back up your position. Equazcion (talk) 20:14, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- What other problems would not using primary sources solve? How is "the question of spoilers" a problem? As far as I can tell, Britannica has almost no articles about individual works (books, films, plays, etc.) at all. That makes it rather easy for them to exclude plot details. I looked on their website and the only one I could find were Beowulf and Romeo and Juliet, both of which include the plot. Mr.Z-man 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Plots can be described infinitely. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a movie is worth some number that should only be expressed in scientific notation. We have no real proof of how much or little to say about a movie's plot, and leave it instead up to our editors. This leads to problems, some of which I've described above (fandom influence), but it can be summed up as a quality issue. As Camelbinky put it, plot summaries can almost read like OR. You never know what the hell will be there, we just make it up, as we don't rely on the filtering of a secondary source to tell us which details are worthy of inclusion. This seems contrary to other facets of our article-writing process. The existence of this debate stems from the very fact that encyclopedias don't normally include material like this. What do people expect of encyclopedia articles on contemporary movies? Can we reasonably assume they must expect the same as an article on Romeo & Juliet? It's not a clear-cut decision. Equazcion (talk) 21:00, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- What research is your conclusions based on? As I noted, Britannica has almost no articles about individual works, and in the ones they do, they include "spoilers." Normal encyclopedias may only give a couple paragraphs to things that we give multiple pages. This is where WP:NOTPAPER applies. We don't have the limitations of traditional encyclopedias. Plot summaries can be OR, but so can everything else, even content sourced to reliable secondary sources. Shall we just delete the whole project then? If something is of poor quality we fix it, we don't delete it. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that other encyclopedias don't include articles of this type is the reason that I don't consider them as applicable evidence. If this isn't a paper encyclopedia, then we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to one in order to make content determinations. This too is "where WP:NOTPAPER applies". On a more subjective level, everyone knows how Romeo & Juliet ends, and everyone expects everyone else to know how it ends. It's studied in high schools and is a part of history. Contemporary movies aren't. Equazcion (talk) 22:01, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) I seem to have missed alot over night and this morning! Well, I believe it was Masem who pointed out that there might not be secondary sources of plot for notable things like more modern books and movies. There are reviewers from newspapers and I see no reason why they couldnt use the primary source of the back of movie dvd/vcr covers, or book covers that do plot summaries without giving out spoilers. This solves the problem of too much detail, possible OR, fandom, and spoilers. Using the movie or the book itself for a detailed minute-by-minute storyline really is ridiculous the more I think about it. "PLOT" does not mean the entire storyline, it means a "synopsis" and "overview" of the IDEA of what goes on; it doesnt mean EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. If those who work on these things are having a hard time understanding and accepting this proposed change then perhaps they have a COI and we need to ignore them and come up with a solution that doesnt take their views into consideration and instead worries about what is best for the encyclopedia as a whole and our readers; not the interests of those that happen to work on these articles. The articles exist for our readers, not for editors and they would do well to remember that.Camelbinky (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- @Equazcion: You're right. There is no reason for a reader of a general encyclopedia to expect a full plot summary. A reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia has no means to judge whether we consider such detailed coverage as comprehensive or over-comprehensive. However, a reader, who knows that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and knows that an encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work, has also no reason to be surprised if a Wikipedia article includes so much information. As for evidence, I haven't said anything that would require evidence. From the very beginning, I've admitted that many readers find more information in our articles than they actually want and what I have shown in my initial post is that it's their own fault. As for not using primary sources for plot summaries solving the issue of spoilers, that wouldn't be solving it, merely sidestepping it. Lets say that The Empire Strikes Back premiered yesterday and today a critic writes that he was very surprised that Vader was Luke's father. In this case, would you agree that it is alright to mention their relation in an article without a spoiler tag? I doubt it. Goodraise 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're saying two contradictory things. If you agree that "There is no reason for a reader of a general encyclopedia to expect a full plot summary", then I don't see how you can then reasonably say that if they get it without expecting it that "it's their own fault". It being their own fault is what you haven't really backed up. Equazcion (talk) 22:01, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I cant speak for Eq, but as for me I agree that it would be ok to not have a spoiler tag in the example that Goodraise gives. If anyone had read my posts I've made it clear that we should stick to the sources, like we do in every other type of article; why should movies/books be different just because those that work on them are fanatical (sometimes)? If a critic ruins it first, then yes we can ruin it; if no secondary source can be found for something, then dont write it; if the secondary source used has a spoiler warning or "hides" the information then we should have a spoiler warning. Do as the source does should be the "rule". Does anyone have a real problem with following that? I mean we do that for every other article.Camelbinky (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- @Equazcion: It's not contradictory. To illustrate this, lets reduce the amount of coverage of a topic to a percentage with 100% being everything there is to know about that topic. While one reader may expect 50% and another 60%, there is no reason what so ever for any reader to expect that something that is part of the 100% not to be in the article. The only ones who may expect that any part of the 100% be selectively kept from them are those who don't know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore strives to be a comprehensive reference work and the only ones in that group of readers are those who ignored the warning at the top of the article. If you don't heed a warning that's placed in plain sight, then the consequences are your own fault. Goodraise 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- But if a reader of an encyclopdia should expect 100% of the information available on a topic, then how can there be "no reason for a reader of a general encyclopedia to expect a full plot summary"? Equazcion (talk) 22:33, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I've tried to illustrate. While such readers have no reason to expect that there is a detailed plot summary, they also don't have a reason to expect that there isn't. What they expect is irrelevant. They are aware that they are reading something that strives to be a comprehensive reference work and therefore won't be surprised to find whatever knowledge the article may offer about its subject. Goodraise 10:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- And PS, in your Empire Strikes Back example, I agree that we would have no choice but to include details available through secondary sources, even if we subjectively consider them spoilers. Equazcion (talk) 22:34, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
[edit] spoiler warnings break 2 And people will complan about this. There is an example of a major TV show where one of its key actors will be leaving this season. This fact has been announced in the mainstream press to the point that if you search on that actor's name, you cannot help but to learn this. Yet, we had people claiming this information was a spoiler. That's the thurst of this: there is no objective line for what is and what isn't a spoiler. Tag everything, including old stuff, and we look stupid; limit coverage to secondary sources, and we aren't comprehenisve *and* still will have complaints. The only rational solution is to write the encyclopedia without concerns of what is and isn't a spoiler (beyond the limited case of explaining what "spoilers" are), and carry a general disclaimer that information is provided to be comprehensive and thus will include everything there is to say about contemporary works. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - I'm not so concerned with looking stupid. I think we already look stupid by spelling out entire plots, often based on the whims of fans. No other professional work does anything like this. There will be complaints no matter what, but there is an objective solution, more objective than allowing editors to decide for themselves what to include. Relying on secondary sources is the most objective solution. What appears in secondary sources is already our standard for objectivity elsewhere. Equazcion (talk) 22:53, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- This is a completely unworkable solution as it creates a double standard. If you are going to prohibit the use of primary sources for one subject area of Wikipedia, then you must prohibit the use of primary sources for all subject areas, that requires a fundamentally change to WP:V and WP:NOR. I don't see why we can't use the primary sources on fictional topics while being able to use primary sources for other topic areas. This exemplifies the type of knee-jerk paranoia over plot details that I have previously mentioned above. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- It does seem to be a logistical problem, but this is just a preliminary idea, and I don't have the details worked out. Perhaps our rules for use of primary sources could be simply tightened up across the board. I'm optimistic that we could do so in a manner that allows their general use to back up facts, but not to allow editors to describe the primary source itself in detail. Equazcion (talk) 23:10, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- If you are planning to propose restricting the use of primary sources in general, then I expect that you are going to encounter as much, if not more resistance then you have over reestablishing plot disclaimers into Wikipedia. Especially when it becomes known that the point of restricting the use of primary sources is to deal with the non-existent "spoiler issue" and will be used as a back-channel way to censor plot information form articles. —Farix (t | c) 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's not the only point, but yes I would expect resistance to any proposed change to long-standing and far-reaching policies. Equazcion (talk) 02:50, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Goodraise, answer my freakin question, why cant we just do as the secondary sources have and nothing more? If you cant find a secondary source then what is the point in having the information? Please take time to answer my post, I see no reason why that cant be a perfectly good compromise between you and Equazcion. We follow what the secondary sources have in every other article, this type of article is no different.Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines on the use of primary sources should not be decided on the basis of shortening plot summaries, or avoiding spoilers. There are many important reasons to use primary sources that have nothing to do with fiction. One valid reason to present all the information in a primary source (but in our own words) is to provide a free replacement for an expensive primary source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) -
- It would be helpful if people understood the difference between a plot summary and a retelling of the plot. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> I just want to draw attention to Masem's comment at the beginning of the section because I think it is the most astute observation made so far in this entire thread. The issue of plot details, spoilers and comprehensiveness is a classic "damn if you do, damn if you don't" scenario. If we spend all our time trying to predict people's feelings about what is and isn't a spoiler or how they are going to react to certain things, then we are going to have precious little time to actually work on the encyclopedia itself. As Masem noted "The only rational solution is to write the encyclopedia without concerns of what is and isn't a spoiler (beyond the limited case of explaining what "spoilers" are), and carry a general disclaimer...." I agree. AgneCheese/Wine 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - I think that we agree more then we disagree, here. I can agree with the gist of your statement and those of Masem, it's the conclusion that you're drawing to oppose this proposal where we disagree. I support adding a specific little warning to all articles with plot details for what seems to be almost the exact same reasons that you're stating opposition. We shouldn't try to "predict people's feelings", which is the perfect reason to simple include the message.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Technically, we already "tag" everything that there may be spoilers, that's the general disclaimer. But let's take the idea that I think you're talking about a tag at the top of the page or the like. Ignoring the issue of tagging very old, fundamentally academic fictional works, there's a major slippery slopes that starts if you insist that, since we can't tell what is a spoiler or not, that this leads down:
- Maybe there's a notable biography or autobiography out there that goes into intimate details that are not widely known (but verified). Now, while there would be no "plot summary", there should and likely would be a brief summary of the narrative approach used in the work. We would like have to tag these with spoilers since anything not readily known about a person could be treated in that manner. This can be taken to apply to any book with some narrative, fiction or not, meaning that we may be requiring spoiler tags on The Bible or the like.
- Sporting events or articles covering current seasons would certainly need them, because maybe there are people that record a lot of games to watch at a later time (travel, work, whatever reason) and don't want to know the winner until they view it. Better spoiler that as well.
- There are probably more cases to consider. The point is, because what is a spoiler and what types of works spoilers can apply to is so vague, you start tagging every page to have that. Gee, we're back where we started: the general disclaimer that covers this.
