Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Archive 4

message: My suggestions for further development, in no particular order:
#Best-of-both worlds approach toward flagging "approved" articles,
#"Approval" process,
#Dispute resolution process. Maurreen 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to start

message: One way to resolve editorial disputes could be to help at WP:RfC. Or we could build on that. I think RfC needs help. It doesn't even need to be anything formal.Maurreen 16:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial disputes

message: Articles should be suggested as candidates, similar to FAC. Candidates should meet certain criterion which differ from the criteria applied for FAC - while quality of writing/readability should be emphasized, verifiability would be the primary focus of this process.
:# citations/footnotes for statements of fact
:# ascribe opinions
:# quotes footnoted
:# bibliography of supportive and relevant source items, articles, texts, websites.
In short, articles should report rather than state. - Amgine 17:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good overall. Maurreen 17:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is this proposal different to FAC? I get the impression from many of the contributors to this page that they want to raise standards of FAC, not flag articles at a more intermediate standard. If so one should work with FAC and get the standards changed. Article candidacy for an intermediate standard might be useful work for Wikipedia 1.0. Wikipedia 1.0 is no going to filled with just 400 articles, it needs thousands upon thousands! :ChrisG 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article candidacy 

message: Members must be PhD's or graduate students?  How utterly elitist and condescending.  RickK 22:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree.  I think the whole point of Wikipedia is that people without academic credentials can and do do great research.  We must hold to this bedrock principle.  Now, the fact that people can do great research doesn't mean that people can't do poor research, and I thought the whole idea of this forum is to work on that problem.  But it shouldn't be based on the credentials of the editors. Slrubenstein
::Those of us who "only" have bachelor's degrees, or even 12- and 13-year-olds who are VALID editors are going to feel mighty unwelcome here if this process proceeds.  RickK 22:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
:::I'm a student (currently working toward my IB diploma) and a member of the project. I don't think anybody (except Adam Carr) is proposing a Ph.D or graduate student requirement. Neutrality (hopefully!) 23:00, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't propose any such thing. Adam 23:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  An excellent point. The thing is that the "I know this person" model breaks down as the contributor pool gets larger. People who have been editing off in a corner one doesn't know about, and garnered a good reputation there, may be unknown elsewhere. Some sort of system to indicate such things would be good to develop. Noel (talk) 16:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The "Phd and grad student" requirement was apparently put forth by 172 on the project page. Maurreen 16:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolute discrimination

message: Here's an outline of a possible plan, submitted for your suggestions. One advantage is that the computer part of it is simple. Maurreen 06:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Approval" rough proposal 

message: It could help to refer to the numbers above when making your comments. Thanks. Maurreen 06:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: After rereading all the various suggestions for approval mechanisms (for what seems the hundreth time) I had a brainwave and ran with it. The outcome is this proposal is here
. I look forward to comments. :ChrisG 19:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New and detailed proposal for an approval mechanism

message: There is a lot going on on this page.  Different people have different ideas of what the purpose of this page is.  Have we reached any consensus on the most general aims of this page/group?  I see that most recently people are working on an approval process.  Okay, I can see why some would find this interesting and important.  But I thought there were other ideas being bandied about -- e.g. mediating conflicts based on content, and reviewing articles with an eye towards giving editors activiely working on an article good critical feedback and constructive suggestions.  Have we decided that these are not really going to be an important part of our work?  Or is it all three of these things?  Or are there things I have missed?  Frankly, I have been distracted with my own edit problems with another "user" so I apologize if I am missing something.  But I think that before we expend a lot of energy coming up with a mechanism or procedure to achieve aim "x," we need to be clear that we all agree what the aim, or aims, of this working group are.  Then perhaps we can have a division of labor or figure out a way to work on meeting different aims simultaneously but without confusion ... Slrubenstein
: I guess Wikipedia policy joins sausages and laws as something one shouldn't watch being made! :-) Well, that's the way rough consensus gets created. Yes, this is a little disorganized, but... So. just because something hasn't figured in recent postings doesn't mean that we don't like it as a goal (and I suspect most people here agree with the two points you mentioned - I certainly do). If something seems to contradict a goal that's important to you, but hasn't been mentioned recently, say so, and see what people think. You have have seen something others missed. Noel (talk) 21:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with all that. I'm not sure we've decided anything, other than perhaps we'd like to raise the overall quality. But "Brief summary" and "Where to start", above, might be useful. Maurreen 08:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am confused 

