Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Review

I've come across a user who appears to have a long term pattern of ownership with several articles, including satellite television, URL shortening, pirate decryption, world wide web, Northern Ireland, and topics related to these articles. I've probably missed some, too. They constantly revert constructive edits without using any WP policies/guidelines to support their reverts. Some of them have resulted in disruptive editing, too, including removal of cited content, because some reason they had a problem with the sources, when they should have found better sources. Some revert claims in the edit summaries and simple claims that sources contain incorrect information suggest they may have a wp:COI with these subjects. I'm considering reporting to WP:AN, but I'd like some feedback before I do. Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"A positive side to ownership"

Could Pigsonthewing explain why this comment of mine is "not really helpful". Because discussions on my talk page (such as User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 18#Songs from the Black Hole FA) suggest otherwise. I have a seriously held opinion that WP:OWN means you can walk away and attend to family, children, paid work and other activities and get a good balance of things. If it isn't acceptable here, I'll probably create my own essay about it anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to discuss if your opinion should enter this essay, and if, marked how as a opinion? A contradicting essay might also be a good idea, see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sometime when I put things on talk pages nobody answers, so being bold gets a result. An essay sounds like the way to go, if I've got spare time tonight I'll cobble something together. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, an essay would be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
And lo, the essay was started. In the words of Dennis Brown, though it's in my userspace, feel free to add to the stone soup if you can, then it might be a candidate for main essay space. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, WP:OWN isn't an essay; it's a policy. Because it's a policy, people are more protective of it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I am so used to articles being owned by people that I am certainly surprised that it is a policy, because if I understand it right it rather means NOT to own articles. Did you know that I recently came across "Live editing to a featured article is not such a good idea."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Today there is a zillion of essays in wikipedia, so you may want to make it searchable. It may be a good idea to put your essay in categories, check the Category:Wikipedia essays, as well as link from other essays on very close topics. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundant?

In Section "Actions": An editor puts his or her name into the article as the author.

May be this issue was a matter of conflict in the early days, but today it is simply a newbie's error. Therefore I suggest to remove it or rephrase this item as a style guideline and move it into the lede, e.g., like this:

"No one <....> the owner of a particular page, therefore wikipedia articles are not signed by authors' names.

Optionally a reminder may be added (or wikilinked somewhere) that contribution authorship is stored in the article history. Also may be it makes sense to draw distinction between the concepts of "ownership" and "authorship". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Other actions of ownership

I think "continuously removing AfD or speedy deletion template tags by page author" should be added as behavior of ownership of articles, as it indicates the article author insists in not deleting the article without explanation. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. Most often this is done by newbies (I cannot imagine an experienced editor removing AfD tags), and we don't accuse newbies of various wikipedia sicknesses. Besides, continuous insisting on something without explanation is called "edit warring". And any kind edit warring is, yes, may come from the ownerhip feeling. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained deletion discussion

A discussion about a template mentioned in this policy is underway at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained. – S. Rich (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

Please remove the empty "Notes" section. It's been there, and empty, since at least some time last year. Page is temporarily protected due to an unrelated editwar.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles/Archive 2#Footnote in lead and Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles/Archive 2#A needless footnote, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Ownership of articles → Wikipedia:Ownership of content – The project page begins: "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively." As demonstrated in the text of the project page, while the scope of this policy relates significantly to articles, it extends across a range of other contents as well. GregKaye 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Single purpose accounts & strong emotional attachment

I'm wondering if there should be some mention of single-purpose accounts (SPA)?

While being an SPA is not clear evidence of ownership, sometimes it's one part of the evidence. It can be the creator of an article whose behavior gets too possessive, or it can be an editor whose emotional involvement is so dramatic that they refuse to edit Wikipedia at all because they are not getting their way on one article. That too is ownership behavior.

It demonstrates the main characteristic of improper ownership - very strong emotional attachment to an article that will not "let go". In fact, I find it strange that emotion isn't mentioned a single time!

Does anyone want to take a stab at creating some type of content mentioning SPAs and emotional attachment? A few sentences might be enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statements section

The Statements section currently includes examples that do not automatically or necessarily indicate WP:Own behavior. After BullRangifer made this addition to the section, I've been meaning to address some of the examples here at the talk page; this matter at Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle reminded me of that. The following examples are the ones I take issue with:

  • "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that).
  • "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."
  • "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."
  • "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously as a history search shows."
  • "I left Wikipedia for a good part of the year because the development and promotional/advocacy tone of this article so disgusted me."

The "created/wrote" example? While I understand that some editors who display WP:Own behavior will state that to justify their ownership, it's a statement that plenty of editors employ without having a WP:Own mindset; I sometimes state it of other editors, like SlimVirgin's work on the Veganism article. And, of course, others state it of her work on the Female genital mutilation article. Many of us have a lot of respect for editors who wrote most of an article and are probably the best possible person we could have working on that article. After all, the WP:Competence essay notes that an editor might be incompetent when it comes to editing some topics. We have the WP:STEWARDSHIP section that explains this type of thing.

The "I can see nothing wrong with the article" example? Plenty of editors, including me, state that without having a WP:Own mindset. It might be a WP:RfC matter or something else.

The "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source." example? Plenty of editors state that without having a WP:Own mindset. This is commonly a WP:SOURCEACCESS matter.

The "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously" example? That could refer to anything; doesn't automatically indicate a WP:Own mindset.

The "I left Wikipedia for a good part of the year because the development and promotional/advocacy tone of this article so disgusted me." example that BullRangifer added? A lot of people take a WP:Wikibreak or quit Wikipedia over something that disgusts them. This does not automatically indicate a WP:Own mindset. WP:Advocacy is an essay, but it is one I strongly believe in; a lot of us are intolerant of advocacy on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree that each statement, seen in isolation from any context or other statements, does not indicate ownership behavior or motivation. Just as with body language cues and patterns, they must be seen in a context and setting, usually with other statements, which make it clear there is a pattern which indicates ownership behavior. There must also be some form of dogged insistence and relentless pushing, without good policy back up, and often including edit warring.
What's wrong here is not the examples, but the lack of an introduction saying something to the effect of what I've just mentioned. Let's just create such an introduction. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with an introduction. If we are to keep the above examples, though, I would want better clarification beside them if needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, the statements I take issue with being there are still there, in the same exact way. Well, with the exception of this removal made by Staszek Lem.
And, OnBeyondZebrax, I don't mind if you add this back as long as the wording is clearer, since editors commonly state something along the lines of "revert drive-by edit" when validly reverting WP:Drive-by tagging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. It looks like there was never any followup on my suggestion for an intro, so I have just made an attempt. Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Exception to policy regarding files

Should we write into the policy that users are allowed to "own" files by placing the {{Keep local}} template on them? Kelly hi! 12:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See ongoing discussion at WT:CSD (section "F8 - "Keep local" tags"). BethNaught (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good articles

I've added a section on GAs to complement what we already have on FAs. I have quite a lot of GAs watchlisted, and some get changed by everybody and their pet dog day in, day out. Some changes are good, some changes aren't. I think we need to be quite a bit more lenient on GAs compared to FAs, but still if I spot somebody citing trivia to The Sun (United Kingdom) on a BLP, I think a revert with a summary approximating "oy, out of order!" is still okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

New shortcut

Is it possible to make a new shortcut for this policy? Something along the lines of "WP:OWNERSHIP" is what I'm hoping for. My reasoning behind this is it's kind of a pain to make sentences conform around the policy, as far as grammar wise. Meaning instead of typing, "Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it will not be included in the article. Wikipedia is founded upon WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:OWNERSHIP" for example, I would have to type, "Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it will not be included in the article. Wikipedia is not founded upon the few who WP:OWN the article, but upon WP:CONSENSUS." Making this new shortcut would help speed things up, seeing as I wouldn't have to sit here and think about how I can sync the shortcut into the grammar on the sentence I'm writing. Boomer VialHolla 00:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As shown by the blue WP:OWNERSHIP link, the shortcut exists and can be used without problem. Using what-links-here for that shortcut shows it has been used many times. There are often lots of redirects to a page like this, but only a very small number of them need to be displayed in the box at the top. Sometimes people try to add many of the alternatives but that is pointless clutter and is confusing as the choice can be bewildering. I do not see why WP:OOA needs to be listed on this page, and would support replacing it with WP:OWNERSHIP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that a WP:OWNERSHIP shortcut should supplant the WP:OOA shortcut. BushelCandle (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ownership_of_content/Archive_3&oldid=1076486569"