Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 162

Controlling policy is still basically

WP:UNDUE. When we are looking to consider the critical reviews of a work, we're going to look at the type of sources that are typically considered reliable for the same types of works in that media, once that have been identified over and over as mainstream or top critics. Could they be a male-dominated or other similarly racial/gender-skewed perspective? Maybe, and that would be a systematic bias but beyond the scope of WP. What we can't start doing is including every random review or criticism just because it may go against the grain of mainstream. A wholly separate example in the world of video games is when we find games raved about by the common review sites, but there is a loud set of user complaints that we simply cannot talk about unless they get documented in third-party sources. And the sources I'm seeing so far brought up for this aspect of the Queen's Gambit are similarly weak sources that fail the UNDUE test. That said, this WAPost article touches on the issue, it seems, but I'm not seeing much yet out there. There could be an argument if this consideration related to the sassy Black woman trope was something in multiple weaker RSes, but given there really only seems to be one weak RS making the call, that really suggests it fails UNDUE. --Masem (t

) 06:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I see another site I linked to on the talk page, by Gloria Oladipo on Bitch Media, has been added to Rotten Tomatoes as the only negative review. Clearly an intelligent woman with some cogent arguments, but she's a 20 year old college student and it's a minority interest site. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if some one feels I am digressing; but irrespective of rest of the discussions User:MaxBrowne2 has a valid point when he says,"... Trying to introduce alternative perspectives is an uphill battle on wikipedia; people question the source's reliability and/or the person's qualification to make a criticism. I'm not only talking about ...XXX..., I'm talking about all alternative perspectives..." (any rational fellow would happily read again).

I do wonder in last 20 years how come Wikipedians didn't get reasonable number of experts in pointing out (List of fallacies) in those 'self point of view serving' status quo.

Considering something as mainstream and rejecting something as fringe is technically original research. Unlike old printed encyclopedias there is no space limit to Wikipedia then finding reasons to exclude lot of content sitting behind range of rules has more to do with Political religious and nationalistic etc point of views which want to suppress other views rather than logical reasoning. IMHO. And that really makes ...introduce alternative perspectives is an uphill battle on wikipedia...(Pl. do read again 1000 times)

Sorry for expressing non mainstream views which questions status quo.

Bookku (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, there has to be a requirement that reviews mentioned in an article should come from professional critics in mainstream news sources. There is indeed a downside that we exclude the opinions of the many gifted amateurs who are out there. But it's also the only way to make sure that our articles do not become a free-for-all in which anyone in their bedroom can self-publish reviews that get featured on Wikipedia. That's not to say that professional critics in mainstream news sources are always great. Instead, it ensures that in order to be included in Wikipedia, reviews have to meet a threshold for both journalistic standards (made possible through the news source's hiring process, editorial oversight and other checks) and notability.

There is another reason why I was opposed to the OP's proposed edit on

Rolling Stone that praised the visuals and acting but felt it was too padded. That feels reasonable — some the less favourable reviews recorded on Rotten Tomatoes had a similar opinion. On the other hand, I didn't notice many reviews that felt that stereotyping was a significant problem. It would be like including a review that described The Deer Hunter, Schindler's List or The Irishman as a film that "feels rushed". Anywikiuser (talk

)

A lot of any WP editor's work involving summarization and the like is original research, but it is an accepted type of original research needed to distill sources to reflect them. This type of situation (determining when an alternate viewpoint should be brought in and what minimum sourcing is required for it) is such a case. It's original research around how we summarize, not what the information is about the topic.

And one factor here - and nothing against the reviewer making this complaint about the stereotyping in the work - is that when you have a situation where a one-off work in a side RS makes a point that is arguing about a social faux pas made by a work, you do have to ask if that is really a true consideration or something that that one writer had an issue with and is trying to fight that issue on their own. And this actually might take time in terms of days and weeks or even years to find others that start to agree. It might be an idea that simply takes time to percolate through other media critics to see it as well. Or it just may be one person's personal idea and no one else sees the issue and that makes it FRINGE. So there's a wait-and-see matter to consider as well. --Masem (t) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp (talk

) 14:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp (talk

) 14:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I mean, you ask not to be linked to
  our standards for reliability, as there's (rightly) not going to be consensus to lower those. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk
  21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading our policy as any magazine can be reliable when it isn't amateurish or self-published, and we're not forced to first anxiously check with our overlords at MC or RT for approval "did they include this or that critic". When we verify a claim about rocket science, we don't use an entertainment magazine, but when we verify opinions like "I liked it" or - in this case - "criticizing it as being misogynoir and biphobic" what says a specialist (but little known) magazine isn't reliable?

Specifically

1. 1 An argument was made the source wasn't notable. But I thought notability related to article subjects - not sources.
2. 2 Next argument was "written by a contributor, not a staff writer". I can't find where the policy makes this distinction either. Related is Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, she is not an expert in writing reviews which just don't even... Talk about elitism!
3. 3 UNDUE I do get; the argument "if nobody else complains maybe this source is an outlier that should be ignored". Sure. Except if only RT/MC sources are considered as "inliers" then we're back to effectively banning every other publication...? We must at least be able to have a discussion in each particular case and not just shut down discussion with "RT/MC defines this series to handle racism and bisexuality well because they're not complaining".

I guess I'm asking for specific pointers to policy, to guidelines, to community consensus discussions, RFCs anything that puts our consensus in writing so it can be analyzed and criticized.

I openly declare I'm partly driven by suspicion that people just don't like including sources that crap all over their nice new Netflix show, and remind them of whether its depiction of Jolene and Cleo might be cliched or not. But in order to contest their officious-sounding policy quotes, I must first ascertain if that really IS policy.

Thank you

I think looking for "awards" or "certifications" is doing a dance around the word "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime." Now, it can he hard judging precisely when one hit's "main", but we can be pretty sure that the guy who's reviewing TV for the Washington Post is making a living, someone writing a review for Bitch is probably getting paid and at least making it past gatekeepers, and the guy who blogs his opinions at Nat's TV or Not TV is not likely making income worth detecting from it.

This isn't to say that someone cannot establish themselves as a valuable critic in some non-financially-remunerative way, but if we're looking for "professional", then pay is the matter at hand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

where does it say we can only include critics from aggregator sites or even "mainstream sites"? It doesn't say that anywhere. Is someone making that argument? I haven't seen it here in this discussion. That would appear to be a strawman you have put up. What we do require are sources published by reputable organizations with evidence of fact-checking, and it usually helps if the primary author also has a good reputation for such. "Contributors" (such as at Forbes) are usually not included because they are rarely or not-often providing fact-checked work; as in, they are published as-is, without editorial overview.

Notability of the organization can help us decide whether it is reasonable to provide them

WP:WEIGHT, so I would suspect that is where that comes into play. --Izno (talk

) 03:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I intend no strawmen. If you have read

CapnZapp (talk

) 10:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Technically,

WP:RSOPINION

allows opinions for any source, not just those RS for fact (opinions from known RSes are one example but RSOPINION is not limited to those). But as been argued in the recent discussions around the Daily Mail and deprecated sources, the inclusion of RSOPINION from sources not normally considered RSes better be weighted per UNDUE - how much of an "expert" is the writer of the piece and how germane is the piece to the topic in question? While UNDUE doesn't specifically say this, this is how the practice of UNDUE + RSOPINION is applied to avoid inclusion of every random blog's comment.

Now on the bigger picture, when it comes to contemporary media like films, books, etc, I think the individual Wikiprojects that handle that may have their own internal systems but all them have determined that while there may be numerous possible review sources out there, there are clearly some that are more key to have over others, and this does discount some of the critics that may be listed in RT or MetaCritic. (And nearly all cases, these are expert sources from those RS known for fact, not those that only fit RSOPINION). If a work gets 40+ reviews from RSes, we can't include all 40 reviews - that's why we usually rely on RT or MC to aggregate - and we're going to focus only on the most "expert" of critics that these projects have determined from experience to document in WP. This will usually try to include major outliers when it is appropriate so that the spectrum of reviews are covered. (eg the Rolling Stone review for Queen's Gambit would be included as one of the lower scores from a major review). But if one of the "off" mainstream reviewers gives a low score while everyone gives it a high review score, that is usually ignored, again per UNUDE. --Masem (t) 15:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• First: do we by "professional" mean "paid" or "of high quality"? Asking editors to make sure money exchanged hands seems unreasonable, so I'm going to assume the latter.
• Second: there is considerable MC/RT creep and Wikipedia editors should definitely be able to (encouraged even) to use reviews from other publications. (At least until policy makes it clear Wikipedia is only a subservient website which I obviously hope never happens)
• Third: Again I absolutely acknowledge UNDUE (except the idea that we should evaluate DUE-ness from only RT/MC-included sources) as a valid argument against including Wear Your Magazine in a specific case. (That is, including it should be possible if it can be shown its sentiments have a notable spread). But I absolutely protest against dismissing that magazine as SELFPUBLISH - again, as far as I can see this source has more in common with Washington Post or Bitch (or The Tufts Daily for that matter), than Nat's TV or Not TV (which is clearly a BLOG - it's even using Wordpress as a platform).
• Fourth: I have seen the notion that we should accept "staff writers" but not "contributors". When asked to base this on specified policy or consensus I got no reply. As I understand it, this needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. (=Just because it's true for Forbes doesn't mean you can nix every "contributor" source). Can someone shed light on this, please?

CapnZapp (talk

) 12:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There are two aspects here:

• Perhaps on the point about Contributors vs staff, if we take the few sites where we know they document their practice, like Forbes, Contributors posts do not go through any type of editorial oversight before they are posted, unlike staff where things are double checked (more than just spell checking and grammar) by an editor; the editor is making sure, particularly for opinion pieces, that nothing in the review is grossly offensive or slanders/libels anyone or the like, and that ultimately, while the piece is still the work of the author, it fairly represents the work's position. Contributors are generally told to stay in line, but if you read the fine print at Forbes, Forbes clearly distances itself from any POV stated by any Contributor compared with Staff op-eds.
  This means when we talk about reviews (and we'll stick to films for the time being) that high quality RSes like the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Chicago Sun-Times, etc. all have reviews by staff, reviewed by an editorial board, and thus while opinion of one person, are still implicitly representative of the work itself. (Eg while we should say "Robert Ebert of the Chicago Sun-times said..." specifically, we can also get away with "The Chicago Sun-Times said..." as well) Whereas for some of the less reliable sources, we are not sure of these editorial policies - they may, they may not have them. But without clarity, that usually means the review is only one person's stance and we can't implicitly assume the work it was published in stands behind it (this is the SELFPUBLISH issue)
• The other factor is simply just knowing the field and who are "experts" in it. If we were in the medical field, there's hundreds of journals one could pull information from, but we have a policy
  WP:MEDRS
  that actually limits such information to top-quality peer-reviewed journals, since there are numerous fly-by-night non-peer reviewed sources as well as "predatory journals". We (both the scientific community and Wikipedia) have come to know what are the top quality sources over time and thus MEDRS reflects that knowledge. What main review sources are used for WP articles on films is from a similar understanding of the history of film criticism and what reviewers/sources have percolated to the top as the best. Those are the reviews that are considered the ones that we want to include. This may cause us to focus heavily on RT/MC but we know these sites are industry leaders in review aggregation, and since we are a tertiary source, we "follow the leader" rather than forging new paths.

That does make it difficult to include reviews from weaker RSes, no question, but at the same time, most of the time they are simply saying the same thing as the top-tier reviewers. We also simply can't take any random armchair critic on the Internet as there are a million of them; we want at least sites and reviewers with some history recognized n third-parties as a possible expertise. We have a special case here where there's a unique point of criticism brought up by a weaker RS, and that's basically now where we have to let UNDUE be the judge. If 5 or 6 of those lesser-tier RS brought it up, I may be inclined to say yes. But when it is down to one or two of these, we're basically where UNDUE becomes FRINGE and we sorta have our hands tied. --Masem (t) 15:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The comparison falls down in that scientists and medical professionals have to go through a rigorous qualification process to be taken seriously. On the other hand, literally anyone can have an opinion on a film, and write about it. Film criticism is not a science. Calling out a film for recycling a problematic trope is not a

WP:FRINGE position, like for example the anti-vax movement. It's a valid criticism. MaxBrowne2 (talk

) 23:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It can be a FRINGE issue if no one else is talking about that same issue. Particularly if we have a work that would be, to be terse, a strong interest to push that narrative. Eg the source that seems to be behind this is a source that seems to be very attuned to women's rights and matters, so there is a bias concern here. (We'd have a similar issue if a movie that involves gay people was considered to misrepresent gay people by a LGBT-focused work and only that work). And while film criticism is not science, sourcing in WP is. As you say, anyone can have an opinion, but we obviously can't include the potential 8 billion opinions out there. We have to be purposely selective and starting with what has been determined as experts in reviewing films sets a key line. --Masem (t) 23:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

And there is no "bias concern" when the critics deemed "reliable" are overwhelmingly white and male? *All* critics are biased, that's why they're critics. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I decided to see if there was data on gender bias in film criticism. A report covered in this New York Times article found that films with a female protagonist do worse among male critics than female critics, with male critics giving those films an average rating of 62% in the study's time period compared to an average of 74% from female critics. For films with a male protagonist, those figures are respectively 70% and 73%. 68% percent of the critics were male.

While this offers evidence that gender can affect reviews, it also suggests that the effect is not huge. As the report notes, a film with a female protagonist will usually have a higher share of female critics. Furthermore, by my own calculations, a radical change to the number of female critics would have only a modest effect on their average ratings. The study is suggesting that the average film with a female protagonist would get an average rating of 65.8% if 68% of its reviewers are male, 68% if the genders are evenly split and 70.2% if 68% of its reviewers are female. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

First off, if an article's editors agree a particular opinion is UNDUE, then it's totally fair to exclude it. (And no, that's not OR since it's what editors are supposed to do). In that case. On that page. That said, I totally agree the comparison to medical journals is flawed. We should totally not restrict our pool of possible opinion sources to only those "vetted" by RT/MC (or any other "authority"), the way we totally should in the field of facts (including medical journals). And, more to the point than me just voicing my personal opinions, if the community would go counter to my wishes here, then this needs to be clearly communicated by relevant policies and guidelines (otherwise the decision is impossible to question). Regards,

An aspect of contemporary film reviews is that these arguably focus mostly on the film making process - acting, writing, directing, production, etc as a whole. More recently (with more web-based sources) another aspect of film reviews but these non-professional sources tends to be their focus on the ideological nature of a film through the eyes of those reviewers, and this can create "pet" issues that these reviewers may focus on that would not be considered - at least initially - by the professional reviews. That is, to not try to be too blunt, this is akin to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in film criticism. Not that these don't have effects: the Bechdel test

is one of those things that I think many professional reviewers do keep in the back of their heads in reviewing films given the growth of the feminist movement over the last decade + change, but its application to films likely started with more "armchair reviewers" than professional critics.

But not every ideological-driven review is necessary of the same weight here, and that's the situation I'm seeing with the Queen's Gambit situation here. The "sassy Black woman" stereotype has all the makings of a new Bechdel test in terms of racial representation, but it certainly doesn't have the weight of reliable sources behind it to make it equivalent to the power and volume that the actual Bechdel test has. Maybe it will in time, I can't say. But that only one or two of these non-major reviewers have identified this issue that is outside the realm of typical film criticism does put it in the "UNDUE" area for the time being. If there was more volume from other non-major reviewers on this point, then there would be better reason to include so it didn't look like one person's gripe with the film. And again, passage of time may help; if this "sassy Black woman" stereotype becomes more and more an issue, we may get retrospective reviews that are more critical of this film to add. --Masem (t) 14:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought that this:

• "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."
• "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder"

Already covered this. But the first doesn't specifically mention files (and files exist in the File: namespace, not mainspace) and the second can be freely ignored apparently.

I didn't want to start a discussion for this, but after being told to "go and tell that to anyone who cares" I guess I should. Perhaps we could specifically add files to Wikipedia:Verifiability or tweak the wording so it isn't restricted to mainspace? Besides files, information can be fetched from Wikidata ({{Infobox video game}} for example does this) or the Data: namespace on Commons 😀 . That emoji is hosted on Commons, and it isn't an image. I suppose all these sources (files, Wikidata, tabular data and possibly structured data in the future) should also be verifiable, despite existing outside mainspace? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR#Original images Jheald (talk

) 11:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk

11:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:NFCC #8 is quite a test for non-free content. Jheald (talk

) 13:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald: Please tell me Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments does not mean "upload your fan art with a fair use rationale, seems legit". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think more like "feel free to create your own illustrative diagram of cited data". Assuming by fan art you mean art based closely on copyrighted images, it's not original research, but it's still a copyright violation. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not original research, but certainly not genuine either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The verifiability policy starts with In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. In the context of media files, to me this means the file must be attributed correctly, with a citation to the source so that the integrity of the file can be verified, or some other way of validating the file should be available (such as a digital signature). In practice, though, particularly for older media, it's hard to enforce, as media doesn't come with a chain of custody embedded within it. So while I agree that we ought to provide information to validate integrity, I don't know how to feasibly require it in all cases. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Where no alternative exists, this may be excusable. (the whole reason courtroom sketches exist) I could even understand not deleting files before they have been replaced with properly sourced files to avoid massive disruption. But when an unsourced file is replaced with a properly sourced one, getting a ton of resistance was not what I expected. And the comment that was made: Nowhere in the WP:NFCC criteria states that files must come from the official provider. They only need to come from a previously published source. should probably worry us a lot as that's using policy to validate the removal of sourced material and reinstating unsourced material. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure "excusable" is the term I'd use. Preserving integrity to me is part of adequately citing a work, even if there are no alternatives. (I think citing a drawing to a courtroom sketch artist sets expectations that the proof of integrity ends at the artist.) The problem is that we don't have a great way to do this in cases where the original is not publicly documented. In the case of a cartoon drawing, it's not obvious (absent some kind of embedded watermarking that is digitally signed, perhaps) how to distinguish between an image claimed to originate from the creator and one of uncertain provenance. In cases where two files are on an equal basis regarding their integrity, it might not be desirable to always prefer files from the creator of the original work, if files from another source are better at providing information about the subject. I suspect even when one file has a greater degree of integrity in tracking its origin, many editors give more consideration to the file they believe illuminates the subject more clearly, but I'm not sure. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In terms of non-free, the source for the image file should be a source that we have reasonable assurance can be traced to one that is a valid copyright "route". For example, if I were to take a screenshot from a DVD, I'd cite the DVD and approximate timestamp, and that would be fair. Using video games as an example, most screenshots come from sites like IGN or GameSpot, and while they are not the originally publisher, we are reasonable sure by their past reliability that these are either works provided via press kits from the publisher to these sites, or taken by the sites themselves and thus have a reasonable source trace. The image of Pluto the Dog take from Fandom doesn't have any of those qualities - while it certainly looks like it has been an image cut out of a still from a Disney short (which is a reasonable step to do to get to a non-free image), we don't know about this step based on the fact that Fandom is a user-generated site. It could be a really good vector-trace image, for example, and that would be problematic. It would be far better if we had this image that the uploader did the work to "cut" it out from the frame and fully explained the original work they pulled it from and what processing they do to make the clean image, as that gives far better line of copyright sourcing. Otherwise, we are in dangers of the same types of problems of "flickrwashing" and other problems when we don't provide good sourcing. --Masem (t) 00:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I only just realized I could have used

Dfu}} but Twinkle had me confused, so for now I'm stuck at FFD. But with several users reverting me, even mistakenly citing policy as an excuse, the policy should be clarified in some way. — Alexis Jazz (talk

or ping me) 01:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:Merging has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Which date should we provide when the country of the news in question and the user who accessed the related URL are in different time zones (e.g. when the news is timestamped 15 December local time, but it's still 14 December in the country of the user who accessed the URL)? Help:Citation_Style_1#Access_date currently doesn't specify this. Brandmeister^talk 23:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As it's unlikely the source would change before midnight your time, and change in a way that affects the verifiability of your content, you could code 15 December as the accessdate and call it a day. Or, if you're uncomfortable with that, you could wait until midnight your time (or later) and access the source then. I'm guessing the doc doesn't specify this per

WP:CREEP; i.e. because it isn't a significant enough problem for the doc to do so. In any case, you're in the wrong venue; this should have been at Help talk:Citation Style 1. ―Mandruss ☎

23:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to use access-date based on UTC, but that's still a problem for sources in the Western Hemisphere. Of course, the problem goes away if we don't use sources which are less than 24 hours old - a method which would be it's own reward. (cf.

talk

02:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, a bit after 5PM EST (2200 UTC) tomorrow, someone is going to update the official United States Electoral College vote within minutes of Biden crossing the 270 threshold when California's electors cast their votes.[11] It might be awkward if the Wikipedia editor cites a news source from a place where it is already Tuesday. If the Tokyo Olympics are held as [re-]scheduled, expect a lot of "tomorrow's news, today" situations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it's almost certain that someone will immediately add the official US EC vote; also agree that it looks somewhat strange if the access date precedes the published date. And concur that in cases like the Olympics, we will likely be adding a great deal of factual content shortly after the event. As a generalisation, however, it would be of benefit to the project if we were to think of ourselves as less of a newspaper; and make less haste to include breaking news. As for the specific question, I think either using the timezone of the publication, or of the editor, or UTC are all valid approaches - even though some cause awkward results. Concur with Mandruss that it may not be a significant enough problem to warrant specific instructions. By contrast, changing the publication date would not be a good thing. -

talk

02:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The only uses of the access date that I can think of is to find the specific snapshot that was viewed, whether it be for validation or recovery purposes. But unless an external archiving site is taking snapshots that line up with the access times, precision beyond a day isn't going to matter. isaacl (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see:

On 13 October 2020, the English Wikipedia switched to using only local short descriptions — not any short description taken from Wikidata. The iOS app is currently being changed to match – see T257867. It is not clear when the Android app will change – see T257488 — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

talk) (contrib

) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Short description#Description editing in the iOS app — re viewing vs editing — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Using an egregious example, there's a discussion about limiting 3-way category intersections at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#(Dis)Establishment three-way intersections. Disestablishment is particularly confusing, as there is no consistency in application. But Establishment is even more contentious, as folks argue about what part of a country or empire or kingdom or principality or province or region or state actually controlled the place in that year (or fraction of a year). Compounded by country and year, then also by year and country.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Category intersections requested feature recently, which seems relevant. Do we know what the status of that is, or if it's something that's just going to be handled by Wikidata? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

02:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, we've been talking about it over on the technical list for a long time (August 2006 was the first mention I've quickly found). Once upon a time, there was an external tool.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We really should ban multi-way intersection edits in the category tree itself, as every change for a 3-way intersection requires 6 (3! for the math inclined) CfD discussions. And they conflict. And there is an awful lot of incomplete tagging, so these trees are poorly populated. And contentious.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a current discussion taking place on

For those of you not following the news, the Republican Governor of Ohio had a small number of fellow Republicans file a set of grievances about his handling of the coronavirus. However, it was widely panned, and the legislature refused to take it up.

