The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.
This issue has disrupted multiplethreads on unrelated issues, so I figure I should raise it at a nice central location where we can hash it out once and for all:
Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?
The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.
No exception is made for if the forum is organized as a Wikiproject; an influx of biased or partisan editors is an issue regardless of whether they came from a non-representative Wikiproject or another non-representative forum.
WP:CANVASS says the same thing; it forbids notifications to a partisan audience, and makes it clear that WP:APPNOTE does not create exceptions to these rules; Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
It's important to note that most Wikiprojects are representative and non-partisan; our rules on canvassing only affect a very small number, and even those are only partisan on some topics within their area of interest and can be notified without issue on the rest. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have only a few short things to say:
1. The idea of a "partisan Wikiproject" is ridiculous. If such a thing existed, it would be WP:NOTHERE and get booted.
2. A Wikiproject tending to vote a particular way is not the same thing as a partisan Wikiproject: consider for instance a vote about whether evolution should be treated as true where everyone from WP:BIOLOGY and half of all other editors voted the same way while half of all other editors did (and assuming these groups are roughly balanced). In this case, the Wikiproject members are clearly in keeping with the global consensus and it's a minority of non-members that aren't.
3. The line in WP:APPNOTE that you're quoting was added only about a year ago with little discussion on the talk page. You are in fact one of the people who advocated adding it.
4. Both those lines from ArbCom that you're quoting come from the same case which was about a secret and partisan outside forum. Neither even contemplates the idea of notifications on Wikipedia being canvassing. Loki (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a long history of issues with partisan Wikiprojects, recently for example WikiProject Roads which became so hyper-partisan that it ended up forking rather than complying with policy and guideline when all their attempts to destroy those policies and guidelines failed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a WikiProject is so problematic/"partisan" that it is causing significant issues and vote brigading, it needs to be taken to Arbcom. A project cannot be considered problematic by definition without at the very least community input through ANI, but preferably an Arbcom case. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. I have been accused of selective notification for notifying Wikiproject Quebec about an RfC concerning a Quebec premier, while not notifying other provincial wikiprojects, which is ridiculous. Anyway, the correct solution to perceived imbalances in notifications is always to notify more editors through various means of mass notification; it is never to accuse editors using these mandated channels of "canvassing" - the latter is what is disruptive, IMO.
And concerning BilledMammal's comment on this, the idea that any WikiProject would be a biased or partisan audience is set out here without any shred of evidence. Nor is there any evidence that Arbcom or INAPPNOTE had these public, on-wiki fora in mind when cautioning against partisanship. The fact is that Wikiprojects concern topics, not ideologies (whether on-wiki or off-wiki ideologies) so if you want to be informed on a topic where you disagree with the opinions of the most active contributors, the sensible thing has always been to join the wikiproject or at least to follow its page for updates.
Just for emphasis: accusing editors of bias because they belong to or notify wikiprojects is itself a violation of WP:NPA and disruptive. When I was accused of bias and canvassing for notifying Wikiproject Quebec, I felt both hurt and falsely accused - that is, once I was finished laughing at the absurdly false assumptions the accusation implied concerning my views about nationalism. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the idea that any WikiProject would be a "biased or partisan audience" is set out here without any shred of evidence.
As I understand it, the intent of this discussion is to determine whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be unrepresentative or mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience and thus inappropriate to notify.
Whether any specific Wikiproject is unrepresentative or mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience is a different question that can be addressed elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the question posed in this section as whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be biased and notifying it to be canvassing; I think the relevant question is whether this is a practical or relevant concern. What matters isn't the theoretical (how many angels can fit on the head of a pin) but rather the practical (is there an angel on the head of my pin, and if so, does it give me an unfair advantage in discussions to determine consensus of the community on a topic).
What is clearly the case is that these kind of accusations - claims that specific wikiprojects are partisan (always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern) and that notfiying them is therefore partisan - have had real, and unmistakable toxic effects on-wiki. These effects have included individual editors feeling attacked and misunderstood, and also community time wasted on dramaboards, and to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that any wikiproject notification was ever canvassing, though efforts have been (correctly) made to ensure that editors having differing perspectives on issues are also notified.
In any event, there is a clear and present cost to the community thanks to toxic discussion when certain editors insist on retaining the accusation of "canvassing by notifying partisan wikiprojects" within their arsenal. Given this evident pain point, it seems clear to me that the onus is on those holding this belief to present evidence that it is a real, not theoretical, possibility. Otherwise we are dragging down the level of civility in the community and wasting the time of editors and administrators just because certain editors believe they ought to be able to make a certain argument - even though, to the best of my knowledge, the community has never reached consensus that this argument was ever borne out in an actual situation on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern
That's not accurate; the discussions that Loki linked as provoking this discussion included evidence. However, I won't go into it here, both because I don't want to derail this discussion with talk of specific WikiProjects and because you are topic banned and thus can't engage with the evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before this is closed, I wanted to clarify that when I said, to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that any wikiproject notification was ever canvassing, I was referring to the act of issuing an appropriately worded, neutral notification to a Wikiproject. Issuing a non-neutral notification, whether to a wikiproject or a dramaboard, can of course be canvassing. The fairly extensive contributions made to this discussion have confirmed my opinion that a neutrally-worded notification to a wikiproject is never canvassing, and that the solution to selective notifications (e.g., concerning Israel-Palestine issues) is always to notify more editors, bringing in diverse views from other relevant projects or through centralized boards. I don't think this is applied Neutonian physics, here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with @Gnomingstuff. While I don't deny there have been legitimate and serious issues with canvassing, canvassing is slowly becoming Wikipedia's Stop the Steal. By that I mean, it's a accusation freely thrown out by someone when their idea loses at a !vote or is suddenly drowned out by opposing ideas. The obvious intent is to try for an appeal by mass discrediting any opposing opnion, rather than accept their idea might might have been an unpopular one. So any policy changes, IMHO, should be to clarify what is and is not canvassing and not introduce more confusion and open more doors for appeals and lawyering when ones proposal isn't suceeding.Dave (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: As someone who thinks CANVASS is a bad policy ("good intentions..."), I think notifying WikiProject is a good practice, per Linus's Law. That said, as some others have mentioned, it can be a problem if one notifies only WikiProjects related to one side of an argument. The more, the merrier, is a rule of thumb. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how anyone could consider any WikiProject to be related to one side of the argument. Such an argument presumes that everyone who has a particular WikiProject's page on their watchlist is of the same opinion and such a presumption has no factual basis. TarnishedPathtalk03:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't presume that. It only presumes that people with a particular interest are more likely to gravitate towards projects matching that interest and less likely to gravitate towards other projects. This is obviously true. The same group of people are able to watch Wikiproject India and Wikiproject Pakistan, but it will not be true in practice that the same group of people do watch them. If an issue regarding a dispute between India and Pakistan is notified to only one of those projects, it is reasonable to suspect an intention to bias the discussion. Zerotalk07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that someone watching Wikiproject India for example may fall either side of being for or against India's interest. It would be a mistake to presume that notifying Wikiproject India in regards to some hypothetical discussion is going to result in an homogenous group of editors all voting along national interests. TarnishedPathtalk07:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page. I watchlist, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria, Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Any notification to any of those I would see. Now there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel, but notifying WikiProjects that have within their scope whatever is under discussion is not canvassing.
nableezy - 02:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page.
They can, but the possibility that they can doesn't mean the forum isn't unrepresentative if they don't. Consider a hypothetical; lets pretend that 90% of people affiliated (watchlisting, members, etc) with Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel are pro-Israel in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clearly, it would be unrepresentative, and a WP:CANVASS violation to notify unless there is an equally unrepresentative forum in the opposite direction that is also notified (perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine).
To be clear, I'm not saying either of these are unrepresentative or mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience; I haven't looked into either of them, and am only using them for the sake of example. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Edited 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) to clarify[reply]
If something is not relevant to WikiProject Palestine, like say an article on some random company in Tel Aviv, then notifying WikiProject Israel and not WikiProject Palestine would be totally fine. If something is relevant to both, then only notifying one would be an issue. I literally just said, in the comment you are replying to, there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel. But the idea that a page that any and every registered user can watchlist can be a target for canvassing is silly. I guarantee you "pro-Israel" users watchlist WikiProject Palestine, and "pro-Palestine" users watchlist WikiProject Israel. If the notification itself is neutral, it isnt a CANVASSING violation to post to a WikiProject about a discussion in its scope. nableezy - 02:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to how I feel about it too: there are times when notifying only certain Wikiprojects says bad things about the notifier's intent, but I don't think there's ever a time where notifying only certain Wikiprojects ever causes provably skewed results.
(Furthermore, not notifying the relevant Wikiprojects is often also suspicious in this way. Sometimes it smacks of not wanting a decision to be scrutinized by people who regularly edit in the topic area.) Loki (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You previously discussed your point of view regarding partisan WikiProjects at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 49 § Modifications to CANVASS, and it didn't get much support. As I said then, WikiProjects are just groups of editors sharing a common interest and working together to further the goals of Wikipedia, usually by working on various initiatives. Most of them are oriented around a content area, and thus attract the knowledgeable editors in that area. Notifying the corresponding WikiProjects for related content areas is considered to be a neutral way of reaching the interested editors who are best able to bring greater context to a decision. It's not partisan to be interested in a content area.
There can be groups that, by their nature, have self-selected a set of editors with a specific position on some issue, and thus its members are more prone to make partial arguments for that position. If someone set up WikiProject solely to vote in favour of removing all foreign language names from English Wikipedia articles, for example, then notifying it would result in vote-stacking. However the community has dealt with this by reaching a consensus that the group's purpose is counter to the best interests of the overall project and disbanding the group. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been issues relating to very cliquey Wikiprojects/similar pages. Not a huge number but hard to say "ever". The question says "the relevant Wikiprojects", which is plural, while I assume the issue is usually with a relevant Wikiproject. The common practice of simply notifying all Wikiprojects on the talkpage, with a neutral message the same across all notifications, works fine in the vast majority of cases. CMD (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question at issue here was originally sparked by someone notifying the relevant Wikiproject and all people on the talk page about an AFD for an essay closely related to LGBT issues. The assertion by some editors for deletion, including the person who started the AFD in the first place, was that WP:LGBT was biased such that notifying them at all, even in combination with a group of editors including some editors known specifically to oppose the existence of the page, was canvassing. Loki (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only thing that would make a Wikiproject notification a violation of WP:CANVASS is if the notification itself was done in a POV manner, such as calling for everyone at the Wikiproject to vote a certain way. Or you might get called out if it was, say, an RfC on a religious topic and the only Wikiproject you notified was Wikiproject Atheism. Though the solution to such a case is just to notify the other relevant Wikiprojects, which anyone can do. The only other case I can think of that would get you some side-eye and comments is if you were notifying Wikiprojects that very clearly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, such as if it was a Biology RfC and you went and notified Wikiproject Football. Though that would less be canvassing and more just...confusion. SilverserenC03:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, notifying relevant Wikiprojects about a discussion does not in itself constitute violate WP:CANVASS. To be frank, some of the claims that it does have seemed to necessarily—whether the users writing such claims intend it or not—involve prejudicial assessments, such as the presumption that WP:LGBT is somehow inappropriately 'partisan' in a way contrary to Wikipedia's purpose because—why, honestly? Because of a presumption that the project draws in LGBT editors, and on top of that a presumption that LGBT editors are inappropriately 'partisan' about LGBT-related topics compared to cisgender and heterosexual editors? I really don't see how this claim, either in the abstract or in context, doesn't inevitably hinge on prejudicial presumptions about editors that violate the wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct's tenets about collegiality, good citizenship, and creating a pleasant and safe space for participants. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying a WikiProject cannot ever be a serious canvassing problem, since it's open, widely broadcast message. The issue usually is that some people sitting on a favoured WP:LOCALCON get upset at the extra attention it brings. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basic assumption is IMO that Wikiprojects can be watched by all kinds of people. Hopefully several of them do so because of a general interest in the topics that can pop up, and not out of a desire to promote whatever every chance they get. Some projects are pretty close to various CTOPS, like Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan and FTN, but that is still my basic assumption. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general and in principle, no; but in practice, in the past, certain WikiProjects have been problematic and hard to deal with. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography fought a long and historically successful campaign to have their own SNG for pornstars, which allowed sources that weren't independent. The fighting went on for years until the SNG was finally deprecated in 2019 after this RfC; subsequently most of the pornstar "biographies" that Wikipedia used to host got deleted on the grounds that they didn't contain any biographical information at all. Porn performers' names, dates of birth, nationalities, families and career history outside porn are understandably kept quiet, so all the information we had on these people was pure kayfabe. And for another example, although the Article Rescue Squadron isn't a problematic WikiProject, it's certainly had its share of problematic members leading to various tedious Arbcom cases. I think that what history tells me is that where a WikiProject has started to develop their own groupthink and begun to diverge from mainstream Wikipedian thought, then we're going to have a problem; and people getting unhappy about notifying that WikiProject about discussions can be an early symptom of that problem starting to be noticed. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any WikiProjects at that stage at the moment, but it's worth keeping an eye on.—S MarshallT/C07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Article Rescue Squadron also came to my mind, but that was because how it partially operated historically - a few users were using it to try and vote-stack AfDs with the goal of keeping articles rather than engaging with the arguments for and against deletion and/or improving the article. It took effort but those users were dealt with and that problem has passed. The groups current focus on improving important articles that would otherwise be at risk of deletion is unproblematic. So yes, partisan WikiProjects is a theoretical problem, but unless the OP or anyone else has any actual evidence of WikiProjects attempting to distort consensus then there is no issue here. Members of a WikiProject sharing an opinion is not itself evidence of anything untoward. An editor selectively notifying only some relevant WikiProjects is correctly dealt with by neutrally notifying the other WikiProjects, and, if necessary, separately engaging in dispute resolution regarding that editor. Similarly an editor notifying unrelated projects and/or making non-neutral notifications is an issue with that editor. These are not evidence of a problem with notifying WikiProjects generally or with notifying specific WikiProjects in particular. TL;DR neutral notifications to relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are cleaner examples. ARS' purpose was to find promising candidates for a WP:HEY response, so it's reasonable for them to talk about current AFDs, even if it did have some problems. Similarly, I think it's usually fair to notify Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard about disputes involving fringe-y subjects, even though the dominant POV there is decidedly anti-fringe.
In other cases, the only possible connection is that you happen to know this group has an opinion. For example, editors should not notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers about proposals to change Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, because that group has a history of disputes over infoboxes in "their" articles, and because if you were interested in infoboxes, you would probably not know that. A page about musicians is not an obvious place to look for information about infoboxes. However, it would be fine to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, because it's an obvious page for anyone interested in infoboxes to be watching. Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- or something else, and regardless of whether you were actively participating or silently lurking, if you wanted to be involved in infoboxes, you would expect to get infobox-related messages there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Notifying Wikiprojects is generally fine, and not prohibited as a purpose of projects is to provide all kinds of notice, neutral wording of the notice is key, though. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we absolutely want editors familiar with a topic to participate in a discussion. You seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic. Assume good faith until proven otherwise. Donald Albury13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the question, Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?, you responded "yes", and then said, Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks. How am I supposed to interpret that to mean something other than you are opposed to pinging a project because its participants may have specialized knowledge and would therefore "tilt" (I presume the "wrong" way) the discussion. Can you rephrase your answer to make it clearer to me? - Donald Albury17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase the words "Try AGF yourself." thus: You said I "seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic" -- which would be an aspersion against my esteemed fellow editors, so you're making a conduct accusation. Then you suggest I try AGF. I'm hopeful that others didn't interpret my remark as aspersion or lack of AGF, perhaps because they can't read any such thing in them, perhaps because they can read WP:MOSFAQ. I won't engage further with you about this, unless you take it to WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar interpretation of what your original statement meant. I think this would have been more productive if you'd simply replied "That isn't what I meant; what I meant was..." I still don't know what you meant. Schazjmd(talk)22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too thought you meant editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic when you said Pinging [people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications] when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks.. You have since stated that that is not what you meant, but you haven't stated what you did mean. Given I misunderstood the first time, I do not think my guessing again is likely to result in my getting the right answer so I will refrain from speculating. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's polite of you. Well, I pointed to WP:MOSFAQ so you know the idea is that Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles. This sort of argument actually did arise in the series of universe|Universe discussions, and I remember an astronomer participant suggested magazines like Astronomy or Sky and Telescope weren't scientific journals, thinking that mattered. I have a vaguer recollection that the WP:CONLEVEL words ("... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.") appeared when another project group thought their rules should apply within their project's articles, but that's not what I had in mind, I was only thinking about and mentioning capitalization of Universe, where I believed that specifically addressing those people would not be addressing representatives of the broader community, and subject expertise is not contested but it's about style not subject. And yes ngrams came up too, and I see that you mentioned a case (maybe a WP:MOSCAPS thread about something in French?) where subject expertise was helpful, ngrams were not. But I believe that in the case I brought up the opposite was true. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was very helpful. I agree that it's important to have some sort of feedback to stay connected with the general reader, and I wouldn't want our running text to read like an Auguſtan newſpaper, with Words random'ly Capitaliſed. On the other hand, the improvement to the reader in clarity, meeting "expectations", etc. for MOSCAPS standardizations like the one mentioned, seems to me about epsilon. If these style confrontations significantly deter motivated editors from improving the encyclopedia, it is a net loss to us in terms of how much the general reader is actually able to learn from the encyclopedia in the future. This isn't intended as a declaration that "the WikiProject is always right"; just a reflection that our standing assumption that "the WikiProject is always wrong" may not actually further the goals of the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an issue related to this with capitalisation in the rail transport area a while back. In at least instance the MOS-focused editors had not understood that the same 3-4 word term was being used as common noun in one context and as a proper noun in another context meaning things like ngrams were not relevant (as they have no context). This is not something that would be obvious to most non-specialists but is clear to those knowledgeable about the topic area. Subject-specialist knowledge is, in many discussions, important context required to reach the correct decision - whether that decision is to follow specialist conventions or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This touches on something that's puzzled me for years. When a group of editors who are principally interested in interpreting policies & guidelines come into conflict with a group of editors, like a WikiProject, with some subject-matter expertise, we default to treating the latter as parochial fanboys. But it's not clear why this should be so in a broad moral sense: the P&G interpreters are not typically a larger or less hyperfocused group than a WikiProject. I think we tend to assume that because the community at large has ratified P&Gs to embody broadly-agreed upon principles, every statutory interpretation that invokes those P&Gs for a specific case enjoys the same level of broad community support. I'm not convinced that accurately describes the sentiments of the community, though. Choess (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is a tendency among some (but not all) p&g interpreters to assume that disagreement of their interpretation is disagreement with the policy/guideline rather than disagreement with their interpretation. In the rail transport area this has on multiple occasions manifested itself with sometimes heated accusations about disliking/objecting to/ignoring community consensus regarding e.g. capitalisation of common nouns when the actual disagreement was whether a given term was a common or proper noun. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, neutrally notifying a WikiProject about a discussion clearly within its subject matter is always permissible. It would not be at all helpful, for example, to prohibit notifying WP:MED on the basis that its members are more diligent about applying WP:MEDRS than the average Wikipedian, and thus "partisan". WikiProjects fundamentally are places where editors can be notified of discussions and editing opportunities related to a subject area. If a WikiProject can't reliably be notified of discussions within its subject area, it can't meaningfully function. It would be fairer to take any allegedly problematic WikiProjects to MfD rather than to try and place restrictions that would allow them to exist in name but not function.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the idea that we should view people with an interest in a topic as being a biased set rather than an informed set is to speak against the value of knowledge. An informed person is of more value in a relevant discussion; we want the deletion discussion of the Smoking cures broken legs AFD to have more interest from those interested in Wikipedia's medical coverage in general and not just those who found themselves part of making such a page. The fact that the medical editors will not come up with the same view as whatever other editors choose to involve themselves in that discussion is a plus, not a problem. The idea that we can contact Wikiprojects only if they will respond in the exact same ratio as other editors would make contacting Wikiprojects pointless as it would have no impact on the results. The idea that Wikiprojects having an informed POV makes them a problem would suggest dismantling the entire Wikiproject system. Selectively notifying Wikiprojects with the intent of skewing results is a problem, but notifying all the obviously related Wikiprojects is not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe there's partisan wikiprojects to the extent that notifying the relevant ones is canvassing. In obvious cases (i.e. only notifying WP:ISRAEL for a dicussion about the Second Intifada) selective notifications could be a sign of canvassing, but properly performed WP notifications are not canvassing. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is if we are discussing whether Foo (film) or Foo (train) is a primary topic or if Foo should be a dab. Notifying Wikiproject Film but not WikiProject Trains might seem unfair. However, I agree that 99% of notifications to projects do not constitute canvassing. Certes (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contention I'm trying to argue against here is that there are some projects that are biased such that notifying them at all would not meet WP:APPNOTE. So, could you please rephrase? Loki (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are projects that are so biased that a neutral notification about a topic relevant to their topic area would not meet APPNOTE then the Community needs to have a serious discussion (I guess at AN(I)) about that the problems with it and/or the relevant participants can be resolved. I'm not currently aware of any such groups, but if you are then please present the evidence. If you haven't got any such evidence, then please refrain from casting aspersions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS? No. Can the language of such a notification be canvassing? Yes. Can there be disagreement about which projects are "relevant"? Sure, but I don't see a way to avoid case-by-case determinations of that. All of this said, it's not impossible that a project could function like a canvassing club, but that would need lots of evidence and again should be handled on a case-by-case basis. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, and saying "yes" is, inadvertently or on purpose, helping along years' worth of reputation laundering of the deletion crusades waged by like 10 editors against topics covered by certain WikiProjects -- cricket players, football players, roads, I'm probably missing a few -- by creating consensus for reasonable, unobjectionable-sounding policies and/or against scary-sounding straw men like "partisan bias." The idea is to make it easier to do this stuff as covertly as possible, without having to deal with the pesky obstacles of the rest of the project. To establish a kind of pre-emptive canvassing where they are the only people who ever find out about deletion requests. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will also say that my immediate reaction to the accusation that started all this was "not giving notification to anyone who might like this essay that you're trying to get it deleted is also unfair for the same reasons as canvassing would be, and it's weird we don't have a policy about it". Loki (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
The policy says explicitly "one or more WikiProjects" (my emphasis on the word one). Therefore we can conclude from the actual WP Behavioural Guideline that drawing attention of a discussion to only one WikiProject is acceptable per WP Guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read all of APPNOTE; the third last paragraph makes it clear that it does not create an exception to INAPPNOTE.
I fail to see how notifying any WikiProject could ever be taken as "biased, partisan, or non-neutral notifications" given that there are likely to be editors on varies sides of the coin who have any WikiProjects on their notification list. TarnishedPathtalk01:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INAPPNOTE votestacking is Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Posting to only one WikiProject can not constitute that because an editor has no way of knowing the opinions of every editor who has a WikiProject's page on their watch list. TarnishedPathtalk01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the context... Not all wikiprojects are created equal, some are good places where non-partisan experts on a topic can be found and some are toxic slime cultures of fans and die hards. The biggest issue for me isn't really notification or non-notification its selective notification... People seem to want to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict so lets use that as an example: if when soliciting comments to a discussion involving the war in Gaza a user notifies only WikiProject Palestine but not WikiProject Israel or vice-versa thats a problem. From my perspective if WikiProjects are being solicited then all of the relevant WikiProjects should be notified, but again it depends on the context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in that particular example, is it really a problem? Isn't it likely enough interested editors are watching both? But sure, for a Arab-Israeli conflict thing, if you're doing one, may as well do the other. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem likely, everything I have ever experienced on wikipedia suggests otherwise. Notifying different wikiprojects brings different people to the discussion, I have never encountered a topic area where multiple wikiprojects are made up of the exact same group of people. Anything that has the effect of skewing the discussion towards a specific POV is a problem and thats true whether or not canvassing is involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I infer a couple of different sentiments in play here:
A) "It's just as likely for pro- and anti- users to watch the same WikiProject. It's WikiProject Israel, not WikiProject ProIsrael."
