Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas. Before creating a new section, please note: Discussions of technical issues belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Discussions of policy belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there. Before commenting, note: This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them. Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.

« Older discussions, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
There is currently a request for adminship open for discussion. Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions? Should the criteria for "recent deaths" listings on "In the news" be changed? How safe are GMOs? (Note: Active ArbCom remedies) April Fools' Day on Wikipedia Former names in lead of bios of transgender/non-binary people Repeal WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES? Allow non-admins to close RfDs to "delete"? IP block exemptions to users in good standing? Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.
archive talk edit history watch

Extended confirmed protection policy

Discussion

It's become necessary to begin discussing how the community will apply WP:BLUELOCK in articles outside ArbCom jurisdiction or discretionary sanctions. Rather than formulate an RFC in a hurry, let's all take a few days to hash out ideas on how to best implement ECP.

I'll begin by saying that I don't think ECP should be authorized for uses other than sockpuppetry or new, disruptive accounts that can't be controlled by semi-protection. I'm open to other uses but I'm having trouble seeing them right now. Katie^talk 15:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

For me, it should be the last resort. I mean, real last, not just a burst of vandalism or socking. We don't need to have the entire Wiki blue-locked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First I think we should understand, when we say "community" in the protection policy, whether we mean a priori by the community, with exceptional cases handled at a noticeboard of some sort, or whether all such discussions should be held at a noticeboard, or some other option. Ban discussions are basically required to occur at WP:AN/WP:ANI, yet the most recent case where an editor attempted to have a discussion there about a potential use of ECP is probably going to close as "no consensus" or possibly even "this doesn't seem to be the place to have this discussion", without having had a "wide" community discussion about the policy problem. (ref WP:AN#Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection). The originating RFC rejected WP:RFPP as a venue for these; what about a WP:RFPP/EPC? --Izno (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think an RFC is the way to go in the end. As someone who closes RFCs semi-regularly and is in the process of co-closing a big one that's muddied by a section that basically ended up as "it depends", the questions really have to be stated in a 'support/oppose' or 'yes/no' manner. It's the only way to effectively gauge consensus. How about something like:

• Do administrators have discretion to apply ECP in the same manner as they use discretion to apply other forms of protection?
• Is ECP authorized for persistent sockpuppetry?

There are obviously other questions to be asked, but these two are a start. I hesitate to propose a 'what if admins do not have discretion' as I think the first question should be answered, well, first. Katie^talk 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It may be interesting to see the current usage of blue-lock protection. The following are the articles that have the {{pp-30-500}} template in the article text:

The only listed article that doesn't fall under Gamergate, ARBPIA, or the caste sanctions is Real Madrid C.F. I'll notify the admin who placed that protection that we are having a discussion here. Only five *article talk* pages are under blue-lock protection; they are at the end of the list and are all ARBPIA or Gamergate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Going by the presence of {{pp-30-500}} doesn't give the full list, since that template is merely a visual reminder: it's not obligatory to add a prot icon template to protected pages. Nor does it provide any reasons for the use of WP:30/500. The full list is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The number of extended confirmed users won't be confirmed unless everyone edits at least once since 9 April 2016 (UTC). 333-blue 11:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice in comparing the lists, that there are four pages under 30/500 protection not listed by EdJohnston, those omitted are Haaretz, Im Tirtzu, Talk:Nair and Category:Temple Mount. Also, EdJohnston lists Jerusalem, but despite the blue padlock, that page is only semi-protected, and has been since 05:19, 28 February 2011 - it has never been 30/500 prot, so this edit by SSTflyer (talk · contribs) was in error. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The admin who applied 30-500 protection at Real Madrid F.C. has now changed it back after someone pointed out the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't think Haaretz should have 30/500 protection. It's an article about a newspaper. Has that page experienced vandalism excessive enough to warrant that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think Haaretz should be changed, why not ask the protecting admin, User:Rami R. If no agreement can be found, the matter could be raised at WP:AE for a decision. I only saw one recent POV-pushing edit on that article by someone who had less than 500 edits. That User:BoredSocks is now blocked by Rami R. You'd expect a sock to use a more imaginative name. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Since Haaretz has been tagged as falling under ARBPIA since 2014,[1] I felt that applying ECP would be uncontroversial. However if any admin feels otherwise, s/he may feel free to remove protection. Rami R 07:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• We've needed something like this for a long time. Until now, there was no intermediate level of protection between "anyone with an account, ten edits, and four days' tenure"—which prevents the vast majority of casual vandalism and presents at least a moderate obstacle to all but the most determined sockmasters—and "only administrators". I've seen several cases where articles have ended up under long-term full protection or we've just had to accept that every few weeks somebody is going to have to block a load of socks and oversight some libellous edits. So, used sparingly, I support the use of ECP/bluelock at admin discretion where semi has been/would be ineffective and the alternative would be full protection. Perhaps the protecting admin should be required to record their rationale on the talk page (and preferably link to the diff in the protection log so that it can be easily reviewed)? This might help prevent over-use and might also prevent removal by a well-meaning admin who assumes it's being over-used. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, we did have such an intermediate level of protection – pending changes level 2 – but that did not receive consensus by the community to implement anywhere. I would say that 30/500 is actually a large step up from PC2. Mz7 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I generally oppose any bluelock that could be enacted by a single or small group of people. So no lone administrator (except where use in a topic area has been authorised) no local consensus (otherwise you will get walled gardens where a small group can easily lock out new editors). So some form of AN discussion with a *wide* notification. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• I supported the 30/500 protection on any article experiencing vandalism issues. Semi-protection is still inefficent because a vandal account may be autoconfirmed, and to vandalize semi-protected pages, for full protection it seems quite aggervating and stressful to me. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• I think the thrust of the RfC should be answering 1) who should have the authority to implement this level of protection, and 2) when would implementation be appropriate. Here are a few options:

1. Option A: Allow use only by the Arbitration Committee (community cannot use it; most restrictive)
2. Option B: Allow use only by prior community consensus at AN, ANI, village pump or RfC for reasons to be decided on a case-by-case basis
3. Option C: Allow administrators to apply at their discretion only against persistent sock puppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption (verbatim what ArbCom stipulated for WP:AE and WP:AC/DS 30/500 applications)

   Option C alt: Allow use only by prior community consensus at AN, ANI, village pump or RfC only against persistent sock puppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption

4. Option D: Allow administrators to apply at their discretion to prevent persistent or egregious disruptive editing (in the same manner semi, PC, and full protection are currently applied; least restrictive)

We could have the community vote support/oppose for each option. What other options could we make available? Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really understand why this is particularly controversial. Maybe I'm missing something. The ArbCom resolution specifies that it is authorized for certain areas, but does not specify it is unauthorized in others (even though Wikipedia:Protection_policy interprets it both ways in different sections), and if it did, that would be policy making. Furthermore, the wording under expectations clearly opens use broadly beyond ArbCom sanctioned topics.