The question is whether a press release is notable enough to add in perpetuity to our encyclopedia. There was significant coverage of the press release. But the filing went nowhere. It was never assigned to a committee. There was no Impeachment. There were no hearings. There was no Resolution passed by the legislature.

It is probably important to formulate a policy or guideline, as this RFC will likely be followed by another for Gretchen Whitmer, where a Democratic Governor of Michigan had a small number of Republicans file a set of grievances about her handling of the coronavirus.

On the other hand, finding these filings by a small number of legislators to be notable, there will need to be a half dozen new sections added to the Trump articles (plural), as there were several variant articles of impeachment filed prior to action by the US House. This could become a thing.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think the notability of an action is determined by how much coverage it gets in reliable sources. We have articles on speeches alone. Note with respect to Trump and his predecessors, we have Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, and Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, all of which collect the various reported incidents of the typo you mention. I have no doubt that an article on Efforts to impeach Joe Biden will follow. BD2412 T 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously, first would have to be coverage in reliable third-party sources. You can probably source the complaints to the proceedings of Congress but if no sources picked up on that, that immediately tells us its probably not important to include.

The second test, if it is covered to some degree, would be if it fits a larger narrative around criticism of the politician or government over a topic, which reflect the

WP:UNDUE factor. Say in the DeWine case there were Ohio papers that did report on this filing, but there is zero other coverage of any criticism about DeWine's handling of COVID. Then this would be undue to include. On the other hand, if there are numerous other cases of criticism towards DeWine already, this would be adding onto those, and would at least be appropriate to consider per UNDUE. I'd still use caution to consider the overall "narrative" developed by the summary, but this is a much fuzzier line that needs talk page discussion. (This idea is comparable to what BD2412 suggests, that if we've already cataloged several similar cases, adding to that would make sense). --Masem (t

) 23:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• We have the same situation with Gretchen Whitmer, where resolutions of impeachment were considered. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the
  WP:UNDUE factor, I'd forgotten about that policy. In neither case was the impeachment "considered". Just a few legislators who filed a grievance. I'm not as familiar with the DeWine Ohio legislative process, and it happened earlier. In Whitmer's case, the heads of both the state house and senate called it "shameful", and never even allowed a "first reading" on the calendar. The effect is that it never existed, as far as the official legislature was concerned. But it got lots of coverage, including at a national level. Compounded by coverage of the militia kidnapping arrests. And earlier the armed protesters who shut down the capitol.
  William Allen Simpson (talk
  ) 17:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• No. AfD templates are commonly put on new creations that may require some amendment of their title. For example, see
  WP:HEY
  .

Now there was a time when moves were forbidden during AfD but that was a long time ago and was for technical reasons because AfDs were then done using

substitution. That limitation was then explicitly removed. See AfD page moves

for details. It could be that the MfD wording is a relic of those early days but I'm not sure as I try to avoid that process.

As for draft space, that is a new kludge which isn't working out and so should probably be deprecated. Its current existence does not seem a significant issue for this and the OP does not provide any examples.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Huggle is a fantastic tool for MediaWiki counter-vandalism. Despite being stuck in read-only mode on enwiki, using it in combination with Twinkle to take actions is a far better workflow than alternatives I'm aware of; however, it's unnecessarily laborious with several more clicks required to get anything done.

I've rolled up the comments above as the focus in the responses is primarily on these specific instances rather than opinions on the RFP/R process as a whole - the discussion I'd like to have. My concerns circulate around RFP/R being used as a vehicle for those who only wish to access Huggle (which inherently doesn't need the rollback user right).

You'd be hard-pressed to find an editor which hasn't made mistakes at some point. The criticism from administrators on declined requests, as welcome as it is, I don't believe has anything to do with trusting a person has the judgement to do a thing. As Twinkle and other tools provide editors with exactly the same outcome as a rollback, the user right effectively serves to gatekeep tools which could potentially be disruptive if used inappropriately.

The

This brings me to the discussion I'd like to have with other editors: do we believe the requests for rollback permission process is neutral? This may be a biased opinion, but I believe the requirements for permissions are vague at best and rest with an administrator's opinions which are - from my experience - inconsistent and not particularly aligned. I struggle to see the value of a privillege granting exercise & lifting of an artificial restriction which requires the discretion of a single person without consensus. I don't believe the RFP/R process is fit for purpose to permit editors use of a "more powerful" counter-vandalism tool which is already permitted by policy for all editors (performing exactly the same operations as Twinkle and RedWarn). I hope we're all here to build an encyclopedia, not to hold the keys to some special club.

Thanks for reading through this, feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong, and I look forward to any and all opinions. ~ Chip🐺 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your second request for rollback was declined for more reasons than not providing edit summaries. The fact that you have characterised it as such here can only count against you. You are clearly technically competent enough to change Huggle, but that is totally unrelated to the skills needed to write an encyclopedia or pass judgement on other's efforts to write it, as shown by your even contemplating doing so, let alone actually going through with it.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @

Phil Bridger: I did elaborate on the other concerns above and acknowledged the declined request was not only due to edit summaries. I'm not here to discuss these specific instances, moreso the process in general. Thank you otherwise for your comments. ~ Chip🐺

19:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No you didn't. You said "This time, it was declined with the reason of not providing sufficient edit summaries", which is simply not true. You may wish to limit the discussion to the process in general, but I prefer to focus on the fact that anyone who changes Huggle to get around the restriction placed on it is pretty obviously not someone who is prepared to collaborate on buidling an encyclopedia, including passing judgement on others' efforts to do so.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@

Phil Bridger: I see your perspective and I did over-summarize. I encourage any editors reading this to follow the hyperlink to RFP/R rather than relying on my recount here ~ Chip🐺

00:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The "in 3 months" recommendation was after 3 months of active editing. You only have about 1 week of active editing since your last request. You stopped arguing about it on January 14, and then made only a handful of edits until December 1. Your next request was on December 3. I will gladly tell you: You are completely wrong. I'm not sure how you're sure Huggle is so much better if you've never used it, anyhow.

π, ν

) 02:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@

Power~enwiki: agree. Hopefully we can discuss the concerns regarding the request for permission process in general rather than these specific instances. (to address your last point; I've deployed Huggle on the a large non-profit wiki farm, I've used it there unrestricted for quite some time) ~ Chip🐺

19:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This one is kind of funny. An editor who had his rollback request declined multiple times forked Huggle and removed the RequireRollback restriction. In their unblock request, they argue that there is nothing wrong with this because they're just using open source software that doesn't require rollback. This is like a burglar who made a copy of a house key arguing in court that it wasn't unauthorized copying because the key is out of patent so anyone can make a key, and it wasn't breaking and entering because, after all, he had a key! Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, since a "rollback" can be done "manually" by even non-logged-in editors by opening an old revision and saving it, that might not be the best analogy. Besides, there are other tools out there that provide rollback-like functionality without having the rollback user-right. Rollback is nothing more than a time-saver. Well, it does give you one more thing: An easy way to edit without thinking then be called to account for it later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I'm glad this was amusing. I've modified the content above to clarify some points. I was within my rights take those actions. The issue I'm trying to highlight is the gatekeeping of software which is technically permitted by policy. I don't believe a barely relevent process as a vehicle to lift this artificial restriction is fit for purpose. ~ Chip🐺 19:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Huggle is open source software. No policy explicitly prohibits doing exactly that. One could call it GAMING but I would say that's a stretch, personally. If we want to make a general policy prohibiting usage of any fast-acting anti-vandalism tool from non-rollbackers we should do that. imo this is equivalent to one making their own anti-vandalism software that is just as fast as Huggle without having RBer. That having been said, one should do some self-reflection on why they haven't been granted rollbacker (afaik pretty much a 'shall grant unless reason given not to' right). Usually it's for a good reason and a person should address those issues. As for Huggle, there's a very good reason why it's limited to rollbackers: it's very easy to cause a real mess if using it without having an understanding of

WP:NOTVAND. I think filtering for Huggle/SWViewer is only real point of rollbacker now, given its software functionality is now part of Twinkle.

As for the PERM process, requesting perms anywhere on Wikipedia (except to an admin individually) is too awkward. It really shouldn't be, since people (at least those not primarily motivated by the hat) are volunteering to give up their time, for free, to help in another perpetually backlogged area in which they either have some skill, or a brain + the ability to gain some skill. That I don't think is fixable. Relating to your rollbacker request specifically, if I were you I would probably just contact some kind, knowledgeable admin individually on their talk page and ask for feedback on your anti-vandalism work. They'll either give feedback, or they'll say you're doing good enough and give you rollback. If they give feedback, catch up with them in 3-4 weeks and see if they think you've improved. Plenty of admins around that will be happy to help out. Unless you're sure you're blatantly overqualified (ie someone will  Done within 15 minutes) my current view is not to touch the PERM process unless necessary, simply because the focus there is not editor improvement but to evaluate single requests and get them off the board. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 20:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A stretch? No, it's one of the most blatant examples of gaming you can get. This is nothing to do with copyright, so the licence under which Huggle is released is irrelevant.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Whilst this may be questionable, it's quite illogical to enforce and it's also explicitly not a violation of any PAGs. No community consensus documented in a PAG states that high-speed anti-vandalism tools (or simply any semi-automated anti-vandalism editing) are restricted to RB. This argument is akin to saying the existence of

this but this is the developer choosing to implement feedback, not a consensus creating an onwiki limitation in PAGs. Absent such policy, there is no tangible distinction between Huggle, Twinkle, or a custom-coded tool. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 00:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Phil. The license does not matter in this case. Say I download Kali Linux, which is licensed under the GPL. I modify the software contained inside to, for example, DDOS a website. Just because I modified the software doesn't mean that my DDOS was legal. It still breaks laws that are put in place to prevent DDOSing. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 03:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not the same thing at all. There are actually laws that make DDoS attacks illegal. There is no PAG which makes what was done here wrong, as made clear at WT:BOTPOL, and trying to shoehorn PAGs into a situation which is not covered by one is just, no? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As per Huggle's licensing, since you've added that in, is irrelevant. You may be permitted to modify the software without restriction, but it is also the case that your onwiki activities related to that software may be curtailed until you meet the social requirements on the wiki in question, in this case having rollback permission on English Wikipedia (which is the software's default state). I would decidedly call running it here

WP:GAMING

), and his opinion espoused at your talk page really should have been posted here, not there. That said, I am glad you have realized after the unblock that it was a bad idea to circumvent the check and am also glad that you agreed not to run the software until you have the permission (again, after the unblock).

I will probably be starting a discussion at

WT:BOTPOL

about this basic loophole, since that is the controlling policy in this case.