- I also want to point out the truth of the statement "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me", as is applies to spoilers. A person that wanders on WP and is hit with a spoiler, whther intentionally or carelessness, so not be making that same mistake twice unless they cannot see the follow of trying to avoid spoilers on a comprehensive encyclopedic work. --MASEM (t) 07:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- The slippery slope you describe is pretty unlikely in my mind. I don't think anyone has ever suggested adding spoiler warnings to sports or biographical articles. Remember, the argument for spoiler warnings is largely based on their treatment elsewhere on the web, and what people consequently come to expect. No one expects spoiler warnings on sports or biography, because no other publications are worried over those things. As for "fool me once", just because someone sees a spoiler once doesn't necessarily mean they will infer that it's Wikipedia's policy to always include them with no warning. There are lots of other explanations that could spring to a person's mind in that situation. And, even if that were so, why not try to avoid that first unpleasant occurrence anyway? Equazcion (talk) 07:46, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Equazcion completely, in that the slippery slope argument that you're making is unconvincing. It seems to be more of a straw man argument designed to score points rather then a legitimate view of a slippery slope. Regardless, since it was brought up I wanted to mention that I don't find the existence of the general disclaimer to be an answer to this issue. The general disclaimer serves a (very) important function, but it's hardly designed with spoilers as the primary issue which it is addressing. I understand that it generally covers us (as editors) and Wikipedia for the vast majority of issues, which is it's primary function, but what we're discussing here is of a slightly different character. The point to spoiler warnings is to provide a service to the readers (in the form of making them immediately aware), which is a completely different function then the general disclaimer.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - But what Masem is referring to has happened in the past. Back when the original plot disclaimers was still in use, there were disclaimers on a bunch of non-fictional article including articles dealing with biblical figures and events, myths, ancient fairy tales, several scientific concepts, mathematical puzzles, and even biographies, such as Sir Francis Bacon. —Farix (t | c) 12:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- So in that case we do what is generally done when tags are added to articles that don't require them -- we remove them. There's a fairly clear line between fiction and everything else. I wouldn't have any particular problem with leaving a spoiler warning on ancient fairy tales though, as those are indeed fiction, as the point of this solution is to have an across-the-board implementation without subjective standards. Equazcion (talk) 12:21, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Since no one is listening to me, I'll just repeat myself because I like to type. In every other case regarding notability we always have relied on the standard of- if no secondary sources have ever seen fit to write about it, it isnt notable. The same standard must apply to plot summaries (and per Blueboar's comment, I do believe the intent has always been that they are summaries and not the retelling of the plot; which would be needlessly over-detailed). So if no secondary source has ever talked about the plot summary of a book, movie et al then you cant write about the plot based soley on the primary source itself. If those that work on those types of articles have a problem with us finally enforcing on them the standards that the rest of us have to live with on our geography, settlement, biography, etc articles then too bad for them. Yes it might be a fight, but we arent expecting from them harder limits or new limits, we are simply enforcing what has always been for the rest of us. To make it easier for them we can write an exception- if no secondary source is available then you can use the primary source of the book cover jacket or the dvd/tape cover (which of course wouldnt have spoilers). This solves the problem of classics as they are already covered by secondary sources (even ANCIENT classics, such as the Gilgamesh Epic, which is the oldest story written) and you wouldnt need a spoiler warning on ANYTHING, since spoilers would only exist if they had already been spoiled on a secondary source (and therefore we must assume they arent spoilers for the majority of readers anymore).Camelbinky (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, the same standard does not apply to plot summaries. The plot summary itself is not notable, the work is notable and the plot summary is a part of that work. You cannot claim that become no secondary sources discuss a work's contents that those contents must be left out of an article leaving nothing but the rest of the article. There IS no topic without the plot itself - it is the work. The plot is sourced to a reliable source - the primary source. It has nothing to do with trying to force some fake standard on anything. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources. Consensus has LONG agreed that the primary source can be used to provide a concise plot summary. This latest attempt to get rid of spoilers by removing plot summaries it blatantly transparent and purely ridiculous. And the exception makes it even clearer that all you want is to remove spoilers. The book jacket is okay, but not the book? At least attempt to try to find a realistic or feasible excuse for removing spoilers please. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- To all of those that used my name and personally attacked me (and yes it was a gang attack on me) by saying things like "Camelbinky needs to read x" and worse like- "Camelbinky doesnt understand our policies". You crossed the line and called me ignorant. You can have your own opinion on policies, and I can have mine, what you cant do is tell me I dont know the policies. I've worked on them for over 3-4 years, dont tell me I dont know them or I have to read anything. My views are equally valid to yours. There is no right way, and it sure as hell aint yours. Our policies are whatever they are interpreted as being, they arent spelled out laws that are there for all time with no interpretation needed. I have personally had things removed from articles because they werent notable, notability applies to more than just the topic, that is how things are enforced in the real Wikipedia editing world, you may have a different interpretation in "bureaucratic Wikipedia-world" but all that matters is how things are actually done at the articles, maybe you should edit more often. I'll be waiting for the apologies to come in on my talk page from those that pretty much said I was ignorant; if your going to complain that my complaint was too harsh or rude or (gag) "uncivil", dont come to my talk page because it isnt for you to complain that I stuck up for myself and threw back at you the same uncivil behavior you gave me. If you cant take it, then dont dish it out first. You stick to your opinion in a discussion and defending it, not in attacking ME telling me what I need to do or how stupid I am. There is no right way with policies, we each can have our own interpretation regarding them, there is no "I am right and you are wrong, so read the policy". If you thought this was uncivil, look at your own posts with neutral eyes.Camelbinky (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Spoiler Warnings--Break 3 I have too much of a headache to read through all of the above. Just wanted to say that initially, I was pro-spoiler warnings, but logically, I now see the cons. First and foremost, what you can get from a film article, you can get from IMDb minus a plot revelation on the primary page. So, if you're looking up a cast member, just go there instead where you won't be spoiled. Otherwise, you come to Wikipedia for the plot or the critical response, among other things you won't find at IMDb. I basically just think it should be common sense that when you're on the page of a film, you should naturally expect there to be spoilers. The best way to avoid it? Use the contents box, click on the section you need to see (awards, critics, box office, controversy, etc.), and avoid scrolling up. Usually, the plot section is padded with a list of cast members underneath it, so it helps to avoid reading the last line of a plot description. If we were to include a spoiler template above this section, then editors would add them to production or wherever else the tiniest spoiler existed. All one really needs to do is prevent spoilers from being in the intro paragraph. For example, the famed "celebrity comedy cameo" was in the Zombieland intro (I was pissed, but I'll probably love the film anyway), and that's unacceptable, in my opinion. It's unnecessary to mention minor, yet crucial, details such as that in the most eye-catching section. So, as long as editors avoid that and keep any major plot points out of the introduction, it should be kosher.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - When it comes to notability primary sources have never been acceptable as a show of notability. Yes, you need to show notability for the inclusion of a plot summary separate from that of "its the book itself". If the plot summary is not notable as you yourself say, the it shouldnt be there at all. I want these films, books, etc, to have the same standard of inclusion and notability as the rest of us have to deal with, I was being nice by giving that exception of using the book cover etc. You want me to be "transparent" and consistent then? Ok, no exception, if the plot summary isnt covered anywhere then you cant have one, if no secondary source covers an aspect of your book, movie, etc then it isnt notable and you cant have it; remove it, and that goes for the entire article as well. Your favorite tv show is not inherently notable if it isnt covered by a secondary source. Get rid of the whole lot of these articles. Is that better? I dont have an "agenda" about spoilers, I have an agenda about knocking down a group of editors who get special treatment. I cant get away with this crap on the history and geography articles I love to work on.Camelbinky (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Again, bull. Individual of sections do not need to meet notability, and no you do not need to show notability to include it. Films, books, etc do have the same standard of inclusion. They must be notable. If notable, part of their article includes a summary of the work itself. This is plan common-freakin sense. Your agenda is purely about removing spoilers, noting more. I do not see you trying to remove all primary sources from biographies or any other work. You are specifically and explicitly attacking the plot SECTION of articles, not the notability of the article themselves and not primary source usage. You have made it clear you are attacking them purely because you want to remove spoilers, nothing more. Shall we also examine your history/geography articles and make you prove the actual notability of every section of every article, and remove them if they do not have notability? There is no special treatment of fictional articles, and turning it from articles to a perceived "knock down a group of editors" only further invalidates your case. And funny, you claim you don't "get away with it" on articles, yet I see you have created wholly unsourced articles, while several defending fictional articles here have crafted FA and GA level articles on those topics, with a proper plot summary in each. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was one who favored spoilers four years ago. But we are more of an encyclopedia without them. And the subjectivity needed to determine what constitutes a spoiler is inherently POV. Unschool 06:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Collectonian is right. From WP:N itself (bolding is mine) - "This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It clearly and unquestionably states notability applies to creating a stand-alone article; not a section.陣内Jinnai 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is the most contrived bit of non-logic that I've seen for a while. The notability of a work of fiction, be it in print or on film, is what it is. That it is notable is covered by secondary sources, else the article doesn't remain. There is absolutely no valid reason to claim that the actual plot of the work of fiction would also need to be established separately as notable. Nonsense. If the work is notable, then the plot, by extension, is also notable, otherwise we'd only need two or three pages to cover all published books and recorded films and television programs: Book: "pieces of printed paper about something bound inside a cover that can be read" and Film/TV program: "A section of exposed film or videotape about something that can be viewed". The notability of the work covers the work itself, including the plot and theme. Otherwise there is no article about a work. Let's refrain from getting too extreme. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Camelbinky, you really need to go back and read WP:NOTE, especially the party titled "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Using primary sources to derive a plot summary is not a double standard. On the other hand, requiring only third-party sources to derive a plot summary is a double standard. Again, this is all part of the knee-jerk "spoiler" paranoia were people are willing to create such illogical double standards over such a non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I oppose the idea of adding another disclaimer to any article that may contain spoilers. Sarilox (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I think we're better without spoilers, and I think Camelbinky needs a better grasp of our policies on what we are not, on verifiability and on original research; as well as the guidance on notability, since currently the user is mangling them all rather badly. Hiding T 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC) This is ridiculous. Now the plot should be removed just to be "in accordance" with secondary sources, but truly only for the purpose of avoiding spoilers? There was even a discussion recently for a plot-specific template for articles which consists only of plot, and now this should be removed to avoid spoilers?. Honestly, I don't get why people are so obsessed with spoilers. If you don't want them, avoid Wikipedia altogether, don't try to change it to suit your needs. What's next? We shouldn't include "pseudosciences" because they might influence the people in some way of thinking? We should only include information which is "politically correct"? I oppose to either a specific tag for spoilers or to limit the content from having them. This is not a fan or entertainment site. Jfgslo (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - As I previously mentioned, it's a form of paranoia that causes people to act irrationally. Even if the issue itself is either extremely trivial or non-existent. The 2007 spoiler debate ended several double standards relating to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, as well as WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The only justifications that proponents of plot disclaimers could point to were "other sites use them" and "readers expect them", which aren't justifications at all. —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The plot of a work of fiction is an integral and defining part of such work of fiction, and deserve a section, unless there's a strong reason to justify otherwise. Once the notability of the work itself is pointed, that's enough. After all, there's no original research in desacribing a plot: it has been published, and anyone can take the work of fiction and verify it. There can problems of synthesis (describing the plot in a manner that brings novel explanations or conclussions), but not in the writing itself of the plot. MBelgrano (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Break 4 - No bright line test On the assumption that plot summaries aren't going anywhere (really, they aren't, that's a dead end knowing what it's like to work on WP:FICT and WP:PLOT): I think at the end of the day, the issue on spoiler warnings comes down to what pages they would be placed on. The problem is, because what is considered a spoiler is vague, any bright line, objective requirement on where to put spoiler warnings is going to leave information that others may consider spoilers out and "unprotected", thus irating those. Then they will come to complain, and we'll have to move that line again, adding more under it that needs to be spoiled. And then the process will repeat: people will come and complain wondering why something else wasn't covered. I'm sure at some point we'll find articles that are impossible to have spoilers, but what's in the spoilered set will include a lot more than just fiction. Now, as suggested, if we stay our ground and refuse to budge once we set a line, so that some people will remain upset that we refuse to allow spoilers on some articles, then we're being hypocritical, because we are readding these to prevent people from becoming upset. We can't just say, "Well, this will avoid spoilers for 90% of our readers". Either we aim for all readers to be spoiler protected (* recognizing there are stubborn people that assume every factoid is a spoiler, which it will be impossible for us to meet), or we aim for none. Aiming for none is a much more realistic goal than aiming for all. Again, we have the general disclaimer. We need to assume our readers have enough common sense that if they went to a recent movie article here on WP and were spoiled, they would likely have the same experience if they went to another recent movie article and thus can choice to go there or not. This avoids any issues with having to guess what is and isn't a spoiler and protecting them appropriately. It's the easiest answer to any other solution. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - If the ultimate goal of the disclaimer proponents is that we don't upset people, then we also need to throw out our policies on censorship and pretty much everything else listed on WP:NOT. Add to that the other content policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR because someone is going to get upset when when these policies are enforced as well. —Farix (t | c) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- To boil it all down. People is going to be upset regardless of what we do about so-called "spoilers". So just like every other topic, instead of worrying about people become upset, we should focus on what is best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource. And in that view, there isn't any reason to include plot disclaimers or exclude certain plot details. —Farix (t | c) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conflating multiple issues? There seems to be a lot of objections (and support) to this based on secondary effects/issues... is it accurate to say that the real objection to "spoiler warnings" has to do with misuse/over-tagging? Is it also accurate to say that some supporters may be motivated by a desire to limit content, rather then simply warn about it's comprehensiveness?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - I can't speak for anyone else, but my feelings are twofold. If spoilers are to be included, I think a warning would be a good idea. The question of limiting content is in terms of keeping only quality information in articles. If secondary sources are to be required for plot summaries, which I think would achieve the quality standard, I think that would in turn subvert the need for warnings, since spoilers don't generally appear in reliable secondary sources. Equazcion (talk) 05:31, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Fine if you can tell me what a spoiler is. In 50 First Dates the ending to The Sixth Sense is a plot point, so the film 50 First Dates is a spoiler for the Sixth Sense, the DVD doesn't contain a spoiler warning for those who haven't seen it. By this definition a spoiler lasts 5 years. The Mousetrap ends with the cast asking the audience not to reveal the ending, so do we keep an 80 year old play's ending secret? Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Again the proposal is to add a spoiler warning to all pages that contain plot summaries, so as to avoid the very conundrum of subjectively judging spoilers from non-spoilers. Equazcion (talk) 20:56, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- We just got rid of one excessive reader warning, please let's not (re)create another one. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well I'd say we would need to decide whether or not it is indeed excessive. But out of curiosity which reader warning are you referring to that was gotten rid of? Equazcion (talk) 21:51, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- It already has been decided, {{spoiler}} was deleted. Regarding other reader warnings, you should know that one. :) See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Garion96 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aside from WP:Consensus can change, this is not a proposal to bring back the same spoiler templates. This is a new proposal that attempts to eliminate the major issues that plagued previous handling of spoiler warnings. As for future templates, yes I am familiar with that :) But I obviously think spoiler warnings would be far less useless than those. Equazcion (talk) 22:25, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Don't add spoiler tags, or require more than primary sources for plots. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I think it's a terrible idea to start adding useless tags or warnings to articles. Why would a spoiler would need to be warned about anyway? It's better for users to avoid looking for plots if they don't want them. It would be similar to tagging articles which talk about politics because they may offend susceptibilities. Warnings are needed when there is a problem with the information, such as if it is biased, original research, lacks sources, too short, etc. Spoilers, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the quality of the information and, as such, I'm against adding tags of that nature. There is nothing inherently wrong with spoilers to being with. Jfgslo (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Hide-able plot sections? If some readers don't want to stumble across important plot points when looking up other details about a fictional work, why can't we include a way to easily hide plot sections on articles, such as a "Hide" javascript link in the table of contents and by the Plot section heading? It could be set as default to show for each article, but a particular user could have a setting to auto-hide plot sections. Fences&Windows 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - As I was reading through the discussion, this is what struck me. If you really, really want to avoid spoilers then there is a possibility to opt out. That said it will be difficult to avoid everything, as it might also be discussed in the reception section perhaps. Possibly you could have a hidden spoiler tag that would only work if people enabled it that would make the section hide itself. It all seems tricky and I am unsure how much help it would be, as the discussion seems to be that those who know Wikipedia would expect there to be spoilers so it is the random visitor poppping in from Googling about something we should be worried about and they'd presumably be the ones less likely to be logged in and opting for a spoilers. It is a bit difficult trying to second guess this kind of thing but if people think this might be useful then I suppose it is an option. (Emperor (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
- Hiding any article text is a bad thing, as it implies the content is not that important to the article (and thus should be on another page), and unfortunately it is impossible to expand content before a page is printed, meaning that the CD and printed page versions will lack this section unless it is unhidden.
- That said, there is the possibly of a CSS driven solution that would be to wrap all sections in a uniquely named "div" class. A user that is worried about spoilers would be able to customize their CSS worksheets to hide text from that div class (and possibly then to provide the code to do that). However, this needs to be "opt-in" for all the reasons above; an IP will not be able to access these settings and thus would need to see the whole thing. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dislike the idea. Besides being a technical nightmare, and no article text should be hidden by default which makes it useless for the random IP readers. We do not hide any other controversial material, nor should a plot, which is far less controversial than certain images in the various sexual topics. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Waste of time. The audience that we're talking about helping here are people who either don't know that they could use gadgets to help themselves (for those few who actually log in), or in the vast majority of cases do not have access to gadgets (IP Users). It's nice to see at least some consideration being given, though! :)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Hideable text has almost always been considered a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED policy, and that is unlikely to change just over plot details. We shouldn't be creating double standards with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just to elevate the feelings of a small group of readers. And even with such a system, there is going to be someone upset about certain plot details regardless of what you do. So instead of worrying about people's feelings, we should focus on what is best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Could you refrain from further use of "paranoia" and "feelings" based hyperbole, please? You're not elevating the conversation here at all. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - So long as proponents of plot disclaimers keep claiming that the disclaimers are needed so as to not offend other people, I'm going to keep calling it paranoia and pointing out the double standards. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to second that (Ohms Law's comment). Most of Wikipedia's various evolutions could be described as attempts to cater to people's "feelings", and almost any proposed change could be dismissed as such, with the right wording. Equazcion (talk) 21:18, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Well your entire arguement so far has been based on people's feel instead of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. So of course you want your opposition to stop pointing out the most obvious flaw in your position. —Farix (t | c) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- People's feelings regarding what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. People's feelings could be referenced as part of the motivation behind the general disclaimer, the civility policy, BITE, a host of other behavioral guidelines, BLP, etc. Catering to people's feelings is just another way of saying we care about readers and what they expect from an encyclopedia. I don't see anything wrong with that. Paranoia is an ever more ambiguous dismissal, and also covers those policies along with, especially, the general disclaimer. These dismissive classifications aren't helpful. "of course you want your opposition to stop pointing out the most obvious flaw in your position" -- No, I wouldn't have a problem with people pointing out flaws, and haven't asked anyone else to stop making particular arguments above, if you'll look through this discussions. I respect my opposition and have addressed their points, as many of them are valid concerns. This one is merely dismissive of the issue. If you genuinely feel this to be a non-issue, there's no reason to keep saying it, as it doesn't contribute constructively to the discussion. We already know how you feel. Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Plot isn't always neatly contained within a section titled "plot." A good article on a work of fiction will deconstruct the plot, both summarizing it as a whole and discussing it as it relates to conception, casting, production, critical response, and influence on other works, not to mention summarizing the whole subject in the lede. So hiding text wouldn't work, even if it were not a bad idea for other reasons. postdlf (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Alternate solution Here's a thought: instead of doing anything new, why not simply move the link to the general disclaimer into a more prominent position? Everyone seems to think that the GD is acceptable, and that it's the answer to this problem, so let's stick with that.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - The general disclaimer is basically useless for any purpose except Wikipedia's legal self-protection. How many web-page disclaimers, terms of service, privacy policies, etc., do you read? Far fewer than the web pages you visit. And we're talking about something quite specific, not legal advice, medical advice, libel or offensive language.—— Shakescene (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but at least the existence of the general disclaimer seems to have everyone's support. It's used as an excuse to do nothing else in the spoiler warning direction, at least.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Is it possible to add a "spoiler" check box to the readers' preferences that does NOT require the wiki pages themselves to be altered? For instance if in my personal preferences I click on "hide plots" and any section containing the word "plot" or "synopsis" in the header of a work of fiction (film, book, comic etc) becomes the same color as the background when I view the pages (I would have to highlight the section to become visible. It would be a crappy spoiler filter at best with lots of loopholes, but it would not require changing ANY page, just adding a viewing preference check box. People who don't care about spoiler warning need never see the warnings, people who are spoiler phobic have something to filter their content so they don't read the dreaded spoiler. You could even make the filter self-programmable, the user just enters words he thinks might lead to spoilers like "if there is the words XXX or YYY header, hide the text by making it the color of the background, or clickable, or whatever. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - I don't think that would be technically practical. Besides, completely hiding plot sections isn't the goal, at least as far as I'm concerned, and would be "the other extreme", so to speak. I don't think anyone wants articles on fictional works to be completely devoid of plot information. Also, a major motivation behind this is unregistered users, and only registered users would have access to the preferences section that would contain a checkbox. Equazcion (talk) 01:05, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify: If entire plot sections were hidden dynamically, ie. in a way in which they could be easily un-hidden, there would still be the problem that if people want to see any plot information at all, they would then risk reading spoilers. Articles on fictional works become sort of useless if you don't look at any plot information. Equazcion (talk) 01:08, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- (edit conflict x2:)I don't advocate cramping or distorting other discussions within an article to hide the plot or think that once such incidental (and unavoidable) spoilers are present, there's any feasible or attractive way of hiding them. That's a risk one takes in reading all criticism. But specific plot sections or paragraphs that do give the conclusions could be hidden by default in a collapsed and openable box, while "User Preferences" (for the small minority of readers who do register as editors) could be set to "Open all spoiler boxes" or "Do not hide plots." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since ALL PLOT is a potential spoiler, I can't see any way to hid it besides all or nothing, and letting the reader uncover it line by line. I don't see how you can expect a writer to decide what is a "spoiler" and what isn't to another reader. Therefor EVERYTHING in a plot is a spoiler, and EVERYTHING can be hidden from someone who complains they don't want to be spoiled. The only other alternative would be to simply have a checkbox that says "hide spoilers" and if the reader activated it all of Wikipedia diapppears from their screen, and they don't have to worry about being spoiled. However, if someone wants to make an example of how they think spoilers shoudl be labeled, I suggest taking an existing Wikipedia film or book article, and make a copy of it on their talk page, editing it into a spoiler-protected version, and let us see it, as I have no idea what you consider a spoiler. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- "The only other alternative would be to simply have a checkbox that says "hide spoilers" and if the reader activated it all of Wikipedia diapppears from their screen, and they don't have to worry about being spoiled." That was a very humorous statement and actually made me laugh out loud. Well done :) I'm not suggesting hiding certain spoiler content, aside from the primary source proposal further up, which is a slightly different bag. I'm merely proposing a warning on all pages that contain fictional plot descriptions. The very purpose of this proposal is to provide a warning while avoiding the subjectivity of selecting spoiler content. Equazcion (talk) 01:43, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- You beat me to posting that suggestion, but I still wrote the userscript: User:Anomie/hidespoilers.js. Anomie⚔ 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A yet more alternate solution Do nothing. Wikipedia has spoilers, encyclopedia articles will describe their subject as comprehensively as the source material allows. Ignore whining from upset fans who read articles and discover snape killed dumbledore, the chick from the crying game is a dude or bruce willis is dead. We aren't a fan site. We aren't imdb. We are a fucking encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - I'd start with that whole bolding !vote thing, but that would stifle discussion, because I know that's where this suggestion would go... :/ --Izno (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- We do have our share of sexual content, but I wouldn't go as far as to call us a fucking encyclopedia. Okay bad joke. Anyway, your opinion seems clear on what an encyclopedia article on a contemporary movie should be, but I might disagree, and the lack of precedent does make this a matter of opinion. "Ignore the whining people who express a concern I don't share"? I suppose that might be a valid position. Equazcion (talk) 04:30, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Having seen the size of this discussion, it rather looks like people are disagreeing with rather than ignoring your point of view. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many people are disagreeing, yes. But when someone says they're instead ignoring it, that probably means they're ignoring it. Equazcion (talk) 16:11, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just POV. Whenever we do a survey (e.g. the recent usability project's survey), we find that a big reason folks go to wikipedia is the lack of contrivance and flashy things on our pages. Each article at worst has a bunch of content tags (that more non-editors ignore anyway), but there is no gaudy warning, rollover bar for spoilers or anything else. We present text and images in an attempt to inform and contextualize. That's our job. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not to dismiss a survey of which I never took the time to read, but Protonk, as an editor I respect and has in the past given us much insightful thoughtful comments, wouldnt you agree the the actual number 1 reason that an average non-editor comes to a particular Wikipedia page is by way of Google (or other search engine of choice)? Since Google in particular ranks according to hitcount Wikipedia articles get to be the number one slot due to the fact that they are visted so often during editing and not by people actually using them, which of course makes their hit-count go up. (I actually have gotten Tech Valley up in Google ranking just by going to it several times a day, I've literally watched it go up several slots in one day, and the reason I do several short edits instead of one big one). So if I search on Google for X movie that just came out, and as most people, go to one of the first several links (which is most likely going to be the Wikipedia article), then I'm not making a concious decision that "Hmmm, Wikipedia might have spoilers, lets go to IMDb instead". People are idiots, I think some in this discussion are giving people too much credit saying "if they didnt want spoilers they shouldve gone elsewhere". People are morons.Camelbinky (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that arguing ppl come to wikipedia because we are highly ranked on google is both true and tautological. Its what I call the wal-mart effect. Wal-mart can charge the prices they do and attract the customers they do becuase so many people shop at wal-mart, but that does a poor job of explaining why wal-mart has so many customers. :) I'm not suggesting that the only reason people come here is the lack of flashiness (to pick a word out of the air), but that it is an important reason. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was never in favor of anything flashy or dynamic. Just a static warning -- a few words on the top of the screen. Much less obtrusive than those maintenance tags that you say readers ignore. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- And apart from my objection voiced above, I am actually against a static warning like that. I could be convinced that for most articles on a fictional work, "spoilers" should be kept from the lede, but that needs to be an editorial decision, not something that flows outward from a policy discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that, but you haven't backed up that position except to point out issues with the more flashy solutions, which don't apply to my proposal. Equazcion (talk) 02:31, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that, given that I haven't actually advanced that position. I have enough confidence that this will flounder without more strenuous opposition on my part. Protonk (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Equazcion (talk) 02:49, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)
I've got very mixed views on spoiler warnings. On the one hand, we want to serve our readers and it seems pretty clear that our readers greatly prefer them. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me how a spoiler warning is substantially different from a warning that an article contains pictures of Muhammad or the Bab or the Bahaullah. We'd put that down as unacceptable. Are we more willing to listen to one group over the other for any neutral reason? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - That's exactly the reason that I suggested simply making the existing General Disclaimer more prominent. That could be done simply by moving it from the bottom of the page to the top, or the sidebar, for example.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - Ohm, would it be possible for you to show or at least describe a possible acceptable move for the disclaimer? And I would suggest using a link to the content disclaimer rather than the general disclaimer as the content one specifically mentions spoilers.
- Per the WP:Spoiler guideline- "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." So, my question is for those who think spoiler sections based solely on the primary source is acceptable- how is that serving an encyclopedic purpose without being "indiscriminate information"? How does using just the primary source for the plot "describe it from a real-world perspective" or discusses its "reception" or its "impact and significance"? By using just the primary source for the plot you arent addressing any of those things IMHO as you are regurgitating what the book/movie simply says. This is a real question, I'm not trying to be difficult, I really dont understand. I also dont understand how if there are no secondary sources regarding the plot of a book/movie- how is the book/movie even notable? If it is notable and there are secondary sources regarding the book/movie I assume they also cover the plot (and which if they have spoilers ok, have them included without a warning). A book/movie isnt notable just because it exists right?Camelbinky (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Because in a perfect article, real-world details are supposed to also be present in other sections. If you list production details and other things, then it won't make sense because the reader won't know the context. If you list why a writer chose to have a certain plot twist, the reader won't understand if the plot is not there. Personally, I find this whole thing utterly ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "spoiler-free" summary, as a mere sentence summing up the plot could spoil it for someone. You have to use common sense here. If a user doesn't want to know what happens in a story, then why would they read through paragraphs explaining the plot? It makes no sense. Ωphois 12:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support the addition of spoiler warnings. This issue has not died and is continually revived. Contrary to what is claimed there is no consensus on it. Some people have argued that a principle of complete information says that there should be no warning. Completely false. Complete information requires the presence of spoiler warnings. The reader has more information not less when he/she knows he/she might be spoiled or not. For an article about a new release, a spoiler warning is simple common sense. If the main issue against the warning is that they are open to abuse and kept longer than necessary then a compromise might be that such warnings can only be in effect for a set amount of time from date of publication or release although I think it should be left to editor discretion. The spoiler guidelines are taking an absolutist stand when instead they can be modified to better address instances of abuse. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is significantly different from traditional encyclopedias. A realistic look at how it is used belies the claim that people should know they are going to be spoiled by reading a Wikipedia article. Lambanog (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh man, this discussion still hasn't died out ? I vote for the current status quo. To quote joshua: "it isn't clear to me how a spoiler warning is substantially different from a warning that an article contains pictures of Muhammad or the Bab or the Bahaullah. We'd put that down as unacceptable. Are we more willing to listen to one group over the other for any neutral reason" —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A project you might be interested in Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support and rejuvenate the Wikipedia community. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reliability I propose a system to address the reliabilty issue in Wikipedia. I got the idea from the OTRS system in Wikipedia. It is something like this: - Say that the editors in a talk page agreed that 2+2=4 .
- An uninvolved admin will close the discussion and create a special template or link for the consensus: {consensus|2+2=4}. The template can only be created or changed by admins (or a new user group).
- An article can cite the consensus: 2+2=4 <ref>{consensus|2+2=4}</ref>.
