Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coretheapple (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 5 August 2017 (/* Proposal for new section ... commetn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Just to notify you about the ongoing discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. Join in there to comment. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted The discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. Then I have relisted the discussion, i.e. gave the discussion additional 30 days. Therefore, more participants would be welcome to comment at the newer page there during the extended time. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY

This discussion is an outgrowth from Talk:Edward Blum (litigant) in the "First sentence; non-notable works" section.

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thank you for responding to that discussion. I am requesting that Wikipedia:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY be given an explicite statement in the "Wikipedia is not a directory" subsection. Of the 13 policy shortcuts in that subsection, NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY and WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE have no mention or explanation in that subsection. Also, an explanation that does not conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works and MOS:APPENDIX from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout should be incorporated into the formulation as well.

@Drmies: I wanted to ask what the basis for the addition of "good editorial practice would be to find a review of the book in a decent publication and add that as a reference" in order to add an entry in the "Works" section? Other than proof that the entry is based on WP:Reliable source, why does one need a review? I've never seen this practiced in "Works" sections. Mitchumch (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental part of Wikipedia is that advocates like to add every possibly mention to an article (those on one side adding positive mentions, and those on the other adding negatives). Also, there are many stamp collectors who like to add every factoid to an article on the basis that more is better. Various WP:NOTxxx policies have been devised to slow down those attempts. If the subject of an article is known for their work which consists mainly of publications, it makes sense to list significant works (particularly if blue-linked). If a subject is known for something else, the fact that they wrote a particular work may not be significant. A good way to show that a work is significant would be to find a secondary source which reviewed the work with more than a mention. Drmies was merely describing standard procedure because the alternative would be to have enthusiasts dominate issues with edit warring based on an insistence that there is no policy that prohibits what they want. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your rationale, as well as, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Drmies. But, I haven't seen a condition that a work be "notable" to be listed in a "Works" section. There is no mention of "notability" or "notable" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works and MOS:APPENDIX from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. Mitchumch (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to consider is that the issue around personal essays and writings, in contrast with books put out by publishers, films, songs, etc. is that the latter involve numerous people to prepare and release the work, while personal essays are one person's work, and should be inherently considered non-notable unless discussed in third-party sources. Same true with things like research papers, etc. That's where one can consider the notability line to be drawn for eliminating bibliogrphies. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was only thinking of published works. But, I agree with Masem. Mitchumch (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no mention of "notability" or "notable" in [...]" Correct. the "general notability rule" (WP:N) only applies to subjects of articles, not items within articles. However, I believe WP:IINFO strongly applies to lists of publications (ie bibliographies). Jeh (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IINFO means that including a bibliography should only happens if the list is put in context as a whole, by explaining how the list of works is relevant to the article; for example, a list of books by a writer would require explaining the relevance of the work in the author's biography. IINFO doesn't mean that every individual entry needs to be referenced by a secondary reference, though. Diego (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear, we have multiple, [[Bibliography of . . . articles, Bibliography of the American Civil War, Bibliography of anthropology, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to have option via user preferences to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results

Recently, search results from selected sister projects—Wikivoyage (title matches only), Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote—are now active/live. Right now, an option via user preferences to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results is proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current CBALL dispute

Debate rages at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election in which both sides claim that their preference is what CBALL requires. The next UK general election is scheduled to take place in 2022, but may happen sooner. A review of constituencies has been mandated to come up with proposals for reducing the number of MPs from 650 (the current number) to 600: this is scheduled to be completed in 2018. Thus there is real uncertainty whether there will be 650 or 600 seats (or possibly another number, if the Boundary Commissions so propose) at the next election, depending on the relative timings of the election and the enactment of whatever changes the review might eventually result in. In the infobox at Next United Kingdom general election, there is a line that currently states that All 650 seats in the House of Commons will be contested, with a footnote that this might be reduced to 600. I believe that it would be more proper to state All seats in the House of Commons, with no number given but with a footnote mentioning the possibilities. I believe that this avoids making any presumptions about when the election will happen, and that it will never prove to have been wrong: I believe that it is speculative OR (CBALL3) and future history (if that means what I think it does) to remain with 650 in the hope/expectation that it will not change. My debators argue, if I interpret them correctly, that it is right to post 650 as the number because that is what it would be if the election were to be called tomorrow, and that CBALL would not allow removal of that figure while a change in it is only a possibility, and that I am indulging in speculation by presenting uncertainty into the infobox.

