Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 31

• I think this misses the point a bit. Spoilers and suspense aren't related to
  WP:NOT#PLOT is intended to prohibit. —Kww(talk
  ) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• But doesn't that example slant the discussion a bit? Consider the
  W.S. Gilbert play Randall's Thumb, which is mostly a plot summary because the plot is most of what is available about the work. That article recently ran on the main page at DYK and nobody challenged it because Victorian theatre and a notable playwright are generally acknowledged as more highbrow than [insert any television series name here]. The underdeveloped Hill Street Blues article barely conveys how its groundbreaking use of overlapping story arcs has influenced television series writing structure for more than a quarter of a century. Yes, terrible unreferenced and unencyclopedic articles do exist that are long plot summaries and nothing else; those deserve improvement or deletion. But to deprecate plot as an encyclopedic element of fiction? I can't quite agree with that as a principle. Durova³²¹
  03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support with Gavin's amendment:In contrast to SarekOfVulcan, I prefer this simply because it does prohibit the creation of plot-only stubs. Any version of WP:NOT#PLOT that didn't prevent plot-only articles wouldn't serve the purpose.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to assume that PLOT was brought in to prohibit the creation of plot-only stubs. On what do you base that assertion? From memory, my mind was more towards guiding editors to add more encyclopedic content rather than to prohibit anything. I'm fairly sure on that point because I'm not a prohibitionist. I'd appreciate your recollection though, it may aid mine. I don't care that plot-articles might hang around, but I do care that articles might get reverted away from an encyclopedic tone to wards a plot tone. That's the more important point, and the point PLOT was aiming at. Hiding T 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think avoiding the accumulation of plot-only permastubs is equally important. Infobox+plot is a page in a TV guide, not in an encyclopedia. If there's legitimate reason to believe that the article can grow, there's probably not much reason to rush around deleting it. If it is just a typical TV episode article that will never grow beyond a TV guide page, there's no reason to keep the TV guide page around. If something happens to make a more extensive article appropriate, the infobox can alway be reconstructed from the list.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that permastubs should likely be merged elsewhere, but I disagree that this policy should be used to prohibit them. Of course we want the information added, so that it can be sifted and mined for gold. Let's not talk about prohibiting editors from doing anything, but instead talk about ways of improving content already added by editing it appropriately through merging and copy-editing. Hiding T 11:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• More to the point, every phrase in NOT, just like every policy and guideline, should only be applied to an article once it has had time to be expanded. That is, CSD/NPP filter out stuff on the creation end, but once it's past that (give or take false positives), we need appropriate time to allow articles to grow before screaming "that fails!" at them. How much time, that's always for debate, but I'd say at least a month. Thus, yes, TV episodes, etc will be created with only plot and info box, but over time they can be merged back to more appropriate lists if they fail to expand beyond their plot. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww's "Any version of WP:NOT#PLOT that didn't prevent plot-only articles wouldn't serve the purpose" is totally unrealistic. What % of FAs and GAs on fiction-like topics started as plot summaries or equivalent? Plot-only articles are the seed from which GAs and FAs grow. --Philcha (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Durova has already stated her argument so nicely that I can only add "per Durova" to this. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Durova. I do recognise Gavin's point and also think it is highly desirable to emphasise the importance of commentary, criticism and impact. The salient issue is what happens when an article only has a plot. Given we're an encyclopedia, I'd push for leaving a plot in until commentary can be found, but I am aware others disagree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Durova³²⁰ 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support An encyclopedic article on a fictional work should have a reasonable plot summary. I also agree with the issue, not raised here, that an article must have significantly more than just a plot summary. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Suppport - though normally detest writing a word and bolding it. Mainly per Durova's rationale, we are here to inform, not entertain.
  ^{The clock is ticking....}
  05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's hard to imagine a decent article on a fiction-like topic (incl e.g. films and some games) without plot summary. --Philcha (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose "sometimes" is more accurate than "usually" in my opinion.
  Chillum
  15:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support if discussing a fictional work, if you don't explain the plot, then you're leaving out atleast half the information related to the importance of the subject (ie. the content that caused its controversy or popularity or whatever) It's like discussing Romeo and Juliet without ever explaining that it's a tragic love story, or MacBeth without explaining guilt and revenge. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I support this change with Gavin's proposed addition - that plot coverage is appropriate as part of balanced coverage. I don't want to encourage plot-only permastubs. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support "Usually" - Articles on fictional topics not containing some sort of plot summary are the exception, not the rule (indeed, I find it hard to think of a situation where the plot is not worth any mention whatsoever); the fact that some plot summaries are poorly done is an orthogonal issue. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - That always was a weird thing to say that didn't reflect consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. There are so many culture rackets these days, where the people who write in the literary pages of the newspapers churn out favourable reviews of each other's work, that it's often better to shape articles around the plot summary until you get some meaningful commentary. Ottre 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I would support changing "sometimes appropriate" to "usually inappropriate". There may be a few cases where a plot summary is appropriate, but I can't think of one off the top of my head at the moment. Most articles about books, movies, and the like would be greatly improved by removing their plot summary. +
  gr
  06:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You think someone who has never read Romeo and Juliet would be no less well-informed were the plot summary excised? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support—obviously. An article about a work of fiction cannot be complete without a plot summary. I would also extend this provision to articles about songs, but that might be more debatable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support "usually" for the reasons above.filceolaire (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, works that don't need a plot summary probably don't need it because they have no plot, which is the exception not the rule. And no amendments. Gavin's amendment seems to be a backdoor to delete any plot details in spinoff articles not directly about the work itself, so meh to that (articles that were soley "Plot of X" were deleted long ago). SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Plot summary is usually necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support changing "sometimes appropriate" to "usually appropriate". I doubt an article on a work of fiction would make it to FA without a plot summary, and my print encyclopedia has a plot summary of each of Shakespeare's plays, and those of other playwrights. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support changing "sometimes appropriate" to "usually appropriate". Support even more the amdendment: "A concise plot summary is usually appropriate, but only as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."--M4gnum0n (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support because that is in fact the consensus policy almost always applied to articles, and almost always the consensus at discussions of them. The use of "sometimes" , however it may have been intended, is in fact not supported by the community. If policies are descriptive, the proposed wording is closer, though if we are to discuss what the policy ought to be in a prescriptive way, I would prefer "almost always" or even "always". I cannot see how any encyclopedic description of fiction can omit the plot. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We do have a number of articles on lost works, where there simply isn't material for a plot summary, and, likewise, some on things without anything that can be considered a coherent plot. I'd prefer the stronger language, but, as can be seen, there's enough problems on this page that a small step that at least got rid of the attack on plot summaries seemed a better option than being bogged down in useless debate that led to the attack remaining. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that there may be some exceptional works without the possibility of a plot summary, but even so we usually have some idea of their contents. There are, for example, songs without words, but we can still describe them. We can deal with such rare exceptions with common sense and IAR.