As for the presumed main thrust of this thread, you might consider starting a new thread or hiding away anything related to the specific issues you have experienced since it detracts and distracts from your pain point, which is that

WP:PERM sucks in some way or another. A simple {{collapse}} should suffice. --Izno (talk

) 21:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That discussion now at

WT:BOTPOL#Removing restrictions in software. --Izno (talk

) 21:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a BOTPOL matter. This is localised to the rollback perm, which de facto serves as a user perm to restrict access to third party software. Indeed, no other perm does this. If this is the intention,

WP:ROLLBACK (the guideline) should be amended to make clear that non-rollbackers are not permitted to use fast-acting anti-vandalism tools, whether they are Huggle/SWViewer, modified, or completely self-coded. Because all three of these things are, technically speaking, equivalent. In the meantime, I think it's a stretch to call this GAMING and sanction an editor for it, because we haven't even created this "social restriction", despite this not being the first time someone has done this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 21:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason I selected BOTPOL was because

WP:MEATBOT is in that policy, and I would suggest all of the above tools fall into being controlled by MEATBOT. We don't have a separate "use of tools" policy anywhere otherwise. --Izno (talk

) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is really problematic to add into BOTPOL. How much modification of AWB is acceptable until it's no longer considered AWB & I can use AWB without requesting access to AWB? What if I make my own script from scratch to do the same thing (a particular semi-automated edit)? What if I base this script off AWB's regexes? Similar to the Huggle situation. Lines can't be drawn here, which is why making a BOTPOL restriction for this is difficult. If the issue is with rollback, apply the restriction to that guideline, but honestly I think nothing should be done unless it can be shown that the edits themselves are disruptive, problematic anti-vandalism edits. This is also the only enforceable remedy. Also, if the edits aren't problematic I don't see what the big issue is. And it's quite rare that someone is actually capable of, and does, edit the source of a tool and recompile it, so it's not the kinda thing worth legislating over I think - more harm than good will come of it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You should discuss adding it to BOTPOL at the thread I started there, not here. --Izno (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise you started one -- I'll copy this there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:PREVENTATIVE. If Chip has been disruptive or harmed the encyclopedia, go ahead and block for that. But the biggest row I've seen is not due to Chip's editing but from people mistaking Huggle's source code for community policy when it isn't. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 06:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I said my bit about Chip on their user talk, so won't repeat that. I do want to agree with Power~enwiki that I think rollback is a largely useless permission. I'd prefer we just deprecate it as a user group and distribute the rights to other user groups like page mover or autopatrolled. Beyond that, I think using MediaWiki permissions to limit use of external software is a bad idea since it gets into the realm of scope creep. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Page movers and autopatrollers aren't necessarily competent with anti-vandalism patrol, nor are many anti-vandalism workers going to be entitled to other user rights. The merging of Rollback with unrelated user rights doesn't make sense to me. You're right, Rollback by itself is a low-stakes tool that isn't particularly useful on its own, but Power's passing mention that it grants the ability to use Huggle is far more significant. It's a pretty powerful tool that certainly should be restricted to users who are screened and approved as competent anti-vandalism patrollers. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• If editors are permitted to fork Huggle and remove the rollbacker requirement (which requires changing one character in the code, as described above), then rollbacker is no longer needed to use Huggle. We might as well remove that requirement from the main Huggle script. If rollbacker is no longer needed to use Huggle, then rollbacker more or less has no purpose (since the one-click revert can be done with scripts). If rollbacker has no purpose, we might as well get rid of rollbacker. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. I never understood why rollbacker is still here in the first place, when there's Twinkle which can be as fast as the original rollback tool, and is just better since you can provide an edit summary (which the original rollback tool doesn't have, and if you want that, you will need userscripts, which just brings us back to Twinkle). Huggle also doesn't seem to be as too powerful to require permissions. I'd say that VisualFileChange from Commons is more dangerous and powerful. And the Commons community doesn't require any special permission to use it. pandakekok9 (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but editors are not permitted to use workarounds to bypass the Rollback requirement for Huggle or similar software. This gets into

WP:COMMONSENSE. IIRC last time I tried to even raise this question with the community, the community rejected the premise of the question, saying that obviously the restriction applied to Huggle clones and that even bringing it up for debate was stupid. ~Swarm~ ^{sting}

07:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

pandakekok9, Swarm as a regular user of the tool, I disagree with the assertion that Huggle also doesn't seem to be as too powerful to require permissions. While the core functionality is similar to tools like Twinkle or Redwarn, it is significantly faster. Twinkle requires multiple, deliberate clicks to revert and warn someone; Huggle requires nothing but pressing "Q". From a purely technical standpoint, the hypothetical maximum revert rate is probably 10+ times faster. While it is correct that the outcome of a Huggle revert is no different than with any other means of reversion and warning, the pace is such that I'd be very uncomfortable with indiscriminately granting access. I don't think it should be used by anyone who doesn't have significant antivandalism experience. We already have occasional problems with inexperienced patrollers being too trigger-happy with reverts and warnings – access to Huggle would only exacerbate that problem. Access to fast-paced tools requires that people know when to slow down, and that's something you only learn with experience. It's true that PERM/R is mostly PERM/H (either "hat" or "Huggle") at this point, but I don't really see the problem with that. Sure, we could go with an AWB-like whitelist system, but, considering that existing processes prevent tools like Huggle from becoming a net negative to the encyclopaedia, why bother? The only real change I can see is that the tool will be marginally slowed down because it can't use the native API call anymore. Blablubbs|talk 10:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: if the issue is with rate, the revert change API method should be rate-limited with explicit permission (bot flag) to request removal or extension of the limit. ~ Chip🐺 19:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChipWolf: the issue is with pace and function more generally. Huggle is inherently a fast-paced tool, no matter the technical limits on revert rate, and it should stay one – allowing indiscriminate access to Huggle only to then modify the Rollback API and require people to be bot-flagged creates a problem just in order to solve it by expending unnecessary time and effort. I fail to see what's wrong with the current system; just like we do with AWB and bot operation, we require that users demonstrate some level of understanding of how to use them correctly. Blablubbs|talk 20:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:GAME our rules, got blocked for it, and is now trying to make it seem like they're a victim and that we're the problem is kind of sad. ~Swarm~ ^{sting}

02:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@

MEATBOT, no policy does or should restrict the use of specific software or modifications to open-source as these tools don't define policy ~ Chip🐺

19:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors cannot use the pagemove script without being a page mover because it utilises restricted perms so it literally can’t work properly without the right. Huggle doesn’t need to use software rollback, heck the software literally adds in undoafter for ‘rollback-like functionality’ which anyone can use. Ergo, the requirement Huggle developers choose to add is not policy. You can’t shoehorn BURO into this — it’s either policy or it isn’t, and it isn’t. It’s like me doing something someone else doesn’t like, then getting sanctioned under “I think this is silly, a policy doesn’t exist for me to block you but NOTBURO block because this is silly”. You will agree with me that would be unfair, yes? Also

WP:COMMONSENSE supports what this editor did: The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. - that revert improved, not caused harm to, the encyclopaedia. A good a use of IAR as any. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 11:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

saying that obviously the restriction applied to Huggle clones and that even bringing it up for debate was stupid not a stupid question at all. If the community wants to limit WP:ASSISTED and the fundamental right of free software development by making it so that all derivatives, even if substantially changed, must carry over access requirements set by the prior developer, that is a significant change which should definitely actually be codified into policy if it’s to be enforced. Probably at

WP:ASSISTED. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

PR, what a radically purist interpretation of IAR to apply it to software restrictions! It's invigorating to consider. But then what is to stop me from writing scripts that mimic restricted functions? It's possible to write a script (like the "nuke" script that was deleted by consensus) that partially blocks an editor from a page (or sitewide), or that protects a page by automatically reverting edits based on who made the edit. If the reverts that the script does are valid standing on their own, then they improve the encyclopedia and ergo it's OK to use the script? So I can write a "page protection script" and then go respond to RFPP requests (which are backlogged) on the theory that using scripted page protection improves the encyclopedia at least until the RFPP backlogged is cleared. Same with a blocking script and responding to AIV reports when it's backlogged. And if I can do that... I mean, I might actually do that, if it were allowed. In which case, we could almost deprecate the admin group along with rollbacker. But the nuke script raised holy hell, as I remember, so I'm not sure IARing around software restrictions is a concept that has consensus? And it seems to come down to unbundling. If an editor can fork Huggle and remove the rollbacker requirement, there is no reason to have a rollbacker requirement in Huggle at all. Similarly, if an editor can use a "page protection script", there's no reason to bundle protect right into the admin group; might as well just give it to everyone. But then if we did that with protect, or block, it would be chaos. I mean what I'm describing sounds even to me like some form of wikiterrorism, but I guess one person's wikiterrorist is another person's wikifreedom fighter? There must be a line somewhere? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well this is the thing: an editor is always accountable for their actions. Script or no script, disruption is disruption, and bad admin actions are bad admin actions. The community can impose restrictions on any editor's activity at AN/ANI. or that protects a page by automatically reverting edits based on who made the edit this is really automated editing, as you're not reviewing it, so it has to go through BRFA. Even if it's semi-automated (you have to click 'OK') you'll probably end up foul of

WP:MEATBOT

still applies.

The difference here is that the Huggle editor is using a tool and making the correct actions (presumably). If they made disruptive reverts, those would incur sanctions just like any other disruptive or otherwise problematic edit. If they showed a pattern of poor judgement and disruption, rollback is yanked / they're told to stop using their tool. If they fail to adhere, they get blocked for disruptive editing. If however they're doing good reverts and improving the encyclopaedia, well, nothing to see here... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm curious what this nuke script situation is about? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@PR: OIC... the automated/semi-automated distinction is a good place for that line. Re the nuke script: I was thinking of the super-rollback scripts like Twinkle Meganuke [14] [15]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I'm in agreement here, if the editor doesn't violate some other policy (MEATBOT/HOUNDING etc, as PR mentions) the line should be under clearly automated tools which require little to no human input ~ Chip🐺 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The line can be drawn anywhere that consensus decides it should be drawn, but it is totally unrelated to the specific technical mechanism by which edits are undone. This is a restriction related to encyclopedia-building, not something to be blatantly gamed by those with the technical know-how. Building an enclyclopedia is not a branch of computer science.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 18:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@

Phil: I'm not sure what this adds, but again I don't disagree with you ~ Chip🐺

19:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is where

WP:GAME comes into play. If the community places restrictions on a tool, you can't just clone the tool and run the clone instead. That's just basic, obvious Wikipedia norms. We've accounted for this. You can't circumvent rules by finding loopholes and exploits. The rules continue to apply. I don't get your fixation on "free licenses", it's literally so irrelevant. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you're automatically allowed to do it on Wikipedia, where we have our own rules. This entire thread is one of the more bizarre things I've seen in a while. ~Swarm~ ^{sting}

02:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing: the community didn't create a PAG prohibiting this - it could cover all of these cases with a sentence to BOTPOL or RB, and it didn't. It's certainly not mentioned in any PAG that I can find. Some editors requested the Huggle dev add controls, and the dev did, and that's a totally separate thing. If I add an access limitation to

WT:BOTPOL) nobody should be blocked for not actually making a single disruptive edit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 03:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

xaosflux sums this up better than I can: if someone is being disruptive that is already enough reason to step in, and if they are not then why care? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Did the community establish the rule that Huggle is restricted to Rollbackers? If so, then you're wrong, per

WP:GAME. If not, then an RfC is needed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting}

03:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I linked the Huggle thread above. Some editors made a feature request to the Huggle dev, who implemented it. See

WT:BOTPOL for the generic change proposed by Izno to make this formally a violation of BOTPOL, with multiple editors (not just me) pointing out the issues against this change. Equally, I do not get what the big issue here is. If the person makes a problematic edit with the tool, block them for that? If they don't, why are we trying to spend community time to block good faith editors who have done nothing wrong? ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 04:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion about whether someone has the right to clone a tool are irrelevant. A rollbacker is not someone authorized to use a certain tool—they are someone the community believes has the judgment required to know when an edit should be reverted without edit summary (or when a meaningless and automated boiler-plate edit summary is sufficient). Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A rollbacker is someone who has the user right "rollback". Any editor may do semi automated editing per

WP:ROLLBACK should add wording stating "use of anti-vandalism tools is limited to editors with the 'rollback' user right". iirc Twinkle core has a button that allows people to revert without summary, so we may want to start there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 04:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's simply, objectively, not true. A rollbacker is someone who has the technical authorization to the "rollback" tool, but they are also, by extension, authorized to use a much more powerful tool that most users will never have access to. Saying that rollbackers are merely users with access to a stupid, worthless MW software feature does not and will never make it so. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not entirely worthless, I use it all the time. What you say is contrary to the guideline: The Rollback user right provides users with a button that will revert, with a single click, the last edit to a given page, along with any consecutive previous edits made by the same editor to that page. - even if that is how we choose to use it currently. Why not propose changing the wording of