B) "In practice, participants in WikiProject Thing are mostly pro-Thing."
The difficulty is getting a list of participants. The ideal list would be a list of editors who watch a Wikiproject, but that data is not available. Instead, I've created an approximation based on the editors who are listed as members and the editors who have made at least five edits to the projects talk page.
For the purpose of demonstration I have applied to this Wikiproject US Roads in relation to this RfC; I have done so because the RfC is long past and Wikiproject US Roads has forked, so I feel using them as an example will produce less drama and be less likely to derail this discussion than more recent examples.
"Members" are determined by either being listed on the member list or having made five or more edits to the talk page
I didn't review multi-choice questions to keep the analysis simple, and I didn't review low participation questions as they lack sufficient data.
The evidence tells us that for some Wikiprojects there are topics the editors are collectively biased on, but I don't think it is true of the vast majority of Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why do you think this approximation is any good? Clearly the list of members is a lot more likely to actually agree with the project of the Wikiproject than the list of watchers, right?
2. Roads is a bad example exactly because they forked. Your argument would be benefited more by a negative example: if you could show some Wikiprojects where the membership does not seem to share similar opinions on topics relevant to the topic area that would at least prove WP:LGBT is exceptional. Loki (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The result is the unchanged if I only include editors with at least five edits to the talk page.
2. The question is "can a Wikiproject be partisan", to the extent that notifying them is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population. Roads is a good example of this because they demonstrate that it is possible. If you believe all WikiProjects are partisan, then I encourage you to provide the evidence, but I am skeptical. Alternatively, find a WikiProject that editors would not expect to be partisan, link a few well-attended, centrally-held, binary RfC's that the WikiProject was notified of, and I can do the analysis for you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is to me a centrally flawed concerned; it basically brings it down to "it's okay to alert a Wikiproject only if they are so in accord with non-members that it makes no difference in the results", which is silly. We want informed people making decisions based on being informed, and information should be something that changes perspective. (It is also impracticable; we cannot be effectively surveying a given Wikiproject for their view in advance of notification, so implementing the idea that notifying a relevant-but-biased Wikiproject is canvassing would in essence shut down notifying Wikiprojects at all.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this data, but I interpret it quite differently from BM. For one thing, I would not regard the population of "non-members" who participate in a discussion as a kind of target for how the members of an "unbiased" wikiproject should be distributed. We have no way of knowing how well "non-members" represent the rest of the community or why they were motivated to participate in the discussion
Also, I want to point to the actual impact of the participation of project members on the four proposals mentioned. The first proposal was supported by members and non-members alike, so the participation of members was not likely to affect the outcome. The middle proposals were supported by members and opposed by non-members, and therefore did not reach anything approaching consensus even though members disagreed.
The most interesting case, though, is the last proposal. The net preferences of members and non-members pretty much canceled out, leaving the discussion seemingly deadlocked. I would argue that this is actually a desirable outcome of member participation; if we assume that members are more likely to be contributing to content development in this area, then it is better to have a non-consensus in which their voices are heard (motivating further discussion and new proposals) than a clear consensus against in which their perspectives are seemingly excluded.
And of course what makes this case relevant is also what makes it unusual: that members of a single wikiproject, sharing similar views, make up such a large portion of those !voting on a set of proposals. The much more typical case is that appropriate notifications of projects with different perspectives, or the use of WP:CENT, dilutes the participation from any one group to a small - if sometimes the best-informed - part of the whole. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are true depending on which project we're talking about, there is a large diversity of WikiProjects and no generalization is going to apply to all of them. I will also note that some wikiprojects are strongly "anti-thing" like WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Alternative medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to give up the idea that all Wikipedia editors are at the two extremes. Either ideal where the objectives of Wikipedia fully overrule biases, or where where biases are so strong that they overrule the objectives of Wikipedia. In reality most editors are somewhere between those two extremes. Conversely, give up the idea that mere expression of concern of biased-influenced editing is is a severe accusation and violation of wp:AGF. On average, a wiki-project is typically going to be slightly biased. Regarding notifying them on a contentious topic, this should be recognized (and adjusted for by casting a wider net) but IMO it doesn't rise to the level of precluding notifying them or considering it to be a wp:canvas violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the notion that a WikiProject can be considered partisan or problematic without the involvement of Arbcom or some other discussion venue; otherwise, those are just an editor's personal opinion. I am also concerned with the conflation of specific canvassing cases which occurred in private or semi-private off-Wiki venues (EEML and Tropical Cyclones) with on-Wiki WikiProjects. Curbon7 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Thryduulf's point (and Curbon7's too now I guess) here that a claim that an Wikiproject is so partisan that it is inappropriate to notify them of something within their scope of interest is a user conduct issue, an accusation of which should only be made with evidence at an appropriate forum (AN/I, but also AE or ARCA for CTs). Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly possible to CANVAS via a wikiproject notification … by wording the notification in a non-neutral way with the intent of generating desired support/opposition to an issue. However, that is a flaw with the wording of the notification, not the location of the notification. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think neutral notification of relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Part of the disagreement centers on the word partisan, which has expansive enough of a definition that we can be talking about very different things. BM's analysis of various WikiProjects above has no way of distinguishing between problematically partisan ("we vote differently than the general community because we're non-neutral") and positively partisan ("we vote differently because we know more than the general community"). I think Nat Gertler's thoughts on this are well-stated. A case against a WikiProject needs much more evidence, being essentially a misconduct allegation against a large group of editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think commonly understood best practice is to notify them all if you're going to notify one. I sometimes think it's overkill. For example, I remember at least considering notifying some projects about a dispute related to J. K. Rowling and being torn about whether or not to notify WP:WikiProject Gloucestershire. I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone if they did so, and I wouldn't call it canvassing if someone left it off. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like that it makes sense to consider whether the specific dispute is relevant to that WikiProject. For example, if it was a dispute about whether Yate (where she was born) should be described as being in "Gloucestershire" or "South Gloucestershire" then the Gloucestershire project is definitely relevant. If the dispute was about which articles to include in her bibliography then the relevance is harder to see.
In general I don't think it should ever be regarded as wrong to notify all the WikiProjects that have tagged the article, or all the ones that are not tagged as inactive. If you think there is a relevant project that hasn't been notified, then the best thing to do is notify them and AGF that not doing so was not an attempt at canvassing unless you have a good reason not to. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An issue seems to be that the "is relevant to that WikiProject" test can be surprisingly subjective and unpredictable, as far as I can tell. People employ different (often unstated) heuristics to estimate relevance. Regarding "the best thing to do is notify them and AGF", this is my view too. I wonder about the scope of the AGF policy and its relationship to project notifications and the WP:INAPPNOTE guideline. AGF applies to individual editors. Wikiprojects are collections of editors. So, the AGF policy presumably extends to Wikiprojects as collections of editors. In that case, bias/canvassing concerns presumably always need to be evidence-based. Given the scope of AGF, assuming it extends to collections of editors with a shared property (like project membership), allowing people to use their own biases (maybe rebranded as 'common sense') to make non-evidence-based guesses about project bias impacting apparent consensus seems a bit inconsistent. Having said that, the AGF policy probably has its limitations in contentious areas where there is polarization and dishonesty (sockpuppetry), but it is policy, nevertheless. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this question of selective notification: for a certain RfC about René Lévesque (former premier of Québec) at article Talk, I notified wikiprojects Canada and Québec, but I was told that that was somehow canvassing. The editor making the accusation then proceded to notify wikiprojects for the rest of the Canadian provinces that had nothing to do with Lévesque's career.
I didn't formally object at the time - based on the "more eyes" theorem - but the notifications of apparently unrelated wikiprojects did feel to me like canvassing. What is the evaluation editors here would make that kind of (presumably tit-for-tat) notification? Newimpartial (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between Wikiprojects, though. I can remember some of them listing AfDs for "their" articles on their Wikiproject page and descending en masse to vote Keep - topics that spring to mind were aircrashes, tornadoes (and US roads before they threw their toys out of the pram) - whereas participants from many other Projects treated the AfDs impartially and were quite willing to get rid of articles that didn't meet policy). Black Kite (talk)11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that while current policy does allow for the notification of WikiProjects, it is clear that there is a bias for folks involved in them to keep articles that are in their subject area, as no single WikiProject is representative of the overall community, which is why it is considered a specialized community in the first place. While it is an open message available for everyone to see in theory, in reality it will only be seen by a segmented and unrepresented faction of the overall community, and the evaluation of sources is not something that people can't do simply because they aren't in a WikiProject related to the article at question. Even when the wording is neutral, often the notification will come from someone who has already voted !keep, so how is that (or any other vote) a neutral notification? Let'srun (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the wording is neutral, often the notification will come from someone who has already voted !keep could not be more wrong. First of all, you're assuming this only occurs for AfDs, when in fact AfDs are probably the one of the fewest things notified to WikiProjects (RMs and RfCs likely being the most). Additionally, your assumption that it is primarily people who have X opinion on the topic are the one's who notify is just not backed up by reality, to the point it seems you are arguing against notifications altogether. I think you are focusing too much on the why question (Why should WikiProjects be notified) rather than the what (What WikiProjects should be notified). Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, and my opinion may be a bit biased just because of what WikiProjects I have viewed in the past. I have seen notifications for RFCs and RMs as well, and it should be made clear that the wording is neutral while also explaining why the project deserves a notification. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone with a strong opinion is notifying in an attempt to sway the discussion (which does happen, but is far from the only or even most common reason) then it's equally likely to be someone arguing to keep or delete if it's going the other way, or more likely from someone arguing for deletion if it looks to be headed for no consensus. It's probably equally likely to come from either side if the trend is merge or redirect. Not that notification in such circumstances is guaranteed to have the desired outcome - I recall one discussion a few years ago where someone arguing for deletion notified a WikiProject with the intent of preventing a no consensus outcome. Several editors saw the notice and showed up to the discussion but were evenly split and it still closed as no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an editor has domain area knowledge doesn't mean they are willing to bend English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. Domain area experts typically know the best reliable sources for their area of expertise, the most reliable indicators that the standards for having an article can be met, and what achievements are actually significant versus those that just sound impressive to someone unfamiliar with the domain. If there are cases where editors fail to adhere to general consensus on the standards for having an article, then I feel the community should deal with these situations individually. If mechanisms like WikiProject article alerts aren't going to be used to notify editors interested in a topic area, there isn't a scalable way for those interested editors to be involved in related discussions. In my view, I think that will reduce the effectiveness of these discussions. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APPNOTE is clear that notifying one or more WikiProjects is appropriate notification. The argument that notifying specific WikiProjects may result in an influx of editors who are not representative of the Wikipedia community is not a convincing one because there may be editors who fall on either side of debates who have those WikiProjects on their watchlist. TarnishedPathtalk10:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the above discussion has gotten fixated on the outcome, but what primarily matters in determining whether something was or wasn't canvassing is the intent. If someone selectively notifies me of an AFD because they think I'll vote keep and I vote delete, that initial message was still canvassing even if it didn't have the intended outcome. Similarly, if someone is posting to WikiProject X and not WikiProject Y because they believe members of project X have a predetermined point of view or opinion supportive of their position, that's canvassing, even if it turns out everyone from project Y watches project X's page, or most of the people watching the X page hate X, or whatever other reason the outcome might not be as the poster intended. Canvassing doesn't have to be successful to be canvassing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've determined a method of reading other people's minds, intent is generally determined by actions/outcomes (baring a confession). So if someone notifies WikiProject X, we can generally assume that that someone is a rational actor and would know they can't guarantee who's going to see that notification at WikiProject X or what side of a question they would fall on. TarnishedPathtalk01:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the unified position expressed by several editors so far, that WikiProjects are in essence editorially neutral—or at least should be treated as such without further considerations—is hard not to see as purely wishful thinking, I'm afraid. That anyone is allowed to participate is not a compelling observation: people post in WikiProjects informed by their previous experiences there. People often commit shades of canvassing by going to where they think the editors that seem reasonable are.
I broadly echo the aphorisms above that more is usually better within reason, and that we should perhaps spare some introspection to ensure that paranoia about canvassing doesn't become a problem for our mental health individually or collectively. It's really hard to unpoison wells.
I'm not sure any explicit conduct policy or guideline is workable here—we have to resort to interpreting incidents on a case by case basis.
If individual editors are engaged in canvassing, they should be taken to some noticeboard to face some sort of sanction. If a WikiProject broadly is engaged in widespread and pervasive canvassing, it must be taken to Arbcom to be shut down and blocks to be dished out. If there is insufficient evidence to justify an Arbcom case, the WikiProject is by definition not problematic. Curbon7 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is insufficient evidence to justify an Arbcom case, the WikiProject is by definition not problematic." Thats just silly, its like saying that unless there is sufficient evidence to justify an Arbcom case against an individual then their behavior is by definition not problematic... The vast majority of problematic behavior falls under the line of what should be brought as a case to Arbcom. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Action against individual editors may be taken against them through noticeboards like ANI, so I think that is a completely different situation. I think a better comparison is with admins, as both do ultimately fall under the purview of Arbcom (considering desysopping equivalent to shutting down a WikiProject). Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a particular reason why such a rigid view like this is appealing? The all or nothing approach would seem destined to inspire resentment and suspicion. Remsense诉18:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think individual editors should be able to designate a project is problematic or partisan or whatever other word you want to use (and thus open up for sanctions), I think that is a power that should be reserved to Arbcom. I do not see this as rigid at all; if anything, the free-for-all approach seems more inclined to inspire resentment and suspicion. Individual editors who are causing problems are still be dealt with through the usual processes. Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is we shouldn't be operating in terms of designations at all unless things have really gone pear-shaped. Every WikiProject is likely to be conspicuously imperfect if used as the sole pool of editors invited to decide an issue, and bad things happen when potential problems have to snap to either sanctionable problems or non-existent. That's what I got out of what you said anyway—maybe I'm totally biffing it and we don't actually disagree about anything of substance.
A point I'm grasping towards is: what some may worry are issues with a given collective might just be noise, or otherwise resolvable on an individual basis as per usual. It is very hard to extirpate that mode of thinking once it becomes endemic to a social environment, and I worry. I will irresponsibly invoke the term "witch hunt" but only for its didactic value—hopefully clearly illustrating my worry about thinking in terms of classes and cliques rather than individual good-faith editors, each with their own agency. Remsense诉20:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting assistance with getting a domain whitelisted (naijawide dot com) that provides information on Nigerian music and cultural content. I encountered issues with adding a link to a Wikipedia article on Olamide’s recent music project because the domain is on the global spam blacklist.
Here are the details: The website offers important content about Olamide’s new project that would be beneficial for the Wikipedia article.
I would appreciate any help with the whitelisting process or guidance on how to proceed.
I am writing to request feedback on the meta:Movement Charter by 25 June to publish as community reactions in the next issue of The Signpost.
Hi I am Lane Rasberry / user:bluerasberry. I am an editor for The Signpost. I also organize wiki stuff off-wiki in lots of ways, including in-person Wikipedia meetups and professionally as a Wikipedia researcher at my university.
I am writing to share the news that somehow - perhaps as an endpoint to 10 years of strategic planning - wiki governance has produced a draft Movement Charter. There will be a global ratification vote on it 25 June through 9 July. Lots of people have lots of views of this. My view is that this document would greatly influence and justify how the Wikimedia Movement spends the US$1,000,000,000 (billion dollars) which the Wikimedia Foundation is likely to collect over the next 6-8 years.
I'm concerned the statement "The Wikimedia Movement is based on and embraces a factual, verifiable, open, and inclusive approach to knowledge-sharing", while full of good things, foregoes "ethical" or any other terminology that would be fight against justifying a pirate site. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This 'movement' is, needless to say, a fiction. People who edit stuff on WMF-hosted websites are no more a 'movement' than Redditors, or people who use X-that-used-to-be-Twitter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A movement for X That used to be Twitter From reading the posts Must be named Xitter Burma-shave
@AndyTheGrump[1]: The “Wikimedia Movement” refers to the totality of people, groups, and organizations who support and participate in Wikimedia websites and projects. It includes all of those who operate within the policies, principles, and values of the movement. It's a thing but still you point that it is really a fiction. — Iadmc♫talk 21:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what the WMF claims in regard to this supposed 'movement', when trying to justify their funding efforts. I have seen precisely zero evidence that anyone has done any research into the extent those who use WMF websites actually subscribe to the 'principles' and 'values' claimed, or that they consider themselves a part of any particular 'movement'. There is nothing whatsoever in the terms of use that describes such particular beliefs, and it would be grossly improper to require them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just reads like meaningless marketing jargon to me, like calling a shopper doing some price comparison "the client's purchasing journey". That's not what a "journey" is, and this is not what a "movement" is. JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 5Ps only apply to the English language Wikipedia, and while we adhere to them, there is no shortage of evidence that not everybody agrees with them. Hawkeye7(discuss)18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the WMF should spend that money employing people in developing countries to digitize their print media rather than using it to create more and more ideological focus groups that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF's flight of fancy took off long ago, and it has completely lost contact with Wikipedia or any other real-world activity. It now exists mainly to deceive donors who think they are supporting Wikipedia into financing unrelated activities. I often consider making a constructive edit but do not bother, knowing that it would be abused in this way. I am not part of any so-called Wikimedia movement, and it does not represent me in any way. Certes (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God, how good would a developing country media digitization effort be... and the WMF has the means to make it happen! ꧁Zanahary꧂05:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the single most effective method the WMF could employ in its claimed campaign against "systemic bias", it would naturally stimulate Wikipedia involvement in underrepresented regions in addition to providing relatively cheap-to-WMF employment, the cost for digitization tools and webspace would be minor, the optics would be fantastic...but nope, gotta spend millions of dollars giving grants to special interest groups with limited Wikipedia relevance or to clueless initiatives to write articles on topics that neither proposers nor reviewers noticed already had articles... JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
initiatives to write articles on topics that neither proposers nor reviewers noticed already had articles... Has this happened? ꧁Zanahary꧂03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ lol. WMF please, a developing world digitization project. University of Burundi is digitizing their theses right now and it's incredible the knowledge they're opening to the world. And they're doing that with University of Burundi funding. Imagine the good that could be done! ꧁Zanahary꧂03:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Movement Charter is not a good idea. the voting process gives it the illusion of a formal new legal structure and government system. imho, it has the drawbacks of both a core formal government process, and an informal grassroots process, and none of the benefits of either one. Sm8900 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell are the "stakeholders"? Does the W?F think we care about this corporatese nonsense? I know they're out of touch, but still...
And there are of course sneakily vague bits. Take, for example,
All contributors and other volunteers must follow Wikimedia Movement policies applicable to them while contributing and undertaking volunteer activities.
“policies applicable to them” is as open a loophole for the W?F to ban a few people they happen to not like for whatever reason as I've yet seen. How about
All contributors and other volunteers must follow the policies of the Wikimedia community (e.g. English Wikisource, French Wiktionary) they are contributing to.
They can make up arbitrary rules for me to follow, but they won't change my current behaviour which I believe to be perfectly reasonable. Of course, they can office-block me for pointing out their deficiencies. However, if they do that to everyone, they will soon find themselves with no community and a stale encyclopedia that no longer generates the donations that pay them for watching us write it. Certes (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra, you have already individually agreed, on at least some twenty thousand separate occasions, that you will follow those policies. Have you ever read the foundation:Terms of Use? I suggest that you do so, paying particular attention to ==Resolutions and Project Policies==, which says "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable."
While I'm here, I'm always surprised to see people, even editors who have been around for a while, claiming that "the movement" is something that was created by the WMF and has nothing to do with us. The idea of 'the Wikimedia movement' was created by volunteers. It dates back to at least 2004, when the WMF had zero paid staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had enough and reluctantly decided to retire, but I hope others will continue to restrain the WMF tail from wagging the Wikipedia dog. Certes (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - wearing my Movement Charter Drafting Committee hat here for a minute. I can quite reassure you that the WMF was not directive in what is contained in the Movement Charter that will be voted on starting next week. In fact, getting the opinion of the WMF on various topics was really difficult, especially in the early days as we started the process. The content of the Charter is largely reflective of recommendations from the 2030 strategy initiatives, which were released back in 2019 (it was released just as the world came to a screeching halt with the pandemic). We have no idea on the Drafting Committee how the WMF Board of Trustees will vote when it comes to the Charter; we'll find out at the same time as the broader community does.
The ballot has two sections: a support/--/oppose section (with the "--" taking the place of the word "neutral" as it's hard to translate into some languages); and a comment box. People can vote any way they feel is right, AND they can include an extensive comment on their reasoning. Several people in this thread have expressed opinions; I hope they will vote and include those opinions in their ballot. A summary of all of those comments will be published, regardless of whether or not the Charter is ratified. If it is ratified, we have a Charter. If it is not ratified, we will have a much better idea of how individual community members are thinking, and that will definitely help in determining next steps. We have had so few individual community members participating in the discussions leading up to this ratification vote that there's no way to predict an outcome. We just hope that people will participate in the vote itself, and tell us what they're thinking. What do you like about the Charter? What do you not like? What made you decide to vote the way you did? We really look forward to finding out more.
I know you'll see more about this ratification vote in the coming days and weeks, and I hope a lot of people participate. Takes off MCDC hat and goes off to eat dinner. Risker (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not ratified, we will have a much better idea of how individual community members are thinking, and that will definitely help in determining next steps.
@Risker Under what circumstance will the Movement Charter be considered "dead"? There is a non-zero part of the community which considers the Movement Charter efforts structurally flawed enough that it needs to stop. I personally think the efforts so far are underbaked and overly convoluted at once; but am not sure if that requires more effort to fix things, or the charter should just go away.
Community fatigue is a thing (with so many elections and ratifications happening over the last few months) and I'd like a bit more clarity on what circumstances would lead to either outcome. Soni (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soni, there isn't a good answer to this question. A lot of it is dependent on (a) the actual results of the vote and (b) the nature of the comments received. We will have to wait and see. Risker (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess pre the actual charter vote, my main question is just... "What's the point of all this?" I've tried to follow the entire discussion in meta, here and elsewhere. Nowhere can I find a clear simple articulated "Here's why we're doing this", as opposed to "People in this meeting back in 2021 recommended it" and "We've been working on this for N years, here's a timeline".
Why is the MC a thing? What does it change for day-to-day work in the projects/top level decisionmaking? Will the movement charter be binding over WMF? The community? How is this different from ToU/UCoC/WMF's Annual Plans? Similiar question for GC/GCB but with U4C/WMF BoT? Will the decisions of GC/GCB be binding over anyone?
I can probably think of a few more adjacent questions. It's not that none of them have been answered if you carefully read between all the lines, it's that the entire process could really use a "Simple answers FAQ" instead of a "Here's all the ways you can help the MC" style FAQ page we have. I remember giving this feedback to someone from WMF/MCDC working on this, but the FAQ continues to be as unhelpful as ever. Soni (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soni I agree, that level of clarity and simplicity is needed. A Charter and Council tend to help movements with coordination, something we do need and expend many head-desks trying to work around in its absence. In particular, even our own Foundations have a hard time coordinating with the communities they are designed to support. I tried to motivate a few specific goals here.