• • • I think that what DGG is saying that if one looks at the overall consensus, including what is considered a GA, an FA, what happens to plot-only articles (they get nominated for deletion, and sometimes deleted), and what happens to articles that are well written with many editors' input, is that we get wonderful articles with a concise plot summary. This is the consensus, and the policy page reflects this consensus rather than creates or influences it. Arguing over this page is silly, because whatever it says it will not alter what happens in mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. I think the word adequate much better describes my position than concise; and in many cases the plot will be sufficiently complicated--or even sufficiently written about--that there should be a separate article on it as part of the broader overall Wikipedia coverage of the fiction. (I accept either as a reason why there can be a separate article if the work is important). The more important thing is to have adequate, not over-concise or over-detailed summary; it is secondary where we put it. The usual reason I now defend any separate separate article that can be at all justified, is that in practice the plot is gradually reduced to minimal if we do not have them. DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, there may be situations when being concise is detrimental to the article and adding more information makes the article better. By replacing "sometimes" by "usually" one might be led to think this should be anything more than a rough rule of thumb. Better to be vague and let the each article be discussed for or against it on its own merits.Chhe (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It is simply appropriate to include a plot summary of a fictional work as part of the article on that work. Indeed, probably most of the readers of Wikipedia who look up a fictional work primarily want to see the plot summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would expect any article on a work of fiction to tell me what happens in it. Reywas92^Talk 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'm not particularly happy with the blurb before the poll, but on this issue, plot summaries should be part of GAs, let alone FAs.--
  talk
  ) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposal at

This type of advice doesn't belong on WP:NOT. There's nothing in the concept that can be used to qualify the statement "WP is not a (something)". This is not to say that the advice shouldn't be elsewhere, but it doesn't fit in this policy. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What link do I use to let someone know that they should not be promoting a web site by adding external links? I have noticed a few cases where a newish editor doesn't do much except add a small number of links to some favorite site, and

if the user may be connected with those sites,

WP:EL. --MASEM (t

) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be large-scale to be linkspam, nor do I see how it's WP:BITE-y to point that out. Powers ^T 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've done a bit of linkspam reversion and it's not easy to get the balance right. Often it's clear that the user is only here to promote a web site, but even then I've seen resistance from other editors saying that linkspam warnings and edit summaries are bitey. How about this specific case where links to one site are added: [1], [2], [3]. The point is that the site may be useful, and the editor may make useful contibutions, so I don't want to say "linkspam", but I would like to say "promotion", as in the addition of links with a view to promote a web site. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If none of those cut it, you may have to customize a message that references a few relevant guidelines. We probably can't have a shortcut for every possible violation of our general precepts. Powers ^T 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes – that is exactly what I did, and

WP:LINKSPAM. Johnuniq (talk

) 03:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I often refer people to

our FAQ about businesses & other organisations. It covers most of the related problems as well. DGG ( talk

) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the link is

WP:AGF). WP:BFAQ looks very much like what I had in mind. Johnuniq (talk

) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• It completely depends on whether they're notable events or not. From
  WP:NOT is that certain news events, whilst not noteworthy on their own right, can still generate news reports which may be taken to be substantial coverage. However, most news items belong on WikiNews - only genuinely notable events should have their own article here. Black Kite
  15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between inform versus instruct? The example in this article was removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normal_force&oldid=320231161 , which in my opinion makes the information harder to understand.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done some revision of that article, but I agree that NOTTEXTBOOK is a bit over-broad: examples can occasionally be useful to show how a concept works, and some articles - especially on mathematics - pretty much need to explain how to do the task in question in order to effectively explain the concept itself. Perhaps we should consider tweaking that line. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the modifications you've made the normal force article. I support an example of applications or a practical example of how normal forces exist in everyday objects. I do have a problem with examples of doing math problems to solve for the normal force however. Perhaps that's what needs to be differentiated. Wizard191 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

>I do have a problem with examples of doing math problems to solve for the normal force however.

Why is that? Can you see how working on some math makes the topic easier to understand for the newbs? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that it can help someone learn how to do a math problem, but that's scope creep for an encyclopedia. That's the job of a textbook or teacher, not an encyclopedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia can't do everything if its going to remain useful and readable. Wizard191 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Its makes the article more useful, more readable and helps someone understand the topic. What do others think? Would be good to survey 10 newbs who are researching the topic and find out whether they prefer with example or without. I'd be very surprised if they didn't prefer it with an example.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar to my original question:

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."

If you are presenting facts isn't that teaching the subject matter? What is the diffference?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, but not in the same manner is intentionally instructing. The article on Algebra, for example, is more focused on the history and application of algebra then how to actually perform it. No instruction takes place, yet you learn. --King Öomie 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good answer.   :-)   Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

*Wikibow*. --King Öomie 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• That said, the articles on, say, the chain rule and Integration by parts almost by necessity need a couple examples to explain the process being described Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[4] My edit was deleted by an editor who claimed it was an indiscriminate. I'd like a second opinion please. Is listing what parts of various notable movies and television shows had an exact example of the article's subject in them, count as indiscriminate? Dream Focus 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say as written it was probably not the best choice for the article (though converting it prose, adding sources, and reducing the number of examples would probably be fine). But I don't think WP:NOT applies here. I'd say it should go to the talk page and maybe to an appropriate notice board if there isn't anyone else there to discuss it. In other words, this is an editorial dispute about what works best, not a WP:NOT thing (in my opinion, I'm curious what others will think). Hobit (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That page is now deleted, & the link will not work. It was recreated with expansion as
    Human disguise, G4'd , and brought to Deletion Review on Oct 21 [5]]. I didn't comment on the original articles, but I looked at your list, and I do not think at all that it meets indiscriminate. A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating. Indiscriminate would have been a list of every such disguise in any film or video whatsoever, however unimportant--you had less than a dozen well-selected examples, such as the rather obvious Men in Black. However, I think the version that should be recreated is the one now at deletion review, and I suggest you try there, at least to get it userified. DGG ( talk
    ) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think if it were a standalone topic, no, that would not be good. But this article is a compendium listing for a rather large subset of articles, and I really can't see the harm or the like about it, particularly if it is linked from all the other Holocaust-related articles. However, there's also something to be said that we're not a web directory, and in the same regard, we need to be careful on these types of lists. This could go either way. If there is a problem, I can see the article being reworked as "Media coverage of the Holocaust" or something, describing the notable books and works that have resulted. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article in question seems to be more of a "further reading" section that has developed into its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that

Accountancy which used to contain lots of bald links to related topics and websites. I deleted them all, since bald links on their own simply cluttered the article without adding any commentary, context or analysis relating to the article topic. Forgive the cosmetic reference, but as a rule of thumb when it comes to standalone references, links and bibliography, Bald is bad. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion: Talk:Phage_monographs --Cybercobra (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It would be ideal if we err on the side of "Move to wikiproject subpage", rather than deleting whole articles, or large subsections. Preserve for later usage, if they're found to be unsuitable for mainspace.
2. See Category:Bibliographies by author (like a split-out discography List, and not a relevant part of this discussion),
   and Category:Bibliographies by subject (the primary set of examples for this discussion). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, especially Quiddity. I suppose there's more precedent for this than I'd realized. --

Sancho Mandoval (talk

) 18:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The precedent is very shaky. Most of the members of Category:Bibliographies by subject seem to be original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Compiling sources for building the encyclopedia is a necessary and required amount of original research that we allow. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think

not, as deciding which subject category each book fits into is a matter of personal opinion. Lists or bibliographies by subject are little more than collections of random stuff, and should be avoided. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)

14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A definitive list of a particular author's works is one thing; a listing of a subset of an unknown number of works on a particular topic is edging into

indiscrimination in my book. Powers ^T

14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between this, then, and say, if there was 50kb of article on top of it, referencing those sources?