message: Copied from the Village Pump, thought this might be of interest here. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/ looks like an interesting new tool for research into scientific publications on the Internet. It is described as " Google Scholar enables you to search specifically for scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of research." At first glance, this seems to be far more helpful for finding relevant refences than other search engines. Please try out, and please give feed back. Should Scholar be recommended in our How-to pages? Kosebamse 15:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Shouldn't we get someone to contact google and add us as a publisher?  I see we're listed as some of the citations, but google doesn't (yet) know where the actual work is.  anthony 警告 19:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't tried it, but I copied it to Wikipedia talk:Google test. Maurreen 08:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Scholar 

message: Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards is a place where discerning Wikipedia editors can "meet" to discuss, develop and promote encyclopedic standards.
We envision developing or refining:
# A set of goals for articles, 
#A system to indicate articles or article versions that have attained those goals, and
#A quality-based method of resolving editorial disputes. 
:Maurreen 09:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft of mission statement

message: * I agree with those goals. :ChrisG 13:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The characterization of the arbitration committee on the project page does not fully represent the actual situation. I think everyone involved declines acceptance of disputes over specific article content, which I gather this project also wishes to avoid. We do accept cases which involve edit warring over content and try, not always successfully, to deal with editors who either cannot or will not reference their additions or deletions from articles. This is seen by some, but not all of the arbitration committee, as within our charter. Please look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact for an example of how this works out in practice. Please especially note the negative votes at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins/Proposed_decision#Significance_of_Lance6wins.27_viewpoint. Fred Bauder 12:40, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Should these or similar comments, also about mediation, be added to the project page? Maybe a lot of people think the formal dispute resolution process is concerned only with behavior. Maurreen 00:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jurisdiction of the arbitration commitee

message: See Talk:Finnic. I don't think knowledge or awareness of the topic is an absolute requirement in this case. See the "RfC" section. Maurreen 14:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this looks good. Two versions with serious questions as to where one of them at least is getting his information. Fred Bauder 16:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
See also Talk:Finno-Ugric languages, Talk:Uralic languages... - Mustafaa 01:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Test case for editorial disputes