Bluelock is objectively a protection level intermediate to semi and full. The same rationale should be applied for escalation and reduction of protection.

Further, I would support the broad empowerment of admins to reduce fully protected pages to blue locked, with immediate restoration of full if disruption resumes. Overall, I expect it can be a useful tool for reducing the number of fully protected pages, and not, as some seem to fear, of widespread escalation of semi articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In comparison with Full Protection, two particular points of contention spring immediately to mind - Talk pages; Admin removal of the extended confirmed bit - with a third a few moments later - indefinite length. Suggest we should certainly want to put questions on the first two to the community as part of any RfC; and likely the third also. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft RfC

• @KrakatoaKatie: I've started a very rough draft of a possible RfC at User:Mz7/Draft extended confirmed RfC based on my comment above. Feel free to add to it, edit it or comment on it. Should we add any options? Should we scrap a few options? Is this completely the wrong structure for the RfC? I should probably elaborate more on each option, though, if we are using this structure. Mz7 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'll take a closer look shortly, but my main problem is that there are too many options that could gain consensus from separate groups of !voters. (If both A and D get consensus, what to do then? It will have wasted everybody's time.) I also think you can combine B and C1 to just say 'community consensus' instead of 'community consensus only for X or Y'; let the community decide what it's going to decide. You want to make the RFC as clear as possible so consensus or the lack thereof is easy to judge. The fewer options the better, and ideally only one choice at a time. Katie^talk 19:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do. Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• B and C have too much exclusivity in their verbiage - for example C's "Allow use only" precludes it from being used by other community consensus as in B. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• We need another option between B and C in terms of restrictiveness. Here's what I wrote at a relevant AN thread a moment ago: "If this application is supported by the community, I have a small list of pages that could use 30/500 protection based on the activity documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002/Archive, where a couple other editors and I have been playing high frequency whack-a-mole with a particularly sneaky vandal for months. Given my experience there, I strongly support the use of 30/500 protection in cases where sockpuppetry has been highly persistent (longer than a month), highly disruptive (sneaky vandalism, BLP violations, or edits subject to WP:RevDel), and resistant to semi-protection." I think admins should be able to apply this protection level at their discretion, but those highly persistent and highly disruptive aspects are key. It makes little sense to apply 30/500 protection and freeze out legitimate editors to stop easily detectable and fixable vandalism that isn't highly disruptive. It also makes little sense when the sockpuppetry occurs in a brief but highly active period of vandalism, since a CheckUser would be able to find and block the relevant sleeper accounts if they're all popping out of the woodwork for a single mass-"attack". In that instance, SPI is a far more appropriate venue than WP:RFPP. But there needs to be something above semi-protection to prevent a huge waste of editor time in instances like the SPI I listed above. Long-term abuse cases are few and far between, but they're a serious time sink when they're active. ~ Rob^Talk 17:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There's also technically the possibility of going with Option A but setting up a section at WP:RFPP to request 30/500, with ArbCom speedily considering the requests privately (well, more speedily than a full case, anyway). I'm not a fan of giving the community or admins no ability to apply this protection level, but this would at least be an improvement over requiring a full ArbCom case to get 30/500. I don't want to file a case just to get 30/500 on some pages related to that SPI I linked above. The thought alone makes me want to sign out for a long period of time. ~ Rob^Talk 17:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • There is a relevant discussion here on the community applying 30/500 to a set of articles. ~ Rob^Talk 04:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Option D; second choice option C. I've been helping to patrol RfPP for years, wishing we had something short of full protection to deal with persistent disruption, so I support option D, namely that admins should be allowed to use this as needed, as an alternative to full protection. Realistically, most of those cases are going to be of the option C variety: persistent sockpuppetry and sleeper accounts. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: In case you're confused, this isn't the RFC, just getting ideas for what an RFC about EPC needs to look like. --Izno (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Izno, thanks. I realized after I'd posted it that I'd jumped the gun. I like the draft RfC, though it might have too many options. It would be better, in my view, to offer two options: current option B and a combination of C and D. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• I have created my own draft of the RFC based on Mz7's draft, which can be found in my userspace at User:Tazerdadog/Draft Extended confirmed RFC. I encourage people to take a look at it, and incorporate any worthwhile content into whatever the final proposal ends up being. I know that there are too many options, however, I wanted to include everything I can think of. I fully expect the final RFC will cut 2-3 of them out. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think it needs to explicitly say whether "allow administrators to apply at their discretion" means 1. any one admin can unilaterally apply ECP on a page or 2. consensus among X number of admins. Option B shouldn't even need to be an option. Any action can be taken to a noticeboard for community approval but making it a specific requirement makes it too bureaucratic and an admin would likely to have to levy semi or full protection until community consensus was reached on ECP. That somewhat defeats the purpose. Admins already have the discretion to use semi and full prot, the RFC should focus on whether the community is comfortable with granting admins discretionary use of ECP.

I would recommend removing Option B altogether but subsume it into Options C-E as an addendum.

• • Option C: Allow use on pages that have an established history of particularly persistant and disruptive vandalism which would circumvent semiprotection. Notification is to be left on an appropriate noticeboard (AN, ANI, etc) for community review
  • Option D: Allow administrators to apply at their discretion against vandalism where semi protection is not or would not be effective to control the disruption. Notification is to be left on an appropriate noticeboard (AN, ANI, etc) for community review
  • Option E: Allow administrators to apply at their discretion when the page would otherwise merit full protection, but 30/500 protection is deemed sufficient. Notification is to be left on an appropriate noticeboard (AN, ANI, etc) for community review
• I suggest stripping the options down to this (using some of Mz7's phrasing).