WP:RBK? If it's so obvious to some then adding it in will cause no harm, yes? But no admin should enforce their own version of the guideline without adding the change in with due process and adequate community scrutiny. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 04:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the longstanding status quo is perfectly appropriate and will continue to be perfectly appropriate. Huggle requires Rollback, that's just the way it is, and if you don't like that, I'm sorry. It's not some procedural irregularity. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it's not just me. Multiple admins have disagreed with this kind of enforcement, here, at the user talk, and at

WT:BOTPOL. It should be obvious that this is controversial enough that it should actually be passed by RfC to enforce. That a block for this was undone by another admin should be evidence enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 04:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Consider an unprivileged editor who found a flaw in MediaWiki and wrote a tool that allowed them to patrol new pages, or to change page protection, or block vandals. By the above reasoning, we would be arguing whether any of the editor's actions were inappropriate—if not, carry on, nothing to see here. I'm not saying that such an editor should be indeffed—indeed, we should thank them for finding a vulnerability. The point is that procedures are based on principles, not the particular words that appear in a policy, and the editor would have to stop using their tool. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that’s exploiting a software vulnerability to take privileged actions. Reverting is not privileged (the software basically provides rollback in the form of the “undoafter” param, available to all), distinct from "rollback" which is privileged but (as xaosflux said) has a very specific meaning in the MediaWiki software. Reverting with undoafter ≠ rollback. If it were, Twinkle would be banned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• I haven’t looked too closely at this; but the reason we usually say that people can’t use mass anti-vandal tools without rollback is that they become extremely annoying because of the MMORPG aspect if there isn’t some barrier to entry (I’ll go ahead and call out using
  Iridescent as he typically has sane views on stuff like this. TonyBallioni (talk
  ) 06:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  When Gurch originally wrote Huggle it didn't have an entry requirement, and very quickly had exactly the problem RedWarn had; it acted as a magnifier for overenthusiastic new editors who didn't really understand what they were doing and reverted too many good faith edits without explanation, so he added the "requires rollback" to allow us to take the permission away from editors without blocking them altogether. (There's no 'consensus' as such as he made the change unilaterally and nobody objected.)

  Wikipedia precedent is that what we appear to have here—forking mass-changes scripts as a way to grant oneself access to a tool one normally wouldn't be allowed to use—is considered "unauthorised bot use" and dealt with as such. See the histories of Rich Farmbrough and Magioladitis for the precedents. ‑ 

  Iridescent

  07:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  @

  ASSISTED; unless policy is changed, enforcing this loosely defined decision by a developer undermines the use of other semi-automated assisted-editing tools and indeed, development of new tools. PR frames this better than I can: this is the developer choosing to implement feedback, not a consensus creating an onwiki limitation in PAGs. Absent such policy, there is no tangible distinction between Huggle, Twinkle, or a custom-coded tool. ~ Chip🐺

  19:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  The issue with going off bot policy is that a significant number of people who think this type of behaviour is disruptive couldn’t care less what the bot policy says. It’s a fairly limited group of people who pay attention to it until there is some major catastrophe where a bot operator single-handidly manages to anger the entire community.

  There is widespread agreement that there should be a limit to these tools, and while it’s not a policy because our community (wisely) doesn’t dictate the specifics of what can and can’t be done for every piece of software, inevitably a check system is always put into these tools because of the aspect Iridescent and I mentioned: overeager new editors who have appointed themselves Guardians of the Wiki without understanding how the project functions.

  While you are free to fork open source software and use it, this community is also free to make the ad hoc decision that what you are doing is disruptive to how we function.

  Disruptive editing is a catch-all that covers people acting in a way outside of our behavioural norms. One of those norms is seeking input from the community when attempting to do something controversial. You have received input from the community that what you want to do is not welcome, and you’re arguing that you can do it anyway because of the license, which ignores the point that no one is discussing the license, but is instead discussing how you edit the English Wikipedia. That is disruptive, regardless of what any policy says. Part of working on a collaborative project is being willing to stop and slow down when people point out a concern to you, especially if that concern is shared by many people from varying backgrounds. I’m totally fine documenting this somewhere since we’ve apparently entered the age of people forking stuff when they’re told they can’t do something, but the fact that we haven’t documented it yet doesn’t mean it’s not a generally agreed standard of behaviour. TonyBallioni (talk

  ) 21:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  @

  DE and have also recieved input from some of the community that what I did is welcome. The license is only a small part of the conversation; I think it's the smallest and least relevant factor. You say part of working on a collaborative project is being willing to stop and slow down when people point out a concern to you, especially if that concern is shared by many people from varying backgrounds. What's most confusing to me here is I did stop and expressed that I had no intention to continue - until there's a formal change - immediately following the unblock, I said as much and have continued this discussion in attempt to reach some consensus on the topic. I'm here to point out one of my concerns - which I'd hope we're all entitled to do - and there's clearly still discussion to be had; the fact a unblock denial was reverted by another admin should be enough to highlight the clear controversy surrounding this topic. Collaboration does not imply one should accept the status quo. ~ Chip🐺

  22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. That you offered to stop is a good thing. I appreciate it. In terms of the “not seeing consensus”, depending on how you count it: there are roughly 9 editors saying what you’re proposing is disruptive and is outside of community norms and 4 saying it’s okay. That’s a greater than 2:1 ratio of this is not okay. Just because there’s some disagreement doesn’t mean that there isn’t a sense of don’t do that in this discussion. Consensus is not unanimity, and just because you and some others are vocally disagreeing doesn’t mean that the majority position isn’t the majority position. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  @

  WP:MULTI). Would you agree? ~ Chip🐺

  01:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  From what's been posted publicly, I think "welcome" is overstating a bit. There are those who don't think a block was warranted (and accordingly it was lifted), but I don't think anyone said that modifying Huggle is a welcome approach. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  @

  WP:COSMETICBOT and previous problematic editing. Unlike the present case, both seem to involve making bad edits with tools and neither seems to show tool modification. — Wug·a·po·des

  ​ 03:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  @

  Iridescent

  18:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the second, we should focus more on what sequences of actions should be limited rather than a specific tool or client. In other words, writing any script/tool/client to perform rapid reverts (or, perhaps more generally, any rapid sequence of edits) is a problem, whether or not you started with an existing tool. The problem is that many editors tend to think safety guards are for someone else. That's a policy problem to be resolved. Should anyone seeking to make edits quickly (through tools, scripts, or just clicking submit on many tabs in a row) be required to have rollback privileges? (This would effectively make rollback privilege a proxy for allowing all rapid sequences.) isaacl (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've opened a discussion at
  WT:ROLLBACK about explicitly limiting high-speed reversion software to rollbackers. – Teratix ₵
  23:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• My views on this align with TonyBallioni's. I'll add that, in my view, the community has already had the expectation for years that the rollback permission should be required for Huggle specifically. This is because it allows its user to make very rapid reverts that, when used incompetently, can result in an inordinate amount of damage to the project. Frankly, since Twinkle already provides the same onwiki-level functionality that rollback provides, I would go as far to say that
  WP:PERM/R review process by modifying and recompiling the source code. As far as a policy/guideline solution to this, I would support codifying the rollback requirement for Huggle and any tool that would provide Huggle-like rapid revert functionality. Mz7 (talk
  ) 08:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 24#BBC News et al (again) over the question of whether ABC News, BBC News, CBS News, NBC News, and Reuters should be referenced in {{Cite news}} with |publisher= or |work=. Interested wikipedians are encouraged to discuss it there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by these two FfD discussions by George Ho: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 20#File:PromiscuousSample.ogg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 20#File:Maneater sample.ogg.

Promiscuous (song) and Maneater (Nelly Furtado song) are discussing the songs. These samples are samples of the songs. What these articles are not discussing is the (also inserted as fair use) cover art, but interestingly nobody is going to drag cover art to FfD. I think Tom Scott illustrates my point quite well.

For these purposes, I'd say a song is an object. Poorly worded policy seems vaguely restricted to physical objects. When I read about a song, to understand what I'm reading about, a sample to identify the piece in question is helpful. The cover art, meh. I don't see the cover art when I hear it in the club, on the radio or TV. Cover art doesn't help me much to identify the work in question.

It's the same with movie posters. How many articles do we have about movie posters? As an example of a wiki that takes a different approach, compare The Shawshank Redemption and w:it:Le ali della libertà. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason we allow cover art is that that is used implicitly by whomever is publishing the work as marketing and branding to represent the work. It is equivalent to logo or branding and serves as the most official means to represent the work, even if it is an album or song, hence why we give such art allowances under

WP:NFCI#1

. Whereas the portion of a song selected for sampling is something that editors are selecting and thus lacks any type of official branding aspect. I would also say that not every notable song has a musical clip that would help the reader: some songs are notable not for how they sound but for simply that they were a song that gained popularity. Audio samples should only be present where there is critical commentary (sourced) discussing the musical composition of the song.

Also keep in mind that fair use is different in different countries, so its pointless to compare the different between how we handle it to others. --Masem (t) 16:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, sound files are more an accessibility problem compared to image files (which do have some but do not carry the same technical issues). --Masem (t) 16:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Cover art may be marketing to represent the work, but I could read an extensive article about a song I've never heard, later hear it on the radio and have no idea that the article I read was about this song I'm hearing because I can't identify it. For a company logo, I can't think of a more representative alternative for most companies. Though sometimes there would be: a store chain could be represented by a photo of one of the stores. For a company that makes physical products and is only known for one product, a photo of that product could be used. But the logo would appear in many places: on the company website, in advertising, on invoices, in press releases, on their buildings, etc. Songs are often distributed without their cover: in the club, on radio and web radio, on television (both with music video and as music for a film/documentary/etc), on official YouTube channels (where the music video is shown instead if available), as part of a mix, as part of a compilation.

I would also say that not every notable song has a musical clip that would help the reader: some songs are notable not for how they sound but for simply that they were a song that gained popularity.

It doesn't matter. To identify the song, a sample is needed. No company is notable because of it's logo. A cover only helps for instances where the cover is actually shown, like in stores, some streaming platforms and when you have access to a physical copy. If I heard a song on the radio and I think I heard the DJ announcing it, I could look it up on Wikipedia, but I wouldn't be sure that the article I'm reading is about the song I heard because the cover isn't helping me.

Also, sound files are more an accessibility problem compared to image files

What are you referring to? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither cover art or sound samples are there for the purposes of helping the reader to identify a work they may have seen or heard (we're not replacing Shazam), but to help connect the topic to the official branding that the company publishing it has opted to use, which may possibly help later help the reader identify the work but is not the sole purpose of that. And of course, an issue is of course which segment of a song are we going to sample? We can only pull a 10 second (at most) clip whereas a cover art is going to be the whole thing just reduced in size. That 10 sec clip may not be any part of the song that the reader was trying to match up. So no, expecting the reader to use WP to match up songs to what they heard is definitely not one of our primary functions

Any type of media file - audio or visual - while playable by most, can be an issue for older browsers or mobile users, as well as for other browser situations, in contrast to text and images which are straight forward. We don't disallow them, obviously, but we should not rely on them in the same manner as images. --Masem (t) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: It's actually 21 seconds for a three and a half minute song.