Of course anyone can change the article to say 2+2=5 , but the citation will not support their claim. This in no way should affect the decision to include the statement "2+2=4" in the article. But if it is included ,with the citation, the reader can have more confidance in the inforamation. Sole Soul (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - Consensus can change, references should be to reliable sources, not to talk page discussions between editors. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like an interesting idea but I don't think it would be practical for a couple of reasons. First, it would open up the possibility for people to use WP:Sock puppetry to create the appearance of consensus on their opinion and then be able to be able to cite it as a fact according to Wikipedia. Second, talk pages for an article are not necessarily monitored by people who would be qualified and/or unbiased enough to make a reliable determination. For example the statement "Wesley Crusher is a dork," might get a consensus agreement on the List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes talk page, but that doesn't imply that it should be cited as a reliable source.--RDBury (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The current ad-hoc system of hidden HTML comments is sufficient for this role and is mostly and should ideally only be used for editorial/non-factual issues, such as sensitive/precise phrasing, choices that are at some level arbitrary (e.g. choice of examples), etc. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I oppose this idea as Z-man notes that consensus can change, and the very mention in this proposal that "only admins" could then change the consensus scares the crap out of me. Please remember that administrator=school janitor and nothing more. They clean up our messes but they dont have any real "authority". They arent our superiors and arent here to supervise us, they do what we tell them to do with poweres we give them.Camelbinky (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with others above. In addition, we're supposed to cite reliable sources (i.e., not ourselves (mostly)). Simple clarifications (a paragraph or so) can be given in the usual footnotes, which is more presentable than linking to talk pages. • Anakin (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia is not a social networking site and there is irc and bla bla bla. But some people cant use irc. I think there should be a community lounge where people can just relax, and chat about the things going on Wikipedia. Now to make this different from a social network, subject would have to be Wikipedia related. But here, we could all meet each other and see if anyone has any common interests on Wikipedia. As of now, no one really knows anyone.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - That's what IRC is for. If you don't have a client, java.freenode.net/ \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but some schools block it. And I just want a place where I can chat with other contributers, without getting into trouble with my school.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal - Bold watchlisting I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think this will be a great new feature. I think it would a good idea to add an option to the watchlist where you can make certain pages appear bold (like watchlisted pags appear bold in the recent changes). Here's a sample of what the watchlist may look like with such a feature (feel free to edit): 4 November 2009 Such a feature would be used when an editor is keeping a closer eye out on one or more particular pages, possibly due to an event, or a large amount of vandalism and/or disruption on a particular page. This feature would also be useful to those with large watchlists. In the recent changes, bold watchlisted pages may appear bold and italicized. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Cheers, --Meaghan guess who :) 23:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - The idea has merit, but it may need to use something other than boldface for the highlight. There is an existing feature (I can't recall if it's part of the system or if it is one of the many scripts I'm running) that uses boldface for watchlist changes that occur after your last check. Perhaps a colour, or italics? --Ckatzchatspy 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, maybe it could use more of an emphasis. Some examples:
| Bold and italicized | 4 November 2009 (2) | | Bold and coloured in red | 4 November 2009 (3) | | Bold and highlighted in yellow | 4 November 2009 (4) | -
- --Meaghan guess who :) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea, and of the three examples I like the bold and highlighted in yellow the most. But, um, can you please change the colour of the toxic glow in the dark green headers on those collapsibles right above? I think my eyes are melting in my head right now from looking at it. A neutral earthy tone perhaps? Just anything that isnt so...bright and hurtful! Thanks!Camelbinky (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, those were just the default colours for the {{collapse top}} template. I've changed them to a light grey. Cheers, --Meaghan guess who :) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I think they're currently trying to get bold watchlist items to differentiate between which pages you've viewed since the last change and whisch you haven't. They tried implementing it once a few months ago but it was buggy. It may have been put on hold. Something similar to this comes up often -- multiple watchlists, or flags for watchlists, some way for editors to differentiate groups of watched pages. The discussions have so far fizzled out, but I continue to agree that something like that would be hugely beneficial, as some of us have enormous watchlists that could use some form of organization. Equazcion (talk) 00:31, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- I am for the highlighting too! REINCARNUT (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 08:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Previewing references So, it happened again. I add a bit of info to an article, complete with reference, preview to check that the info is fine, save -and find I've stuffed up the reference. Is there any way of making it so that the preview edit window also previews any references shown? So that, say, if you're editing one section of an article, you'll get a preview of that section and also of the reference list showing the references within that section? Grutness...wha? 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - You could add a dummy References subsection or tag while previewing, then remove it before submitting. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mmmm, yeah - that'd do the trick. It's a bit of a kludge, perhaps, but it would work. Thanks. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it would be quite nice if there was a more integrated way to do it. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Great tip though! I'd not thought of that. Fences&Windows 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, neither had I until just now. Funny how the mind works. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is at least one user script that does something like this. Anomie⚔ 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is a feature I would like to see added as well. You should submit a request. Rmhermen (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I use Anomie's script, although it does not work with list-defined references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- How so? Anomie⚔ 17:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can always not add the ref tags either, until after the preview. Hiding T 13:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Try using substitute tags like supAuthor Name. Book Title (printing/release date). Publisher. ISBN or similar. Page or pages. converting them to refs before you save. -- allen四names 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a script written by John Vandenberg based on an original script by a German editor ParaDox, at User:FT2/scripts/previewrefs.js. It's not perfect, but largely does the job. If someone wants to improve it and add it to the built-in gadgets.....? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I have completed a how-to essay, Wikipedia:Using WebCite, that describes how to use WebCite within Wikipedia. It is an analogue of Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. Perhaps people can review it and proofread.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] 3D logo of Wikipedia May be you have also already wondered what is on the other side of Wikipedia logo globe. It's a bit like a far side of the Moon. Let's discover it. Let's create a fully 3D logo of Wikipedia. Miraceti (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) - In all likelihood, there's some IP vandalism scrawled across the back. --King Öomie 17:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#3D Versions, and this recent blogpost a-3d-sign-globe-for-wikimedia, and meta:Wikipedia/Logo and more! -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Feedback pages Thought: we have the {{documentation}} template which creates /doc subpages for templates. We could have a similar template which creates /feedback subpages for Help: pages and perhaps policies and guidelines, using a preload template to provide users with a couple of questions to answer about how helpful it was, etc. This would encourage feedback from newbie users and collect it in one useful place. (Some might say "they can use the talk page", which is true. But the talk page may be full of all sorts of off-puttingly complex discussion, and on high-traffic pages you don't want such feedback disrupting such discussion either. Plus the subpages can have their own category, enabling Related Changes specifically on such feedback, for those interested in following it up.) Comments? Rd232 talk 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) - That's a good idea; it's clear we need to get feedback from new users on specific pages or points. But they may still be puzzled by the new environment and hesitant to give feedback. For best results, we'd need an extension for that purpose; the WMF has already organized campaigns for feedback, it can be done. Cenarium (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a crack at this - {{Feedback page}}, but I can't seem to make the preload work as expected - it just overwrites the page. I've used just an editintro for now, but that's less useful. Anyone? Rd232 talk 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Got it. Now in experimental use at Help:Userspace draft. Any, er, feedback on it? Rd232 talk 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like this: Feedback Rd232 talk 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Any thoughts on the above template ({{feedback page}})? Rd232 talk 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It feels like a good idea in principle, but a bad idea in practise. My fear is that it goes the same way as those comments pages we used to use when assessing articles, which just all got deprecated. That said, I don't see why it isn't tried, it could fly. Hiding T 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike those comments pages, the feedback pages are clearly aimed at a different audience. I'm not certain it'll work out either, but I think it's worth a try. Rd232 talk 09:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've made significant changes to the template, hope you concur. I moved it to {{leave feedback}} and now, {{feedback page}} can be used at the top of feedback pages (needs some work I think). {{leave feedback}} uses options, link for a simple link: Leave feedback, coord for the link within span "coordinates", and section for the section as above. It can use specific editintros and preloads. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - Yes, that's fine, though I don't get the "coords" bit. And the "feedback page" header needs work, I've tweaked it a bit but I can't make the layout as appealing as I'd like. How widely/quickly should we deploy this? Should we use on policy/guideline pages too? Rd232 talk 09:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've planned to modify it so we can use it not only on individual pages, but also for example to get feedback on speedy deletion from templates or messages. We shouldn't deploy it before it's stable enough. What about centralizing all feedback pages as subpages of Wikipedia:Feedback (ex Wikipedia:Feedback/<help pagename>, but also Wikipedia:Feedback/speedy deletion, Wikipedia:Feedback/page protection, etc . Cenarium (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The coord is an alternative form. On certain pages, we won't be able to use a section, though something closer to a pagenotice would be better, but we don't have the functionality. Other forms could be added. As for policy pages, we could consider requesting feedback there too. Cenarium (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There's discussion and coordination at Template talk:Leave feedback. Cenarium (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Image Wizard I propose an Image wizard, to guide a new user through the license options for uploading an image. It would work like the article wizard works, but give options for image copyright tags . For example the first question would be "Did you take the picture?" and then it would go from there (I.E. Was it uploaded by nasa?). This would be an easier way to choose the right option for tagging an image. I feel like our current system (Special:Upload) is to complicated for new users. Tell me what you think! --Tim1357 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - I tried to write a wizard for image copyright licenses once. After twenty pages, I still hadn't adequately distinguished between "free" and "non-free" content; distingushing between "fair use" and "copyvio" would have been a nightmare. --Carnildo (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- You should take a look at how Wikimedia Commons deals with their uploads: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload. Fences&Windows 04:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that just their version of Wikipedia:Upload? Rd232 talk 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it is. Well, if editors are ignoring the clear existing guidelines, a wizard won't make a blind bit of difference. Perhaps we should be less tolerant of serial copyright abusers. Fences&Windows 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's an RFC on that very topic: Wikipedia_talk:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Process_board_proposal. But to be fair, both Wikipedia:Upload and Special:upload could be improved substantially in clarity: the former by organising the options more logically, the latter by reducing the "wall of text" effect with better layout and maybe less detail, and by being able have the "Step 1/2/3" descriptions within the form itself (this requires a software change). Rd232 talk 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Images for upload. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by anonymous users After some 60, 70 edits in the article Dodo the progress has been aproximatly zero. Isn't it time to stop allowing anonymous users making edits in Wikipedia articles? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - No, no, no, no. We've been through at least three different proposals already in the last two months about restricting IPs and newbies. When will it end? What is the point in getting ride of IPs? Why is everyone so intent on keeping out new blood? Why not put on the main page- we have all the editors we need, dont bother editing unless you want to be one of us". (reference to an old horror movie "Freaks") No more IP or newbie bashing around here ok?Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was rather harsh (and ironic) considering by most measures Jan is also a newbie.
- Jan, please see this link explaining why this perennial proposal is unliekly to ever be adopted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- The other responses notwithstanding, we do semi-protect articles which are frequent or ongoing targets of anonymous vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, considering the fact that of the 5 effective improvements in that list only one was made by an anonymous IP (which sheds a doubt on the 82% mentioned here) this article applies for an everlasting state of semi-protection. All the edits minus one were with the benefit of hindsight vandalisms and subsequent corrections. Eventually people will get tired of reverting vandalism and will stop doing so. There are articles on the outskirts of Wikipedia, where barely anyone goes. The information presented there is by the nature of Wikipedia unreliable. The motto of Wikipedia is to feel free and improve. This means, we should improve Wikipedia itself also, by safeguarding against the presentation of mis-information. A "No, no, no, no" will not suffice. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Camelbinsky, well do I remember how you responded when, I think it was in September this year, just this very idea was put forth. I hardly think I need to repeat that my own policy was we need to remember Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers, and should not put new editors off who may still have to learn to set up userpages. A common response when this proposal was made before was why did the initiator of the proposal not check the "perennial proposals" - I rather think that if this proposal is made again, it should be sent to the "perennial proposals list" (sorry, I need an administrator to help me here!) ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) -
- Above it is claimed that requiring registration would "keep out new blood" by deterring new users. But the rationale at WP:Perennial proposals#Editing is that registration would not deter vandals because it take them only "10 seconds to register". Whoa, wait a minute, which way is it going to be? Does registration deter, or not? This is argument based on perception, and that it is being swung both ways brings its validity into question. For all that everyone here may have an opinion about this, I have yet to see any solid data.