1. Continue to restrict use of ECP to Arbcom only.
2. Allow administrators (how many?) to apply ECP at their discretion 'only against persistent sock puppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. Notification is to be posted on an appropriate noticeboard for review.
3. Allow administrators (how many?) to apply at their discretion when other protection measures have failed and full protection would be inappropriate. Notification is to be posted on an appropriate noticeboard for review.

Blackmane (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Sensible, and I agree. Review at AN is a great idea. Persistent vandalism in these cases is almost always socking anyway, so that's redundant. I'll amend the RFC accordingly.

Unless there are objections, I'm going to take this live on Monday, July 4. Katie^talk 12:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft of an RFC introduction

I started this per the discussion at AN simultaneously with Katie's post here. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection is a new level of protection which prevents certain editors from editing protected pages of that type. Those editors must have made at least 500 edits and have been editing for at least 30 days. The edit protection was instituted due to an RFC earlier this year, mostly with the intent of providing for the then-existing arbitration enforcement scope. The Arbitration Committee recently clarified by motion the extent to which the protection level can be used as a form of arbitration enforcement. They declined to answer the question of how it should be used outside that scope. Current policy allows for the protection level to be added as the result of a community discussion. What a community discussion means in the context of the protection policy seems to be ambiguous: A recent request at WP:AN#Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection would seem to indicate that many editors at that noticeboard believe it to be of the "widely discussed" kind of community, whereas "community" discussion in the context of a ban is a discussion at a noticeboard such as WP:AN or WP:ANI. In addition, Per WP:AN#Extended confirmed protection, there appear to be administrators applying the protection without either the remit from ARBCOM or the community. Given that this is the case, what does the community think "the community" means in the context of this protection level? The previous RFC indicated that WP:RFPP is not an acceptable level. Is it a discussion at WP:AN/WP:ANI, a discussion at a new community page (such as WP:Requests for page protection/ECP), or should it be authorized broadly within a certain scope a priori by the community (a la the ARBCOM clarification)? If a prior, what is that scope? Straw poll Community discussion is at a noticeboard Community discussion is a broader discussion about use

Suggestion - unify "glossaries", "categories","List of.." by automatically assembling 'microarticles', streamline glossary&list creation/maintainance

goal

streamline the generation of glossary & 'list of..' pages using "Micro-articles"; simpler for users and reducing manual redirects/anchors etc.

ideal situation

• A 'category page' automatically assembles the first 1-2 sentences from each article, and displays it alongside the title, in glossary format.
• Allow "micro-articles" - articles which are just 1-2lines of definition of a term, hyperlinked of course.
• Clicking a link to such "micro-articles" automatically loads a corresponding category/glossary page & locates it's internal anchor.
• Obsoletes all "glossary of.." and "list of.." pages.
• EDIT: consider how this would play with the new 'hover cards feature - imagine if you consistently get a nice definition/summary under any term you hover over..

transition

Some tool splits existing glossary/'list-of' pages into individual "micro-articles". automatically guess categories for new 'small pages' from wording, 'in foobar, baz is ....'

benefits

• Less to teach contributors (e.g. template term/defn list markup, bullet point markup); casual editors just need to know [ [ link ] ] format to contribute.
• Adding many 'micro-articles' bridges the gap between wiki and a knowledge graph AI resource.
• Such pages would be subject to additional filtering e.g
  • category intersections/unions, ('computer hardware=comp arch+personalcomputers/ 'personal computers'/ 'computer software' / 'computer architecture...' etc etc)
  • an advanced 'what links here' result - 'everything related to this..'
  • glossary for an individual article?
• Encourage heavy linking with more machine-processable definitions of terms.
• Easier for inter-language translation.
• Easier to manage. (where should a minor definition go?)

motivation

currently I find myself wanting to create all sorts of redirects to terms & re-work articles to create additional anchors to increase the 'link fidelity' (knowing that links are a potential form of labelled data for AI), but these may be more complex to manage. e.g. what if you create a term in a summary and eventually it gets an article, but there's all sorts of conflicting redirects to either the glossary entry or the full article

more details

compiling micro-articles, perhaps deal with parsing some standard formats like "in <foo> , <title> is <content>.." which compress to <title> : <content> when rendered in the 'glossary/category' page for <foo> - or do the reverse. Perhaps auto-assign category from 'in <foo> ..'

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmadd (talk • contribs)

EDIT: if worried about 'overlinking', the software could filter out some of the links based on importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmadd (talk • contribs) 07:14, 20 June 2016

I changed your six subsections to bold text. I guess you don't want separate discussions below each heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This would be a major change in the organization of pages on Wikipedia that you are suggesting, and is not only technical in nature. If you have not already, you should read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. After that, please address what that guideline specifically says about the advantages of having lists (plus glossaries) and categories as two different ways of organizing information. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(Sure it might be a big change. I realise anything like this would have to be implemented gradually as a rolling transition). So to address the advantages of a list- red links= (todo) => perhaps you could do the same job with a placeholder article, and you still have red-links in micro-article content. embellished with annotations => my suggestion is to encourage the first line to include salient information (which it mostly does). I suppose a transitionary measure would be a template in micro articles, but that recovers complexity that the suggestion aims to reduce. included in searches => i think this would benefit search more (and couldn't categories just be added to search anyway?) list formatting styles => software can choose an optimal format based on the content, which might even change depending on the view (e.g. category intersection & even user's browser,mobile vs desktop). more easily edited by newbies => overall this suggestion is trying to streamline what users have to learn. it is of course shifting work into the platform itself. images can be interspersed - I notice the beta-feature of 'page suggestions' uses images - I think a way to highlight a 'key image' associated with the article must already exist. introductory paragraphs for list => split these into a 'introduction to blahblah' page which is automatically assembled by the tool. Fmadd (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid that for this to work, the first few lines of every single article need to perfect. If we cannot guarantee that, we will end up with endless confusing micro-articles and list entries automatically compiled by the system. How would we solve this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would hope that is less hazardous than the scope for mess already; another way to spin is to display 'foo is blah blah...<more>' to emphasise it's a preview of an article. But if people want their articles to be read, I think they'd pay attention to it. Also notice the new 'hover card' beta feature - I think it would play well with that. I would imagine the dynamic nature would be easier to deal with than manual maintenance issues with existing glossaries/lists. (just encountered a merge request today.. 2 pages with different glossary styles..) Fmadd (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Automatic notification if a thread is started about an editor on AN/I

