Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 193

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

COI guidelines

When I first came on board as a Wiki editor, I thought what I was learning about COI meant that anyone with even the slightest connection to the subject of a Wiki article couldn't edit or write on that subject in Wikipedia. Now I've come to understand that it actually IS possible as long as the editor makes an official COI declaration. I'd have saved myself a few months of real concern about the fairness of this rule for a couple of topics on which I believed I could make a helpful contribution with a balanced perspective, if I'd grasped that COI doesn't automatically prohibit if disclosed. Like the disclosures that journalists make in stories to which they add "full disclosure" announcements about any connections they have to the subject that might cause assumptions of possible bias.

What I'd like to suggest to Wikipedia policymakers is that this important point about COI be made as clear as possible in all documentation about it. Then other editors — especially newbies, as I was when this issue came up for me — won't stumble around in the dark as to what they can and can't work on — at least, legitimately.

I realize that trying to ensure 100% clarity on this could be challenging, especially because a lot of what we learn about COI is not just through COI-related documentation but also through Teahouse and Help Desk discussions. Still, senior editors can probably think of many ways to make sure the distinction between a flat "NO, you can never" and "YES, you can if you ALSO do X" is better highlighted across the board.

Augnablik (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It does seem like many new good-faith editors are very concerned about potential COI to a degree that is qualitatively more extreme than the norm among experienced editors. Of course, there are also many new, potentially good-faith editors seem not to feel any concern regarding COI whatsoever—though I cannot honestly characterize this side of the equation as anything but a comparative lack of familiarity with the guideline on average. Let's take a look at the current verbiage of WP:COI and see if there's something we can rewrite to better reflect the actual norms. Here's the first paragraph:

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

Emphasis mine. This is tricky: the entire lead seems to define COI as automatically existing to a maximal logical extent. Nowhere does the lead nuance that most people can successfully edit about things they have particular interests in—in short, the lead does not adequately communicate that there can be interests without conflicts of interest.

I understand why this is: we don't want bad faith COI editors feeling emboldened by our nuance to push POV, or using it as a rhetorical shield when called out. But I still feel the lead should probably have at least one sentence explicating that (unpaid) COI only arises when one is personally unwilling or unable to edit according to site norms like they would on another topic. COI shouldn't be implied to be as total or even subconscious like it is in the lead as written. Remsense诉 07:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Remsense. Just having acknowledgment by a senior editor as to the validity of the issue — regardless of the eventual outcome — feels so nice and warm and fuzzy that I’ll just lie back and bask in it awhile … 🏖️ Augnablik (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would people understand "external relationships" to encompass interests in the first place? – Joe (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's simply a bit of a sticky phrase: it seems easy for nervous minds to give it a very broad definition. But I also understand how it's difficult to rephrase without making easier for bad-faith editors to argue around. Remsense诉 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Presumably working backwards as all "interests" are the result of external relationships of some kind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify something that's come up in a few of your recent posts, Augnablik: there are no "senior editors", working groups, or policymakers here. Our policies and guidelines can be edited by anyone, just like every other page, and aim to reflect the consensus of all editors.

On COI, I actually think your first understanding was correct. As always there are a range of opinions on the subject, but in general the community does not want you to edit topics on which you have a COI. That is why the nutshell summary of WP:COI is do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships and the first sentence, after defining what it is, reads COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has no firm rules (there are no "you can nevers"), so it's impossible for us to complete forbid it. Hence the procedures for disclosed COI editing; they're there for those who insist on not following the clear instruction at the top of the page (do not edit). They exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to highlight them. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Joe, I think it's more complicated than that. First, I'll take the sentence Remsense highlighted, and highlight it in a different way: Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest – but just because it can doesn't mean that it will.

Second, consider what the OP says: anyone with even the slightest connection to the subject. What's "the slightest connection"? If you take a train to work, do you have at least "the slightest connection" to Commuter rail? To the specific transit agency? Only to the specific line you take?

I think most editors would say that isn't an "external relationship" at all, though I have had one editor claim that nobody should edit the articles about the towns where they were born, lived, etc., because (in that editor's opinion) it's possible to have a relationship with an inanimate object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, this is something far from what I thought was COI. Firstly, I am still seeing that "slightest connection" as something else. Initially, COI should be editing people you know and not things you know. Okay, IMO, does editing someone/something you know and have seen a COI. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm literally just quoting the guideline. Slightest connection is Augnablik's wording, not mine. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, “slightest connection” is @WhatamIdoing‘s wording. Augnablik (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, "slightest connection" is from the very first sentence of this thread: I thought what I was learning about COI meant that anyone with even the slightest connection to the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say my point is that one can take different emphases away from the lead as written. I think an explicit statement, perhaps a single sentence, which delimits the scope would go a long way to narrow this potential interpretive gap. It's hard to feel because we know what this verbiage means in practice, but it's very plausible to me that a chunk of new editors—those of a nervous disposition, if you like—come away fearing for their own ability to edit neutrally, worried about COI in situations where others generally don't have problems. They simply don't have enough experience yet to know that. Remsense诉 08:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Beside “those of a nervous disposition” who might be “worried about COI in situations where others generally don’t have problems,” add those of us still somewhat wet behind the ears who’ve now read many Teahouse COI-related exchanges in which the point was driven home about fates like banishment awaiting us if we stray outside the pale. Augnablik (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I intended my characterization as broadly and neutrally as possible, apologies if that doesn't get across. Remsense诉 12:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps what would be most helpful is if the Teahouse regulars didn't try to (over)simplify the COI rules.

Part of our problem is that the rules are taught by telephone game, with each person in the chain simplifying it just a little more, and making it sound just a little stronger, until the story ends up being a false caricature of the real rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is in direct response to me, I‘ll try my best to offer better advice in the future. Remsense诉 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've no idea who is taking care of the Teahouse these days. I doubt that anyone in this discussion is the primary source of this problem (though perhaps we should all do our best to improve in this and all other areas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:COI has a significant weak point, specifically the sentence: How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Because a COI is about the existence of a relationship and not the editor's actual ability to edit without bias, there is no obvious or common way to tell what degree of closeness triggers it. It's inherently arbitrary where that line is drawn. The result of that ambiguity is that some conscientious editors may be unnecessarily excluding themselves from broad swaths of articles where they could productively edit based on a trivial personal connection.--Trystan (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We've also seen in recent discussions that different long-established editors editing in good faith can have very different interpretations of where the line should be drawn. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this has beeen an eye-opener for me as a still-newish editor … and the writer of the post that started off this thread. It hadn’t occurred to me that “different long-established editors editing in good faith” — those in position to make judgments about COI infractions by their less long-established brethren — might be using somewhat different measuring tapes.

The outcome of this thread is very important to me, as I’ll shortly have to make a self-applied COI label for an article I’ll be submitting, and I want to get everything as straight as I can about COI before then.

Thank you to everyone who’s added insights to this discussion. I hope it brings about the clarity we need. Augnablik (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Stick around long enough, and you will find that “long-established editors editing in good faith” can (and do) disagree on how to interpret almost all of our policies and guidelines. We (usually) agree on the essence of P&G, but the nuances? Not so much. But that’s OK. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If an editor does not think they should edit because of COI, that's fine. As with most everything here, we rely on their judgement, all the time, and if they have a question about it, they can ask in multiple places, as with everything else. This is not the most difficult judgement they will face here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair if their edits are entirely appropriate the COI will almost certainly never be identified... We generally only identify COI by first identifying problematic editing and then ending on COI as the most likely explanation for them, in cases where its genuinely not disruptive nobody notices. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that suggest that the COI analysis is largely irrelevant? If my editing of Famous Author's biography is problematic, does it matter whether it is because I am her sister (COI) or just a devoted fan (no COI, just ordinary bias)?--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes the vast majority of the time the COI analysis is largely irrelevant. Also fans have a COI (its an external relationship like any other), just normally one below the common sense threshold. Superfans or similar though do have a serious COI and we have big issues with them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a fan of any sort has a close relationship with the subject within the meaning of COI. They may have a metric tonne of bias, but per WP:COINOTBIAS, the presence or absence of actual bias is irrelevant to whether a COI relationship exists.--Trystan (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The President of the Jimmie SingsGood Fanclub has a massive COI in regards to Jimmie SingsGood and you can work down from there, also note that the relationship doesn't have to be close to trigger a COI... The standard here is common sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Common sense (allegedly) determines whether the closeness of the relationship is problematic, so closeness is inherently important. I could see a fan club president having a COI, but only by virtue of holding that specific role.--Trystan (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Any level of fandom which effects their ability to edit the topic dispassionately is too close, we're supposed to be editors not advocates. Thats the problem with self policing COI... If it is a genuine COI then the person will be incapable of recognizing whether or not their edits are neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is dangerously close to implying a lot of things that would be violations of WP:HID, like that being black is a COI on racial issues. It is also directly contradictory to WP:COINOTBIAS. A COI is not an opinion, it is some sort of concrete relationship to the subject of the article. Loki (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea that If it is a genuine COI then the person will be incapable of recognizing whether or not their edits are neutral is also not true. Any PR hack who removes damaging information knows their goal is not "neutral"; they know they're trying to make the article "favorable". Any person who replaces favorable errors with accurate facts (e.g., the correct number of employees, the correct amount of revenue) knows they're making the article more neutral. There are circumstances in which people won't be able to tell whether their edits result in a neutral article, but that happens to all of us on occasion, and does not always happen to people with a genuine COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You're on the right track, but its not so much irrelevant as a different and generally harder inquiry for a person to undertake about themselves, not 'do I have a defined relationship', but the more self-searching and self knowing inquiry of something like, 'am I able to separate here from my bias, or is it too much to be me to be fair.' (I think many editors avoid topics, at least to an extensive level, where they know they have no desire to be unbiased in their writing about it, or they think they cannot, but they have to know themselves on that, not something like an external relationship). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That is very much how I approach my own editing, and identifying when I should step back from a topic. But that is fundamentally about applying WP:NPOV. I am not able to reconcile that self-reflective approach with WP:COINOTBIAS, which explicitly clarifies that a COI exists where a relationship exists, irrespective of the editor’s bias, state of mind, or integrity.--Trystan (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That's it, it's a different inquiry, as that part says though, they may have some overlap. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Because the best, most effective, and often only thing between good and the abyss is you, just you alone, so you have got to, got to do the consideration, you're the only one there is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct. What matters is whether your edits are problematic, not why they are (or aren't). Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to follow this literally, if you are a human being, and edit any article about human beings, be sure to declare your COI.  :-) We really need to calibrate this to acknowledge the widely varying degrees of strength of COI. Also to fix how this is often usable/used in a McCarthy-esqe way. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If you do not want to not exercize judgement, this is just a rough place to be. COI is certainly easier to navigate and involves a ton less work than NPOV, to anyone who takes NPOV seriously. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is difficult to be a new editor. I do not see why this means we can't try to help them. Remsense诉 17:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Best not to assume new editors are helpless. How demeaning that would be. Some need no help, and others should ask. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If it has the appearance of a conflict, it probably is a conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If that were truly the case, we wouldn't need the policy. Remsense诉 17:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Still need the policy, but that criteria always works in edge cases. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but no one I've ever met is able to reliably tell when something is pornography. Ever. Remsense诉 17:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How is that a COI? Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Its a Jacobellis v. Ohio reference to the fuzziness of the "I know it when I see it" standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an oblique reference as regards the "if it looks like X, then it probably is" device. Remsense诉 17:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Just when it was getting interesting :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Except what has "the appearance of a conflict" to one editor can be completely different to what has "the appearance of a conflict" to another editor, even if they are both very experienced - let alone to those who aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As per above, I am talking about the point where the line is drawn (because it isn't). Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The point where the line is drawn needs to be clear to new and old editors alike, determining the point based on vague phrases that not even all regulars can agree on is actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know when it is drawn, and good luck with that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh many people would draw the lines in roughly the same place and they would do it quickly too, but in the end if they have empathy they should probably say, if you are still in significant doubt stay away, you don't need that, do other stuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Especially for controversial subjects (not all of which are WP:CTOPS), there is an unfortunate pattern of "any edit that doesn't push my POV is motivated by COI". I don't think there's ever going to be an easy agreement here. On the one hand, we have editors feeling obliged to leave serious errors in articles because they have a tenuous connection to the subject, and being praised by those who think readers are better served by unlabeled bad content than by that bad content being removed by someone who is "tainted". On the other hand, we have people leveling COI accusations when an editor with a tenuous connection fixes simple, non-controversial, non-content problems (e.g., an AWB run for WP:REFPUNCT mistakes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

These hypothetical 'what someone else thinks' of yours, are often absurdist and just caricatures of nothing real. And it appears your statement has no bandwidth for 'if you have a question, ask'. ask'Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection to people asking, though if they're given permission to edit, I would not want them to trust that the permission is worth much. Absurd accusations are par for the course in some subject areas, and appear whenever the accuser thinks it could give him an advantage in a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We used to have an excellent gold standard in the lead and in bold at wp:coi, it was "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." This is of course a function of several things such as the strength of the potential-coi situation and the ability/propensity of the editor to only wear their Wikipedia hat when editing Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support re-adding something concrete like this back to the lead, it's really all I've been asking for. Remsense诉 17:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How about "An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that judgment is likely to be compromised." Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that reasonable, good faith, experienced Wikipedia editors cannot agree when judgement is likely to be compromised that is definitely not a good formulation. I'd support readding the old one that North8000 quotes as is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You think that they will agree then? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That was removed in an effort to make our guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest mirror the real-world conception of Conflict of interest. There are advantages to both approaches, but I doubt that there will be much appetite for reverting. The old style requires more trust in other people's willingness to do the right thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It also left us more vulnerable to the crowd who perpetually perceives the communities interests to be one and the same as their own... "What do you mean making a page about my boss wasn't ok? The article is good and the point of wikipedia is having good articles! Better that I, an expert, write this article than someone who doesn't know that they're talking about" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is making good quality encyclopaedic information available to people. We define good quality encyclopaedic information to be information that is all of:

• Reliable
• Verifiable
• Neutral
• About subjects we deem notable

If the content meets all of those requirements we want it, if it doesn't we don't. If someone writes a good quality encyclopaedic article about a notable subject (and/or improves an article about a notable subject) we should welcome their content with open arms, regardless of why they wrote it. If their content does not meet those requirements then we should remove it (and explain as best we can why), regardless of why they wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is, we can block editors and keep their content... we do it all the time. We can also remove content without blocking editors, again we do it all the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that what content we keep and what content we remove should be decided entirely based on the content, not the attributes or motivation of the author and especially not the alleged or presumed attributes or motivations of the author. We should not be blocking editors who write good content just because we don't like why they wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A behavioral issue is an issue regardless of the quality of the content, just as editor should have little or no bearing on whether we keep content... Content should have little or no bearing on whether we keep an editor. For example undisclosed paid editing is inherently contrary to the purposes of wikipedia regardless of the content of the paid edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Putting ideological concerns about paid editing and conflict of interest ahead of our objective of building an encyclopaedia is inherently contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

One could bring ideological concerns into it (I have not), but the practical concerns about paid editing and conflict of interest are significant enough on their own to make it a largely philosophical exercise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The only practical (rather than philosophical) concerns about paid and other COI editing are whether the content is neutral, due and verifiable - and all of those are true whether someone is paid and/or has a COI. The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce and make available good quality encyclopaedic information. Everything that impedes that goal is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Deleting good quality encyclopaedic information because it was written by someone who has (or might have) a COI and/or was paid to write it is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Blocking someone who writes good content because they were paid to write it and/or had some other POV is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats not true, there are other practical concerns (such as reader trust, editor time, and subtle NPOV manipulation through for example content exclusion not content inclusion). The #1 thing that people expect for example of the Coca-Cola article in terms of quality is that it isn't written by Coca-Cola... If it is then it serves no encyclopedic purpose because the whole point of encyclopedias is that they aren't written by the subjects of the entries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Subtle NPOV manipulation" is part of "whether the content is neutral, due and verifiable".

Reader trust is not affected by this. Readers do not know who writes articles. They never really think about that. Quite a lot of them believe that all articles are written for pay, through an organized professional system, or at least by subjects who are paying to have an article created. The fastest way to reduce reader trust (this is backed up by formal user research done by the WMF over the last decade, and you can read about it on Meta-Wiki and at mediawiki.org if you're interested) is to point out the existence of the Edit button and prove to them that they can actually edit the articles themselves. (But don't worry too much: Cognitive bias usually kicks in before the end of the interview, and they invent reasons to justify their prior trust despite their recent discovery, which really shocks most of them, that Wikipedia actually is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.)

Reader trust is also affected by article content, but not usually in ways that will make you happy. Specifically, readers trust articles (here and elsewhere on the web) when the article tells them what they already believe and expect. This has an interesting implication for paid editors: Most readers already expect that articles are being paid for; therefore, when you tell them that articles are paid for, they are neither surprised nor disgusted by this revelation. They think that's normal, and they're okay with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The content itself may be neutral, but its addition may make the article non-neutral. Readers don't need to think about who wrote the articles because they trust that independent editors wrote them, that is after all what we've led them to believe. Knowing that some articles contain paid edits is not the same thing as thinking that all edits are paid, clearly there is an expectation that they won't be. I would cease editing wikipedia for good if our COI restrictions were lifted, that is a practical impact you can't deny or obfuscate around. Encyclopedia are not written by their subjects, if you and Thryduulf want Wikipedia articles to be written by their subjects then you don't want us to be an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Now it's even clearer that you are not listening, and now your putting words into our mouths. I'm no longer convinced you are contributing to this discussion in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You didn't say I wasn't listening earlier, you leveled that charge at a different editor ([1]. I'm not not going to assume bad faith, I'm going to assume that you were just mistaken about which editor your comments were addressed to. If you could join me in AGF I would appreciate it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In re clearly there is an expectation that they won't be [paid]: This assertion deserves a tag, or perhaps just . A very substantial fraction of readers think Wikipedia is a for-profit website.

Those of us on the 'inside' have a really skewed view of reality. @Horse Eye's Back, between your two accounts, you are in the top couple thousand people worldwide for contribution volume. In any sample of 3.5 million people, you are probably the one who edited the English Wikipedia the most. Think about that. There are twenty US states with fewer people than that; if you live in any of them, you are probably the all-time top editor from your state. You are so far from "average" or "typical" that it's silly to pretend otherwise. Things that are commonplace and obvious and clear to you (and me, and all of us here) are completely surprising to people who don't know how Wikipedia works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've never met someone who thought that wikipedia was for profit, but my interactions are of course primarily within a bubble. I'm certainly not typical, but I actually doubt I'm in the top 100 for my state. What I can offer is my take as a "power user" as they say... Which is that I find little as demotivating as sock-masters and COI editors. If regulation those areas got significantly worse I would almost certainly be spending less time around here, at the end of the day this is a philanthropic pursuit which I support with an immense amount (in the global sense multiple average human salaries) of time and money. If its Who's Who not an encyclopedia we're building then the money needs to flow the other way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Read the 2011 survey results: About half of readers and a quarter of editors(!) had no idea that Wikipedia is a non-profit. Fundraising messages have emphasized the non-profit status ever since. I don't know if they've re-run the survey question, but realistically, I wouldn't expect the results to change very much. It's hard to move the needle on perceptions like that, because they're based on the assumptions that people bring in with them, rather than one what you've done to deserve it, and there's a new cohort of readers who need to learn this every day.
• I don't think anyone wants more socking or conflicted editing. Changing the regulations probably won't have much effect on that. Changing practices might. For example – and this is a completely impossible example – if we required everyone to disclose their real-world identity and be pre-approved before they could start an article, then we would probably see less conflicted editing. I expect that this problem will never be fully solved.
• I don't know why you think you wouldn't even make the top 100 in your state. Only about 2500 people have ever made more edits than you. About 40% of enwiki editors are from the US. That means in the whole country, with its 340 million residents, there are only about one thousand people who have made more edits here than you (and many of them are blocked, retired, or dead). It is possible, if you live in California, that you might just barely miss the cutoff for the top 100. It may be uncomfortable to realize how rare each high-volume editor is, but it's still true.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Just taking a gander I think that if we're just talking about the top 2500 people its more like 80% Americans and my state is one that for historical reasons is radically over-represented when it comes to the earliest editors (call them the Sanger clique). I'm not kidding, I can identify 50 Wikipedians who are either from my state or have been associated with it at some point (we don't exactly keep current addresses on people) who have more edits than me... Conservatively there are 50 more I don't know of. What I find uncomfortable is the overrepresentation of older white American men among high volume editors, I don't get any discomfort from the rarity of high volume editors itself per-say I just wish they were more representative of the actual population of the planet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing that Wikipedia is a non-profit is not the same as specifically believing paid editing is the norm! If this survey is the reason you've been claiming Most readers already expect that articles are being paid for then that's a serious misjudgment that should be retracted. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

HEB wrote: the whole point of encyclopedias is that they aren't written by the subjects of the entries

I don't think this is true. If it is true, or at least verifiable, then our article at Encyclopedia is wrong, and articles like English Wikipedia, and more or less everything in Category:English Wikipedia, should be deleted.

I think that "the whole point of encyclopedias" is that they provide a factual summary of information about a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Describing themselves would be an exception. In general people have believed that in order for an encyclopedia to provide a factual summary of information about a subject it had to be independent of that subject. That means that Coca-Cola shouldn't be writing Coca-Cola, the Chinese Government shouldn't be writing Persecution of Uyghurs in China, and the US Government shouldn't be writing CIA. That doesn't seem like a terribly objectionable idea. This is why the "vanity press" in "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory." links to COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I doubt your claim that In general people have believed that...an encyclopedia...had to be independent of that subject, too. I think what you mean is probably closer to "Since sometime after yellow journalism, probably around the Walter Cronkite era, most middle-class, educated Western people at least pay lip service to the idea of editorial independence".

In other places, and in Western culture before the 20th century, people generally thought that using whatever power you had to help your family and friends was normal and desirable, so if an encyclopedia editor had a family member working for Coca-Cola, then "of course" the resulting article would be favorable and potentially written with the assistance of that relative. To not do this would be to prove yourself disloyal and anti-social. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Western middle class" "before the 20th century" quite a bunch of anachronistic assumptions and non-sequiturs you have there, before the 20th century and indeed well into the 20th century almost no one went to high school or its equivalent for even one day, so philosophizing about their general encyclopedia consumption and even access seems bizarre. The past is a foreign land, as they say. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not works of journalism, what does that have to do with anything? You should consult a historian, needless to say you are wrong (try pre-15th century and maybe I would partially agree but even the Romans and dynastic Chinese has strong ideas about conflict of interest). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thus, proper COI handling is essential to Wikipedia's purpose. No one of any real discernment is going find an encyclopedia good if it can't be honest and even has people pretend they can't even understand COI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is pretending they can't understand COI. Multiple people are explaining why they disagree with you about what constitutes a conflict of interest and what level of conflict of interest is relevant to Wikipedia. Handling of COI is essential only to the point that we ensure the content is NPOV, everything else is irrelevant or actively harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Then, you really don't understand COI, if you can't bring yourself to disclose it. It's not a good encyclopedia when it misrepresents itself, like when autobiography is misrepresented as biography. Or the writings of the owner of the company on the company is represented as not the writing of the owner of the company. etc. etc. (It also appears you don't understand that Wikipedia is a publisher, and disclosing COI is what good publishers do, certainly good publishers of anything they are presenting to others as something to rely on.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You are not listening. If the content in a Wikipedia article is encyclopaedic, neutral, verifiable, and DUE then is no misrepresentation because those are the only things a Wikipedia article claims to be (and sometimes not even that, e.g. an article or section tagged as being non-neutral is not representing itself as neutral). Whether an editor has a COI is a completely different matter. Whether an editor who has a COI should, must and/or does disclose that COI is a third matter.

If editor 1 writes words that other editors (who do not have a COI) state is encyclopaedic, neutral, verifiable and DUE then the content is encyclopaedic, neutral, verifiable and DUE and it is irrelevant whether editor 1 has or does not have a COI. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, you are not listening it's not a good encyclopedia when it is dishonest, and it can't be trusted in anything (certainly no one of any sense can trust it to judge neutrality or reliability) when it won't or refuses to be honest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If the words on the page are encyclopaedic, neutral, verifiable, and DUE then there is no dishonesty. That applies regardless of who wrote it and why they wrote it. Whether an article is all of those things is independent of who wrote it and why they wrote it - if every author has a COI with the subject then it could be all or none of those things, if no author has a COI with the subject then it could be all or none of those things. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There is dishonesty, and I already showed how, Wikipedia thus cannot be trusted (by anyone of any sense) to judge encyclopaedic, neutral, verifiable, and DUE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

After all this time do you really not understand how COI works or is this an elaborate act? From where I sit it looks like we have an WP:IDNHT issue here, you're just not being reasonable and its becoming disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You all aren't going to agree. HEB, Thryduulf knows how COI works. He's just saying that there happens to be another value that he finds more important. Different people are allowed to have different values. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Denial of objective reality is not holding a different value. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

HEB and Alanscottwalker, please cease the personal attacks and start reading what other people are writing rather than assuming that if someone disagrees with you that they must be denying reality. If you are unable to discuss things rationally then Wikipedia is not the place for you.

I know what a COI is, I just disagree that it matters in any way beyond whether the article is neutral, etc. If the article is neutral it is neutral regardless of who wrote it. If the article is not neutral it is not neutral, regardless of who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You're the one not reading. And there is no assumption by me here. Your use of as that a false attack against me, going so far as to invite me off the project, suggests how bereft your position is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how accusing me of "not understanding COI" and of "denying reality" because I hold a view with which you disagree is not a personal attack. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I already explained how you do not understand COI, as for denying reality that was not me, but it appears to be in reference to denying the reality of COI. COI is not invented by Wikipedia, and it's what good publishers disclose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I already explained how you do not understand COI except you haven't. You've repeatedly stated that you disagree with my view about the way/degree to which COI matters, but that is not at all the same thing. Who invented COI and what publishers other than Wikipedia do are not relevant to what Wikipedia does and/or should do.

There are multiple things being unhelpfully conflated here:

• What constitutes a COI.
• What constitutes a COI that is relevant to Wikipedia.
• How, when and where a COI (relevant to Wikipedia) should be disclosed.
• Whether Wikipedia content is or is not neutral.

The last bullet is completely independent of the others: If content is neutral it is neutral regardless of who wrote it. If content is not neutral it is not neutral regardless of who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No. I did explain it. And as can be told, you do not understand which goes along with you not understanding COI. That you suggest being a good publisher is irrelevant, suggests you don't understand what being a good publisher is, which also suggests you don't understand what we are doing here (the submit button is a publishing button), which also suggests you don't understand COI in publishing, and which also suggests you don't understand what a good published encyclopedia is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who is clearly either not reading or not understanding. If it is the former then there is nothing relevant I can say. If it is the latter then trying to explain things in a different way may help, I'll give it one more go but I don't hold out much hope - perhaps someone else will have more luck?

Every time we click the submit button something is published. That something should be all of encyclopaedic, neutral, verifiable and DUE. In reality it can be in one of three states:

1. All of those things
2. Some of those things (e.g. verifiable but not DUE, neutral but not verifiable, etc)
3. None of those things

Which it is depends entirely on the actual words that are published. A given set of words falls into one of the above categories regardless of who wrote it. If "MegaCorp is the oldest and largest manufacturer of widgets in the United Kingdom. It won the Queen's Award for Widget Making seven times between 1999 and 2014." is all of encyclopaedic, verifiable, neutral and DUE then it is all of those things regardless of whether they were written by the CEO or by someone with no connection to the organisation at all. If the same two sentences are some or none of the four things an article should be then that is true regardless of who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again you have not been reading. And once again you demonstrate no understanding of COI in publishing. Or to the extent you do understand it, you are encouraging poor publishing, and a poor encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating yourself. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just disagree with it. I have repeatedly explained why I disagree with it, but you are clearly either uninterested in or incapable of understanding the difference between disagreeing with you and not understanding you. Either way continuing to engage with you is a waste of time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems, you not bothering to even read what you write, to the extent I have repeated iit is to respond to your repetitious demonstration of misunderstanding. As I explained in the beginning, you evidence little to no understanding of COI in publishing, let alone good publishing or the good publishing of an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That statement was always bad, because COI is about relationships which cloud issues of what's important with respect to the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Just as safety regulations are written in blood, Wikipedia's COI guidelines are written in characters scavenged from promotional fluff. – Teratix ₵ 03:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a non sequitur. Promotional fluff can be added to an article by anybody for any reason and it is completely irrelevant why because we don't want it in our articles regardless of who wrote it or why. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, it's extremely relevant. Editors with a conflict of interest on a subject, all else being equal, are much more likely to add biased content to an article. Pointing out everyone has the capacity to add promotional fluff is trivial because we care more about their propensity to add promotional fluff. – Teratix ₵ 08:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don't exclude editors because they might not abide by policies. What matters is whether they do or do not. Wikipedia does not opeate on the basis of thoughtcrime. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don't exclude editors because they might not abide by policies. Yes, we do, on a regular basis:

  • We exclude unregistered and very new editors from editing protected pages, because they tend to not abide by policies when editing these pages.
  • We exclude unregistered and very new editors from creating articles in mainspace, because they tend to not abide by policies when creating pages.
  • We exclude new editors from editing certain protected pages and even entire topics (e.g. the Israeli–Palestine conflict), because they tend not to abide by policies when editing these pages.
  • We exclude non-administrators from editing the Main Page, because they tend not to abide by policies when editing this page.

  There is nothing new or contentious about Wikipedia policies and guidelines that restrict a user from editing a selected subset of pages merely because they come under a category of editors who have a propensity to shirk policy when editing these pages. That is true even when we have no direct evidence this particular user will edit according to that propensity. This isn't "thoughtcrime", it's ordinary practice. – Teratix ₵ 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that COI editors add the most. Go check the histories of articles on cartoons, anime, or anything to which someone could be a "fan". You will see plenty of edits by fanboys that prop the subject up to a degree that COI editors wouldn't even consider. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to imply that COI editors were the only kind of editor which tends to add fluff, or even the most fluff. I agree fanboys do this as well. – Teratix ₵ 13:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fans are just one type of COI editor, those are COI edits (unarguably so if they actually do prop up the subject, meeting the standard raised above that the content also has to be bad not just the editor). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fans are just one type of COI editor It's more like both fans and COI editors are types of editors who tend to be biased. – Teratix ₵ 01:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Bias is the result of a conflict of interest, it does not exist on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is the opposite of what the guideline currently says: A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI.--Trystan (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the ambiguity... I'm speaking in the specific context of a fan, not in the universal sense. Being a fan is a parasocial external relationship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A few notes:

• The real world common meaning of COI is pretty severe and narrow. Generally a strong personal economic interest of a public official that is very likely to be a strong opposing interest to doing their job properly. And it's also associated with actual or accusations of doing their public job improperly or illegally due to that economic self interest. So the first issue with this in Wikipedia is applying this term with a nasty real world meaning to much more benign situations in Wikipedia.
• The actual problem in Wikipedia is when editing is actually influenced by something other than the objectives of Wikipedia. This takes two things
  • The presence of that influence. In this area WP:COI focuses on influences with specific concrete definitions e.g. paid editing, membership in a group rather than ones like side on a on a political or culture-war tussle.
  • The editor letting that influence affect their editing against the objective of Wikipedia. And the two main factors affecting this are the presence & strength of the influence and their strength/qualities of being to edit properly resist that influences. This is what actually matters and what was in the "Golden Definition" in the lead which somebody removed. The down side of this is that hard to know, but so is almost any other COI effort
• Wikipedia also wrestles with and is confusing due to the two completely different meanings of COI. One is the end result (per the "golden definition") and the other is the presence of certain of the potential influences.
• One component of a fix is to simply recognize that there are widely varying strengths of influences. At the extreme end of the spectrum is paid editing. At the other extreme is merely being a member of a large group or mere employee of a large organization or company. The latter are far weaker than things like general politics and being on one side of a culture war and should be completely removed from the COI radar screen. They just dillute it and are fodder for McCarthy-esqe tactics used in editing disputes.
• Regarding strong influences (e.g. paid editing) getting disclosure is the most important thing. The current guidlines make it overly difficult for those who disclose and thus work agains the disclosure goal. Once a strong coi influence is exposed and visible, they automatically really aren't going to get away with anything

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And how does this analysis change if Wikipedia is part of the real world and not separate from it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Taking your question literally/structurally, my context was about real world meanings of term vs. Wikipedia meanings or usage of terms. So Wikipedia being a part of the real worlds does not change my comments. Or if you meant how to reconcile, I think that the starting point would be to take the weak influences completely off the wp:coi radar screen or explicitly exclude them from being called coi. This would inherently bring the Wiki usage of the term close to the real world meaning. And also solve lots of other problems. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Taking that in two parts... Firstly I think that wikipedia is informed by a broad spectrum of real world meanings of the term which are more or less plastered over by a consensus (in both senses). Secondly I completely agree with you there, the major miscommunication I see between editors is using (and I am 100% guilty of this) COI as shorthand for significant COI. I don't think anyone wants the radar to pick up the clutter so to speak, to extend the radar analogy we want to set the radar so that we see boats and land but not waves. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that the opening words of this section say that the OP thought (i.e., had been taught by the rest of us) that COI meant that anyone with even the slightest connection to the subject, I think that you're correct. We have a habit of focusing on trivial or immaterial connections – "even the slightest connection" – when we might do better to reserve COI for significant conflicts. We want to catch "paid to push this" but not "met the subject once", or even "made a necessary correction for someone you know".

As an example of that last, I recall a dispute years ago about a Wikipedia editor who was contacted by someone he had met professionally and who asked him to correct a strictly objective factual error about which there was some ENGVAR-related confusion (consider, e.g., Eton College, which an American would call a high school instead of a college). We don't really want to trot out the whole of COI just to get an error like that corrected. The connection is slight, the correction is necessary, and there is no chance of bias being introduced in such a case. That's not the scenario our COI rules were created to defend against. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems like the exact scenario we have COI edit requests for. In that specific scenario the wikipedia editor should have instructed this person to make a COI edit request on the talk page instead of acting as their meat puppet. Problem solved, no issues created. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we have COI rules to stop people from writing puff pieces about themselves or from hyping things (e.g., stocks, products, cryptocurrency, etc.) that they stood to make money off of. I don't think we created the COI rules to slow down the process of correcting obvious and objective errors in BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of COI rules is to ensure the neutrality and factuality of the encyclopaedia. If the rule prevents someone from correcting an obvious, objective error then it it should be ignored. Thryduulf (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you didn't say it was BLP (which is a well established exception to so many things on wiki, including COI) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if it hadn't been a BLP, it wouldn't matter. Our "interest" in getting objective factual errors corrected is much higher than our interest in running a bureaucratic process. The order is Wikipedia:Product, process, policy: achieving factually correct articles come first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

One possible order is product, process, policy... The linked is an essay about WP:IAR. You're having issues with hyperbole, please say what you mean not something which is stronger but untrue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The linked essay is not about IAR, it is about policies and guidelines and when to ignore them. Rather than accusing people of saying things that are untrue, first read and understand their argument then, if you actually disagree, refute the argument. I'm not seeing evidence you have done any of those things. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If we want to be pedantic (and I usually do ;-)), it's about when to follow this policy instead of one of the other policies or guidelines, though the same principle appears in other policies, as well. "Wikipedia must get the article right", to quote one of them (emphasis in the original). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Its about those... But its also very obviously and unambiguously about IAR as well... "This is an essay on the policies Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines." If you don't people to say that the things you are saying are untrue stop saying things which are obviously not true! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would help to expand WP:COINOTBIAS on how COI and NPOV/bias differ, serving complementary but distinct functions that are both crucial to the encyclopedia. To my mind, WP:COI should set out clearly and narrowly defined relationships (paid editing, significant financial interest, or close personal friend or family). If such a relationship exists, editors are required to disclose before editing, and strongly discouraged from editing altogether. It is an objective test - it does not matter if there is any actual bias, because the close relationship creates the unavoidable apprehension of bias. Outside of that narrow COI framework, the appropriate lens is WP:NPOV. Every single editor has biases that have the potential to affect every single article they work on. Identifying those biases and working to set them aside is first and foremost an internal, subjective process, though feedback from other editors is also a crucial component. If an editor can't set their biases aside sufficiently to substantially comply with WP:NPOV, they should step back from a topic (or failing that, be topic banned for failing to comply with NPOV). But trying to frame all NPOV failures as COIs just makes COI confusing and ineffectual.--Trystan (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trystan, do you think our differential response to accusations of COI vs POV pushing are part of the problem? It feels to me that COI claims get a more dramatic response than POV pushing claims. If you feel like you need help, you might find it more effective to speculate on whether the problematic content was put there by a paid editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't @Trystan but @Augnablik replying to your message, @WhatamIdoing, only because — as the originator of this thread — I'd like to jump in with a message about the direction the discussion's been going recently but I don't find a way to add a new message except in reply to someone else's. So, apologies for the hijacking, though it's not completely off topic.

What I'd like to say is that when I started the discussion on COI guidelines, it never occurred to me that it could devolve into actual conflict, especially among longtime editors. I thought about starting a new topic — COI guidelines, "Take 2" — for building on all the discussion in this thread so that the discussants could come up with an improved set of guidelines to help all editors, especially but not only the brand new.

However, I see that a new related thread has already been made, picking up on, and including several posts from, this one — The Teahouse and COI. Perhaps for now that would be enough to build on, so I won't add the new topic I'd had in mind. Please put back any drawn knives except to help carve out an improved set of guidelines. Augnablik (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it must be odd to have other people try to assume or philosophize about what someone means when they say they have a "connection", because they should just ask the person who said it. Part of that, is this page is not really focused to talk about an individual user's situation, it is a place to talk about policy. For an individual's COI issues, the place for those conversations would be some place like WP:COIN, WP:Help Desk, the WP:Teahouse, or the User's talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

IMV, someone has a COI with a subject if, were they to publish something on it in an RS, it would not be considered "independent" in WP terms. That would mean: don't edit about your family, friends, employees/employer/coworkers, commercial or non-profit orgs/groups you belong to, specific events (but not necessarily general activities) you participated in, entities that have awarded you things on an individual level, etc., with the inverse also being true (those subjects shouldn't edit about you either). The nuance comes with which COIs we actually care about. As I think HEB alluded to somewhere, the status of having a COI is a behavioral concern and should be treated as such regardless of contribution amount or quality. I would analogize having a COI with a topic you don't edit about as equivalent to having a second account that you never edit with; it's something that exists as a potential problem but is a non-issue in practical terms, we don't need to require disclosure or look for it at all, and if it is discovered we have no basis for any sanctions. Editing topics you have a COI with is closer to operating multiple accounts: if discovered for reasons other than problematic editing, there may be cause to evaluate prior contributions, and depending on the timing, type, and extent of affected edits sanctions ranging from nothing to glocking may be warranted. We already have policies governing editor behavior that are quite divorced from the quality of their contributions, and consequences are typically context-dependent and at the discretion of admins or the community. I don't see why we can't use this same approach for COI. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I really like this model from @JoelleJay of "if, were they to publish something on it in an RS, it would not be considered "independent" in WP terms". I think that's very functional and understandable to Wikipedia editors. That nicely differentiates the cases we care about (e.g., employed by, married to, in a lawsuit with) from the cases we don't care about (e.g., met once at a party, lived in the same city as). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Re the real world definition of COI being a strong personal economic interest of a public official that is very likely to be a strong opposing interest to doing their job properly, I strongly disagree that such a definition reflects general use, if we are to look at basically any organisation that publishes guidance on what to them is considered a disclosable conflict. Hell, I worked at a large public company where posts on social media constituted a disclosable conflict, and looking at the BBC guidelines, said company was not alone in that regard. The Canadian DoJ includes participating in outside activities, such as: speaking at a conference; [...] volunteer work; [...] publishing documents; in their non-exhaustive list, and I don't think any of those can reasonably construed as "strong economic interest". Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You are describing particular organizations' rules for their people. IMO that is not the common meaning. I think that if you asked a person on the street I'll bet that it would be something withing my narrower definition which you quoted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll put up twenty that the definition would be more along the lines of "where there are two interests, and they conflict" rather than anything as hyperspecific as the one with three qualifiers (strong personal financial) interest which impact or is likely to impact judgement. The latter, in my unqualified opinion, is more simply called "corruption". But I'm not a dictionary person. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A Google search for conflict of interest definitions is all it takes to see that the real world common meaning of COI is not limited to public officials, nor to economic interests. Levivich (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Each organisation that has conflict of interest policies has definitions, etc that are tailored to what is relevant to that organisation. None of the organisations that come up when I search are online projects whose goal is to write an encyclopaedia, so none of their can be assumed to be relevant or correct without examining what they are, why they are, how they are interpreted and what relevance the COI has to actions that are or may be taken or not taken. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not surprised you're not finding many encyclopedia-writing COI policies out there... check publishers or journals, see if their COI policies are limited to public officials or economic interests. Levivich (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a journal nor a traditional publisher, journals and traditional publishers are not in the business of crowdsourcing a general purpose encyclopaedia. What their COI policies say or don't say is not automatically relevant to us - if you think a provision is or is not relevant to us you need to explain why beyond noting that it is relevant to a different organisation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My comment about real world definitions of COI was in response to "The real world common meaning of COI is pretty severe and narrow. Generally a strong personal economic interest of a public official that is very likely to be a strong opposing interest to doing their job properly." This is easily disproven by looking at various definitions of COI in the real world. Meanwhile, you're talking about something entirely different: whether COI should mean the same thing on Wikipedia than it does in the rest of the world. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse and COI

There is a concern expressed more or less in the middle of the extended discussion above, to the effect that the conflict of interest policies are oversimplified at the Teahouse. I partly agree and partly disagree, because the usual explanation of conflict of interest policy at the Teahouse has to be oversimplified, because it is in response to a clueless editor who wants to know why their draft about their business or herself or himself was declined or rejected, or sometimes why their article about their business or self was speedily deleted. The large majority of explanations of conflict of interest at the Teahouse are not addressed to clueless new editors who want to improve the encyclopedia. They are addressed to clueless new editors who want to use Wikipedia as a web host or advertising vehicle or platform. It may be that editors in the former class, who want to improve the encyclopedia and would like to edit an article on their employer or their civic association, get a more negative impression than is necessary. But I think that it is more important to discourage clueless misguided editing in that forum than to provide subtle advice to good-faith editors. There may be cases where Teahouse hosts should change the wording of what they say about conflict of interest, but it is essential to discourage promotional editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a narrower and better-defined COI test would help with both groups. I.e., a rule that you should not edit when you are paid or otherwise have a significant financial interest in the topic, or the content involves you or your close friends and family. The vagueness of "any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest", and the guidance to determine through common sense whether the closeness of the relationship "becomes a concern on Wikipedia" invites shameless self-promoters to blithely press ahead, because they invariably don't see a problem. Meanwhile, conscientious good-faith editors who don't actually have a COI self-select out just to be on the safe side. In the professional off-wiki contexts I am familiar with, COI is framed as a much more concrete and objective test, identifying well-defined situations that would give rise to the appearance of bias, whether actual bias is present or not. That clarity gives everyone the confidence that conflicted-out individuals can easily recognize that fact and govern themselves accordingly.--Trystan (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What you’ve just said, @Trystan, really resonates with me as an editor with a COI situation out on the horizon. Having guidelines just a little clearer with real-life examples to make the directives come more alive — including how the editors in each situation handled it and what the resolution was — would be so appreciated.

After all, there are serious repercussions involved here. Messing up in COI is not quite the same as, let’s say, messing up in not providing good supporting citations.

Greater COI clarity could also be of value on the other side of the spectrum from messing up, where editors might not understand that they might find themselves in a COI situation yet still be able to proceed in editing an article, even perhaps writing it from scratch.

I think a similar balance is needed in Wiki directives between making them too hefty and making them too lightweight … but isn’t that the same as what we want in Wiki articles? Augnablik (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

To you or your close friends and family, I'd add "your teachers or co-workers".

It's tempting to add "your clients", but I'm not sure that's always going to take us in the right direction. Consider a hypothetical long-time Wikipedia editor. Like about 10% of the workforce, he happens to have a job in sales. He's currently researching Bob's Big Business, Inc. at work. Should he (a) update the Wikipedia article with public information about the company, or (b) leave the article inaccurate and out of date, because it's a COI to share information he happened to learn on the job?

I want to stop paid editing. I want to stop lawyers editing articles during trials. I don't want to stop ordinary people sharing the information they happened to learn at work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Paid editing, significant financial interest, or you and close personal friend or family": Well, that is what is laid out in the COI guideline (and somewhat more explicit like "owner", "manager") but than what you get is debate over things like "significant" and "close", anyway.

If some really want a more detailed list one way to do that is to look for good publishing codes, publications on ethics in writing, journalist codes, etc. and write a group WP:Essay, your essay may be so good others start citing it all the time and then it may become guideline or policy (covering such things as executives, board members, fiduciaries, those whose job involves non-public information (because that means overarching duty owed to the org or to the markets regulators), investors, marketers, advertisers, spokespeople, etc. etc.). [Adding, the essay could also consult Arbcom cases, COIN cases, Teahouse COI discussions, and other such onwikiplaces].

Alternatively, or at the same time, if people were interested in creating a list like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for COI's that get discussed at places like WP:COIN , Teahouse etc. that could work. And ultimately if you get to what someone sees as a sticky wicket, put it to a vote/not vote, it may not be a sticky wicket, at all.

A primary way one might think about the guideline is it is a code for writers/publishers, since here, they are one in the same. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [added in brackets - Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)]

I think that it's important to remember that COI-related influence is a matter of degree and relates to concentrated tangible personal gain, not just influence by external factors:

1. Concentrated. If a mere employee of a company with 100,000 employees writes in their company's article, any gain from their writing will be very dispersed and thus microscopic. If they own the business, are senior management or are the PR department any gain will be much more concentrated. And of course the strongest is paid editing.
2. Influence-only is not necessarily COI influence. Otherwise everyone with mere political views or a cause has a COI influence.
3. Tangible gain means something more than just feeling good or helping a cause.

And again, the net result comes from the strength of the influence and the ability and propensity of the editor to ignore it and wear only their Wikipedia hat when editing. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Something to remember… having a COI does NOT mean someone is banned from editing an article. We ask those with a close connection to the topic to disclose their connection, so that we can examine their edits … in case their connection leads them to edit inappropriately. However, if they edit appropriately, then there is no problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is it as simple as that, @Blueboar? If so, 99% of the concern I’ve had ever since I first found out about this Wikipedia issue and its assorted punishments for sinners will evaporate.

  If we can confidently go forward with our articles knowing they won’t be automatically zapped just because we put a COI label on them, that’s eminently fair. A remaining issue will be training (perhaps even required?) to ensure that editors can recognize both objectivity and its opposite, plus a test to ensure that they can apply objectivity in their Wiki efforts. If these are described as for editors’ benefit and success, helping us cut through what’s been a huge area of confusion and anxiety, my experience in the world of training makes me believe most Wikipedians will be likely to go along.

  I assume there are Help tutorials on COI. If so, are they in depth enough or do they need a little tweaking? Augnablik (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  While it should be as simple as that it unfortunately isn't, partly due to very different opinions regarding what is and is not "appropriate" editing - in the view of some people (including me) everything that improves the encyclopaedia in some way is appropriate, in the view of some others every edit by someone with a COI is inappropriate. There are also many different views between the extremes. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because of those differing views, contributors cannot "confidently go forward with our articles knowing they won’t be automatically zapped just because we put a COI label on them". There always will be patrollers who believe that any COI worth disclosing is a COI worth cancelling the content over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A suggested more specific definition

Some appetite has been expressed for a more specific definition of COI. I agree with it and so in an attempt to concentrate discussion in that direction, here's my proposal:

You have a COI if you meet any of the following criteria:

1. You know the subject of the article personally. What exactly "know personally" means is somewhat subjective, but it's pretty broad: going out for a beer with someone once is enough. This also explicitly includes yourself.

2. You have a concrete financial interest in the subject of the article, however slight. If you could make or lose money based on the content of the subject's Wikipedia article, you have a conflict of interest with regards to them. This explicitly includes your employer, anyone who is paying you to edit Wikipedia and any subjects they are paying you to edit Wikipedia about, and any stocks or other financial instruments you own and are aware you own.

3. You have some other concrete material interest in the subject of the article (often but not necessarily views or attention). So for instance, both the president of the Taylor Swift fanclub and the guy who tracks Taylor Swift's jet have a conflict of interest with regards to Taylor Swift even if neither of them monetize it. This explicitly includes any organizations you belong to or projects you work on even if not monetized. Note that this material interest must be concrete: a fan club president could gain members and a diss website could gain views, which are both concrete benefits, but an ordinary fan or hater can't gain anything concrete, only an intangible sense that their opinions are correct (which is not enough to trigger a COI).

It's only a first draft so improvements could definitely be made. Is there anything I'm clearly missing? Loki (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My first impression is that this is extremely overbroad. Simply going out for a beer with someone once does not constitute a COI. The definition in point three would mean that everybody who has ever edited Wikipedia has a COI with Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to put this middle-of-the-road between people who think COI is very narrow and only covers stuff like editing pages about your employer, and people who think that it's extremely broad and covers just being a fan of a thing. And both of those kinds of people have expressed those opinions in this thread, so clearly both of them are positions a real person could have.

Also, I'll be honest, this is very close to my own opinions on what constitutes a COI. Which is to say, when it comes to individuals it really is pretty broad and really would cover anyone you have even had a long conversation with. People are very bad at dispassionately editing the articles of people they know personally. Human empathy is a powerful "concrete material interest" that we need to consider.

There's definitely some improvement to be made in the wording of point three, though. I didn't mean to include Wikipedia in either an organization you belong to (that'd be Wikimedia staff but not ordinary editors) or projects you work on (that was intended for personal stuff, not big collaborative efforts) but I could definitely see how it could be read differently. Wikipedia itself might just need to be a special cutout, though, because despite not intending it, I actually do think it's plausible that Wikipedia editors in general have a COI about Wikipedia itself. Loki (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we almost certainly do in general have a COI when it comes to ourself, I think everyone on some level understands that... The community is on its best behavior when covering things which involve us (Criticism of Wikipedia etc) and we seem to make a concerted effort to make sure that such discussions have centralized and broad input and that the content we put out is as close to NPOV as we can possible get. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Which proves that it is possible for editors with a COI to write NPOV content. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said we wrote NPOV content... I said that we got as close to NPOV as we can possibly (SIC in original) get. Its also never been in question whether editors with a COI can write NPOV content, the question is whether editors with significant COI can reliably do so without help (very different questions). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This feels like a narrower and more accurate statement than most of the foregoing. It's not any and every relationship, but only significant ones. The question is not whether possible or impossible, but whether the community can rely on it happening. It's not whether they can, but whether they'll need help.

I would add "inexperienced" to this list of qualifiers. That may not be quite the right word, as I intend for it to encompass anyone with less than expert-level Wikipedia skills. I'm pretty sure that I could write some NPOV content on almost any subject without any help. I'm also pretty sure that I know the limits of my abilities (e.g., whether I'd be able to meet my standards wrt a given subject; which aspects of the subject I could safely write about; whether fixing the article is worth the drama), so you could rely on me to either get my edit right or to avoid that subject. IMO it can be done, but since the world is not made up of highly experienced Wikipedians who have internalized the systems here, I wouldn't count on it happening in any given case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Thryydulf that this definition is too broad. going out for a beer with someone once is especially broad. Family, yes; friends, yes; Coworkers you have worked with/do work with, sure (though I wouldn't agree with 'all employees of your organization across all of space and time ever even ones you never interacted with')—but a single conversation? This is far too much.

any organizations you belong to or projects you work on is also too broad, and I don't think it's as simple as making a special carveout for Wikipedia (and even if it was that simple—why the special exception? There are plenty of non-Wikipedia topics that Wikipedia editors could contribute to). The impression this gives is that members of the Conservative Party (UK) have a COI for Winston Churchill, that citizens of the United States have a COI for the Library of Congress, or that a member of D23 (Disney) has a COI for Disneyland, or adherents of religions that measure/register membership—say, the Catholic Church—have a COI (in this example, say, for Paul the Apostle). That seems much too broad. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What if the criterion for COI were anything that could give the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest?

As long as COI is not in and of itself a bar to writing and editing Wiki articles … and the criterion of admissibility for articles worked on by editors with any degree or possible appearance of COI but the objectivity of their work … then we’d hardly ever have anything to lose by sticking a COI label on our work.

That is, of course, if we ARE objective. Augnablik (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If two people think it's too broad, then maybe it is too broad. But I do want to define a COI based on objective tests and not based on subjective tests like "the slightest appearance of a COI", because it's very clear that editors have wildly differing views on what appears to be a COI. Loki (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Two some examples of how this is too broad: Quite by accident the other day I discovered that one of my coworkers from when I worked at Defra is now a youtuber. I've not investigated whether they are notable, but they don't currently have an article. The only time I interacted with them outside the office environment was occasionally at the pub after work or on team away-days, and haven't seen them for about 20 years. Under your proposed definition I have a COI regarding them, in the real world I don't.

I have created numerous redirects to articles about people/organisations with the aim of making it easier for people to find those articles (e.g. Comptel Data Systems cycling team, Pure (British radio station), Watercress line, Bridgnorth Castle Hill Railway, Martin Par, Sally Man, San Francisco BART, etc). This will have increased the views of those articles and, at least arguably, thus benefited the subjects. Doing this would, under the proposed definition, mean I have a conflict of interest with those subjects. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think you have a COI with your former coworker.

You wouldn't have a COI under this proposed definition for providing material benefits to someone else, including by editing their Wikipedia article. That editing Wikipedia can provide material benefits to someone is the background of the COI policy, it does not itself constitute a COI. (You also wouldn't have a COI under this definition for listening to a radio station or riding a particular train, though you would if you happened to be on that cycling team.) Loki (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think I have a COI regarding someone I haven't met for 20 years and are connected to only through a very large organisation I haven't worked for for well over a decade (and presumably who he no longer works for either)? What exactly are the interests that conflict? Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Same interests that would conflict with someone you know well. Human empathy is a powerful thing. People do not like to do things that would hurt people they know, including negative Wikipedia coverage. Loki (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar, since when is "not wanting to hurt people" considered "An involvement, claim, right, share, stake in or link with a financial, business, or other undertaking or endeavor"?

I was reminded recently that, about 15 years ago, I added a paragraph about a supplier of medical marijuana. One of their clients used marijuana on their premises and caused a fatal car wreck on his way home. The other driver died. Her baby survived. He died the next day.

While I was writing it, I remember thinking that I didn't want to hurt the feelings of any surviving family member. Do you think that recognizing that some ways of describing the facts could be hurtful is actually a "conflict of interest"? Personally, I thought it was more of a Golden Rule situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your quote misses the "they know" part of Loki's statement. Your example is surely a good instance of editing without a COI, as it shows feelings that might apply to anyone, rather than that would apply just to people you know. CMD (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have done anything different if it had involved someone I knew, especially if I only knew them slightly or years before. Would you? Could you imagine yourself thinking "This is going to read by two mourning families now, and perhaps in the future by a baby trying to learn something about the car wreck that killed his mother. But I know this group, so I'll write it this way..."? I can't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I doubt I would either, but that's somewhat the point, COIs often cause unconscious differences of various degrees. In this sad hypothetical, I doubt I'd be going near the article if I knew any of the people. The relevant point is you did not have a COI in this case you mention. CMD (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The appearance of a conflict tends to be sufficient for people to assume that there actually is one, even if there actually isn't. Tough, I know, but there you are. Still stuck with the problem of defining that, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think in most other organisations the issue is resolved by the fact that the group adjudicating conflicts of interest are a different group from the persons actually having a conflict. The guidelines for group B disclosing to group A could be somewhat (but not significantly) broader, and group A could continue to simply use the reasonable person standard. On wiki, of course there is only really one group (editiors). I mean, technically editors can privately disclose to ArbCom or something, but that would probably be a waste of time for everyone involved. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Usually (i.e. outside of Wikipedia) conflicts of interest are defined by a reasonable person standard, that is, if a fair and reasonable person (properly informed) might conclude that the personal interest could improperly or unduly influence their regular responsibilities. This is a significantly lower standard than any possible perception of conflict. For example, I would say that a prototypical reasonable person would likely not consider being a fan of something a disclosable conflict, unless they were a pretty obsessive fan. (note that the prototypical reasonable person is still a fictional construct)

Of course, most of the reasonable people editing Wikipedia would probably never become problematic in their COI editing, (if they do any) and conversely, most problematic COI editors would probably not meet the standard, so we probably do need to spell some things out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean significantly higher standard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean less strict or narrower. The reasonable person standard is an ordinary standard of scrutiny and there are people who would not have a disclosable COI under such a standard but would under a "any possible perception" standard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that a good framework is to define those COI influences which are strong enough to invoke Wikipedia's COI rules and guidance:

• The "strong enough......" criteria leaves out the very weak ones and avoids trying to legislate or philosophize the general "COI" term.
• Saying "COI influence" leaves the door open for re-introduction of the golden definition of COI-driven editing and makes the distinction between COI influences and COI-dominated editing.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a blanket ban on accusations of COI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that raising the question is 95% of being an accusation. Mostly agree but I'd make an exception for raising the question where it very strongly looks like UPE. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think people need to be able to bring the point up. Obviously it's impolite to do it without a good reason, but I don't agree with banning the question. One of the big downsides of our WP:OUTING policy is precisely that it can make it hard to bring it up within policy, even when you have a good reason. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not impolite, it is a personal attack, and it violates our no personal attacks policy. I have been accused four times, and not once was it with anything approaching a good reason. An automatic indefinite block for a personal attack would solve this problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I disagree rather sharply. I have also been "accused", if you want to consider it an accusation, and I didn't like it either. But you know, you're not going to like every interaction you have here, and it's not a requirement that you should, though of course it's nicer when you do. I think it's legitimate to inquire into the things that might nudge editors into making judgment calls in one direction or another. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not legitimate, it violates our policies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If so, I would suggest that's a problem with our policies, because it's an objectively legitimate question. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been in the same boat as you, but what policies does it violate? Because its obviously not inherently a personal attack, although it could be delivered as part of one, so what do you actually mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with very strongly looks like UPE is that some editors believe that almost anyone starting an article about certain subjects very strongly looks like UPE – to their jaded (or incompetent) eyes.

Perhaps if we had more of a game-ified software system, we could institute enforceable quotas ("You can only revert an article three times within 24 hours, and you can only accuse two editors of UPE within 30 days, and..."). As it is, we have only messy human-interaction options available to us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that there are varying standards on what strongly looks like UPE. I was talking about really strong. Maybe an editor with 200 lifetime edits, and all of those are to write 10 articles on living persons who works in an area where they would benefit financially from having a Wikipedia article. And their first edit in their account was to produce a near-finished article, and where they've done an expert job at finding and maxing out references where the pickings are pretty weak. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If they've done an expert job of producing an article that demonstrates notability, what is the problem that you are trying to solve? Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Although it is a sidebar, for the example/what is typical, it's what I'd call edge case notability. They've maxed out finding what is available. Fails a strict reading of GNG, but would likely survive AFD. Now, answering your question, I'm not on any such quest. The only question is when it's looks near-certain UPE, and "do I have a due diligence obligation"? I think this is off topic here, I only brought it up as a possible exception to the "never ask" comment. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See, I'd be more suspicious of an account with 11 lifetime edits – 10 trivial edits on the first day, and an article under WP:BLP or WP:NCORP springing fully formed into the mainspace on the fourth day, with the account abandoned immediately afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious of what exactly? If the article subject is notable, and the article is NPOV, DUE, etc. does is really matter whether the author is or isn't guilty of something? Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Posting an article on the 11th edit is typical of undisclosed paid editing. This pattern began as soon as we implemented WP:ACTRIAL. On average, such articles are more likely to be non-neutral and non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Way too broad. #1 should be close friends and family members. If I go to a trade show and happen to eat lunch with someone that doesn't automatically create a conflict of interest. #2 with its "however slight" is so broad that you'd basically be asking anybody who owns a share of a "whole market index" fund to pretend like they have a COI. #3 is interesting and I had to chew on it a bit to see the conflict of interest, but doesn't that also boil down to a financial conflict of interest? The eventual goal of adding members to your club and attracting viewers to your website ultimately is to make some money, even if it's through ad revenue, right? ~Awilley (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Enough people have given that same criticism of #1 that I'll incorporate it into the next draft. The reason #2 includes and are aware you own is specifically to avoid whole market index funds.

For #3, not necessarily. Many people have no plan whatsoever to monetize their interests. So for instance, as far as I'm aware Azer Koçulu had never made a cent off left-pad, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a COI for editing npm left-pad incident. Loki (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

My proposal would be to decide to set a course to make the necessary changes to make the COI policy consistent with this:

COI-influenced editing is when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, where those influences are from potential tangible benefits that are somewhat concentrated on the editor. "Tangible" is intended to exclude ethereal benefits (such as feeling good about yourself) or where tangible benefits are of comparitively trivial value. "Somewhat concentrated" is intended to exclude benefits dispersed over a large group where the editor is merely a member of that large group. This also excludes cases where the editor is overly influenced by mere political views and mere causes. Many things might be called a COI-influence, with respect to provisions of this this policy, they fall into three groups:

1. Where the nature and strength is such that the provisions of this policy do not apply
2. Where the nature and strength is such that the general provisions of this policy apply
3. Paid editing where the definitions and provisions of the more stringent special paid editing policy apply

Note this uses the terms "COI-influenced editing" and "COI influence" but not just "COI" because of it's multiple meanings some of which are pejorative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

My first thought is that COI-influenced editing is when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia says everything that needs to be said. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks about right. Three comments and a question: 1) add "real or" to "potential tangible benefits" 2) Add a footnote to clarify that (paid or volunteer) membership in an organization is likely not COI-influence editing, but employment or serving as as a board member may be. 3) Delete the sentence on political views. Question: I don't understand the somewhat concentrated language. - Enos733 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I put "political views" in (merely) as an example of where the editing may be problematically overly influenced by outside interests, but where "COI" provisions really don't apply. So it can go. To give an example of "Somewhat concentrated", if someone is merely a member of a large organization, any tangible benefit from editing the article on that organization would be widely dispersed and thus not "somewhat concentrated" and be microscopic for an individual member. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that *any* editing which advances outside interests as such is already banned by WP:PROMO regardless of whether COI is involved what would be the point? You can't double ban something which is already banned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I linked above to a dispute in which lawyers from opposing sides of a civil lawsuit were attempting to influence the content of an article. The jury trial was happening while the dispute was happening. The options were:

• We [continue to] say X, which (according to the plaintiff) advanced the outside interest of the respondent;
• We say not-X, which would have advanced the outside interest of the plaintiff; or
• We say nothing, which would have slightly advanced the outside interest of the plaintiff.

There were no options that could not be predicted to advance someone's outside interest. However, we don't actually ban all editing, and NOTPROMO says "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view", so I conclude that NOTPROMO doesn't actually ban "*any* editing which advances outside interests". It technically doesn't even ban editing by the person whose outside interests could be advanced, so long as that person is making "an attempt" to keep the content neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case we shouldn't be allowing either party to promote their cause on wiki. If other editors aren't editing with the intent to promote then there is no issue even if promotion does occur. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I find it helpful to think of "conflict of interest" as "conflict of role". One role is as a Wikipedia editor. Other roles include someone paid to edit; a (close) friend or family member of the person who has a Wikipedia article about them (or the person themselves); an executive of a company, or a member of the company's PR department; and president of a fan club. When the two roles conflict, it's critical to declare COI, and to minimize one's (direct) editing in Wikipedia.

Someone who is simply a supporter of a political candidate doesn't have a COI issue - but does have an NPOV issue when editing the article about that political candidate.

Tying this back to the previous post, "advancing outside interests" and "potential or tangible benefits" [from violating Wikipedia editing rules] are both related to having an (important) role that conflicts with the role of being a fully-compliant Wikipedia editor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Simplifying re COI

I have to question why we need to define all this… it strikes me as instruction creep. The concept is simple:

1. For editors with a tie to the topic that might be a COI: Assume you have one and please disclose it … And if that tie will prevent you from editing in accordance with our policies and guidelines - Don’t edit. Note that paid editing is strongly discouraged.
2. For other editors: If you think some other editor has a conflict, AND that conflict is preventing the other editor from editing in accordance with all of our policies and guidelines - first try to resolve the citation with civility, and if that does not work, report it (but be careful not to violate p&g in the process - especially our rules on “outing”). Note that if the other editor IS editing in accordance with p&g, there is no problem. Just keep an eye on the situation.

I don’t think we need to define things further. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, so as not be naïve, it's never not going to be problem for Wikipedia when it gets reported off-wiki that congressional offices are editing campaigns or CEOs are editing their company, its just not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The situations that a definition could help with are:

• Identifying a real-world COI
  • This could predictably cause problems (politician replaces an article with puffery) or solve problems (marketing department notices that revenues were overstated).
  • We want to warn these people off from editing directly.
• Drawing the line for barely-yes vs barely-no COIs
  • This could cause a problem (high school student adds some trivial scandal du jour to the article about their own school) or solve a problem (high school student updates the article with the name of the new principal)
  • We want to help the accusers figure out whether we consider attended this school/lived in this town/is one of millions of people who own that product/liked that movie to be a COI (historically, for these examples, we have not).
• Discouraging false accusations
  • This could be due to bad behavior ("Nobody would write this kind of marketing bafflegab unless they were paid to!") or good behavior ("Nobody would care enough about this unimportant subject to create an article unless they were paid to!")
  • False accusations harm the community. False accusations drive away promising editors. False accusations wielded as weapons by POV pushers are bad. The community does not need another round of "You obviously know something about this religion, and you're not denouncing them, so you have a COI" followed by "My connection with them is that they kicked me out for coming out as trans". That does not protect either articles or the community.

Views from experienced editors are on a spectrum, but I think the two main areas are:

1. We care about the article more than about how it got that way.
   • For example: Given a choice between having an article on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station be outdated vs having me correct it, they lean somewhat towards having the article up to date. It would be better for Wikipedia to have a reputation for getting the article right than to have a reputation for incorrect and outdated content.
2. We care about Clean hands/the reputation of the community more than having the article improved.
   • For example: Given a choice between having an article on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station be outdated vs having me correct it, they lean somewhat towards having only The Right™ editors edit the article. It would be better for Wikipedia to have a reputation for maintaining pure motivations than to have a reputation for letting the subjects of articles influence their content.

This is a difference in fundamental human values, so I do not think we will get agreement on which one is "correct". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, these positions you have made up are just figments when not insulting. Neither of those describe any editor unless the editor is such a fool as to think there is only one way to correct an article, and your "reputation of the community" stuff is just nonsense, unless you are actively trying to make-up nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia:Edit requests exist for just such a scenario that seems like a false choice. Also you misremember history, the COI was with the Harold B. Lee Library and the Association for Mormon Letters not the religion itself and the editor turned out to be a former employee who had edited wikipedia pages about the library while an employee and an active member of the AML (the COI *was* substantiated, unlike the story you just presented). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the recent kerfuffle with the BYU librarian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Then what historical example are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

IF they disclose, and are editing in accordance with our P&G… why should we care what gets reported off-wiki? Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its when the reporters have to do the disclosing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. This seems like four pages of solution looking for a problem. GMG^talk 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I support continued attempts to refine and clarify the guideline. Lack of definition was cited repeatedly in a recent discussion as a reason not to upgrade the COI guideline to policy. I continue to think we deserve and need a clear policy on conflicts of interest. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We HAVE a clear policy… 1) disclose 2) edit in accordance with p&g (and if you can’t - don’t edit). Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can think this true, and I think you are probably mistaken. Could you link to the policy you're referencing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have my doubts whether CoI can be sufficiently defined so as to form the basis of a policy but the guideline could definitely be spruced up. Just for clarity, imo paid editing is a CoI. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

imo paid editing is a CoI

Yes? GMG^talk 17:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Should we upgrade this to policy?, "Though that case also highlighted some ambiguities in the definitions of paid editing and financial COI, and relatedly this guideline's relationship to WP:PAID" Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way I'm reading through that pages long debate (but I do notice a bit of opposition). As far as I've seen, there's been little serious conflict in practice with the status of paid editing, with the exception of something like WP:GLAM, and it's mostly an issue that can normally be resolved with existing guidance and a healthy dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. We don't need to legislate every tiny detail. Most of us have a fairly decent head on our shoulders. GMG^talk 18:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have finally realized what my problem with this entire discussion is… it is focused on the editors, not their edits. Simply having a COI is not a flaw; allowing your COI to affect your editing to the point where you violate a p&g is. And THAT is best addressed by focusing on the edits, not the editor. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this is what I've been trying to say throughout most of this discussion. If someone with a COI and someone without a COI would make the exact same edit, it doesn't matter which one of them did. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  One might say that there has not been much good faith assumed in this discussion. Donald Albury 00:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sadly assuming bad faith is common (but not universal) when discussing COI, paid editing and related topics. It's one of the reasons why people interpret questions about whether one has or does not have a COI as a personal attack - compounded by some people refusing to accept "no" as an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  If the way COI worked was that people could simply choose not to allow their COI to affect them, then there wouldn't be COI rules in the world. If the people who vote on whether an edit is a "bad" edit have an undisclosed COI, the system will be corrupted. That's why we don't allow judges or jurors with COIs. (That's why COIs in the US Supreme Court is making the news lately.) Unconscious bias isn't ABF, it's science. Levivich (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's true, but I think it's more complicated than that. Consider the case of a notable business. The Investor relations department notices that the Wikipedia article claims net profits of US$11,234,000 last year. The actual net profits were $10M less than that.

  Is there any way that you could imagine "the system" being "corrupted" if they click the Edit button and remove the extra "1" at the front of that number? Do you think they could have an Unconscious bias (a redirect to Implicit stereotype) about that particular edit?

  I would normally say that investor relations should stay out of articles, but I really cannot imagine a circumstance in which the article would be better off with that kind of simple factual error in it, or worse because the correct number was added by someone who has an abnormally high level of interest in making sure accurate numbers are available. In the old model, "Wikipedia wants accurate numbers" and "Investor relations doesn't want to have conversations about securities fraud because the wrong numbers were in the Wikipedia article" would have been seen as our interests being fully aligned – for that specific edit only.

  If they wanted to make another edit, this time adding marketing garbage or removing unfavorable information, we considered our interests to be in conflict – for that one edit.

  It was, as Blueboar said, a matter of putting the Wikipedia:Focus on content not contributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, it is still a matter of focusing on the written representation made by the company, investor relations is the company speaking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know many people have said this already without having any effect, but you really got to give it a rest with these tortured hypotheticals. Levivich (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them "tortured hypotheticals". They accurately reflect the actual issue at hand: These scenarios exist and when they occur we have exactly two choices:

  1. An encyclopaedia that is accurate but where some contributions are made by people who might have a COI
  2. An encyclopaedia that is inaccurate but written entirely by people with no hint of a COI

  WhatamIdoing and I believe option 1 is better. You are free to disagree with that if you want, but that doesn't give you the right to claim it is not a choice you have made. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, no one believes in 2, what they as readers deserve is being honest, accurate, and informative about the subject through disclosure, and not mispresenting "I" statements, as "they" statements. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, both of you are just engaging in a series of rhetorical games. Here, it's reductio ad absurdum, and false dilemma. Nobody cares about whether someone with a COI fixes an obvious typo, and the choice isn't one between allowing COI editing and having a website filled with typos. Honestly, the rhetorical games are bordering on disruptive. It's really hard to have a discussion when it's constantly interrupted with paragraphs of rhetorical games. Levivich (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody cares about whether someone with a COI fixes an obvious typo except it has been argued multiple times that people with conflicts of interest (in some cases even the hint of one) should not be editing the article at all. You can't have it both ways - either someone with a COI can correct factual errors or they can't. If they can't then you are arguing in favour of scenario 2. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Once again, straw manning reductio ad absurdum (people are arguing against COI editing, which means they're arguing against even the most innocuous COI edits) and false dilemma (therefore we either allow all COI edits or no COI edits). These logical fallacies are neither clever nor thoughtful. Once again, asking you to stop engaging in this way. Levivich (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first isn't a reductio ad absurdum, because some people are arguing exactly that.

  The second is a straw man because nobody is arguing that all COI edits should be allowed. The argument being made (by some, not everybody) is that COI edits that are verifiable, neutral, DUE, etc. should be allowed, and that COI edits that are not all of those things shouldn't be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know who these "some people" are, nor do I care, but this little back and forth is in reply to my comment, which is not at all arguing anything about prohibiting all COI editing including fixing typos, and that's why both WAID's typo-fixing reductio ad absurdism, and your false dilemma "then you are arguing in favour of scenario 2," are completely irrelevant to anything I said, and therefore are straw man arguments. If either of you want to argue that prohibiting COI editors from fixing typos goes too far, argue that in response to people who are saying COI editors shouldn't be able to fix typos, don't argue it in reply to me. Arguing these logical fallacies in reply to my unrelated comment is derailing the conversation, that's why it's disruptive. Even more so considering it's not the first time either of you have done this in this thread. I was trying to respond to Blueboar's comment, and instead I've got you two raising your awesome logical fallacies yet again... cut it out. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the question of whether any editor actually opposes edits by people with COIs:

  I gave an example above of a real error in a real BLP article. It was basically a typo. It was not a reductio ad absurdism; it was a real edit made by an experienced editor because a notable acquaintance of his asked to have an error corrected.

  @Horse Eye's Back says above, in the comment immediately after my example, that "Wikipedia:Edit requests exist for just such a scenario". In other words, he'd rather have COI person not fix the typo directly. Ergo, at least one editor – not you, not me, but someone else who is also an experienced editor – actually does think that COI-affected editors should leave errors in the articles instead of fixing them immediately.

  The options for the COI-affected editor are:

  1. See the obvious error.
  2. Fix it yourself, even though you have a COI.

  or:

  1. See the obvious error.
  2. Leave the error in the article (could be due to your scruples about the COI, but could also be because you can't figure out how to fix it).

  That latter one could be a temporary situation, if the COI-affected editor figures out the edit request process. However, even if that edit request is made and handled faster than average, choosing to leave the error in the article for now is still choosing to have an inaccurate article for now.

  We all want both accurate articles and for COI editors to stay out of them. The question at hand is, given that we can't always have both of these desirable things, which bad thing do you think is the lesser of two evils?

  I think that for simple, objective problems, a wrong article is worse. I think that for complex matters, the COI influence might be worse. The COI guideline since 2012 has taken a different view: COI editing is always bad, with very small, specified exceptions (e.g., Wikipedians in Residence, occasionally citing your own papers) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again false. Those are not the only choices a COI editor has, just read the guideline. And that someone points out that an edit request is a choice, does not make it the only choice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Alan, I'm familiar with the guideline. The options are:

  • Fix the error as soon as you discover it, by making an edit yourself.
  • Or don't.

  There are lots of sub-options for the last item. For example, you can leave the error in the article while posting an edit request; you can leave the error in the article while sending e-mail to VRT; you can leave the error in the article while complaining about Wikipedia's accuracy on social media; you can leave the error in the article while trying to hire a paid editing outfit to fix the article.

  But you know what all of those sub-options are? They're all leaving the error in the article.

  If you can think of a method that doesn't involve either fixing the error yourself as soon as you discover it or leaving it in the article while you try to find a different way to get the article fixed, please post that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Irrelevant, just don't edit. That happens all the time btw, errors get left in articles because bod is too busy, bod can't edit in the topic area, blah, bod likes the error! so no big deal. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not irrelevant in the slightest - that's an explicit support for the view that leaving the article in a bad state is preferable to fixing the article if you have a COI. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Could the following suggestion be a possible way out of this current impasse, or does it leave too much leeway of interpretation:

  1. Wiki editors on a task force to revamp COI guidelines make a list of all known reasons why an editor might be considered to have a COI with the subject or content of an article. The list would range from the very broad (e.g., spouse, employee, close friend) down to the very narrow (e.g., fan club member, once had a beer with, former neighbor).
  2. The task force then assigns numbers or letters to these reasons and published it for use — as described below — by all editors when editing or writing an article.
  3. The new guidance is for all editors to ask themselves, is to ask themselves when editing or writing an article, “Who among my readers, especially other Wiki editors, might consider me to have a COI with this article?”
  4. If/when an editor sees any particular categories of readers listed, he or she would admit to the COI by simply typing COI alert: followed by all numbers or letters that could correspond to a likely reason … PLUS a brief explanation of the circumstances.

  The advantage I see in this COI approach: it would seem to remove most editors’ concern whether or not to edit or write an article AND to leave the burden of judgment, so to speak, on readers. Readers who take issue with something a COI-admitting editor did or said would be perfectly free to comment or revert on his or her work, as they are now.

  The caveat: whether editors would always be able or willing to use this guideline as intended. Augnablik (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  My first impression is that this would be extremely complex and not really of much benefit. There are hundreds if not thousands of reasons why someone might have a COI (e.g. my brother-in-law is friends with a notable musician). What does "COI alert (type 617): my brother in law is friends with a member of this band" bring us over "COI alert: my brother in law is friends with a member of this band"?

  Who among my readers, especially other Wiki editors, might consider me to have a COI with this article? Based on this discussion, it's clear that some editors think that my relative-by-marriage being friends with a member of a band is worthy not just of a COI declaration but a reason for me to never edit the article about the band in any way, even I'm just correcting an obvious typo. Some other editors would find that suggestion ridiculous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again false. You must not be familiar with the guideline. The guideline guides what they should when they edit the article directly, as well as when they don't. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again this seems like a false choice, your argument is rhetorically very strong and you are doing a very good job of debating your position... You just don't have the facts on your side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Two people directly above you just stated that WAID is right. The facts are very much on their side. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  The two people directly above me (Alanscottwalker and Selfstudier) seem to have stated the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in the "always bad" camp, even if it isn't. COI?-> Don't edit. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm tired of seeing hypotheticals and absolutes. Let us look at a real case. I have edited John Algeo. He was my subject counselor when I was a junior in college (60+ years ago). He was on my master's thesis committee (54 years ago). I attended a (large) party at his house (51 years ago). He and I probably talked at one or more of several scholarly conferences we both attended. He invited me to submit a paper I had read at a conference, which he published in a journal he edited (50 years ago). I had no contact with him in the last 50 years. Did I have a CoI when I edited his WP article? How could my editing his article have created a benefit for either him or me (other than the satisfaction of improving WP)? If you think I did have a CoI, do you see any evidence of that in the edits I made on his article? Donald Albury 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's really hard to say whether your edits were NPOV or not. To make that judgment, I'd have to read all the sources about this person, in order to determine whether you neutrally summarized them, or whether you omitted something (either positive or negative), etc. So this isn't a great way to test the concept, no more so than (realistic) hypotheticals or (reasonable) absolutes.

  I will say that you certainly have biases about this person, e.g. implicit bias, confirmation bias, etc. You're human and it's unavoidable. Just the choice to edit that article and not another one, is a product of some unconscious (or conscious) bias.

  COI isn't just about receiving a personal benefit--it's about managing unconscious biases--but you did confer a benefit to him (or his legacy) by improving his Wikipedia page, and you did that because you knew him (right?).

  Even if your edits were 100% perfect (and I'm sure they were), if I had to choose between, say, not having the BYU problem we just had and also not having you edit this article (forbid all COI edits), or having you edit this article but having the BYU problems (allow all COI edits), I'd choose the former. I never edit anything about anyone I personally know, never. I don't see what's so hard or bad about sticking that rule.

  Btw, "knew the guy 50 years ago" should probably fall under a de minimis exception to COI rules anyway (same as "I have some AT&T shares in a mutual fund in my retirement plan), which is another reason this isn't a great example. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone has biases that have the potential to affect their neutrality on every single article they edit. Trying to identify them and set them aside is a constant process for any editor. I don't think - and I don't think most people would think - that DA's distant and relatively minor connections to the subject would give rise to any significant concern about bias. Certainly no more than any editor is likely to bring to any article they are interested enough in to edit. I don't think Wikipedia has such a surplus of dedicated and knowledgeable editors that we can casually cut out huge swaths of what they are eligible to edit for arbitrary reasons.--Trystan (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Trystan on this. What matters for disclosure is not whether someone has a COI, it's whether they have a COI that impacts whether they can write neutrally about the subject. In terms of editing we should only be prohibiting the editing of articles where they are either

  1. unable (or unwilling) to write neutrally about the subject
  2. unable (or unwilling) to reliably determine what is and is not neutral

  I see no evidence that Donald's 50-year-old connections fall into either category. The CEO of Megacorp would fall into at least one of those categories regarding the Megacorp article in many, but not all cases. For example, fixing an obvious typo or broken link is obviously neutral and we gain nothing by prohibiting that (and indeed we actively lose by doing so). Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just because everyone has biases doesn't mean all biases are the same. Just because everyone has COIs doesn't mean we shouldn't have COI rules. The converse is also true: policy shouldn't treat all biases or all COIs or all COI edits as being the same; hence my support for exceptions (eg de minimus COI, obvious typo/vandalism/blpvio).

  I also disagree about the "huge swaths". So long as we're using ourselves as examples, I've been able to make 35,000 edits without ever making a COI edit; there is plenty to edit without having to do COI editing. And if only people with COIs care enough about a topic to edit it, then the topic is probably not very important anyway. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  DA, I am wondering why you did not say whether you think you have a COI, but regardless, you just had 3 people quickly tell you even if you have a COI, it's not close/substantial enough, and you just readily disclosed your connection, which is part of handling COI, anyway. So, it seems this part of the conversation showed how easily COI is dealt with. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  It did not occur to me that I had a CoI when I edited that article. It is only after following recent discussions about CoI that I became aware that some editors think that such a relationship creates a CoI. I still do not feel that I have a CoI with him. I stumbled across the article, which was 81 words long at the time, and decided to fill in some gaps. It is now 249 words. I added only what I found in sources. I think I improved the article, and I think I did so without introducing any bias that is not inherent in deciding which of his documented achievements to include. I was not trying to make him look good or bad, I was just trying to add a few more facts about him. I will add that I would not have created an article for him, relationship or not, as I don't think he meets WP:NPROF, but the article was created on the basis of his positions as a Theosophist. I do not have any intuition on his notability on that basis. I just added a little bit about his personal life and academic career to round out the article. Donald Albury 19:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, for the replies above, it looks like you were right, good work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Vedmezhe

This page contains a RM which does not bring policy-based arguments, has two participants both of which clearly take one side of the conflict, and still has been closed as move. I would not make a point here, but there are literally dozens of these requests, with pretty much the same participants, no policy-based arguments, which many different closed closed as move. I tried to bring counterarguments, I tried to contact the closers (they were sometimes receptive), but this is so massive I am not going on a crusade. Just every time anyone interviews me I will say that there is a massive push of propaganda in Wikipedia, which is successful because nobody cares. Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

And, yes, I know there are avenues to contest each such RM separately. It would mean wasting a huge amount of my time. Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• We've done a mass AfD by way of a sitewide RfC in the past, and I wonder if we could exapt that process to create a mass Move Review.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that there is any "policy-based argument" for any of the old names in these instances. The linked article, for example, is a town in Ukraine with a population of about 2700. There probably isn't any true English name for it, so WP:NCGEO#Use English doesn't apply. The "watershed" clause in WP:NCGEO#Widely accepted name suggests using the new official legal name. WP:MODERNPLACENAME suggests using the newer name, too. I don't see anything in NCGEO that prefers the older, so-called "communist" name. Would you have been more satisfied if one of them had written something like "Support per approximately every section in WP:NCGEO" instead of something like "Support because the town's name legally changed"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is no direct application of NCGEO here because the locality is on a disputed territory and is not controlled by Ukraine. In fact, the Ukrainian government renamed the locality which it did not control, and never controlled it ever since. Russia (which controls it) uses the old name. This is not to say that the the new name is invalid, but a general discussion whether to move all these localities on the basis that they were renamed by Ukraine was closed as no consensus, and now all of them are being renominated. Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which name do neutral sources? Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not know, this could have been an argument in the discussion. But it was not made. Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to understand what your issue is given the dearth of information you've given us. Yes, the move discussion was low-participation, but there was clearly consensus there and the arguments and outcome appear to be in accordance with (or at least not contrary to) policy. You aren't presenting any evidence that shows the move was wrong, you don't know whether the most likely arguments that were not presented would support the move or not.

  You say there was a prior discussion that ended with no consensus - was that "no consensus because the arguments for and against are equally strong", "no consensus to mass move, discuss individually", "no consensus due to insufficient participation" or something else? Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  My point is that the discussion was only attended by two partisan editors, who did not provide a crucial bit of information - that the article is about a disputed territory, - and presented their argument like it was an ordinary uncontroversial rename by the government which is in full control of the territory. I do not know whether the articles should have been moved or not; this can only be determined if a discussion took place, starting with WP:COMMON, investigating whether there is a common name of each of these localities, and discussing of what to do if the COMMONNAME does not exist. The result of this discussion might well have been that the new Ukrainian names are the current names to be used in the articles. However, this discussion did not occur, and I am disappointed that multiple closers did not pay attention to this fundamental issue. Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  The previous closure was "no consensus to mass move, discuss individually". Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• As the closer; WP:OFFICIALNAME is a very weak argument, but absent reason to believe there are better arguments in favor of the current title then I can't not find a consensus for the move when unopposed and supported by multiple editors.

However your concerns are reasonable, so I will pay closer attention to moves argued solely on this basis in the future and relist at least once rather than immediately moving regardless of level of support; I'll revert my close of the example you provided. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The only support in that discussion should be discounted given it is against policy and practice. There's an additional wrinkle that both names are transliterations and there isn't actually a source for the Vedmezhe transliteration. I also don't find WhatamIdoing's watershed argument convincing, as there have been much bigger recent watersheds which have among other things left two legal systems in operation here.

That all being said, there's not a hugely strong policy reason for the current names; they're there because of inertia. These name changes are part of a nationalistic push, but it's one that many might feel uncomfortable opposing, especially given the lack of strong policy arguments either way. Given this, while the POV pushing feels uncomfortable as well and it's good to have it raised, I don't see the long-term path where it doesn't move forward. (A similar vibe to the currently under discussion Israel article RfC.) CMD (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it sure: We are only talking about the settlements controlled by Russia, and Russia uses old names. Everything which was under the control of the Ukrainian government at the time of the official rename, has been moved to the new names. Krasnodon was once investigated with respect to WP:COMMON, and the conclusion was it is still a common English name despite being officially renamed to Sorokyne. As soon as Ukraine gets back to the 1991 borders, I will happily move everything to the new names, but I think until this has happened we are in a grey area and can be there for decades ahead. Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it helps to be precise. Russia uses the official Russian names for these settlements, as Ukraine uses the official Ukrainian names (both demonyms referring to country, not language). Which name gets adopted into English, if either/any, is related but distinct. Control on the ground (by either side, or any side in any other dispute) is something very relevant to the article content, but is not directly a factor in naming policy. I do agree it's these settlements are in a grey area when there hasn't been a name adopted into English, but for the reasons I mentioned I can only see it shifting in one direction. CMD (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with this, and indeed it will likely be shifting in one direction (barred unexpected real-life developments such as Ukraine ceding parts of its territory to Russia), but it does not mean we should just move everything on the basis of a bunch of RMs filed by two partisan editors without any policy-based arguments. Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hate speech

I should already know this, but I don't: where is our policy page on hateful remarks directed at groups (as opposed to individuals) – ethnic, national, religious, sexual and so on? And our guidance on how best to deal with them without attracting undue attention? I don't see that this topic is specifically covered in the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We have a few explanatory essays covering this like Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't accept statements like "I hate <named kind of> people". We usually do accept statements like "I hate Bob's Big Business, Inc.". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

“Some people can’t get along with other people… and I hate people like that!” Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be varying interpretations of what that essay means or how we should enforce it or if if we should at all. For example, this situation:[2]. Courtesy ping to Snow Rise. I'm bringing this up because I think how that discussion was handled has broader implications that are relevant here. For the record, I do agree with that explanatory essay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real": I will hope that Snow Rise meant to type "the false belief" that trans people aren't real. Whether sky or sapphire is the finer blue, or whether Avengers: Endgame is a good movie, are subjective beliefs. Expressing denial of the existence of a category of people—whether people of Black African descent, Jewish folks, First Nations, gay people, Catholics, or those who are transgender (to nonexhaustively give examples)—is WP:FRINGE at a minimum and more generally is better described as prejudicial and destructive to the cultivation of a civil and collegial editing environment on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the expression's phrasing is hostile or sweet, passionate or anodyne. Reducing such to "abstract belief"—when it's a belief about concrete people who exist in the world and in this community—is, however inadvertently, a language game, an alchemy of words. If it's a true and dispassionate assessment to say that the Wikipedia community generally prefers a site where participants receive no penalty for denying the existence of people groups or for opposing the extension of rights to them (including by denying they exist and therefore can be extended to)—or, perhaps, selectively receive no penalty for doing so for certain groups—then something is rotten in the state of Denmark, proverbially speaking.

Or, to answer OP's question and express myself in another way, as zzuzz points out elsewhere in this thread, the Universal Code of Conduct is unequivocal that [h]ate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are is unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement. I'd point out that also considered unacceptable is content that are intimidating or harmful to others outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use: expressions on talk and user pages often exist outside of the context of encyclopedic, informational use. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You have truncated the quote; Snow Rise said the subjective belief that transmen and trasnwomen are not "real" men or women. gnu57 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

My argument at the time was that this was sanctionable behaviour, despite what others say. You can't exactly make sweeping statements about a group without it also being a personal attack. I don't see much of a difference between going "I don't think you're a real man" and "I don't believe that anyone that's like you is a real man". Hydrangeans, I also argued at the time that this went against the Code of Conduct. My purpose in bringing this up now is that something I thought was obvious apparently is more controversial than it seems within the community. Even if I think things shouldn't be this way. Another example would be when I filed this ArbCom case against someone that argued some people were subhuman. I think it if it was a regular editor, they would've been indeffed and not just desysopped. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of fairness, this diff was part of a wider discussion that took place here and here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

truncated the quote: The whole quote amounts to altogether the same thing. To hold that, for example, transgender men are not "'real' men", is to hold that transgender men are not real—as they are women. Etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I would presume this would be covered under general guidance regarding disruptive editing or using WP as a forum. I have no love for the Kardashians, but I don't make it a point to go to relevant articles and voice my opinion. If it isn't disruptive but merely objectionable, then that gets into slippery NOTCENSORED territory very quickly, because what is objectionable but not disruptive is very much in the eye of the beholder. GMG^talk 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL, while focused on individual interactions can be extended to group incivility. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:HA does deal in passing at least with conduct even if the target is not an editor. And you are correct that something like CIVIL can be broadly construed in the sense that if someone says "I hate gypsies" then it can be reasonably assumed that some of our community are Roma and so it discourages collaboration. But it's difficult to tell what the real angle here is without more specifics. For example, many, including myself, may consider parts of the Bible as hateful, although that at some level has to be balanced with historical significance and the fact that hateful views are in-and-of-themselves a topic we cover extensively. Not being doomed to repeat history and all that. Others surely would consider what I just said as a form hatefulness against a religious group for their sincerely held beliefs.

  But as I indicated before, there is always going to be a nuanced judgement about the dividing line between what is hateful and what is merely offensive. GMG^talk 21:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement ... Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs ..." --UCOC. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks to zzuuzz and all others who replied. It was that line in the You-cock that I was looking for. So do we in fact have no local policy specific to this? Someone asked about context: a couple of days ago a note was left on my talk asking me to revdelete a fairly unpleasant remark; I'd already gone to bed and the matter was quickly dealt with, but I was left wondering the next day how we should best handle these (fortunately rare) occurrences. I'm not talking about incivility but stuff like "[your choice of ethnicity/sexuality/caste/religion/etc here] should be put up against a wall and shot" or whatever other nastiness unpleasant minds may dream up. I looked for our policy page and didn't find it. Should there in fact be such a page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say those types of situations are covered under WP:NOTHERE. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  My go-to would be the blocking policy, which has this covered (even if not explicitly). The revdel policy also allows deletion (mostly RD2). Is there anything else to do? Hate speech is just a subset of disruption, and we have wide latitude to throw it in the trash, because trash goes in the trash. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  In some cases oversight is also a possible action, but revision deletion is going to be more common. Especially when the target of the comment is a specific person, WP:NPA also allows for the removal of the comment. Thryduulf (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The policy is that you are required to be civil and not attack other users. I don't think there is any civil way for a person to express the opinion of, e.g. "I love being racist and I hate black people". At any rate, the de facto policy is that somebody will block for this kind of garbage regardless. jp×g🗯️ 07:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair use of non-free content

What is the process of using non-free images are? Currently, the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 makes use of non-free images in thumbnail form (with original source attributed in their Wikimedia pages) to help illustrate their design histories. I've seen articles use them (typically cinema articles) and typically they're downscaled thumbnails without any higher resolution, but I'm not familiar with the process for using them. If that's not possible then a lot of images in those articles will have to be removed until I can get express permission from Lockheed/Northrop or if they're uploaded on something like DVIDS. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-free content is used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content provides and introduction and explanation. However, all there don't appear to be any non-free images at either Lockheed YF-22 or Northrop YF-23, indeed the images in the sections about the design are all either public domain or CC0. If you believe the licenses on those images are incorrect then you would need to nominate them for deletion at Commons (with evidence). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who uploaded a lot of those images, but I may have incorrectly applied CC0 to many of them, although I deliberately uploaded them as low-resolution thumbnails because I don't think they're free content. They've been nominated for deletion, so I'm wondering how to justify them as fair use of non-free images, at least until I can get express permission from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for their use, in which case I can upload the full resolution version. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The immediate issue you're running into is that you uploaded all of those to Wikimedia Commons, a related but separate project that's exclusively for freely usable media. If the images are non-free, they need to be deleted from Commons. Non-free files can be uploaded to English Wikipedia if they meet the criteria Thryduulf linked to. The important boxes to check are including an appropriate copyright tag and a rationale explaining how the image meets the criteria. For a topic that probably has a lot of {{PD-USGov}} works available, I'd be surprised if any non-free images managed to meet both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. hinnk (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are there so many featured articles about Great Britain?

Not an issue for Village pump (policy). Referred elsewhere.

Not a policy discussion. Not a useful discussion. Take it up at the talk pages of the various sections of the main page if you must Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Like literally, everytime I come on the Front Page of wikipedia theres always a featured article of euther a British or english person. Is wikipedia owned by limeys or something? ENOUGH…HAVE SOME DIVERSITY FOR ONCE!! Fact.up.world (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC) On the contrary, almost all main page FAs are about America! Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Unification of include-info and reject-info principles in the content policies

There is a suggestion to remove "not taking sides" from the NPOV policy, which is the essential point in its nutshell. The argument is that the terminology could be preventing that we reject fringe theories, etc., because that would be taking sides. Of course, this has never been the meaning of "not taking sides" in the policy. The language and the terminology are the superficial side of this. The concepts are the important side. Therefore, I suggested that before we consider the superficial terminological issue, we do a RfC about a better unification of include-info and reject-info principles in the content policies in general. I am concerned that I will be prevented from doing that RfC, because some would say that it disrupts the discussion. So, I am asking opinions about this here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Copy paste plagiarism from out of copyright materials.

Hi, I was just wondering what the correct template is for signalling articles which have copypasted text from an out of copyright source. This article is a word for word copy from this source, and I'm pretty sure that's not ok, so we must have a template. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It is ok, since the source is in the public domain and the text is properly attributed. There are many templates used to attribute the sources being copied, and that article uses one of them (Template:DNB). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

In the early days, it was considered a good thing to copy articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica to fill in the gaps. Donald Albury 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Many people (not the OP) don't seem to understand the difference between copyright violation and plagiarism. Copyright violation is the copying of copyrighted text with or without attribution against the terms of the copyright licence (with an allowance for "fair use" in nearly all jurisdictions). Plagiarism is the passing off of someone else's work as one's own, whether the work is copyrighted or not. This is not copyright violation, because it is out of copyright, and not plagiarism, because it is properly attributed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, are users saying that it is ok to copypaste text from an out of copyright text as long as that text is attributed? This feels very wrong, which wikipolicies allow this?Boynamedsue (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

See the content guideline at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. While at least some editors would prefer that such material be rewritten by an editor, there is no prohibition on copying verbatim from free sources; it is allowed as long as proper attribution to the original source is given. Donald Albury 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs to be done with considerable caution if at all, and it just seems like a less ideal option in almost every case, save for particular passages that are just too hard to rewrite to the same effect. But I think the consensus is that it is allowed. Remsense诉 01:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright has a limited term (though these days, in many countries, a very long one) precisely to allow the work of the past to be built upon to generate new creative works. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing new is generated when you copy something verbatim. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Remixing from sampled works is increasingly common. Imitating other people's work is done to learn new styles. Jazz music specifically has a tradition of incorporating past standards into new performances. Critical analysis can be more easily placed in context as annotations. And from an educational standpoint, more people can learn about/read/watch/perform works when the barrier to disseminating them is lessened. What's in copyright today is the source of new widely-spread traditional works in the future. isaacl (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye, every time you read a poem it's a new translation. If this were Wikiversity, I think there'd actually be a lot of room for interesting experiments remixing\ PD material. Remsense诉 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You wrote a lot but none of it actually addresses what I've said. Traumnovelle (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I gave examples of new creative works that have copied past work verbatim. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, comparing the two, and looking at the edit history, it is not at all true that "...This article is a word for word copy from this source." Much has been changed or rewritten (and many of the spicy bits removed). This is fairly typical for this sort of biography, I would say. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit imprecise there, it is the first three to four paragraphs of the life section that are directly lifted word for word. I'm just a little shocked at this as anywhere other than wikipedia this would be classified as gross plagiarism.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's clearly noted as an excerpt (and not just a reference) I wouldn't feel able to say that. However like I've said above, the number of cases where this would be the best option editorially is vanishingly few for an excerpt of that length. Remsense诉 05:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(As such, I've explicated the attribution in the footnote itself, not just the list of works.) Remsense诉 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Collecting, copying or reproducing high quality, classic writings on a topic is quite common in publishing. See anthology, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but publishing big chunks of it unchanged as part of a new book under a new name, without specifically stating that this text was written by someone else is not. If you cite someone else, you have to use different language, unless you make it clear you are making a direct quotationBoynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

But the article does (and did) specifically state that it was written by someone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It didn't. It cited a source, that is not the same as stating the text was a direct quotation from that source. It now states: "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" which is an improvement but does not differentiate between which parts are direct quotes and which use the source properly.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems very unneeded, as no one is claiming specific authorship of this article, and as the material used for derivation has long been linked to so that one can see what that version said. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere but wikipedia, passing off someone else's words as your own is plagiarism. The kind of thing that people are rightly sacked, kicked out of universities or dropped by publishers for. This includes situations where a paper is cited but text is copy-pasted without being attributed as a quote.

I'm more than a little shocked by this situation, but if so many experienced editors think that it's ok, there's not much I can do about it.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's because we aren't trying to impress the teacher with our sooper riting skilz. We're providing information to the WP:READER, who isn't supposed to care who wrote what. This is fundamentally a collective effort. Note the tagline is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" not "By Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". There exist WP:FORKS of Wikipedia where 99.9% of the content is unchanged. Are they plagiarizing us?

An analogy that might help is the stone soup. If you grew the carrots yourself, great! But if you legally gleaned them instead, so what? The soup is still tastier. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, wiki-mirrors are clearly plagiarising wikipedia, even though they are breaking no law. Wikipedia is a collective effort of consenting wikipedians, it is not supposed to be a repository of texts stolen from the dead. That's wikisource's job.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant. If copying from a PD source, you certainly should make it clear where the text is from, but it's not an absolute requirement. Additionally, if a statement of the source wasn't done by the revsion author, it can be done subsequently by anyone else (assuming no blocks or bans forbid this particular person from editing this particular article). Animal lover |666| 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be acceptable for it not to be made clear. Once more, there's a distinction between copyvio and plagiarism—the fault with the latter for our purposes broadly being that readers are not adequately made aware of where what they are reading came from. The obvious default assumption of any reader is that they are reading something a Wikipedia editor wrote. Tucked away as it is, there is an edit history that lists each contributing editor. This is not superfluous context to me, it's about maintaining a sane relationship between editors and audience. Even if there's potentially nothing wrong with it divorced from social context, in terms of pure claims and copyright law—we don't live in a media environment divorced from social context, there's no use operating as if we don't meaningfully exist as authors and editors. Remsense诉 15:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, plagiarizing Wikipedia would be a copyright violation, since Wikipedia texts are released under a license that requires attribution. Same can't be said for PD texts. Animal lover |666| 18:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

When EB1911 was published, copyright in the United Kingdom expired seven years after the author's death, so "the dead" would probably just be surprised that it took so long for their work to be reprinted. Wikipedia exists to provide free content, the defining feature of which is that it can be reused by anyone for any purpose (in our case, with attribution). So it shouldn't really be surprising that experienced editors here are generally positive about reusing stuff. – Joe (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The stuff you are claiming is "plagiarized" is getting far better attribution than most of the writing in Wikipedia. Most of the contributing writers get no credit on the page itself, it is all in the edit history. I'm not sure whose writing you think we're passing this off as. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think simply being stated at the bottom is pretty much exactly the level of credit editors get—for me to feel comfortable with it it should be stated inline, which is what I added after the issue was raised. Remsense诉 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair I think the only reason these things tend to be noted with a template at the bottom of the article is that the vast majority of public domain content was imported in the project's early days, as a way of seeding content, and back then inline citations were barely used. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh, what are we going to do, dock their pay? jp×g🗯️ 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Was thinking more along the lines of tagging the text or reverting, a talkpage message and possibly blocks for recidivists. But like I said earlier, it appears that the consensus is that things are fine how they are. World's gone mad, but what am I off to do about it? Nowt. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The text you're worried about was added twelve years ago by a user who that has been blocked for the last eleven years (for, wait for it... improper use of copyrighted content). I think that ship has sailed. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There you go, gateway drug.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that hypothesis is replicable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• There does appear to be a consensus that such works need to be attributed somehow, and despite whatever disagreement there is, the disagreement in substance appears to be how that is done. What we are doing in these instances is republication (which is a perfectly ordinary thing to do), and yes we should let the reader know that is being done, but I'm not seeing a suggestion for changing how we do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  It seems to me that the OP asked a question and got an answer, and discussion since has been extracurricular. Remsense诉 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but the OP does have a point that the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism. For example, putting a unique sentence in from another's work, and just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough, in that instance you should likely use quotation marks and even in line attribution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think, as with most things, it depends on the situation. Plagiarism is not just the use of words without attribution, but ideas. An idea that has general acceptance might get attributed inline once in an article if it is associated strongly with a specific person or set of persons. But every mention of DNA's double helix doesn't have to be accompanied with an attribution to Watson and Crick. If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution when including that info in an article. If it's something that reporter was known for breaking to the public, then it would be relevant. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  But that was not the situation being discussed, it was word for word, copying the work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure; just underscoring that if the concern is plagiarism, it applies more broadly to the restatement of ideas. Rewording a sentence doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism. Even with a sentence being copied, I feel the importance of an inline attribution depends on the situation, as I described. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but that is similar a simple phrase alone, like 'He was born.' cannot be copyrighted nor the subject of plagiarism. Now if you use the simple phrase 'He was born.' in a larger poem and someone baldly copies your poem in large part with the phrase, the copyist violated your copyright, if still in force, and they did plagiarize. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, copying a poem likely warrants inline attribution, so... it depends on the situation. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  And that's the issue raised, regarding republication on wiki, is it currently enough to address plagiarism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think the need for inline attribution depends in the same way as for content still under copyright. The original question only discussed the copyright status as a criterion. I don't think this by itself can be used to determine if inline attribution is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  As plagiarism and copyright are two different, if sometimes related, inquiries. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  >If some info about a person is written up by a reporter in a now public-domain source, for many cases it's probably not too essential to have inline attribution

  It absolutely is essential per WP:V. Traumnovelle (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Attribution is required. Inline attribution is not (that is, stating the source within the prose). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  It still requires sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, attribution is sourcing. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think, better to distinguish the two. Attribution is explicitly letting the reader know these words, this idea, this structure came from someone else, whereas sourcing is letting the reader know you can find the gist or basis for the information in my words, there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies for being unclear. I was responding to the statement that inline attribution absolutely is essential. Providing a reference for the source of content is necessary. Providing this information within the prose, as opposed to a footnote, is not. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly, it is possible to put explicit attribution in the footnote parenthetical or in an efn note. (I think your response to this might be , 'it depends' :))Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you might be talking past each other. isaacl is simply stating that WP:V requires attribution, it does not require any particular method of attribution. What method of attribution is preferable in a given place is not a matter for WP:V. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Should be be providing in-line attribution for every sentence on Wikipedia to let the reader know which editor wrote which part of it? Wikipedia isn't an academic paper, as long as we can verify that there are no copyright issues with the content (such as an attribution-required license), attribution doesn't matter. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Surely there's some reasonable position between "attribution doesn't matter" and "attribute every sentence inline". Remsense诉 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yah, sorry those two extremes certainly don't follow from each other (Nor does the comment you are responding to discuss inline). The guideline is WP:Plagiarism and it does not go to those extremes on either end. (Also, Wikipedia does publically attribute each edit to an editor, and it does not need to be in the article, it is appendixed to the article.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Around 2006, I reworked a copy-pasted EB1911 biography about a 16th century person, it took me about a week. It has stood the test of time, and remains to this day a pretty good article despite having the same structure and modified sentences. The lead section is entirely new, and there are new sources and section breaks and pictures etc.. but the bulk of it is still that EB1911 article (reworded). I do not see the problem with this. Disney reworked Grimms tales. Hollywood redoes old stories. Sometimes old things are classics that stand the test of time, with modern updates. -- GreenC 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think everybody is fine with articles which are largely based on a single source when they are reworded. It's not the platonic ideal, but it is a good start. The problem we are discussing is when people don't bother to reword. Well, I say problem, I have been told it's not one, so there's nothing left to say really.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If you actually just reword a source like 1911, you should still use the 1911 template, and no, the thing you have not explained is why the template is not enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is WP:GREATWRONGS. The article John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes is perfectly fine. It does not violate any policy, guideline or consensus. There is nothing objectionable about that article. The proposal to rewrite the article would not improve the article and would result only in disruption. The proposal to put a template on the article solely to disparage the inclusion of public domain content in the article would result only in disruption. It would be disruptive to discuss this proposal further, because this proposal is disruptive, because this proposal is WP:GREATWRONGS. James500 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? There is no proposal. Also, there has long been a template used on the article. Your attempt to shut down discussion is also way, way off, (and your RGW claim is risible). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I propose all WP:GREATWRONGS should be righted immediately.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:IAR! Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Amongst other things, the OP said that copying public domain text, with the correct attribution, "feels very wrong". James500 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So, WP:GREATWRONGS is applicable whenever anyone uses the word "wrong"?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Only when great. -- GreenC 15:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any change to the practice of incorporating public domain content. Wikipedia is not an experiment in creative writing. It is an encyclopedia. It's sole and entire purpose is to convey information to readers. If readers can be informed through the conveyance of text that has entered the public domain, then this should not only be permissible, it should be applauded. BD2412 T 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, there is no proposal to do something different. The OP apparently forgot about things like anthologies and republication of out of copyright (like eg. all of Jane Austin's work, etc), but than when such matter was brought to his attention, retrenched to whether attribution was explicit (which we already do) enough, but has never explained what enough, is proposed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal was to create a maintenance template that encourages editors to delete all text copied from public domain sources from all Wikipedia articles, even if that text is correctly attributed, simply because it is copied from a public domain source. He actually tried to tag the article with Template:Copypaste (alleging copyright infringement), despite the fact that the content is public domain and was correctly attributed at the time, with the Template:DNB attribution template. James500 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a proposal, he asked what template is appropriate, and he was given the list of templates at Template:DNB. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• oppose the existence of a proposal: I would like to clarify, wherever people think they are seeing a proposal, there isn't one. I asked a question about what tag to use when people plagiarise out of copyright texts. I got an answer I think is stupid and expressed incredulity for a couple of posts. Then, when I realised that people were indeed understanding what I was talking about, said if so many experienced editors think that it's ok, there's not much I can do about it. WP:NOVOTE has never been more literally true, there is nothing to vote on here...Boynamedsue (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support not adding any more bold-face votes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker says above that the more the use of the work looks like our work and not someone else's work, the more it looks like plagiarism.

Animal lover says above that A Wikipedia article doesn't proport to be your work. They are a collaborative effort by multiple people. The fact that some of these people are long dead before this text shows up here is irrelevant.

I think this is a difference in how people implicitly view it. The first view says "A Wikipedia article is written by people who type the content directly into the editing window. If your username isn't in the article's history page, then your words shouldn't be in the article. Article content should come exclusively from Wikipedia editors. If it doesn't, it's not really a Wikipedia article. This is our implicit promise: Wikipedia is original content, originally from Wikipedia editors. If it's not original content, it should have a notice to the reader on it to say that we didn't write it ourselves. Otherwise, we are taking credit for work done by someone who is them and not-us in an us–them dichotomy".

The second view says "A Wikipedia article is a collection of text from different people and different places. Where it came from is unimportant. We never promised that the contents of any article came from someone who directly edited the articles themselves. It's silly to say that we need to spam an article with statements that bits and pieces were pasted in from public domain sources. We wouldn't countenance 'written by a random person on the internet' in the middle of article text, so why should we countenance a disclaimer that something was 'previously published by a reliable source'? I don't feel like I'm taking credit for any other editor's article contributions, so why would you think that I'm claiming credit for something copied from a public domain source?"

If you the first resonates strongly with you, then it's shocking to see {{PD-USGov}} and {{EB1911}} content casually and legally inserted into articles without telling the reader that those sentences had previously been published some place else. OTOH, if you hold the opposite view, then the first probably seems quite strange. As this is a matter of people's intuitive feelings about what Wikipedia means, I do not see any likelihood of editors developing a unified stance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable summary of the issue. I think many of those who hold the first view work in or have close ties to fields where plagiarism is considered a very bad thing indeed. Academic and publishing definitions of plagiarism include using the direct words of another writer, even when attributed, unless it is explicitly made clear that the copied text is a direct quotation. For people who hold that view outside of wikipedia, the existence of large quantities of plagiarised text would detract seriously from its credibility and validity as a project.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I work in publishing, and there is plenty of space there where such specificities are not generally called for. If one is doing an abridged edition, children's edition, or updated version of a book, one credits the work which one is reworking but does not separate out phrase by phrase of what is from that source. Much the same goes, of course, for film adaptations, music sampling, and so on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference there is that you are giving primary credit to the original author, and your work is voluntarily subsumed into theirs (while of course correctly stating that it is a Children's version or an abridged edition, giving editor credits etc.). In wikipedia, we are taking other people's work and subsuming it into ours.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the dichotomy is useful but I doubt anyone can subscribe to the pure form of either position. If I had to guess, I would assume most editors would agree with most of the sentences in both statements when presented in isolation. Remsense诉 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Your characterization is too gross to be useful and your made up dichotomy is just silly. We have those templates precisely because we try to give credit where credit is due, per WP:PLAGIARISM, so there is nothing shocking at all about {{PD-USGov}} and {{EB1911}} content. Sure, there are other ways to do it, than those templates, even so. Plagiarism is not a law, so your reference to the law makes no sense. But what is the law is, Wikipedia has to be written by persons, who can legally licence what they put on our pages, and if you did not write it you can't release it, nor purport to release it nor make it appear you are releasing under your licence, when you can't and you aren't. And Wikipedia does not warrant we offer good information either, in fact Wikipedia disclaims it in our disclaimer, that does not mean Wikipedian's don't care about good information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by people who freely license their contributions by the act of editing. But, public domain material is already free, does not need to be licensed, and so can be freely added to Wikipedia. Material that has been released under a free license can also be freely added to Wikipedia, subject to the conditions of the license, such as attribution (although we cannot copy material under a license that does not allow commercial use, but that has nothing to do with this discussion). There is no policy, rule, or law that Wikipedia has to be written by persons (although the community currently is rejecting material written by LLMs). Reliable content is reliable whether is written by Wikipedia editors based on reliable sources, or copied from reliable sources that are in the public domain or licensed under terms compatible with usage in Wikipedia. I believe that we should be explicitly citing everything that is in articles, even if I know that will not be happening any time soon. We should, however, be explicitly citing all public domain and freely-licensed content that is copied into Wikipedia, being clear that the content is copied. One of the existing templates or a specific indication in a footnote or in-line citation is sufficient, in my opinion. Donald Albury 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot present it as if you are licencing it (and indeed requiring attribution to you!) which is what you do if just copy the words into an article and don't say, in effect, 'this is not under my licence this is public domain, that other person wrote it.' (Your discussion of LLM's and what not, is just beside the point, you, a person, are copying, not someone else.) And your last point, we are in radical agreement certainly (about letting the reader know its public domain that other person wrote it, and that's what the templates try to do) we are not in a dichotomy, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Alan, I think your response makes me more certain that my two polar ends are real. You're working from the viewpoint that if it's on the page, and does not contain words like "According to EB1911" outside of a little blue clicky number and outside of the history page, then the editor who put that text there is "purporting" that the text was written by that editor.

There's nothing in the license that requires is to let the reader know that it's public domain or that another person wrote it. You know that a quick edit summary is 100% sufficient for the license requirements, even if nothing in the text or footnotes mentions the source. The story you present sounds like this to me:

• The license doesn't require attribution for public domain content.
• Even if it did, it wouldn't require anything more visible than an edit summary saying "Copied from EB1911".
• So (you assert) there has to be in-text attribution ("According to EB1911, a wedding cake...") or a plain-text statement at the end of the article ("This article incorporates text from EB1911") to the public domain, so the casual, non-reusing reader knows that it wasn't written by whichever editor posted it on the page.

This doesn't logically follow. I suspect that what you've written so far doesn't really explain your view fully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Your false dichotomy has already been shown to be of no value. Now you add to your baseless assumptions about clicky numbers and what not. I think that editors add content to Wikipedia under the license (otherwise we would have no license), yet I also think we need to tell the reader that the matter comes from somewhere else, when it comes from somewhere else. None of that should be hard to understand for anyone. (And besides, article histories are not secrets, they are public and publicly tied to text available to the reader and anyone else.) It's just bizarre that you would imagine an unbridgeable void, when basically everyone is saying that a disclosure should be made, and they are only really discussing degrees and forms of disclosure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a disclosure should be made, and it was made. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and that is why the discussion is about form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Alan, I don't agree that the spectrum I describe is a false dichotomy, or that anyone has even attempted to show whether it has value, though I gather that you happen to disagree with it.

I don't agree that the CC-BY-SA license requires disclosure of the source of public domain material. I think that's a question for a bunch of lawyers to really settle, but based on my own understanding, it does not. I think that Wikipedia should have such requirements (e.g, in Wikipedia:Public domain, which notably does not mention the CC-BY-SA license as a reason to do so; instead, it says only that this is important for Wikipedia's reliability), but I don't think we have any reason to believe that the license does. This distinction may seem a little like hairsplitting, but if we propose to change our rules about how to handle these things, we should be accurate about what's required for which reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It should not take a lawyer to tell you that to grant a licence you first have to have a right, and that you should not be misrepresenting that you have right when you don't. A lawyer can't give you the ability to be honest. You're not proposing to change rules, and indeed there is no proposal here, so that proposal talk of yours is irrelevant at best. (As for your false dichotomy, it is just a figment of your imagination, a useless piece of rhetoric, where you pretend you know what others think.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that to grant a license, you first have to have a right.

However, AIUI, the point of public domain content is that everyone already has the right to use it. Adding a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license to public domain material does not add restrictions to the material. The Creative Commons folks say this: "Creators may also apply Creative Commons licenses to material they create that are adapted from public domain works, or to remixed material, databases, or collections that include work in the public domain."

As far as I'm concerned, they might as well write "Yeah, you can put public domain material straight into a Wikipedia article", as our articles are practically the definition of "remixed material". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

How dishonest your statement is, no you don't have a copyright in the public domain, and the first sentence of that article says "CC licenses should not be applied to works in the worldwide public domain." It further advises to "mark public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." Again, no one can give you the ability to be honest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said that you have a copyright in the public domain. I said "everyone already has the right to use it [public domain material]".

The context of the sentence you quote is that adding restrictions when the entire work is public domain is legally ineffective. For example:

• EB1911 is public domain.
• I put the whole thing on a website with a CC-BY-SA license.
• Result I can't enforce my claimed rights, because EB1911 is still public domain.

However:

• EB1911 is public domain.
• I put one paragraph in the middle of whole page that is not public domain but has a CC-BY-SA license.
• Result: The page is partially remixed work, and it's legal. The non-public domain parts are still CC-BY-SA, and the one paragraph is still public domain.

You seem to have only a partial quotation of a relevant sentence. The full sentence is "We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction." We strongly encourage == not a requirement for the license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you stop the misdirection, that the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction, was my point, which you then totally wigged out about. The point is not to be dishonest with readers, that they are misled when you don't let them know its public domain, even when you used it and asserted your licence, as the license is only needed because of your copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "people" are misled by having a paragraph from EB1911 in the middle of a Wikipedia article, because almost nobody has any idea how the licenses work or how Wikipedia articles get written.

The ones who do know tend to be Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, and they don't care if there's a public domain paragraph in the middle, because they want the whole thing, not a single paragraph, and they want it automated, which means not looking at the contents line by line.

I disagree with your claim that we need to "let them know its public domain". Also, nothing proposed here, or in any example I've ever seen in discussions on this subject would "let them know its public domain". Spamming "According to the EB1911 entry..." into the middle of an article does not "let them know its public domain". That merely "lets them know that it's a quotation from a different publication". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop it. No one has suggested putting anything on the middle of the article. You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so. And your clearly wrong about not telling the reader, Wikipedia does it with templates already. Unless your trying to be dishonest, there is no reason not to tell. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You're clearly wrong, the CC people say so. The quotes from CC posted and linked here clearly prove that WAID is not wrong. In a discussion about honesty it is not a good look to repeatedly accuse someone of being dishonest when they are not being so. Tone down the rhetoric and start reading what other people are writing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the CC people say "mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction" when you use the CC license, and the Wikipedia guidelines agree that you should do so and even refers you to templates for that purpose, so WAID is wrong and yes it's a form of dishonesty not to give disclosure when you copy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you already, that is only a partial quote and is misleading. The full quote, from [3] is Creators may also apply Creative Commons licenses to material they create that are adapted from public domain works, or to remixed material, databases, or collections that include work in the public domain. However, in each of these instances, the license does not affect parts of the work that are unrestricted by copyright or similar rights. We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material, so that others know they are also free to use this material without legal restriction.

"We strongly encourage you to mark..." is not a requirement, but a recommendation.

Further, the CC website states {{tpq|CC licenses have a flexible attribution requirement, so there is not necessarily one correct way to provide attribution. The proper method for giving credit will depend on the medium and means you are using, and may be implemented in any reasonable manner. Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found.[4]

The templates you refer to in your 00:09 comment do not identify which content is available in the public domain, merely that some material was incorporated into the article in some way. It may or may not (still) be present in a form that is public domain. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about it, the CC still say "mark the public domain" material when you use the license and it says why, to let the reader know. And the templates still mark it as public domain material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

When someone presents evidence of you misleadingly selectively quoting, and you double down on the misleading selective quoting, twice, it is very difficult to continue assuming good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You presented no such evidence, you proved what I said is true, the CC people are the ones who say when you use the license mark the public domain, indeed you admitted they said it, when you said it's their recommendation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"Mark it" sounds like the Imperative mood. What they actually said is "We strongly encourage you to mark", which is not the imperative mood. "We strongly encourage you to" means "but it's optional, and you don't have to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The salient point is the same, marking is still something one should do, indeed they feel strongly about it. And as Wikipedia agrees in its guidance, its what Wikipedia indeed does and tries to do. Doubtful that's just coincidence, it is how responsible actors, act in this regard of good practice with CC licenses, strongly so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

But we don't do what they recommend. They want something like:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Editors here are saying that they want either "According to EB1911..." at the start of the sentence (which doesn't tell the re-user anything about the material being public domain) or they want {{EB1911}} at the end of the page (which doesn't tell the re-user which material is public domain). Neither of our standard practices actually follow the CC lawyer's optional recommendation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the CC people don't actually advise on how to mark, and again irrelevant, even if they did say there was another way to mark, we do do then what they recommend at least in spirit, because we are in accord with them that's it is something one should do. (And whomever these other editors are you wish to respond to, you should take up with them). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The CC FAQ page says We strongly encourage you to mark the public domain material. It does not say "We strongly encourage you to mark that some unidentified portion of the licensed work contains public domain material". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The CC FAQ page says there is flexibility in the how of all attribution, and that's not advice on how because they don't know what you are writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

CC says marking public domain parts of a work is encouraged but not required.

CC says attribution methods can be flexible.

Alanscottwalker says just dropping a footnote, like all the other sentences in our article, is not enough

Alanscottwalker says if you did not write it you can't release it, nor purport to release it nor make it appear you are releasing under your licence

Alanscottwalker says you cannot present it as if you are licencing it

Alanscottwalker says the CC license should not be applied to public domain work and should be marked as still public when used, so that people are not misled that it has legal restriction

One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

1) WhatamIdoing takes that out of context, and all of what I said in that full remark is usual and unsurprising, eg., the use of quotation marks for quotes is common, don't you know, that's why quotation marks basically exist. Besides, when we correctly use the PD footnote template that is more than a usual footnote.

2) WhatamIdoing already agrees you can't release what you do not own, which is a thing that is universally acknowledged by everyone. It naturally follows, in honesty you should tell them it is PD, not your license.

3 and 4) That's why you mark it PD, per Wikipedia guidelines and CC advice, there are different ways to mark it PD, including in using the footnote template and the endnote template but sure there are other ways (and anodyne exploring various ways was what the conversation could have been until WhatamIdoing derailed it with a false dichotomy of an unbridgeable gap, and got overwrought when one said telling them it is PD is what you should do in CC situations) . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Attribution seems very clear that all material that is knowing used from another source should be attributed, though how that attribution is done varies by scenario. That would mean knowing pulling from PD material in whole without providing attribution to the PD source is a violation. This doesn't mean we cannot wholesale use content from PD sources as if it were a whole article but that source should be named somewhere - that could be a talk page header, it could be a statement in an edit summary, it doesn't necessarily need to be a footnote on the mainspace article page. --Masem (t) 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair as far as that page goes but the particular guideline is WP:FREECOPY, which is somewhat more emphatic -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder whether Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources should be in Wikipedia:Plagiarism at all. Marking the copyright status of a paragraph has nothing to do with plagiarism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure it does, as with not doing plagiarism, its handling material honestly, and handling is telling the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm wondering whether the sections about copyright information should be in Wikipedia:Copyrights. For example, the Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia section might fit better in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text; Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text could go in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others.

  I don't think that copyright is primarily a matter of honesty; it is a matter of legality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fits fine where it is, various ways, and use cases of telling the reader where the words they are reading are coming from, and is about being upfront with the reader, not taking unearned credit, not misleading the reader. So yes, honesty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is kind of a fantasy to think that, to the average reader, "credit" is being considered at all. Yes, we maintain the edit history of every article, but the typical reader is here to learn something about a subject, not to look for claims of who wrote what part of it. Taken to the extreme, of course, a requirement to provide attribution for everything in the public domain would mean that we would not be able to use any individual word in the English language without noting where that word was coined. BD2412 T 21:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can see cases when the material presents subjective or questionable claims, or if we started to present out of copyright fiction as fact. I could numerous issues if we took a piece of medical journalism from the 19th century and present it as an encyclopedic piece without attribution. A straight forward biography in the PD of someone long dead is far less a problem. Masem (t) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative conflicts of interest

Our policy at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is thorough in its coverage of situations where an advocate for an organization, product, or individual is posting positive things and suppressing negative things about their favored subject, but much less so for situations where an opponent of the same tries to tip scales in the opposite direction. The policy does state that "there can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject". Without naming names, in my time here I have seen, e.g., litigants attempting to insert negative information about judges presiding over their cases and about opposing counsel (including creating articles on decidedly non-notable lawyers and firms to this end), buyers and other constituents of suppliers and services taking to Wikipedia to vent displeasures with their relationship, and others who for a litany of other personal experiences feel that some non-notable (or possibly borderline-notable) thing is so bad that it nonetheless deserves promotion to a full encyclopedia article so that it can be properly griped about. I am somewhat surprised that after all these years we do not have some kind of WP:NOTAGRIPESITE policy in place addressing the fact that a negative personal relationship between an editor and an article subject is still a COI. BD2412 T 21:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY can be seen as addressing some of this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Which names are suitable to list “given name” page? (And such page has a list of all notable people with this given name (without surname)

There is a Yuki (given name) page, list all notable Japanese people with name (without surname) Yuki, but their Chinese characters may be different (can be 雪, 幸, 由紀, 由貴, 由岐, 由樹, 友紀, 夕希, 有希, and others), the same holds for Do-yeon page, list all notable Korean people with name (without surname) Do-yeon, but their Chinese characters may be different (can be 渡然, 度妍, 度演, and others), but why not add a page for Chinese people? For example, “Yǔ-xīn (given name)” page, list all notable Chinese people with name (without surname) Yǔ-xīn, but their Chinese characters may be different (can be 語妡, 羽芯, 雨莘, 予歆, 宇馨, 禹昕, 瑀欣, and others)? All of Japanese, Korean, Chinese names use Chinese characters (Hanzi or Kanji or Hanja), which are logogram, thus unlike Linda (given name), which is a Western given name. 2402:7500:901:F0FF:2883:CBF9:5462:8F6A (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. The names are grouped based on the English spellings of the names. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course I know, all of Japanese, Chinese, Korean names can be grouped based on the English spellings, such as Yuki (Japanese), Yǔ-xīn (Chinese), Do-yeon (Korean) 49.217.63.200 (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Any individual whose given name is written in English as Yuki in several different sources, even if it isn't the primary English-language spelling. Same goes for multipart given names, if any part is spelled this way and used as the given name in several sources. Animal lover |666| 12:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Explaining how adding info helps achieve the neutral point of view

I participated in long discussions in the NPOV talk page regarding Wikipedia taking sides. Some say it should take sides in removing fringe theories. Realizing that the true issue was a debate between including vs rejecting information, I suggested that we first discuss that more fundamental issue. A participant asked me to give examples that illustrate how "describing debates instead of engaging them" helps achieve the neutral point of view. This a difficult and important challenge that I do not want to take alone. Moreover, I wish to spend less time in these discussions. So, I wrote the essay Please, explain the neutral point of view that passes the challenge to the community. It is up to the community to react or not. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem in that is that the approach you are suggesting for not taking sides appears to require the use of original research. For example when a judge is not taking sides, they are in their capacity allowed to look at all evidence and all relevant case law and then synthesize a decision from that. Ideally this show mirror establish case law but often judges cradt new concepts as to remain neutral. For us on WP, our job is only to summarize what is reported in reliable sources, and we cannot craft a conclusion not given explicitly in those sources. So we can only "not that sides" from what material is presented in reliable sources, and cannot include material that would perhaps likely make a more unbiased take on the topic if that material only originates in unreliable sources. We should work to present material in a way that appears to not take sides, but if one side of an argument is what RSes give 99% coverage of, we aren't able to craft a false balance to make both sides seem equal. — Masem (t) 16:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

As I explained, I wish to spend less time in these discussions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been a consistent point of discussion in the NPOV talk page threads. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of List of compositions in an composer infobox

Does this go against any MoS? According to this edit it does. Is a notable list simply POV? See Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as an example of the list link and Aaron Copland for a notable works list — Iadmc♫^talk  12:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion not so long back about this exact question. Unfortunately I can't find it or remember exactly what consensus it reached, but I think most people were in favour of including the link, although not necessarily with the wording "See list". I'm sad to say that it really does not surprise me to see the editor who reverted you edit warring and being obstructionate around infoboxes like it's still 2015. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the editor... Thanks for the heads up on the recent discussion. I'll look for it — Iadmc♫^talk  13:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf@Iadmc This topic came up in the past the same way it came up for Iadmc. An editor claimed at Antonio Vivaldi that these lists violated MOS:FORCELINK. So after discussing at that article's TALK, the subject was brought up at WT:MOSIBOX. After a discussion about FORCELINK, there was very little support for that these links violate FORCELINK. In that discussion some editors objected on the basis of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. That was also discussed and again there was very little support for that interpretation. In fact, quite the opposite. For whatever reason, some of the involved editors continue to edit articles citing a MOS interpretation that the community hasn't endorsed. I'm not sure where you go from here, but good luck. Nemov (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm remembering the same conversation as @Thryduulf, and my recollection was that adding a single "List of works..." link was considered preferable to a long list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If editors are knowingly editing against consensus then potentially a trip to ANI is required - especially if they are editwarring about it (or accusing others of editwarring about it). It's definitely a user conduct issue rather than a policy issue. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not a hornet nest I want to kick. It would probably require ARBCOM and given the editors at question here it seems like a headache. Nemov (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussions in the NPOV talk page

I am not sure what is the purpose of the current discussions in the NPOV talk page. I am concerned that people want to remove "Not taking sides" from the nutshell, because they feel that it can be used to prevent rejecting fringe theories. So, I wrote this essay about rejecting vs including info, because I think this fundamental issue should be discussed first. My hope is that I can stop discussing in the NPOV talk page and let others discuss. People blame me for that and claim that I must discuss, because I want to change the policy, but that is not true. I do think that a global discussion about NPOV is useful, but not in the policy talk page, not until we have a concrete proposal. So, I removed the policy from my watch list, despite the blame for not wanting to discuss. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note added: The last comment from Shooterwalker was not there and I was not aware of it when I started to write this. This last comment might have taken care of the issue. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot-like usernames

The username policy disallows users to have a username that has "bot", "script" or other related words in them because they could potentially mislead other editors. In my on-and-off time on wikipedia, I never understood why these sorts of usernames should be prohibited.

My main issue is that I feel that it's too BITEY.

Imagine being a new editor, clicking on the edit button just to see a big ugly edit notice saying that you're indefinitely blocked from editing just because you put "bot" on your username. Wouldn't it demotivate, discourage, and dissuade you from ever editing Wikipedia, or going through the process of appealing a block?

I understand that admins should attempt to communicate to the user before taking any action, but I rarely see that happen.

The thing is, having a bot-like username is not disruptive to the encyclopedia. It's not trolling any users, or going to tackle the issue with bot-like editing.

So I ask you, what is the purpose of prohibiting bot-like usernames? OzzyOlly (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If I see a user account called CitationBot, I assume it's a bot that in some way edits citations. Prohibiting bot-like usernames is intended to prevent that assumption from being misleading. If admins are not explaining the block reasoning, that is a distinct issue from the policy itself. CMD (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I could how some users might ignore edits because of their username, but first, the vast majority of times it's someone who stuck robot in their because they like robots or are otherwise entirely in good faith, and also users can check the account and its contributions. OzzyOlly (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Many usernames could be made in good faith that fall afoul of the username policy, the policy was not created to deal with bad faith usernames but to provide guidance for selecting usernames that do not impede communication and collaboration (or create potential legal issues). CMD (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My issue is that bot-like usernames don't impede communication or are disruptive. I think we're risking shutting out perfectly good editors over minor "what-ifs" OzzyOlly (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot-like usernames do both, because we editors do not communicate with bots, and expect edits by bots to be very constrained along particular lines. The username policy does not shut out any editors. CMD (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I know it's not really a total blanket ban on editors, but the issue is that I don't believe there's a net gain in doing this. I mean, recent changes automatically doesn't show you bot edits, and it's pretty easy to distinguish a human from a bot editor (especially the ones who added bot not as an attempt to communicate anything) even without having to check if it has the bot flag.

I've checked around to see how many people are blocked because of this, I've only found two instances of bot-like behavior, both of which are simply people not realizing they need to seek approval from BAG if they want to bring a bot from another project. Some are blocked for vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other stuff but the vast majority are of just regular newcomers, acting in good faith. OzzyOlly (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If an editor is so fragile that a username policy is something that causes them to leave this site forever, then don't let them know about all other policies and guidelines we have. Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If we're not (at least) issuing warnings about potentially unwanted but not automatically rejected usernames at the time of account creation, maybe we should be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It could be editors create a login on another language Wikipedia that does not have this rule. They can edit there where "bot" means something different, but editting here is a problem if it sounds like you are a robot. Some other names are a problem, eg "administrator" or "official" which could mislead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What if the person happens to be called LongBOTtom or likes the Bibles and uses TheSCRIPTures etc? There must be reasonable grounds? — Iadmc♫^talk  08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The policy doesn't disallow those. It only disallows names that suggest the user's a bot.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh OK. Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  08:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What about User:Notbot? Looks like a bot to me even though you can say he's claiming not to be a bot — Iadmc♫^talk  08:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a borderline case and should be discussed with the community. I suspect it would?be allowed, but I can't be sure unless the discussion actually takes place. Animal lover |666| 12:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I really think we should offer to do the name change on their behalf rather than make them go through all this crap and then request one and then sit around and twiddle their thumbs while they wait for us to get around to it. At the very least, give them a week to come up with a new one or something, and then block them. jp×g🗯️ 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be indefing editors because of their username, unless it's obviously offensive. I know that's kind of what we do already, but we really should just look at their edits, and see if they're WP:HTBAE or not. If they are, drop a note on their talk page, ask them what username they want, instead of mass blocks and biting. OzzyOlly (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically, this is the rule, but in practice, the few admins who deal with this say it's too much trouble to check back to see if a request has been made. They block when it's not required because it's easier for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Usernames that suggest that the underlying account is a bot should be a communicate-level prohibited name-that is they should only be blocked after a failed attempt to convince them to change name. Additionally, they should never be blocked if their primary wiki is not English-speaking, and probably not even for other English-language wikis. And merely having words like "bot" or "script" shouldn't be a problem, only names which actually imply that the account is one. Any borderline case should be discussed with the community; "borderline" should be defined as anything that a good-faith, long-time community member may support allowing. Animal lover |666| 12:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What about robot*** or bot***, these cases used bot as prefix not a suffix? -Lemonaka 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT anything that implies the user is a bot is disallowed, I'm assuming they used suffixes as an example, and not as a hard and fast rule. All I'm saying is that disallowing those usernames causes more harm than good, for resolving an issue that even a much more experienced editor like you has never seen. OzzyOlly (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@User:RobotGoggles Someone has called that your username is disallowed. Anyway, there are lots of user with a prefix instead of suffix and didn't cause any trouble. -Lemonaka 12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what this discussion is regarding but I have had this username for years. It is a reference to Robotron 2084, the arcade game that was my original username, ages ago. When I lost that email and I had to make a new account, I created a portmanteau of Robotron and "Goggles", my high school nickname. It has nothing to do with any implications that I am a bot, nor that I am a human. I think, and I may be wrong about this, that users don't think that "robot" is a word to use to describe automated users on a web forum or wiki. Robots are physical machines, not just computer programs and software. I've, in fact, never even been accused by other users of being a bot, even in heated talk pages where you would expect such an accusation to be made. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they see "RobertGoogles"? I did — Iadmc♫^talk  19:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition, Robot-Google. If someone thought " anything that implies the user is a bot is disallowed", then this username may both considered assuming that the user is a "bot" and a "COI" editor. However, unless editing disruptively, no one may give them a block just because of the username. So the topic is a little bit absurd. -Lemonaka 02:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, a bot from AmandaNP excessively positively detecting users may violate username policies, which may cause some trouble when a common newly registered user got a notice on WP:UAA just due to being detected. -Lemonaka 02:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

UAA should be done in such a way that doesn't notify reported users. Finding out about the report would be extremely BITEy for perfectly good user names, significantly BITEy for users with communicate-level disallowed usernames to find out that their names are problematic, and helpful for intentionally disruptively named users to help evade detection (I believe I covered the vast majority of reported names). Animal lover |666| 12:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666 Please report me for testing, I'd like to take a view whether they noticed reported users. -Lemonaka 14:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if instead of blocking editors, an admin can rename the account to something like "Renamed user UF7IHSJ5JKIS8K" and drop a note on their talk page to ask them to create a new username. OzzyOlly (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyOlly Sysop cannot rename user account, few sysops are global renamers. And Renamed user xxxx are left for vanished users. -Lemonaka 00:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyOlly I meant that if you contribute constructively, why would someone blocked you for your username? Just as @Animal lover 666, merely having words like "bot" or "script" shouldn't be a problem. This is not something hard and robust. -Lemonaka 02:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course it isn't robust, what I'm saying is is that it's unnecessary to resolve an effectively non-existent problem. And new users, even ones that are contributing positively do get blocked because of this rule. OzzyOlly (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Policy for chemical data page

Hello, when I was discussing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-Pyridone_(data_page), some one noted that there are lots of datapages on Category:Chemical_data_pages, much of them are created by Edgar181 (talk · contribs) who was banned years ago. These pages are in different styles, and some of them lack references. We may need a policy for such pages, for example, should they merged to main article of the related chemicals? Should they moved to Wikidata? Is there Any additional requirements for such pages since they are not an article?

I've viewed previous discussion on project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 36#Data pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 50#Chemical data pages - move to Wikidata?, no clearly consensus got. Some users who discuss this topic also banned for years. -Lemonaka 02:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Graeme Bartlett, Boghog, and Bduke, who seem to know things about chemistry.

Lemonaka, these look to me like very large infoboxes. Perhaps they could be transcluded into a collapsed section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Count me out. It is 20 years since I was a chemistry academic and I was more into physical chemistry and not individual chemicals. Bduke (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I was the someone in that discussion. I am by no means an expert in chemistry but as an outsider I would assume that people who need such information have a better source for it than Wikipedia pages. I suspect that most of the pages are pretty-much unused but I would be happy for any deletion/merge decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis in case some some of them are considered useful.

I would suggest changing the line If using the full Chembox, a supplementary page should be created as soon as time allows on WP:CHEMBOX § Supplementary data page. Even if some data pages are useful, I don't think it is useful to encourage indiscriminately creating them for all chemicals. Mgp28 (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added links to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Chemistry and Template talk:Chembox Mgp28 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the info on the datapages are in the main articles under chemboxes. I never even knew these datapages even existed. They seem to be miscellaneous pages or partly redundant compared to chemboxes that are found in main chemical articles which provide up to date info. And some that I looked at don't seem to be updated for years on chemicals properties. Some carry interesting documents like Materials Safety Datasheets (MSDS). Ramos1990 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

We should discourage datapage creation. Instead articles should be made if the information is too detailed for the main article. I like the idea of "Properties of chemical". The banning of Edgar181 really has no bearing on the quality. But the main issue with the datapages is the lack of references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea. I would be much happier with any extra information being presented in properly-sourced articles. Mgp28 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikisource seems like the most appropriate place to include additional data that is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. Masem (t) 12:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  You may mean wikidata?? -Lemonaka 12:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• I vaguely recall AFD for the lot of them a few years ago, that did not get consensus to delete. Can't find the page at the moment... DMacks (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Policy on translation

Hi, I would like to know the policy on translation. I don't mean translation of entire articles, I mean translation of specific quotes, such as for example the lyrics of a song. Should there be a) only the original language text, b) only our translation, or c) both? My concern is that a) prevents some people from understanding the article, b) in a way misquotes the sources, and c) ends up with a lot of [original text] (meaning [en text]), or similar, that clutter the article a bit. I didn't manage to find this as most translation-related page are about translation of full articles. Thank you, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Both… If the lyrics of a song are significant enough to quote, they are significant enough to include a translation. Consider a footnote if you think it would clutter the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the way Cædmon's Hymn does it.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that all looks rather odd unless your using a standard desktop resolution, as it's trying to force a specific formatting by using spaces. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the part where each half-line is separated by three spaces? That's actually conventional formatting for Middle English alliterative verse. But what I meant was the part where the translation is side by side with the original.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean the side by side doesn't line up properly, as new line placement is all over the place. These are better handled by tables, so the lines match the correct placement for each other however it's viewed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting. It uses {{verse translation}} so you're describing some kind of problem with the template rather than the article. It looks fine to me, on my laptop, desktop, tablet and phone.—S Marshall T/C 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The policy says that we should provide translation… it does not (and in my opinion, should not) specify how to do so. There are lots of different ways to provide translations… all are acceptable. Which to use can be left up to consensus at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, see MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. Ruslik_Zero 20:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Also see: WP:RSUEQ Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all! — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 07:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Titling of European imperial and royal monarchs?

In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?

1. Louis XVI
2. King Louis XVI
3. Louis XVI of France
4. King Louis XVI of France
5. Louis XVI, King of France
6. Louis XVI (king of France)
7. Louis XVI (France)

If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus.

This RfC is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs. Please respond to it there. 22:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How the understanding of due weight affects the application of NPOV

This is an attempt to continue here a "great and important topic" that started in the talk page of NPOV. In short, North8000 started by saying that the section on due weight was "obsolete on two fronts in the post-journalism era and the current media-are-now-partisan-advocates era", Philomathes2357 agreed and asked how would you rewrite it and Masem mentioned "the need to value sources far separated in both time and relationship to the topic at hand than those that are very near the topic in both ways."

Here is my reply, but it is long. I will find the way to insert it in the discussion

Here is my reply. I do not disagree that the above points are real issues. However, unless I am misunderstanding them, they are about which sources to use, which, in my understanding, seems complementary to due weight: due weight enter into consideration after we have chosen the sources that must be taken into account. I believe I can explain why this happens. Why we discuss reliable sources when the subject is due weight. I suggest that the issue is that "weight" have never been a well explained concept. So, it became a "fourre-tout" (cath-all) for any new concern we might have with any content rule of Wikipedia. In particular, "weight" suggests a total order: every content has either more weight or less weight than any other content, that is, we could order the different possible contents on a line, those on the left side having less weight than those on the right. But, this total order corresponds to nothing in reality. Knowledge is not organized in this way. It creates a fictive world: we speak of less or more weight, but it's not real. Nobody, for example, will count the number of sources that support a given content. It is always more complicated than that. Not more complicated in the sense that evaluating the weight is technically complex, but in the sense that the notion of weight itself is too simplistic and has no practical value. Yet, we somehow convinced ourselves that we can correctly order the possible information on a subject using weight. This creates false dilemmas. Again, because it's not a concept that matches with reality, the request for due weight becomes a "fourre-tout" or catch-all for any practical concern we might have with the policies. It is especially the case with concerns with sources, because they can easily, but yet in a fictive manner, be turned into a less dichotomic notion of weight on the content. I am not saying that the concerns mentioned by North8000, Philomathes2357 and Masem aren't real. I am saying that we should perhaps stop placing them in the context of a fourre-tout or catch-all, because that is not a good organization of the rules. Most importantly (perhaps I should have raised this earlier), this distracts us away from other important aspects of the neutral point of view. Really, some people even argue that NPOV is essentially the same as due weight. That is the real problem.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about whether this discussion should happen here

I think that a real in depth discussion of wp:weight would be beneficial. But if we scatter it amongst many different places we really aren't going to have it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, but this page is the right place. Please, read what it says at the start: "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines." We should only use the talk page of NPOV when we have some concrete change to propose. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [we don't have a sufficient point on the NPOV page to even start that type of discussion here. Once we have a proposed wording change on NPOV it then makes sense to call on more voices from VPP. — Masem (t) 13:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Any discussion to find a proposed wording should happen here. This is the right place. If it not, then I don't know where is the right place. It is not the NPOV talk page. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC) It should stay on the NPOV page, where there is already a large discussion on the matter. Rather than splitting it and starting a new thread here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I see two issues that I see needing to be addressed. The first is that people too often jump right to UNDUE to exclude viewpoints instead of using DUE to weigh how they should be included. The second is an over reliance on breaking news coverage. This type of coverage, by its nature, omits nuance… and we need nuance to properly weigh what is DUE. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is a subtle aspect that should not be neglected. The way you present it, the viewpoints considered already exist. In practice, this means that the statements already exist. In that case, DUE is simply the opposite of UNDUE: if a statement is proposed and it is not rejected, this means that it is accepted. This is why there is a single rule "Undue and due weight..." But, achieving the neutral point of view often requires to provide new contents, such as the arguments or simply a neutral attribution, that are not yet under consideration. This is not at all simply DUE, as the opposite of UNDUE, at the least not the way it is stated now, because it refers to a known statement or viewpoint. In contrast, the neutral point of view often requires that we think out of the box to find what must be added. This means that the notion of weight as a total order (see my hidden comment above) is not useful. The knowledge that we must read and understand is not at all organized in this manner. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  How is this different than arguing for a FALSEBALANCE? If we happen to know there are alternative views out there than what RS already cover, but otherwise not covered in RSes themselves, how are we supposed to include them? — Masem (t) 17:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not talking about alternative views out there than what RS already cover. I am restricting the discussion to views that can be found in reliable sources. I think you greatly underestimate what is required in a synthesis and what is the role of the editorial process. Once we are presented a given article and we have read and understood the reliable sources, we can judge whether or not there is FALSEBALANCE or undue weight, but that does not give you any method to avoid it. This method is the editorial process and the synthesis. My point is that the difficult part to achieve the neutral point of view (and avoid undue weight) is finding out what must be added. More attention is needed on that side. Just saying that the goal is to avoid FALSEBALANCE is not sufficient and, more importantly, only focalising on NOR, V and RS only tells us what to reject and that is, even more clearly, not sufficient. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'mn a hypothetical situation, we can collect all the RSes about a topic ever written. From that, we could make a survey to catalogue all viewpoints given and tally the number of sources that support that viewpoint. We would the have a good measure of what are significant viewpoints and insignificant ones with which can use DUE, UNDUE and Fringe to properly present the most important st neutral POV as reported in RSes.
  However we do not have that ability to collect all sources. So what I have recommended is to do a sources survey, gather like 100 RSes on the topic, randomly select say 25 or even go through all 100, to do a source survey as to estimate the weight of viewpoints and then proceed to apply DUE, etc. — Masem (t) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  You are proposing to completely change the way of writing articles in Wikipedia and what you propose seems to greatly underestimate the challenges in doing a synthesis and in the editorial process. It's difficult to further argue about that, because the process that editors use to understand sources, do a synthesis, etc. cannot really be explained and should be a shared background on the basis of which a discussion can occur. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  We are supposed to summarize viewpoints without bias. I can't see how this approach isn't good towards that. There is no invalid synthesis used. This is what editors should be doing as they write articles. Instead more commonly these days, editors have a preset goal they want to write for and only seek out sources to support that, and then often use that to assert what the majority POV is having not done a properly neutral evaluation of sources. — Masem (t) 09:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again, the complexity of the editorial process (synthesis being a part of it) does not show in your description. The fact that it says 25 reliable sources are used is not the issue. The mention of the abstract notion of weight is not so wrong in itself either. Your description is wrong because of what it does not say, not because of what it says. I will illustrate a very small part of what it does not say. A notorious source says "Life is great". The name of that source is Joe Blow, but it does not show when you read the statement. It is only mentioned in the cover page. A simple editorial process could result in the inclusion of "Life is great" in the article, with the source as a reference, just as if it was a fact that life is great. I suspect that you will stop me and say that it is not what you mean and that we should, in that case, include "Joe Blow says life is great". But, even if you understand that an attribution is required in that case, it still remains that it is not mentioned at all in your above description. That is a small part of what I mean by the complexity of the editorial process does not show in your description. This small part is emphasized in the policy nowadays, but it used to say more, for example, that arguments must be provided. Regarding the arguments, you might again stop me and say that, yes in some cases we must provide the arguments. It is great, if that is the case, but it is not true that there is no need to have the concepts of arguments in order to do that and that a mechanical simplistic process will automatically extract the arguments only by counting occurrences of sentences. So, again, your description of the editorial process says nothing about key aspects of the process. As in the case of attributions, the description of the editorial process will not and cannot provide a simple criteria to determine when the arguments must be provided, but the fact that in some cases arguments must be provided should still be a part of the description. Ideally, simple examples should be provided and explained. The serious issue, not only in your description, but also in the current text of the policy, is the emphasis on the abstract notion of weight as if it was enough to cover the essential of the process. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:YESPOV is how we know or determine when attribution should be required to a statement that appears to be a statement of opinion rather than fact. There is a grey area here and there's no way we can set down exacting standards to when attribution may be used or not, though as I've talked before, when you see agreements in sources far distant in time and independence from the topic on a seemingly opinioned statement, that's when we can start treating it as more factual and drop attribution. But there is a lot of middle ground here, far too difficult to distill into any guideline, and instead, we do have to rely on editorial concensus. I would only think the key aspect is that if there is any serious question of whether unanimity of a subjective statement has been reached, we should always default to assuming some type of attribution is needed. Masem (t) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with all of that. The idea of the NPOV policy is to convey the idea how some method, in this case attribution, works to achieve the neutral point of view. Once the idea is understood, how and when to apply the method is to be determined on a case by case basis. Some simple non polemical examples could be needed. However, in the case of attribution, I think experienced editors already understand the concept. But, as I said, attribution is only a small part of what might need to be used to achieve the neutral point of view. Other times, we need to provide the arguments. There is no telling in advance what might need to be added to achieve the neutral point of view, but the policy would benefit from more examples that convey the general idea. I am repeating my last sentence here: The serious issue, not only in your description, but also in the current text of the policy, is the emphasis on the abstract notion of weight as if it was enough to cover the essential of the process. In the discussion below, I expand on this point. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think this misses the point... Neither of those eras actually exist. There never was a time when the media didn't engage in partisan activism, it only seems that way to white men with money because thats the only POV which was presented before the current golden age of journalism (yes, we currenly live in a golden age of journalism, it has never been better). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm all for improvements to NPOV, but we've been trapped for a little while now in a cycle of unproductive discussion. Pick any random section currently at WT:NPOV and you're likely to land on an illustrative example. If anyone has a concrete change to the policy to suggest, I hope they'll do so, here or at the policy talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have a concrete change to the policy that is basically entirely unrelated to this thread. :P

  (It's "rename it". Specifically, rename it to Consensus Point of View or something similar, to avoid the common misconception that it endorses a view-from-nowhere.) Loki (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV also is used to write and structure articles as to write in a neutral voice, and that should not be consensus driven compared to identifying sources are determining where the apparent viewpoints sit in terms of weight. — Masem (t) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Discussion about terminology in terms of the impression it creates on the public, which is different from a request for the meaning of a term for our own personal need in the discussion, is also not productive unless we have already an agreement about the concepts themselves. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we ever will have an agreement about the concepts themselves, we'l have a consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I only propose to try sharing our understanding. It will succeed at the least partially among rational people and that should result in a more interesting consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would strongly object to shifting to a “Consensus Point of View”. One of the core elements of NPOV is that we don’t omit significant views, even if they are minority views. How we include them is open to discussion… whether to include them is not. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would add to this that the problem that the suggestion tried to solve is not an important one. The problem arises only when we use the definite article "The" before "Neutral Point of View", because the question is then what is this unique point of view that seems to come from nowhere. It is a moot issue, because it is easy not to do that. It is only done once in the text of the policy and, if that is a big issue, it could be modified. I see the use of the definite article as a reference to some unity among rational people, some unique point of view that is a stance to adopt when we write the articles. We could replace "the neutral point of view" by "the policy", but we would lose the feeling of unity. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Huge difference between “The” neutral POV and “A” neutral POV. In fact, the entire POINT is that there often isn’t one single POV, so we must discuss several. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  The article must present all relevant points of view. These are sources' points of view that are described in the articles. But when the policy refers to the neutral point of view, it refers to something else. It refers to an editor's point of view, a point of view that is used to describe the points of view in sources. The use of the definite article in that case, only indicates a unity among the rational editors. It does not conflict at all with the POINT that there often isn't one single POV in sources. This can be explained by an example. Joe Blow, a source, says "Life is great". "Life is great" is a source point of view. The neutral point of view is "Joe Blow says Life is great". If there are many notorious and pertinent points of view in sources, the neutral point of view includes them all. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Asking for a conclusion before a discussion can conclude is how unproductive discussion starts. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I made an attempt at consolidating the many threads on this at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Consolidated discussion on wp:weight North8000 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Again this is just a duplicate of the very long discussion at WT:NPOV. Going over the same points. I still see no reason to split it here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• This is why we use overview sources like books and literature reviews. If it's not in an overview source, you shouldn't include it unless you have a very good reason to. If there are no overview sources for the subject, then reconsider whether it needs an article. News media should be the last sources we consider after we've gone through the overview sources and academic journals and there are still gaps. If you're making heavy use of news media sources in your articles, then your articles might not be very well-sourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Or the articles could be about something which while recent is notable... And the expectation is that in time the original news media sources will be replaced by higher more recent quality ones. There has never been a requirement that there be "overview sources" in any notability standard I am aware of. The opposite in fact... WP:NOTNEWS says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a big gap between what's required and what makes a half decent article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thats going to come down to what you think "a half decent article" is and I think you and I are likely in different neighborhoods there. For me a stub is half decent, a start is decent and it goes up from there. I would also note that because our current standards are based solely on existing coverage you could have a GA which used zero overview sources and academic journals if none then existed... But I don't think you actually meant by the consenus standard, I think you meant by your own ideosyncratic standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've written two essays explaining my thoughts on this in more detail: Avoid contemporary sources and The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Also, current GA standards require that there be no original research, which includes analysis of primary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to take the time to read those essays today, although I may in the future. Was there something I said which suggested that I was advocating for original research or is that a non-sequiter? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at "you could have a GA which used zero overview sources and academic journals". If I was reviewing something like this at GAN, one of the first things I would check would be weight issues and whether the sources were used appropriately. It's certainly possible to have a well written article using only newspapers, but it's much more difficult, and I'd be looking to see whether the nominator used primary sources as an indication of weight, as opposed to just verifiability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

And what does this response have to do with original research? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

...have you read our biographies? We likely have hundreds of thousands of articles on people sourced exclusively to news sources. It would be great if "4-sentence blurb from 1918 in local paper #1" + "5-sentence blurb from 1918 in local paper #2" wasn't a GNG pass, but that's exactly what gets through AfD all the time. JoelleJay (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• There is a related discussion in the NPOV talk page. I think the NPOV talk page should be left alone until we are closer to some concrete changes. Here is the right place. North8000 proposed, as an example of a misuse of DUE, that the mention of a "Help Starving Children" program not discussed in secondary sources, should nevertheless be not rejected using WP:DUE from an article in which that program is alleged relevant, even though some editors feel it is a way to promote the current government. Following this, WhatamIdoing, avoiding the polemical aspect, said that, in general, we should be allowed to add normal information expected from an encyclopedia, i.e., ordinary facts (e.g., when and were a person was born) even if sources [centred on the topic] don't dwell on them at great length. Firefangledfeathers commented I agree about ordinary encyclopedic facts, though maybe it's a common enough caveat that it doesn't need to be mentioned here. There was then an emphasis on the distinction between not so basic info such as that one day when the factory exploded or the a company's product line and some basic information about when it was in existence, etc. Then Blueboar added that it depends on the topic of the article: Is it an article about a company, or an article about an explosion?. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Here is my reply. A central point in that discussion is the distinction between basic and not basic information in the context of a given topic. The goal is to make sure that DUE cannot prevent us from adding basic information from reliable sources: we should not have to show that they have the required weight. This is an issue with DUE, but only a small part of a more global issue with DUE that I explored a bit with Masem (see above). The notion of basic information is not the most fundamental one. We must also consider attributions, arguments, etc. The reason why basic information are OK is that they are neutral. They do not take sides. Attributions, arguments, etc. are also ways to not take sides. Let me illustrate with an example, how the editorial process, which makes use of these added informations, is very important to create a good article that is coherent and not confusing. In the sources, we see that ExpertA says the number of immigrants is 10,000 and we also see that ExpertB says that it is 50,000. If the article stupidly says "The number of immigrants is 10,000. The number of immigrant is 50,000" that is just confusing. A good editorial process will carefully read the sources and find the arguments, etc. so that the whole thing is informative, factual and there is no contradiction. After having read more carefully the sources, the editors might write: "Using method A of evaluation, the number of immigrants is 10,000, but using method B it is 50,000". This is writing on the stance of the neutral point of view. Let me emphasis that weight has not entered into consideration in that process. More weight can be given to one side than the other in the final result, but the process itself is just a rational process that does not take sides. The process is not taking sides, even if at the end a method is shown factually to be less good. Even if one side is entirely dropped, after it has been given due weight in the editorial process, this is not taking sides. The key point is that the process often requires to add information and at that stage, as illustrated in the above example, the process should not be discussed only in terms of weight. There is way too much emphasis on weight in the current text of the policy and not enough on the need to add arguments, attributions, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please Dominic, step out of the drivers seat on this. You've started so many non-concrete NPOV discussions across two separate pages, and now you're sabotaging one concrete one started by another editor. I welcome your thoughts, even when I can't understand them, but why not let other participants lead the way for a while? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think I am saying something very important in terms of the NPOV policy here. As far as my opinion regarding where the discussion should occur, it is just that I really cannot discuss in the NPOV talk page, because I do not think it is fine to have these long discussions over there, and therefore I reply here to say what I think is very important. And I am not sabotaging any discussion. On the contrary, I participate in the discussion here and I publicize it by making a summary, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not sure I understand very well what’s being discussed here; but I found the language / words used in the “summary” above not very neutral ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did my best to be neutral. Please tell me how it can be improved. I have no interest in not making a good summary: it is so easy to get to the original with the link provided. Also saying we understand nothing is not helpful in the discussion and it cannot be true. I don't buy it. It sounds more like a fallacious way to win the arguments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• Question: When we talk about the DUEness of “basic information” are we discussing RELEVANCY (ie, should article X mention factoid Y?) or are we discussing situations where sources disagree on relevant facts (source X says “sales = 5 million”, but source Y says “sales = 7 million”)? Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I generally understand people to mean everything under the WP:NPOVHOW heading when they say "due". WP:DUE is technically one subsection of that, but people generally use it to many any or all of those things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  And that may be part of the problem here… we all mean different things when we say something is DUE/UNDUE. Perhaps it would help if we coined new wiki-jargon terms to help us differentiate what we are talking about. Lumping it all under DUE is just confusing everyone. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is not terminological. The concepts themselves need to be better understood. I want to point out something that might shed some light on the problem. The expression "due weight" is also used to describe how a judge in a court of law must consider the facts and arguments. In many cases, if not all cases, it does not refer to the final ruling. It refers to the attention given to the facts and the arguments. So, when a judge does not accept the conclusion of an argument, it does not mean that the judge did not give due weight to the argument. Of course, there will be a ruling in some direction, but due weight refers to the process, not to the final ruling. I feel this is a much more realistic concept, because the ruling itself is way too complicated and depends on so many factors. The important is that it is the outcome of a process that gave due weight to the arguments and facts. In Wikipedia, if my understanding is correct, it refers to the weight given to a POV in the article. It is also a useful concept, but it is not sufficient, because it does not deal enough with the process, including what information might need to be added. That is why I feel we put too much attention on that concept in the policy. There is a lot of distinctions, BALANCE, BALASP, etc. but the fundamental difficulty remains: how to evaluate the weight? it does not cover the process, including what kind of information might need to be added. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It certainly applies to situations where sources disagree: we must give due weight to both. Relevancy is certainly a factor to consider to give due weight: the editorial process must give due weight to every point of view and the outcome will depend on relevancy to the topic. I think your question is what if there is only one point of view and we ask if it is relevant. Is this an aspect covered by DUE ? I think DUE applies as well in this case, for the same reason, because there is this point of view and the rest of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Ok… I have to bow out for a while here. We all (including me) seem to be discussing different things. It’s clear that we all think “something needs fixing at WP:DUE”… but I don’t see any agreement on what that “something” actually is. If I’m confused, my continued involvement will just add to the confusion. I will rejoin once I am clearer on what we are actually discussing. Have fun storming the castle! Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we are discussing different things. Some want to discuss due weight within some view of what it is. I am not rejecting that view, but I am questioning the need to further discuss and expand on due weight under that view, because the policy has already way too much expanded on it with all its subsections. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: Rest from this thread as much as you need, but I inform you that it is not true anymore that people are discussing different things. North8000 just added a brief summary of the issue I raise, which I copy and paste here. @Masem: that may interest you too.

  Sourcing is at the core of of wp:verifiability and wp:nor. This policy moves that into a totally different area. Which is to have editor assessment of the amount of coverage in sources completely dominate over editorial decisions regarding inclusion/exclusion of material. This leads to numerous specific types of problems.

  Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would help to outline the specific types problems, so we could discuss them one by one. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I totally agree. We must give examples that illustrate the need to add different kinds of information (arguments, methods, what is at stake, attributions, etc.), depending on the context, to achieve NPOV. But examples alone will not do the job. The general principle must be well explained too. The problem with examples is that, even if they are hypothetical to avoid polemic, they are interpreted in terms of an existing polemic. It is important to see them as illustrating instead a general idea, which does not lead to any specific decision until we face a real case: it is always applied on a case by case basis. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh… could we please start with a basic breakdown of what the problems are? … we can discuss examples of these problems later. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  What you want might not exist or it is yet to be discovered, but when we see examples (attributions, arguments, methods, etc.), we appreciate that there are various problems. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Here I further comment on the difficulty with examples. North8000's example and the subsequent examples by WhatamIdoing illustrate the difficulty. These are examples about adding "basic information" to achieve NPOV. The key point to understand these examples is to accept that the information is only added for completeness, purely for a good encyclopedic purpose. I prefer WhatamIdoing's examples in that respect, but the idea is the same in all of them. Let us take the case of the original location of a company in an article on the company. This banal information is found in the company's website, which is reliable for that purpose. Let us assume, just to make it more robust, that the info is also mentioned in another reliable source not about the company, but in a paper about the history of the location. Some might consider this as a secondary source for that particular information. This banal information has low weight, because it is not extensively discussed in sources. Nevertheless, it is added in the article on the basis of these two reliable sources, respecting common practices in Wikipedia and the concept of a synthesis of reliable sources. We could add the argument that UNDUE should not apply to basic information, but to viewpoints. Now, John the POV warrior wants to say that the company is not a US company, but is actually a Chinese company that was originally located in China and he has a conspiracy theory that it is a way for China to invade the USA. So, he argues that this information should be rejected because it is not found in secondary sources on the topic, which are necessary, he says, to show that the information was properly analysed by the sources in the context of the topic. He claims that his dubious sources are secondary sources centred on the topic and should have priority. This example is drafted in the hope that it will be understood that it is a violation of NPOV to reject in this manner that simple basic information. Nevertheless, I claim that the challenge remains and that even that example, even a better drafted example, even with the extra argument, because of the current domination of UNDUE (and BALANCE, BALASP, etc.) will not have its place in the text of the NPOV policy, simply because it does not explain UNDUE, but a case where info must be added, and thus could be misinterpreted against UNDUE. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  In that example, it would be up to John the POV warrior to demonstrate why the reliable sources that say it is a US company, in the absence of any other reliable source that says it is Chinese, should be ignored and not included. The national origin of a business is standard for WP articles so to argue against its inclusion because of a unverifiable conspiracy theory is absolutely not going to fly. This actually has nothing to do with NPOV in your example since NPOV deals with viewpoints; fighting over facts by claiming conspiracy theories is not covered by NPOV. Masem (t) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  You repeat what I wrote. I insisted that the example was constructed so that it is obvious that the information must be added. I also mentioned that it is standard practice to include basic (factual) information and I even mentioned the argument that UNDUE applies only to viewpoints. Still, read the text of the policy and tell me where it is explained with an example that the information must be added. I disagree that it has nothing to do with NPOV. Certainly, the general case about adding info (arguments, methods, what is at stake, attributions, etc), which is my main concern, has everything to do with NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For personal reasons related to my duties outside Wikipedia, I will have to stop participating in Wikipedia for about a month. This has nothing to do with this discussion per se or with whatever comments were made about it. I might reply to Masem's eventual reply, because it is not nice to close discussions too abruptly, but it will be more an acknowledgement that I read his point and that I will be thinking about it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes

arbitrary break

I find a lot of this discussion bewildering, rather meta, much talking cross-purposes or even agreeing or disagreeing about whether people are discussing the same thing, and like trying to grasp a greased pig which constantly eludes you. Also, it seems very similar in nature to the other discussion about this. Most of all, I don't see bits of ideas coalescing into cloudlets of agreement, that might someday reach a consensus about something, or really any concrete progress towards a goal at all. Am I the only one who has this impression? Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Anyone could obstruct a thread and try prevent it from being pursued with that kind of comment. I am not saying that it is what you want to do, but please realize that, if we were to accept that kind of comment as a way to prevent a thread, then any majority, assuming that a majority would even give support to that kind of comment, could obstruct a thread because they don't like where it is going. The situation is simple. The thread is relevant to this page, but if nobody is interested or can understand anything useful in the thread, it will stop by itself. Nobody will pursue a monologue here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot. You alone have written thousands of words in this discussion, and we may actually be farther away from figuring out the question than we were before, let alone the answer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing more to add to what I already said. I mean, if there was a genuine question or even some criticisms of my comments that I could respond to, I would, but here I have nothing to say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no wish to obstruct, and I cannot say that I don't like where it's going, because I do not understand where it is going. If by elucidating my lack of understanding I can give enough of a jolt to the discussion to get it back on track such that I, and perhaps others, understand it better, then that will be a service to you so you will be able to reach the conclusion you desire with greater understanding, wider agreement, and more rapidly. Yes, I'm interested, and no, I don't understand much in this thread. If it's just me, then I suggest you ignore this, and carry on with your discussion as before. You don't need my vote, and you give me too much credit to think that I can somehow "prevent a thread" (whatever that means) even if I wanted to. Does that help any? Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no right track on which we must return. From my perspective, this discussion has accomplished a lot and, if there is no more questions or criticisms about the content that is in direct relation with the policy, it's great. Some times, a discussion just help some people, may be just one or two, to improve their understanding. Even when someone don't understand the thread, but still questioned some aspects of what he understand of the policy, it is a progress. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Another exemption to 3RR and 1RR

I think an exemption should be if the content had a strong consensus from an RfC as it would've most likely received community wide input from editors who don't necessarily have the page watched. So the only way to remove or significantly rewrite the content would be through another RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is more with 1RR tbh Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The point of 1RR is to prevent disruptive edit wars. If something like this is happening, then the person making the inappropriate edits should be asked to undo their second revert. If they refuse, then they should be reported at WP:AE and an uninvolved editor can fix the offending edits. The main issue here is that AE is super intimidating and bureaucratic, even for experienced users, which discourages taking the "correct" path here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. Is it bureaucratic as in slow? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Notifying previous voters and WP:CANVASS

While reading this page about WP:CANVASS, a question popped up in my head. Several times I saw a situation when there is a !vote on a subject which was previously discussed and someone pings previous participants. Very often the previous discussion has a very srong favor of one side, and obviously bringing prev !voters will introduce a strong bias into the new discussion. Should this be considered canvassing? - Altenmann >talk 17:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No, as long as the previous discussion had not been canvassed, and all the non-blocked participants of that discussion are notified, and an attempt is made to notify for all such previous discussions. This is in effect a continuation of a previous discussion, and those people already involved. To view otherwise would encourage the constant restarting of discussions in particular venues with the hopes of avoiding the previous participants. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Selectively notifying some previous participants is canvassing… neutrally notifying all previous participants is not. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS on date format by country

Hello. Recently I learned by observation that Wikipedia tends to use DMY date formats (except for US subjects). Can someone please cite that policy? MOS:DATETIES applies to the use of English by country, as does MOS:TIES. I cannot find an applicable policy for subjects from non-English-speaking countries in MOS:NUM. I searched your archives and found mainly arguments, not really a useful pointer, sorry. Thank you for your time. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is "Retain existing format". In summary,

*The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

Jc3s5h (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. That's exactly what I need. However the administrator who corrected me thinks MOS:VAR doesn't apply. He says MOS:DATETIES covers Italian subjects. I have read, and re-read MOS:DATETIES and conclude that no, it relates to English usage by country. Where does MOS offer guidance on date format by country? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

When I use the feature at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers to search the archives for the word "countries" I see 127 discussions. The most recent discussion I found was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 161#Date Formatting for non-English speaking countries. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again. I read the entire recent discussion. Exasperating. The result was an upset stomach, not answering the question, and instead reminding me that Wikipedia does not even know whether or not it should use citation templates. (If someone were to advocate for the metric system, to do away with daylight savings time, to prohibit pharmaceutical advertising on television, and to adopt the DMY date format, they'd have my vote in the US November elections.)

I guess this means my argument is with the administrator who corrected me without consensus, and not with Wikipedia policy. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Were you guys going to notify me about this topic given you are talking about me? The height of bad manners.

I repeat - Italy uses DMY (see Date and time notation in Italy), hence why the articles on Leonardo da Vinci et al do. Retaining an existing format does not count when the existing format is incorrect. If a British person was to create an article about a US politician, would it stay DMY? No, course not. GiantSnowman 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Publications, including Wikipeda, use whatever date format is called for in their style manual. Would-be authors who don't want to follow the style manual are likely to get rejection letters or the equivalent. Looking outside the rules of the publication to see what is or isn't "correct" is the wrong approach. But if you want to change the rules, that's a different matter. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you on about? Italy uses DMY and so Italian-related topics should follow that. GiantSnowman 20:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

For evidence that a publication may use whatever date format they want see an obituary in the Telegraph about Italian pianist Maurizio Pollini which uses "24 March 2024 • 9:11am" for the timestamp of the article but "January 5 1942, died March 23 2024" for the birth and death dates of the subject of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Date and time notation in Italy says DMY is standard. DMY is also used in USA (military) but is not standard. GiantSnowman 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: MOS:DATETIES says (emphasis added) Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country. Last I checked Italy is not considered an English-speaking country, so MOS:DATETIES doesn't apply. Anomie⚔ 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

True. That said, MOS:DATEVAR simply says unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic with no mention whatsoever of English-speaking, so either GiantSnowman's reasoning is correct, just filed under the wrong MOS shortcut, or if national ties in DATEVAR was meant to apply specifically to English-speaking countries, it needs its wording adjusted. AddWittyNameHere 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Since MOS:DATEVAR immediately follows MOS:DATETIES, it could easily be that "English-speaking" was omitted from the latter because "strong national ties to the topic" was considered a reference to the previous section titled "strong national ties to a topic". When the language was originally added in December 2007 the two were even more closely associated. Checking Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 92 for contemporaneous discussion, I see some discussion over "English-language" along the lines of GiantSnowman's argument but it doesn't seem to have resulted in its removal at the time. Anomie⚔ 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that the "height of bad manners" is supposed to refer to me. I came here for information, and when a break occurred I went back to post on the original thread. Another editor had entered the conversation at length. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We should remove 'English-speaking' - otherwise we have carnage, as shown here. GiantSnowman 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:DATETIES is good for English speaking countries and their 2 formats (DMY, MDY). For countries that do not align with the 2 English formats (eg, most of Asia) then DATETIES is also fine with first come, first served. But for non-English countries such as Italy that do align with DMY or MDY, then I say we should honour that that format. It is for the same reasons that we let Yanks have their format and Brits have theirs - to align with the most likely readers and editors of those articles without constant edit wars. It is only for articles tied to YMD countries (typically Asia) and articles not tied to a specific country that should be first come, first serve.  Stepho  talk  08:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Which "most likely readers"? Wouldn't Italians be more likely to read the Italian Wikipedia, since that's in their own language? Unless maybe they're wanting to practice their English or think their own language's coverage is lacking, but do we really want to be in the position of deciding which non-English Wikipedias aren't "good enough"? Anomie⚔ 11:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As you are specifically talking about non-English speaking countries, what they do is absolutely irrelevant. How they write the dates is no more important to us than what word they use for "dog". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's reasonable to think most of the edits in the English Wikipedia will be made by editors who's first language is English. Although most editors may be able to look at a few dates in most European languages and figure out what the format is, they likely will not know what reference works best represent editorial practices in non-English speaking European languages, nor are they likely to possess copies of those works unless they're free. Requiring editors to figure all this out is an undue burden on editors. I know if I have a English-language date format question outside of Wikipedia, I'd look at, perhaps, the Chicago Manual of Style or the Associated Press Stylebook, and I know which shelf I keep them on. If I had a similar question about Polish, I would have no idea where to look. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A place to look is the Italian Wikipedia, it:Aiuto:Manuale di stile#Date which permits only DMY ordering. This concurs with Date and time notation in Italy, the sources used in that article, and every relevant hit (reliable and unreliable) I found on the first three pages of a google search for What date order does Italy use?. In other words, every relevant bit of evidence suggests that articles about Italy should use DMY. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest that anybody interested in making that change explain it at MOS talk and maybe we'll see the guidelines revised? For now, MOS:DATEVAR has precedence. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to enforce the Italian Wikipedia's manual of style you can go and do so on Italian Wikipedia. There is and should be absolutely no requirement for English-speaking Wikipedians writing in English on English Wikipedia to know or care what it.wiki's manual of style says. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You have completely misinterpreted my comment. I am not advocating applying the Italian Wikipedia's MoS to the English Wikipedia, but for using the Italian Wikipedia's MoS as one point of evidence regarding what Italian style guides state is correct usage in Italian/in Italy. Jc3s5h stated they wouldn't know where to look to find what is correct in Italian, I simply pointed out places to look to find the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

and I have already highlighted Date and time notation in Italy multiple times. GiantSnowman 17:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally think it's pretty silly to have MDY set on articles whose topic doesn't touch North America. It's just awkward to work with when most quotes and literature will be in the other format. Remsense诉 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, we could solve all of this by uniformly using metric dating (largest to smallest, or year-month-day-hour-minute-second, etc). That would be the international standard, but of course I'm just stirring the pot here. Risker (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

ISO 8601 FTW! RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This conversation should be merged with the parallel conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#DATETIES_vs._DATEVAR. There are currently editors contributing to both discussions on both pages. Doremo (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like User:EEng edited MOS:DATEVAR to clarify it as a result of this discussion, User:GiantSnowman decided to edit war over it because it clarified that his interpretation wasn't what the guideline intended, and then someone started a discussion about the edit on WT:MOSDATE which quickly shifted to discussing whether "English-speaking" should be removed from both MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR. I'm not sure "merging" this discussion would be appropriate, but notifying that people here who have something useful to contribute there (and aren't afraid to get into a MOS-warring discussions) should do is. Anomie⚔ 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; this summary is helpful. Doremo (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not edit war. GiantSnowman 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like European date format incorporated into the MOS, e.g. 19 June 2024 becomes 19th June 2024. It actually a British date format as well, that I use on a daily basis. The last time I tried to introduce it, the pushback from the MOS gang was tremendous, yet is used by millions of folk daily across Europe. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's bad enough we have two formats in use, let's not add more, please. RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)