Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies.
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).
Redirects
I've just been reverting a few edits by an anonymous user, where that user had taken away piped links and fed them through redirects. As it happens, some of the links he changed were wrong in the first place, but that's by-the-by. Anyway, he questioned my changes, and I stated that it was policy. (Refer to my talk page.) However, now I find myself in the position where I can't find where the policy of eliding redirects is written down. There's nothing explicit at Wikipedia:Redirect, or Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs. The explanation I've given is "... I presume that this is to reduce server load (by reducing the additional code executed each time you click on a link that gets redirected)." Any pointers? Is this the reason? Shall I make policy more explicit? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 09:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Just a comment: linking to redirects in this way makes the wikitext less ugly than using piped links. — Matt 09:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a policy, because it's not a good policy. Sometimes redirects are the proper solution (they better organize "what links here" and better deal with changing articles). That's why we have redirects in the first place. anthony (see warning) 15:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Possibly unfree images
Based on a previous village pump discussion, a new page is being developed to handle the removal of images used under nonfree licenses or lacking source information. A poll on whether to implement this process is at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images. --Michael Snow 03:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Polls Are Open: Drive Carefully
Voting has begun on the Managed Deletion policy. Note that it will actually be called "Early Deletion." The policy has been finalized, so, even if you have looked at it before, please look again and give it your vote. Voting will end on October 8, 2004. Geogre 00:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Year in X
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Incorrect_date_formats states that, for example, 2000 is preferable to 2000 in film. I've lost count of the number of articles I've seen when someone has come along and changed it to the latter, breaking the agreed convention. This may be just a case of those people not knowing the rule but it is now so widespread that people just ignore it. Should the policy be reviewed or should we go through all the Year in X links and fix them? violet/riga (t) 14:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't go through all the links and change them just yet. If anything, ask for a policy review; this convention wasn't really "agreed to" at all. The MoS's requirement was copied (somewhat out of context) from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards, which lists an important exception to the guideline. There may very well be other reasonable exceptions to the guidelines applicable to non-music topics. This WikiProject-specific guideline was applied to the Wikipedia as a whole with little discussion. The standards for the Wikipedia as a whole should have a strong community-wide consensus. Even the WikiProject's consensus stands on uncertain ground, judging from the objections in the archived debate about the issue (which really isn't that important of an issue, IMHO). • Benc • 08:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Then the policy should be reviewed - it is as important as many other consistency issues. violet/riga (t) 09:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In context, the suggested change may be desirable, even if I prefer the linking the main year page. Recently I came across dates linked as [[October 3]] [[2004 in music|2004]] instead of [[October 3]] [[2004]]. I feel this should be avoid, as this breaks dynamic date formatting. The feature had ended a longlasting debate about which format to choose. -- User:Docu
Presentation of Images
At present when a reader clicks on a thumbnail image to see the larger version of the image, they see it accompanied by a lot of irrelevant and unattractive material - the name of the image file, the image's edit history and technical details of its licensing etc. What readers should see is the image, with a caption and possibly a heading. There should then be a link to the edit history and licensing details, just as there is a link from an article to the article's edit history. This seems to me to be another example of how Wikipedia is currently structured in the interests of its writers and editors rather than in the interests of readers. How much difficulty would there be in restructing the image pages in this way? Adam 02:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia is relatively unusual in that the boundary between readers and writers/editors is quite fuzzy; the lack of a clean separation means that sometimes a reader encounters mechanisms for editing — such as the "Edit this page" link. I guess we tolerate editor-oriented mechansisms intruding into "content" when it isn't much of a distraction. Personally, I don't see much distraction in including "What links here", history and licensing data on an image page; a user can very obviously see the image and its caption. Moreover, images are somewhat different from articles in that they are rarely used as stand-alone entities — they are nearly always used as inline elements in the article space. If we implemented your suggestion, I think there'd be little improvement for a reader, but it would be quite a cumbersome change for editors. — Matt 08:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually they can't see the caption. The caption is visible under the photo on the article page, but not on the page where the image stands alone. What the reader sees is a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to see. Why would it be a cumbersome change for editors? Adam 11:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Regarding a caption, an image description page should contain a description of the image, and any that don't need fixing. Your change would mean an editor would click on a "What links here" or "History" to get the editor-oriented information; this extra click would be more hassle, if not "quite cumbersome". — Matt 12:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A "description of the image" is not the same thing as the caption that appears at the article page.
- This is quite correct. Indeed, many images are (or have the potential to be) reused in several pages, with completely different captions; the caption on the image page should simply describe the picture without presuming the context.
- "this extra click would be more hassle"? You're kidding. Adam 15:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, I'm not; on slow Wikipedia days, clicking a web link can result in a long wait, like 10–20 seconds. If you're doing a lot of work on images (e.g. image tagging), this would be quite a time penalty for the editor. — Matt 15:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
contributing your own already published material??
Do people ever post their own already published elsewhere material as wikipedia entries? How are these sort of issues of copyright and authorship dealt with?
- If copyright is entirely yours, and you are comfortable with the material you enter becoming GFDL (and free to be edited), there's no problem. If the material is in a contract with someone else, you'll have to ensure all stakeholders are comfortable with this. Radagast 15:59, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Proposed new VfD rule: No repeat submission of articles
- Proposed new VfD rule: No repeat submission of articles that have already passed the VfD process (w/ consensus to keep) within the next three months. Please see the proposal and vote/discuss.
Please have a look at Driveshaft (and Talk:Driveshaft) and explain to me the rationale for deleting the (apparent) stub. |l'KF'l| 20:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Reverted and wikified it, the driveshaft deserves an article, although it will probably always be stubby. -- Solitude 11:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Risk of inappropriate images appearing
I don't know if someone has already experienced the following issue in Wikipedia to date, but let me comment on it, just in case:
As there is no limitation on the uploading of images to Wikipedia, I believe that there is a chance that images that should not appear on any article (among others, pornography, images of disturbing violence, etc.), could get to appear. Even if this type of images appears for no more than an hour before the page is reverted, the damage is already done to those who come in contact with the material.
Is this risk already managed somehow? I would like to read your comments on this.--Logariasmo 04:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No more than any other risk, I think. Ideally, only one person should come in contact with it - and then they should revert it. --Golbez 04:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think that casual visitors would know how to revert a page. It is even worse if it is children who visit the vandalised article.--JohnWest 04:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Que Sera Sera. There is no mechanism set up for it, and I doubt one would be compatible with wiki nature. --Golbez 04:58, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
- You're right — images speak louder than words. If we ever move to a system where new articles are queued pending review by a pool of editors, new images will probably among the first parts of the wiki to be locked down. That's probably a long ways off, though. For now, the RC patrol is doing a solid job. • Benc • 10:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Encumbered" or "Protected" — POV?
Is it biased to describe an invention Foo as being "encumbered by patents" or "protected by patents"? To me, the word "encumbered" has negative connotations, and similarly "protected" has positive connotations. What would be a good alternative? — Matt 09:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Darrien 11:19, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
- Yes. You may also want to move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) so it will receive appropriate attention.
- Darrien 11:57, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
Credit for images
For years publications would customarily (US) use images without crediting the creator of that image, but that has changed in the US. Now credit is routinely given for photographs and artwork.
Is this official policy on Wikipedia?
In my view, it should be, unless the creator of the image has contributed it anonymously. Who made what images is a matter of history and knowledge as much as other article content.
This, however, raises another issue. Suppose a contributor to an article on Bugs Bunny (say, one Elmer Fudd) uploads one of his images for use in that article, and refers to himself in the caption in this fashion:
Cwazy Wabbit Eating a Cawwot (Photo by Elmer Fudd, 1999)
Anyone see a problem with this? (Other than Elmer's spelling?)
--NathanHawking 01:17, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
- I see no problem; I credit all images I upload that I make as "Made by User:Golbez." --Golbez 01:27, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. In the caption, visible to readers of the article.--NathanHawking 01:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
- Oh. In that situation, no, attribution should not be made in the article unless it's somehow relevant to the article. If people want attribution, they can click it. --Golbez 01:31, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Why do you say this? Is this Wikipedia policy?
