Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Archive 5

message: One approach involves the very difficult question of citation, in the sense of others citing Wikipedia. IMO, Wikipedia is not suitable as a citable source on most history or politics. If I were writing a paper on such a subject, I would only use Wikipedia as a source to point me elsewhere, not as definitive in itself. Aside from the issues of POV and self-selected writers, we have the problem of constantly shifting content. An accurate citation would have to read: "English Wikipedia, 'George W. Bush is subhuman controversy,' revision of 17 October 2004, between 0023 and 0432 (UTC)." Perhaps we could consider limiting revisions (other than typos) to certain articles to once a week. During that period all proposed changes would go to a draft article, and that article vetted (how?) before being incorporated in the "public" article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *I believe my point is not that you can't retrieve the appropriate Wikipedia source for the citation, but that Wikipedia articles, especially on contentious subjects, are ephemeral. To paraphrase the old line about the weather: "If a Wikipedia article doesn't support the thesis of your paper, just keep watch for a few days, it will." (no smiley) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing of Wikipedia articles

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: Mission statement

message: Perhaps we should think of this forum as a "think tank" and incubator for ideas, many of which should promptly move out onto project pages of their own, linked from here. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
: I think you are entirely correct. The benefit of having a central forum is that we will achieve sufficient interest to keep the discussion going, generate good ideas and hopefully develop some consensus that we could put forward as new policy. 
:Good projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and Wikipedia 1.0; and mechanisms for meta:Article validation and Wikipedia:Approval mechanism do not get enough attention to sustain them. Besides which there is enormous crossover of ideas and contributors (the same usual suspects) and so we duplicate the same points and don't move forward enough. 
: When we archive we need to identify where the relevant discussions needs to go; and if there isn't a project page for that type of discussion start one. :ChrisG 18:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maurreen 13:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think tank? 

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 hope no one wants to shoot me for what I'm doing here, but we seem to have hit a wall and I'm trying to see whether I can get us moving again. The following section, "Proposed strategies (moved from project page)" consisted of three proposals that really helped to get discussion rolling here, but were nowhere near getting consensus. I'm moving them to the talk page here, and then going back to the project page to try coming at this from a higher level, and see if we can give this more focus. If someone thinks I'm really headed the wrong way, please let's discuss; we can always revert the project page to before I got there. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
:I think you did a great job! Maurreen 04:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What I'm doing (Jmabel) 

message: I'm thinking that most or all of what's under "Reviewed" articles draft proposal" and "Endorsements" can go on the "Approval mechanisms" page.
The sections "Referencing in Wikipedia articles" and "Software-assisted citation" can be combined with the "Cite your sources" talk, although perhaps with a better name, such as "Referencing in Wikipedia articles", with at least a very prominent link to the Wikipedia footnotes page. Maurreen 13:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing?

message: Maybe I was hasty, or maybe I just followed advice about being bold and the think tank idea. But you're invited to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Maurreen 08:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1.0 Editorial Team

message: My idea for accomplishing these ends for a while has been a setting up alternative channels in the conflict resolution process focusing on specific subject areas. In practice, this could mean setting up a committee for editorial arbitration-- at least on an experimental basis. A committee set up along the lines of the Arbitration Committee but with editorial discretion could be established for arbitrating disputes on articles pertaining to modern history and politics, which tend to dominate each step of the existing conflict resolution process. Such a committee could consist of committed Wiki editors who are PhDs or graduate students (examples that come to mind are Slrubenstein, Adam Carr, Danny, Jtdirl, El C, and John Kenney). The experts could be hired by the Foundation, which has in the past reviewed resumes by users applying for Wikimedia positions. So, whereas the Arbitration Committee focuses on behavior and process, the sort of editorial review committee that I am proposing can focus on disputes concerning point of view, language, sources, factual accuracy, etc. (By the way, if such a committee were to be set up, I would not apply to serve as an editorial arbitrator for history, given my choice to contribute anonymously.) If anyone is interested, please see Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. 172 20:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I contine to see this is a crucial and desperately needed function.  I myself asked for such help recently.  I don't see why we cannot start forming small teams now to start offering such services.  UNLIKE other committees, we should not claim the power to anything binding; we shouldn't try to "resolve" (i.e. end) a conflict, but rahter make constructive and well-informed interventions with a focus on encyclopedic standards. Slrubenstein
----
This was copied from "Groups" at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Maurreen 13:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial arbitration

message: In Wikipedia introductory pages and the like, we might want to introduce a little more info on verifiability and references. Maurreen 18:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spreading the word

message: I'm curious about how many people here have used RfC and how useful it was. Maurreen 08:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC results

message: Here's a summary of suggested elements for a set of standards. Please add to it as you see fit.
General
#Accurate 
#Appearance
#Comprehensive 
#Edited and proofread properly, overall quality of writing 
#Legally OK, no libel or copyright violations 
#Levels
#Media-specific requirements 
#NPOV
#Proportional
#Stable (ie, don't change all the time) – appears to be desired by a minority
References and related
# Footnotes or citations for statements of fact
# Opinions ascribed
# Quotes footnoted
# Bibliography of supportive and relevant source items, articles, texts, web sites.
Levels could include "usable" and "feature quality".
Any thoughts on fact-checking?
:Maurreen 00:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary