Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Enforcement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created. Archiving old project proposal. Ajpolino (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]

WikiProject to help eliminate the hundreds of NFCC#9 and #10c violations. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group
List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
A dedicated group of editors to deal specifically with violations of NFCC Policies 9 and 10c is needed to help reduce the large number of violations of those policies.

Support

[edit]

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) shifting to oppose[reply]
  3. A long time coming. Support. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose: (shifted from support) NFCC enforcement has been going on for many years now. Despite the enormous efforts of many editors through thousands upon thousands of edits to uphold the policy, the abuse (not use...abuse) of NFCC continues to get higher and higher. I believe enforcement efforts have failed. The purpose of this project would be to mop up the mess after tanker train cars repeatedly crash, day in day out, for years...without addressing the root issues. Thus, I think this project is completely wasted effort. More creative solutions must be found rather than trying to deal with the vast problems symptomatically (such as this for example). --Hammersoft (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Previous nomination
  • Oppose As someone who has done more NFCC work than most, I see this as being massively problematic idea. The possibility of this making NFCC enforcement even more militarized than it has been presents an unacceptable risk (The way that Article Rescue Squadron and Counter-Vandalism Unit have militarized AfD and vandalism fighting). Rescue The tasks that you're proposing to do, enforcement of NFCC 9 and 10, don't need a project. NFCC 9 is done largely by a bot already. NFCC 10 gains nothing from institutionalization. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list should not have even one entry as long as this has the support of the WMF. It is not my intention to militarize NFCC enforcement more than it has been. We need to raise awareness of the NFCC drama across the community and I have a bit of hope this project might be a step in that direction. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And not having a WikiProject does not stop you from working on that. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am the last border before Wikipedia sinking into anarchy then. If only I knew whether I should feel proud or horrified. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly the attitude that makes me worried about this project. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is no attitude, it is fact. A policy that is not being enforced and ignored by a majority of editors is useless. And it's no long distance from not caring about WP:NFCC#Policy to not caring about WP:BLP or any other policy. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sad, sad reality is that en.wikipedia frankly doesn't care about the Foundation's directive. Oh sure, we can point to WP:NFCC and say "See? We have an EDP!" But, in reality, it's an absurd joke. Proof positive of this is the reality of more than 430,000 non-free images on this "free" project.

But the core root of the problem perhaps goes to the reality that we do an extremely poor job of educating our users about the non-negotiability of the project's stance as a free content project. We get very little buy in on this. Ask 100 experienced editors here whether our NFCC implementation is too strict, too weak, or just right, and I'm confident that of the subset that actually have any idea about this, a majority will say too strong. So we have an uphill battle, a battle that honestly was lost a long, long time ago.

The result? We end up with articles like Squad Leader, where we have 21 non-free images. It's been that way for years. Further, most of the rationales on the images are woefully inadequate, even to the point of nearly being absent (and that's with a liberal eye). Somehow or another, we've convinced ourselves that we have to have non-free content scattered all over articles in order to be encyclopedic. Once we add it, and plaster the images with extremely weak rationales, nearly everyone looks the other way. Those that don't are routinely harassed, RfC'd, ArbCom'd, and debated to the point of exhaustion. More NFCC patrollers have been pushed off the project by open hostility from NFCC inclusionists than there are NFCC patrollers extant.

Case example of this;

  • 1 January 2012, I tag Indian rupee with {{non-free}} [1]
  • 2 January 2012, Sumanch creates Mahatma Gandhi Series (banknotes), doubling the use of the banknote images on the project. [2]
  • 2 January 2012, Sumanch removes the tag, claiming an exemption under WP:NFCI #3. [3]
  • 2 January 2012, Sumanch posts to the article talk page claiming exemption. See discussion.
  • 9 January 2012, Sumanch, unconvinced by the arguments laid out to him in the discussion, starts an RfC about the use. See RfC. A month goes by, and NOBODY agrees with him.

And guess what? At the end of the day, despite all this, all of the banknote images are still on the project, and the non-free overuse hasn't been reduced one bit, because Sumanch created Mahatma Gandhi Series (banknotes), and the images are still in (over)use there. This is an impossible battle.