AN/I seems to have a persistent problem with editors starting threads on other editors and not notifying them. Could some sort of automatic notification be set up to do so? Chickadee46 (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a big red notice at the top of the page. Editors generally need to learn to read the instructions at the tops of pages, and particularly the big red notices.
The username is not always included in the section heading. Should this automation check every word in the thread to see if it matches an existing username? What about usernames that are multiple words? What about words, or series of words, that happen to match an existing username but are not used as such by the poster?
Failure to notify shows that the poster has failed to read the instructions, or they don't care about them much. Right out of the gate, it provides a useful clue as to their competence to file an ANI complaint.
It might be possible to create a new template for use in naming the user(s) within the text of the thread. {{ANI-notify|username}} could generate the same link as {{u|username}}. I don't know, but it might be technically possible for such a template to generate the notification at User talk:username. That would save some effort, but it would not address the problem you describe, that of missed notifications. For the most part, it would only be used by editors who have the competence and the energy to do it the existing way. It might result in a few notifications by posters who know they should notify but are simply too lazy to expend the additional effort, but imo not enough of them to justify the developer effort and the feature creep. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:Those are good points, but I was thinking more along the lines of a field (like the one which shows up for asking a question at the Teahouse), which would have a blank to fill in with the name of the user(s) which are being complained about. If someone attempted to post but didn't fill in that blank, the thread would not be posted and a notice could pop up saying something like this:

Please fill in the "username of editor(s) being discussed" field. This will automatically notify the editor(s) you are discussing.

Chickadee46 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I see. If that's technically possible within our framework, it might be worth pursuing. I don't know whether it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• You can make a report to AN/I for issues that don't necessarily involve a specific editor, or where you don't yet know who it involves. While some of these are gamey attempts to avoid giving the accused a chance to defend themselves, others there really isn't another editor to notify at the start. As a secondary issue, we are pretty good at enforcing the rule with regard to the initial reporter & accused, but technically a notice is required every time a new editor not already participating comes up in discussion, which this also wont address. Monty₈₄₅ 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Phone view

Most editors change pages on their laptop but most readers check Wikipedia on their phone. What we see is not what the reader gets. An article full of info boxes and images may look good on a laptop and terrible on a smaller screen. An editor can resize their edit window to check, but most would not. And if the server software adapts to the viewing device, that effect will not show. Better to have a button at the bottom of the edit window that prompts the editor to preview how the article would look on a typical phone:

Save page

Show preview

Phone view

Show changes

Cancel

The new button would encourage editors to check how the article looks to the normal reader. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mobile sidebar preview - Show page in mobile view while browsing the desktop site

Hi Aymatth2, There is a gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets "Mobile sidebar preview: show page in mobile view while browsing the desktop site" which does this. - NQ (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm merely pointing out that the functionality already exists if it needs to be integrated to the edit window. The gadget is normally used for testing and development purposes and is well tucked away in preferences and not available to the average user at a glance. - NQ (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I had no idea it was there. It demonstrates that something like this is possible – but the "Phone view" button would be much more likely to be used. I don't know if the server software adapts to the viewing device. If so, more than a change to the preview skin would be needed to really see the effect. But that may be pushing it further than needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yea, I do think that a phone display button would be more accessible for new users. a_creeper_won —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. I think that the ability, on the push of a single button, to see a single page in phone view mode while editing it, and then return to normal view on the next page load, would be very useful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is already available on Chrome by pressing Ctrl-Shift-I and then Ctrl-Shift-M. TimothyJosephWood 17:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't know that! That is exactly what is needed, although it should be a button rather than six keys to get there, and it should default to 100%. I assume Chrome is telling WP "I am a mobile with a 360x640 screen", whatever, and WP is formatting accordingly. There must be a way of a pop-up window doing the same. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where the default size comes from, but at the top over the simulated mobile screen, if you hit the drop-down that says "Responsive" by default, you can select different devices to emulate. By clicking "edit" at the bottom of the menu you can select from ~30 supported devices. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I like the idea of a "mobile preview" button that appears by default. I'm all for seeing how an article looks on multiple platforms, but it's a PITA (pain in the a--) to be tweaking the features in preferences, time-consuming and at times complicated. Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• For some reason the gadget does not work properly for me. It shows the phone view sidebar, but does not show a tab to toggle it on or off. Once I press the big "X" to close the sidebar, I have no way to get it back. It is probably fighting with some other preference. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Are you missing the small phone icon next to the More tab? (as shown in the picture attached) - NQ (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@NQ: Yes. See below for what I see in Chrome. The gadget is selected. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: The documentation says the gadget is for Vector skin only. - NQ (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• @NQ: If I had any idea what that meant, I am sure that would explain why the gadget does not work for me. This seems like a good reason for having a simple "Phone view" button at the foot of the edit window. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Please disable the gadget in preferences and copy importScript('User:קיפודנחש/mobile-sidebarcopy.js'); // Linkback: User:קיפודנחש/mobile-sidebarcopy.js to your common.js for a version that works with your skin. - NQ (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• @NQ: That sort of works, except the tab is not there in edit mode so I can't preview how the article will look. And it just shows the one screen size, not a tablet size. We need something simpler that the average non-technical editor is likely to use. I get the feeling that there is no basic technical issue and general agreement here that a "phone view" button would be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

i will add some background, regarding the "mobile view gadget": (1) this gadget is only available in "view" mode, not in "edit" mode, so it can't be used for edit preview. (2) the gadget was written by User:Brion VIBBER (incidentally, the person that created the mediawiki software as we know it). the gadget he created works for vector skin only. some time ago there were some questions in WP:VPT, and i challenged myself to create the absolute minimal change to the gadget which will teach it to work with other skins. what i came up with was this modification: User:קיפודנחש/mobile-sidebarcopy.js. i never meant it as a "solution". it was more like "proof of concept". i left Brion messages about this on several talk pages, hoping he will modify his script to be "skin agnostic". ttbomk, this did not happen yet. i don't think it would be good to use my script - the right thing would be for Brion to teach the master script to be skin agnostic. this will still not enable mobile-view for edit preview - if this functionality is desired, some other solution should be looked for. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• @קיפודנחש: I did not mean to be critical. Brion's gadget, your script, and the Google Chrome Ctrl-Shift-I and then Ctrl-Shift-M are all much more than I thought were available, and show that technically a "phone view" preview button should be possible, if anyone will volunteer to write it. I suppose the next step is to take this to a more sceptical audience as a village pump proposal, and if it does not get shot down put it into a wishlist somewhere. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Now a proposal. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Mobile view. Thanks to all who contributed with ideas and information here. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Delay on coverage of major events