I think if all the sources are those that are used common to all the groupings of the articles on that subject (on the individual article pages), it's less of a problem - its a global reference list pulled from sources actually used by the WP articles. But if there are sources being pulled in that are not being used in any of those pages, then you're getting to link farm territory. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of lucky we have a consensus making model which will allow us to define a bibliography on a given subject. Also, not all of these things are like each other, see for example

Hamlet (bibliographies). Hiding T

15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Selecting items for a bibliography is not OR, any nore than selectingthe content for any other type of article is. We normally choose the more significant examples, and people can challenge that item by item if they like. We can do OR to determine what the content of an article ought to be--we do this all the time in talk pages--though we cannot present OR in the article itself. . DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole page lists what is canon, but nowhere is there written why (=for what purpose) it aims to be encyclopedic and not a compendium of all knowledge worth knowing. I am aware that the sister projects, which are often linked (albeit quite small and hidden), may contain the unencyclopedic information, but why the decentralization in the first place? Pros: adds on wikias and neater (more targeted). Cons: less information (to be honest, nobody actually transfer how-tos to wikibooks before deleting them), information is written twice or more, edit wars between pedantic bureaucrats etc. --Squidonius (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia was originally thought of as a way of drafting encyclopedia articles for another project, nupedia. So the idea of the encyclopedia pre-dates the idea of the wiki-method of article creation. The encyclopedia idea is hot-wired into the creation. See Wikipedia, and more especially History of Wikipedia#Formulation of the concept. The idea was to create encyclopedia articles for nupedia, which would place ads next to the articles. The latter stage never quite came off the way it was initially envisioned, and Wikipedia seems to have become more popular than any of the commercial mirrors. You're kind of asking the wrong question, or perhaps you're kind of prompting a different answer. Hiding T 15:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  

I believe wikipedia would server its customers better if it didn't create artificial boundaries and moved from encyclopedia mentality to knowledge base. Jimmy Wales are you o.k. with this?   :-)   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The criteria for inclusion prevent Wikipedia from become a useless mashing of information. --King Öomie

19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you like the artificial boundaries? Is someone suggesting it should become useless? Are you agreeing that not allowing examples, dictionary terms, how-to's, etc.. makes wikipedia more useful? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules aren't just there to restrict us in what we can do. They also serve as inspiration. Few pupils will be able to write something reasonable when just asked to "Write an essay!" Ask them to "Write an essay about the most interesting experience in your life!" and you will get much better results. It's a strength of Wikipedia that it's focused on an encyclopedia, not a weakness. There are sister projects for writing dictionaries, or books. And there are other projects like Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archive. There is no need for Wikipedia to do all these things at the same time, and in fact trying to do so might well destroy Wikipedia. The English language Wikipedia has already reached a monstrous size in terms of content and contributors. It's not clear how long it can continue to grow without some kind of restructuring, e.g. by spawning off special-purpose encyclopedias. Hans Adler 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It can maintain the encyclopedia focus. Need is one thing, what is best for users is another. We should ask what is best, rather than what is needed. I'm not in favor of worrying that the sky might fall, by worring about what might happen. It clear to me that the monstrous size is an advantage and I don't see significant issues with it getting bigger. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're free to your opinion, but this is an encyclopedia, and it's going to stay an encyclopedia. I'm not a fan of progress for the sake of progress. If this site expands to include a bunch of random garbage, we'll have even less credibility than we currently do- and you can forget ever being usable as a reliable source in the academic community. --King Öomie 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting it become a site that includes a bunch of random garbage. No one suggest that measures to insure credibility be lessened. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not explicitly. They are, however, inextricable from the concept of having a site you can just add anything to. See Uncyclopedia. --King Öomie 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(

WP:OR-fest. I could see absorbing Wiktionary, but not ask.com, or yahoo answers, or facebook... all the other crap people want Wikipedia to be. --King Öomie

19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourced announcements of confirmed, future affiliations is certainly not a violation of CRYSTAL. In this case, CRYSTAL would be presuming a first-basemen for a baseball team will continue to play first base for the next x years when only next year's line up is known. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - just because there is a high possibility that something will happen, does not make it a certainty. In any case, a bald announcement that a particular cyclist will be in a team confers no notability on its own.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The notability guidelines are concerning entire article topics, not parts of articles. See

WP:NNC

.

It is not a violation of crystal to write that a rider has a contract to ride with a certain team. It is the same as saying a treaty will extend for x years. Or a book released on x future date. If an event occurs that breaks the contract/treaty/shipping-date, the article can be updated accordingly. -- Quiddity (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would advise the member to, rather than revert, modify "will ride for team X in 2010" to "has signed to ride for team X in 2010" (or whatever is context equivalent - more accurate and not disruptive (note this is about

WP:CRYSTAL, which is not part of the notability guidelines, and applies to content as much as topics) ‒ Jaymax✍

10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stick with facts ("has signed") rather than speculation about the future ("will ride") where possible. If it's not possible, it probably is a CRYSTAL problem. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A summary of your comments on our

A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people^[who?] distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they keep up with. The weekly Policy Report aims to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The first, technical, problem, this item is misplaces into the group "Wikipedia is not a directory". "Possible details" are not a subject of directories. The statements like "X Rat kissed her first girlfriend only twice" in article X Rat or "The word "spoon" was used 475 times in War and Peace" in article spoon, are not a matter of a directory.

The second objection is the immediate conflict with "Wikipedia is not paper". AFAIU, the idea is to exclude the trivia as in my example.

Therefore I suggest:

1. to rewrite the headline of the rule to better address the notability and relevance of details covered.
2. to move it into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section.

- Altenmann >t 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

just because I've run across this issue several times in the last week... I suggest we make a slight change in wording to the fourth line of the second paragraph so that it reads: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus specifically on its offensiveness but on whether any offense it might give is justified by its usefulness to the article." mostly I'm trying to narrow the window a bit - the old wording "...on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" leaves too large a loophole for those who want to include shocking images that are technically appropriate to an article but not at all necessary to the article. This wording tries to force a balance between the potential for offense and the usefulness of the picture in the article, allowing disturbing images that are on-point to be used, but excluding disturbing images that don't add sufficient value. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What criteria do you use to determine whether, "any offense [the content] might give is justified by its usefulness to the article"?—RJH (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are specific criteria, though of course there are no specific criteria for "is appropriate to include", either. both are judgement calls; the only real difference is that the first asks for judgment solely about whether the content is appropriate, whereas the second ask for a judgement whether the content is sufficiently useful to offset its unpleasantness. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what I'm asking is how that would differ from the normal criteria on when to include, say, an image? (Per Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement.) Presumably you want a tighter criteria for inclusion, so does it need to be, say, absolutely essential for the completeness of the article? I don't mean to be argumentative here; it's just that the word 'judgement' can be open to broad interpretation and could create rancorous discussions.—RJH (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

well, for example, there was a recent dispute on vomiting where an editor had included a picture of actual vomit in the lede (I think it's been removed now, but you can check through the history). Now, the general kind of argument made under the current version of the policy runs as follows:

• An acknowledgement that the picture is offensive to some.
• A note that a picture of vomit is appropriate to the topic of vomiting.
• A claim that appropriate pictures cannot be removed just because they are offensive to some, per (a somewhat limited interpretation of) NOTCENSORED.

what this wording would do would be to give other editors a policy option where they can say "Yes, the image is appropriate to the topic, but what use does it actually serve?", arguing in the above case that a picture of a pile of vomit does not really serve an encyclopedic use that would offset its offensiveness. and of course, if the first editor came back with a set of pictures of different kinds of vomit, as part of an explanation (say) of how one might diagnose illnesses by looking at vomit, then that would provide a use which would offset the offensiveness of the images. The wording removes NOTCENSORED as a reason in its own right for retaining an image, and forces it to be part of a larger discussion about page content.