I have tried to be impartial in describing the debate, and hope I have represented their thoughts fairly. What would those with an interest in the CBALL policy propose? Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving my impressions out of this.
Kevin McE's proposal is that we should remove the number of seats for election from the infobox just because in the future it "may" not be such a number (and, as such, no number should be added because the current one may not be used, and the future one we don't know which one will be). Yes this is against both precedent in election infoboxes, as well as based upon a CBALL assumption. It's not clear 1) whether the next election will take place after the 2018 boundary review and 2) whether the review could not be postponed again and would result in an effective variation of the total number of seats (it's likely that it would, yet this is going CBALL).
User Bondegezou has instead added an explanatory footnote that sets out that the number of seats may be reduced if the boundary review is implemented, which satisfies both him and myself because it clearly explains the issue. Instead, Kevin McE is aiming for a removal of content and leave it just as All seats in the House of Commons, based on such a speculation that the number of seats may not be 650 in the future. Well, it's a possibility. However, we can't know when the next election will take place, yet we know what laws say now, and it's that the current number of constituencies is 650. No matter if the next election i's held tomorrow, within a month, or within twenty years: legally, it'll still be fought over 650 constituencies until it's said otherwise. And this is verifiable and not speculative.
The alternative proposal to his is that the infobox remains as it is, with the current footnote hinting at a possible change (which "may" happen, but doesn't justify an outright removal of content), and that if changes are done, then and only then have them in the infobox. Again, the number is 650 until laws say otherwise. And until legally it is established to be another number, the only reasonable way is to show what law establishes as verifiable right now. After all, Wikipedia is a work in progress. There's absolutely no issue with replacing the seat number in the event that it's changed. However, showing no seat number just on the grounds that, in the future, that seat number "may not be" the one used and that, as "we don't know which number will be used, then it's better to have none", just leads to readers being deprived of key information on the event. Impru20 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions RFC from April 2016

Just dropping by, since we discovered in a bit of archaeology, that nothing was implemented in WP:NOTNEWS regarding international reactions as a result of this April 2016 RFC at VPPOL. Does anyone here want to take a stab at an addition/amendment to NOTNEWS? --Izno (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTESSAY

Hey all.

There is really no place that I have found that makes it clear really clear that Wikipedia articles are not like essays that a student might do for school in which they make an argument. (do you remember the 5 part format -- Intro/thesis statement, three arguments or chunks of evidence, conclusion/restatement of thesis?) I deal all the time with folks who want to add essay-like content and make arguments in Wikipedia. NOTESSAY comes kind of close to discussing this, but not really. I think a new item 4, after "personal essay", something like this? (very rough first draft)

4. Scholarly essay. Wikipedia articles are not scholarly essays. Such essays are written in dialogue with scholarship and cite sources, but they are written in order to make an argument, and they attempt to persuade the reader to accept the argument. People spend their grade school, high school, and college educations writing essays, but that is not what we do in Wikipedia.  The genre here is encyclopedia article. We summarize accepted knowledge. We describe. See WP:TIGER and the related section below, WP:SOAPBOX.

That is no where said in our policies and guidelines, that I have been able to find. It is kind of covered in SYN but SYN is a bit different. This is about the genre. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are onto something and may be discussed. However your description of essays is not without fault. I suspect it is US-centric. Essaays are not only for argument/debate; they also may be for discovery. That said, I do agree that with the promotion of wikipedia as school assignment, I see more and more articles written in "student's style", and a shortcut to an advice would be handy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy! Please keep in mind that "personal essay" is #3 - that is more of the "thought experiment"/discovery thing, I think you have in mind? Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I was it it, I see that NOTESSAY and paratitle "Personal essays" are a bit misleading. I would suggest to rename "Personal essays" into "Personal opinions" (according to the actual text of the paragraph) and retarget NOTESSAY to the new section proposed. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. (In fact it's along the RFA style of 'thought it was one already'!) — fortunavelut luna 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-proposal to include Wikibooks as part of cross-wiki search results

Another proposal to display Wikibooks pages in search results is made at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Join in there. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Obituary nominated as RfD

Wikipedia:Obituary and other similar redirects are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 18#Wikipedia:Obituary, where I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia not a television guide?

I think Bertrand101 socks keep adding the not television guide and maybe to Bertrand101 to add unsourced info on Korean articles. Is Wikipedia not a television guide yet? 66.87.64.113 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles" about academics

I run into the problem constantly, that articles about faculty members get treated by the faculty member, their department administrators, and many editors here, like a typical faculty profile page. Many of these folks even link to "their" Wikipedia page on "their" actual faculty webpage.

In my view these faculty articles are perfect conceptual trainwrecks of people mistaking WP for a personal webhost (NOTWEBHOST/NOTCV), like it is a place to record news about themselves (NOTNEWS) including of course their latest book that is coming out in a few months, and every article they ever published, and a vehicle for promotion (PROMO).

So with respect to this policy (!) here is the conceptual compare/contrast question about

a) a faculty profile page at a university website and
b) a legit WP encyclopedia article about a faculty person.
  1. What is the difference (there is no need to mention that the WP article needs to pass N or that the WP articles needs to have sources and needs to be free of puffery, etc. This is trivial.)
  2. How are they the same

Can we articulate any meaningful conceptual difference? I don't believe we can. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably academics are familiar with encyclopedias and thus with what encyclopedia articles look like. It shouldn't be too hard to explain to them that WP:NOTCV applies when an article looks more like a "faculty webpage" or a résumé than an encyclopedia article. Deor (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful. Please do answer the questions above. What is the difference, conceptually? How are they the same? Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, I think item 1 is obvious: reliable, independent sources talking about the person in-depth such that notability is established. That won't show up in a CV. What won't show up in a WP page are "character references" and information about the person or his activities which have not been published by reliable sources.
What might be the same: A list of publications which he has authored or been involved in, per WP:SELFPUB. A list of worked at-places might be reasonable. A list of fields of interest. Important contributions to his field of interest. (Hopefully, these are WP:RSd per BLP, but we might reasonably accept more WP:SELFPUB as long as the publication occurs-first elsewhere per WP:OR/WP:V.) There might be some other things here and there. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least one difference is: whereas a university webpage is bound to have a a full list of publications and patents and presentations by the academic, our pages should only include key papers. (although we should fully document all books they wrote completely or edited). The full list is CV-type material, but unimportant for the long-term. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no sharp differences content-wise except the WP article should not include the full list of articles published. On that, please note that there is a very old argument in WP about that. There are people who vehemently believe a full publication list should be included, and if it gets too long it should become a separate bibliography page. (See the language here and here and here which say nothing about "selection" but rather flatly say "books or other works created by the subject of the article" and the like) Pinging User:DGG as I believe he has been part of the arguments over this in the past. Also interested in his take on the OP. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also be aware that per WP:NPROF there are lots of people who believe that GNG is not relevant to notability for academics. We cannot even say anything like "multiple independent reliable sources" or much of anything about independently sourced content for articles like this. This is part of why we are in a situation where as far as I can see, there is no conceptual difference between a normal university faculty page and a WP article about the person. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no need to meet the GNG. This is one case where the guideline is unambiguous that the standard is not in addition to the GNG, but an alternative. The GNG is of course relevant if the person is also known for something other than academic importance--if they are for example a member of a legislature. It is undecided if the GNG can be used as an alternative for the academic work, or whether it is altogether irrelevant to that aspect of notability. The question arises when someone who doe not meet WP:PROF nonetheless has received writeups in the press--the most frequent example is young people whose accomplishments may be impressive for their age, but not meeting the WP:PROF requirements;another example whose interesting sounding medical idea is picked by the press but not the profession. AfD decisions here have gone both ways for fairly similar cases. (I'd tend to look also at NOT ADVOCACY for these, to remove promotional articles--promotions do not have to be commercial)
Second, the basic requirement is that their work be influential. This can be shown by prizes, appointments etc. as provided in WP:PROF , but the basic way academics are influential and recognized as authorities is by being cited. This is the rule the profession uses--nothing much counts for promotion except well-cited publications in good journals or books by major academic publishers. In science and other fields where notability is by journal articles, the most cited journal articles are what show notability. It is not the h value--any number of mediocre publications does not bring notability, and that's what h measures. Eugene Garfield who invented the method in the 1960s thought of it primarily for biomedicine, and considered the key level to be articles with 100 citations or more. The number depends on the field, and is best thought of as the citation density--the number of citations per article. In the physical sciences and mathematics the key value is lower than 100--in chemistry it is probably around 60, in math lower. There are all sorts of special cases: multiple authorship, self-citation, high counts from review articles that do not represent original research, etc. It is possible to actually determine this objectively by comparison with people widely recognized as highly notable--for example, by the other criteria. In the articles, we usually list only the 4 or 5 most important papers, which are normally the most highly cited, or the most highly cited recent work. The rest can be found in the CV. This is different from what we do for filmographies and the like, partially because we have an objective standard for importance. We usually pay attention only to papers in peer-reviewed journals, not conference presentation, except in those fields of engineering where peer-reviewed conference papers are considered of equal or greater importance.
For people in the humanities and history and any other field where books are the method of publication the reviews of the books are as important a the citations. All books from academic presses are exhaustively peer-reviewed before publication, and 2 or 3 books is the general standard. They will always be reviewed, and the number of citations depends on the field but is inherently low, because the citation density of books is much less than articles because of their much more substantial nature. It's normal for someone in these field for us to include a list of all the books authored or edited but not any book chapters, journal articles , or other publications, none of which counts all that much. (note that all this needs to be interpreted different before about 1950--certainly before 1900-- and in esoteric fields and non-Western traditions.)
There's a simple shortcut we should use, but is still not a formal criterion. Anyone holding a full professorship in a major research university will invariable meet the requirements for influence by publications. The reason is that we use the same standard they do. We should trust the interpretation of a tenure committee in such a university much mroe than what we can do here.
The difference between an academic CV and an encyclopedia article is that an academic CV lists everything-- every committee, every guest lecture, every conference talk, every interview. encyclopedia articles do not do this. The difference between an encyclopedia article and a press release is the an encyclopedia article list the education and positions in chronological order giving specifics of dates, and gives specific publication data and links, letting the journal articles or books speak for themselves, while a press release focuses on the latest position, is often vague about dates, often is sloppy about exact references to the publications, and describe in enthusiastic language what a great advance their work is, and why they are important to major world problems. (That's actually a distinguishing characteristic nature of press releases in all fields of endeavor). DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As with all writing, the key aspect that shapes the tone and content is the intended audience. A faculty profile is targeted for students and other professors to learn primarily about the professor's professional career. It generally will have a limited length, compared with a biography. It will focus on professional accomplishments, possibly with a greater emphasis on more recent ones, and usually will downplay any criticism or controversy, if it is mentioned at all. A biography takes a more complete view of its subject, covering personal as well as professional history. This can include numerous details about the subject's life, hobbies, and personal views, unrelated to the person's career.
At an individual sentence level, assuming a neutrally-written faculty profile, there probably won't be much difference: a sentence written in a profile could well appear within a biography. But a biography will encompass a greater scope and accordingly will have a greater length, as it is targeted at a broader audience with a more general interest in all aspects of the subject's life. isaacl (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the time people have taken to reply, but nothing here is helpful to guide the admin of a professor who was told to buff up/update the professor's article. I have seen no concrete differences between a faculty web page (the question was not asking about the difference between a WP article and a CV - that difference is obvious). Where there is controversy that is an obvious difference but is a rare situation. And Isaacl hell no - WP articles are not places to list all kinds of trivia like someone's hobbies. for pete's sake.
Here are some concrete examples (the first three have recent issues; the last three are just random):
Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked us to assume that notability, etc. were already taken care of. Obviously, anything contained within an article has to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. This does mean that if someone's hobbies have garnered notable attention, they can be covered. (Claude Shannon, for example, is known to be a juggler.) If not, then they won't.
Yes, it's difficult to provide guidance, because a neutrally-written faculty profile can certainly be a stub biography. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if discussing the different natures of a faculty profile vs. a biography isn't helping you with your objectives. I was hoping that the discussion might help prompt any interested contributors to discern some greater differences that would help you. I'm sorry if it hasn't been any assistance. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Isaac i am sorry for being snappish. I think the community consensus on this is probably that there is almost no difference. I appreciate you providing input. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see this thread posted here without reference to Jytdog's previous discussion on the same topic. I'm not sure there's a different answer forthcoming from posting the same issue on a different page, and to be frank I don't think your argument has improved with age. Of the handful of examples with "recent issues", in one case you appear to have reverted neutrally worded and easily verifiable updates to a BLP on the grounds that the person who made those edits acknowledges a COI.
In any event, the simplest explanation for the similarities you say you observe is that readers come to both Wikipedia articles about academics and to faculty pages looking for similar information, i.e. their place of work, their career history and affiliations, and their research or scholarly activities and how they fit into their broader academic field. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Opabinia regalis. This had nothing to do, whatsoever, with notability. The question asked explicitly assumes that status quo of PROFN and does not question it. The misrepresentation is noted. What you appear to be saying is that a WP page about an academic who meets PROFN is, appropriately, basically same as a typical faculty web page and that for academics to use WP as a professional webhost (like your average academic uses their faculty webpage, which tend not to be ridiculously promotional) is just fine. Thanks for providing your input. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break

I've started a number of pages on historians (User:K.e.coffman#Historians), so my comments apply most to those in humanities. In my mind, the requirements for an encyclopedic article are two-fold:

  1. The lead establishes why the person is significant in the field: i.e. major research; notable publications; awards that are significant and well known, etc.
  2. The bulk of the article consists of 3rd party analysis of the subject's work.

The difference between the uni profile / CV and an encyclopedia article is that the former generally does not include Part 2 (3rd party analysis). Compare: Wendy Lower, faculty profile and Wendy Lower.

Does this help? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is a dead on, to the point answer. That is not how most articles about academics are written, and would provide a significant difference between a faculty webpage and a WP article about the person. Thanks! I am interested to hear people's responses to this. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP

Just providing a notification here that we are gathering proposals for an RfC to raise NCORP standards at the Talk page of that guideline; see here. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for new section under "Not a Newspaper: Not real-time news reaction, commentary, and analysis

Based on a lot of issues over articles over the past 2+ years, I think we need to add a new case under Not a Newspaper to specifically discourage/prevent editors from focusing too much on the the reactions, commentary, and analysis that flood the news after/during a current controversial event.

This needs to be clear that this is not the same as covering notable, breaking events, as there are times we cover these less controversial topics well (such as disasters). We do not want to discourage editors from that, but we do want to avoid trying to rush to include the endless parade of talking heads throwing their opinions in the ring, particularly if the event is the type that generates a lot of talk and controversy. Trying to cover the analysis and commentary in real-time while such events are going on can be problematic and does not reflect the fact that we rather have topics discussed in this manner after a long time has passed from the conclusion of the event so that we have a better judgement of how to apply UNDUE and the like. This might be days, weeks, or months after the event has happened, but this is how we'd approach any event that already occurred in the past. We should not be letting the availability of volumes of talking-head opinions in the immediate wake of our event coverage drive how that article is written in the short term. This is essentially hitting on WP:RECENTISM as well as elements of WP:DEADLINE. Of course, if it is the news commentary that affects the actual event, documenting that as part of the controversy should be done. We want editors to document a controversy, but go no further than that until they have enough sources far enough removed to figure out that picture. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ ten zillion. We are not part of the blogosphere! Just the facts please. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support this. I've made it clear I hate "reaction" sections on major event pages. I'd take this a step further and recommend a proposal to the MOS that reactions of (1) the head of state where the event occurred and (2) the regional leader (mayor, governor, etc.) are the only two notable ones by default. Others like NAACP (e.g., with Ferguson) or GLAAD (e.g., with Orlando) might be notable if major outlets report on it. Political candidates are generally not (the media reports a hard sneeze from them usually). Platitudes are not either. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While "Reactions" sections to major events is definitely one area that I think this needs to cover, it does go beyond that too. A prime example of problem articles that this would influence is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; I don't edit this but there's seemingly a NPOV/N or BLP/N issue about it once a week because editors are rushing to add in talking-head commentary and putting aside actual, important reactions (like those actually involved in situation). It is very easy to use the endless stream of 24/7 news channels to support any viewpoint one wants, whereas weat this point should be aiming to only identify factual events in the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM is a huge issue, but I've yet to see Wikipedia combat it well, except for occasional cases. The WP:RSBREAKING guideline already tackles "current event[s] in real time" and recentism. I don't think addressing it at this policy page will help much, but trying is an option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this- should help separate the cruft from the actual topic, and provide a policy with which to deal with it. — fortunavelut luna 09:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested shift of focus: In coverage of anything, not only the very most currtentest events, opinions, hypotheses and speculations are encyclopedic only if they have major impact or significant overage. Therefore the subject discussed here is a special case of WP:DUE. Of course, it may be reasonable to elaborate on it in the context of WP:NOT in this generic form, i.e., WP:NOTPUNDITFORUM: Not a collection of opinions of everybody about everything. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen, not in exactly these words but in intent, that per UNDUE, if there are many published opinions about something (typically from the press that are part of our RS collective) who are otherwise uninvolved that per UNDUE we should be including those, to a point where the opinions/stances of those actually involved with the controversial event are then considered FRINGE views and not be included. Which is not documenting the controversy. UNDUE has a perfectly fine place, when the dust has settled and we're trying to write how something will be seen externally in the long-term, but we need language similar to what I or Staszek Lem are suggesting to avoid UNDUE being used in the short term. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There're a couple reasons I'm a little leery of this. One is... well, we're here to serve the readers. The most readers are often most interested in an event soon after it happens. Something happens, people go to Wikipedia to learn about it. They do. I don't see the advantage of not serving these people. Maybe it's necessary, if y'all say so and can demonstrate it, OK. But acknowledge that there's a cost.

