Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid/Archive 1

message: I'm one of the designers of Wikicode, a proposed pseudocode standard for Wikipedia. One of the requirements I came up with was for the first prominent pseudocode sample in each article to include a link to Wikipedia: Wikicode, which describes some details of the pseudocode, for reference purposes, using the  template. However, currently this template (Template: wikicode) contains text referring to Wikipedia. How should this be fixed? Derrick Coetzee 19:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like someone simply dropped the word Wikipedia... this kinda works but has an odd sound to it ("for articles"... what articles?) I'd appreciate any other suggestions. Derrick Coetzee 03:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikicode self-reference

message: "Forking," given above as the basic justification for the ban on self-reference, is a term taken from the computer field. Normally, it refers to reuse of software code.  In open-source software, self-reference (for example, to details of particular machines or installations) is a hindrance to legitimate reuse.
Scholarly content differs from software because its value consists of accuracy, not functionality.  To help establish accuracy, scholars cite their sources.  Any Web site that uses Wikipedia material without saying where it is from (and this practice is pervasive) is engaged in rotten scholarship--in fact, in plagiarism.  
It follows that any passage in a Wikipedia article that says it is a Wikipedia article can only be to the good, since it helps reveal bad scholarship on the part of others.  If others won't cite the Wikipedia as source, let us in effect do it for them.  
In conclusion:  the software analogy is a false analogy.  Software can be anonymously reused because it is self-verifying--you just check if the program works.  Scholarship cannot be anonymously reused, because that breaks the chain of citation on which its quality depends.
Thanks for listening, Opus33 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Opus, leaving context-sensitive self-references in articles does little to help others properly cite their sources.  When a lawyer uses a segment from a Wikipedia article in a court case, or a company uses a few pages of a wikipedia seires in a business plan, or a travel guide uses a few passages from a Wikibook to illustrate a specialized point, they should be able to do so without worrying about subtle notes which will make no sense to someone who is not browsing the WP website.   +sj+ 21:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are hosts of other "subtle notes" that lose their sense when taken out of context. Brainless reuse should be punished as well. Mikkalai 22:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This policy is misconceived

message: This was removed as a self-reference without explanation. Looking at what links here, there are a number of links from the article space to this Wikipedia space page. anthony 警告 21:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It contains one link into the Wikipedia namespace, but it is very important and has been explained at Wikipedia: Wikicode and Wikipedia: Wikicode/Specification. Basically, the point is to have a link to a project page where people can read about the syntax and semantics of the pseudocode, in case there's anything they don't understand. I removed the explicit reference in the text to Wikipedia; I thought this was the cause for concern. Derrick Coetzee 20:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I've added it to the list with all the others.  This is ok, right?  anthony 警告 21:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry for the confusion. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 21:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Wikicode

message: I added the section "Community and website feature references" to try to explain some of the finer points that people seem to be missing. I hope it is in keeping with the spirit of the policy. Many people think "avoid self-reference" merely means "don't say Wikipedia", which is obviously an oversimplification. I invite any disagreement about this new content. Deco 04:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. JesseW 08:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Community and website feature references

message: I was recently browsing the category of NPOV disputes and I found it quite funny that the Talk Page for Fascism and Communism was listed on the category (talk pages shouldn't be subject to NPOV, should they? =P). Apparently, the template for NPOV dispute was moved by someone citing Avoid self-references to the talk page. According to this page, yeah, that technically would be correct. But it breaks the automatic generation of the NPOV disputes.
Furthermore, many of these templates are being put on the main articles, not the talk pages. The de-facto policy is to, actually, put the stub mark on the actual article, not the talk page. When people start arguing about whether or not the controversial tag should be put on the talk or the main article page, it's a needless argument (I saw this in Talk:Atheism. In short, this policy about templates is bloated and is near impossible to pull off, because of people's perceptions about these tags.
In that case, perhaps this page causes more problems than it causes when it starts talking about templates. Obviously you shouldn't say "This Wikipedia article discusses" inside an article, but if you consider the templates, I think this policy should be amended. But due to the self-referential nature of most templates, I think the only possible solution is to delete those clauses. Ambush Commander 21:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
:EDIT: I just reread the clause, and realized that it discouraged moving those templates around. Maybe we should just make that more clear (because if people are citing this policy to move tags around then it certainly isn't clear enough)? Ambush Commander 21:22, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Templates are the main exception to the rule, as this page mentions a couple times. We don't want too many templates with self-reference, but quite a few are useful, and it's easy to eliminate them if necessary in great swaths by modifying the templates. Also, "in-development" pages are pretty much exempt from the rule, as in the case of stubs. Also, self-reference on talk pages and project pages is totally okay. Feel free to edit to make these points clearer if you wish. Deco 03:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that categories have to be linked like images. You have just (accidentally) added this talk page to the category. I fixed it. Deco 02:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Self-Reference Avoidance Causes Technical Problems