-
- Similarly for the implied argument that registration would simply eliminate the "76% or 82% of anonymous edits [which] are intended to improve the encyclopedia". The implicit assumption is that in such cases anonymity is an absolute requirement, without which these editors (and editing) will simply disappear. Again, we really have no data about that, but I rather doubt that taking "10 seconds to register" would deter serious editors. (See also WP:Editors should be logged in users.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, its a good thing that policy on Wikipedia is determined through consensus of the Community and not consensus of facts and figures. So really, I dont see why some want or need to see any solid data. If the majority of us figure it probably isnt a smart idea (and I'm confident the majority does not want to force everyone to sign up) then it isnt going to happen and it doesnt matter how much data you have to support your idea that forcing them to sign up would be beneficial to Wikipedia. Some things, like these perennial "Wikipedia Patriot Act" ideas to eliminate vandalism by controlling IPs and newbies arent acceptable due to their loss of our core ideas of being open and freedom of editing and equality for all. Whats next, IPs and newbies cant comment on Village Pump, AN/I, noticeboards, article talk pages?Camelbinky (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- It may not deter "serious editors", but most serious editors already create accounts. The issue is that it would deter casual editors - people who might add some info or correct an error in what they read, but won't go out of their way looking for things to edit. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mr Z, as usual, hit the nail on the head. Most of the IP editing I see are from IPs correct my poor spelling or grammar, and I assume but of course cant verify that they are doing so because they happened to be looking up something, saw the misspelling and corrected it, not because they are hardcore Wikipedia fanatics on a mission. Many seem to think that if your not a fanatic and not signing up you must be a vandal. Some just like to edit as they find things when reading things they are looking up, why force them to sign up or make it uncomfortable for them so they feel forced; we become a less effective source for the casual reader. And let us remember- the casual reader, our audience, is why we do this endeavor; we write for them, not for each other or for ourselves, in a way they are our boss. We should strive to function as they need us, and not attempt to convert them into editors or to force readers to understand our backroom bureaucracy (and despite resistance by myself and others, bureaucracy is what we have, unfortunately).Camelbinky (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Camelbinky's last comment. Some of us, such as those who have signed our names above, are happy to be logged-in editors - but there may be casual Wikipedians who only visit Wikipedia sporadically, who think they may have a go at editing and who have no intention of setting up a userpage. And why should they? That is up to them. To insist in edits from only logged-in editors would be a little like saying, in a parliamentary democracy, only members of politcal parties should have a right to vote. Each to one's own, some may be interested enough in Wikipedia to set up a userpage; others may have other pressing interests and not wish to do this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Force preview before saving for new users I know this is enabled by default on some Wikipedias, but this might work good here, we should force new users to "think" before they hit submit by requiring them to preview their edits before they save their changes. This, along with maybe additional messages that could be shown to new users, could help some of the issues we have with new users, and may slow down the flow of junk in new pages. However I predict downsides, backlash, etc, but if done right, this could be perfect. Of course by "new" I mean, not autoconfirmed, or specific amount of edits, etc. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - So let's send a mixed message. I'd rather have to clean up after someone who inserted bold than not have them edit again. :( --Izno (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please see previous related discussion here and here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Argh, another "bite the newbie" proposal. Five now in the past two months? I'm going to propose that anyone who wants to limit IPs or newbies have their editing limited or constrained for a month and that way they can see how it feels to have their own proposals put on them. Its easy to propose to limit the abilities of people who arent you.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I'm confused; how exactly is this bitey? Treating them different = bitey? Does that mean not allowing them to move articles is bitey? --Golbez (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some limits come out of necessity (can't let everyone edit every page and page moves can easily be disruptive). Normal editing should be as easy as possible, though. Adding extra hurdles will simply discourage more people from editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] [simple] button along the top, next to [article], [discussion], [edit this page], and [history] buttons Add a button to the top of each article that takes the reader to the [simple.wikipedia.org simple.wikipedia.org] version of the article. There are many times when I need to do this, when I am reading about a topic with which I am not entirely familiar. The only way to do this for me is quite clumsy: C-l C-[left arrow] C-[left] C-[left] C-[left] C-[backspace] s i m p l e .
Compare this to the dialect/script variant conversion buttons across the top of article pages on the Chinese wikipedia. I think that this would give the simple wikipedia more exposure, which is good because it is a great resource and IMHO it isn't taken advantage of nearly enough. If consensus is reached against my proposal, then please simply consider this a request for a user script to put in Monobook.js to make this happen. :) Any suggestions or proposals of variations on this idea are more than welcome. :) 76.190.210.196 (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - If there is a simple article for a EN article, it should have an interwiki link, which appears in the list of links on the left side of the page. I don't see any reason to add a more prominent link at the top. This would give Simple inappropriate and undue weight over all other Wiki variations, for no reason I can see. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well, it is a little different, seeing as they are merely different writing styles of the same, mutually intelligible language. I find that in practice, usually the interwiki simple link doesn't happen. It is very likely that the same people who is on en.wikipedia.org will also find simple.wikipedia.org useful is a lot higher than that of somebody on en.wikipedia.org finding, say, la.wikipedia.org useful. Okay, so that was a bad, straw man example, seeing as latin is a dead language, but you get my idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.210.196 (talk • contribs) 00:43, November 8, 2009
- Not really (getting your idea). If the interwiki link is missing, it should be added. There are bots which do it automatically, presuming the article on Simple is named correctly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) ¶ If the Simple English version of an article exists, then it should already be listed along the left-hand side of the page, together with versions in other languages. See, for example, Manhattan. I'm missing something here, because I don't see the need for an extra tab along the top, especially when I can think of several things where I or others would prefer to see tabs (e.g. view code without editing), but which haven't been tabbed by default because of concerns about crowding. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of the Simple English Wikipedia (supposedly) is to help those with poor English skills, by using a limited vocabulary and simpler grammar. While a simplified covering of the topic is possibly a side effect of that, its not the intention, and its more likely a result of the article just being shorter and less-developed. Mr.Z-man 07:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that there is a difference between the relationship between English and Simple English and with the other languages. I'd not mind maybe seeing Simple English italicised or bumped to the top or bottom of the interwiki links (and who'd be looking for it under S, anyway)? I don't think another tab would be helpful, there's enough clutter as it is. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Disregard edit conflicts on talk pages The way in which Wikipedia handles edit conflicts for articles becomes highly dysfunctional for talk pages. We shouldn't be changing each others' talk page entries anyway, so what's necessary when two editors try to change the same paragraph in an article doesn't apply to talk (project, etc.) pages. Why not just show contributions in the order they were submitted (like most blogs, which is not what talk pages are, but how they operate functionally)? Otherwise, a premium is placed on not considering and composing careful comments, on not previewing or revising one's comments once composed, and in firing off snarky one-line ripostes rather than reasoned rebuttals. In theory one should amend and revise one's comment in light of someone else's near-simultaneous comment, but in practice one soon learns that taking the time to do so during an active debate would just result in every "save" producing yet another edit conflict. I ran into three edit conflicts in the space of 30 or 40 minutes tonight; when editing articles (which, unlike active talk or vandalism-reversion, isn't a real-time process) I may run into an edit conflict once every week or two. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Promote use of talk page for cleanup templates I want to preface this with my personal opinion about cleanup templates: I think that they suck. I think that the fact that editorial tags are being placed on the article instead of on the talk page is the most obvious issue. More importantly though, the over use of these dang tags is just messy clutter that has always bugged the hell out of me. Recognizing the obvious fact that many editors seem to take some pride in tagging articles however, I've never tried to TFD any of them or anything like that (deletions are not the answer to these sorts of concerns anyway, in my view). I do tend to remove tags that I come across though, either by simple removing those that don't seem to be supported (which occurs far to often) or addressing the relatively minor issue(s) which they are screaming at our readers about (which normally only takes as much time removing the tag!). The biggest current issue with these tags though is that they are often simple placed on the article with the apparent expectation that the problem will be obvious to everyone else. Rather then being contentious about cleanup templates and their use, I think that the most constructive course to take is to try to encourage people tagging an article with a cleanup tag to post something about what needs to be done on the article's talk page. With that in mind I edited a couple of the templates to include a talk page link within the template itself. For an example, see: {{Anachronism}}, as well as several of the other (through "B") Category:Cleanup templates templates, which I edited back in September. The proposal here is to crowd source adding a similar talk page link to the remainder of those cleanup templates, as there are a tone of them (which is a whole other issue really, but that's something to be discussed elsewhere). If you're willing to help out please jump in and edit at least one template to include a link. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Tags should be applied to the article itself when they warn that there is currently a real problem with the article that the user should be aware of, such as not being neutral or seeming like original research. However, an acceptable article is not an ideal article. Tags made for issues for making an ideal article, rather than an acceptable one (such as {{Orphan}} or {{Dead end}}) should be moved to talk page instead MBelgrano (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- See WP:PEREN#Move maintenance tags to talk pages, MBelgrano. I do think the original idea here (encourage/require that the tagger actually use the talk page) is a good idea. Anomie⚔ 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I was sort of tired when I wrote this, and reading over it now I realize that I got a bit off track and rambled a bit... not that I want to retract anything, as everything said above is the way I feel and I stand by it. However, the main point to posting this is to get help in adding links to the talk page, onto all of the cleanup templates.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) -
-
-
- They don't all need links to the talk page. The likes of {{unreferenced}} and {{uncategorised}} are obvious problems that do not require further elaboration on the talk page. PC78 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Personally, I disagree. Even {{unreferenced}} should have something about it's addition to the article added to the talk page simply because if it's actually that obvious what the problem is then why not solve the actual problem rather then simply tagging the article? If there's a legitimate reason for the tag, then the person adding the tag should at the very least be able to say something like: "I can't find a source for (whatever) but I know it's true, so I've tagged the article with {{unreferenced}}."