Zanahary and JoelleJay, digitization of sources and archives is indeed one of the greatest ways we can advance knowledge and fill gaps in coverage. It's not always clear where we can have that impact, but a project to identify such initiatives and what they need would be promising and could help better direct funds. The 'special interest groups' you mention that got WMF grants in the past were just chosen from the pool of knowledge projects nominated for consideration, after a public call. I don't know if that will happen again, but a) this is the sort of thing that is clearly aligned with our mission that we can do now, and b) a Global Council is imagined as the community-run body that could prioritize and act on that, more meaningfully than disparate community feedback on sporadic calls for nominations or requests for comment. – SJ +14:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your meta:User:Sj/Design chats/Charter/en is much more human readable than the current document. Nice job. For whatever reasons, official documents on meta seem to have trouble not being written in hard-to-read product manager speak, which probably drives away readers that are not experts at navigating meta bureaucracy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, thanks kindly for the feedback. As to that quote, I mean that digitization of notable, educational, underrepresented source materials is clearly aligned with our mission, and also aligned with the stated goals of (in this case) the KEF and (in general) other WMF grant programs. KEF had an open call for nominations for its first two rounds. A nom for a specific project along those lines might well have been funded, and the remaining funds in that pool are presumably still dedicated to addressing systemic bias in knowledge. To the extent that we're not supporting high-impact low-marginal-cost work like primary source digitization, it isn't for lack of either resources or stated priorities, but something messier. – SJ +16:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm surprised that digitization efforts haven't already been funded... Surely I'm not the first person to bring up that idea? It seems so obvious... JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Digitization efforts have been funded, see for a very interesting example meta:Wikisource Loves Manuscripts/Mission List which includes palm-leaf manuscripts from Bali. (I am also aware of a project to digitize the local laws of some parts of the Philippines which has had some success, although I cannot off-hand remember what that was called or find the relevant meta-page.) If there are reasons more is not being done, it is not due to the idea not being considered but as Sj notes "something messier". CMD (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palm-leaf manuscripts, how awesome! I would love it if Malagasy sorabe could be digitized, in that vein—but really just digitizing the archives of major institutions of developing countries would rocket the world so far forward. ꧁Zanahary꧂04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear! Although those seem to be focused on primary source digitization? I'm talking more about digitization (and hopefully OCR) of secondary, academic/other print media (along the lines of Trove, but more limited in scope) that editors could then use for sourcing articles in underrepresented areas. I feel like using the WMF's largesse to hire local people to digitize their country's sources would be the most obvious and most feasible method to effectuate "knowledge equity" in a way that actually directly aligns with "improving the encyclopedia". JoelleJay (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say anecdotally that primary source digitization is the most common focus of efforts I am aware of, so you may be right that there is a gap. One possibility is that there are simply far fewer complications regarding copyright etc. with primary sources, which may be quite old. I do think it is highly unlikely that the WMF would hire local people to do digitization. What they would be more likely to do is fund someone else to do it. If the goal is digitizing from a university or similar that would fit into the well-trodden WP:GLAM process. CMD (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj, @Novem Linguae, i have started work on a draft charter of sorts of my own. i could really use your input, feedback and advice. could you please go to this page, and let me know what you think? you are welcome to comment on the talk page. and also i would be glad to incorporate this with anyone else' ideas and efforts, as well. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted no to the Movement Charter, for two reasons. The first reason is because the text is not in Norwegian bokmål (my native language). Such a document must be available on all Languages used in projects. When the text is only translated into major languages, that says a lot about the views inside Wikimedia Foundation regarding the volunteers that is the core of this project.
The second reason is that I do not see the need. Such a text will, in the best of circumstances, provide nothing to the party, but more likely add to the bureaucratization of Wikipedia, which we do not need. We allready have a lot of functioning projects and local chapters, we do not need the kind of formalisation or funding law that this seems to be. Ulflarsen (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted "No" as well. for me, nothing is defined clearly enough.
@Soni, the crucial answer is that the movement charter people consider themselves a counterweight to the wmf. however one problem is that the mcdc is just as legalistic and formalistic as the wmf bureaucracy that they are claiming they wish to counteract, imho. Sm8900 (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulflarsen i totally agree with you. as you note: Such a text will, in the best of circumstances, provide nothing to the party, but more likely add to the bureaucratization of Wikipedia, which we do not need. We allready have a lot of functioning projects and local chapters, we do not need the kind of formalisation or funding law that this seems to be.Sm8900 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion, the movement charter should not be ratified. one main concern I have is about the Global Council. if the global council was really meant as an active dynamic pipeline for new ideas and empowerment, then there would have been active efforts already, to move ahead with those ideas, in my opinon. also, my real concern on this is that if this is voted into being, then those serving as the global council can decide they need to be a major governmental body, even if the community never intended for that to happen.
if this had simply been implelemented little by little without a vote, then their role could have evolved naturally. so therefore I feel that firstly this process of voting for approval for this is superfluous. and also it might give the illusion of awarding the global council some major legislative powers.
one problem in my opinion is that the mcdc think there is an obvious justification for the Global Council as a counterweight for the wmf . so there has been little communication about how it would actually work. so because of that, I feel we really need to put the brakes on this idea.
Here is a video call from the page shown below. for me, this video raises a lot of questions, and doesn't provide the answers we need. and even if it did provide the answers, then it should have been displayed to the community much more prominently.
here is a screenshot fromthe 26-minute video above. imho, this illustrates the problem, the proposed goals for the "global council" might or might not be okay. but why are we being asked to ratify them as one of the top governing bodies? who would advocate for this?
what are we being asked to agree to? what would be the agenda and the policies of this new body which will have immediate authority, with very little discussion previously for the community as a whole? and also, this will be the council for the whole movement? the whole thing? ALL of the foriegn wikipedias?? that's a whole lot of stuff!!
and if that's the case, then why does the English language wikiedpia take precedence? and if the council only meets once per year.... then who do you think will be running the committtees, and setting the entire agenda? that's right! the English Wikipedia!!
screenshot of Charter April call screenshot, major changes overview slide
here is a noteworthy screenshot from the 48-minute call, showing the Global Council Board. so would this be the actual effective group in the council? just 5 to 15 people? 'and also... again, the actual Global Council only meets once per year???!!! what the heck?
screeenshot of april video call, showing global council board structure
the details above on the actual powers of the Global Council Board do not appear in the Charter at all!! and there is nothing that says the Global Council meets only once per year!! and there is nothing about the Global Council Board being the entity to do all of the actual work!! Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900, when an entity talks about "the" annual meeting, they usually mean the legally required annual meeting for a corporation, and are not claiming that there is a maximum of one meeting per year allowed for the group. I'd say that you can fairly read that line as saying "We are creating an actual, legal US corporation for you, and you are responsible yourselves for complying with the US corporate laws, which require things like an annual meeting."
Also, it doesn't say that the English Wikipedia takes precedence. It says that the original version of the documents (which happen to be in English) take precedence over any (potentially incorrect or misleading) translations. This is standard in contracts around the world (just with different languages being more commonly used in the original versions). As an obvious example, the strategy goal of m:Knowledge equity was translated once into "knowledge stocks-and-bonds" by good-faith Wikipedia editors. With paid editors, we've had problems for years and years with paid professional translators who translate free of "The free encyclopedia", using free-as-in-freedom (libris), into free-as-in-free-beer (gratis) even after we told them that it's the free-as-in-freedom word. You don't want a mistake like that to be relied on during any legal dispute. That's why you specify which version is the real version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why does the English language wikiedpia take precedence? In what ways do you think enwiki would take precedence in the Movement Charter / Global Council process? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you dig into it, the major consequence of the charter is to create a body that has a plurality (12/25) of members directly elected by the community, that has the power to:
Tell the WMF what it's long-term priorities should be, including for software development
Regulate the activities of affiliates
Determine where grant money should be allocated
If you're worried that the community has lost control of the WMF, the affiliates, and/or is spending money in the wrong way, then this is your best chance to rectify it and you should vote yes. It remains to be seen whether the Global Council will be given sufficient teeth to actually do any of this, but there's at least potentially a significant transfer of power back to volunteers here, which is presumably why the Board of Trustees (who stand to lose out), are opposing it.
But man is it hard to dig that far in. I try really hard to avoid the knee-jerk hostility to the WMF that is so common on enwiki but dear God, the single best way they could use their big pot of money is to send every single employee and committee member on a plain English writing course. I've lost count of the number of times I've given up on a seemingly promising WMF document because it's written in utterly impenetrable corporatese. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get how this movement charter can come into force if the board of trustees opposes it? Aren’t the Board of Trustees the ultimate authority here? Have they agreed to be bound by the outcome of the vote? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: I'm not sure that analysis holds up. The current WMF is also run by a body that has a plurality (also n-1/2, plus Jimbo) of trustees elected by the community, which has the power to do all of those things and more. Creating a new larger body to do some of this work isn't guaranteed to rectify any current problems.
The WMF board liaisons' open letters to the drafting group seemed pretty clear about why they weren't happy with the charter drafts, and it was not about power transfer, but more about underspecification and unaccountability. The board pre-committed to transferring regulation of affiliate activity and allocation of grant money to more distributed community-led bodies [like the proposed global council committees focused on those areas], and it seems a version of that will happen by January of next year regardless.
Agreed that the charter and associated docs are pretty impenetrable. Considering the wealth of spectacular writers in our community, that's just an unnecessary self-own.
Barnards.tar.gz Each of the community vote, the affiliate vote, and the WMF Board vote has to support the charter for it to come into force. But the level of overall support will influence how quickly and determinedly we all push to get to a version that reaches consensus approval. – SJ +17:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current WMF is also run by a body that has a plurality (also n-1/2, plus Jimbo) of trustees elected by the community. The current composition of the Board reserves 8/16 seats for trustees elected by the community and affiliates. Of the 12 current Trustees, only four represent the community, and given that the affiliates determined who got on the ballot, you could question even their mandate. Representing organised Wikimedia affiliates is not the same thing as representing project communities. One of the good things about the proposed Global Council is that it recognises that.
We can only speculate why the Board liaisons are opposed to this. This is politics, ultimately, so the reasons they gave are not necessarily to be taken at face value. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary delay in publishing articles translated for $$ by an NGO[edit]
So, I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA. TL;DR, there is an NGO sponsoring translating high quality articles between Wikipedias. But on EN due to our COI/PAID policies they are required to use AfC, which means that their articles, which usually are very good, are delayed through AfC backlog, to which they also contribute. I think this is an excellent initative that however needlessly clutters AfC due to our current rules, and I'd like to suggest we consider giving it exception from the COI requirement to use AfC. It makes sense to direct paid-for spammers to AfC, as their articles are often problematic (notability, etc.) but what we have here is very different (translations of good quality articles from other wikis - ex. current drafts include Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara, Draft:Spa Conference (2-3 July 1918), Draft:Formal procedure law in Switzerland, etc.), yet this stuff is caught in the same "COI" net. (See project page linked above for links of articles already published, links to drafts waiting for review, and their instructions to translators) Thoughts? (Courstesy ping project founder @7804j). PS. A question to 7804j - how are articles chosen for translation? How is the system designed not to be abused by spammers? Perhaps if an exception is granted on en wiki, it should not apply to articles about companies, products or living persons? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute that "this is an excellent initative" or "that their articles, which usually are very good". They have caused a lot of work; mostly these are machine translations by people whose English is rather poor. The titles chosen are often completely ungrammatical (Greek Classicism Sculpture was a typical one) or inappropriate, & in the past they have chosen often subjects we already have. The texts are just whatever the language taken - usually Portuguese, Spanish, French or Italian, has on their wiki, & the quality of the original is often poor, & errors introduced by machine translation go uncorrrected. There have been numerous complaints. They have got slightly better, but I think still don't publish a full list of articles they have paid for, whicgh they should. The Open Knowledge Association isn't really "an NGO" - as far as I can see it's a single Swiss guy with a bit of money to spend, who you have rashly decided to endorse. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the principle is sound: high-quality articles can and should be translated into languages where they're missing. Doc James ran a similar program for certain medical articles a few years ago (e.g., during the Ebola and Zika outbreaks), to public acclaim. However, he was working with pre-screened professional translators, and OKA seems to have struggled with quality control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the ODA model makes absolutely no attempt at quality control. As will be clear to anyone who reads one of them, they are just machine translations dumped onto en:wp with no aftercare. Many that were forks were just turned into redirects, which the ODA doesn't appear to have noticed. The ones that are left take a lot of cleaning up, when some regular editor can be bothered. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that your anecdotal analysis above is different from mine. The articles from OKA I've seen seem pretty decent, at start+ class, and would survive AfD if nominated. Can you recall which articles were redirected - and prove that they are a rule, and not an exception? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they would survive Afd is almost all about the notability of the subject, and that is not usually an issue - the quality is. In fact the worst issues arise when they tackle very prominent subjects. I never claimed that redirected ones were the "rule" - I make no attempt to search out OKA efforts, but then clearly neither do you. Draft:Crow-stepped gable is a recent creation, objected to, for which we have a redirect already in place. Not much of it will survive, I'd imagine. If they kept proper lists of their articles on wiki I would be able to find some, I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't think that is at all complete. The template was only set up in October 22 (by 7804j), well into OKA's project. Stuff may have been added later. You used to able to access an off-wiki spreadsheet 7804j maintained, but I can't see that you can now. User:7804j? For example, the earlier efforts of User:Racnela21, one of the most prolific OKA editors, are not templated - see the 48k bytes of Brazilian Romantic painting (typically, initially called Brazilian Romanticism Painting). Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list contains all articles created by OKA after the template was created. Oka was created relatively shortly before the template was created, therefore there are not many articles without it (probably 90+% have the template). The off wiki tracker is still at oka.wiki/tracker7804j (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to highlight that quality is not really the topic of this discussion, since this is about whether COI should require all paid editors to go through AfC and, as you pointed out yourself, AfC's goals are not primarily to check quality. I'd suggest moving the OKA discussions somewhere else such as our talkpage in the intertranswiki project7804j (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr brings up "would survive AfD" because that's the standard AfC uses. If OKA articles typically have quality issues that wouldn't be enough for deletion, then there's no point insisting they go through AfC – assuming reviewers are doing their job properly, they'll just send them right through. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things that would make them fail Afd include repeating articles we already have under a different title, a perennial problem with OKA, which reviewers don't always pick up, but sometimes do - as currently at Draft:Crow-stepped gable. Besides, some reviewers (perhaps not "doing their job properly" - how shocking) insist on minimal standards of coherent English, etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for initiating that discussion! I am fully supportive of such an exemption, as I see this AfC requirement as additional red tape that consumes a lot of time for OKA translators and AfC reviewers.
Our core principle is that our translators are free to work on anything that interests them. We provide them with a monthly stipend, some training on how Wikipedia works, but we then see them as volunteer contributors on whom we impose some process to ensure they do not abuse the grant and provide overall value (eg, quality checks, quantity checks). To help them find articles to translate, we curate an optional backlog (at oka.wiki/tracker). Articles of this tracker primarily consist of "Featured" and "Good" quality articles from other Wikis, as well as red links from these articles. We also complement this with articles that we find important, eg, about geographical features such as lakes, mountains, etc. The broader principles for articles prioritization are described at oka.wiki/overview
Note that there was a similar discussion in the Interwiki talkpage, which can provide useful additional context.
Regarding Johnbod's response, I would like to bring 3 points of context:
1) While overall quality is good, it may vary. Because we have many different translators, with difference levels of experience, the quality will not be uniform. We are providing them with training, and we have observed their quality improved over time. We stop providing grants to translators wjth recurring quality issues. Overall, I do not agree with Johnbod's characterizarion of a high degree of quality issues. Often, the issues raised with OKA's work were not due to the quality of the translation, but because of the source article itself. We have published several thousand of articles, most of which are still live with very minimal change vs their original published version.
2) This discussion is not about assessing the quality of the work, but whether the COI requirement to go through AfC should apply to OKA. The only reason why our translators go through AfC today is because of the COI policy, which was not created primarily to check quality of paid translations but to eliminate bias. Therefore, I don't think such arguments are appropriate in the current discussion.
3) Our funding comes from many different private individuals, but it is true that currently I am the main donor. That being said, this should not make any difference as to whether we can be called an "NGO". Would the Gates Foundation not be called an NGO just because most of its funding comes from Bill Gates? We have over 15 full time translators who agree to do this work with a very small stipend, much smaller than what they could earn in a regular job, so the work of OKA is much more than that of a single person 7804j (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not to couch any action in terms of "an exception" for a named user or group. Rather, I would prefer to see an adjustment to WP:PAID to make a modification to allow "philanthropic paid editing" where the articles in question and the content added are chosen by the paid editors and there is no oversight by the payer. At that point, individual articles and editors would be subject to the same kind of oversight as any other. It seems to me that philanthropic paid editing to expand the encyclopedia is within the scope of WP:HERE, and this should not be formulated as an "exception" as if something were wrong with it in the general case. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing, OKA editors don't have a financial tie to the subject. They're paid by an organisation to edit Wikipedia, but the selection of topics is independent. It's basically paid editing without a COI, which is a bit of blind spot in our current policies. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would be interested to understand what are the requirements for projects such as the ones you mentioned to *not* qualify as paid editing. As you pointed out, Wikipedians in Residence do not need to go through AfC -- what are the formal criteria/policy allowing them to be compensated without being considered paid editors? 7804j (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl:, yes, but as I read it, they are free to make edits of their choice without even disclosing their paid status, as long as they are not making specific edits about the payer institution. The way I read it, is that GLAM employees do not need to disclose because: "Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution". That section recommends a simple disclosure for W-in-residence, but only in the case where they are "specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed". Paid status need not be disclosed for general edits unrelated to that. Do you see it differently? Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do fit it if compensated for a *particular contribution*, and the Paid FAQ linked by the foundation Policy you cited above specifically calls out the circumstances when paid editors do *not* need to disclose their contributions. Those circumstances match those of paid OKA volunteers, who, had they been a Wikipedia-in-residence or a GLAM-paid instead of OKA-paid, would not have had to disclose their status, according to the wmf policy FAQ itself. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the English wikipedia we do require that disclosure "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." Even if the foundation FAQ says that per the foundation they don't per English wikipedia they do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ is giving specific examples, and is non-exhaustive. As explained in the first paragraph of the section, you are only required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project. This is in accordance with the actual Terms of Use: if you are being specifically compensated for contributions, you are a paid editor, but this does not extend to your contributions that are not within the scope of your compensation. If you are being paid to edit about your employer, that's within the scope of your compensation, and so the relationship has to be disclosed (and the example is about this specific situation). isaacl (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in the same line of thought, this means that all articles created by Wikipedians in Residence in the context of the organization that pays them need to go through AfC (as @Horse Eye's Back suggests in the comment below), is that also your understanding? 7804j (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "Wikipedian-in-residence" is just a self-described title, without any oversight from anyone involved with the WMF or Wikipedia, so the scope of their role is entirely decided by their employer and them. Some of those who have participated at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure have said that they do not edit Wikipedia as part of their role; they provide education and support to the institution's staff. isaacl (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Do we require AfC from Wikipedians in Residences?" The outcome of the recent case involving the BYU library's Wikipedians in Residence clarified that the community does in fact expect Wikipedians in Residence to use AfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one reason I prefer the term financial conflict of interest. "Paid editing" focuses on a transaction—being paid to edit—but the real issue is the tendency to bias created by some financial relationships. Wikipedians in Residence are the paradigmatic example of people who are literally paid to edit but don't have a conflict of interest; it seems like OKA translators are another. If we shifted the guideline to talk about FCOIs instead of paid editing, the need for an exception for philanthropy would disappear. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make xxx$ out of a full tims job and only half of that when editing Wikipedia, it becomes more a hybrid role than pure full time job. Our translators usually give up much better paid opportunities for being able to work on Wikipedia. 7804j (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7804j, I would not pursue this line; it's a distraction, and a loser. Volunteering/working is binary, there is no hybrid, in-between, or threshold of payment so low that it is not "working". Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikipedia I agree with you that there should be no distinction in the policy. I just wanted to call out that many of these paid editors do so not because they are interested financially but because they care about Wikipedia and just need some money to pay rent and food (thus why we call it a grant/stipend). Sometimes people are being overly harsh on them, so I think it's important to highlight they also do some personal sacrifices to do that job. 7804j (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am making the distinction between working full time in a for-profit translation company that pays well, and working full-time through stipends from a non-profit organization like OKA that pays a lot less. OKA editors accept a much lower grant than what they could earn elsewhere because they know it's an important cause. 7804j (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the distinction? Neither of those is a hybrid situation or volunteering... Taking a lower salary to work in a job you want to work in vs one which pays more but you don't want to do is not volunteering, almost all of us do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has significant conflicts of interest, primarily in relation to their employers. The issue is whether they make edits in those areas or not. If a WiR at the Museum of Nowheresville was editing Museum of Nowheresville, there'd be a problem. If an OKA translator was editing Open Knowledge Association, there'd be a problem. But that's not what we're talking about here. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to square "Wikipedians in Residence are the paradigmatic example of people who are literally paid to edit but don't have a conflict of interest" with "Everyone has significant conflicts of interest, primarily in relation to their employers" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So OKA has been on my radar for some years now due to off-wiki reports sent to the paid editing queue. I was extremely suspicious of it at first and (along with others active in UPE patrolling) worried it would be a sort of front for the usual abusive paid editing. However, I have to hold my hands up and say that it's been c. five years and nothing like that has come up. From what I've seen, the selection of topics is genuinely made based on what's missing on enwiki, and the quality of the translation are at least no worse than average. @7804j: You perhaps made an initial strategic error in structuring/talking about this as "freelancers" doing "paid editing", because this puts you in a category of people that the volunteer community, for good reason, have come to be very sceptical of. Essentially identical activities that are framed as grant-making or residency do not raise the same eyebrows, especially if you can get some sort of buy-in from the WMF (which is not hard).
Quality is a separate issue and something that pretty much always causes friction when people who aren't very familiar with Wikipedia are incentivised to contribute to it en masse. There is no easy to solution to this. Specifically, making them go through AfC isn't going to help – AfC reviewers don't have the time to do a close reading of drafts to look for translation issues. They'll take a look through for major problems (which OKA drafts don't seem to have) and for notability (virtually guaranteed because these are substantial articles on other Wikipedias) and then pass it through. So we'll end up with the same outcome as if they were created in mainspace directly, just with some extra volunteer time wasted within an already backlogged process.
As to whether OKA creations need to go through AfC, I am usually the last person to point this out, but technically this is a request not a requirement. AfC is broken by design because generally we don't want to encourage paid editors by giving them an efficient route to publication, or encourage volunteers to do work that someone else will get paid for. As Mathglot says, Neither our COI policy or the AfC process was designed with 'philanthropic paid editing' in mind. I think it's fine for OKA editors to bypass this and create directly in mainspace. This isn't an exception our a change to the rules, it's just applying WP:IAR and recognising that forcing good faith creations into a broken process because their creator got a stipend while writing them, or because they might have some translation issues, is not in the spirit of WP:FCOI. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I also thought that the AfC requirement for paid editors was a request and not a requirement. However, @Seraphimbladeraised in my talk page that any OKA editor creating an article in the mainspace without going through AfC would be blocked. Hence why we started requiring all our translators to go through AfC since early May.
I agree with you that it was a mistake from my end to have initially used the term "freelancer". Our translators are volunteers receiving a grant to cover basic costs of living (~400 usd per month for the ones working full time). Going forward, I will make sure to always use the more accurate terms of "Grant/stipend recipients". I did not want to use the term of "Wikipedians in Residence" as it seemed to me that this requires that the work be related to the institution itself. I wasn't aware that there are options to get buy-in from the Wikimedia foundation, but I will explore this avenue as it will indeed help with acceptance of OKA among the community.
In general, I strongly with the idea of introducing a broader exemption to the AfC requirement of the COI policy to either philanthropic institutions that do not target specific topics and give high degree of freedom to grant recipients, or to payments that are too low to represent full wages (e.g., <xxx$ per month/ per hour).
Whatever avenues you explore, I would not get into proposals related to trying to find a threshold where a payment is "too low" to make a difference, and thus presumably not trigger a PAID concern. Experience with paid crowd-sourcing platforms such as MTurk shows that micropayments may attract volunteers for certain tasks, even sometimes for a larger than average task such as a translation. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a dumb question, but I'm tired and can't find it: where in the policies do we require paid editors to use AFC? (please do notping on reply) Primefac (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so here's this month's OKA thread, I thought I'd miss it!
If an organization of this sentiment really wanted to help the English Wikipedia, they would be working exclusively on poorly developed vital articles. Then there would be no AFC necessary. The English WP is far past the point where creating new articles is an effective way to make meaningful improvements. Unless, of course, this creation targets areas of systemic bias where there is a genuine dearth in coverage.
To me this appears much like the organizers have gone so far in one direction that whether or not their effort is actually worthwhile is no longer a consideration. Even with their current infrastructure, it would be considerably more effective to take EN FAs and translate them into other languages. Aza24 (talk)07:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia does not need new articles nearly as much as it needs improvements on existing ones. As I said, the only exception is to fill systemic bias gaps, which yes, includes a woman poet! Comparing a single editor with an entire organization does not track.
I should add that if I'm being overly critical, it's because this organization should be held to a high standard. Sine it is under the guise of effective altruism, the former "effective" qualifier needs to take more prominence. I can't see anywhere that it's even been considered how to most effectively help Wikipedia. Otherwise, the OKA would have approached the community before founding, to identify what is actually needed. Since they didn't, now we find ourselves in these same threads, time and time again. Aza24 (talk)17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears to be about your opinion on how work on Wikipedia ought to be prioritized, and is a red herring. One of the central features of a volunteer organization, is that volunteers work on articles of their choice, not articles of your choice, or some committee's choice. Thank goodness I didn't have to listen to you, or I never would have had the opportunity to translate that article about a medieval Catalan peasant uprising, when there were no doubt many hundreds of thousands of tasks more urgent than that one at the time. The OKA volunteers who translate articles of their choice in their own manner should be held to the same standard I was, namely, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and nothing else. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 I do not think this is the right place to discuss this. This thread is about whether to make changes to the AfC requirement of COI, not about how OKA prioritizes articles. So I would suggest moving that discussion for example to the OKA taskforce talkpage.
That being said, we (OKA) already operate along the lines of what you seem to recommend. Many if the articles our translators work are are about neglected topics in EN wiki, for example, articles about geographical features of non-English speaking countries (eg, Spain, Latin America) or non-English speaking historical figures. I would actually argue that improving coverage on these topics is much more important than extending already extensive articles on important topics. But most importantly, it takes different skill sets to translate vs expand articles. The editors who receive our grants would not necessarily be sufficiently familiar with these topics to be able to expand them starting from scratch.
Regarding your recommendation to translate from English to other languages: we do that already. We published thousands of articles in the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia, with a strong focus on under represented topics in these Wikipedia such as mathematics, computer science, etc. There's been a lot of off Wiki analysis of opportunities to maximize impact on donation that went on before we decided to set up OKA the way it is, and I'm happy to share more detail about the rationale if there is interest 7804j (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to retract my comments. Given your response, I don't think I'm nearly as informed as I should be on the organization to be casting such aspirations/critiscms. Also, my comments seemed needly inflammatory; my apologies. – Aza24 (talk)20:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 I just wanted to say that it is quite rare to see folks backtrack and even apologize in Internet discussions (and that includes on Wikipedia). Regardless of the issue at hand, I would like to say I very much respect and appreciate you for what you have just said above. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that paid editing is fishy due to the presence of inherently non-encyclopedic motivation, which may ultimately lead to poor quality translations of selection of poorly referenced source articles. As I see, OKA is fairly new and it is probably not flooded with quick buck seekers, but things may quickly change when rumors spread on how to earn some extra easy cash off google translator. I took a quick look at OKA articles submitted in AfC and all my random picks seem to have good quality. So here is my suggestion: How about vetting decent contributors to bypass AfC? - Altenmann>talk19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see creating some sort of “fast-track” for reviewing these articles, but some sort of review is still necessary. If for no other reason than preventing duplication of topic with existing articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HEB, Can you expand on what you mean by the idea of "a separate lane"? I wouldn't favor a change that referred to OKA by name (except at best in an explanatory note as an illustration of a general point in line that requires an example). Plenty of generalized guidelines have logical carve-outs that need to be explicit, for example, the guidance that strongly discourages external links in the body of an article specifically states that it doesn't apply to inline citations. We could follow that approach.
But there may be even a better way to deal with this. Currently, the first line of WP:FCOI says this:
Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals.
In my view, this is the crux of the problem, because it *assumes* that an employer's goals are in conflict with Wikipedia's goals. But what if that is a false assumption? I believe the general problem we are addressing could be handled without any specific carve-out, by altering it as follows:
Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict when their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals differ.
If the goals of an organization do not differ from Wikipedia's goals, then no separate lane or carve-out is required elsewhwere. This somewhat leaves open the question of what we would define as Wikipedia's goals, but Wikipedia:Purpose (info page) says this:
If a philanthropic organization's goals are the same as Wikipedia's, and there is no organizational oversight of payees' output, then it seems to me no special lane is required. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The practical question is who's going to decide which edits do or do not need independent review? If in practice this can only be done on an article-by-article basis, then I don't think much is gained by setting up a new decision branch that comes before using the articles for creation process. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lane or whatever isn't me idea so I don't want to speculate on it, in general I think what we have now works. In terms of the hypothetical unless they themselves are wikipedia how can their goals be the same as Wikipedia's? Generally organizations have self promotion as a goal and that is forbidden per WP:PROMOTION. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation's goals may be the same but the individual's goal may be to try and make as much as money as quickly as they can which can lead to machine translations + quality issues, which I've notice in the one OKA article I came across. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do we actually have some specific consensus that these uniformly awful translations should in fact be submitted through AfC? That would be such a good thing! Every one of them I've seen so far (mostly relating to horses) has been created directly in mainspace, and requires an amount of clean-up that seems to be far beyond the editor resources we have – with the result that overall this project is making the encyclopaedia worse, not better. I've asked myself several times why these pages were not being submitted as drafts, but not until now seen any discussion of them; if there's an standing consensus that they should go through AfC, I'll be draftifying several of them in the near future. Sorry, but oppose any kind of AfC exemption for the moment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think enough concerns have been raised about poor translations here that the argument to skip the AFC process is quite weak. I will also add that unedited machine translations are an extreme drain on experienced editor time, resulting in diffs like this one from 2021. If unedited machine translations are occurring here, this could turn into a big problem and big cleanup effort, and once sufficient evidence is gathered, we should attempt to communicate these concerns to the event organizers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - 7804j has never denied that these are machine translations, and they normally appear on en:wp in a single edit, & are not edited further except for a couple of tidies. There is no evidence that they are edited machine translations when OKA bow out, and they should be treated as "unedited machine translations" - what other evidence of absence would there actually be? Other volunteers are left to do things like categories and links, which they normally lack. Very rarely does anyone do the complete rewrite that ones like Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara need just to be comprehensible to an average English reader. To anyone who think OKA texts are "generally good" or "decent translations" I would say: just try actually reading that one - which btw will probably get far more views than most OKA efforts, as there is a real topic there. It covers our existing School of Ferrara but that is so crap I don't object on WP:FORK grounds, though it is typical that OKA haven't addressed this. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're applying a really high standard here. For example, the original title of Brazilian Romanticism Painting, and yes of course that's not perfect English, but does it impair the reader's ability to understand that the article is about Romanticism in Brazilian art? No. I see the same kind of thing reading through the rest of the article and other OKA articles: uneven English, yes, but perfectly comprehensible and, more importantly, sourced encyclopaedic content. The rest will be ironed out with time, like how you corrected the title of Brazilian Romantic painting a couple of weeks after it was created.
It's actually quite easy to verify whether a machine translation has been edited or not: just run the original through the same translator. For example, here's how DeepL handles the first paragraph of the first section:
The Este court in Ferrara was one of the most vital in northern Italy from the end of the 14th century, when Niccolò d'Este started the university and initiated the construction of the castle[1]. The courtly connotations were pronounced, as evidenced by the interest in the world of fairy tales of medieval heritage, as evidenced by the numerous novels of chivalry that enriched the famous library, in astrology and esotericism[2]. On an artistic level, Pisanello, who produced various medals for Lionello d'Este, was highly appreciated, as was the illuminated production, both of an international nature, in which Belbello da Pavia (author of the Bible of Niccolò d'Este) stood out, and updated to humanism, such as that of Taddeo Crivelli (Bible of Borso d'Este)[2].
Again, it's not perfect, but it's not somebody just acting as a conduit for automated translations, which is what the practice of draftifying these is supposed to filter out. OKA editors are using a machine translation as a base and then proofreading it, which in my experience is what practically everyone that works in more than one language does these days. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you think this demonstrates. It could be that they used a different translator. If you are suggesting they used the same one, then manually touched it up, the effect of their changes has on the whole made things worse, no? To someone who doesn't know the area, both versions of the passage are basicly gibberish in the details. To bring either up to even mediocre WP standards, a total rewording is needed. This is typical (ok, this example, which Piotrus selected, is worse than most of theirs these days). Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including estabilished and experienced editors like myself. (I machine translate and proofread my own articles between en and pl, for example). Nothing wrong with using MT as long as one knows how to proofread stuff (and if the original article of course is of decent starting quality to begin with). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepl translate of the German lead gives me: Feline hyperthyroidism is a disorder of the endocrine system in domestic cats (feline, adjective from the Latin felis "cat"), which is characterised by hyperthyroidism. It is the most common hormonal disorder (endocrinopathy) in cats over ten years of age, whereas hyperthyroidism is much less common in other pets. The disease is often characterised by weight loss despite increased food intake, is usually detected by blood tests and is easily treatable.
Novem Linguae, one of the points of this discussion, I believe, is that there is a difference between poor translations in general on the one hand, and translations by paid OKA editors on the other. Can you confirm that the translations in your 2021 link above as added to Cemetery of San Fernando were from OKA editors? Because if they weren't, everyone, I think, is in agreement that there are very many poor translations by new editors. The question at issue here is whether that applies to OKA editors as well, to such a degree that Afc is necessary for their contributions. Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that the translations in your 2021 link above as added to Cemetery of San Fernando were from OKA editors? They were not OKA editors. That link is just a generic example of how much work machine translations are to clean up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: I'm not sure if you're asking about this specific case or translations in general. If it's the specific case of OKA, it sounds like you've found a bad run of horse-related translations, but myself and others have seen a lot of decent translations from them too. The reason some are asking OKA translations to go through AfC is because they're paid for them, not because they're translations.
If you're asking whether there is community consensus for draftifying poor translations in general, I'd say the answer is no. Unedited machine translations are fair game (a legacy of the WMF's failed experiment with auto-translation, I believe), but if it just needs copyediting then draftspace will not help. AfC reviewers don't routinely do anything about translation issues, as long as it's a viable article. Instead there's the {{Cleanup translation}} family of templates and an active patrol that deals with them in mainspace. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has never attempted to do anything with auto-translation. They accidentally (and briefly) enabled exactly the sort of "machine translation as a base, but then proofread it and clean it up" system that many good editors use themselves, from Spanish to English (only that language pair) here, and then turned it back off when the error was pointed out to them.
In the meantime, one (1) editor dumped a bunch of unedited Spanish mis-translations in the mainspace, and we panicked and created Security through obscurity restrictions on all editors ever since. Which is to say: I can, and have, used machine translation to English in the Wikipedia:Content translation tool, but most editors, including those with far better translation skills than me, won't be able to figure out how to do that on their own. In the meantime, most editors are pasting the contents into machine translation in another tab, and thereby screwing up links, templates, categories, and formatting. Anyone who's been paying attention will know that this is typical of our community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing Indeed. My students do translations for class assignments, and I often tell them not to bother with the official Wiki translation tool because it doesn't work due to the reasons you discuss (i.e. their work can't be easily published). Then, of course, they struggle with code etc. eating our class time, so instead of having let's say a discussion about free culture or such I have to spend time doing activities about how to add hyperlinks or templates or such. On the bright side, they eventually learn the code, at least some of it. But it is still embarassing that I have to tell them "don't use the official tool, it is not friendly enough". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I was referring to. A promising tool that was killed by a botched deployment – typical of the WMF in that era! – Joe (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT, then your summary is extremely misleading, as it was about the extremely poor translations from many editors, with that Spanish editor as the most visible example. But upon rereading that discussion, I see that you were trying to muddle the waters and defend the indefensible by providing wrong numbers there already, so I guess hoping that you will change now is rather useless. Fram (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Draft:History of Caraquet back to draft space yesterday. It would be nice if such articles didn't start with presenting speculation by one local amateur historian and genealogist as if it was accepted truth, even though it disagrees with nearly all actual historians and the available evidence. The remainder of the article isn't much better. Fram (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD, why? The topic is probably salvageable, the article is largely rubbish, so the paid editor can make sure they write a decent article which at least follows accepted science, instead of blindly copying what another Wiki has produced. Fram (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see draftification listsed as an acceptable ATD. Sure, the article needs various fixes, but I don't see why they cannot be done in the mainspace. If you think it should not be in the mainspace, we need a community consensus (i.e. through AfD) on whether it should be de-mainspaced. Single editors do not have the power to delete (hide) articles - this is a task we relegate to the community (outside CSD-level garbage) and this is hardly at that level. See also WP:DRAFTNO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it listed under incubation: "Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process..." (the whole incubation subsection is actually about draftification, incubation and draftification appear to by synonyms... Maybe we should just use one term as it seems to be causing confusion?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's quality standards" does not mean GA and I don't think you will find a single editor who will publicly say that. If an AfC reviewer is doing that on the DL then bring a case against them and get their privilages stripped, someone being an abusive jerk isn't the wording's fault its the absusive jerk's fault. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a mismatch between the mainspace's actual standards and what it takes to get an article out of AFC. For example, we had a chat last week about why "too short" was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions as a reason to decline an article. We agreed to change it.
Looking at 10 recently accepted articles, the Page Size gadget shows a median new article accepted by AFC is around 400 words. A quick visit to Special:Random indicates that the median Wikipedia article (most of which are not new, and some of which are very well developed) is less than 200 words. I don't think that AFC should be expecting the typical new article to be twice the length of established articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of assertions unsubstantiated opinions about the quality of OKA-generated content that range roughly from it sucks to very good, with little to back it up. As of yesterday, articles which have been assessed for quality and which carry the {{OKA}} template on the Talk page now appear in the standard, quality-assessment categories; the parent category is OKA articles by quality. (A flat, quality-agnostic view is available here.) I am not knowledgeable about how these ratings are assigned, but afaik it has something to do with the Afc process. It might be interesting to compare the quality distribution here with that of all translated articles. In any case, at least we have some data to look at, instead of just raw opinion. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything B and below is pretty much meaningless in terms of measuring quality as anyone can assign these ratings and they are not given much oversight/critical evaluation. I don't doubt some quality translated articles can exist but offering money for a task that can be very easily automated is a terrible idea as proven by the multiple examples of terrible articles.
@7804j I don't know how your payment model works but if you're paying per article that's a bad idea. Why not pay for good/featured articles instead? It would be much harder to game such a system and would result in better quality if editors were required to work on an article beyond creation. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not paying per quantity, but per hour of work and instructing that people should focus on quality. Our translators are also paid when they work on improvements of existing articles. 7804j (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you measure hours worked given people are working remotely, is it just a trust based model? I can still see someone abusing that through using a machine translation then claiming they did it manually to inflate hours worked. Time clock fraud. Also what put feline hyperthyroidism on the radar, if I may ask? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that while hours worked could be an interesting question and relevant for OKA's bookkeeping and financial health, the question of whether OKA is being defrauded by its users is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia article quality is concerned, so can we drop this line of inquiry, or move it to the OKA external website, and stick to the question of how this relates to Wikipedia?
As far as feline hyperthyroidism, I don't understand what you are asking; afaict, you were the first to mention this article. If you meant, "How did this topic get picked up by an OKA editor?" then I would say that my understanding is that OKA editors get to work on any topic of their choice. Is that what you were asking? Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now and then someone tells me something like "What proof do you have that J. Random was not a Christian?" I know this is a logical blunder, but I cannot remember any rule against this in our WP:V rules. Neither I remember the name of the fallacy. Can someone remind me? - Altenmann>talk17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking about this for statements within an article context, in which case I would need to see an example statement in which it's a problem. If the article on Judy Random states that she was a Christian, I would expect that to be sourced, as well as any statement that she was not a Christian (which is a sourcable thing.) If you're talking about in discussion, that seems quite allowable thing to ask, depending on what was being discussed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter. Talk pages are not an idle chat: they are about article content. Of course you can say in talk page anything you want, but if the implications are to change article content, then the arguments must be based on reliable sources. Of course, there are discussions where opinions of editors do matter, such as article titles (heck, take AfDs), but still, they must involve arguments, not opinions, and arguments boil down to shat is said in "real world"- Altenmann>talk18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the point is, if an article wants to claim that Random was not a Christian, you do actually need a source that says Random was not a Christian. I don't see what's hard about this. WP:V requires verifiability for all claims, including negative ones. --Trovatore (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it does matter. Your initial post seemed to be seeking a rule against it, and you're on a page for discussing policy. The verifiability policies already cover this for article content, and there's no particular need for a rule against it elsewhere. The example is weak, as it seems quite possible to source a statement that Judy Random was not a Christian or to specify that she held some other religious belief. But if someone is asking that on the talk page, it seems quite a reasonable response to a talk page statement that she was not a Christian. It should not be disallowed to ask that as a response for a claim. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I stated my question incorrectly. Let me set it closer to the issue: Someone added Category:Buddhists to a bio. I removed it and I was reverted because I didnt provide an evidence that a person was not a Buddhist. What would be my proper counter-argument. WP:CATV didnt enlighten me. Sorry for my fussy brains. - Altenmann>talk18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above collapsed discussion does raise a point that sometimes troubles me. Category links don't have footnotes. In theory they're supposed to be justified by sourced material in the article, but you can't necessarily tell which cite justifies the category. Of course in most cases this is not that much of a problem, but it can become one when someone adds a category that makes a potentially contentious claim. I remember this specifically over someone wanting to add category:Whitewashing in film to The Last Temptation of Christ (film), which struck me as an uncited criticism of the casting. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one way to resolve this for categories without an clear justification in the prose (or which might do if prose is removed from the article for any reason or perhaps even just reworded) would be to put a hidden comment next to the category link with a source or explicit link to the relevant section of the article (e.g. "see criticism from XYZ Group", "source: P.D. Michaels, 2024", "Ref name=BBCNewsApril29"). Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(A distinct but related concern is that categories can appear to make assertions in Wikivoice, which we have to be careful about.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are supposed to be for defining characteristics. If it's a defining characteristic, it really should be in the prose (although with the way we create categories like "Left-handed Inuit arcwelders from Texas", it may be a combination of different sections of prose.) Per WP:CATV, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."-- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something else related to the collapsed part of this discussion, but not mentioned there, is that sometimes justification for a category can be implicit. For example if a person is verifiably Swedish and verifiably a member of an organisation that requires members to be Buddhists, you don't need an explicit citation to add Category:Swedish Buddhists to the article unless there is evidence they are/were not Buddhist (perhaps they renounced that religion later in life). Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone adding a category which casts the subject in a negative light, most especially if a BLP, ought to be prepared to defend the addition if challenged. Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody who adds anything needs to be prepared to defend it if challenged. In the example above the defence would be exactly as I've laid out - they are/were Swedish, are/were a member of an organisation that requires members to be Buddhists and there is no evidence the person adding it has seen to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so out of curiosity I took a look at that category, which has only two individual bios at the top level, one of which is Malin Ackerman. Ackerman's bio categorizes her as both a "Swedish Buddhist" as an "American Buddhist". However, the body asserts that she was raised Buddhist, and mentions her "Buddhist upbringing", but does not assert that she is currently Buddhist.
Not sure there's a broad policy conclusion here, but I think it's worth noticing that articles are not always entirely careful about these things. Thryduulf, this is arguably similar to the case you mention. She was raised Buddhist, with sources (I haven't checked them, but that seems not on-point in this discussion), and we have no active assertion that she decided she wasn't a Buddhist anymore. Is that enough to put her in the cats? My intuition is no, not when the article uses language that seems noncommittal on her current status. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disraeli is not even an edgecase - the lead of the article makes it very clear that that category is incorrect and so should not be on the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore: I picked the category out of thin air, so it's interesting you found an edgecase! Reading Ackerman's bio (but not the sources), I'd say that if the standard is "on the balance of probabilities" then the category is correct but if the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" then it isn't (not because it's necessarily incorrect, but because there is reasonable doubt). When it comes to BLP anything contentious or potentially defamatory absolutely needs to have the higher standard of proof, something innocuous is usually fine at the lesser standard (although obviously better is always preferred if possible). A person's religious beliefs are something that can be contentious and some people would regard some mischaracterisations as defamatory, but not everybody and not always. Given the content in the article I am completely confident that describing Ackerman as Buddhist would not be defamatory even if correct, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest it is contentious. My gut feeling is that they are probably nominally or casually Buddhist - someone who doesn't actively practice the faith but would tick that box on a form. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the analogy with legal burdens of proof could get a bit strained, but I'd kind of suggest that the (underused) clear and convincing evidence might be a better way of thinking of it. "Eh, it's probably true" doesn't strike me as good enough to add a cat, particularly to a BLP, even if we think the subject probably doesn't mind being called a Buddhist. --Trovatore (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think categories are (or should be) limited to current status. Babe Ruth is not currently a baseball player, but he's probably properly in those categories. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, new one on me. I did not know that Babe Ruth was a Swedish Buddhist.
Anyway I think that's a bit of a different issue. Ruth's profession was ballplayer, until he retired. That's what he was known for. Ackerman is not particularly known for being a Buddhist, as far as I'm aware.
It does raise some interesting questions. Eldridge Cleaver became a conservative Republican, but is most known for what you could call "far left" activism, to the limited IMHO extent that that terminology makes sense. Does he belong in e.g. "socialist" categories? I really don't know. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea that categories should be a single-moment snapshot rather than reflecting the wide range that has been noted is wrong. We have a list of American politicians who switched parties in office -- which party's categories should they be under? Both! There may be some categorization that only applies to non-notable periods of their life -- Jane was baptized but declared herself an atheist when she was 12, long before she became a professional cat juggler, so she certainly doesn't belong in Christian cat jugglers and perhaps not even in Christians at all, but if she switched from atheism to agnosticism mid-career, then she does belong in both atheist cat jugglers and agnostic cat jugglers. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are fundamentally for navigational purposes. If someone is looking for articles about ____, then they should find the articles related to _____, even if occasionally that article says "Well, you might have thought he was a ____, but the truth is rather more complex and interesting than that". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that viewpoint but I don't really agree. The problem is that an article's presence in a category often appears to be an assertion (in Wikivoice no less) that the subject of the article satisfies the category's defining criterion. If there were a way to make it clear to readers, including casual ones, that that is not the case ... but there isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the biggest problem imo, with cats. I stopped paying attention to them for that reason, as long as people are not using cats to enforce or contradict content in actual articles, fine with me. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases it can be mitigated by renaming the cat to make the criterion more objective. For example I happened to see that the category I called out, category:Whitewashing in film, is actually at CfD. I think a lot of the problem would go away if we renamed it to something along the lines of category:Controversies over whitewashing in film. It's reasonably objective whether there was a controversy; you can support that with one reliable cite. Whether the film is actually an example of whitewashing is much more fraught. --Trovatore (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trovatore, the second sentence of the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline literally says "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a hierarchy of categories".