We also end up with people like Fastily, who is very much aware of the NFCC policy, yet routinely adds non-free images like File:Bullworth.jpeg to User:Fastily/TMI. Sven, your belief that a bot is handling NFCC 9 is false hope. Even after DASHBot's latest removal on the page, there's still three violations. DASHBot has informed Fastily of the violations on that page dozens of times since October. Here's the first warning. Yet, Fastily keeps adding the violations in, willfully violating the policy. Does anyone stop him? Nope. This is not isolated. There are many experienced editors who violate NFCC policy.

Sven, you don't want this debate "militarized". That's ok. Frankly, the debate is over. Supporters of NFCC lost, and we are no longer a free content resource. There is no 'rescue' that can be accomplished. The middle ground that this project has attempted to maintain has utterly failed.

And the ludicrous outcome; it's ok to have Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe, but a project to help us comply with Foundation directives? Oh no, can't have that. Nonononono, that would be militarization! Can't have that. And that, ladies and gentleman, is why en.wikipedia will always fail its EDP requirements as long as the middle ground is attempted. I'm going to go talk to the 10,000 monkees at my door who want to talk to me about the script for Hamlet they've worked out. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to dislike the extent to which fair use that is accepted on Wikipedia. However, to be blunt, you two are not good choices as ambassadors for NFCC enforcement. As evidenced by this page, you approach the matter with a level of passion and intractability that makes the process inherently hostile, and undermines your own abilities to do the work you want to do. I'm not saying your intentions are bad, they're not, but you do come across as zealots. Yes, there are people that actively wish to see the NFCC go unenforced, but the reason Betacommand was prevented from enforcing the NFCC was that he was impossible to work with; he didn't communicate effectively and he came across as too abrasive. This is the same abrasiveness that I see in the two of you, and that is the source of my worry here. Believe me, I want the NFCC enforced, but until the two of you stop treating it like an offensive, you're hurting your own cause. The face of NFCC enforcement needs to be patient, willing to explain the same thing over and over in simple terms, willing to accept that some people just won't get it, or will take it personally. I've had very little trouble in enforcement because I am willing to do those things. If I thought that the two of you would be able to do that, I would be supporting this, not opposing it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've experienced little in the way of undermining of my abilities to conduct NFCC enforcement. To be blunt, I don't care what people think of me and I act in accordance with that and with policy on Wikipedia. I don't have or want any friends here, including Δ and Toshio. That annoys some people. Tough. if that counts as "abrasive", I'm unapologetic. Laying this blame at my feet I find rather humorous. I've never intentionally insulted anyone here, and apologized when an afront was perceived. Yet, I've been insulted dozens of times, and directly attacked far more. Is there some negative outcome from my approach? Sure. But, that effect is negligible compared to the outright hostility most people on this project have towards NFCC enforcement. You think I'm a zealot? My attitude pales in comparison to the the attitudes I see routinely expressed by NFCC inclusionsists. But, I'm the problem. ooook.
  • I've performed thousands upon thousands upon thousands of NFCC edits. In the last year, I've performed 4150 edits to mainspace. Of those, 2232 (about 54%) of them were to remove blatant #10c violations. Is the problem any better with respect to #10c violations? No, it's not. In fact, it's actually worse. To lay blame for this at Toshio's and my feet is absurd. If most people actually cared about WP:NFCC there wouldn't BE an NFCC 10c problem.
  • Meanwhile, in your 2727 edits in mainspace over the last year, I find _23_ edits mentioning NFC or NFCC in the edit summary. Your NFCC edits in the mainspace are 1/100th of mine. You have done several hundred NFCC related edits to image space, including 203 FurD's, and 153 other FUR related edits. But is that situation any better than it was a year ago? No.
  • Regardless of whether this project gets approval from this group, to my knowledge there is no policy preventing a group of editors from forming a project and coordinating their efforts under said project. Even if that didn't happen, us "zealots" continue this work. Not approving this project won't stop that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Sven:WP:NFCCE says: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created"
If a user isn't understanding why I enforce NFCC the way I do, that user can ask me on my talk page and I am willing to explain why I do what I do. And as for your claim of me treating NFCC enforcement like an offensive: WP:NFCC#Policy clearly says
"There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia."
Furthermore WP:NFCCE says
"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in ... should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added."
Thus my handling of NFCC enforcement is compliant with policy. Can you tell me how else you expect me to work with regards to NFCC enforcement?
Furthermore I would like to see some evidence for your claim that I "approach the matter with a level of passion and intractability that makes the process inherently hostile". How are my edits such as this one hostile? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/NFCC_Enforcement&oldid=1086086395"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy