Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 75: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). |
||
Line 673:
{{lw|WikiProject Numismatics/Style}} has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Guidelines|guideline]]. It was previously marked as a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Guidelines|guideline]]. This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
== Length of core policy pages ==
The recent reversions at [[WP:NPOV]] have increased its length from less than 18kB to more than 43kB. Almost no one reads these policies all the way through. We know this because almost no one reads them at all: [http://stats.grok.se/en/201002/WP%3ANPOV NPOV stats for Feb], and when presented with such a daunting document, human nature will mean most people who do visit the page will not read it all, let alone inwardly digest it.
: Correction: I have been alerted to [http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Wikipedia%3ANeutral%20point%20of%20view this] page, which shows that there are many more hits under [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]], which would suggest that each year a significant minority could indeed be looking at the NPOV policy page. Another good reason not to waste their time with an unnecessarily long text. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This brings up a more general point. Are the policy pages for scholars in Wikipedia policy, or are they for the millions of people who read and edit Wikipedia articles?
It seems to me that for these policy pages to serve their core audience of volunteer Wikipedia editors, a typical new editor should be able to read and understand each of the core policies in under five minutes. If we allow a reading speed of 20 characters per second (around 200WPM), this means that the pages should be no more than 6kB each. This does not preclude wikilinks to long, complex and detailed essays, histories and the like for those seeking more nuanced views. But the length of these core policies, such as [[WP:NPOV]], should be kept to around 6kB.
What do people think? And for those who answer, please would they indicate whether they have read the current versions of [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] end to end. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 09:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:I did actually read through all the policies a while back, which took a long time, and of course they've changed since then. I wouldn't dream of trying to read all the guidelines. Nobody even seems to know how many there are, though there seem to be hundreds. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
This whole "policy" thing has become ridiculous. There are far, far too many policy pages (we'll leave guidelines on one side for the moment, but the same points apply to them too) and the pages are mostly far, far too long. They repeat the same points over and over again, quite often in ways that contradict each other, waffle on about this and that, give examples that don't illustrate what they're claimed to be illustrating, contain whole reams of incomprehensible text (that even experienced editors can't agree on the intended meaning of), and have little relevance to improving the encyclopedia. And when someone makes the effort to tidy them up a bit, various editors come out of the woodwork to revert them, not on any substantial grounds, but apparently because they believe the text has some almost religious value by virtue of it having sat around in a particular form for a particular number of years. It's an embarrassment to this project that we can't even communicate our key principles in a clear, concise and comprehensible manner.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 10:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree, and NPOV is a particular problem, almost a stream of consciousness. The result is that no one can read it, and it's therefore largely ignored, except when individual editors use a soundbite from it here and there to aid them in an edit war. I've put up a version at [[User:SlimVirgin/NPOV]], where I may try to work on it and invite experienced content contributors and policy writers to do the same. It would be a slow process and would require wiki-wide consensus, but it might be worth trying. <font color="maroon">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User talk:SlimVirgin|talk]]</font> <font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree that the policies are too long, and think [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] right to emphasise ability of new editors to read and understand the policies easily and quickly. And I didn't read any from start to end!
:*[[WP:NPOV]] was about 39KB at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=350849258 19 March 2010]. A group of editors slimmed the policy to 19KB at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=359170228 00:55, 30 April 2010]. Then one editor, without any discussion, reverted the policy to a version from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&action=historysubmit&diff=359170448&oldid=359170228 23:15, 25 January 2010]!!. In the last days the policy has grown from 39KB to 43KB. I suggest the following from [[Jimbo Wales]] covers about 50% of NPOV:
:*:<div style="background-color:#ffffcc; padding:3px">: From [[Jimbo Wales]], paraphrased from [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list]<br />If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;<br />If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''[[wikt:prominent|prominent]]'' adherents;<br />If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.</div>
:*[[WP:NOR]] has grown from 20K to 23K between [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=216903018 June 2008] and present - not a great increase, but a lot to read.
:*[[WP:V]] IMO is almost usable.
:I suggest an RFC to get wider discussion about: the principle of making the policies shorter and more readable; the revert to the start of Jan 2010. -[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
::My view is that 20 kB is a good upper limit to aim for. I'd make an exception for BLP, because there are details there that need to be spelled out and reinforced, but even that is only 21 kB. The current 37 kB at NPOV, plus another 19 kB at NPOV/FAQ that someone recently tried to place a policy tag on, is unacceptable, and the recent reverting undid months of work from several editors who had been trying to trim it down. <font color="maroon">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User talk:SlimVirgin|talk]]</font> <font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Yes - several valid points there. A reasonable number of highly experienced editors were involved. There was a constructive attitude for ensuring important details were not lost, and many refinements had been discussed and implemented by the time of the revert. No one tried to block well thought through and discussed changes to preserve "their" version. This was collaborative editing working well in an important area. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you [[User:Philcha|Philcha]] for suggesting an RFC. It makes sense to collect some ideas from several people together first to make sure we ask the right questions. Perhaps now would be a good time to start discussing what we should ask editors to comment on. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
* Comment: Those who think the policy "grew" are in error. It didn't grow at all. Extreme cuts were reverted, that is all that happened. The policy was actually gutted to the tune of about 25kb. This was restored; core pieces of the policy, such as the part which overs pseudoscience, had been removed. I am in favor of concise wording. I am opposed to gutting policy so that fringe POV pushers have no policy to prevent them from turning Wikipedia into some New Age Woo haven, where some fringe theory about aliens controlling the stock market can be presented as "fact". I am assuming no one wants that; I am assuming those who trimmed the policy didn't want that - but that they didn't realize that would be the end result of their actions. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 22:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:: I agree that much wording and repetition could be trimmed without opening WIkipedia to abuse. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
:::So who's going to get it going and where? I ask where because I think we'll need a draft, and do it there would be confusing and unhelpful to users of this page - how a sub-page and, if so, where? Then we can copy the completed draft to here, so that people can add their support/oppose/comments. --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: OK. The current page seems to have stabilised enough to make a concise draft. I'll create it this weekend, and put it on a sub-page for criticism and adjustment. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Experienced editors on the main policy page are still considering signficant changes such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=361208952 this]. As one major debate at a time is sufficient, I'll leave it a few more days for the current page to settle. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] ([[User talk:Stephen B Streater|talk]]) 15:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
== RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion? ==
Fresh input would be appreciated at '''[[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?|this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV]]'''. The issue is whether the NPOV policy should contain two sections devoted to specific subject areas—one on pseudoscience, the other on religion—or whether they should be removed. <font color="maroon">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User talk:SlimVirgin|talk]]</font> <font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 08:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
== WP policy on potentially copyvio sources ==
Is there a policy about using potentially copyright-violating websites as sources? The case in point is a Reuters obituary from 2001. It is no longer available at reuters.com, but there is a copy at [http://fusionanomaly.net/oscarjaniger.html], a memorial page for the subject. That page was used as a reference in [[Oscar Janiger]], but recently an editor removed the ref and left behind a {{cn}} tag, with "Remove links to copyvio site." as the edit summary. Is it WP policy to never link to websites suspected of copyvios? And is there a better solution than to remove the claims from the article (which must eventually be done if there is no RS)? [[User:Thundermaker|Thundermaker]] ([[User talk:Thundermaker|talk]]) 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, there is a policy about avoiding linking to copyright violations. See [[WP:LINKVIO]]. The appropriate resolution would be to remain using the Reuters obit as a reliable source, an archive of the original webpage if possible, but even offline or no-longer-online sources can still be reliable sources. [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] ([[User talk:VernoWhitney|talk]]) 15:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
== Wikipedia:Public domain has been marked as a guideline ==
{{lw|Public domain}} has recently been edited to mark it as a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Guidelines|guideline]]. This is an automated notice of the change ([[User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes|more information]]). -- [[User:VeblenBot|VeblenBot]] ([[User talk:VeblenBot|talk]]) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
| |||