(we're not replacing Shazam), but to help connect the topic to the official branding that the company publishing it has opted to use

We're not replacing brochures either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of sample length, we still can't be sure that we're covering the portion of a song that a reader has heard, hence why that's not our functionality. And while no, we're not here to promote for the company, the branding is part of marketing and promotion that ties into how the publisher wants people to recognize the work which has implicit impact on understanding the topic. The basis of NFCI#1 has been around accepting that when we have a fixed image that we know is the official cover that the publishers have picked, and not a image selected at random by editors, we're avoiding OR of what is the best way to represent the work. This would always remain a problem with sound files. --Masem (t) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's inappropriate to put samples of commercial songs. --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I find the argument that a sample of a song helps the reader better understand the topic very convincing. It would give the reader some opportunity to connect the song to an occasion on which they have heard it before, and also give them some sense of what it sounds like. The question of which segment should be sampled can be answered as a matter of editorial discretion. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I remember reading an article about how Wikipedia should be written from a scientific POV, but I can't find it. Wikipedia in Hebrew is religionizing and I'm looking for a Wikimedia policy that deals with this issue of POV. Thanks, אנבה (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a truly global policy. Might be better to ask on Meta? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You might be thinking of User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased., which cites comments by Wales. Schazjmd (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy apart from stuff like rigorous

WP:LUNATICS. Johnuniq (talk

) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also an essay in the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. Graham87 04:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is relevant for biomedical topics. Fences&Windows

01:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Points raised in discussion are unanswered and not over

New year greetings;

I regret premature haphazard closure of the above discussion more over I am quite perplexed with closure note by User:SMcCandlish, It is sounding me some thing like some one putting words in my mouth. May be I started discussion while researching issue related to some other RfC, my sincere attempt has been to raise larger Points raised in discussion which are still unanswered and not over.

I expected and expect discussion remains open through January 15 Wikipedia's 20th birthday. And occasion of Wikipedia 20th anniversary has been specially mentioned in opening discussion. Neither important points raised through this thread are properly solved or nor answered to the entire satisfaction.

For example User:Largoplazo says, "...only that it's what they are most likely to look for (and therefore most useful). ..." If that is the case this rule needs to apply universally this way. Why do we then deprive and suppress titles Prophet Jesus or Prophet Muhammad  ? and many other titles like Jawad Naqvi, because people who are going to search Jawad Naqvi are most likely to look for the title in different way but that way is in some other language sources and not in English language sources, and that amounts to systemic linguistic and cultural bias because some holier than rest in popular English sources are introduced in some way and not so holier are introduced in some other way.

More than systemic bias side, I was expecting discussion to move on mentioning," 'statement of purpose' or 'statement of principle' or 'statement of value' behind avoiding

WP:COMMONNAME

defeats 'purpose', 'principle', value' behind not having HONORIFIC in Wikipedia article. (And IMHO, this important point is still remaining to be discussed ← Please do read again)"

I wanted to invite more people or take this discussion alternatively to other discussion forums. What are the rules for restarting discussion for those who have not participated yet or on those WP forums where still not discussed, pl. some one let me know.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is not necessary for every point to be addressed. A consensus has formed. Accept it and move on. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Things are moving on for last 20 years, I do have different questions and while moving on I will keep discussions going since issue is unsolved, I remain open to the the discussions now and for time to come. Thanks Bookku (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Your questions have been answered, as far as can be done when you refuse to say what in particular you are asking about, but the answer is simply not what you would like it to be. Wikipedia has general policies and guidelines, but they emerge from what editors have decided to do in particular cases, and all allow for exceptions. You seem to want policies and guidelines to be agreed first and then applied blindly to every situation, including those that were not anticipated by the creators of the policies and guidelines. You are welcome to hold such an opinion, but it does not have anything like consensus, and your approach is not the one that made Wikipedia so successful that there is very little market for other general encyclopedias.
      Phil Bridger (talk
      ) 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• My closure note says nothing about you at all. It just copy-pastes the closure of the actual RfC. There's nothing premature or haphazard about it; we had a formal consensus discussion on the matter concurrent with this thread, and it reached a clear conclusion. Keeping this
  WP:CAPITULATE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   😼  17:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, No moral right to connect other RfC on your own in closing note, Nor the respected user is uninvolved user to close above discussion.
• I don't have Phd in Wikipedia rules and still I confer 10 more Phds on the people who cite long list of rules that simply play game of denial. Thanks Bookku (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see:

Hi all

I've recently been writing about journalists who have been tortured and some users have been keen to state 'allegedly tortured' instead. Please could someone explain the policies for:

• What decides whether you can say someone tortured or allegedly torture? What proof is needed to say that torture has happened (ie what is the burdon of proof). Often people are tortured by their own government so a court saying they have been tortured is not a realistic standard. Is it just based on what the references say? If one or more references say they have been tortured then you can say tortured? If so how many and by who?
• Whether you can say someone has been tortured if the sources do not use the word torture but describes a method of torture eg they were handcuffed and force fed for months. Is there a list of methods which define torture that Wikipedia uses?

Note: I'm only asking what the policies are, not people's opinions on what constitutes torture, I want to understand what is correct to say under the policies and also if any definitions are missing from policies.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

On the first, off the top of my head,

WP:BLP

(if it applies) would be the obvious guidance. Context may be very different, depending on whatever.

On the second, if no sources use the word, WP probably shouldn't either. Write "he was

waterboarded" (if that's what the source says), not "he was tortured with waterboarding". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 11:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, on your second point could you point to where the policy is for this? Thanks John Cummings (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Again, context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 14:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: which parts of these large policies relate to these questions? John Cummings (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." If your source/sources doesn't say "torture", this reasonably applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, maybe I can ask the question in a different way to try and be more clear:

1. It is not original research to say that a swan is a type of bird, we know a swan is a kind of bird because of biological taxonomy
2. Does Wikipedia use taxonomies in other areas to describe that one thing is a part of another? If so does English Wikipedia use a specific taxonomy/definition which describes torture? There are several available, including many national and international laws.
3. Is it enough to say waterboarding is a type of torture because it is defined as a type of torture in a reliable source e.g https://www.refworld.org/docid/45c30bbf0.html (there are many sources in the article for waterboarding itself).

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you want a different answer, perhaps someone else will give it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• “Alleged torture” versus “torture”? Do what the reliable independent secondary sources do. Follow the sources. If the only source is the journalist themself, that is not enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think this applies to more claims than just those involving torture. There's probably room for someone to do some cleanup there. Consider, e.g., the opening sentence of Perseus (spy): if it's real, then it would only "allegedly" be a problem (so maybe if it's true, it'd be perfectly fine?). The Pregnancy Pact contains the world allegedly twice in the first sentence. I saw an article recently that said someone was accused of allegedly committing a crime, and I wondered why they accused him of only allegedly doing it, and not of actually doing it. Roy DeMeo contains a sentence about "the first known murder allegedly committed", which is self-contradictory: either the murder is known, or it's alleged, but it's not both. We could do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the guidance for editors who contribute and maintain identical content across multiple articles? I see editors now who feel their content is appropriate for 3, 4 or 5 articles, and create an original paragraph or two, and then insert it in all those articles. Then I see a typo or other opportunity for edit, and I am forced to make not 1 but 5 edits. I see someone else make a valid edit to one article, should I replicate that edit 4 more times? I do not presently have the tools to ease this kind of editorial maintenance burden. Can transclusion be used to keep the original content in one place, and display it elsewhere, just for ordinary article text and references? Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

From a purely technical perspective,

selective transclusion can be used and it is used in some articles already. As to whether it SHOULD be used in any specific case is going to be an editorial decision. I can think of situations where 2 or more articles might start off sharing a common paragraph, but with the intent that content changes to those paragraphs be unique to the pages they are on. I can also think of situations where the opposite is true - where you want a change in one article to be mirrored in the others. Also, when the amount of shared content is small, like a sentence or two in the middle of a larger paragraph, it's rarely worth the overhead to set up selective transclusion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs

) 🎄 19:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Selective transclusion has been used in the COVD-19 articles. It has saved some work (update the stats in one place, not five) but resulted in a lot of complaints about how hard it is to edit the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• From a descriptive current policy perspective, our guidance is at
  WP:CONTENTFORK, which is mostly about forking entire articles but can easily be applied on the level of paragraphs.

  Switching to a normative "what should our policy be?" perspective, I think we ought to use transclusion a lot more widely than we do, since it helps the encyclopedia grow faster by allowing contributions to one page to benefit multiple pages rather than requiring wasted duplicate effort. The {{Excerpt}} template being developed by Sophivorus can be used to make it relatively easy, although it still sometimes confuses newcomers or generates pushback from more experienced editors who aren't used to it. Hopefully those problems will diminish as excerpting becomes more widespread and we refine our templates/documentation/etc. to make it easier to understand. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk
  11:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm having trouble picturing why I would want to have identical content of a paragraph or more in multiple articles. I admit that I have done this, but those articles were not fully-developed; as an article matures I find that I have to rewrite the shared content, for example to change the emphasis, wherever that material appears. If one or more paragraphs must be identical, I have to wonder if a better answer would be to put the shared identical material in its own article & link to it. Which raises the issue of usability: at what point should ancillary information be included in an article, & when should it be linked to? (And having said all that, yes I know that one can never make hard-&-unchangeable rules about how to write an article: there will always be a case where doing something against all logic is the best solution.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I could see this coming up in stat boxes on articles with two people who competed as a team, and therefore have exactly the same statistics. Meryl Davis and Charlie White is the example that comes to mind, it seems like having the stats all in one place instead of duplicates in each article would streamline things a bit in that scenario (indeed, someone suggested that on the talk pages of those articles and I supported it, but I didn't and still don't have the technical capacity to implement it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I just demonstrated how it'd work for the "programs" section; feel free to convert the other appropriate sections as well if you'd like. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  I will leave your demo alone, but do ask: Should the {{

  Davis and White, so the change to a link would resolve that — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me}

  15:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are definitely situations where tranclusion is beneficial. For example, a list article may grow to the point where it makes sense to split it into multiple sub-lists (broken out by nation or state... or A-E, F-J, K-O, and P-Z, etc)... the original intro paragraph could work for all of these sub-lists, and so it would make sense to “host” it at one and transclude into all the others. Chances are, we would want any change to the common intro to be reflected at all the sub-lists.

However, there are also situations where transclusion would not be beneficial. When two or more topics overlap, it may make sense to repeat a paragraph or two verbatim when initially setting them up... but it would not make sense to use transclusion (as that would make it difficult for subsequent editors to add, remove or amend the text in the individual articles as the various articles grow and develop over time).