(And IMO stuff like "I've made it clear I hate 'reaction' sections on major event pages" demonstrates little beyond people's personal interests in what they like to read, which, so what? Then skip it. If there's a demonstration that this stuff is inherently low-quality -- we get it wrong too often, or whatever, and this is essentially structural to the event being recent -- that's differnt of course.

Could we see some specific examples of articles or other material that is problematic? Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right and what WP should do it is give the facts of the matter. That is how we best serve readers. To the extent we provide important player's perspectives, that should have less WEIGHT than the actual facts. Otherwise we just become an extension of the blogosphere and whatever battles are being waged out there, get pulled in here, which becomes just a tremendous waste of time for every body. The proposal helps us all avoid that. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote above is my general approach in all the subjects I edit in. But you asked for an example - I have been working on Charlie Gard case and have been advocating there that we keep all the furore in the blogosphere at a minimum and give the most WEIGHT to what was wrong with the baby and what actually happened in the various court cases. People have been wanting to replay the arguments in social media and to even interweave them. Some of it has crept in despite my efforts but hey this a community project so one has to compromise. In my view we serve readers as I said above, by presenting the facts of the matter cleanly, and sketching interpretations separately. We don't get into the weeds of rehearsing those battles here per WP:Beware of tigers. Since i have offered this as an example, I will post there that I have done this. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the most recent examples involve anything that has touched the last election and Trump-related articles. A very specific example is James Comey. Among other issues one specific point of concern was inclusion of other opinioned reasons of why Comey was let go from office in May 2017 that was different from what the official dismissal memo said. Now, considering how many moving parts there are on the election/Russia interference story, the dust over that and anyone involved, particularly Comey, hasn't settled, so we don't know how to see this situation properly from a longevity viewpoint. In an encyclopedic perfect world, we'd have noted only what the dismissal memo specifically said, and that the dismissal was seen as controversial, at least until a point in time where these events are a thing of the past, but instead, there's inclusion of several theories from RSes (so not in violation of any other content policy) that bloat it out, and written in a manner to be critical of the dismissal (and of Trump by that nature). At one point, one editor argued that the dismissal memo wasn't important because we can't trust that was the reason for dismissal. Editors like these are playing games with policy and the near-endless supply of Trump-critical opinions and analyses to maintain a certain viewpoint on articles, which may or may not be appropriate, we just can't tell right now. It is far better to avoid giving any more detail beyond what is the verified truth and possibly not appear complete, as that state then can be expanded on once we have the correct long-term view of the situation; rather than trying to crap a selective choice of opinion or analysis into an article while the situation is still happening. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Agree that it is certainly an issue. But degree-of-relevance is also relevant to this. :-) Per the framework at WP:Relevance, "reaction to" is one step removed from coverage directly of the topic, with greater selectivity required. While this issue may arise more with current news, coverage of reaction is a common way to tilt an article (a wp:npov issue). Also I'm not so sure that it's an issue for wp:not; it's probably more of an issue for wp:npov and our missing relevance guideline, and missing infusion of wp:coatrack principles into policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point about NPOV and coatrack but a lot of this has to do with what people see WP as being for. In my view a lot of the problems addressed by the proposal are actually related to the SOAPBOX part of the policy, but addressing this under NOTNEWS in a subsection like WP:NOTBLOGOSPHERE or yes WP:NOTPUNDITFORUM would be immensely helpful to add clarity to help keep everyone on-mission. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While reactions are one step removed and are secondary sources, what is at issue is short-term reactions, even by journalists and analysts that have studied the situation in depth but still speaking their opinion without considering the long-term. We want the long-term secondary coverage, once the matter has settled down to gauge opinions, but not while it is at a fevered pitch. The reason that it is suggested here at NOT is that it covers several different content issues. Some of this is NPOV issues, but there are, for example, the case of "reactions to major disaster" sections that certainly are neutral but when it is just a list of condolences, its not appropriate content, so falls under NOT. I also see this analagous to being not a newspaper, we're also not a talking-heads 24/7 news station ala CNN, FOX, or CNBC, which has news coverage but in a far different matter from a typical newspapre and also far from what an encyclopedia should be .--MASEM (t) 21:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points by both Jytdog and Masem. I'm always leery of provisions that overlap with other policies or try to fix a problem in the wrong place but I think that you are in essence saying (or led me to) that the issue is so much bigger in areas covered in wp:not (e.g. "not a newspaper") that it would be good to cover it here. Agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed language - I want to hash this out first here, but I do think we need to have then a full RFC about this since it is a core concept policy and going to link in a non-policy page (RECENTISM) which some might balk at.
    Real-time news reactions, commentary and analysis While Wikipedia can excel at the cooperative development of detailed articles on breaking events in near real-time, editors should keep such articles focused on facts and immediate impacts, and avoid including opinions, reactions, commentary, or similar analysis generated in the short-term by the media or by others not directly connected to the event, despite the quantity of such sources that may be available. We seek to cover an event's permanence and, as there is no deadline to getting these articles right, should only include such commentary and analysis well after the event has ended so that we can evaluate the proper balance of long-term views of the event's significance. This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to document the controversy but not comment on it until the dust from the controversy has long since settled.
  • I suck at policy language so feel free to adjust/amend/rewrite, etc. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question People commenting so far seem to have a certain type of Wikipedia editing in mind. Can anyone give some examples of Wikipedia article which was developed in this undesirable way? I can only imagine instances of good editing with news, like for example with various crisis situations and updates on politics to match the developing narratives. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the worst, but recently there's been July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing of which about 50% of the post-lead text is a "reactions" section. It used to be a lot worse, but there's some dedicated editors who kill it when they see it. There's been a habit of expanding stubs on current events by putting every publicly available reaction from every famous person or national government one can find. If it doesn't happen as much its because people are actively removing it (as they should). But I think the OP is looking for policy guidance to give some meat to their work. --Jayron32 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaction sections like Jayron describes is one aspect, but the larger issue, as I've tried to identify above, currently exists with nearly every article around Trump and the last election relating to the possibility of Russia's involvement. There are very few established facts on the case - though clearly a timeline of events we can document and which we should document - but editors in these articles seem invested to make sure the media's stance (which is currently hostile to Trump, in broad terms) is included. We should be asking, once the matter is settled, in any resolution, would we be including all the current media's stance and opinions and analysis? To counterpoint, imagine the Watergate scandal being written in real-time compared to what we have now. Properly, this has a "role of the media" section to emphasize how the talking-heads at the time made this a big media thing, but in the long-term context, it's not outline all the opinions but the roles that had. The few reactions are from the major world players at the time, and thus appropriately summarized. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a darn good first draft. I suggest changing the last sentence to "This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to describe the controversy, summarizing high quality sources; we do not participate in the controversy." Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not 100% sure on that change. I have seen people argue that if the NYTimes or BBC or other high-quality RS opine on something it should be included, and that's what we should be avoiding in the short-term coverage. Obviously a retrospective on the event by the NYTimes is extremely valuable. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "This is particularly important for controversial events; we want to describe the controversy, summarizing high quality sources reporting, not commenting on, the events; we do not participate in the controversy." ? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone pinged EEng? I know he interested in a restriction like this. Personally, as long as "this talking head says the shooting is racial [1], while Yakkety XIV says this sudden bankruptcy is an industry wake-up call [35]" is kept to a minimum, I am opposed to attempts to restrict the recent addition of events to Wikipedia. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an attempt to curb current events, NEVENT remains the core guideline to judge that. This is simply to prevent articles on current events from going too far into the weeds of opinions and analysis in the short-term, focusing on non-contested facts that are part of the event, and waiting to include the more analytical considerations well after the event has settled down. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to distinguish between "talking heads" and "blogosphere" and the reaction to notable events by notable persons. Also we need to recognize that the mode of transmission of those opinions and reactions today are frequently tweets. Even the Pope tweets. We all know you-know-who does. What used to be press releases and men in suits sitting in front of flags is now the same people twittering in their pajamas. Their doing so almost always results in pickup in reliable sources. Also NOTNEWS should not be used as a bludgeon to prevent notable events from receiving proper coverage simply because they are recent. I'm more concerned with the articles that seem to crop up after every major news event, thrusting nobodies like Richard Matt into prominence when they deserve to be promptly forgotten. Matt is a low-life who busted out of prison, whereas Charlie Gard, op cit, was the center of global controversy that received extensive coverage. We don't want NOTNEWS to mean "nothing recent please," and it can be misinterpreted as that sometimes. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, part of this is avoiding the inclusion of short-term reactions that people that have nothing to do with the event, at least while the event is going on, even if those people are notable. Or at least distinguish between the volume and influence of such reactions (which are fine if they affect the situation in the short-term), and exactly what they say. Taking the Gard case, there are some cases of proper reaction inclusion under this idea, and some that are not. The first para of "Political and public policy" is good, describing how those tweets (particularly Pope's and Trump's) influenced the situation and larger reaction. And to understand how they did, the contents do need to be mentioned (plus, they were actually talking actions to be taken, rather than just offering condolenses). But at the same time, Pence's comment isn't needed since it is just condolences, and has no clear impact on the situation. One needs to think how the article will be five years from now, if all those positions will be relevant. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact Pence did more than just offer condolences but made a political statement, which was indeed quite consequential from the standpoint of the political impact of the case. As for five-year impact, that's a tricky question. Re Pence, will he be president in five years? Will single-payer (the subject of his comment) still be consequential? If either is the case, it will be relevant. Which raises another issue: relevant to whom? To a taxi driver or a researcher or student? Do we pretend to be arbiters of what might possibly be relevant to unknown audiences in five years? That's not currently in this policy, but if you wish to add language to that effect, feel free. Getting back to this particular possible policy change, I guess my concern is that this may be a cure for which there is no disease. If there are specific articles in which this policy change would have come in handy, had it existed, I would like to know which articles and the impact this would have. The Comey article is one example but I think more would be useful. Coretheapple (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Froglich reverts

I reverted two edits from this article that appear suspicious, along with two redirects. [1] [2] [3] Could someone with more experience on this page review my reverts? Objective3000 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are correct. The language used is highly suspect, though there is a ring of truth of something we should be aware of, but we'd need deeper discussion to determine inclusion. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a "ring of truth" that "we should be aware of", then how about we improve the "highly suspect" language instead? I formulated the now-reverted piece, and am here for the deeper discussion.--Froglich (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A principle oft-repeated at WP:V is that we want "verifyability, not truth". If there is no reliable source that are challenging that a narrative may be presented, we can't cover that, per WP:V, per WP:NOR. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the word "verifiable" means "able to be shown to be true" (c.f. veritas) The purpose of the maxim "Verifiability not truth" is that being true is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for information to be included. The information included has to go beyond merely being true, it needs to be able to be shown to be true. Mere assertions of truth are insufficient. If something false happens to be printed outside of Wikipedia, we are not obligated to repeat it merely because it was written down somewhere else. Truth is still a necessary precondition for verifiability. The purpose of the maxim is to remind people that they have to back up their assertions of factuality and that assertions of truth are insufficient without evidence. It isn't to say that truth is irrelevant, and that all that matters is citing some source, especially if it can be shown that the source is wrong. Froglich's addition is rightly reverted here; not merely because of its combative tone, but also because it's entirely redundant with well-established principles. --Jayron32 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that there are proper questions of "blind acceptance of truth" or "refusal to consider critical viewpoints not considered in RSes" and to what extend WP should do this, but that is a much deeper and difficult set of questions to answer and can't just go into NOT without that discussion. I will agree that there are places on WP where editors have "circled the wagons" around what the RS says and only what the RS say, without willing to entertain the larger picture that can be shown, but only if one extend one's view past core RSes into the opinions and attributed statements from less-reliable ones (still can't treat these as facts). However, we have to be careful that is applied right as allowing that approach may benefit some areas where there has been a very narrow view would also allow any random conspiracy theory to get in as well, so there's a very difficult balance to get, again requiring much larger discussion before cementing in policy. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why speaking in the source's voice is relevant, and that Wikipedia reflects mainstream consensus on a topic. Presenting a fringe theory as "Here's a fringe theory that has been widely discounted, but is commented on enough to bear repeating here" which is fine and "Here's a fringe theory which could also be true" which is not fine. --Jayron32 13:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=793978663"