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) -
-
-
-
-
- I see no reason at all to require any links to the talk page except for NPOV. Unreferenced is pretty darn clear - the article has no references. Ditto uncategorized. Its not for those who dislike tags to declare that those who find them useful must be forced to either fix the issue, write redundant and silly notes on the talk page to say "I tagged this as unreferenced because it is not referenced" or ignore it. Tagging articles for issues is valid Wikipedia work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You're mistaken in the belief that anything is being made to be "required" here. There's simply a link being added to the message boxes that points to the talk page. If the editor who adds the cleanup template does not wish to leave a message then (s)he doesn't need to.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Not valid work - I see nothing about "tagging articles for issues" that makes it valid Wikipedia work. What is the purpose of fishing around from article to article (most of which the "editor" knows nothing about) tagging things, often without going to the talk page and seeing if there was a reason, checking history to see if a major rewrite is underway, what the status of the article is, how often people are working on it, etc. Fly-by editors are disruptive and usually ignorant of the topic. If you go to an article, know the topic, and actually fix the problems or go elsewhere. If you can take 20 seconds to slap a citation needed template on a sentence then you have 2 minutes to use Google and find the stinking source that is needed yourself. Perhaps if we implement Ohm's proposal and make more steps for these trollers then perhaps they find it too hard to keep doing and stop, or at least it will slow them down. We are here to put information in an encyclopedia, not learn new ways to tell others to do that job. Perhaps everyone should be forced to do at least four improving edits a week or they loose the right to tag at all.Camelbinky (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Provide a metadata page for cleanup templates and wikiproject banners Alternate proposal. Rationale: Many talk pages are created simply to hold WikiProject banners and are never used thereafter. A metadata page could hold both cleanup templates and wikiproject banners and said things could be displayed to users who want to see them based on prefs. Discuss. –xenotalk 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - It sounds like an awful lot of work (almost every article has a project banner and more than 600,000 have maintenance templates). It has a high potential to break things (how many scripts, bots, and tools rely on the current system?). And the benefit seems rather minimal. I would like to eventually see metadata like coordinates and categories eventually switched to things that don't rely on the wikitext, but just creating a subpage to stick the templates on isn't that much better than what we currently have. Mr.Z-man 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I agree that this seems to be too much work for too little gain. Besides, I like the project banners and everything else being right there on the talk pages. I never really have understood why people are bothered by that (aside from not letting things rage out of control on page headers, of course). Aside from that though, there's been some effort at removing sub-pages in slightly different topics anyway, so I don't think most editors (myself included, really) would appreciate this sort of thing going forward.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) - Do talk pages created solely for placing talk-page templates constitute a problem at all? If so, why? MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed regarding an external project's possible access to Wikipedia's data. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#DBpedia Template Annotations. Equazcion (talk) 10:59, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC) [edit] ConnectomeBot , semantic wiki and external links An editor has proposed a bot at WP:RFBA that will put external links in en.wikipedia articles to a semantic wiki on brain connectivity, ConnectomeWiki, related to the ideas and goals described in this (PDF) PLoS article. This raises some questions that need addressed first by a wider community. - The basic appropriateness of the links for wikipedia. It appears, due to the specialized nature of the topic matter, that the substantive value of the links would have to be discussed with neurology or physician editors. Should the quality of the underlying links be discussed at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience, WT:WikiProject Anatomy, or WT:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force or some other place?
- One editor suggested the proposal appears not to "run afoul of WP:ELNO," while another user calls the links essentially SPAM to the from en.wiki to the outside wiki.
- The editor proposing the links is doing it for a project, and describes himself/herself as a student at the Institute for Neuroinformatics in Zurich. He/she is the sole person with a stated interest in the project, so far, and has made some links already (not with a bot) from wikipedia to the ConnectomeWiki in brain articles on Wikipedia. See the links and the user's edit history.
- Are there additional issues that need to be discussed?
Does anyone have comments about this. I am posting this in two places (here and VPR), thus far, but it should be discussed only in one place, here. (Of course, if this is the wrong place, feel free to move as necessary.) This entire conversation will be referenced when WP:BAG decides whether or not to authorize the bot, but, if you have comments purely concerned with technical issues on the bot that are best addressed at BRFA, please feel free to comment there, of course. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Connectome Discussion Please discuss the issue, including your support or opposition and reasoning. - Comment The changes so far have added a "ConnectomeWiki" parameter to occurrences of {{Infobox Brain}}, and that template was edited so the parameter would link to a suitable page at www.connectome.ch. However, the edit to the template was reverted ("revert EL link without discussion"). I am not ready to express an opinion, other than that suitable projects need to discuss the issue before the template includes an external link. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose.WP:ELNO, WP:NOTLINK and WP:RS for starters. Un-impressive site statistics. Only been around since 9 September 2009[4]. There are 5 registered Users (only 2 look like actual humans). Content is scrapped by Automated import of articles(via. ConnectomeBot). Unidesigner (talk · contribs) is not active in any of the purported projects, other than canvassing/promoting this topic, and has made no edits other than related to connectome.ch. I expect this site will soon be riddle with adsense and advertising, monitized by leeching wikipedia for traffic. Just another spambot intended to use Wikipedia as a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I'm the operator of ConnectomeWiki, registred at Wikipedia as Unidesigner. Let me comment on the points raised by Hu12.--Unidesigner (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is still early days for the ConnectomeWiki. I usually create the pages in text, write a python scripts and use ConnectomeBot to insert the pages. Starting date September 9th is a bit delusive since I already worked on the content starting early 2009 and we had to resetup the wiki because of an attack onto our servers.
- There are not yet many users, mainly because the project is not yet advertized officially, no papers published. As a matter of fact, the ConnectomeWiki serves as a extensible knowledge-base for the ConnectomeViewer application for structural neuroimaging research.
- I had to fight adsense and advertising in the beginning and so we decided to require an account to make changes. Also to allow for better recognition of the contributing authors.
- So far content is concerned, on one hand, we are trying to be a hub for other diversely spread projects in brain connectivity research. Thus the many links to other databases. In this sense, we are web scraping, also inserting from other pages data if possible and only after proper discussion with them. E.g. Neurolex for the brain region hierarchy, Songbird brain connectivity, Temporal lobe connectivity in rats. Currently we are in a discussion with Elsevier to insert macaque brain regions and their references from the Logothetis&Saalem atlas. On the other hand, annotating semantic properties may turn out very useful in this field.
- One of the main assets is the extraction of brain connectivity information from published papers. So an author has a highly selected list of related publications to a specific connectivity which will be managed by experts in the field.
- Being secondly affiliated with the University Hospital Lausanne, Switzerland: parcellations of the brain according to the PLos paper were also inserted, and this are linked with the ConnectomeViewer, and be used in the future.
- I'd welcome very much a wider discussion in among neurology & physician editors if possible.
- Comment: Concerning the ConnectomeBot, I would like to insert links in the Brain Infobox template pointing to the appropriate page in the expert semantic wiki ConnectomeWiki. Approximately 250 pages would be tagged, for Homo sapiens brains.--Unidesigner (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Premature: We have no reason to treat the Connectome data as a WP:MEDRS. The PLOSMed paper speaks to the need for something of the sort, not to the present, incompletely implemented system. The linking and discussion of any possible bot should be shelved until there are published reviews showing the Connectome content to be trustworthy.LeadSongDog come howl 16:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Premature: We are already making use of another neuroinformatics system, the NIF / NeuroLex framework being developed under auspices of the US National Institutes of Health. I don't think we should add links to another system unless there is clear evidence that it will reach a comparable level of sophistication. The best thing would be for ConnectomeWiki to be integrated into the NIF system, which as I understand it is highly flexible. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose I am generally opposed to any bot which links externally unless it can be shown that every possible link that it would employ would be both acceptable and relevant. Anything less would create a cleanup hassle. If any external links are relevant to an article they should be placed by hand. If the Wiki is a reliable source then it can be referenced by hand. Most of the links that the bot places won't be needed if these articles were to attain featured status, so they counteract ELNO #1. I also sympathize with Hu12's assessment of this situation as attempted spamming. ThemFromSpace 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, I accept your opposition. Thanks for the discussion and best of luck for the continuation of the great Wikipedia. --Unidesigner (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please feel free to revisit the issue in the future if the Connectome wiki becomes a stable and well-used resource with independent references to it. Thank you for being straight-forward and transparent in your approach to this task. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Municipal authorities/special district governments Pennsylvania is home to over 1,700 "municipal authorities," similar to Special-purpose district in other states. These municipal authorities are alternate forms of local government, but are constituted for a special purpose--often for the governance of water, sewage, parking, housing, or economic development purposes. These entities are often described as "special purpose governments," as opposed to "general purpose governments", like cities or townships. They are not simply sub-levels of municipal government, they are governments themselves, with the taxing and bond-issuing power, condemnation power, and are subject the same ethics and open government laws as municipalities. I think this is a project that could be eventually extended to special purpose governments in all 50 states. - The Proposal - The U.S. Census Bureau's Census of Governments documents and categorizes all of these entities twice per decade. I have organized this data into a spreadsheet, with the name, jurisdiction, type, location, and function of these municipal authorities, and I would like to utilize an approved bot to create stub-style articles on each of these entities. I understand that there are several natural questions that arise from this proposal.
- Notability Question - There should be no shortage of significant, independent, and WP:reliable sources describing the each entity and its activities, as nearly every regional newspaper carries meeting summaries, financial data, and happenings in the local municipal authorities. In addition, these authorities leave significant paper trails, whether through official documents, like annual reports and meeting minutes. Finally, there is the Census of Governments data. As a separate thought on notability, the community has generally agreed that all governments, species, and villages are notable, a presumption that I think should be extended to municipal authorities/special-purpose districts.
- Why a bot? - Because of the sheer volume of municipal governments identified in the Census of Governments, coding them by hand is not feasible. I have written and compiled all of the text already, but the task is too tedious to do manually.
- Why just stubs? - The data is currently in spreadsheet format, allowing a bot to easily parse out the data into an article template that looks like a pretty good stub.
- How about some examples? - Here is an example of what the template would look like. Here is a sample of what the stubs would look like. For this example, I picked a water authority.
- I never heard of these things! - That's understandable. But, we still have articles on obscure mathematical models that I never heard of. Here are big examples:Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, SEPTA, Philadelphia Housing Authority.
- Possibilities for expansion - I really think that once we create stubs for these entities, people will expand them. There are lots of sources, and lots of people who follow their local government closely. I know that there are concerns about the decline in new article creation, so here's a big group of articles that are just waiting to be created. There's also a good government and open access benefit by bringing these important entities to the forefront of the internet.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Here is a list of Special Services Districts and Municipal Authorities in Philadelphia, PA, taken from the U.S. Census Bureau's Census of Governments documents, with an official URL when available. Do all these examples meet the criteria for notability? If some do not, why not? --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. As with any article, these need to have secondary sources for notability. Many of these are of local interest only, and even then only appear as a line item in people's property tax bills. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- If only the census of governments data will be used, these should be limited to list articles (either broken down by county or by municipality). There is just not enough information in the COG database to create a full-fledged article. There should be no mass creation of stubs. Start with list articles and split off individual articles only when secondary sources are found. --Polaron | Talk 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I said before, there needs to be 3-rd party sources before any article creation, not just a dump from a primary database. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Different states have different policies and procedures for creating, pruning and merging these sundry authorities. Some of them are indeed important, and some of the most significant ones are those you've never heard of and which never get covered in the press (remember those levee districts in New Orleans?) However many are moribund, and haven't been heard from because they are supremely unimportant and non-notable. Their position in local government should still be noted somewhere in Wikipedia, but very far from all of them deserve their own stubs. A list or a table created by a bot for each state, or even for each county is fine, and probably necessary (how else would you know which districts guard your own riverbanks or water supplies?) but creating a contentless stub for every authority just creates clutter and hides the forest with trees. Leave the work to human editors. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Can we agree that lists rather than stubs are the way to go? If so, would a list like the one I have provided above be a satisfactory starting pattern? An alternative would be to have a table rather than a plain list with the official website URL, as shown above. A table could have more information, but it should be limited to what is available on the U.S. Census Bureau's Census of Governments. However, some of the data there is misleading. The Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority has nothing to do with parks, but the Census of Governments says otherwise.