So, no one policy “rule” can be made here. When (and whether) to repeat text on multiple articles - and whether to transclude when doing so - has to be made on an article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My point wasn't to set policy on this matter. It was to point out that wanting to maintain the identical text over several articles may not be the right solution, because the shared text may need to be changed in each article as they evolve; the solution sought may not be the right one. Although The Blade of the Northern Lights did come up with good examples where the shared information would be best maintained in one place. -- llywrch (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I suspect that this happens a fair bit when a set of new articles are created from a single source. For example: this search finds 12 articles sharing the same three paragraphs. The common text is not enough for a separate article, but probably does stand as a section in each of the 12 articles — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• The transclusion being discussed here has been implemented in the past at Non-visa travel restrictions, which is currently transcluded onto hundreds of articles of the form Visa requirements for United States citizens with "United States" replaced by various countries. That said, I think it is best to use this technique sparingly and there should be hatnotes indicating the transclusion - otherwise a reader reading multiple articles may get an unpleasant sense of deja vu. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You might receive more monetary support for your operation if you didn’t require the benefactor’s email address. I know that’s what stopped me. This should be an optional field: Wikipedia doesn’t need it to process a donation, and people get tired of having to delete so much junk from their inbox. - Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.254.140 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WMF folks who set up the donation system really monitor this board; does anyone know who we ought to ping or where we ought to forward this feedback? I doubt they'd remove the email since it's useful for sending a receipt, but they might want to add a "we promise not to spam you" notice when they ask for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, There's a WMF tab within this board. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I'll go further and suggest this discussion should be removed as it is not an English Wikipedia policy and thus doesn't literally belong here. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We usually just leave these discussions (usually ignored or responded to just once) to be auto-archived. Otherwise, I have directed the existence of this thread to a responsible WMFer offwiki. --Izno (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There are other ways to give that would not require an e-mail address. The options are at [16]. You can send suggestions about the fundraising to [email protected]. RudolfRed (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was advised this is the place to make such a proposal (and I was going to wait for dust to settle from this election, but it appears it never will)....so here goes. As I am sure many here are aware: there are some issues as far as articles that deal with politics go. In short, we have a real problem with a lot of activist editors. There are a few who go from article to article with a agenda. The end result is something I think no one who observes NPOV wants. I could give a lot of examples....but it may be best to save it for right now. You may be reading and thinking well, if these "activists" are observing RS [and so on]....what is the problem? The problem with that is it ignores how malleable and open to interpretation the rules here are. (That is (after all) one of the reasons we have RFCs.) Some I have talked to feel that more editors is the answer. I fall more into the category of thinking some concrete, overall article standards are in order. Some articles are veering into tabloid category at this point. (And are unlike any Encyclopedia I have ever read that deals with such topics.)

What to do? What would make sense to me is some sort of oversight committee (for a lack of a better term). What to oversee? A lot of the big name/high profile/historical articles are in decent shape (although I've always thought (for example) that when you put the MSNBC & CNN articles side by side with the Fox News article, you gotta wonder if it is intended as a joke)....it's when you get to the stuff that's bit lower that things start getting crazy. So, a group to monitor/edit a revolving list of articles (maybe a few consistently) would be (I think) beneficial. Typically when people show up in the news, that's when their page goes nuts. (And frankly, while we are on the topic, a lot of these pages have guard dogs that have very strong opinions (read: bias) one way or the other.) At the very least....a committee that can hopefully curb the (current) trendline and create consistency from article to article in subjects that deal with politics. Not sure if we have the personnel (or inclination)for it.....but thanks for hearing me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See the current top thread on this page "NPOV-problems on Wikipedia" (if it doesn't get archived soon). The broader issue is that we have both external and internal issues colliding; we're struggling externally with a ongoing culture war while the media that we take as RS is in their current mode of accountability journalism (making them more willing to point fingers than report neutrally), and internally, we're struggling with the principle of

WP:RECENTISM (distinguishing when facts that can be added immediately between opinions and analysis that should wait for some filtering) and the fact that many editors (myself included) likely feel the urge to make sure that, for example, those responsible for the events of last week are held accountable, but struggling to keep the language of our articles neutral. That is: everything externally and internally is stacked against the farther-out conservative voice but we have to stay ideologically neutral as best we can, and that's a site wide problem, not just a handful of articles. An oversight committee would not help that in that that would be far too much of a workload; I'd expect we'd need to lock down far too many articles. What we need is a better acknowledgement this is a problem first and foremost, as there still seems to be some subset of editors that don't think this is an issue despite the numerous threads we have on it for several years, and the routine issues brought up at BLP/N and NPOV/N. Once there's better agreement that we know there's external and internal issues that are systematically working against NPOV, then we can figure out the right ways to course correct as a whole. --Masem (t

) 21:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. I noticed the thread you were talking about....but it didn't quite zero in on the points I wanted to focus on enough for me. You also make good points with regards to

WP:RECENTISM. That's been a big part of the problem as well.Rja13ww33 (talk

) 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I realize you're getting to something else now that's related. I will offer that one aspect that is related to what you're trying to get at is that because Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are all cable news networks with online presences, their article structures should be very very similar from the top, and only vering to other topics - like controversies - later in the article. I expect a History section, a type of "Current Programming" section, a type of "Demographics/Viewership" section, a section on any media leanings/biases, and then probably at that point the remaining structure is likely depending on what is available. Just looking at the TOCs of these articles, I can tell that's not there, and that's a good sign that the bias I talk of above is influencing these articles. --Masem (t) 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The article on Fox News doesn't resemble the article on CNN because the ReliableSource coverage of Fox doesn't resemble the ReliableSource coverage of CNN. As far as Wikipedia goes, that's the end of that. And if you're wondering why ReliableSource coverage of Fox differs from ReliableSource overage of CNN, I'll note that CNN was established to provide conventional 24-news news coverage. In contrast Fox was established with an explicitly political mission, to be an explicitly politically-conservative network. Fox was launched with a Republican political strategist (Roger Ailes) as chairman and chief executive. That's like launching a "news" network with George Soros or Nancy Pelosi in charge. Unsurprisingly many Reliable Sources have reported on how Fox's explicitly political agenda and political-strategist-management has corrupted Fox's content, including Fox going anti-science whenever the science doesn't suit the political agenda. In a notable bit of irony, Newsmax is now stealing away Fox viewers by hammering Fox News as Radical Liberal Media. Alsee (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS IDing MSNBC's coverage as having a left tilt. In fact, this is mentioned on it's respective page: [17]. But note it is not noted in the LEAD. (Unlike Fox) Same deal with CNN....except this is buried so far down on CNN, you have to go to their controversies page to find it. [18]. And even there, the word "liberal" doesn't appear once. This isn't just about the networks. Moving on to pundits. Look at Eleanor Clift's page [19]. The fact she is a left-winger and has been (jokingly) called Eleanor "Rodham" Clift for her frequent defense of Hillary Clinton is of course NOT noted. (In fact it's a pretty flattering bio.) Now go to her counterpart across the aisle (for years) on the McLaughlin Group: Fred Barnes [20]. Not surprisingly, a quote calling him a "perfect Bush hack" is included. So Freddie is a "perfect Bush hack"....but Eleanor is just another commentator. I could go on here...we can start comparing (say) Candace Owens page to the Julianne Malveaux page. Or the Tucker Carlson page to the Paul Begala page. (Anyone knowledgeable about these pundits would quickly recognize a lot of less than flattering quotes are included for one side, but not the other.) But I think my point is made to anyone who believes in NPOV or impartiality. I think if you look at the LEAD of a lot of people who ran for office this last time....you should see some issues as well. I can come up with a itemized list beyond this.....but anyone should be able to look at these pages and see the problem quicklyRja13ww33 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The

WP:WEIGHT is different. And you won't find RS that describe MSNBC in terms equivalent to "the most profitable propaganda machine in history"[21] or "Known for its unabashed Republican bias, pro-Donald Trump rhetoric, blurring of fact and opinion"[22], anywhere. The pages are different because the subjects are different. IHateAccounts (talk

) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is much of an excuse for not noting a outlet has a overwhelming bent (backed by RS). We put the label on plenty of other sources describing their political bent (regardless of how profitable they are).Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that MSNBC (to use the first you mentioned) has "an overwhelming bent" is a pretty fantastical claim that'd need very solid RS sourcing provided. It sounds more like you're just arguing for creating

WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is against policy. IHateAccounts (talk

) 00:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Did you read [23]?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You keep arguing from your own personal opinion and viewpoint. If you want to demonstrate there is a problem, you would have to show that an article isn't reasonably summarizing reliable source coverage of that topic. I haven't paid much attention to MSNBC (I alternate between watching CNN&Fox) but as I understand it many sources do identify MSNBC as on the left, but that doesn't imply the coverage of MSNBC is equal in quantity and nature to the coverage of Fox. As far as I'm aware, MSNBC is not and never was managed by a professional political operative. As far as I'm aware, MSNBC has not repeatedly argued in court that they have a free-speech right to lie and deceive (while legally true, it nakedly exposes Fox's prioritization of political agenda over honest reporting). While MSNBC is on the left and Fox is on the right, they don't act the same and the coverage of them isn't the same. Expecting our article on them to look the same is a fallacy of false equivalence. Alsee (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's kind of interesting you say I am arguing from my "own personal opinion and viewpoint" when that is exactly what you are doing. Even more amazing, you acknowledge the fact MSNBC is left-wing....but it appears the excuse for not mentioning this in their lead is 1)Fox has been managed by a "professional political operative", 2) "quantity and nature" in the two are not comparable, and 3) Fox "has argued it has free-speech right to lie and deceive". #1 & 3 are obviously ridiculous arguments and about the best, worst-case examples of

WP:RECENTISM as Masem noted. And I might add: the selectivity of the application of those rules.Rja13ww33 (talk

) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Part of the problem is that Fox is still considered even "generally reliable" in any category, and only in "no consensus" for politics and science, which is a sad commentary on the number of editors who are inside the right-wing/fox cult. There's really no reason for anyone to be trusting Fox for facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Outside of right-wingers, I don't think anyone trusts "Fox for facts". I certainly don't. This isn't about where a network stands.....or even about Fox, this is about double standards and something that resembles a encyclopedia.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also be concerned by such a divergence from our default position that, in content, we don't raise the standing authority of anyone. I do get the sourcing concerns - another way that even people acting in GF can get a false consensus reading is that left-wing groups and publications are traditionally more likely to split and form new groupings than the right. This means there are, just generally, more left wing-sources. Even given an even judgement on which ones were reliable, a left-wing interpretation will likely occur. It's not intentional by them, and it's a logical action by any editor, but it has that outcome. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This parallels a comment I had related to a Signpost Opinion article[[25]]. My hypothetical was based around the case that, per Adfonts's media ratings there appeared to be 7 sources that fit into a second tier but still good, not too biased (left or right) category. Of those 6 were left, one was right. If all 7 covered the same topic and all approved/disapproved stricktly according to their bias, how should Wikipedia handle it? Would we treat the [left view] as the majority view? Would we treat these as roughly balanced views using the single source to speak for the [right view]? Would we decide that 1 out of 7 makes the [right view] fringe? Do we assume a level of echo chamber/churnalism with the sources on the [left view]? My comments were hypothetical and assumed that sources would act in a pure left/right way and those are the only 7 RS available. Reality will never be that clear cut but the overall impact on our work is probably not zero. Springee (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I struggle to see how this is a problem in itself. The left-right lean of news organizations isn't simply a reflection of leftist in-fighting; demographically speaking, the target audience of conservative news (at least in the US which this conversation seems focused on) has been the numerical minority for decades. The conservative champion has, in the last six presidential elections, received a plurality of the vote only once: namely in the
      WP:RGW. — Wug·a·po·des
      ​ 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I concur strongly with @Wugapodes: the idea that somehow, conservative sources are being maligned when they are found to be less-than-reliable, fails to account for the American political issue of Asymmetric Polarization[26] over the past few decades. The problem is not unique to wikipedia in the slightest, despite the unfortunate tendency of conservatives on wikipedia to accuse other editors of somehow being biased against conservatives or "conservative media" (a form of "playing the refs"[27]).

1. Conservative media, because of asymmetric polarization, tends towards a strong bias that degrades reliability, preferring to promote falsehoods and relax or ignore editorial standards in service of viewpoint. The same is not true of outfits like CNN or MSNBC, which on an actual political spectrum fall somewhere in the center or light center-left zones; you have to go into the realms of fringe sites and often those tend to just be a mishmash.
2. Through and within conservative-media channels and social media, "go more extreme to get more engagement" has been the model. Newsmax and OAN can't peel off viewers from Fox from the center, because there are already multiple other outlets serving a centrist or "barely left" position in the USA, according to a classic political spectrum. So Newsmax and OAN go further on the scale rightwards, from "arch-conservative" into fully reactionary territory, and Fox reacts by drifting more extreme rightwards as well, trying to hold their viewership numbers.
3. The same is true for other areas of conservative media, such as talk radio (where sure, Limbaugh is still noontime "king", but other hosts such as Savage or Levin regularly try to out-extreme, out-bigoted or out-bloodthirsty each other for ratings), or the various blog/shock pages that occasionally go viral on social media before having to change their names because they were added to the spam filters or discovered to be run by provocateurs in a troll mill in Russia or Ukraine[28]. And of course the
   Law Enforcement Today
   .
4. Likewise, conservative media's stock-in-trade for their ratings isn't the nightly news or real news; it's the production of "this will make you angry" stories, where the facts don't matter as long as the rage is authentic[29], that come to them filtered through right-wing blogs and outfits of orwellian names like "Project Veritas".

At the heart of this is the same

WP:FALSEBALANCE problem that seems to keep coming around and around. The factual record shows that conservative media tend to fail reliability standards, but this is not due to some kind of inherent bias in wikipedia. It's because conservative media are less interested in being reliable; following ethical fact-checking standards and journalistic integrity practices creates coverage that doesn't sell to their audience. Their economic incentive is to cast off reliability in favor of the stuff that encourages anger addiction.[30] IHateAccounts (talk

) 00:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out that we're fighting the attempt to create false balances for things like Fox News is important, but I think we have a second problem that is not well addressed here in that is the opposite of the false balance, being that we tend to overload articles on any group or person seen as "negative" from the reliable sources with every iota of negative information that we can source, making their article a scarlet letter or a checklist of every "bad" thing that they convincedly did under the pretense that "RS reported negatively on this group, so we can do that." We can't whitewash away Fox's poor reputation, but piling on "bad things" is just as inappropriate as forcing in "good things" to create a false balance. The best advice we have on this is

WP:CSECTION, in that we should try to avoid criticism sections or the like and better integrate criticism into an article's body. In the same manner, we should look at criticism of Fox news more holistically. Oh, they ran another article trying to downplay climate change, the third time this month? We probably don't need yet another sentence about that, but instead look to a section that talks overall how Fox has downplayed climate change for decades, rather than focusing on an individual event. There will still be individual events that have to be highlighted (Pizzagate stands out for Fox here), but we can be far more careful to avoid excessively detailed criticism timelines and focus more on large scale ones. --Masem (t

) 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"being that we tend to overload articles on any group or person seen as "negative" from the reliable sources with every iota of negative information that we can source" - that's an odd way to misspell "we're following the

WP:WEIGHT policy correctly. IHateAccounts (talk

) 01:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite it, though. Due weight should be applied to the entity as a whole over the long time scale, rather than in microcisms of events, which is where this problem comes from (too much of a NOT#NEWS/proseline approach). Due weight says we wouldn't note every instance that Fox News denies climate change, but instead broadly report that this is something Fox News often does and explain why they have taken this position. More specificly, there is a current section "Glenn Beck's comments about George Soros" which is exactly the time of over excessive focus that in the larger scope of Fox News seems excessive, given very little long-term impact of the events on Fox News itself. There is a place for it - likely at Glenn Beck's page, but its one of those things people have laundry-listed onto the Fox page just because "Oh, reliable sources have covered it, so it must be DUE". --Masem (t) 04:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that Beck's anti-semitic attacks went on for years, fully supported by Fox, this single-paragraph section appears entirely

WP:DUE. IHateAccounts (talk

) 15:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

But not from a larger-picture aspect. In contrast, sections like "Pro-Republican and pro-Trump bias" (in title/theme) are good broad discussions in this form, though within it gets too into some specifics, while Fox's role in the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories was very central and should be specifically called out. Beck is but one of several hosts Fox has that are troublesome, and a broad section about those hosts would be reasonable, covering the general criticism not only Beck but Tucker Carlson, etc. and Fox's lack of action or their support for them. In other words, I'm not saying that these aren't appropriate things to talk about, but the amount of detail is far too much, driven by the claim that these were covered with respect ot DUE, and that contributes to the perception of bias in these articles. We're an encyclopedia, and should be covering these in very broad, big-picture strokes, which if done correctly will still show Fox has a strong bias (no whitewashing of bad stuff), but handled with a bit more decorum expected for a neutral work that we're supposed to be. --Masem (t) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A multi-year antisemitic attack chain on someone by a prime-time host, including "three-part special reports" and other incitement, all supported by Fox's executives? If you don't think that a single paragraph covering this is

WP:DUE, I question your judgement. IHateAccounts (talk

) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As a single section? Yes, I think it is, when we know multiple other hosts of Fox News have similar criticism. Its the singular focus on one host, being the problem, not the inclusion of it in geenral. (Particularly, in considering what Fox's reaction to it is based on articles from the same short time period around Nov. 2010). Calling out Fox's support of Beck obviously should stay, but part of a broader section about its controversial hosts that would include Beck and Carlson and others. --Masem (t) 15:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think the section needs expansion, then expand it, but it's ridiculous to claim that any of the merely 8 sentences in that single paragraph, each strongly sourced, are not

WP:DUE. IHateAccounts (talk

) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact @

WP:WEIGHT of coverage. IHateAccounts (talk

) 16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I replied there and I think you got my point: basically when it comes to criticism, the Fox News article demonstrates far too much focus on the microscopic (short term/narrow focus) aspects, when criticism should be approached fom a macroscopic view. In the case of the Fox News article, this is a matter of better summarization of some of the criticism sections to remove some of the highly-specific aspects and bringing in coverage of more broader criticism to make it a better summary at the macroscopic scale. This is a better way of approach the DUE issue since you're looking at the criticism across the broad range of both sourcing and time so you're talking enduring problems with Fox. To stress, there are still specific events like coverage of Seth Rich's murder that should still be singularly focused on because of Fox's direct contribution to that. But I think you are seeing what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to talk any further than that in terms of neutrality (compared to where I've seen IP /new editors "demand" the removal of bias). --Masem (t) 16:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IHA, Wuga, perhaps the context of my comments, when removed from the original location was lost. I'm not suggesting that we dump our current NPOV policies nor that there is some sort of conspiracy against conservative sources. I think our NPOV policy is a bit like a democracy, problematic but better than the alternatives since we have yet to find the "Unbiased Dictatorial Editor From On High" to fix things. That doesn't mean we can't be aware of the system's blind spots with respect to producing better articles. Springee (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Re: we have yet to find the "Unbiased Dictatorial Editor From On High" - sure we have, take a look here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

While clearly an excellent judge of all things knowledge, their lack of power beyond simple pleading suggests they would fail the dictator requirement :D Springee (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Worldwide density of geotagged Wikipedia articles

Worldwide density of named places in GeoNames

Worldwide density of geotagged images on Wikimedia Commons

One of our most severe systemic biases is too much focus on the United States (of which this discussion is an example) when compared to the 6 billion other people living in the world.

I meant my comment as more a reflection on this genre of VP posting than as a direct response to you or NBB. It's not lost on me that we have a bias, and I'm not trying to deny that we have an under-representation of American conservatives. My point is that any solution other than

WP:SYSTEMIC and publicly at criticism of Wikipedia. We are not discussing something revelatory or new or even interesting. We have this thread every few weeks, and yet no one seems to see the irony that our discussions of systemic bias suffer from systemic bias. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wug, I think we can observe WEIGHT, DUE, and so on and still look like a encyclopedia. (Even if the source count is 100-1.) One of the 5 pillars here is that. Anyone who can look at some of these articles (that relate to politics) and say that looks like one.....they have never picked up a encyclopedia in their lives. We do a better job presenting the wackiest UFO CTs than we do on some of this stuff. Look at the Candace Owens article. You find me one article on Encyclopedia Britannica that looks like that (especially with all the out of context quotes).....and I'll stop talking on this.....for a while anyway :) Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia were unaffected by the biases of the contributors it would be an accomplishment without precedent in human history. And there's probably more Assadists here than Republicans. --RaiderAspect (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  "we have a real problem with a lot of activist editors." non issue, hurray for activist editors, whatever their position, it all gets ironed out in the end, and we somehow manage to knock articles into shape. As long as folk follow

  WP:RECENTISM is the real problem, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but editors keep writing stuff as if they are reporting on current events. We should let the dust settle, but we don't, perhaps that should change? Acousmana (talk

  ) 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Only problem is: this stuff isn't getting "ironed out"....and a lot of these articles aren't "into shape".Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the diagnosis but not the prescription. The problem with an content oversight committee is that it would create hierarchical editorial control, and that's contrary to the flat editorial model that is basically the core of Wikipedia. Having a small group of people who could overrule broader consensus is anathema to the anyone-can-edit model, and frankly IMO it would create more POV issues than it solves. So what is the right prescription? More editors will certainly help; recruitment is still the #1 priority for this project IMO. But I also think fewer editors might be the answer. My impression (which you can check for yourself using a tool like Who Wrote That) is that the entire AP2 topic area is dominated by a few ("few" meaning less than 20, maybe less than 10) editors who edit all the AP2 articles, including boatloads of negative information in certain articles but not others. These editors are also frequent fliers at noticeboards like ANI and AE. I think they should be given less leeway, meaning topic bans should be issued more frequently, even against veteran editors, who disrupt this topic area. Sometimes I think a broad, group topic ban (which has been suggested before) is the way to go. Our articles aren't the way they are by accident; there is a group of editors who volunteer a lot of their time to make them that way, for better or worse. (And this isn't just for AP2, but in pretty much every DS topic area.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We also have a general problem , not limited to political-dealing articles, of how we incorporate "current" elements into existing articles. It is more the exception than the rule that an article on an active company, artist, actor, or similar entity frequently in the news is written in a summary manner, and instead much more commonly you'll see proseline proseline proseline, with no attempt to focus on the big picture and move away from NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM. Political-dealing articles make it worse only because you get the addition of sourced commentary but without long-term context on that commentary to know how representative it is of the larger picture. --Masem (t) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Sounds like folks just don't like what reliable sources are saying. That's the only NPOV issue I can see here. A debate about bias, full of bias, it's like a Monty Python skit.
  talk
  ) 01:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To that, I'd add that Wikipedia articles naturally grow by small additions, so whatever the topic — politics, science, art history, anything — they can end up full of trivia and lacking a clear organization. Sure, Candace Owens doesn't read like a Britannica article, but then neither did Quantum mechanics until we put in the effort to revamp it. The root of the problem isn't political "bias", it's the long tail: most edits to a wiki are going to be small modifications. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Have to agree with Bacondrum and XOR'easter; every time I see this it's the same stuff, people saying "you're not being NPOV on politics" when what they mean is, they want
      WP:FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing. IHateAccounts (talk
      ) 16:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

not being NPOV on politics? OK, so can we state that is was mostly white men that stormed the capitol last week? Seems not, apparently that's a point of view. Acousmana (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Most IP/new editors that come onto WP and make assertions on the political NPOV points are likely going to be seeking impossible solutions involving false balance and whitewashing, which is usually a first suggestion on seeing a article written with an apparent ideological bias. But there is a very valid concern that myself and others have that when it comes to topics generally seen in the negative light by the body of RSes we have that we write in a manner that "gangs up" on that topic to include every ounce of criticism and detest that can be pulled from RSes about that topic, and the writing tone and approach loses all sense of impartiality. It is completely possible to still write in a neutral, dispassionate tone that summarizes the broad concerns and complaints about a topic from the body of RSes without making it read like a biased article; this is what NPOV demands; it won't require adding content as to create the false balance, nor would require removing the broader complaints to white wash a topic (some specifics that are not significant at the large scale may be removed though), but more often (as least when I review these) simply involves wording choices, ordering of information, and delegation of information to other more appropriate articles. --Masem (t) 16:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at