Early news rushed to slap the terrorism label on the Orlando attack, Wikipedia editors rushed to reflect that in the article, and now it looks like that may have been significantly overstated. From NPR, dated Thursday the 16th: "As investigators continue to delve into the life of Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, the evidence is beginning to suggest the killings may have more in common with a traditional mass shooting than an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack."[2]

This is hardly an isolated case. And it's not just about disseminating misleading information. Article talk is often utter chaos as frenzied editors struggle to resolve conflicting early news reports, one minute detail after another. Quite often the conflict cannot be resolved that early, so we are forced to hedge our language in the article—"Some sources say..."—and then a few days later that has to be updated (after another round of discussion about whether it's appropriate to do so). What if we just backed off and waited awhile for things to settle down? My idea is a one-month delay on Wikipedia coverage of major events including airliner crashes and mass killings. Full list of categories to be determined.

I'm certain hundreds of thousands (millions?) of readers are used to coming to Wikipedia for concise summaries of breaking news, and it would be painful to change their habits. I do not discount or dismiss that pain at all. But "real-time encyclopedia" is an oxymoron, and in my opinion we need to cease trying to be that. News outlets often (if not usually) get important things wrong in the beginning, Wikipedia readers read it during the early days and then move on, and they have other things in their lives that prevent them from coming back after two weeks to see what's changed. In our fast-paced and busy world, a huge number of people have short attention spans for current events, and that is not going to get anything but worse. The Wikipedia editors addicted to the newsroom adrenaline rush of working with breaking news would have to move to Wikinews for that fix, and readers would have to gradually make the transition. If Wikinews does not have a single place to go for the concise summary of a breaking news story, it could and should. That certainly belongs there more than here.

I'm aware of the general disclaimer. How many readers do we suppose are aware of that and keep it in mind when they read these articles? I prefer to confine my thinking to the real world, not legalistic arguments. The GD is little more than lawsuit protection.

I would welcome any discussion of this issue here, or a pointer to meta if this is seen as wrong venue (I've never visited meta, and that's probably something I need to learn anyway). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

a traditional mass shooting - this makes it sound like it's normal to have a mass shooting in the USA every year or so, like Groundhog Day is a tradition. Anyway, we cannot ask people to hold off for a month, because there will always be people who want to get in first, won't read the guidelines, probably are newbies. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

We already have a speedy deletion mechanism that could handle those cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to delaying coverage of major events, but maybe there should be something like the {{recent death}} tag which explains that early details of such events may be inaccurate. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando article initially used the {{Current}} template. The template was removed almost four days ago, about 47 hours after the perpetrator was killed, because the article was well below the threshold specified in bullet 2 of the template's usage guidelines. News stories are not still "breaking" after 47 hours, and there were certainly not "a hundred or more" editors per day. Sure, it's only a guideline, but what WP:IAR rationale was there for disregarding it? If people are willing to make major changes to that bullet 2, that would be a slight improvement, to whatever extent that readers even read that template message and absorb what it means. It would do nothing to address the chaos in article talk however. And there's still the principle that we are supposedly WP:NOTNEWS, and yet we are. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

After this happened, I mentioned Howard Unruh on the talk page almost immediately. I didn't say what I was actually thinking about this, which was "Now let's see if this guy had repressed homosexual feelings", which according to current news coverage, he may well have done. A week on, and the CIA also says that it is unlikely that Omar Mateen had any contact with anyone in ISIL. The "Current" template allows for some of this, but it may need to be beefed up given the wildly inaccurate reporting of the Orlando shooting during the first 24 hours.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, the decisions on article titling would be far easier after the one-month delay. Many of these articles go through three or more moves in the first week, which is just crazy. All because very few editors can restrain themselves and just hold off for a week or two before any title change discussions. We must get this title right, NOW. Even most very experienced editors do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this would be step backwards. Feedback suggests that at least some readers benefit from our agility in presenting up-to-date facts in an organized fashion. I agree that news outlets sometimes incorrectly report facts, but so do history books.- MrX 12:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  up-to-date facts and up-to-date fiction. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  That's why it's important to use the best sources and be conservative about the type of information we include in a breaking news article. I think we do an excellent job removing fiction once we actually know that it's fiction.- MrX 12:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Regardless, those same readers could just as easily benefit from Wikinews's agility in presenting up-to-date facts in an organized fashion, after they make the transition. I don't think saving them from that transition is a benefit that outweighs all the points I've made, many of which you haven't addressed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, that would be great except that the Wikinews article is viewed by a fraction of a percent the number of readers as the Wikipedia article.- MrX 13:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Maybe that would change if there were no Wikipedia article (yet)? I'm thinkin' the Wikipedia percent would fall to about zero. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  It would be an interesting experiment to try.- MrX 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  I, for one, have never heard of Wikinews until now. How would members of the general public hear about it? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Well I don't know. How did they hear about Wikipedia? It may be largely unknown now, but that would change if we moved our coverage of major developing events there. The change would be reported by all mainstream news, no doubt. Readers who somehow miss that will come here looking for the article on the latest event, not find it, and either go to someplace like WP:HD and ask, or walk away scratching their head and discuss the problem with their friends and family, one of whom might know the answer. It does take a little while for changes to make it into the culture. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and ask the question that I know is coming, if this doesn't just die from lack of interest.
Q: Well doesn't this just move all those problems to Wikinews? Same misleading early information, same chaos in article talk, etc.
A: Partly. But in that venue, readers are far more likely to take things with a large grain of salt. Hell, Wikinews could slap a big red disclaimer permanently at the top of every article page. As for the chaos, good point. I guess there's no avoiding that with developing stories, but it would at least be in a news venue rather than an encyclopedia. I doubt they agonize a lot over article titles there, worrying about COMMONNAME and disambiguation and such, so that part of the problem would go away. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• The creative ferment of readers racing to put together the facts about a breaking news story is one of the best aspects of Wikipedia. The value of this process is recognized by external sites like Google News that link here because these articles are among the best coverage of the topic. Whether something is a minute old or a century old, Wikipedia aspires to put together the best article based on available sources.