message: Fred, I only joined Wikipedia at the beginning of this month so I'm still finding my feet. But I want to say that the inherent problem with mediation seems to be precisely what you said above: that the mediator will deal with issues the parties AGREE to mediate. I'm in a dispute Death of Jeremiah Duggan (it hasn't reached mediation) with two users I believe are Lyndon LaRouche activists. The real issue between us, I feel, is whether LaRouche activists should be allowed to insert LaRouche-related POV. But they deny it's LaRouche POV. They say the material they insert provides balance i.e. they're NPOV guardians, they argue. In my view, they're using the NPOV policy as a Trojan horse to insert their POV, and there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to stop them. If I try to get a mediator involved in the specific issue of whether these users should be regarded as LaRouche advocates, the other parties will not agree. They'll try to limit mediation to X said this, and Y said that, which is what they call NPOV, which results in a biased, uninformed source being given undue weight in the article, along the lines of "Dr. X, who is a professor of history, says . . .  but Mr. Y [a LaRouche activist who knows nothing about the subject but we're not allowed to say that] says . . . "
I found an example on Usenet recently of a self-confessed LaRouche activist backing up an argument with reference to a Wikipedia article on the subject. Unknown to readers of Usenet, that article had been edited (and I believe created) by a LaRouchie and wasn't an independent reference at all. This is an example of why I feel the mediation/arbitration committees (or a new standards committee if one is formed) would be doing Wikipedia a great service if they could find a way to deal with extremist groups/cults using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Slim 23:35, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies and see if you think the problems you are encountered are covered by that decision. My impression is that some of them are, for example, "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." Fred Bauder 01:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
::Fred, thank you for providing that link. I believe some of the issues are indeed covered by that decision. I have therefore posted a "request for enforcement" on your user talk page. I wasn't sure whether that was the right place to post it. I'll be happy to move it if it should be somewhere else. Thank you. Slim 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
The matter is not as simple as is generally assumed at the discussion Fred refers to. The LaRouchite users Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper (there may be others), don't just "directly" promote LaRouche, except at directly relevant articles such as Lyndon LaRouche. They also insert LaRouchian prespectives in other articles, forcing editors who are knowledgeable in these areas to spend time and engergy in revert wars. The LaRoucheites then play injured-innocent and claim others are censoring them. Thus Herschelkrustofsky has now taken to editing articles about 19th and 20th century Australian politicians, selecting ones that the Australian LaRouchies (the CEC) claim (quite wrongly) as their ideological ancestors. One has to be active in Australian politics and knowledgeable about Australian history to see what he is up to. Fortunately I am both, and have been routinely reverting his edits, but now I am being taken to arbitration as a result, while he plays wide-eyed innocent. Only a general revert-on-sight and ban-when-necessary policy will be effective in stamping out the LaRouchite infestation of Wikipedia. The same applies to the cabal of Stalinists led by Hanpuk/etc/etc and Shorne, who at the moment are doing even more damage than the LaRouchites. Adam 02:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation/arbitration and disputes with extremists

message: I think at least some of the editorial disputes could be addressed through more effort in available processes. For example:
*listing them on RfC,
*summarizing the dispute on the talk page, to help anyone who visits the talk page from RfC, and
*anyone who lists anything on RfC trying to help out at least at a couple other disagreements.
I've only listed on RfC a couple of times, and the second was only today. But I believe my first RfC listing didn't bring any comment. RfC or a similar mechanism I think is especially needed or useful when the disagreement is between just two people. Maurreen 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I created a page mainly to discuss the tension between the goals of quantity and quality, and what, if anything, to do about it. If you’re interested, please see Wikipedia:Breadth and quality. Maurreen 02:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Breadth and quality

message: Advantages:
*Simple and quick. This could be implemented and useful within an hour of its adoption.
*Takes best-of-both-worlds approach to wiki nature and any standing of experts.
Outline:
#Any registered user could review any article.
#There would be a category and list of reviewed articles.
#The list would indicate which version of an article was reviewed by each reviewer.
#Reviews on the list would be no more than a paragraph long.
Options:
#Detailed reviews could be written and linked to from the list.
#Reviewers who chose to could list themselves and a paragraph about any relevant qualifications or limitations on a list of reviewers.
#Reviewers should at least indicate if they have worked on the article.
#We could have a list of articles for which a review is desired, or use the current peer review page.
#We could choose a set of suggested levels or other indicators (such as “acceptable,” “weak,” “comprehensive,” etc.). 
:Maurreen 21:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought on this is that there is an immediate problem with 'Any registered user could review any article'.  There's no problem with having anyone review an article - however to improve the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia, I think that we (unfortunately) need a link to the 'outside world' where people have real names and qualifications, rather than 'karma' built up under a nom-de-plume.  For articles' credibility to be increased, someone's, or some people's, reputation needs to be on the line. My thoughts are that a properly constituted editorial board needs to approve (and possibly modify) articles.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, there could (and in my view should) be multiple competing boards aiming to set their seal upon particular article versions.  For example, one such board could be a set of academics in a particular subject whose names are known, who have a publishing record in peer-reviewed journals, and have an academic reputation.  This does not preclude a self selected group of people setting up their own board under noms-de-plume and producing a Wikireputation based set of approvals.  Users would have the choice of using either or both or neither board's seals of approval (article tags) as a filter into Wikipedia. WLD 21:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: &#8221;Reviewed&#8221;articles draft proposal