Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 12

message: The closest I can get to something that is consistant with policy is:
:Wikipedia does not allow for articles that exist with the aim to disparage the subject of the article. This is required by NPOV and Verifiability in that there must be enough information from Reliable sources to write a NPOV about the subject. With regards to people this means that there must have been wider coverage of their lives beyond a single event.
however this doesn't work because it would require the deletion of articles on things like Olympic athletes.Geni 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so. If an athlete wins Olympic gold, we get a hole biography appearing in reliable sources. When a person becomes a bit player in an incident, all we get is newspaper reports of one incident. That a baby was 'switched at birth' does not allow us to write a biography - although if the incident attracted enough attention, we could write an article on the incident.--Docg 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe in a Darwinistic approach -- we can have the articles, then when time passes by and there really is no significance to an event, we can go on ahead and delete the article. If the event still has significance after a period of time, then the article is kept. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable. In the meantime we are highlighting something that's unimportant - and giving it google juice. If it is just an incident report - then it isn't a biography and we should not have what we cannot write.--Docg 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to take the longer term view with BLPs. We have the ability to affect an entire life by making a rash decision and publicizing unnecessarily some stupid mistake that someone might have made. Better to wait to see how and whether reliable sources develop the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so you support the deletion of articles on olympic athletes? If not how do you square that with your position.Geni 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: nah plenty of minor events where such coverage will not exist Olympic Trap shooting for example.Geni 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If having been involved in Olympic Trap Shooting ever becomes a serious liability to former contestants, the articles that include such trivia will probably be subject to heavy editing.  We make the internet not suck, and we need to live up to that. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No that is what I'm trying to work around since your suggestion would put us as the arbiters of what is good and evil and that just doesn't work. Trap Shooting may be harmless but what about say Eurovision (answer depends on where you are) or say someone who was briefly a major homosexual activist? No these are not judgments that it is wikipedia's place to make.Geni 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's our encyclopedia.  Who's to say the judgements aren't ours to make?  Who else would make them but us ourselves? --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: generaly our readers. anythign else would be presenting a POV.Geni 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at rewording

message: From my limited understanding of what people are arguing here, it's not so much the newspaper article part that Wikipedia is not, but the tabloid part. The rewording has taken out the tabloid mention, however, which suddenly makes the statement sound a lot more broad than I think (or maybe just hope) was intended. Perhaps if it specified tabloid newspaper instead of just newspaper. DreamGuy 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *it was almost certian writen in the context of the  Crystal Gail Mangum case. Problem is that almost certianly will have a long term social impact in that geniune rape cases are less likely to be belived in that area for at least a period of time.Geni 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabloid

message: I think my original wording was fine, subject of course to some tweaks and smoothings of grammar and style.
And I invite Geni to be a bit less hysterical about objections.  I am happy to discuss it in detail, and to make
changes as necessary, but the core point is critical, and I am unwavering about it.
Most slippery slope arguments in this area are just nonsense.  What if someone wants to nominate Gun-type fission weapon for deletion?  Well, I would imagine that they will be laughed at.  Saying that we properly "consider" long term historical notability and the harm we might cause is not dispositive in any particular case.   We consider it.  Sometimes we think it worthwhile to proceed despite that.  Many times, and in particular in the kinds of cases we are all concerned about, we think it not worthwhile.  We are Wikipedians.  We discuss, we debate, we think.
We do not and can not know what will be important 100 years from now.  True.  We will let those Wikipedians of the future decide for themselves.  We live here and now, and having total fucking crap (have I ever cursed on Wikipedia before?) in Wikipedia today, on the theory that the people of 100 years hence might want to write an article about it then, strikes me as unwise.--Jimbo Wales 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'd say it's identically unwise to make knee-jerk reactions in the other direction.  Of course, since we write from sources, the addition really lacks anything anyway, as it's wholly subjective and will undoubtedly only be abused, rather than used in any proper manner, if there is a proper manner. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the knee-jerk reaction here (aside from leaping to the conclusion that this "will undoubtedly only be abused")? It's an attempt to maintain coherence between our guidelines and our practices, while addressing issues that have been the subject of concerned discussion for some time now. --Michael Snow 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't seem to address anything regrding guidelines or practices, really.  If you think it does, then it's even more toothless than perhaps I originally thought.  And it's certainly not a leap to consider this easily abused - have you not been paying attention the last couple weeks? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that the page is tagged as "official policy" (for what those labels are worth), why you say it doesn't address guidelines or practices is beyond me. I can see you've already softened your stance from will "only be abused" to "easily abused". From past observation I know I'm not ready to adopt your definition of abuse, so care to keep moving further in the direction of a middle ground? --Michael Snow 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that the section added doesn't reflect any of that, and is at least giving the appearance of a "Jimbo wants it" support (never a good sign), I fail to see how this actually reflects practice, guideline, policy, or consensus.  I see no middle ground, and I'm not really changing my opnion on the abuse - Wikipedia writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inability to see possible common ground with people of divergent opinions does not speak well of your capacity for working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent defense of your position.  I assume you have no argument, since you instead felt the need to go after me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, I have decided not to argue further with someone who rejects any possibility of compromise by his own statements. All you've done is essentially rehashed the same position on your side, so I don't know what my position needs to be defended against other than argument by assertion. --Michael Snow 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm fine with that.  You'll note that I can agree to that without making a trite comment about one's capabilities.  You do, however, seem to have an issue demonstrating how this actually jives with what you claim is "an attempt to maintain coherence."  It may be worth your while to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with." No. Wikipedia is too big, too influential, too widely linked to, too often the first thing returned  in a Google searhc for that to be all. We must also be ethical. We must also refrain from causing needless harm or anguish. We must also refrain from needlessly increasing notoriety of those who are only victims of circumstance. I think the majority of the community believes that. I think the wider world believes we have such a duty as well, and I think Jimbo's changes reflect that consensus, rather than being something imposed by fiat. IMHO, it has come to Jimbo taking this stand personally in part because there is a minority of people, including yourself, Jeff, who apparently do not get this, and it is important enough that Jimbo himself felt that, since you apparently do not get this, his direct contribution to the debate might possibly serve to influence you to reconsider your position, to reconsider spurning ethicality, and to do what is right, not just what is allowed by policy. Please reconsider your position and your opposition. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ethical system? "needless harm or anguish" define what need do we have and where are you drawing the line?Geni 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We are an encyclopedia, not an ethical experiment.  I do get what you're saying - I reject it wholeheartedly, and without reservation.  Jimbo may have other reasons that come into play - he's not sharing them, and, truly, he hasn't been an editor in a very long time, and that certainly bears noting.  Unless he's acting as God King here, I see no reason to treat his opinion as greater than anyone else's at this stage.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not an ethical experiment. We are a project with an opportunity to act ethically, or instead to stand on process. It's too bad that you reject what I believe is consensus "wholeheartedly and without reservation", because I choose to act ethically, not to stand on process, as do I think most other people. As for weight of opinions, I think you'll find that WP is at least in part a meritocracy and Jimbo has demonstrated more merit than most, and thus his opinions rightly carry more weight (at least with some of us) than some other folks opinions do. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I choose to act ethically as well.  See the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed I do. Restating it... if my ethics lead me logically to the conclusion that we should not do needless harm to victims by publicising them more than necessary, and your ethics lead you logically to the conclusion that doing so is OK, at least one of our ethical systems has a logical contradiction or a moral failing. Perhaps both, of course, and perhaps instead, one or both of our derivations is not sound. But.. if I'm in fact logically contradicted or if my conclusion is fallaciously derived, then I'm in pretty good company, company I'm proud to keep. For the most part, I think it's a good idea to structure things in a way that we don't have to use ethics to make decisions, as much as possible. But sometimes we do. These sorts of cases are the sort where we do have to be informed by ethics, and your apparent viewpoint in this matter about what is right and what is ethical is, I think, in a small minority. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone has an issue with the statement that it might be considered. But having that statement be part of policy implies that things that violate it are likely to be deleted, not just that it will be considered as a factor. If you support deleting these types of articles, that's reasonable, but significantly different from just saying "we consider it". -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: not a slippery slope argument just a logical extrapolation. If we are going to start worrying about harm that is the direction we should logicaly go in. We cannot decide if information is going to cause harm without first decideing if information is good or evil and that is a POV judgement that we should not be makeing.Geni 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think my original wording was fine

message: WP:NOT is explicitly listed as one of the things that is not a speedy criterion. So if you think that this section justifies any speedy deletion, you are wrong. Those will continue to stand on their own merits, supported by no policy (except maybe some interpretations of BLP). -Amarkov moo! 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I think we'll have a lot less need for speedies in a short while. Stay tuned. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What did this mean?--P4k 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not justification for speedy deletion

message: I've restored Jimbo's wording in the newspaper articles item to emphasize the word "encyclopedic".  Our notability guidelines are rules of thumb and do not guarantee an article in an encyclopedia.  The stronger standard applies: "should this item have an encyclopedia article in this encyclopedia?"  In answering that question we consider every relevant factor.  In particular, this policy overrides theg guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like using the word 'encyclopedic' here as it's circular: 'encyclopedic' in this context means 'suitable for the encyclopedia'. So saying that we shouldn't have unencyclopedic articles is a tautology. It seems that my wording with 'notable' is better, because that really is the only standard that we can use. The way, the truth, and the light 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You remain my favourite Wikipedian, Tony, for your ability to write stuff like that with a straight face. Your standard is utter bollocks, of course. It basically says you'll decide what should be in an encyclopaedia by deciding what should be in an encyclopaedia. Which would be fine if there weren't dozens of opinions on what encyclopaedias should contain, which are drearily rehearsed in various forums here. It's not that I don't appreciate your desire to allow editors you consider to have a "clue" to be arbiters of what should be in and what should be out -- it's a bit self-selecting but so long as you include yourself in the "clueful", what's the harm? -- but you can see why some find it a bit unsatisfactory? Of course, I think we should have stuck with the original bold vision and not settled for aiming at being a poor man's Britannica, but I'm not as influential in the backchannels as yourself. Grace Note 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really starting to hate Wikipedia.  It's getting too complicated and convoluted to edit, people are in constant disagreement, and there really are no guiding editors or moderators at the top.  The main problem is that since there can be millions of articles and entries, there's no way to control it all.  The other problem, that I admit is subjective, is that even though this is a site anyone in the world can contribute to, I really can't stand the use of British-only terms such as "bollocks".  It's a bad word (I don't mean because a curse word, it's just an awful word), it needn't be used in the United Kingdom, and certainly doesn't need to be used here.  I'm sure somewhere buried in the Wiki vaults is a usage book on language usage, that would explain why using "British English" is acceptable, but I would not subscribe to it, anymore than strictly "American" words or terms should wind up in British encyclopedias or usage guides.  I know, I know, now that statement is going to cause outrage from some or another editor!71.125.227.129 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is American spelling any better than British spelling? Melsaran 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notable->encyclopedic

message: I've been bold and reworded it slightly. I should probably outline my position in greater detail here:
While i'm mainly in agreement with BLP and this policy addition, I still feel it requires further clarification to avoid loose interpretations. I'm not sure whether every article on a living person needs to be viewed as a full 'Biography' - if their notability is restricted to one particular incident or event. I'm also concerned at the potential for 'sanitising' wikipedia that BLP seems to offer - if negative information is both relevant and verifiable, it should be included. The Crystal Gail Magnum case is a clear example of the line where the article becomes unnecessary - not enough verifiable information for a full biography (which is not necessarily a problem) or for an article (which is). Since there was a larger article on the incident which contained the relevant information, I supported the redirect. However, I'm sure there are articles that have been speedied where there *was* enough relevant information for an article, and where there hasn't been coverage of this information within another article.
In short, I'm in agreement with thois policy, with the proviso that people should tread lightly when approaching this type of article: rather than speedying, it would be preferable to blank dubious content (not whole articles), protect, and send to one of the many fora for resolving content disputes. Some of what's been happening with DRV etc has served to divide the community, rather than to encourage co-operation. Which path do we want to take? --DrumCarton 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I think it's divisive to talk about policy overriding guidlines - BLP and Notability are perfectly capable of working together, as long as people try to make them do so. If a subject is clearly notable, we can't censor it from the encyclopedia, even if the verifiable information is predominantly negative. Likewise, if an article is negative without adding anything to the encyclopedia, it shouldn't need to be here. Example of the type of story that does not merit an article: . However, there are many that do. DrumCarton 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at rewording #2

message: I've made another tweak back towards Jimbo's original language.  I can see where "Newspaper articles" stands out from "News Reports" which is a term used in WP:NOT#OR. --InkSplotch 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More minor tweaks 

message: I completely agree with the addition, however there seems to be major disagreement to how this is supposed to be applied. I don't suggest removing the entry, but agree with it or not, it's way too new for people to be using it in such unclear situations. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We need more discussion on this