• "WP:NOTNEWS" is the most outrageously misnamed and misused policy on Wikipedia. Those who read it beyond the awful shortcut see that it says to treat breaking news like other events. We use the same policies on notability and the same guidelines for writing.

• I feel bad for any in the news industry who realize that, no matter how good they are at what they do, their careers are doomed because there simply is no way to make news pay, unless you are one of a few top eyeball owners, in which case anything will pay. The fact that something happened is not copyrightable, at least outside of certain litigious European countries; even if it were, people will ignore that. We have a broken economic system that relies on the nonsense idea that people can own your thoughts and words. But that is no excuse for the relentless effort to slow down, confuse, dumb down and destroy Wikipedia's attempts to get together the whole story. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"WP:NOTNEWS" is the most outrageously misnamed and misused policy on Wikipedia. Point taken. I hereby retract that sentence. Nevertheless, "real-time encyclopedia" is an oxymoron. And all the great things you say about developing stories at Wikipedia could be said about developing stories at Wikinews, the more appropriate venue for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that a delay on creating new articles about stories in the news is ever likely to happen, but the coverage of the Orlando shooting has not been the finest hour of the mainstream media. Wikipedians are expected to go along with the things that "reliable" sources have said, regardless of whether they are reliable or not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Do you think it should happen? How much merit do you see in the argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It is tempting, because many articles about mass shootings are an utter shambles for the first 24 hours. Orlando has set a new benchmark for this sort of thing. However, people do like to create new articles as soon as possible, and I can't see it ever happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well people would like to do a lot of things that we don't let them do. And none comes to mind at the moment, but there are probably things that people liked to do for a long time and are no longer allowed to do. So that seems pretty thin. If this doesn't happen, I think it will probably be simple resistance to change, protection of the status quo. And that old bugaboo, "no consensus to change", from lack of sufficient participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's like the quote by Oliver Cromwell, "Not what they want but what is good for them." This could be proposed formally, but we're already up and running at Death of Jo Cox despite objections. The British media has covered little else for the last 48 hours and some people would complain if there was no Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Mustn't do anything that some would complain about, even if it's good for two wiki projects. Never mind that complaining about things is everyday routine at Wikipedia. I'm ready to be the one walking away scratching my head, discussing the problem with my friends and family. Thanks for the conversation all, I'll now give this up per Wikipedia:How to lose unless I see some support. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating redirects and disambiguation pages to influence search engine indexing

I'm concerned about a practice I've noticed for many years when articles that would fail to meet notability guidelines are created and then immediately redirected to another (but notable) article and a specific subsection. These redirects are often picked up by Google and other search sites. And perhaps these are useful, however I am concerned when BLP's are involved. Per WP:BLP (emphasis added)

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I've raised this at BLP/N, but I think this needs a bit of a wider audience, so please forgive me if this seems like canvassing. The immediate issue at hand is the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, but this is just an example of one of many lists that may be of concern. The list is comprised of several hundred people. While several of the people on the "list" pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the majority do not. So we have a list comprised of no links, blue links and red links. Several of the links such as Mustafa Ahmed Hamlily have been redirected to other articles (in this instance Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay). One can presume that is because it was determined that these people did not meet GNG. Some of the BLP articles were created with just a redirect, bypassing a stub altogether. I apologize for not providing an example, but this "create/redirect" type of articles exists in many "list" type articles. Regardless, a BLP article exists only to redirect a user to another article.

If the subject is not notable, is this not a privacy concern? What if I'm an employer and I google someone who, while not notable returns a hit as a "detainee"? This could obviously be prejudicial. The "red links" also pose a concern for similar reasons. Just having one's name pop up in a Wikipedia article could raise a red flag. At what point does linking cross the line of verifying reliable sources to possibly causing the subject harm? That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr Nantucket, you have voiced this concern, in one fora after another.

I've responded elsewhere. And you have said, multiple times, that you aren't interested in my opinion. One more time, this concern you repeated overlooks a key element of notability. There is a spectrum.

• At one end there are people who are unquestionably notable because a billion educated people know who they are -- like Napoleon Bonaparte, or Yuri Gagarin.
• At the other end there are almost seven billion people who are totally non-notable ... they haven't even been written about in their church newletter, let alone a newspaper, or any other reliable source.
• In between there are the less notable people we cover here in the wikipedia. They fall into two subgroups:
  1. Individual who measure up to the notability criteria of the GNG, or one of our special purpose notability guidelines, are notable enough for a standalone article. The last time I looked about half the wikipedia's articles were BLPs.
  2. What you keep overlooking is that the WP:GNG, and various special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN, all say that individuals who aren't notable enough for a standalone article, can nevertheless be notable enough for some coverage in some other article.

     Consider Robert G. Smith (educator). I came across him when I worked on the article on Libby Garvey. He was in charge of the Arlington County Board of Education, for a decade or so, during the time Garvey was a trustee. A exchange they had, during his job interview, was notable enough to be quoted, paraphrased, or referred to, in several RS.

     That made him notable enough to merit a wikilink in the Garvey article.

     It turned out that Robert G. Smith was a bluelink, but because my guy had a namesake, and I found a redirect. I converted that redirect to a disambiguation page, and added my guy, as per the DAB rules. I added an entry for Robert G. Smith (candidate, 1968) who had been linked in United States House of Representatives elections, 1968 to Robert G. Smith (aviator).

     You excised the entry for the educator, with the edit summary "Red link". I've already pointed out to you, that this excision was not consistent with WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links. Inexplicably, you left the other redlink, to Robert G. Smith (candidate, 1968), although it too was a redlink

     As I have tried to discuss with you, contributors are authorized to create wikilinks for individuals when they think they may merit coverage here.

• Mr Nantucket, you quoted from BLP above, adding emphasis, in your quote, to our obligations to "respect [the] privacy" of individuals, and bear in mind the "possibility of harm" from sensationalist reporting. However, from your calls upon the authority of BLP I honestly think you carry your idea of how much protecting individuals are entitled to far beyond what the rest of the wikipedia community agrees with.

Consider your comment about Libby Garvey, again. You went to several fora, asking contributors to go weigh in on the AFD you initiated. In the this comment, at BLPN, you challenged whether I was editing in good faith, writing: "I'm afraid that my first impression, which I've kept to myself until now is that the raison d'etre for this article may be to attack a living person for a political position they took..."

Garvey is not a private person, who was covered in RS due to some kind of accident. She is a politician, and has been a politician for twenty years or so. If she was a singer, we'd cover her songs. If she was a film-maker, we'd cover her movies. Because she is a politician, we should cover her political positions.

I am going to repeat this, since you seem to have so much trouble recognizing it is an important point -- Because Libby Garvey is a politician, we should cover her political positions.

You decided that compliance with BLP required us to protect Garvey from "harm" from accurately reporting on how she performed her job. Was George W. Bush embarrassed soon after he gave a major speech on Iraq in front of a massive banner that said "Mission Accomplished", when it became painfully obvious the US forces would be bogged down in Iraq for over a decade? Tough. We shouldn't protect George W. Bush from the consquence of his "Mission Accomplished" appearance. Similarly, we shouldn't protect Garvey.

Unless youare in violation of WP:COI, and know Garvey personally, or worked on her campaign, without disclosing this fact to us, how would you know Garvey even wants' this protection? Some politicians double-down, when criticized. Look at Donald Trump.

With regard to whether individuals like Algerian Mustafa Ahmed Hamlily should be wikilinked in articles like Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Removing those wikilinks, to "protect" them is not responsible. All the individuals held at Guantanamo are individuals who measure up to the lesser measure of notability to be covered in an article on another topic -- just like Robert G. Smith (educator).

FWIW, a selection of the individuals who were held at Guantanamo, who are red-linked today, neverthess sail past the inclusion criteria for meriting a standalone biography article Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not even remotely accurate. There are dozens of Gitmo BLP articles that have been deleted precisely because of the lack of notability. And I'd appreciate it if you would turn off your verbose mode. Yes, I'm looking for other opinions. Walls of text, IMO, shutdown discussion, not encourage it. I don't want to create a proposal via RfC or other measure if I see a lack of support for the concept. But if one person stifles the discussion, I will do so.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-destruction of 'Merge to' templates?

We have a considerable number of articles with 'merge to' templates that are now several years old (based upon the date listed in the template). These are cluttering up the lead without generating any activity. Could these be cleaned up after some period of time by a bot that migrates the suggestion to a section on the talk page? I.e. x months after the template is added, a bot looks for a matching "Discuss" section on the talk page. If it doesn't find one, then a boilerplate section is added listing the suggestion and the person who posted the template. The bot then removes the 'merge to' template from the article page. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• This suggestion has been made before, and generally the response is: "just because there's no discussion doesn't mean it's a bad suggested merge". If you think those pages shouldn't be merged, and there isn't discussion, just remove the tag. --Izno (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And if you think that it's a good idea to merge them, then merge them! Most of the old proposed merges are languishing for lack of someone willing to do the work of merging them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that the opinion of one person regarding whether a merge should take place should take precedence over the style and usability of the article. If no merge has taken place, the talk page is a perfectly suitable location to put the suggestion. It should not be cluttering up the article lead indefinitely, detracting from the overall appearance and readability. There is, after all, no actual issue being expressed regarding the article content. Praemonitus (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

redlinks that exist in other capitalizations?

Not quite sure where to put this idea, but here seems more likely than most... Is there any way to keep track of redlinks where an article exists in another capitalization? For example alpha phi alpha is a redlink, but Alpha Phi Alpha exists. I'd be very hesitant to let a bot at these, but maybe just the top 100 or so out of mainspace?Naraht (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are "lots" of red links to a wrong capitalization, redirects should be made. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

ParliamentEdits

Should there be (or is there already) a list of Twitter accounts in Wikipedia namespace, that automatically tweet when someone from a government edits Wikipedia anonymously, like @ParliamentEdits. There are quite a few of these accounts (@AussieParlEdits, @congressedits, etc. - quite a few accounts listed in the references of CongressEdits) and this list could be useful if editors want to see/check anonymous editing from these organisations, which could help combat vandalism/COI editing. Thanks for your input.  Seagull123  Φ  16:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A new WikiProject

This is a general notice that a new WikiProject has been created: WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. Its purpose is to improve Wikipedia by promoting policy reforms that will facilitate better-sourced, higher quality content and fairer, more efficient governance systems. This is a new project in the very early stages of development, so please read the page linked above and consider joining if you are interested in helping to improve Wikipedia. Thank you! Biblio (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this not identical to WP:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform? ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I was aware of that project, but it's a defunct one from many years ago (in the context of Wikipedia, at least). That project never really seemed to have any clear goals at all—it was more of a forum, not an actual working project, and WikiProjects were never meant to simply be forums. This new project has some actual ideas to start with, and the goal here is not to simply to discuss ideas, but to actively collaborate in crafting and promoting those ideas. The revival and improvement of older ideas is encouraged. Biblio (talk) Help improve Wikipedia. 22:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a "social icon" - and a safe place to land them

I was reading a (Note, link not safe for some workplaces. Prominently features photo of topless woman.) typical news article that has a bunch of icons for its presence on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, and YouTube ... not Wikipedia. And obviously there's a reason why, which is not just the lack of an icon. For a group to want to have an icon, they would have to land at a site for them, i.e. a site where they can build up a list of useful resources and direct their followers as they see fit. Now I understand that Wikipedia has had a standoffish policy toward "social media" functions, not unreasonably since there are a lot of worms in that particular can. Nonetheless, I think it would make sense for us to allow this one particular kind of social media function in order to draw readers into the site and provide people with a place where they can address wikipedia-specific issues - indeed, the standard format provided for such spaces could ask groups setting them up to answer questions that every Wikipedia editor wants to know, like whether all those lovely pictures are CC-BY or something. And so I think that not only could we draw in readers, but we could draw in content with it.

Now yes, most companies would want to abuse this space terribly. But they already want to abuse our articles. If we could see free to allow them latitude to use their social media space pretty much as they wish, at least this would give them a choice - do we want more data stuffed in an article that might get deleted or be subject to stupid rules against directory information, or can we put it on our Wikipedia social media page? So it might not draw as much COI to the encyclopedia as we think.