I'll note that the same effect can be achieved by using the last paragraph of NOTCENSORED, but it involves a fairly torturous discussion of logic (the implications of if and only if are lost on a lot of people, particularly when they have their eye focused on a goal). this would just make it easier. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer it if the "if and only if" clause was removed and we clarify that we should treat offensive images just like any other images. The way the first sentence of the last paragraph is worded, it reads more like "don't use it unless it's absolutely super duper necessary", instead of "use common sense, and be judicious, like you would with inoffensive images". Because when we treat offensive content differently because it's offensive, we fall into the role of the censor, which we should never do. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Perhaps we should focus on the inverse -- "Potentially offensive images should not be removed if doing so would be detrimental to the article". There's no way to proof the section against controversy-seeking or prudish wikilawyers, but at least we can limit ourselves to only saying what we mean to say: don't remove it just because you don't like it. It's up to those who are editing the article to decide upon its appropriateness to the topic.--Father Goose (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

At this stage I do not have a specific suggestion, but I offer another example where NOTCENSORED was used by some editors, I believe, inappropriately. I stumbled into an edit war at Echinocactus polycephalus concerning whether an offensive term should be used (nigger-head cactus). There is a discussion of the issues at Talk:Echinocactus polycephalus. I was on the losing side in the debate, but I have no problem with that, nor with the way some editors on the other side proceeded. However, I was highly irritated by the suggestion from some that an obsolete and offensive term had to be used because fifty years ago it was used, and NOTCENSORED. In general, I would strongly oppose any attempt to remove terminology that some find offensive (and the cartoons must stay in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). However, when discussing the scholarly article for a cactus, I would like NOTCENSORED to make it clear that while we do not remove material simply because some find it offensive, we also do not keep material simply because some find it offensive (we are not here to fight censorship). Material should be kept on merits, but it is hard to find wording that gives the correct balance between being reasonable and being censorious. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I attempted a bit of a sandbox rewrite of the last paragraph, until finally realizing that we don't need it at all. It repeats what is already said in the paragraph immediately before it, and says it the wrong way. Simply removing it will "fix" the policy as much as we can hope for: [6].--Father Goose (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would generally object. If we err on the side of a few extra shocking images nothing really bad happens. If we err on the side of censorship we could lose thousands of articles which are offensive to some people. I think we have occasional problems in both directions and are balanced. That's hard to get right and I wouldn't want to mess with it. jbolden1517^Talk 14:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it would help to put potentially offensive images inside an expandable table/template that is closed by default, then add a warning caption underneath? I understand that the expandable table feature won't work on every browser, but it's the choice of the viewer whether to enable that functionality.—RJH (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If the content is useful to improve the encyclopedia value of the article we should use it, otherwise we should not. I don't think we should be hiding or bowdlerising potentially offensive content. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost, any concerns about offending people need to be secondary to that goal.

Ask me

) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is such a thing as making an article "office safe" for casual viewing at work. Just sticking with a dogmatic approach isn't helpful.—RJH (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) weird - for some reason I missed all this discussion in my watchlist.

at any rate, I've just been having this discussion (protractedly) over at

• view 1: Wikipedia should preserve offensive material from being removed for reasons of offensiveness, except in obvious cases of inappropriateness.
• view 2: Wikipedia should avoid offensive material except in cases where that material is required for its encyclopedic value.

To my mind, the second (more conservative) version is closer to the spirit of maintaining wikipedia as a respectable encyclopedia than the first (more free-speech-like) view. Erring on the side of removing a few shocking images (to address DarkBlue's concern) is probably better, since that 'error' will only occur on images of such marginal encyclopedic value that there's really no sense offending people by including them regardless. the third paragraph (whose deletion I just reverted for discussion) is much closer to the second (more conservative) view - I think it should be expanded upon, not deleted. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your goal, but I'm not sure that it fixes the underlying problem: who defines "offensive"? I have a hard time seeing any offensiveness in File:Mormon garments.jpg or File:Maome.jpg, but I can promise you that many of the people that find them offensive would consider them to be equivalent to goatse.cx. Focusing on whether the offense is justified by the usefulness doesn't seem fundamentally different from "whether it is appropriate to include".—Kww(talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

that's never a matter for definition - it's a matter for discussion. The way I see it, if someone comes along and says "I find this image of mormon garments offensive because...", then other editors should be able to say "I understand why you are offended, but this image is needed because it shows X". If there really is a valid reason for using the image, then the discussion can move on to discussing more acceptable alternates; if there isn't an identifiable, valid reason for using the image, then I suggest that the complaint (however weak) is good enough to justify removing the image. again, why insult someone (no matter how paltry their reasons for being insulted) when there's no reasonable value added by the image. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, as one of the proponents of keeping the image in question at goatse, I'd like to modify the first view you outlined. Images should only be included if doing so increases the reader's understanding of the article's subject, and only removed if they fail to do so, or there are copyright issues. That's it. In my mind, offensiveness should play no part in the decision. We should not be saying "Yes, it is usefull in x amount, but it is offensive in y amount, and y>x, so delete" or any variation thereof. As with any image, the criteria for inclusion of an offensive image should only reflect the image's utility. I would support modifying the relevant section here to reflect that. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I understand your PoV, but I can't quite accept it. It is a fact that certain images (and other material) offend people, and this fact needs to be accommodated. it's incredibly

uncivil to brush someone off with a note that we simply refuse to consider the fact that they are offended, and if we adopt that attitude it will always lead to protracted ugliness. If we are going to do things that offend people (which WP inevitably will), we need to be able to tell them that we are offending them for good reason. trying to brush the offense under the rug is just going to make people angry and insulted, and is a really bad idea in terms of consensus and harmonious editing. --Ludwigs2