- Custom in US print publications and even on websites is to give visible credit for the photograph or artwork. See MSNBC Space Plane.--NathanHawking 01:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not paper. I don't know where the policy is stated, or even if a policy is stated, but that's generally how it works here, unless it's a corporate source like CNN or the AP. But usually, having attribution on the image page seems sufficient. --Golbez 01:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Noted that Wikipedia is not paper, hence my observation that even online publications generally credit the source or creator of images. We attribute quotations and fair use passages of text from sources.
- If articles had sole authors, noting the authorship would seem appropriate. It only becomes impractical because of the large number of contributors and modifiers, thus the history of an article will have to do. Wikipedia documentation seems very clear (to me) on this rationale.
- But images do not suffer from that same ambiguity. If corporate sources like CNN or AP are credited in the article text, why not anyone who contributes an original image? Explicit credit might encourage more to create good images for Wikipedia. (Wow! Your name in print! Silly, maybe, but human nature.) --NathanHawking 02:32, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
- Don't quote me on that corporate thing, I was trying to think of any instance friendly to what you're saying. And the credit is just as hidden as it is for the article, so why should people be less motivated to contribute an image as an article? It takes at least one click to see who contributed either to an article or to an image, and in fact, takes more clicks to find out what was specifically contributed by the person. Image attributions are fewer clicks away. --Golbez 04:47, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not explicitly stated that you shouldn't. However, it violates some explicit guidelines implicitly. Wikipedia:Captions has guidelines for what should go in image captions, and a short summary of what goes on image description pages. The short of it is, captions should be short and to the point. Putting a credit in the caption pushes the caption farther from both.
- Print publications put credit lines next to images because they have no choice. MSNBC et al does it because they don't make effective use of the technology they have on hand. We have image description pages for voluminous information about the image itself, we don't need to clutter the articles with information that isn't relevant. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know how you could say that "Image courtesy of NASA." (for example) clutters an article. Now on the other hand if someone wrote a small paragraph on how they created the image, that would be clutter! However "short" captions are not always appropriate. Creating captions of 3 or 4 short sentences can add a lot of value in some cases, but of course this should be used sparingly. We should always avoid being too rigid in our guidelines and always attempt to add value when we can. If you haven't guessed already, I am for including short credits in the captions when appropriate. Authors (and even government agencies) ask to be credited for the images we use, and I doubt most people click through all of the images in an article just to read the credits. —Mike 05:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know about yours, but my encyclopedia (and my dictionary, for that matter) puts the image credits at the end, not in the caption for the image. So I'd say what we're doing is roughly analogous to the online equivalent of that. anthony (see warning) 02:16, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- For me, the chief problem with photo credits in article captions is that they have a negative effect, albeit a very small one, for the reader — it's a tiny bit of distracting and (typically) irrelevant information — I imagine that it's comparatively rare for anyone to have an interest in the authorship of a typical Wikipedia photo. As a courtesy to the photographer we should include the credits in the Image Description page, but as a courtesy to the reader we shouldn't clutter up articles with metadata. — Matt 09:10, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we encourage people to include references with the uploaded images whenever possible? Not only would it make much easier the confirmation whether or not the image is in the public domain, it would also be of great interest for people who want to find out more about the image (painter, original publication etc.) – for example, the image of Odin is very nice, and I have no doubt it is indeed in the public domain. But how would I proceed if I wanted to determine the painter, and maybe find other paintings by him? That's just a random example, it's very common for images to have no reference. dab 13:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Superscripts and subscripts
I've seen SUP tags used for superscripts in Wikipedia articles a lot. I assume SUB is also used. Both are problematic. They are not portable. I have an article on my website discussing the problems and suggesting cures:
Using Superscripts and Subscripts in Web Pages
In short, I recommend against using the SUP and SUB tags. For the most common use of the SUP tag, exponentiation, I recommend using the Unicode up-arrow, ↑, written as ↑. At the very least, even if pages already having SUP are left as they are, I request that the use of the up-arrow should be granted status as an officially acceptable policy for any future articles. --Shlomital 17:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
- In general, portability problems should be solved by updates to the MediaWiki software, not arbitrary requirements for our editors. I don't really like the use of "x↑2" instead of "x2", "H2SO4" instead of "H2SO4", etc. First, this goes against the most commonly used conventions for using super and subscripts in science. Second, the vast majority of our readers use browsers that can accurately render these elements. Additionally, many browsers have poor support for Unicode elements, despite being able to render SUP and SUB just fine. Third, MediaWiki explicitly allows SUP and SUB, along with a few dozen other HTML tags; the software creators thought it through before allowing the tags. In a nutshell — I agree that portability is a good thing, but not at the expense of clarity. • Benc • 19:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It hasn't to do with Wikipedia, but with the nature of copying and pasting into editors of plain text. Wherever, no matter where, you have a 109, it will end up as 109 in a text editor. That is the portability problem. I find the up-arrow (10↑9) or, failing that, the caret (10^9), to be both clear and portable. The importance of this issue for Wikipedia is that it's a resource for freely copying text from; therefore, I feel it is important that Wikipedia should be as optimised as possible for copying of text. I realise the legacy of SUP is huge. May I therefore ask, instead of making the up-arrow compulsory, at least making it acceptable? There is already one article (Extended ASCII) in which I have used it. As for browser support, browsers that don't support Unicode (like Netscape 4) are going the way of the dinosaur; and if that's still a problem, the caret is ASCII. And also: as I state in my article, chemical subscripts are an area where SUB tags can be used with no reservations. --Shlomital 21:19, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
- I still think this issue can and should be solved using a software solution. We already have Special:Export to convert articles to XML; why not have a Special:ExportToText? Besides, anyone doing a cut-and-paste from their browser is simply asking for trouble. What about images, <math> markup, tables, and so forth? • Benc • 22:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It'll have to be an export to some kind of formatted text file format. Any export to plain text will have the same problem of 109 coming up as 109. When people want to preserve the whole page, they use their browser to save the whole page, with all its markup and accompanying image. But when they want to quote part of the text, they do a cut and paste from the browser. The trouble with 109 is the same as with italics--not surviving pasting into a text editor. Italics are sometimes critical, sometimes not, but 109 is certainly a whole different thing from 109. The question is how much you're willing to make the contents of the encyclopedia dependent upon formatted text and embedded images (which are normally frills).
Fundraising Fame
The banner says it costs $10 an hour to run Wikimedia websites. Why don't we make it so that every person that donates $10 "sponsors" an hour? So instead of the box that constantly says to donate money, it would say "This hour of Wikipedia is brought to you by x user. To sponsor a Wikipedia hour, donate here" or something to that affect. That way people would get recognition for donating and more people would check out their talk pages and they could showcase their pet projects or their blog or whatever on their talk pages. Salasks 03:52, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Then we'd have to see these ads all year instead of just for a few weeks. anthony (see warning) 04:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is a sweet idea, and grumps like Anthony could use their monobook.css to remove them. However it would be tantamount to Wikipedia accepting adertising. This comment was brought to you by Proctor&Gamble, whose soap poweder will get your whites whiter. --Tagishsimon
- That is if your monobook.css works. Mine doesn't. —Mike 22:00, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- It is a sweet idea, and grumps like Anthony could use their monobook.css to remove them. However it would be tantamount to Wikipedia accepting adertising. This comment was brought to you by Proctor&Gamble, whose soap poweder will get your whites whiter. --Tagishsimon
Deletion addition
I added this to Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Decision Policy
- Please do not remove any votes from any VfD or like discussion. If you suspect a vote of being a sockpuppet or otherwise invalid, mark it as such with a comment, and any pertinent links, and leave it there. The admin who reviews the discussion will investigate and decide whether or not to take that vote into account. By not removing any votes, we ensure that there can be no arguments over who removed what and why.
I think everyone should be able to understand why this is generally good. Arguments have come up regarding this, including in the recent GNAA discussion. Of course there may be exceptions like if there are ever hundreds of sockpuppet votes, but I think that in general, people should adhere to this. Just wanted to let people know that I added this, since its not a trivial change. —siroχo 20:55, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Two propositions
One of which has been made before - the In the News and Current Events must be less Americocentric. US "presidential debates" and other crap are just not interesting enough, and they are rather irritating when a lot of other articles and news items deserve attention. All this and more has been covered extensively before in previous discussions, but no action has been taken yet (save your excuses, heard them before), I believe one excerpt exists here: Template_talk:In_the_news#Americocentrism.
Next, the map of India used in several articles is inaccurate and offensive - no mention is made of the "disputed" territories or that the boundary shown is neither an international boundary nor an Indian-accepted representation of territories under Indian control, except in the main article on India and perhaps the Kashmir article and one or two more; the CIA map is used by default in all other articles and is WRONG - it is a map that reveals CIA and perhaps American government policies, but is incorrect, irritating, and unacceptable. Several instant remedies are possible: use colour-coded/ shaded maps that indicate dispute ; mention dispute in image captions ; mention inaccuracy ; explain that current CIA map is just that ; explain current map shows boundaries definitely under Indian administration, not the international boundary (which, to be as NPOV as possible, does not exist.) Throw out the revert mongering meddlers and the ignorant and implement a quick and effective policy - above all CHANGE THE @#*&^%@! MAP. Damn it. -- Simonides 22:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Am beginning to work on a replacement. Apparently, this is part of why Nagaland was protected. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Image tagging question
Would someone well versed in copyright issues please come to Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Author gone and discuss how to tag images which were made by Wikipedians who have since left Wikipedia and cannot give explicit consent that the images are tagged as GFDL? An user has suggested that they should be tagges with CopyrightedFreeUse which, IMO, is violation of users' copyright. Nikola 23:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bodymodification, Editwars, and Legal Liability
Bodymodification, Editwars, and Legal Liability
I noticed an edit war between intactivists and circumcisiosexuals. This got me thinking about modymodification and legal liability:
If parents would follow the advice of an article just reverted by procircumcisionist and based on that advice, the parents circumcise a healthy baby with no medical problems and the baby dies, the parents might sue Wikimedia for wrongful death. Contrarily, an anticircumcisionist might revert an article just before parents with a child requiring a medically necessary circumcision looks at the article. The parents decide not to circumcise based on the article. Again, the child dies, and again, the parents sue Wikimedia.
I have an idea which will kill the editwars and save Wikimedia from legal accountability:
At the top of every article about bodymodification, have a disclaimer like this as a serversideinclude:
"It is the policy of the Foundation Wikimedia that bodymodification should be an informed decision of the modifyee beyond the age of majority."
Then we can remove all pro/con-sections from the articles, thus ending the editwars. Since occasionally circumcision is necessary, we can have an additional disclaimer there:
"It is the recommendation of the Foundation Wikimedia that with the exception of emergencies, before one gets a medically necessary circumcision, one receive a second opinion from either a pediatric urologist if the patient is a child or an urologist if the patient is an adult."
We can modify this and put this disclaimer on all articles about medicine:
"It is the recommendation of the Foundation Wikimedia that with the exception of emergencies, one should get a second opinion"
While me talk about legal accountability of Wikimedia and medicine, perhaps we should have a disclaimer like this on medical articles:
"Important disclaimer:
- The information on Wikipedia is for educational purposes only and should not be considered to be medical advice. It is not meant to replace the advice of the physician who cares for you or your family. All medical advice and information should be considered to be incomplete without a physical exam, which is not possible without a visit to your doctor."
These disclaimers would end the circumcisioneditwars and protect Wikimedia from lawsuites.
Anonymous Coward
- There's already a Disclaimers link in the footer that's at the bottom of every page. Goplat 02:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Stating that medically unnecessary bodymodification should be the informed decision of the modifyee past the age of majority should be added to the disclaimer. Ŭalabio 03:10, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
- I second this. Ŭalabio 03:10, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
- Regardless of the issue or circumstances, I don't think Wikipedia should make ANY recommencations or content-specific policy decisions. We are a repository of knowledge from various viewpoints, trying to give a balanced and neutral viewpoint to every subject. To directly endorse a course of action, no matter how well-intentioned, opens us up for liability; even if this is intended to avoid liability. If we make no direct statements and let the facts and views speak for themselves, people can make up their own minds and act on their own conscience, not on ours. Radagast 12:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I think "second opinion" is misleading. Wikipedia should present facts, but leave diagnosis and treatment to a trained and certified physician. Any medical disclaimer, in my opinion, needs to state this clearly. Even if there are MDs posting to Wikipedia, given the open nature of it, we cannot guarantee 100% accuracy, nor can we ask readers information to help them make a decision. I think anyone coming here for medical advice is in for trouble, however, someone coming here for education and impartial information on a medical topic should be able to learn something. John Gaughan 15:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sexuality in biographies
I note that the reference to G. H. Hardy's homosexuality, a trait ascribed to him by a number of people who knew him (Snow, Littlewood, Turing) has been removed from his biography. This has been done not because the information was not correct, but because this sort of information is not regarded ny some people as suitable to a biography. Why is this, and is this any kind of policy? If it is a policy, what precisely is the policy and what is its basis?
I note for example that Michelanglo's biography discusses his sexuality extensively, and Swinburne's mentions masochism. Is this because it is considered relevant to the artist? Hardy was also a literary figure, and his romanticizing of Ramanujan's remarkable gifts might well have something to do with his sexuality both directly and indirectly.
- Some random comments: I think it's unquestionably necessary for at least some biographies — Alan_Turing#Prosecution_for_homosexuality.2C_and_Turing.27s_death, for example. For other people, it's less clear cut. My personal opinion is that you have to answer at least two questions:
- Why are we interested in this person? Is there interest in the person themselves, or are they primarily known for an important contribution? For example, people are intrigued by Turing's life beyond his contributions to logic, computer science, etc.
- What kind of impact does their sexuality have on the "reason for interest"?
- For a famous mathematician, such as Hardy, you could argue that his (rumoured?) sexuality was a private matter and of no relevance to his work or how he came to be famous. You could, I guess, also argue that there is now a wider interest in the details of Hardy's life, so it is worth mentioning — it's notable if someone is homosexual in a culture where it was considered atypical, taboo or even illegal (making it much more notable than if he were heterosexual). We do, after all, include other "life-trivia" such as "Hardy never married, and in his final years he was cared for by his sister." — Matt 10:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Eliminating titles of class distinction
I think Wikipedia would be better off without titles of class distinction (i.e. Administrator, Bureaucrat) and have all logged-in users obtain privileges of sysops, etc. Let all logged-in users become known as Wiki staff and have all these privileges. This idea was brought up by User:Sam Spade on his attitude towards adminship. Let the "social classes" system in Wikipedia break up or be eliminated, just like the internationally widespread elimination of titles of nobility. Marcus2 14:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think this would cause chaos and anarchy. Maybe not a whole lot at first, but it would get worse until the very open nature of Wikipedia would be in jeopardy. Any anonymous and open medium needs to have some way to keep the trolls in check, be it Wiki sysops, forum moderators, operators on irc, even comment moderation/scoring like Slashdot. John Gaughan 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's a theoretically wonderful idea that would be extremely attractive in a world free of malevolence. Sadly, experience shows that as hard as some people may wish it, the World Wide Web is not such a world. However, there's nothing to stop anyone who wants to from creating their own Wiki and establishing whatever policies they see fit; it should only take a short time experimenting with such an social structure to edify the experimenter. Signed, someone who tried to run a BBS on the principle of guaranteed free speech until several avowed Nazis decided to try to take over the system. --jpgordon 16:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Even in anarchy, there are still peacekeepers. --Golbez 18:58, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Queen's v American English
This topic must have been covered before somewhere else. I'm noticing a lot of centres, metres, harbours, and judgements going on in Wikipedia articles alongside centers, meters, harbors, and judgments. Is there an ongoing discussion about using Queen's versus American English, or has this already been decided somewhere? If anyone can just point me to a discussion already in place I'd appreciate it. Thehappysmith 15:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I do not remember where I saw it (a quick look around turns up nothing), but I believe the policy is that each article should be consistent. For example, if an article uses "metre" then use the British forms. If an article uses "meter" then use the U.S. versions of words. Do not add "kilometre" to an article talking about "meters" because it is not consistent. John Gaughan 15:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The basic standard is, be consistent within the article, and for articles with a clear British interest, go with that spelling (i.e. London), and for articles with a clear American interest (i.e. Mt. St. Helens), go with American spelling. --Golbez