Now yes, we'd want this "wikipedia social media" to be far from the articles. Not so far that a Wikipedia login wouldn't work, but probably a separate domain name would be sensible. It's conceivable that some neglected but loosely defined project like Wikiversity might actually be open to it, though I think it would make more sense to start from scratch.

The landing sites I'm picturing should not be in any sense user pages, but much more closely resemble Wikiprojects. We have a rule against company accounts; our users are individuals. This has always been in part so that we don't have to settle which of two co-owners holds the right to the company account after they have a falling out. That said, nobody is going to build their pages with a Wikipedia icon that is equally under the control of haters of their organization. This is where the philosophy comes in - we want to create a neutral and respectful structure that gives no privilege to any one point of view, yet allows each point of view to claim its own space. This is the same core problem as say arranging for protests at a political convention, so it is a hard problem, but we can address it much better than those who don't try to do so honestly. My thinking is that we allow any user to start a social media landing site with a given core name, but we append a bit of random fluff to the end so there can be many different ones, each no more expected than the other. Going to the core name without the fluff gets a directory of all the possible extensions, ranked by incoming page requests (but discounting abusive traffic). They then link each other as they see fit.

Typical valid content for a social media landing site would be personal bios, company products, addresses, phone numbers, basically anything in WP:NOT, plus anything the less friendly editors would boot from the article, plus discussions of how to build Wikipedia pages and collaborate to get better content. Sometimes this would be unpleasant to see, but it will happen whether we see it or not, so if we lure some of it out into the open that is not a bad thing at all. We would want the site as free as achievable under current legal conditions, and as independent as achievable in case something goes wrong. Its administration would be independent of Wikipedia and (as much as possible) WMF, perhaps outsourced to whoever makes the stupid decisions social media providers make to cover their asses. Obviously I would prefer to just leave it free entirely, but I recognize that there are severe risks in a less than free society. To summarize: it should be "user content". One obvious practicality is that the total size is limited, though the number of subpages it is distributed among should not be. (Why shouldn't a Wikipedia icon link to a social media entry for a particular event?)

The cost could be substantial but could be compensated in multiple ways. One would be ads, since it's not Wikipedia. Another would be subscriptions, for people with no interest in the encyclopedia. Perhaps the coolest way would be to allow it as a privilege for long term users in good standing; as such it would be a sort of in-kind payment for editing. I would not even want to prohibit users entitled to have such pages from offering to set them up for companies in exchange for money - the usual paid editing restrictions shouldn't apply to this social-media otherworld. I think though that trying to make it revenue neutral would be a mistake, because the goal is to get a stream of users to pass through the sites into Wikipedia. So I'm thinking something very mild, like hitting users with ads (with strict privacy limitations!) only if they use the social media site without using WMF projects proper - no more than a chiding for them to edit, really. And of course visitors to those sites should get a harsher dose of WMF fundraising appeals than the usual reader. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Dude, not cool to link to an article with a large photo of a topless woman above the fold as a "typical news article", especially when there's no hint about the content in the link URL. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Don't put silly disclaimers in my comments. If we as a site expect Muslims all over the world, living under the most abhorrent regimes, to access articles about Islam that contain paintings of Muhammad without so much as a disclaimer first, then you have no call to be putting some special disclaimer on my link because it happens to include a lovely woman who isn't wearing a niqab or a bra. And do note that FEMEN is no porn site, but a serious nonprofit organization striving for the ascendancy of Western culture, and their news releases are even more interesting to read than to look at. Last but not least, if you really care that much, you should read your links first oh, wait, you said you did, you just don't recognize FEMEN... well, that's a misfortune. Wnt (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't post links to content that's not workplace appropriate under deceptive link text, if you don't want warnings placed next to your links. You're being silly if you're trying to compare me accurately describing the contents of your link (note: not deleting it, not censoring it—just describing it) to a murdering theocratic dictatorship. I have nothing against female (or male) breasts, but I also respect my work colleagues enough not to wish to make them uncomfortable by displaying large images of them (the breasts, not my colleagues) unasked-for—I would hope you would be willing to extend the same courtesy to your colleagues on Wikipedia.

And you're barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to paint me as a moralistic crusader. My position with respect to all content on Wikipedia – images, links, text – has been a consistent adherence to the Principle of Least Astonishment: briefly, readers can be offended by stuff they encounter on Wikipedia, but they shouldn't ever be surprised to be offended. (In a remarkable coincidence, tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of one of my posts at the Village Pump saying exactly that: [3]). That is to say, we should never compromise the quality of our work for fear of giving offense, but neither should we give offense when doing so is not necessary to maintain the quality of our work. Images, links, and text that may be appropriate, educational, informative and expected in List of sex positions or Fuck will be different from the content appropriate for Potato or Minnesota—or the Village Pump. I'm rather surprised that an editor with so much experience would feign ignorance or indifference to this concept.

You can leave the content description there, or you can change the link to something that isn't needlessly offensive or provocative. (Please resist the urge to try to play with the line.) Or, we can take this to AN/I. It's up to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm reading this as "we should set up a social media button to draw in readers and content", and "the button should lead to a separate site that tolerates spammy and/or POV behaviour". Not only do I not like the second part of that, but I think it's fundamentally incompatible with the first. If we set up a "social media site" where organizations can control their content, many of them will simply park their usual ads there and ignore us. Worse, we'd have to manage such a site, diverting volunteers, WMF staff, and effort from our real goals, with no guarantee that this would do anything to lessen the effect of spam on our existing articles (In fact, I'd wager the opposite…). That's a side-show I'd rather not attend.

Social media buttons are advertisements for the "social" site they represent. They say, implicitly: "this social site is more important than the site you're currently on". Including them gives the host site a chance at a smidgen of extra traffic in exchange for giving the social site ongoing free advertising and, if hosted centrally, the opportunity to track users around the rest of the web (!). They're a remarkable con. Wikipedia is not a "social platform" in the same sense. Our purpose doesn't include "sharing" random external sites, and in fact for many sites "sharing" them on Wikipedia would be disruptive to us. I do think that a "cite this article" social button could be interesting for news, academic (journals etc.), and GLAM sites—that would promote more or less behaviour we like, while filling the usual "social media" tradeoff. The catch for us being that the "cite this on Wikipedia" button would probably quickly appear on press releases and random blogs. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)