That might be the goal, but it doesn't trump V or NPOV. I sharply disagree with the idea of providing categories that might appear to make contentious claims just because they might help someone find something. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the same basic rules for all forms of navigational content. That means that if it doesn't have to be cited in a navbox, it doesn't have to be cited in a category, or a ==See also== list, or a disambiguation page. None of them should be unfair ("non-neutral"), but the primary point of all navigation is to help people find things, not to hide appropriate content away because someone might jump to conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting an article in category:Foos, on its face, makes the claim that the subject of the article is a foo. That ineluctably implicates V, and the claim that it is a foo must be cited (if contentious). --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I wonder whether we have the same idea about what's being "contended" in that small minority of cats that are actually contentious. I think that what matters is whether the article would be of interest to someone looking for articles about _____. This would include articles that are not, sensu strictu, actually about _____. For example, if you look in Category:Planets, you will find 13 pages and one redirect that are not planets. If you take the POV that putting an article in Category:Planets means you are defining that article's subject as "being a planet", then you will be unhappy to discover pages like Definition of planet and Equatorial bulge in that cat, because those subjects are related to planets but not actually planets themselves. OTOH if you take my POV, which is that putting an article in that cat means that someone looking to learn more about planets might be interested in those articles, then you won't have any concerns about the contents of that cat at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could. If we wanted to, every content cat page could have an explanation at the top that explains what a category is, what it means for a page to be listed there, and how to use the page. We haven't chosen to do this yet, but there's nothing stopping us from doing so, if we thought it was really important to explain to readers why Category:Planets does not exclusively contain articles about planets.
Actually, we already do, to a very limited extent; it looks like there's a link to Help:Category at the top of every cat page. That's more of a how-to/editor-help page, but we could change that to a reader-help page, if we wanted to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are definitely a navigational tool...... when Wikipedia began we thought it'd be a good way of collecting data and analyzing relationships between articles. However categories are so unstable that data can never be reproduced for any real academic analysis. This is also a problem with our vital articles Moxy🍁 00:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're still a pretty good way of collecting data and analyzing relationships/various other things. They're certainly useful for building graphs and graphs can be very useful. There can be a lot of instability and confusing weirdness, but for the one fairly large topic area I've looked at, there are plenty of relatively stable structures in the networks too (that can be easier to see when edges are bundled e.g. here). Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idea is cat= List= navbox sort of thing, I get that but they are susceptible to manipulation and lots of editors can't be bothered to check, including me, although I used to. I might correct if I happen to notice something weird or outlandish, but all this diffuse, parent/child blah, nah. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this has been formally proposed before. Why do we not have an official policy surrounding species notability? WP:NSPECIES is a de facto policy because all species that verifiably exist (i.e. have a correct/valid name) are always kept at AfD. This is somewhat confusing because everyone seems to have agreed that all species are notable, but no official policy is written anywhere. It's an unwritten SNG.
I think, given how this is our current policy in practice anyway, a new SNG needs to be written specifically about species ― species that verifiably exist (published in a reliable academic publication; can be checked through reputable taxonomy databases like CoL) are inherently notable.
Agreed. It is de facto long standing policy because, so long as the species is officially recognized and categorized by the relevant authorities, there is inherently significant academic coverage of the species itself, which was required for it to be officially recognized in the first place to describe it. SilverserenC18:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda There's currently a discussion at WT:Notability about this; to keep discussion in one place you might want to join there. I proposed a similar thing at WT:TOL last year (see this discussion), and I agree with you, but lots of people are interested in this topic and it can difficult to come to a consensus. For example, I have concerns about sub-stubs, which I think should be up-merged per WP:PAGEDECIDE, but some editors are very opposed to that, so it remains a bit of a controversial topic. Cremastra (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy is a strong word... in practice, we have hundreds of thousands of standalone articles for individual species and they are rarely, if ever, even challenged at AfD, let alone deleted. And that has been the status quo for as long as I've been editing. That a few people have lately decided to make taxonomy the next front in their Great War on Stubs is completely insignificant compared to that level of implied consensus and shouldn't be a barrier to accurately documenting the existing practice in a guideline. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to start an RfC on the matter? I don't imagine a proposal promoting NSPECIES to official policy would be that controversial ― as Joe said, this has always been the status quo. In practice, articles — even stubs — are never deleted at AfD. This whole process seems overly bureaucratic when this has been the uncontested policy forever. CFA💬15:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to be recognized as a species inherently requires significant scientific coverage in the form of complex description upon the species being published, and there is also always the potential to add a meaningful picture of the species. This is in no way giving something an article in which there is nothing encyclopedic to say, like for non-notable astronomical objects regarding which almost all of them have almost no unique details and nothing worth photographing (contra a comparison made at WT:Notability). Deleting or upmerging stubs disincentivizes people from expanding these articles. Crossroads-talk-00:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are estimated to be literally trillions of species of microbes alone. Theyareconstantlybeingdiscovered (56 new species reported between January 1 and March 1 2024, and that's only looking at the ones in Western Anglophone journals that got press coverage on the first page of my google results). Across all domains about 18,000 new species are discovered per year. Are we seriously going to consider every single one of them inherently notable? What makes a new species so much more encyclopedic than, say, a new strain of C. elegans or new minor astronomical body if they're both the subject of significant primary discussion in a research article, get officially recognized and named by an international scientific org, have their (primary) descriptions and potentially hundreds of individual attributes curated in international databases, and then receive zero secondary attention forever after? Why would we afford notability to a new species based solely on its entirely-primary-source discovery article but not to literally any other scientific discovery, the rest of which are required, like every other GNG topic and especially anything STEM, to be the subject of multiple independent sources of secondary SIGCOV in order to have standalones, and in fact are supposed to have secondary coverage to even be mentioned anywhere on WP? JoelleJay (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very often a C. elegans variant will actually have some secondary coverage in dozens of papers as well as continuous new observations from primary research that get added to professionally curated databases. See example phenotype "generally disgusting worm" (assigned to eat-3 null ad426). This isn't enough for the topic to meet NOR, so why would something with even less secondary coverage be acceptable? JoelleJay (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as presumed notability. Period, end of story. If a species is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, then it is eligible for a Wikipedia article. If not, then it isn't. For sake of efficiency, it is often useful to cover multiple closely related species in an article about their genus. This is normal. As for the assertion that there are trillions of species of microbes, I care about that fact (if it is true) as much as I care about the fact that there are trillions of individual grains of sand and trillions of individual leaves of grass. If one of those trillions of microbe species has received sufficient coverage in the scientific literature, then so be it. Write an article. If the other 99.999999999% of microbe species lack that coverage at this time, then so be it. Don't try to write those articles at this time. Wikipedia is, after all, a work in progress. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 So if, say, there was a species of rare worm which was described in considerable detail in its original, open-access description in 1995, but was only mentioned once in the literature since then, and only as part of list of worms found in Myanmar, do you think it would be OK to write an article about the worm? Cremastra (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a problem to have a guideline that confers inherent notability to potentially trillions of subjects without any evidence that the vast majority are likely to have received the required secondary (=not the original discovery paper, not automatic database listings) independent (=no shared authors with original paper) coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally when we use independent in this context we mean of the topic, can you explain what you mean by indepedent if you're contending that its based on the relationships of the sources to each other? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can an author ever be "multiple" independent sources? The discoverers of new scientific results are clearly covered by the sentiment of The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) and by the fact that such people would have an indisputable COI with those results (Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI.. How could someone who has a COI constituting significant vested interest in the subject also be an independent source on the subject? JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Cremastra said, but also it is very common for the authors of scientific papers to refspam their work on Wikipedia. One of my labmates created an article on the phenomenon my lab discovered in order to elevate its profile while he was looking for jobs; this was on the advice of another student in the department who had done the same thing. Self-promo in science is a huge problem. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they can't be considered independent of the results... But the results are not the topic of the wikipedia article in this context. The results are their published work, so its only non-indepedent if the wikipedia page is about the published work. Anything beyond that would be outside what has historically been understood as consensus on the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the context we're talking about is the independence of an author to the subject and their ability to count towards the "multiple" part of GNG. Once someone has written on a topic, additional works on that topic by the same person are not considered independent of each other: Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. ... Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes only seem to speak about "their ability to count towards the "multiple" part of GNG" not the independence of an author from the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see how someone being a discoverer of a species equals being non-independent and their works being unable to contribute to notability for that species? Would this also mean that, for example, those who do extensive research about previously 'unknown' historical figures would be non-independent for those historical figures? What about a plain journalist who writes an in-depth article about someone previously not having significant coverage? Would that significant coverage be disqualified because the author was the 'discoverer' of that notable person? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "independence" I am referring to here is in two contexts, the first of which being a scientific paper author's relationship to their research discoveries or novel theories. Because they have a vested interest in promoting their own findings/interpretations, we would not consider a secondary review article that they write on that topic to be an example of "independent attention". For example, someone who discovers a new calcium signaling pathway X would not be an independent source if they wrote a review article (or lay summary, or book) on that particular pathway, even if they were also citing other researcher's results, because their interest in the subject is inextricably linked to their own self-interests. However, if they wrote a review article on calcium signaling in general that happened to include discussion of pathway X, that review article would be sufficiently independent for the topics it covers that don't involve X. I am not familiar enough with non-science research to know how much this would apply to other fields. The second context is the common guideline-supported practice of treating multiple articles by the same author as not independent of each other. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're ever going to have trillions of articles, for many reasons. But if we did, it would be a tremendous achievement. Even putting aside your highly original interpretations of the words "secondary" and "independent" here, I don't think you need a secondary, independent source to write an acceptable stub on a species and I think that's amply evidenced by the existence of hundreds of thousands of such stubs which are practically never deleted. – Joe (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of our policy that scientific article findings are primary is a "highly original interpretation"? And why have secondary and independent source requirements at all if the only criterion that really matters is "can you write an acceptable stub based on RS"? Do you think someone couldn't write a substantial article covering the results of any other scientific research paper? Do you think the journals that publish species discoveries have more rigorous peer review -- to the extent that an identification is being formally validated by someone independent -- than any other journal? If not, why do you think the initial announcement of a species and its acceptance by the governing nom code makes the discovery not need critical analysis or contextualization of its claims when the journals are just as likely (actually, far more likely, given that a discovery does not need to be reliably published in order for its name to be officially adopted) to suffer issues of accuracy, data falsification, etc.? JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this isn't a new idea. Notability on Wikipedia, in practice, is not always based on independent sources — maybe it should be, but that's a different question altogether. For example, WP:NPOL recognizes all politicians with national/state office as presumed notable. There are tens of thousands of politicians on Wikipedia where their only coverage is a mention on the government's website, but are considered notable anyways (i.e. they are not deleted at AfD). We're saying species should also be designated as such, because the discovery of a species requires enough coverage to write an article (there is always significant coverage). CFA💬13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what exactly is a primary research article? I would argue that a paper describing a new species is still secondary; the primary source would be the lab results, field notes, etc. Cremastra (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is explicitly not what our policy says. a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. and a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Our policy is based on the academic designation of research articles as primary sources--see, e.g., our citations to Ithaca College which states In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies -- research where an experiment was done or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources.JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I assume "at least a brief description" would be carried up to the SNG. However, the vast majority of species (if not all) will always have enough coverage to write an article. Even your example, Acidobacteria bacterium, which was identified computationally, still has significant coverage outside of the taxon database [3][4][5]CFA💬17:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is true. My earlier reply was a bit misleading. Do I believe all of these unclassified species should have independent articles? No, and I think an AfD would result in a redirect because there just isn't enough description. But I don't think this changes anything about this discussion. If we were to turn NSPECIES into a policy, we would most likely state species are "presumed" notable if there is a brief description. This does not apply to these unclassified species, and I doubt anyone would bother creating them because of how little there is to write. CFA💬18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why should a brief description in a primary source, with demonstrably no coverage in secondary independent sources, afford us even a presumption that IRS SIGCOV exists? It doesn't work that way for any other topic, since in all cases where notability is presumed the presumption rests on this sourcing actually currently existing. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems to elide two different senses of "presumed". In cases like the NSPORTS SNG, the presumpton is that GNG sourcing exists. Other SNGs, like NPROF, create a direct presumption that a topic merits an article. A SPECIES presumption of notability could be the latter kind, not the former. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF is also based on the presumpton is that GNG sourcing exists, it is not a direct presumption that a topic merits an article but a recognition that almost everyone who meets NPROF is going to have sufficient sources even if they're not available digitally. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is true either in the wording of the guideline or in its practical implementation at AfD. In terms of wording, I take the key paragraph of WP:NPROF to be:
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline ... failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline (emphasis added).
The plain reading of this paragraph, I think, is that a topic meeting NPROF does not have to also meet GNG.
In terms of practical implementation, articles about people who are found to meet NPROF are routinely kept at AfD whether or not GNG sourcing (or NBASIC sourcing, which is typically the relevant guideline rather than GNG and which sets a slightly higher bar for sourcing) is available. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That just seems like a frustrated explanation of what a subject-specific notability guideline is, all SNG are technically independent of each other and the GNG. Can you name a case where a subject was kept under NPROF where the presumption that GNG exists can't be made? Remember that even under GNG the sources don't have to be available, there just has to be a reasonable belief that they exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I'm not going to pretend to be able to prove a negative, especially if you meant "the presumption that GNG exists can't be made even if the decision to keep made no mention of or reference to GNG sourcing". I don't think that kind of proof is epistemologically available.
I was, however, quite readily able to find this discussion, resulting in a clear keep result, where no presumption of GNG sourcing was made by any participant in the discussion and when the resulting article lacks GNG sourcing of the subject. To interpret this discussion as presuming that GNG (or NBASIC) could be met would be a rather tortured reading of the discussion, I think.
As far as your interpretation of the language of NPROF, you aren't really articulating the community consensus about what it means. A wide range of editors from quite varying perspectives on article retention have all agreed that NPROF represents one kind of presumption of notability (independent of GNG) and NSPORT represents another kind of presumption (a mere presumption that GNG sourcing exists). Please see, for example, the extended discussions on this topic that produced the current text of WP:SNG. If your view is that NPROF and NSPORT function in the same way and offer equivalent indicators of notability, I dare say that is not a widely-held view. Even NPROF-skeptics typically accept that the presumption of notability it offers is not, under most circumstances, rebuttable if its criteria are clearly met. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. The participants in that discussion don't seem to have explained themselves to the point where you would be able to know whether they thought that there were presumptions about sourcing being made and the subject is borderline even under GNG (especially as no check appears to have been made in the native language of a person not born in an English speaking country nor was it listed in Taiwan related deletion discussions). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying, about the discussion I linked above, is that I don't see any reasonable interptetation of it that would conclude that the decision was made based on a presumption of GNG sourcing.
In fact, the only way I could see anyone even venturing that interpretation would be if they made the a prori assumption that all SNG decisions involve a presumption of GNG sourcing - an assumption that is rebutted directly both by P&G language and by what most editors say when they interpret or propose to change P&G language. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have enough information to conclude that the decision was not made based on a presumption of GNG sourcing either. I'm saying "We don't know" and you're saying "We do know, and we know because you can't prove that we don't know" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HEB: that's an interesting set of statements, but it doesn't really reflect what I'm saying. I'm not saying "we know nobody presumed GNG sourcing exists" which, given that people don't always communicate their thought process, would be a lot like proving a negative.
I'm saying, "we don't have any evidence that anyone in that linked discussion presumed that GNG sourcing exists" and that, without evidence, it is unreasonable to reach the conclusion that anyone made that presumption. No, this isn't an answer to your original challenge - essentially, "show me a case where nobody made that presumption" - because I don't think that threshold is germane. If there isn't any evidence that decisions are made on that basis for this set of cases, the scholastic postulate that maybe they could have been made that way (without leaving a trace in the discussion) doesn't really tell us anything about how editors understand P&Gs or what they mean.
More relevant, perhaps: I'm also saying, "we have a lot of evidence, from WP:N itself and discussions around it, that many editors interptet NPROF as being satisfied without making any assertions or assumptions about GNG sourcing." That claim isn't influenced one way or another by how many presumptions fit on the head of a pin. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HEB, I agree with Newimpartial. NPROF is actually based on the idea that GNG-type sourcing will never be available for most worthy/deserving/desired academics, so an exceptional process needs to be carved out that does not require either (true) independent or secondary sources.
"notability in academia comes from influence of one's academic work on the research of other scholars... Academics, even very prominent ones, are rarely written about personally..." [link]
"the WP:N/WP:BIO requirement that the academic be the subject of those reliable sources...would eliminate virtually all truely influential (but not newsworthy) thinkers" [link]
The idea is that if enough people cite your work (e.g., by H index), then the "About Prof Alice Expert" page on your university website should be enough to write the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what both of you are saying... But nobody has been able to point to a case where we have a clear NPROF pass and a clear GNG fail. Even if we're describing outcomes and not intentions if on the ven diagram 99% (well within the "presume" standard) of those who pass NPROF also pass GNG what is the difference between the two statements? On its face "the idea that GNG-type sourcing will never be available for most worthy/deserving/desired academics" is false, the vast vast majority of such academics on wikipedia meet GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: the difference, of course, is whether the GNG is - as a certain reductionist interptetation holds - a "universal" rule that underlies the rest of WP:N, including the SNGs. Or, by contrast, can an SNG (like NPROF) offer a strong presumption of meriting an article, rather than a weak presumption that can be rebutted by a strenuous search for "GNG" sources?
If you don't like my linked example because nobody seems to have looked seriously for Chinese-language sources, fair enough. But I could just as easily have pulled up an NPROF AfD where all relevant sources would be in English. The fact remains that articles are routinely kept at AfD based on the NPROF criteria without any GNG (or rather NBASIC) sources being looked for or used in these articles - because that isn't the way most of the community understands NPROF to work. Its presumption to merit an article isn't rebuttable in that way. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All SNG presumptions are rebuttable in that way "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back, consider Glenn Lipscomb, sourced – and as far as a quick WP:BEFORE search indicates, can only be sourced – entirely to media controlled by his past and present employers.
They're not even trying to find SIGCOV; they're only saying things like "held this post, therefore automatically notable" or "the H-index is this, therefore automatically notable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passage HEB is quoting actually says that any presumption to merit an article - whether based on SNG or GNG - can be outweighed by other factors. It certainly doesn't say that an SNG presumption can be refuted by a failure to find GNG sourcing, and there are two kinds of reasons for this:
GNG sourcing may not be sufficient to write an appropriate encyclopaedia article.
Sourcing that doesn't necessarily meet GNG may be sufficient to write an appropriate encyclopaedia article.
The passage quoted reflects both of these scenarios, and a typical PROF biography that relies largely on non-independent and ABOUTSELF sources - to add detail about someone who unambiguously meets the criteria of professional standing NPROF requires - may be one of the best examples of the latter case.
I will also point out that as one of the two or three editors most responsible for drafting the sentence HEB is quoting, leading up to to the SNG RfC, I have a reasonably good idea what editors were thinking when it was proposed and then achieved consensus.
Also, to take up an earlier comment by HEB: while I haven't done a systematic survey, I would be very surprised if 99% of academic biographies satisfied GNG/NBASIC sourcing requirements. This certainty isn't true of of the unrepresentative sample discussed (and often kept) at AfD. I am equally convinced that, if we applied to PROF articles the rebuttable presumption (and requirement for independent, non-ROUTINE sourcing) we apply to NSPORTS articles, many, many articles on academics would have to be deleted. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda, I dispute the claim that there is always SIGCOV; there are species identified merely by applying an algorithm to genetic sequencing data that may get no more than a mention among many others in one paper. And anyway even if a species does get SIGCOV in its discovery paper, per policy that coverage is not secondary, and per policy articles cannot exist if they can't be based mainly on secondary sources. Also our notability guideline does in fact require that independent sourcing exists for all article subjects, even the ones that are presumed notable through SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt there are some obscure computationally-identified species that just aren't described enough, but the vast majority of species will have enough coverage to write an article. I don't think it's a problem that some of those articles will be stubs for a long time — Wikipedia is a work in progress. So perhaps species should be "presumed" notable instead of "inherently" notable. As to your other point, essentially all species will have some independent coverage to show notability. In other cases, in practice, secondary sourcing is not always needed to prove notability. Species, politicians, and other SNG-applicable articles are kept all the time at AfD even when there's only primary sourcing. CFA💬17:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sourcing is required for a subject to be notable. Policies always trump guidelines. And politicians are kept because meeting NPOL presumes notability-conferring secondary coverage exists; the overarching WP:N guideline still asserts that to actually be notable secondary independent SIGCOV must exist. JoelleJay (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the article Esculenta created, Astrothelium chulumanense, which relies entirely on the primary discovery paper? If this turned up at AfD, should it be deleted? I've seen many articles like this at AfD that rely entirely on primary sources, but are still kept based on their "presumed" notability. CFA💬18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should send it to AFD to gauge community consensus on the issue? It seems to be a good example of the "only a single primary source exists" problem. Esculenta (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would !vote to redirect it to Astrothelium. Articles should not be based on a single primary research paper. AfDs don't represent global consensus, even when there are many going a given direction. There were thousands of AfDs that were kept for sportspeople based on the presumptions of notability of a few dozen editors who !voted at every AfD, but those presumptions were later strongly determined not to align with global consensus and were deprecated. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am wondering why you would !vote to redirect rather than deletion? Leaving a redirect would result in a bluelink in the species listing, leaving the incorrect impression that an article exists when it does not. Merging the content into the parent genus article also doesn't make sense, as it's much more detailed than what a genus level article should cover. Esculenta (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The species listing in the redirect target would not show the species as a blue link. And you're right, merging all the content would not be appropriate as it would not be WP:BALASP. However a full article on the subject is also not appropriate if it can only be based on the one primary paper, since it does not demonstrate that people independent of the topic itself ... considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it (it shows only that the authors who first described it have written about it) and the information it provides has not been filtered through secondary analysis determining which aspects are the most relevant (how can we say one particular character described in the original paper belongs in the encyclopedia but another does not? we generally need a secondary independent source to highlight specifics from the primary source to show that its inclusion is warranted, and ideally to provide further context on it). JoelleJay (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't put the content in the genus article, because you claim it would violate NPOV, and we can't have an independent article, because you claim it is not notable. How very convenient, then; the article is deleted de facto. I have to congratulate you, JoelleJay: I used to consider myself an "exclusionist/deletionist", but you have managed to convince me otherwise, back over to "inclusionism". Deleting the article, for the information it provides, is a disservice to the reader who relies on Wikipedia to reliably summarize knowledge on a given topic. Deleting the article is putting policy before the reader.Cremastra (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say no content should be merged! I said it would not be appropriate to merge all the content! And anyway why do you believe material only found in a single primary source is inherently worthy of being included on wikipedia? Can you articulate why info on a species is so much more encyclopedic than info on an astronomical body or protein homolog or literally anything else? Can you explain why the guideline text I quote is incompatible with building an encyclopedia but only for species? JoelleJay (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that you know I support @BilledMammal's proposed treatment of content on non-notable species, including the incorporation of certain basic facts into the genus article, so why you would suddenly escalate to this level of hostility after I've made every effort to be respectful and impersonal in this discussion makes zero sense. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; my tone was not suitable. I will strike the inappropriate parts of my comment.
In fact, if I've gotten to the point where I can't respond civilly, then there is no point in me contributing to this discussion. I've said all I want to say. This isn't out of bitterness or a "rage quit". Cremastra (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, this was partly why I started this discussion. I've noticed editors will frequently use "Keep: per WP:NSPECIES" in species-related AfDs. This doesn't make much sense because NSPECIES is just a sentence saying they "generally survive AfD," so citing it in an AfD is circular and unhelpful. Sourcing is rarely looked at; they are usually just kept without any debate. The point of this discussion was to hopefully gather broader consensus on the matter, instead of continuing with the default-to-keep status quo. I think a global RfC needs to be started, but I'll wait a bit before opening one. CFA💬19:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, while it's possible that over a trillion species exist, this 2017 source from the Quarterly Review of Biology states that most [estimates] project around 11 million species or fewer. They do go on to argue it is higher, dominated by bacteria, but this 2019 study says that there exist globally about 0.8–1.6 million prokaryotic OTUs (or operational taxonomic units; for unaware readers, bacteria are a subset of prokaryotes). It's also possible we could say that only eukaryotic or multicellular species are presumptively notable, similar to how WP:NASTRO uses cutoffs based on things like visual magnitude, though I don't even think this is necessary.
They are constantly being discovered - so? New current events are constantly happening, new people are becoming famous, new movies, video games, and so on are getting made, and so on forever. In fact, these things are theoretically limitless while the number of species on Earth is sadly going down.
and in fact are supposed to have secondary coverage to even be mentioned anywhere on WP? - to be clear, are you saying that species that have never been discussed in a scientific review article should not even be mentioned on Wikipedia? Whether this is a requirement for coverage or for separate articles, I think mandating review articles would be incredibly destructive to our coverage of life on this planet. Zoology, botany, etc. are massively underfunded and under-researched compared to stuff like biomedicine, covered by WP:MEDRS and its strict review article rules. Crossroads-talk-21:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the total number of species is "only" in the tens of millions, that should still be an indication that "new species" is not necessarily a precious designation of supreme scientific interest, but rather can in many situations amount to routine gene sequencing discoveries. I absolutely do not think we should be using a single notability criterion for all species across all kingdoms, especially considering the fundamental differences in how species are even defined by the many independent bodies tasked with "recognizing" a species in a particular clade. There is no globally accepted taxonomic list of species, and this paper suggests that while such a database is critically needed, it requires an authoritative consensus on species definitions and taxonomic governance across multiple disciplines that does not yet exist. The paper also references a Nature article that highlighted a major problem with how policy/the general public view "species" and how taxonomists and biologists view them:
Policy assumes that species are unambiguously definable, discrete, fixed entities that can be readily and straightforwardly listed for protection or management. However, in the sciences of species delimitation and classification (i.e., taxonomy and systematics), species are hypotheses that are mutable and contestable in the face of new knowledge and are often based on subjective interpretations of existing knowledge. This is because taxonomy is essentially a two-step enterprise—first, biodiversity and groups are quantified, described, and delimited by means of the best scientific methodology available, and then these results are translated into names and ranks. While the first step is strictly scientific and produces testable hypotheses, the second additionally depends on executive decisions about where to draw the line (e.g., between subspecies and species), and these decisions necessarily depend on subjective preferences such as one’s preferred species concept or the nature of discordance among different data types.
The paper further notes For example, a single authoritative global species list would have in-built quality control protecting users from the confusion resulting from names created through what has been called taxonomic vandalism, referencing this paper discussing the harm created by improperly-maintained species lists. That paper also emphasizes the fact that the "species" designation is not a discrete, stable taxonomic unit and the significant issues out-of-date info present:
It has been understood for many years that inadequate or ambiguous taxonomy and nomenclature for species can have negative impacts on conservation, medicine, and other fields ... This happens in part because taxonomic names are often used as though they are stable hypotheses, when in fact taxonomies often have a degree of uncertainty and flux. Changes to species names or, often more importantly, changes to the concept of what a name means can have far-reaching implications for decision-making, regulation, and policy development. While taxonomic inflation (Isaac et al., 2004) or vandalism (Rhodin et al., 2015) can exacerbate these problems, even the normal growth of taxonomic knowledge can cause problems when not treated carefully. Problems can also occur when new taxonomic information fails to reach some users or when different users interpret taxonomic names, knowledge, or uncertainty in different ways. For some taxonomic groups, this can lead to multiple variants or competing taxonomies in different national jurisdictions or regions or even multiple competing global lists.
If even professional taxonomic orgs have significant problems with lack of quality control, duplicated effort, conflicts of interest, lack of currency, and confusion in the scientific use of taxonomic information, how can Wikipedia hope to curate a gigantic database of mostly primary data that are constantly changing?I'm also not saying a species needs to be discussed in a review article -- only that it must be discussed in a secondary independent context somewhere. This can be in background sections of other primary articles, lay media, or anywhere else that would normally be accepted for every other scientific topic on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose such a SNG being enacted. Every species name should be a blue link of some sort, but it may be appropriate at times to redirect to a higher level taxonomic class per WP:NOPAGE. Mach6115:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is very interesting to me, because one of my long-term goals is to create a page for every lichen species. Many of the articles I create lack the "independent secondary coverage" that seems to be at the root of this argument. Two recent examples (of many): Astrothelium chulumanense, described as a new species in 2023, has not been been mentioned in any other sources (AFAICT), and so has only the single (primary) source; Aggregatorygma lichexanthonicum (new in 2022), has also not been mentioned in any secondary publication, but is "accepted" by the nomenclatural authority Species Fungorum, and consequently, is listed at the Catalogue of Life, which is used as the second source in the article. According to our current rules, the first article shouldn't exist on Wikipedia (and maybe the name of the species shouldn't be mentioned in its genus article?), and it's unclear if the second would pass a completely rules-based AFD. So I would like it if we could assess community support to make WP:NSPECIES a policy; it would help me evaluate if my objectives align with Wikipedia's. Esculenta (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this helpful, collaborative, non-defensive comment. I also hope that the community will eventually be able to answer your question. JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a quality, in-depth article based on a "primary" source is possible is evidence that WP:NSPECIES makes more sense than WP:GNG here. Deleting it would be clearly counter-productive, and we put readers, not policy, first. Cremastra (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quality, in-depth article could be created from any scientific research paper (or autobiography, or live newscast). Yet we still have policy stating articles must be based on secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does a paper about the discovery of a new species really qualify as a "research paper" though? It's not as if they're studying the species' reaction to anything, it's just "hey look we found a thing" Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um... yes. They did research to find and describe the thing, and in doing so increased knowledge. See research: "creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge". Cremastra (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By claiming I'm "making a point", by extension ("Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"), you are claiming I'm being disruptive. How is it being disruptive to determine if an article I created should actually be on Wikipedia (and by learning so, determine if I should continue writing these articles or not?) Esculenta (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly nominated this article not because you believe it should be deleted, but because you think its outcome will "demonstrate a consensus" that you can use as evidence in this discussion. That is disruptive! JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you know what I believe? I want to know if I should continue making similar species articles (I have a couple of hundred similar ones on the backburner that I intend to publish, or not, depending on how that discussion goes). I think your accusations are disruptive. Esculenta (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you "don't know what the community consensus is on species notability", bringing something to AfD just to answer that question for yourself is already inappropriate; nominating something for the explicit purpose of using an outcome as evidence in a dispute you are involved in is objectively POINTY and bad-faith. JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Bringing to AfD an article of questionable notability is exactly what that process is for. Re: "nominating something for the explicit purpose of using an outcome as evidence in a dispute you are involved in"; I'm not involved in a dispute, but it seems that you are, and you are attempting to shut down discussion about the type of edge-case article discussed above. That appears to be objectively bad-faith. Esculenta (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If articles like these get deleted because of legalistic application of rules, then those rules are not fit for purpose. WP:GNG wasn't handed down from heaven. We have tons of extremely specific and detailed articles on outdated current events that had a burst of editing years ago but that essentially no one cares about anymore (take a deep dive into the cruft in the Category:COVID-19 pandemic tree for an example), that will never be deleted because they were covered in the news back in the day. The thought of keeping and proliferating the sort of ephemeral junk that technically meets WP:GNG and deleting articles on biodiversity is the most compelling case for WP:IAR I have ever seen. Crossroads-talk-22:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem with WP:IAR is that it's subjective and open to interpretation (unlike the actual rules). What if I believe a species article created with only a single source (and no others are available) is "bad" (using Wikipedia's guidelines on significant and secondary coverage), and that removing it improves the encyclopedia? In this case, my IAR conflicts with your IAR, and the established rules take precedence. Esculenta (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any even mildly contentious content discussion shows that the "actual rules" are very often both subjective and open to interpretation. And regardless, IAR is policy, superior to GNG as currently written (which is changeable if we deem it to demand undesirable outcomes, and is only a guideline). What happens when one person's IAR conflicts with another is that consensus develops, and that has resulted in the status quo described at WP:NSPECIES. Crossroads-talk-22:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's that blatantly obvious that we make an exception to WP:SIGCOV for species, and that consensus has built up to do this, can we put put this down in "official" writing, and link to this and similar discussion so as to not use up the communities' valuable time in the future? (This is directed to the community in general, not to you specifically, Crossroads). Esculenta (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best course of action from here is to start an RfC. Too much of this discussion has gone off-topic. I'm just not sure about how it should be worded. Should it be kept simple, with a Support/Oppose question like "Should WP:NSPECIES become an official SNG?" or "Should all species that verifiably exist be presumed notable?", or should it have multiple options based on the discussion above? CFA💬23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before doing this, based on how much microbes are a sticking point in this discussion and the fact that WP:NSPECIES specifically justifies itself based on zoology and botany, there might need to be more attention to how microbial species definition works and if they get published in the literature without saying anything encyclopedic we can meaningfully relay (e.g. if they're just a genetic sequence, that seems too flimsy). Would NSPECIES apply to single-celled eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and even viruses? A codified NSPECIES could be sunk, backfiring on botany, zoology, and mycology, if it doesn't account for relevant differences in how those simpler organisms are published, if there are such differences. Crossroads-talk-02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I think the proposal should focus primarily on zoology and botany (as that is what is described in WP:NSPECIES). But I imagine since this proposal refers to "Notability (species)," microbes should be mentioned somewhere. Perhaps they should be subject to a sub-guideline inside of "Notability (species)" that accounts for the microbes with minimal-to-no coverage? CFA💬03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's becoming evident that a simple upgrading of the current NSPECIES won't work. I think if a full NSPECIES guideline is desired, the various biology and taxonomy Wikiprojects (like WP:TOL) should collaborate on developing a new, more detailed NSPECIES that (1) satisfies editors in the field that it won't result in purging or deletion of encyclopedic content, and (2) is thought likely to pass an RfC to become a proper guideline. WP:NASTRO could be a model - another scientific field with a vast number of known objects of study, not all of which have encyclopedic things to say about them. I'd suggest specifying guidance for everything biologically classified, leaving no gaps in the tree of life. Guidance for viruses, bacteria and archaea, single-celled eukaryotes, multicellular fungi, non-plant multicellular algae (like red algae and brown algae), plants (botany), and animals (zoology), with dividing headings as needed. Paleontological species should be covered too. Crossroads-talk-04:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that "there are species identified merely by applying an algorithm to genetic sequencing data" is true, at least not in a way that's relevant to this discussion. Genetic data can be used to identify operational taxonomic units that could be described as species, but the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes requires a cultured type and a description to describe a valid prokaryotic species. As in eukaryotic taxonomy, the description provides important context to define the species and diagnose it in relation to others, and creating these descriptions is a major bottleneck in the recognition of species. To quote from the code, "A proposal to allow the use of gene sequences as type material for the naming of prokaryotes was rejected by the ICSP in 2020." So while we may be able to estimate that trillions (billions and billions?) of species exist, the vast majority are not valid, published species under the appropriate Code, due to lack of description, the criterion invoked in WP:NSPECIES, and hence irrelevant to this discussion. Choess (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being identified algorithmically doesn't mean a type culture doesn't exist. It can mean new methods of quantifying genetic identity have been applied to samples in an existing reference library of accepted cultures that affect their species designations. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The type culture is a side point; the key is the description/diagnosis, which provides the basis for a meaningful article. That said, having dug on my own for a Pseudomonas taxonomy paper I vaguely remembered, the descriptions provided are very pro forma compared to what I'd expect for a eukaryotic species. The current wording of NSPECIES only applies to eukaryotes, and I'd be OK with keeping that scope if it were elevated to an SNG (that is, excluding prokaryotic species). Choess (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we definitely should exclude prokaryotes. But what makes eukaryote species recognition by its governing nomenclature codes an automatic stamp of scientific acceptance and reliability of the discovery and its described characters? The ICZN recognizes as valid species identifications reported in non-peer-reviewed, self-published journals, with the assumption that eventually other researchers encountering those species may individually decide to ignore their official entry in the taxonomic registry and resubmit the species under a new name, and the scientific community will decide which version is "correct" by whichever nomenclature they use in practice. Does that mean Wikipedia articles can be based solely on descriptions in these non-peer-reviewed SPS that may dramatically conflict with existing taxonomic organization and formulation, and may contain egregious errors? What if no other researchers encounter the species or comment on inaccuracies it introduces? If we were to reject such sources as unreliable, why is it that we would draw a line with the RS guideline but not observe the policy requirement for secondary sources? And what level of scrutiny should editors apply to ensure an ICZN-endorsed species was described in RS? JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone is trying to figure out where the policy requirement for secondary sources comes from, since notability rules are all guidelines:
The only problem is that when this "requirement" (which is a "should", not a "must", BTW) was written, the main definition of secondary sources in use was "secondhand accounts", which includes, e.g., breaking news and gossip and other things that we would consider independent but primary now. Read more at WT:N if you want a little more history, but our definition at NOR has changed since that sentence was written, and all of WP:N was written with the original definition. It might be appropriate to interpret the policy rule with the definition that was in force at the time this sentence was written. See, e.g., the policy as it stood in 2010.
That is not (only) "where the requirement" comes from. As mentioned numerous times in discussion with you, I am referring to the much stronger policy statement Policy:Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Your claim that "secondary sources have a different definition now, therefore all the PAGs demanding we use them must be ignored" is based entirely on what you think one editor who added the language in the location you quote considered a "secondary source", while conveniently eliding the fact that surely someone would have realized that our repeated, explicit statements requiring secondary sources, across multiple different PAGs, conflicted with the "new" definitions of secondary sources, especially things like a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. that were being incorporated directly adjacent to those statements. JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we've (I've) "realized that our repeated, explicit statements requiring secondary sources, across multiple different PAGs, conflicted with the "new" definitions of secondary sources". I have been talking about it for years, especially wrt to the GNG. The decisions we make in practice (e.g., AFDs accepting recent news articles as proof of notability for current events) do not align with the written rules (breaking news is WP:PRIMARYNEWS). The community sometimes chooses to be aspirational in its written rules rather than accurate. This is an instance of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude prokaryotes? Prokaryote nomenclature has more rigor than botanical and zoological nomenclature, and deals with some of the issues JoelleJay is complaining about. Prokaryotes must be published in a specific journal (IJSEM) that is peer-reviewed. Peer-review was not a thing in the early days of nomenclature; there is a specific list of approved names of prokaryotes published prior to the adoption of a requirement to publish them in a specific (peer-reviewed) journal. Prokaryote types must be deposited in multiple institutions in multiple countries. Botany and zoology do not have a list of approved names nor a requirement to disseminate types widely.
While NSPECIES has a link to correct name (botany), that is a redirect and the actual article has a section Correct_name#Prokaryotes (prokaryotes use the same terms for status of names as botany does).
There are not trillions nor even tens of millions of prokaryotes that have "correct names". There were about 20,000 prokaryote species with correct names as of 2021. There are ~2.5 million species that have correct/valid status that NSPECIES calls for. While Wikipedia does not have an editor base that is capable of creating non-stubs for 2.5 million species (or 20,000 prokaryotes) and keeping them up-to-date, citing high number estimates of all species that exist on earth (most of which are undescribed) is a total straw man. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revised my opinion on prokaryotes after reading this paper] on taxonomy of the Pseudomonas putida complex. These names have subsequently been validated in IJSEM (e.g., this one), but I think the case for presenting them in tabular format is a stronger than for the morphological descriptions I'm used to under the ICNafp, which are more difficult to "parameterize" and place in tables. On the other hand, looking at this species described directly in IJSEM, I feel that the description would form the core of a reasonable article, so maybe the information in the first journal article could be digested into encyclopedic prose in the same way as a FishBase entry. I'd be interested in perspectives from editors focused on creating strong articles on prokaryotic taxa; it's unfortunate that your discussion last year didn't draw more interest. (edited to fix my link, thank you) Choess (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What goes into IJSEM's "validation" of names announced via other journals, especially ones by predatory publishers like (as linked above) MDPI? Also here is the proper link to that archive. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI there is al a 19,000 word (so far) 32 day discussion on this same topic in progress at WP:Notability North8000 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion isn't really about what's being asked here though, North8000. There, BilledMammal is trying to get support for a much more restrictive NSPECIES guideline that would result in a large amount of articles being deleted/merged. And the consensus in that discussion is very clearly in opposition to the idea (though it looks like BilledMammal is trying to force things through despite being against consensus). What is being proposed here is much more straightforward and, due to this broader location and with enough editor involvement, would supersede and override what is being discussed over there anyways. SilverserenC23:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that the impression I formed many years ago when I was very active at AfD is that the community had decided what types of articles should be in WP by watching which articles survived AfD. Again, my understanding is that the notability guidelines were developed to codify what had been decided at AfD. We do have policies that are set in stone. I don't think "notability" is one of them. - Donald Albury23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Species notability you mean? In that case I agree. In many areas we should settle on articles at a higher taxon level, with species with a line or two each, unless some have more to be said. That is already the actual way we do things over large areas. New soil micro-organisms get bar-codes not names - we're not set up to handle that. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is a taxon, either it or some higher taxon in the tree must be notable, so the question in each case is where is the notability bar crossed: not necessarily right at the bottom with species or sub-species. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that "notability" decisions take into account considerations other than wp:notability..that we slightly weigh: 1. degree of enclyclopedicness of the topic 2. A bit of wanting articles with real content and deference towards real work towards building them, with real content 3. avoiding deletion fests of long standing articles. 4. We don't want mass created articles. 5. Included sources counts more than a search for un-included hypothetical sources: Here's my "out of the box" proposal for an SNG, in shorthand. For new articles, presumed notable if it meets all of the following criteria:
Has enough suitable sourcing included to have developed the article to a bit more than a stub. E.g. a few sentences or a species-specific image
Not mass created
This leaves the undocumented status quo in place for existing articles. For them, no new restrictions, and no new SNG "green light". I could make several structural critiques of my proposal (#2 and #3 are not normal SNG material or acknowledged to be "notability) which is why I called it "out of the box" but which aligns with "notability" decisions in practice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my head, this is not a case where we are trying to keep out articles about garage bands that have played a few school or party gigs, or run-of-the-mill CFAs. Now, I am opposed to creating sub-stubs from database entries, but every recognized species has at least one article/chapter in a scholarly publication somewhere describing it, and I think a WP article with content citing such a scholarly source should be allowed to stay in WP. This does mean holding off on creating the article until a scholarly source (either the original description or a review article, not just a database) has been found and read (not always an easy task). There is no great rush to create an article for every recognized species, but I think requiring multiple independent sources would an unnecessary restriction for articles about recognized species. Donald Albury14:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think that your idea is close to mine and maybe less unusual than mine. Need a supplied source which is more than a database entry. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Albury, given that policy considers the results sections of research articles to be primary sources, which are not acceptable to base an article off of and are especially discouraged for science topics, why should species be given an exemption? I see a paper reporting a "new species" as being not much different from any other biology paper accepted for publication -- it undergoes editorial analysis and peer review to assess the quality of data (in this case, how much support there is for the subject being a new species), but the results are still ultimately reliant on the primary observations of a single group which may or may not be accurate or accurately interpreted. The discovery may or may not have any biological or ecological relevance outside of a niche subfield. I'm approaching this as a molecular geneticist familiar with works reporting new microbial species, which are routine and require more than simply "being discovered" for them to get published (e.g. medical consequences, evolutionary importance, particularly novel characters/diagnoses). In many circumstances "species" is an inconsistently-defined and sometimes arbitrary concept that has no more inherent importance than any other topic, even among animals. The romantic idea of each species discovery being a Big Deal probably stems from the era where species distinction was based on significant morphological differences that the general public could appreciate, rather than what it often is now for many taxa: barcoding samples and considering something a new species if a particular genetic region differs by some percent (a cutoff of 97% is common) from anything in the reference library. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is in your opinion, I presume, that this article, which I added in 2019, should not have been allowed? (It has since been expanded by another editor using a second source, which, it turns out, was available at the time, I just didn't find it.) In what way did adding that article harm the encyclopedia? We are not dealing here with a self-promoting person or organization, with someone pushing a fringe theory or an unproven therapy, or with an attempt to prove the experts wrong. Donald Albury18:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what I think about a given article, what my questions is is why a class of articles should be exempt from the rules we have for all other science topics. The same argument could be made for creating a new page for any scientific discovery based on the primary paper describing it, so why do our rules explicitly state this is not sufficient for a standalone? And it's not only self-promo or fringe ideas that reliance on secondary sources is supposed to prevent; it is also critical in showing a topic is notable enough for its own article (regardless of whether the topic might be prone to promo/NPOV issues) and is a major facet in enforcing NOTINDISCRIMINATE. But even if it was the only reason, what makes you think the authors of a species publication are any less likely to engage in self-promotion, or that their publication (or the journal's rigor, or the formal acceptance of their taxonomic nomenclature by governing code) is any more reliable for its data and interpretations than any other singular research paper in STEM? What about the Raymond Hoser case, where the ICZN formally stated that it did not reject ridiculous nomenclature and taxonomic theories from Hoser's self-published journals (i.e. it accepted his new species names and classifications as validly published and officially recognized) and merely suggested researchers just voluntarily and individually "ignore" and overwrite his nomenclature as a way to "correct" the many issues in taxonomy he introduced. See the description in this article:
In addition to naming well over 100 supposedly new snake and lizard genera, this individual has also produced taxonomic revisions of the world’s cobras, burrowing asps, vipers, rattlesnakes, water snakes, blindsnakes, pythons, crocodiles and so on. But, alas, his work is not of the careful, methodical, conservative and respected sort that you might associate with a specialised, dedicated amateur; rather, his articles appear in his own, in-house, un-reviewed, decidedly non-technical publications, they’re notoriously unscientific in style and content, and his taxonomic recommendations have been demonstrated to be problematic, frequently erroneous and often ridiculous (witness the many new taxa he has named after his pet dogs; I’m not kidding, I wish I was). In short, the new (and really terribly formulated) taxonomic names that this individual throws out at the global herpetological community represent a sort of taxonomic vandalism; we’re expected to use these names, and – indeed – they’re supposedly officially valid according to the letter of the law, yet they besmirch the field, they litter the taxonomic registry with monstrosities, and they cause working herpetologists to waste valuable time clearing up unnecessary messes...
Should we really be writing articles on species based on their reports in un-peer-reviewed, self-published sources just because the ICZN accepted their nomenclature (even when it literally anticipates members of the scientific community will eventually "re-discover" these species and ignore the principle of priority by renaming them)? JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably as good a time as any to remind lay readers of the distinction between biological taxonomy (deciding how to divide organisms into groups and expressing criteria for that division) and nomenclature (deciding what label to put on each group). The Codes govern nomenclature, which is a largely mechanical and somewhat legalistic process. Taxonomy is rather more subjective and decided by the consensus of scientists. That consensus is expressed in different ways in different taxonomic groups. Sometimes it is very centralized and explicit (e.g., The Reptile Database). In other fields, acceptance is more implicit, and we might do more of our usual tests of source reliability (is this a peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the group of organisms, or a self-published source by an expert?)
In practice, this works out fine. If someone self-publishes a monograph describing three new species of gecko from Papua New Guinea and the experts at the Reptile Database accept them, those descriptions reflect the current state of expert consensus, which is the point of RS. If some crank claims to have found hundreds of new plant species in the Irtysh basin (looking at you, Charitontcev) and describes them, those names will be ignored or placed in synonymy. That's taxonomy. The significance of the nomenclatural codes is that they require a description to be furnished, so that if a species is accepted by taxonomists and has a name under the appropriate Code, material exists to form the basis of an article here. Choess (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads But if the official nomenclature code is accepting species names from what are essentially the personal blogs of amateur collectors, and continues accepting and listing them even when the discoverer is literally Wiki-notable for taxonomic vandalism, why should acceptance by that code be given any credence at all? Clearly if it does not evaluate the legitimacy of taxonomy recommendations or even indicate in any way that a given submission/discoverer has been flagged elsewhere as problematic, its endorsement of a name is not evidence of even implicit secondary analysis. And since that's the case, what is the justification for declaring that a species discovery published in any RS journal is inherently far more taxonomically valid, properly characterized, ethically researched, and rigorously peer-reviewed than any other research result for any other topic, including ones published by the same journal? Our policy discourages even mentioning on other pages a physical chemistry result published in Nature that has received no secondary coverage; its conclusions have not been analyzed by any independent secondary source, so we have no indication that they are important to anyone beside the discovers and our summary of them would be strictly from the POV of the people promoting it. And yet for a species we should permit a whole standalone article based on unverified assertions of its existence and taxonomic relationships that no one else will ever find interesting enough to even mention? JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. I don't think there's a problem with species stub articles because they are always able to be improved as more research comes out (which will always happen with species). Merging them up and leaving a redirect, even "temporairly," makes people less inclined to improve them over time. There aren't really any disadvantages to stubs. I also don't see a problem with mass-created articles as long as they are approved beforehand (WP:MASSCREATION). I think as long as a species verifiably exists and has at least a brief description, it can be presumed notable. This is especially easy to check with taxon databases like CoL. CFA💬15:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(which will always happen with species) Citation, please. This might be true for some taxa, but it definitely is not for all of them, and Wikipedia articles must be based on existing references, not on the expectation that new ones will appear someday. If we know a subject has no other documentation than the paper it was described in and its automatic entry into a database, the "presumption" of notability afforded to species by NSPECIES fundamentally differs from all other SNG presumptions of notability where the term refers to the presumption that coverage currently exists. Also, who is going to be maintaining all these millions of stubs? Considering how fluid a species designation is and how often nomenclature or status changes, and the very real harm reported from improperly-curated species lists, why should it be acceptable to host millions of individual articles that we know will not be reasonably updated? It's also much easier to adjust relationships between lineages or add updates about all members of some clade in a higher-taxon article where you can just switch around some objects in a template than it is to edit each of possibly hundreds of stubs individually. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was previously an advocate of up-merging but now I've somewhat reversed myself. The individual entries would probably end up having redirects anyway (which isn't much different from a stub), and/or the reader would need to understand the overall organizational structure/taxonomy in order to find/navigate (or depend on the search tool to find it within the article). And when the editors aren't knowledgeable on taxonomy, they will be creating a lot of errors. Finally, while the upmerged article is ostensibly about the larger category (e.g. genus) it will be common to have one that is only 5% complete (e.g. listing just one species) in which case the article isn't what it purports to be.North8000 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think at times it comes down to how much effort it takes to maintain articles. One example that I briefly touched last year is Ichetucknee siltsnail, created in 2007 by a bot from a database. Today, after 38 edits over 17 years, the article is still a stub of 37 words of text. All of the information in that article is also available in the article about the genus, Floridobia. If someone thinks the "Ichetucknee siltsnail" article is too "stubby" and should be upmerged, it would be simple enough to copy content from the Floridobia article to bulk up the species article, but I'm not sure how either upmerging the species article or expanding it with content from the genus article would improve Wikipedia. I think that creating a new stub that has no content that is not also available in an article about a higher taxon would not be an improvement of the encyclopedia. I do think that, if I could gain access to the publication which described the species, or to any other reliable source that discusses the species in some detail, and added content to the article, even if just from one such source, it would justify a stand-alone article for the species. Donald Albury17:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would to state the OP in different words to try to move forward. In the fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem, for species, the community has generally decided to set a lower wp:notability requirement than it's only official current one which is GNG. IMO this is because consideration is given to species being a highly enclyclopedic topic (as with ngeo, but it is not documented like ngeo). IMO we should codify it as a new SNG. For folks that have concerns that it might be overly inclusive, I would respond that the conditions of the SNG would make it at least slightly more exclusive than the current defacto standard. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't think all species are notable, or have enough material written on them for an article. Often, the only records of some species will be in the publication article listing several or even many new species, with only short descriptions for their respective identifying characteristics. In this case, there isn't really much material for a species article that wouldn't be repeated in the taxobox, and the little material that is present would fit better in the genus-level article (for instance, what I started to do with List of Cladonota species).
But these possibly non-notable species aren't even the biggest issue. A lot of the time, one-sentence species microstubs will be created without even reliable sources, only referenced to a database entry. These usually consist of a boilerplate Genus species is a species of treehopper in the family Examplidae, accompanied by an automatic taxobox. This is even the case when the species has been discussed more extensively in literature, which the microstub will not hint at.
Having these virtually content-free blue links misleads readers, while discouraging editors who might otherwise create a better-sourced article (for the same reason we have WP:RETURNTORED for redirects). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also clutter google results due to Wikipedia's significant impact there, taking time away from those who are trying to research said species. CMD (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the time, one-sentence species microstubs will be created without even reliable sources, only referenced to a database entry.Yes, and I really wish we'd get more discussion about the fact that the governing bodies that officially endorse a species name (i.e. accept a new species discovery) don't require it to have been published in a peer-reviewed or even legitimate journal, apparently do not perform much, if any, independent evaluation of its accuracy, and strictly leave adoption or rejection of the name to the individual preferences of researchers. For every other topic that would be unacceptable, and yet here the proposal is to allow the unreliable publications themselves to be the sole sources in articles. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC):[reply]
My mistake, I meant it as a shorthand for "significant coverage in reliable sources", the kind of coverage we look at for GNG, where databases are usually not considered acceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it will depend both on the database and on your definition of SIGCOV (which, despite multiple efforts, we've never managed to define).
JoelleJay has made a determined argument in the past for only counting prose/paragraphs in determining SIGCOV, with only words strung together personally by a human being acceptable. Wikipedia:One hundred words also assumes that SIGCOV is measured only in text.
OTOH, if the point of SIGCOV is that you can actually write a decent encyclopedia article from it, then sometimes 100 words [or any other arbitrary word count] won't have the desired result, because the source could go on at length about content that is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, so a word count can indicate notability when the source is functionally useless.
A word count also implies that the only way to get information from a source is for the source to be written in sentences and paragraphs. I obviously did write a decent article with just the Fishbase entry, even though the database entry does not contain a single grammatically correct sentence. This problem has made me wonder whether SIGCOV should be determined by the amount of Wikipedia article content we could write from it, rather than from a mechanical measurement of the source itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ignores the places where our PAGs implicitly and explicitly restrict notability-contributing coverage to content directly on the topic and individually written by a human in their own words, e.g. people ... have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it or provides thought and reflection based on primary sources or rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.. If SIGCOV could be met by any RS from which "one could write a decent article", we would have zero reason to reject millions of non-notable sportspeople and billions of non-notable astronomical objects with reliable database entries. We would have zero reason to reject articles built from stringing together any number of unrelated facts. Because how could one possibly argue that any given collection of data couldn't somehow, by someone be proseified into something someone would consider "decent"? "Coverage from which one can write a decent article" should only factor into SIGCOV as an exclusion criterion, wherein prose IRS coverage has already been deemed "significant" in length, but what it covers is decided by consensus to be non-encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone thinks that "coverage necessarily to write an encyclopaedia article" is a guarantee of SIGCOV, not without factoring in the key elements listed at WP:SIGCOV itself such as source independence, secondary sourcing, and depth of coverage. Being able to write an encyclopaedia article is the purpose of SIGCOV, not a shortcut to meeting it.The formulation underlined is incorrect, as WAID points out; I offer a reformulation below. I don't think this imprecision affects the rest of my comment.
However, SIGCOV is part of the WP:GNG, and in spite of the post-hoc rationalization offered in WP:WHYN, GNG considerations do not necessarily apply to article retention under SNGs, like NPROF, that offer a path to notability based on verifiably meeting specified criteria. If a consensus is reached that a version of NSPECIES should operate as a "standalone" SNG, that wouldn't change anything about how notability works in any other area, and it would align the rules offered under the WP:SNG system with actual WP:OUTCOMES in this area. WP:N (and NOT) already point to more than one set of criteria for deciding whether an an encyclopaedia article can, or even should, be written on a topic.
extended content
So it seems that JoelleJay is raising a red herring when she cautions against new mountains of articles on sportsmen and sportswomen seemingly lurking behind databases to threaten encyclopaedic integrity. The enwiki community has decided that mass-creation of articles is not OK unless pre-approved, and has also decided that articles on athletes must meet a "GNG" sourcing standard that is interpreted in a rather strict way. Nothing the community decides here about species (and SPECIES) is going to change that.
The community also believes, either as a general consensus or as a large strand of opinion among interested editors, that articles about academics, and articles about legally-recognized populated places, and articles about species do not necessarily need to "meet GNG" so long as their claim to fall under the relevant SNG meets WP:V. While some editors would prefer an ironclad requirement that all articles "meet GNG" at some lower or higher standard of proof, there is no general community consensus or support for a new requirement of this kind. And every recent discussion of this topic at any reasonable scale, in any public forum onwiki, pretty clearly shows that there is no clear backing that a new, de facto higher, standard be applied in these areas.
The 2017 NSPORTS RfC was probably the high water mark of this "GNG everywhere" sentiment. Subsequent discussions have made clear that said RfC did not achieve community consensus that academics, species and geostubs should be treated the same way as athletes - nor could the RfC have done so, because academics, species and geostubs were out of scope for that discussion and editors interested in those topics by and large ignored the NSPORTS RfC as irrelevant to their editing interests.
Finally, I'd like to point to a statement JoelleJay made that might seem hyperbolic but which seems significant to me: if SIGCOV weren't applied widely or stricltly enough, We would have zero reason to reject articles built from stringing together any number of unrelated facts. But that ignores both WP:NOT and the purpose of building an encyclopaedia. No article built from "unrelated facts" will survive serious scrutiny under NOT. The positive tool I would rather use for this, a credible claim to significance backed up by a reliable source for the claim, hasn't come into vogue or achieved consensus as a yardstick of encyclopaedicity. However, reassuringly, the negative tool we have at NOT - knowing what isn't an encyclopedia article when we see it - seems to work quite well in excluding anything adjacent to "unrelated facts". This aspect is, frankly, a good example of something WP:N itself isn't very good at - except (ironically?) for the guidance offerered by some of the SNGs. So the idea that the GNG can save us from non-encyclopaedic topics seems to me to illustrate the hammer-nail theorem more than anything that relates to building an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Small comment added by Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have one minor disagreement. SIGCOV says, in its entirety:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
Words like source independence, secondary sourcing, and depth of coverage do not appear anywhere in it. These "key elements" are not part of SIGCOV; they are part of the GNG.
WAID is entirely correct here. I dont know when or how I got into thinking of SIGCOV as covering all of the GNG criteria - it might be an accidental result of repeatedly contrasting SIGCOV vs. WP:SIRS, where SIRS (for ORGs) places a depth requirement as a minimum applying to each source while SIGCOV applies to all sources presented to fulfil GNG, taken together.
Anyway, that isn't an excuse: my specific formulation at the head of my last comment was wrong. I should have said something like, I don't believe anyone thinks that assembled "coverage necessarily to write an encyclopaedia article" counts as SIGCOV without factoring in the other elements listed at WP:GNG, such as source independence, secondary sourcing, and depth of coverage. Being able to write an encyclopaedia article is the purpose of the GNG, not a shortcut to meeting it.Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If by "assembled coverage" you mean taking a bit from this source and a small piece from that source, or only counting bits taken from independent sources that are also secondary, then it's settled at WP:ORG (i.e., SIRS bans it), and I agree that it's an open question for the GNG/all other SNGs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of proposed SNG: (probably needs more details added):
A species is presumed notable if it meets both of these criteria:
Its article has an included wp:reliable source which establishes that it has some recognition as a species by the scientific community
Its article has an included wp:reliable source which has content on the species which is more substantial than a typical database type listing
These criteria refer to the state of the article, not the characteristics of the topic. That's not usually how notability guidelines are worded. More generally, the proposal as I understand it is to recognise the current long-standing consensus (WP:NSPECIES) as a notability guideline, not come up with a new one. – Joe (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not some much "state of the article" but more the "find a source" work has already been done. And this is deliberate. Without that, anyone can create a zero sources zero content article on any of the millions of aalleged species and then volunteers would have to take it to AFD and prove a negative. So it is is deliberate. `The GNG route remains available, the SNG (with it's additional conditions) is merely a way to bypass the GNG route. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I definitely share some of the sentiments expressed above in finding one-line microstubs disappointing, and I think we need a way to deter them if we're going to try to write a guideline based on NSPECIES so that it doesn't provide carte blanche for creating large numbers of them. On the other hand, I also share Joe's unease about intermingling article quality with notability guidance, which could have downstream effects in many other subject areas.
It seems to me that most of the trouble with microstubs comes from their mass creation. Our system can absorb a few of them a month coming from random newbies; it's the editors creating them in WP:MEATBOT-like fashion that really create difficulties. (I should know, having helped clean up after User:Starzoner.) Could we say something like "Mass-created articles invoking this guideline are expected to include text that describes or diagnoses the species."? The 2022 RfC provides for articles "not required to meet WP:GNG", and that implicitly suggests to me that SNGs can set mass-creation standards for those types of articles. (I'm also in favor of some language in the guideline that the species is taxonomically accepted; I would think you would need a source for that if challenged at AfD.) Choess (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary for a notability guideline to determine what proposals will be accepted through the MASSCREATE process. I don't think that any of the others do this (e.g., NGEO doesn't). I think that any guideline proposal should say that mass creation requires prior approval, but if you wanted to expand beyond that simple statement, you could perhaps add a hint about how to write a proposal that's likely to be successful, e.g., "proposals that do not do A, B, and C are not expected to be approved". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I focus on creating articles for plant species and I am not involved in almost any AfD discussions I do not know about consensus regarding notability. If the current long-standing consensus is that we keep stub articles that are not being expanded to be able to give a useful description of the species, then the consensus is wrong. Stub articles about a species should be deleted because they are not useful and detract from the project. Species should have articles only if, as North8000 suggests, reliable sources establishes that if has recognition by the scientific community and content such as a description or other information about the species. The standard should be to encourage good article creation and to discourage the creation of large numbers of stubs or placeholders to game Wikipedia and get lots of credit for creating articles that are not in fact articles like stubs or redirects. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued that if mass-created stubs are to be mass-deleted exceptions should be made for those that have a significant number of pageviews. Let's take for example, Anthurium. POWO says that there are 1,325 accepted species, and Wikipedia has articles on 190 of them. A massviews report shows that the very stubby Anthurium superbum gets about 5 pageviews a day, while the equally stubby Anthurium rhizophorum gets 0.27 pageviews a day. Both of these were created by Polbot long ago. But for some reason (it is a houseplant, with some presence on the internet), Anthurium superbum is much more popular. Deleting it would go against the whole point of creating stubs, which is the hope that someone will come along and improve them. It is known that casual editors are far more likely to improve a stub if one already exists than create one from scratch. Abductive (reasoning)23:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MtBotany, what exactly do you mean by "they are not useful"?
I've looked up some plant and found the very short stubs to be useful to me. Some people, including me, sometimes just want to find the family name (which is in the infobox), so the article itself doesn't even need to exist for me to find the page useful. Other times, I'm looking for what part of the world it's from. Again, a very short stub is enough to meet my actual needs.
We have a rule at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion that says Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Perhaps you don't find stubs useful for your purposes, but that's not quite the same as nobody finding them useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other websites with similar information does not mean that it's useless for us to have an article – especially for the majority of readers who don't know about those databases.
NOTDATABASE doesn't mean that we can't have articles whose facts can also be found in a database. NOTDATABASE means that we should write encyclopedia articles instead of database entries. That means we should write something like:
They kinda look alike, until somebody improves the stub. By the way, because you didn't italicise the name of the species, I now know you took very few biology courses. Abductive (reasoning)18:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One general note, I'm guessing that most people would agree that overall what is happening with new species articles is not problematic. I think that the biggest trigger for this discussion is that the current practice violates wp:notability and that we should reconcile wp:notability with that without upsetting the apple cart. And maybe concern about what could happen given that there are millions of species which don't have articles. Right now someone making a new species article is probably going to be careful about having some decent sourcing because they are technically violating wp:notability or else operating in the gray areas of actual in-practice wp:notability. A new guideline has the possibility of upsetting the apple cart in either direction. One would be triggering a deletion fest of established articles, the other would to green light too many new stubs....if not by mass creation, then by completionists. One good hypothetical thought question is: Would we want 2,000,000 new legit stubs on legit species? My answer is that in order to officially bypass GNG, it should be a teeny bit more than a stub or have have a bit more sourcing than a database entry. And IMO, that is the current practice for NEW articles.North8000 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the current rate of article creation, Wikipedia will never have articles for every legit species. For most groups of organisms the rate at which new species are being described outpaces the rate at which Wikipedia articles are being written. The main exceptions are birds (we have articles for every species), mammals (we have articles for every species except those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species (and any others described since that page was last updated in 2023)), non-avian dinosaur genera (we have all of those I believe). I think the article creation rate is sufficient to eventually have articles for all the other vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles) in coming years. The article creation rate for plant species exceeds the rate at which new species are being described, but it will take more than 100 years to have articles for all plant species at the current rate.
For just about everything else, species description rate outstrips article creation rate (I'm sure there are a few families and genera scattered around the tree of life that have articles for every species and there is at least one small phylum (Onychophora with 200 species) that has articles for almost every species).
The thing is, we have many articles on species that nobody is reading (<10 page views/month). Most of them are stubs, which makes sense; readers don't visit them, and editors don't visit them to expand them. But there are occasionally well developed articles for species that reader's just aren't interested in (Ichneutica ustistriga got 4 page views in the last month). And yet, there are still articles for species we don't have that would attract a lot of readers if the article existed. Aureolaria grandiflora was my go to example of a conspicuous native plant in my region that didn't have an article. An article was created in December 2023, and it's getting 38 page views/month now, but I expect it will get hundreds in August when it is in peak flower. Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not writing about yourself or someone/something you're close to[edit]
Wikipedia also has an article on Human. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is the relevant guideline, and it really depends how close you are to the topic, whether you can derive personal benefit from editing, and whether your edits are in the interests of creating encyclopaedic content. If in doubt about specifics, ask for advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot make an autobiography about yourself in Wikipedia, except if you are an international famous person, the entire world doesn't know you. And also includes making an article about your friend, your boss or your wife, and you can write about something you're close to, tho don't write as the "best thing in the entire world" or like an ad Emicraftnoob (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the question is approximately like "Why can't Microsoft employees write the article on Microsoft, but Wikipedia editors get to write the article on Wikipedia?"
How it's done is to check what independent sources have to say on the topic and base the article on those, rather than what you know or feel about it. Perhaps every one here has a COI with Wikipedia, but you can check it yourself to see if it is biased, undue, or unreferenced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject procedures for WP:NOTNEWS in reference to active storms[edit]
So this is spinning off of an ANI thread that started out as a discussion on the use of external links but further moved on to a talk about what, if any, information on the current status of a storm should be included in its article and/or the relevant season article (e.g. 2024 Atlantic hurricane season). This led to several templates being nominated for deletion. For a good number of years, if there was an active storm, the storm article and its section in the season article would include current storm information such as intensity, location, motion, size, an image of the forecast cone, and any active watches or warnings. However, at least some editors opined that, per WP:NOTNEWS, this information should not be included. Some editors (myself included) did not entirely agree. I figured there should be a separate discussion on this matter. Now, I have not been entirely sure on where to have this discussion. A couple editors suggested taking it to ArbCom, but I don't think it rises to that level of seriousness. I then suggested having an RfC on a WikiProject talk page, but others thought it should be held elsewhere to get more commentary from non-project editors and minimize bias. One suggested taking it to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard while a couple others suggested here. While I understand that this page is mainly for discussing changes to policy rather than their application, this discussion will impact long-standing practices (which may even predate the applicable policies) within a project so it sorta fits? If this is not the appropriate venue to have this discussion, could an editor experienced in these matters please direct me to the appropriate place? I'm kind of at a loss since nothing quite seems to fit. If this is an appropriate place, I'll give my opinions on the matter at hand in a subsequent comment. Also, should I WP:APPNOTE the relevant wikiprojects? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While anything with a handily-worded shortcut like WP:NOTNEWS gets the most attention, regarding existence of a a separate article, Wikipedia:Notability (events) is important. IMO only when it's WP:Snow that a current event will meet that is it allowed to have a separate article when it's still current. IMO, once it passes that test, there's no reason to exclude information (that would otherwise be appropriate for the article) solely for being very current North8000 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: So one matter that comes up is that all tropical cyclones, even if they aren't notable enough for an independent article, get sections at the season article (e.g. Tropical Storm Alberto at 2024 Atlantic hurricane season) so the issue of current information comes up. @WhatamIdoing: Not sure how long it would be. I might host it on a separate page just in case it does go long. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, now you have moved into the territory of editorial discretion. IMO nobody should argue that policy/guidelines categorically prohibit such current info. And we should acknowledge that things like templates can distort such decisions towards inclusion. And we should also acknowledge that the current emptiness of such a "will doubtless be wp:notable in the future" article might tend to distort inclusion discussions. But with all of that said, my own "editorial discretion" opinion would be to include the latest info on included storms, which are presumably named storms. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going talk about my present concerns down here then. So it seems that, currently, the procedure is that we should not list any kind of information on the current status of a storm. While I am fine with most of the formerly included information such as active watches and warnings, being included, I do have concerns about the current approach to storm intensity. Right now the going practice is to display the maximum intensity a storm has attained thus far, as we would for a system that has dissipated. My concern here is that this is likely to confuse readers if that intensity does not match the current intensity. If I were to read something online about a current storm, I would assume it wast talking about the storm's intensity as of its publication. In this instance alone, I suggest that there should be some means of indicating a storm's current intensity. Now, one of the points that WP:NOTNEWS makes is that we should not include information that will not be included at a later time. I would argue that intensity information is retained later on, since a section or article on a storm will have a summary of meteorological history, including when a storm moves up or down a category on whichever intensity scale applies. If we don't include any information on current storm intensity, then it should be clearly indicated that the intensity given is the maximum rather than the current intensity (perhaps it could be incorporated into Template:Current weather event).
Aside from that issue of intensity, there are three other matters that should bed addressed.
Articles on active storms have historically had phrasing along the lines of "[Storm Name] is an active tropical cyclone over the Caribbean Sea." Considering the new approach to active storms, how should this be phrased going forward?
Season articles have also included mention of potential tropical cyclones, systems that prompt advisories but have not (yet) attained tropical cyclone status. Should these systems simply be excluded?
Season articles have a list of storm names indicating which names are used, which are unused, and which apply to active storms. It seems this should be changed to simply indicate whether or not the name has been used.TornadoLGS (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of these should be included. Point one is valid because we also treat wars like that. PTCs are included in the other storms section so they meet the ten year requirement. For the third, without psychic powers we cannot rule out any names from being used. ✶Quxyz✶23:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally support the templates and information on current tropical cyclones staying, especially if they are hurricane strength with limited exceptions (we shouldn’t have information on storms that are expected to be of a very low impact such as tropical depressions or storms expected to stay out at sea with little or no land interaction.) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your idea. We are not the news to inform, we are an encyclopedia and, as a result, we should report on events as though they were finished (besides mentioning that the event it ongoing). ✶Quxyz✶17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make more sense to save opinions for the RFC that @TornadoLGS is planning to start.
I'm not sure that we should take some of the comments at ANI a couple of weeks ago as settled community opinion. For one thing, the main question there was about WP:ELBODY, not about whether we should have a couple of sentences about a current event. It might well be worth asking the community whether they want Wikipedia to include information about notable hurricanes and other natural disasters as soon as they become notable, or only at some point in the future that can be considered "afterwards". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to that end @North8000, if we were deleting every weather related article that was current. We’d be AfDing Hurricane Beryl only to go right back and un-delete it about a week later.