-
-
- If there is a consensus here, I will make an appropriate sample from the list above, enhanced with some additional agencies not shown. Can the title be List of Philadelphia County municipal authorities? By this, I am implying individual lists by county. Perhaps this is not the best example, as Philadelphia County and the City of Philadelphia have a combined government with exactly the same geographical area, a unique situation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Lackawanna County would be a better example, where the title would be List of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania municipal authorities, and there would be a See also from Scranton, Pennsylvania, the largest city in that county. The list for Lackawanna County would include both municipal authorities for the whole county, and municipal authorities for just the City of Scranton.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- An example (preferably in userspace for the time being) would be helpful to this discussion, yes. Shereth 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- User:Shereth, do you agree that lists by Pennsylvania counties would be an appropriate way to go? What about lists with name and URL, or else a table with more information? I prefer the lists with name and URL, as easier to create, at least with my present methods and skills. I can go ahead with two examples, Lackawanna county and Philadelphia county, as sandbox entries for now. If there is consensus, then I would want to move the examples to live articles, complete with categories and talk page templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Lists by counties seems to make sense. Go ahead and do a name/url type list as you've mentioned, if someone can think of a tabular format that makes sense that kind of change can be made at a later date but there's no reason to overcomplicate the initial example. This idea is perfectly reasonable. Shereth 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds agreeable to me.--Blargh29 (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- See also Meta:Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback and Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November
- You can hide everything by checking "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" in the preferences, section "Gadgets".
"WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Really? I wonder what readers coming here think of that. To me, that is a juvenile slogan that could be replaced with something that is much more collegial and appropriate for an encyclopedia. I propose that we hide the banners for everyone visiting the English Wikipedia until a better-worded and less obtrusive banner is created. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) -
- See here, which demonstrates that there has been quite strong opposition to it. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I thought a hacker did it at first, actually. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed; I suspect these ads were created by some kind of saboteur intent on depriving the Foundation of funding; as per the meta discussion, these ads are grossly inappropriate. Veinor (talk to me) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- In case any technically minded sysops are thinking about trying to change the .css files to hide it, I do seem to remember a dev saying once that they would take harsh action against anyone hiding a sitewide message since it is really a Foundation issue and not a community issue. MBisanz talk 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- ...Is that a threat?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - I'm not a dev and I certainly have no pull over at Meta or with the devs, but I'm just saying that from my experience, it would probably be the last admin action a person made if they edited the .css file to hide the fund raising notice. MBisanz talk 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really doubt that. If the community supports the admin's action, and it isn't a legal issue, I think they'd be safe. I'd support any effort to at least exchange this for something more tasteful, and hide it in the meantime. The Foundation doesn't necessarily need to like it. Equazcion (talk) 05:26, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- "The community" historically falls into line with Jimbo in practically any dispute. Anyway, hiding it is trivial (check my monobook.css) and will hopefully hide future spam of this type. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure you didn't mean to type "hysterically" instead of "historically"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The issue has been raised several times that these banners are ugly, not-representative of what the community think the Wikipedian-message is, make it look like 4chan hacked wikipedia, and are inherently unwanted. Wikipedia Forever? What are we, a high school sports team? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Personally I think it's quite disappointing that the community's input was not taken into consideration when developing these... err, "slogans". –Juliancolton | Talk 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it was, but it looks as though it was disregarded? It looks like there was widespread opposition at meta but it was ramrodded through anyway... —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will defend any user who takes action to prevent the display of these absurd banners. Do not donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. @harej 05:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would as well assuming consensus to hide it develops here. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- There has been broad consensus against the campaign ever since it was introduced, but of course Rand Montoya did not listen to us. @harej 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, what were you thinking when you approved those? Good god. J.delanoygabsadds 05:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen that input from the community, no matter how "loud" or how logical, will be ignored or danced around by the Wikimedia Foundation. This is from experience observing and joining in on discussions about the "slogans" on IRC, and from observing how the "discussion" went on meta's talk page about the banners. The issue has generally disgusted me. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like the banners either, but given the way things work, I really don't see them changing, so I hid it under my preferences with the gadget provided and am moving on. MBisanz talk 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Julian and Killiondude. None of the editors fully supported this at meta IIRC. The opinions of dedicated contributors to the project should have been taken into account rather than leaving a "thank you for your opinion" message and going ahead with it. What was the point of putting it up for community discussion if nobody was going to take any notice of it anyway? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support hiding this until something better is constructed. Even just making it not all caps would be a minimal improvement. It almost seems like it is designed to honor the recent death of Geocities. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Burn it, and give me my underlined links back. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- And apparently even the Wiktionary ads have the Wikipedia logo. Was this thought through at all? Veinor (talk to me) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Apparently not. I'm wondering really what could have prompted such loud banners. I mean, is the Wikimedia foundation a week away from running out of money? Is this some kind of desperate action to get money as quickly as possible? Are we all going to see Wikipedia coated in ads tomorrow, with a message saying not enough cash came in to keep the servers running? --Yair rand (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Commons have the banners with "Wikimedia Forever" in all caps and still has the WP logo in the center. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dare i say the banners look a little MySpacey. "We're Wikipedia! Be our friend. Can we borrow £200." delirious & lost ☯ TALK 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Arrg, it burns! Kill the banners! Kill them with fire! Until It Sleeps Happy Thanksgiving 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Truly awful, I think. I immediately thought that it was vandalism and started looking for the template transclusion that allowed it. Are you sure that this PR group isn't trying to subtly inflict damage or something? —AySz88\^-^ 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree - headers for something unusual and urgent are okay, but for anything else, are inappropriate. A banner just for the sake of having a banner misses the point. What's next, making it blink?? - Denimadept (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- It stinks! - These are not very good ads, and the consultants should give their money back.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Count me as among those who originally assumed this was some kind of clever template vandalism. Really now - "Wikipedia forever"? Could way play anymore into the hands of those who portray Wikipedia as a cult? Steve Smith (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Terrible. As stated, almost looks like vandalism. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment We get complaints about this every single year. From memory, so far none of these complaints have done much. As someone else has said above, one thing is clear is that no ordinary wikipedia admin has the authority to remove them and doing so would be an incredibly foolhardy idea. Also looking at the meta discussion Meta:Talk:Fundraising 2009/Website Design it seems clear to me there's been very little feedback/involvement from the community. Some people may blame the Foundation/Fundraising team for not soliciting more, but it seems to me unless there has been substanially more feedback during the design phrase in other years and it's always been ignored, those who hate the banners so much could have and should have been more involved in the design phrase. It's not as if this is an unpredictable event. This happens every year at around the same time and we get the same complaints every year. If you dislike it so much (personally I've never really cared) why don't you contribute to the discussions that I presume happen every year? P.S. Also from the meta discussions, it seems (I'm personally not surprised) that we do get substanially more donations during these fundraising campaigns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- If I would've known about it, I would have participated. Equazcion (talk) 06:17, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- PS. I haven't minded the banners that came up in previous years, and never complained before. This one is just terrible. Equazcion (talk) 06:19, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, terrible seems to undermine the justplainbadness of this. Perhaps there's a better word? Select from: dreadful, awful, appalling, horrific, horrifying, horrible, horrendous, atrocious, abominable, deplorable, egregious, abhorrent, frightful, shocking, hideous, ghastly, grim, dire, unspeakable, gruesome, monstrous, sickening, heinous. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- So did you miss the ugly pink box and its scrolling marquee of doom? This is definitely not the worst one in our history. Not great or exciting, or anything like that, but definitely not the worst. Dragons flight (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Has the bad quality of Wikipedia donate or die banners been notably bad in the past? Mentioned in RS? Spanning more than a single incident? It sounds, kinda encyclopedic there. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Equaz, it's fine that you haven't minded, but as I'm a regular at Talk:Main Page and also tend to end up at WP:VP from the complaints, I've seen pretty much the same thing before and indeed every single year it seems many editors absolutely hate them and argue they are the worst thing ever. I'm not saying these complaints are definitely without merit but as I said in my first post, when every year people scream it's the worst thing ever and how it's completely destroying wikipedia/the community/whatever, it kind of gets old pretty quick. At the very least, can someone actually show me some evidence that there is more subtanial ill feeling towards this specific banner ad comparing perhaps the number of complaints we've received and considering the likely growth of the wikipedia community in that time and other issues like the apparent dislike some people have for the decision to hire a PR team to come up with the ads this year. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about the banner -- my brain, luckily, is wired to ignore those ads that AdBlock misses -- but I want my damn underscores back! --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Underscores? Do you mean link underlines? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also opposed to them (of course) and I would support the community taking its concerns to the foundation. Wikipedia is a community-run encyclopedia and we should have the power to override the appearance of ugly promotional banners. This is not the way to go about a recruitment drive. The bottom-up model has always worked best around here. ThemFromSpace 06:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we'd been pwned. (Apparently part of our stylesheet has been affected.) Really not very compelling from a marketing standpoint, even more alienating than the past campaigns. It's like a banner ad masquerading in text, which is a bit insulting (and it just looks bad, to boot). user:J aka justen (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Ed's proposal. That slogan is too amateurish. BejinhanTalk 06:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support removal of the banner. –blurpeace (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like them. I especially didn't like not being able to dismiss them. So for me they are gone, via blocking the script in my browser. It would be wrong to try to shut down a WMF campaign on its primary advertising real estate - especially when you *aren't* the people being targeted. You have the ability to not see those ads without breaking the wiki. - Amgine (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- The thing is that the damn thing is so obnoxious and sends a message that would be counterintuitive to the Foundation's goals. It makes this place seem like Scientology. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support with fire It sounds like some ridiculous slogan a nutty revolutionary (or crazy drunk fan in the background of a live shot after a sports victory) came up with. The font is ugly, the design of the entire banner looks like a Geocities page and it's totally screwing up my page layouts and my reading style, where I enjoy links in the middle of reading. Nate • (chatter) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Remove the banners immediately, please. This is a horrible idea, and it seriously makes me not want to contribute. It's loud, very ad-like, needlessly large, uses a childish slogan, and has technical problems. Does anyone (other than the Foundation) actually support these banners? I'm struggling to find one user. — The Earwig @ 06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- When I opened up Wikipedia, I actually said aloud to an empty room, "What the fuck is this?" No way I'm donating knowing my money will be going to the marketing firm that is actually getting paid for that godawful banner. At least they could have not made it break things all over the site. LINK UNDERLINING FOREVER. --LP talk 06:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I have minimised the banner. How can I technically delete it from my view of Wikipedia? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the preferences there's a gadget that suppresses the banner entirely. --L
|