20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my contention that we brush off people's potential offense, merely that we not take it into considerationg when determining an article's encyclopedic value. See Nigger for more info. The title itself is offensive to most people, but we have an article anyways because to omit it would be unencyclopedic. The same holds true of individual images or blocks of text. We can't exclude them simply because they're offensive. We must judge them based solely upon whether they improve the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the kind of kneejerk exclusions you're talking about. as I keep saying there should be a balance between the offensiveness of an entry and the value it adds to the encyclopedia. Nigger has a clear historical presence that makes it's inclusion necessary; this is not necessarily true of every content item that anyone might add to wikipedia. I'm having a hard time believing that you'd seriously advocate a blanket prohibition on any and all discussions of offensiveness with respect to item inclusion; that runs against every core policy that calls for consensus on matters of content. can you make that suggestion less draconian, please? --Ludwigs2 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. The particular sensibilities of any hypothetical reader should not play any part whatsoever in whether we include something in an article or not. The only criteria should be whether an inclusion improves the article, and if there is another, better way to do so. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

eeeyuck. not to go all

reductio ad hitlerum on you, but I'm contemplating what might happen to all sorts of articles on WWII, the holocaust, Nazis and White Power movements if people took that comment at face value. there is no essential contradiction between encyclopedic accuracy and human sensitivity, and I see no point in asserting such a contradiction as a matter of policy. --Ludwigs2

23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I assert no such contradiction. I merely argue that our job is to build an encyclopedia, not protect people's sensitities. Where those two come into conflict, we build the encyclopedia, and ignore those who may be offended. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED editing break

Not being censored is about maintaining a neutral point of view. "Being offensive" is no reason to not include something, inclusion decisions should be strictly based on our editorial standards and not the potential to offend. If an article is about genocide we should show historical images of that genocide even if it incredibly troubling to some people, if an article is about a company that makes nerve gas then such a picture might constitute undue weight. Either way this should be a content decision and not based of our reader's reaction to potentially shocking images.

I think the community made its position on this sort of thing very clear in the "Depiction of Muhammad" controversy where it was decided to use our standard editorial practice of showing relevant verifiable historical images even though it offending hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of Wikipedia editors.

I don't see how we could have a good

to the real point, though - I'm beginning to get deeply curious about why this idea is consistently misrepresented every time I make it. so let me try to clarify it one more time, with bullet points for emphasis:

• Disturbing pictures are appropriate when they are informational - I never said otherwise, yet people keep putting those words in my mouth
• NOTCENSORED is about neutrality - obviously, I never said otherwise, yet people keep putting those words in my mouth
• what I said was that offensiveness is clearly an issue to be considered. it may be third priority, but if someone is offended by something we ought to take whatever measures we can take to reduce that offense within the boundaries of producing a good encyclopedia.

you know, when people walk onto a plane, some of them sling their bags around carelessly and some of them watch what they are doing and try not to hit people. both groups get their bags stowed, but I think we'd all agree that the first group are jerks. Now I don't think any of us want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of jerks, but not-being-a-jerk means not offending people callously and senselessly. Therefore, some kind of policy recognition that (a) we don't use offensive material without real need and (b) we give due consideration to minimizing any offense we need to do would be in order. --Ludwigs2 06:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, I can see where you're coming from, but I just don't think the audience's potential offense should factor into our decisions as to what to include in an article. We simply cannot tailor the project to those who might take offense at its contents. It sets an ugly precedent, and runs contrary to our stated goals. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd be starting off down the wrong road if we asked those judging the appropriateness of content to consider the offence it might cause. It may be pictures of private parts in one context, depictions of prophets in a second, bodily functions in one article and people with bare heads in another. The offence isn't important, the encyclopedic value is. So we don't go out of our way to offend people, because that's juvenile, but nor do we go out of our way not to offend people. That's why we have a content disclaimer. --TS 11:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@Throwaway and Tony: I am frustrated with your responses, because I feel as though you simply didn't read what I said. I would like to ask each of you to please read the third bullet point in what I wrote above and respond to it directly, because you seem to have ignored me completely so that you could complain about something that I'm not even saying. That seems to be a major Wikipedia pastime, granted, but I am hanging on to

wp:AGF that this is an honest oversight and not a stupid rhetorical tactic, so please help me out here. thanks. --Ludwigs2

17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you're saying is "offensiveness is clearly an issue to be considered. it may be third priority, but if someone is offended by something we ought to take whatever measures we can take to reduce that offense within the boundaries of producing a good encyclopedia." I'm simply saying that I completely disagree with the notion and I find it to be contrary to our mission as a serious encyclopedia. That may be frustrating, but there it is. Adding a daft picture of a bit of vomit on the ground makes the article worse, not better, because it's a useless and uninformative picture. --TS 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've read your argument, Ludwig, but I disagree with you entirely. People's potential offense should play no part whatsoever in the article creation and improvement process. It is not a third priority, or any sort of priority. Our only goal should be creating a good encyclopedia. That means we don't try to offend people, and we don't try not to offend them. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for acknowledging the point. I believe your disagreement is confused and narrow-sighted (not to mention out of touch with what actually happens on almost every talk page on wikipedia), but now we are in a position where we can address those (IMO) misunderstandings directly. --Ludwigs2 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, your concern is appreciated, but the history of wikipedia shows that what TS and Throwaway85 say is sufficient. For example, a couple of years ago, lots of jerks took great efforts to put the pics of their penises into various wikipedia articles related (and not so related) to sex and biology and then claiming

wp:NOTCENSORED. - Altenmann >t

19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue this endlessly (partly because I recognize that I'm arguing from disciplinary understandings that most people don't have access to), but I do wish people would keep away from straw-man arguments. placing a picture of one's penis in an article clearly violates a number of policies beyond being merely offensive. this is a subtle point I'm trying to make, and not one that concerns these kinds of over-the-top examples.

Placing a picture of something which is disussed in an article does not clearly violate basic policies. Clearly you haven't been there. It is not a strawman, it is an example of a case of similar controversy, successfully handled. - Altenmann >t 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

let me craft a more realistic problem, so you can see what I mean. let's say that sometime in the future - after the death of Bill Clinton, to avoid BLP issues - someone turns up a nude picture of the ex-president (remember the body-studies they did at Harvard back when he was a student?) and tries to enter it in on various pages about Bill Clinton. Assume it satisfies

wp:V

and other core points. Now, there is limited informational value in a nude picture of Clinton, since the picture would have been taken long before the gubernatorial and presidential years for which he is notable, but there will be strong political motivations for including such a picture as a back-handed attack at liberal democrats everywhere. what do we do with this? opponents will argue that the picture adds little informational value, and is demeaning to a president of the United States and insulting to the people of the US as a whole; proponents will say that in fact the picture does add information and that wikipedia doesn't care about the other arguments. The upshot (under current ideation) would be that Wikipedia becomes a tool for political mudslinging and anti-American snarkiness, without much in the way of informational gain. Now I'm not really trying to dictate whether such a picture should or shouldn't be shown; I'm trying to say that it is wrong to short-circuit every discussion on such matters with a mindless, uncompromising "we don't consider such things" boilerplate. That makes wikipedia (as I said before) an encyclopedia of jerks, and it is just going to cause an endless stream of unpleasant arguments that could be resolved with more civil, nuanced discussions.

Obviously you haven't been here during these multipenis debates. Your Clinton example is exactly the case of type successfully handled on strictly encyclopedic grounds. Your hypothetical case must be considered strictly withing the context of a particular photo and particular article, since I genuinely fail to see why a naked body must be demeaning. After all, there are plenty of published naked baby photos of future very serious people. What is more, I may readily think of another hypothetical example where the photo of naked Clinton would be quite encyclopedic. Just the same, your Holocaust example is quite faulty. There is an ancient say in many languages which basically reads "you must know your enemy". Therefore a detailed article about Nazi theoretical foundations of Holocaust is highly welcome. Of course, it must be balance, NPOV, and all, but Nazi charts are not offensive per se, if wikipedia says that they are manipulated, false, and misleading, just like this pic. - Altenmann >t 00:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, me, this argument is doomed to go in circles. The funny thing is, everything that I'm asking for is already incorporated in practice, even though most people don't to seem realize it. the moment you say "Of course, it must be balanced, NPOV, and all..." you are invoking a set of considerations that go beyond simple informational value to (yes) take into account things like the potential of offense. The problem is that in practice a whole slew of unspoken biases rear their heads: we choose how harsh we care to be on a given side of a topic based on our degree of respect for it, and it seems perfectly normal for us to do that. you can see that on just about any contentious page you care to look at. I just wish we could muster up some of that desire to temper and balance views that might offend victims of the holocaust to use with other people who are offended by wikipedia's actions. but I guess I'm just going to have to accept the fact that wikipedia will sometimes be an encyclopedia of jerks. I'm tired of arguing with people who are dead set on maintaining that as the norm. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If we do what you're suggesting naturally, then what's the point in codifying it? It seems the process works just fine as is. No need to introduce institution creep. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

because (as I said) doing it 'naturally' ('unconsciously' is a better word) means applying it in haphazard way that institutionalizes certain biases. in non-jargon terms, we are all (always) much more circumspect about issues we identify with than issues we don't. If I were to write something in an article that suggested that Nazis were evil bastards someone would probably tone it down, but the sentiment would probably stick because most westerners (at some level) think it's probably true. If I were to write something equivalently nasty about Jews in an article, it would be reverted, fought over, edited, counter-cited, and eventually removed or reduced to the minimal presence it could be given in the article. The sentiment would not stick, because at some level most westerners would think that it's not true. it's even worse with images because your typical wikipedia editor is a jaded, web-savvy, over-educated person who just doesn't identify with (say) your average blue-collar family-oriented semi-religious person who doesn't want his or her children (or him or her self) exposed to offensive material. now I agree, there's a certain extent to which you have to say to such people tough: this isn't obscene, it's informative, but I suspect (with good reason) that many editors simply leave it at tough because they just don't identify with such readers and just don't care to cut them any slack at all. that little bit of excess strikes me as wrong. --Ludwigs2 05:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that nobody's behaved in the way you suggested, at least not in regards to the goatse article that this is really about. We said "no, we're

WP:NOTCENSORED". That's an explanation right there. Once again, our job is not to worry about our reader's sensibilities, it's to create a good encyclopedia. Many creationists, for example, might be outraged that we treat evolution as a scientific fact here on wikipedia. We don't dumb it down, or equivocate, however, we simply present the subject as it is. We are here to inform, not to coddle. We don't hide any "offensive" claims in a collapsable infobox, we put it right out there for everyone to see. If they don't like it, tough. We can't say that there are certain sensibilities we are willing to offend and others that we aren't. We simply ignore the entire issue, and build the best, most informative encyclopedia that we can. That process of self-improvement will necessarily clear the project of images and phrases that don't improve their respective articles. If they do improve the articles, I don't care what the picture or phrase is, it stays unless and until someone comes up with something better. Throwaway85 (talk

) 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

okiedokie...

1. this is an issue I began talking about long before I heard about that article. I've seen this same problem manifest (in order of extremity) on pseudoscience articles, on creationism-type articles, on Alt-Med articles, on political articles, on normal religious articles, and even (wonder of wonders) on math articles. don't make an abiding interest of mine into a concern of your favorite little shock-fest.
2. many people behave this way, on goatse and in the other articles you mention. most every article on wikipedia that deals with creationism has a constant stream of editors (for years now) who complain. some small percentage of them (less than 5%, I'd guess) actually want creationism and evolution put on the same level, while the remainder are simply insulted by what they see as a rude, biased, and heavy-handed treatment of the subject. on goatse there are three or four editors who mount a stringent, absolutist, 'go suck eggs' defense of the image on the NOTCENSORED platform - It took me two days of high-pressured semi-tendentious editing to get you guys to express something that even came close to a valid reason for using the picture (not a good reason, mind you, but I'll take what I can get), and when I pushed you on that reason you all went right back to the 'go suck eggs' defense
3. I'm not asking you to dumb things down, equivocate, or coddle (and I think it's fairly pretentious of you to put it in those terms - you're not that smart my friend, and other people aren't that dumb). I'm asking you to take people's feelings into consideration, to the extent that that's possible without compromising the encyclopedia. That means that if you have an image (like the one at goatse) that will sicken large numbers of people without adding a whole lot of value to the article or the encyclopedia, then you ought to at least consider finding some alternate. the attitude that people who are sickened by the image can just go suck eggs is coarse to begin with; combine it with the minimal encyclopedic value of the image and it's just downright rude.
4. I'm really not interested in this whole 'brainy tough guy' routine. you can ignore whatever and whomever you want, and you can sneer at the sniveling masses whose 'feelings' get 'hurt', and you can wallow in self-righteous intellectualism until the cows come home. that's your business. but don't ask me to approve of it, because I don't and I won't; as far as I'm concerned you are just contributing (unintentionally, I'm sure) to making Wikipedia an encyclopedia of jerks. --Ludwigs2 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it mildly ironic that you choose to mount what you see as a campaign for civility and respect with such a rude tone. You've been told by several editors now that your beliefs do not reflect those of the majority. Deal with it, and stop insulting editors who disagree with you. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I offend you? speaking of irony...

I'm not concerned with the beliefs of the majority. I'm concerned with consensus, and with consonance with Wikipedia's core principles, and with the correct framing of policy. If you keep misrepresenting my position I will keep correcting you, and I will be just as harsh as I need to be to make the correction stick (and not one iota more). If you don't want to have a discussion that works towards consensus, that's fine, but then I suggest that we stop the conversation now. --Ludwigs2 08:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I don't think anything productive is coming from this conversation. As a complete and utter tangent, why on Earth does an encyclopedia have built-in emoticons? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - I found that template at one point and it tickled me, so I expanded it. they are useful for talk discussions, but I do check the links periodically to make sure no one's using them in article space. --Ludwigs2 08:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is civility, and telling someone who is offended by something that you are simply not going to consider their viewpoint under any circumstances hardly satisfies the phrase: "Editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect". I would hope we would do a little better than that. --Ludwigs2 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We did consider it. We did not say that your suggestion is stupid. We are merely saying that we don't think we need extra bureaucracy to successfully address your valid concern. - Altenmann >t 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Saying we disagree with you and do not want to implement your suggestion is not uncivil. I think your idea is a very bad one. That's not uncivil, it's simply frank. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncivil, I just think it's unenlightened. <shrug> --Ludwigs2 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing discussion of NOTCENSORED

Ludwigs2, do you think the picture at Autofellatio should be removed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - not particularly, though I'd have no objection if the consensus went that way. that's just plain silly.

What makes the image at Goatse.cx more offensive than the one at Autofellatio? They're gonna gross out a lot of the same people. ("Gross out" is pretty much what we mean by "offend" in the case of Goatse, no?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

you asked for my personal opinion. I don't find that image nearly as problematic, and so I wouldn't begin any discussion about its place in the encyclopedia. again, this is a consensus process I'm arguing for; iron-clad rules have nothing to do with it.

please let me make myself clear. I am not complaining about the picture (not in this thread, at least). I am complaining about unreasoning, anti-consensus manner in which many editors use NOTCENSORED. --Ludwigs2 07:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure as heck not talking about iron-clad rules, and I don't care which discussion is which. I was just trying to get a better sense of where you're coming from, in general and/or in particular. I think I've got that now, although I'm still not sure why one image is "offensive" to your mind, and the other one not. What's the difference? (I don't care if that question is stupid.)

I don't really like to talk about guidelines in the abstract, because that seems to suggest a top-down model that I think is wrong for Wikipedia. Guidelines are just reflections of what happens most of the time in specific cases, each of which is decided on merits. At least that's the model I use to think about policy here. IAR and all, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mostly that the second one makes me laugh - it looks cartoonish, as opposed to the first which looks fetishistic in a deeply perverted sort of way (which is, I imagine, its original intent). I suspect that would be a common assessment (that you'd find that most people would come to tolerate the second before they came to tolerate the first) but I'm not about to do a survey to find out for sure.

I mostly see policy in hermeneutic terms: policy needs to be grounded in concrete practices, but it needs to be abstract as well - it should lay out 'best practices' that an idealized version of wikipedia would follow, so that people caught in the muck of daily issues can see what it is they are supposed to be aspiring to. so, you use concrete problems to make abstract policy, then use abstract policy to guide you though other concrete problems (which may in turn refine the abstractions some more). might be a bit much to ask for, I suppose... --Ludwigs2 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that's pretty close to how I think of it. I am just extremely suspicious of cases where the top-down model leads to conflict. In those cases, I think the first (and last) step is to say "what would we do here if there were no applicable 'rule'?" A situation in which a rule seems to lead to the wrong answer is to be evaluated on merits, and then the 'rule' might or might not be worth changing afterward. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

can't argue with that. --Ludwigs2 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The existing wording here is fine and appears to reflect actual practice. It leaves the decision of "whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" up to the editors of the article, which is as it should be. In contentious cases,
  WP:3RD or other methods of bringing in disinterested, presumably-neutral editors are available.
  In general, if actual practice starts veering from policy, or if you start getting a lot of push-back in actual, non-hypothetical discussions saying "the policy doesn't work in this case" then we should update the policy to reflect actual or desired practice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail
  ) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2. As a simple example, if I counted correctly there are currently 13 depictions of Jesus in the article Jesus. Most of them are purely ornamental and simply shouldn't be there. The ideas of an artist many centuries later about what Jesus looked like are pertinent to the reception of Jesus, but not to Jesus himself. Thus a minor point (in this particular article) gets way too much weight with the large number of images. Most of the depictions by artists many centuries later of significant events in Jesus' life as reported in the bible are severely misleading. If I went to that article trying to reduce the number of pictures some people would disagree with me, but at least we would get a reasonable discussion.

The article Muhammad has just under 10 pictures that are purely ornamental in a similar way, including 6 pictures that show Muhammad himself with more or less detail. I am sure that if I started a similar discussion at that article, the pictures of Muhammad would be defended as absolutely necessary because they are offensive, and there would be no chance of reasonable discussion about the pertinence of these pictures. Apparently some people think that depictions of Muhammad must be plastered all over the article (as opposed to having just one or two in a section that discusses the fact that historically Muslims did depict him) to make it absolutely clear that Wikipedia is a western project and Muslims are not welcome.

It's similar with defecation (a picture from below of a woman in the act of producing a turd was quickly removed and the idiot who added it and tried to defend it quickly blocked) and autofellatio (apparently the picture must be at the top of the article, because otherwise someone who simply wants to look up what the word means might fail to see it and be offended). It's clear that Wikipedia's editorship is quite happy about respecting taboos related to defecation to extent it makes sense in an encyclopedia, while quite a few people feel a need to break sexual taboos as strongly as possible.

As Ludwigs2 said, there are similar problems in the pseudoscience area. E.g. some people act as if they find it extremely important that such articles are full of expressions of contempt of the subject. Of course the only thing this achieves (in the case of Muhammad and pseudoscience) is that some people will not read our articles because they are offended. I am not talking about Muslims not reading Muhammad because there is a picture of Muhammad there. I am talking about those Muslims who don't read Muhammad because we go out of our way to offend some Muslims more than can be justified by encyclopedic concerns. I am not talking about suppressing the complete invalidation of pseudoscience. I am talking about writing such articles so as to make it clear that people who believe such nonsense are morons and that we don't mind if they stop reading an article after the second sentence because they are deeply offended. Hans Adler 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but none of what you've just said requires anything more than our usual drive to improve articles to fix. We don't need to be creating new policies or changing old ones when the problems you describe can be dealt with through existing procedures. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problems Hans addresses are rather cultural than policy-based. It's true that some editors will fiercely defend explicit sexual images, beyond seeming reasonableness, but I think this is entirely a reaction to the fact that many people wish to equate sex = offensive, and lots of us perceive that as pathological. I'm not saying that's a valid argument so much as unpacking the psychology at work. If it seems that there are puritanical censors erring on the side of removing anything they perceive as "naughty", then there will be people quick to argue against that mindset - whether it's present in a particular case or not. I'm not suggesting any particular solution here; just observing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bacchus, I think you have a point there - there are a number of editors I've run across who use wikipedia as a tool for social engineering (trying to break through people's sexual mores, trying to publicly vilify topics they think are wrong or stupid, etc, and etc.). in many cases policy becomes a tool for them doing that, rather than a tool for preventing that. I sincerely doubt that's the proper goal of a dedicated encyclopedia.

Throwaway: I think we can all see how ell that particular belief has worked out. it reminds me a bit of marginal economics ("yes, things are bad now, but if we wait long enough the market will make things right" - and 400 years later...) --Ludwigs2 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It very likely goes both ways. Just as there are those who think all nudity is offensive, there are those who think any censorship is offensive. My point is simply that we can deal with this simply by trying to build the best encyclopedia we can and not worrying about what may or may not be offensive to certain individuals or groups. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

e.g. if we refuse to acknowledge the problem, the problem no longer exists? please... --Ludwigs2 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But that's not always what happens in practice. It worked at defecation and Virgin Killer, it's a borderline situation at autofellatio, and breaks down completely at Muhammad. In those situations where a large number of editors disapproves of a taboo, it is broken as strongly as possible for reasons that have nothing to do with encyclopedicity and actually hurt the quality of the encyclopedia. It also makes those who could profit most from the articles in question, because they present views they are not usually exposed to, much less likely to actually read them. Hans Adler 20:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that inconsistent adherence to policy is a major issue, as is variable motivation to stick solely to improving the project. I simply fail to see how changing a policy would solve that. At the end of the day, we have tools such as RfCs set up to get feedback from the community, and that feedback is usually very good. We must operate on the assumption that the majority of editors here are dedicated to improving the project, and will put personal feelings aside in order to do so. If we can't make that assumption, then the system breaks down. Personally, there are many things on-wiki that I don't think belong (penis size in infoboxes of gay porn actors strikes me as a big one). My objection to them is not moral, however. I am not offended by them, I just think they don't contribute anything to the project. It is through the normal channels of article improvement that they might get removed. If they don't, well, that's tough, and I'll move on to something else. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

again, all I'm asking for here is some recognition in policy that commonly held judgments (even those judgments that are based on apparently emotional or moral grounds) be acknowledged and incorporated into consensus discussions as valid concerns. I'm not trying to dictate actual discussion outcomes, I'm just trying to prevent policies such as this one from being used as tools to unilaterally and dogmatically kill consensus discussions wherever some editor(s) decide they want to push a particular bit of offensive content through over all objections. can you not see the value in that? --Ludwigs2 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing the wording to make inclusion more difficult won't change those behaviours, but simply shift them to a new subset of people. It's very difficult for anyone to unilaterally kill consensus, and we already have

WP:IAR for when a policy gets in the way of improving the project. I just don't see how making inclusion more difficult will solve any of the behavioural issues you bring up. As for your concern about commonly held judgements, they regularly get taken into account. We still, however, must strive simply to build a good encyclopedia. I think we have similar concerns here, but we have different ideas on how to solve them. I think the core concept of improving the project will necessarily fix any problems there may be with it. You seem to think a modification of policy is necessary. What, in particular, do you see as being an issue that is unsolveable by the simple drive to improve? Throwaway85 (talk

) 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

again, I'm not trying to solve behavioral issues. I'm trying to open a door for consensus discussions (a door that is currently slammed shut in a lot of people's faces)

with respect to your reliance on 'a drive to improve' as a panacea... it's an unfortunate fact that the substance of the word 'improve' differs dramatically from editor to editor. There are many deeply religious editors who think wikipedia would be 'improved' by removing all offensive pictures and other editors who think that wikipedia would be 'improved' by including the most graphic pictures possible, everywhere. many people have good intentions that lead them in bad directions; that's the nature of the human beast. The only way wikipedia is actually improved as an encyclopedia is by creating consensus around 'the encyclopedic-ness' of content, so that editors are at least minimally satisfied that the article is a good and balanced representation of the topic. Your argument seems to be that we never need to create consensus about the use of potentially offensive material; that it can be used without limitations so long as it satisfies some minimal criteria of 'appropriateness'. that strikes me as an incorrect approach to editing.

just out of curiosity, I wonder what people's reactions would be if I tried to add a tasteful image of Christ and Mary making love to the article on Jesus (related to gnostic beliefs that they were husband and wife). I'm almost tempted to try it to see how far NOTCENSORED would get me in that case; but that would probably be a bit too

pointy. --Ludwigs2

22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting that our usual critieria for inclusion, that is, that an image improves the reader's understanding of the article, combined with our usual criteria for editting, that is that the edit improves the article, basically ensures that baseless additions like you describe would be removed. If a picture adds something to an article that words cannot, and the majority of editors feel it is appropriate, then we keep it. Your Christ and Mary (Magdelene, I presumem because otherwise--ewww) example doesn't count, because there is nothing gained by including such a picture that cannot be summed up in the words "Gnostics believe Christ and Mary Magdelene were married". Like I've said before, we don't go out of our way to offend. We simply make the most informative articles we can. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

but this is exactly the problem. look at what happened over at goatse: some editors object to the image on offensiveness grounds. other editors say that the image 'adds information' to the article, and so it can't be removed per policy. however, when asked what the image adds, the best they come up with is that it is a matter of 'visual identification' (which seems to mean nothing more than that it's a picture), and won't address the issue beyond that. so basically, editors shadowdance their way into a claim that the picture adds value, and then leverage NOTCENSORED to stifle any discussion of the matter. I mean really - if the picture were not offensive it would be easy for me to argue that it adds nothing to the article and get it removed; why should it be more difficult for me to remove an offensive picture than a non-offensive one?

and to go back to the Christ and Mary (yes Magdalene) sex-scene example, I could easily argue that it does add value because it depicts a notable theme in gnostic Christian literature - visual identification, right? - and so it cannot be removed, per NOTCENSORED. There's no reason even to discuss it. Heck, I could probably even get a live-model version in, if I can find people to pose. why limit it to mere drawings? see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what we were saying. We were saying goatse.cx is, in essence, hello.jpg, and that the picture is notorious enough that it warrants inclusion. A goatse article without hello.jpg would be significantly less informative. Furthermore, it is not more difficult to remove an offensive picture, it is just as difficult, and that's the way it should be. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

an opinion I disagree with, but which we never got around to discussing because you kept claiming I was speaking from

wp:IDONTLIKEIT and invoking NOTCENSORED. go back and read the discussion. --Ludwigs2

05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, and that's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Perhaps you'd like to share in my joy and reread the discussion yourself. I mentioned IDONTLIKEIT once after stating my argument above. The only arguments I made after that were those directly relating to this policy, and your interesting interpretation thereof. Reading that page was an exercise in frustration. I saw you arguing nonstop (and rudely, I might add) against 5 editors who were all telling you basically the same thing, with the occasional editor dropping by to throw in their two cents. At some point you have to recognize the feedback you've received, and that your actions in no way contribute to "consensus building". Throwaway85 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry, you were all saying the same things, none of which actually related to what I was saying - I can't remember who repeated each point how many times. sorry about your ten minutes, but would you have really put it to any good use regardless? --Ludwigs2 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

...

 

 

 

maybe.

Throwaway85 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing something written into policy, I like to see it carried out effectively in practice. Ludwigs2, are there articles where you'd say we basically get it right, and take the sensibilities of readers into consideration without sacrificing quality and informativeness? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

well, just for a quick (maybe not the best, but it will do for the moment) example read Talk:Fellatio#One_picture_removed. The discussion here has a nice mix of perspectives (from a couple of people who think the whole idea of pictures is offensive to one guy that wants to use a photo of what I suspect is his own junk). the editors do a reasonably good job of balancing the fact that some people find the images offensive with the encyclopedic needs of the article (though it would be nicer if they were more explicit about it), and end up with a set of (dare I say tasteful?) drawings that are tightly tied in with their respective sections (one lead drawing, a historcal drawing for the history section, a rip from the Kama Sutra for the religious section, a ceramic that depicts fellatio for the 'ingestion of semen' section). Note that the only time NOTCENSORED is raised in the discussion is by an editor who is worried it will turn things into an edit war. The rest of the arguments on the page have some nice discussions of racial and gender sensitivity as well. I'll look around a bit (later) and see if I can find some better examples. --Ludwigs2 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we have it right when we accept whatever will significantly help the article. An illustration of the subject of the article will always help the article. A totally peripheral image only loosely related does not help, whether or not in may be shocking. There is a ground in between where we need to use discretion. A clear statement that they are to be used discreetly and with judgment might have helped some recent conflicts. It might also help to have a clear statement that they are never to be used in lede sections unless there is no practical alternative (e.g. an article about the image itself), Using our liberties fully and responsibly preserves them--using them for the purpose of provocation arouses hostility towards them. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to not using the image in the lede, what would you say about, for example,

Genital warts? Throwaway85 (talk

) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)