There should be exceptions obviously; but most current weather events not pertaining to severe tropical cyclones or certain other long-duration high impact events (such as a tornado outbreak sequence that continues for days and days on end), should not be created until it is no longer current.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me or just commenting. Happy to discuss anything that I posted. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think a few people have misunderstood my comments. @WhatamIdoing: I opted to have the discussion here instead of an RFC because a few editors were concerned about bias if it were held in project space. I was on the fence about starting a new page since I thought it might be a short discussion. It looks like it might be lengthier though, so a new page might be worthwhile. @Quxyz: I was actually referring to whether we should stop indicating active storms. For instance if you look at 2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Storm names, Beryl is in bold with "(active)" next to the name. My question was whether we should stop doing that and list all used names the same way, regardless of whether the storm is active or has dissipated. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could be ok with that too as I don't think there'd be a problem if storm names only had storm names. ✶Quxyz✶21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had just thought on it since some editors were saying that we should not include any information on the current status of a storm, which would also mean not indicating if the storm is active. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS, I remember reading a story, a long time ago, about how frustrating it is when people aren't willing to argue for their own views. It ends up with everyone wanting A, but nobody being willing to say so (for fear of making a suggestion that the others might not like but might feel obliged to give into – the author was British), so they all end up doing B instead. I recommend that you don't do that. If "some editors" think that the word (active) shouldn't be in the list, then those editors need to show up and say that themselves. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle depends on being able to identify the ones who actually object. When we try to guess what "some editors" want, we often guess wrong. It could be that their concerns were completely unrelated to this particular detail.
I wonder if you take a Wikipedia:Readers first perspective, and (if so) if you believe that what's best for readers is to have the little (active) tag. If so, you should be clear about what you believe is best. If anyone disagrees, it's their job to show up here and say so themselves. It is not your job to guess which part(s) they were talking about. (Feel free to ping them, if you think that would help.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the little active tag really does much as, depending on how you interpret the purpose of the section, is just discussing the names of the storms and not much more. Though, compared to updating the infoboxes and warnings, this is much less of a timewaster and a lot less likely to be interpreted as "I'll use Wikipedia for all of my up to date information". ✶Quxyz✶14:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the pattern in page views, I think of the (active) tag as primarily saying "This is probably the link you want to click on". I see it as equivalent to putting the most popular article at the top of a dab page: you're trying to help readers find the thing they're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the bold should probably be removed to conform with MOS:NOBOLD, but I don't see how indicating a storm is active violates NOTNEWS, especially in an article covering an ongoing event. It's a simple statement of fact that while time-sensitive isn't time-critical (unlike the now-deleted current storm information), and doesn't do much different from indicating something like "June 28 – present" in a infobox. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t. Like I said, if we were going by a “rule” of active storms don’t get an article; we’d be deleting Hurricane Beryl’s page only to “un-delete” it a few days later. So my answer is no, it shouldn’t violate policy. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need to outright delete it, we can simply draftify it. Also, I think you are reading it too strict as several other current events like wars have their own articles. ✶Quxyz✶20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that "WP:NOTNEWS" might be the most widely misinterpreted link on wikipedia... Its often used to say "don't cover break news" when it actually means the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the parts of WP:NOTNEWS which you think supports the suggestion that the "idea was not to include information that wouldn't be included in an article at a later point"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what all did you do? And if we've clarified anything in this discussion, is that really "for nothing"?
(I hope that you didn't trust that the comments at ANI, which are notoriously hot-headed and impulsive, actually represent the community's more deliberately considered views.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing and Horse Eye's Back: Previously, if a storm was active we would include in its article (and in its section at a season article) information such as the storm's current location, size, intensity, and any active watches or warnings. Per the ANI thread, we stopped including all of that information and deleted several templates meant to convey it. I guess it came up at the ANI thread. But it was stated a couple times that information you won't expect to remain in the article years after the fact should not be included. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should put much stock in those comments. You have a couple of editors suggesting that you take the advice from WP:10Y (which is a thought experiment inside an essay, not a firm rule). You have another handful of editors saying that maybe that's not quite as "Simple as that", despite the assertions of the first couple of editors. All articles about current events contain material that shouldn't be there a decade later, beginning with the {{current events}} template at the top and going right down to the breaking news and other WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources at the bottom.
I suggest that you (and we) discard all of that for the time being, ignore the TFD someone started the very next day, and concentrate on the goal: We want an encyclopedia article. It should m:eventually be a comprehensive summary from high-quality sources. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, especially if the reason the house isn't finished is because we're waiting for more information and better sources. Our readers are particularly interested in articles about current events. The COVID-19 articles were a mass of tiny updates, with really minor things like cumulative case counts in hundreds of localities, as things progressed. Our readers appreciated it, and nobody said that it was bad to include today's case count just because we probably expect the article, a decade from now, not to have a list of how many people were infected on day 129 of the pandemic.
Towards that end, what do you think would be both encyclopedic and of value to our readers for active storms?
To give an example, I could imagine readers wanting information about the past/current/predicted path, and that all sounds encyclopedic to me, even though we'll have to update the predictions as events develop. I would include that. I could imagine a few of them wanting information about relevant reputable charities, but that doesn't sound encyclopedic to me, so I would not include that.
So kind of my points made above. I was concerned that displaying a storm's peak intensity instead of its current intensity could confuse readers (see for instance Hurricane Beryl only shows its peak as a Category 5 even though it has weakened to a Category 3 as of my writing this. I did comment that this information will, in some capacity, mention current intensity in 10 years as it will cover when it weakened from Cat 5 to Cat 4 and so on. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intensity is labeled something like "Peak intensity" or "Peak intensity so far", then I don't think most readers will be confused into thinking that this is the current intensity. If it just says "Intensity", then that could be confusing, but it is also the sort of confusion that is relatively easy to fix by adding the word 'peak'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN activity is, always and without exception, done with the deliberate intention of obstructing or defeating the purposes of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a good-faith instance of WP:OWN; the aim is simply to prevent other editors from editing, and WP:OWN behaviour is not a viable or plausible strategy for safeguarding good material against loss (there are other methods for doing that). Therefore, engaging in WP:OWN should not be dealt with as a separate category; it is a type of vandalism and should be treated the same as other vandalism.
Certainly it's possible for an editor to plead ignorance, once; many people don't read rules before they start. But in this case, as in the case of all vandalism, there is no way to justify pleading ignorance a second time. "You don't in any way own or control anything written here, not even if you wrote it yourself" is not a complex or confusing idea. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common to have good-faith instances of editing that could be considered WP:OWN. It is easy to imagine it coming into play against WP:RANDY, or as part of normal content disputes. Sometimes we as a community even protect pages to stop other editors less involved in the community from editing. Where is the proposed merge to anyway? CMD (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TooManyFingers, vandalism has a very narrow and specific and widely accepted definition on Wikipedia: deliberate, unambiguous attempts to damage the encyclopedia. Commonplace efforts to control an article about oneself or ones business is a natural and understandable response in many cases. Such editors need an explanation of our content policies, not a block for vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect many users who OWN articles do this for the purpose of "protecting" the article from users who want to "harm" it (just to clarify--the quotes represent what the user in question believes which is not true). As such, it's good-faith behavior in many cases, and calling it vandalism is incorrect. Animal lover|666|20:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know some editors who have shown OWNership behavior. Very often they have strong opinions, but are nonetheless acting in good faith. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As certain other people have noted, most people when they start don’t read all the rules. I’m extended confirmed and I don’t even know all the rules. I’ve had this account for over a month, I edited for about six months, maybe even a bit longer before then. And I don’t even know all the rules.
I didn’t even know the copyright policy of Wikipedia until I actually started editing, I didn’t know it was uncensored until I censored an F-word and had it undone a minute later, and I didn’t know the WP:OWN policy until I was looking at the user warning templates just out of curiosity, and I didn’t look at them until after I registered, so that was only a couple of weeks ago. So because of that, I think if it is a first occurrence, I could see it be someone just being a bit “over protective” of an article, and there are some people who do forget rules, so a second occurrence (months or years later) I could see someone justifying having forgotten, especially if they took down their first user warning.
But a second violation a short time after being warned, especially if it’s only a matter of hours after that warning, I think should constitute a blatant violation of that rule and should have a stronger “bad faith red warning” issued on them. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing for almost 19 years, and I still regularly visit P&G pages to refresh my memory (and ocassionally learn something new). Our user warning templates have multiple (usually four) levels precisely so that we can educate newer editors about the P&Gs before proceeding to blocks. As an admin, I will generally not block someone who has not been properly, progressively, warned about their editing and/or behavior, unless it is very clear they are a long term abuse or vandalism-only account. Also, it is possible that a new user has not looked at their talk page and so has not seen any warnings. Donald Albury18:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a template or otherwise editing their talk page is prima facie evidence that the editor has seen the warning. Any editor that removes warnings without reading them is quite possibly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Ignoring progressively stronger warnings without stopping the problem behavior will result in a block. Donald Albury14:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism (as it is currently defined in practice on Wikipedia) has nothing in practice to distinguish it from WP:OWN. Both sets of editors act as they do in order to impose their preferences on everyone else, both deliberately evade communication and consensus, both deliberately hinder or prevent good-faith behaviour by other editors, and both end up damaging the project by frustrating and overloading the good editors and by deliberately impeding the project's ultimate success. The aims and attitudes of each are the same, namely to get their own material onto everyone's screen regardless of the aims of the project; I would argue that, unlike OWNers, at least those who we currently call vandals are transparent and up-front about their intent to cause damage. To use a team sports analogy, fans who tie up the coach and take control for themselves by instructing the team to play in a different way are just as disruptive and just as harmful (if not more so) than fans who keep throwing trash onto the playing field. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to link a particular talk page, we can have a look and consider the situation. However, there is no merit to a suggestion that vandalism is similar to reverts performed by someone accused of OWN to an article they have developed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To state that there are exactly zero times when someone showing OWNership tendencies isn't acting in bad faith vandalism is so far off the mark. Indeed, most OWN issues are done in good faith and overegerness.
I think if it is a clearly blatant WP:OWN violation and they’ve been warned multiple times, it could be considered a form of vandalism. But there are good faith cases where people unknowingly violate this either by way of having never known it in the first place, or maybe being previously warned and forgetting it a few months later. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A line I often here from people who don't want to follow a rule from a policy or guideline is that it's "not forbidden" or similar. Most often it's in relation to WP:COI ("strongly discouraged" apparently reads as "go right ahead" if you have sufficient external motivation), but I've heard it with other policies too. I've always considered this is a non sequitur because read in the context of WP:PAG and WP:IAR, all our rules are guidelines that can sometimes be ignored. And curiously you have guidelines that are written in a very soft, conditional way, but which are treated as ironclad rules anyway – when was the last time you heard someone try "writing articles about non-notable subjects isn't forbidden"?
But coming across it again recently made me wonder, that notwithstanding, is there anything that a policy or guideline explicitly forbids? – Joe (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "forbid" doesn't show up a lot, but equivalents like "must" and "must not" (frequently bolded) sure do. —Cryptic09:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, the reason why few of our policies and guidelines expressly forbid everything is that they are not written by highly-paid lawyers, so nearly all of them allow for exceptions based on common sense. That many COI editors take "strongly discouraged" to mean "please go ahead" is simply due to a lack of common sense on the part of those editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For most Wikipedians, it's obvious that a line exists and they can figure out where it is. Anyone who isn't sure where the line is should generally err on the side of caution; those who repeatedly cross the line will get warned, and eventually either blocked outright or topic banned. Animal lover|666|18:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but I think NPOV's statement that "This policy is non-negotiable" is not ideal. The policy's contents get negotiated regularly. The correct way to apply the policy is to negotiate with other editors about what constitutes neutral content for a given subject. You can't reject the principle entirely, but NPOV involves more actual, hands-on negotiation than pretty much any other area of work in the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have interpreted it as "Complying with (the current version of) the neutrality policy is non-negotiable" (i.e., not optional). We have occasionally had well-intentioned editors suggest that neutrality is not the right choice for certain kinds of content (e.g., around self-harm). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always interpreted it within the rather loose contexts of wikipedia... For what happens when a non-negotiable rule meets ignore all rules? Either a fart or a black hole and I haven't noticed reality ending. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HEB, so you're thinking of it as a sort of a Lie-to-children that is useful when someone says that it's wrong to have a truly neutral article (usually because they don't understand what a neutral article really is), but it's not entirely true? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a way yeah, we tell new editors that its all very linear and orderly with nice discrete groupings of guidelines, policies, and manuals... But in reality its not linear, its not orderly, and at the edges those groups blur into each other hard. The reality is much more resiliant and beautiful than what we describe to new editors (and external parties), its an ever evolving web where different bits pull and tug at other bits to have cascading and balancing effects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about this some more I think that a key part of the context is the implicit community expectation that the law is to be used as a shield not a sword to borrow a phrase. The community looks down on and sanctions actions that hurt the encyclopedia even when they adhere to the letter of policy and guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be a specific naming convention for historical states.
I think that in instances where the native/local and English names for historical states are both used to near equal commonality (depending on the sensitivities/context and consensus) in English language sources, the native name should be prioritised. As a general rule, people should get to decide what they're called. A lot of written histories still bear remnants of 19th/20th century Eurocentrism, and I think the imposition of an English name is one of these. Imo Wikipedia has to recognise this trend. For example there's been increased debate in recent years about the use of the word Byzantium, originating from western historians as a pejorative to discredit their claim to Roman continuation. In sub-Saharan Africa there were very few written histories prior to European colonisation in the 19th century, and the imposition of English names harks back to the colonial histories, historians are still trying to correct their very problematic bias. I hope this is changed and native names don't need a clear majority to be implemented. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that naming people and places is a bit more complicated than that. For example, Mount Everest has many different names, and the British-imposed English name was originally chosen in the 19th century because the mapmaking office didn't want to choose which one country/language/ethnic group's name is "the" one, and it has endured for that reason ever since.
In general, I find that nobody much minds what poorly known places are called, as long as the redirects get people to the right place and the first sentence assures them that they really are in the right place, but I would expect that for famous examples, such as the Byzantine Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire (which, as Voltaire said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire), we would expect to use the most common name and to err on the side of not changing whatever the current name is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m only talking about historical states, not place names as I appreciate that’s much more complicated. Obv Byzantium is by far the most common name, so it should still be used atm. I think so long as there is a redirect for the English name/translation then using a native name (used very commonly in English language sources) would be fairly non-problematic Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Mount Everest example is relevant here. Where a place has a single common name in English we should use that name, and the OP is not proposing changing that. As I understand it this provision would only apply when all of the following are true:
The subject of the article is a historical place or exclusively the historical aspects of a place
The place has a commonly used name in English language sources that is not the local/native name(s) (name A)
The place has a native/local name that is commonly used name in English language sources (name B)
English language sources use names A and B with near equal commonality (as determined by the usual WP:COMMONNAME considerations)
(Possibly) This usage pattern has been relatively stable for a while (2 years? 5 years? 10 years?)
If there is a clear trend of one or other name becoming clearly more common it's probably best to wait and just move the article (if necessary) when one or other name is the most common.
There are no cultural or similar issues that make the native/local name inappropriate to use in the relevant context
There are no disambiguation, transliteration or similar issues that make the native/local name significantly less convenient
e.g. if the native name is highly ambiguous but the non-local/native name is not the latter may be preferred as a form of natural disambiguation.
I'm no expert in the relevant fields, but I don't think the Byzantine Empire fits this as neither name bolded in the lead ("Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire") is/was the native or local name and (from an admittedly very superficial search) Byzantine Empire appears sufficiently more common than "Eastern Roman Empire" that criterion 4 wouldn't apply. I don't think this would be harmful as such, but I'm not sure that the benefit for what feels like a very niche situation is sufficient necessitate any sort of rule. I want to see multiple examples of where it would apply (and how it would apply) before supporting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Byzantine Empire's native name was Empire of the Romans, but Byzantine is used to differentiate between pagan Rome-based Rome and Christian-Byzantion/Constantinople based Rome, and it is quite useful.
Whenever possible, Wikipedia uses names as they most commonly appear in English-language sources. We adopt the new consensus after it changes in historiography. We don't try to get ahead of the curve, nor should we. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of article titles is to help readers find the article and not be surprised on what they are opening. English titles are almost always more descriptive and useful. Common name, despite what most editors seem to believe, is not the most important criteria when determining how an article should be titled. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely common name determines whether they’re surprised at what they’re finding? They’re most likely to have heard it with a common name, and will probably know both the exonym and endonym if they’ve heard of it before and if they’re equally common Kowal2701 (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because common name is based on reliable sources and not the most common name in colloquial speech. As WP:COMMONNAME states it usually aligns with that, but it doesn't necessarily. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Common name says article titles should use natural language, so colloquial speech? In your original comment, did you mean that a benefit of using an English name is that the etymology might be more intuitive and therefore its meaning? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A name commonly used in reliable sources may not be used in common parlance.
>did you mean that a benefit of using an English name is that the etymology might be more intuitive and therefore its meaning?
Yes. Bono State for example is more useful to me as someone who has no idea on the subject. I understand titles are supposed to be recognisable to someone familiar with the subject, but I still see no benefit in making it harder for those readers just to use a non-English name. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but I think this might be only have a small significance. Bono state seems laughably bad to me, and I can't really articulate why. It's just very inauthentic, if you're going to read/write about a peoples/society, you'd make the effort to engage their language and customs, Bono state just seems disrespectful and ignorant but I'm reading too far into it Kowal2701 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is disrespectful. Is it inaccurate? The lead describes it as a state. In every other language foreign names/countries will be either translations into their language or adopt their typical grammar/spelling/phonetics. It isn't disrespectful and is just how language works. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disrespectful wasn’t the right word, it isn’t necessarily disrespectful. Since English is the closest thing we have to a universal language it makes a name seem objective. In Ghana, the modern day country where Bonoman was, they speak English and are likely to use English Wikipedia, and I’m sure I’m Ghanaian English it is called Bonoman Kowal2701 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think cases of near equal commonality that need some kind of tie-breaker rule are likely to be rare, and to need deciding as individual cases. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh personally I think if a native name for a historical state is used commonly in English language sources it should be used but I expected people to disagree with that Kowal2701 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as any non-Latin script is transliterated. And the English name should at least redirect. But I think there should be exceptions for certain places. Such as Germany instead of Deutschland; Spain instead of España; Norway instead of Norge, etc. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But using native names for (most) African states is fine in my opinion. But names such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Egypt, and a few others should still be English rather than native. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, its just that the policy contradicts this at the moment. I really disagree with WP:Official name when both names are very common in English language sources, it seems natural to favour the official one in those cases so long as redirects are in place. It seems that policy was written in the middle of a dispute over changing Burma to Myanmar Kowal2701 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah my impression is that the credence given to official names is subjective and that that essay doesn’t necessarily reflect the community, but I appreciate there are other considerations and no appetite to change something that works
I thought this proposal was about historical states? Burma/Myanmar is very much current. Historical states do not have current official names. Whether any had an "official name" back in its day probably depends very much on how that term is defined. CMD (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if it’s really common in English (like say Athens or Bethlehem, or Alexandria, or Rome), then the English name should prevail. Otherwise, a transliterated version of the official native name should be used; with an English redirect. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright policy for paintings is clear. See en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication. A painting being created or even exhibited is not the same as it being published. Finding a publication that printed a copy of a painting is difficult and annoying, so it is rarely done.
I've listed these for deletion, and I've gotten significant pushback, with notes that these are important paintings or are widely used, or other things that are irrelevant to their copyright status.
It looks like the de facto policy is to not bother with this sort of thing. Is that the actual policy? It's not taken seriously on Commons, either. grendel|khan14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, unless there's documentation it was published in the sense of reproduced before 1928, the copyright extends to 70 years from the death of the author. This is true in both the US and France. So this would need NFCC until January. If there are routine exceptions they should be incorporated into NFCC. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused. An old painting itself is in public domain, and a photo of a painting cannot be copyrighted. Museums like to claim otherwise. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As was alluded to above, the copyright clock does not start until the creative work is published or the author dies, whichever comes first. The copyright status of a photograph is irrelevant to the copyright status of the work of art captured in the photo. Donald Albury16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What's the reasoning behind using the Life+70 rule for copyright in the United States? We'd have to be certain that it was never published, per the Hirtle Chart, right? If it was painted in 1900 but first published in 1965, it would be copyrighted in the United States until 2060 at least, wouldn't it?
From what I understand, either we show that it was published before 1929, or we have to prove a negative, which can be hairy. grendel|khan16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no evidence of publication has been presented, then we default to Life+70, which is why it was brought up. Publication in another country would go by their public domain rules. But, absent that, we have to default to rules in the United States, as that is where Wikipedia is based. Hence Life+70. SilverserenC16:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the creator died before publication, then Life+70 takes precedence over any later publication of the work by third parties, as far as I'm aware. SilverserenC16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do "we default to Life+70"? We just assume that it was never published? That seems pretty unsupportable for works by well known artists.
And I don't think that posthumous publication changes anything, at least not according to the Hirtle Chart. Where did you get that idea? The copyright would pass to an inheritor or estate, which could then authorize publication just as the original artist might. grendel|khan17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to assume that it was published or it wasn't published, we just embrace the fact that we don't know, and thus that we do not have clear knowledge that the work is in the public domain, and therefor (however you feel about the ethics) we would be putting ourselves at legal risk were we to treat it as public domain. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the argument here, NatGertler. Grendelkhan is arguing for the painting to not be in the public domain. But if we go by the rules we have, which is Life+70, then the painting is in the public domain as of this year, since the creator died in 1954. It is that which Grendelkhan is arguing against. SilverserenC19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed a word and caught the flip side. Have we checked for a copyright renewal? (But let's remember that if it was published originally in the US in the 1929 to 1963 corridor, it would still have to have had its copyright renewed to still be protected.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life+70 takes precedence over any later publication of the work by third parties, as far as I'm aware Tangential, but there are special rules for posthumous publication. Life+70 is true if it was published posthumously after 1978. If it was published posthumously before 1978, it's just automatically protected until 2048. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)See below — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95 years from publication only applies to works with unknown authorship. If the author is known, then its life + 70. — Masem (t) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect; please see the Hirtle Chart. United States copyright for most works with known authorship lasts for 95 years after publication. grendel|khan16:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if publication occurred before the creator died. Otherwise, Life+70 takes precedence over publication by third parties after the creator's death. So you would still need to have evidence that the creator published the work prior to their death. SilverserenC17:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for life+70? Good faith answer: To ensure authors and their heirs have a long period to benefit from creative work. Practical policy answer: it was a standard European countries could agree on, and which US was happy to agree to later. Cynical answer: So the rich can get richer without having to do more creative work.
But yes, if there isn't evidence that it was published, it's usually safe to assume it was unpublished. The duration of protection for unpublished works. Since the unpublished duration is usually the same or longer than the published duration and because there's a whole different set of rules for posthumous publication that catches exceptions, erring on the side of considering it unpublished means assuming the same or longer duration (i.e. safer). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me; I was asking why we use the Life+70 rule for US copyright determination, not why it exists in general. Can I also ask what part of the Hirtle Chart you're referring to that involves posthumous publications? How exactly do the rules differ? grendel|khan18:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the Hirtle chart, but I recall reading something about posthumous publication and the 1976 [amended] law. I might have my wires crossed, though, and since this is also tangential to the issue at hand, I'll just strike that comment. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Life+70 rule applies in the U.S. because the U.S. has ratified the Berne Convention. One quirk of that ratification is that some works created by non-residents of the U.S. that were in the public domain in the U.S. went back under copyright protection. Donald Albury19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to know anything more than the general foreign layperson about US copyright law, but I can see that no evidence has been presented for the title of this section. Copyright issues are taken very seriously at English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Sm8900 (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}