Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - Wikipedia

This could use more eyes but there's a proposal on language categorization ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#How_should_languages_be_categorized. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

A key feature of Wikipedia is dispute resolution. An effective dispute resolution system must be fair to all involved. People have a right to outline an accusation and make a defense. It may be necessary to get other people involved. Unfortunately, I have discovered the WP:Canvassing rule severely works against less experienced person. At first, I thought no person would rightly apply the Canvassing rule to restrict the right of someone to defend themselves. The rule is there to prevent votestacking on content discussion and to prevent similar manipulations of outcome. However several editors have said it certainly applies, on the basis that the person seeking help to defend themselves, would create an untenable bias by the provider of the help. This is explained at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Right_to_defend_yourself

No court, arbitration panel or tribunal that seeks justice would ever entertain such a rule. An accused person is allowed a wide range of freedoms to present a defense to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Within Wikipedia it is against the principle of good faith, to assume that someone asked to be a witness to a series of events, or provide a character reference, is automatically biased. Finally, it puts an inexperienced editor at a distinct disadvantage, because such a rule is not only unexpected, it is contrary to normal human reaction when accused. If a person wants to defend themselves, they would naturally seek out people and make an appeal for their help. If that gets someone in trouble, and prevents them from defending the accusation, the WP:Canvassing rule produces outcomes that are manifestly unjust. It provides a way to game the system.

Consequently, I argue that the WP:Canvasing rule must be clarified. Seeking help should not be unduly prescriptive, but consistent with being civil as per any other communication. It should be mostly automatic that people who were connected in the dispute can be included. The defendant could ask a few other people to provide an indication of their normal behaviour, because their conduct should be judged in that context. A person with poor conduct in general is unlikely to get support from others, and certainly not just because it was demanded. If a person can organise a conspiracy of friends to avoid a block, then it's the conspiracy which should be identified and prosecuted heavily, for such a thing is a greater injustice that individual acts.

The net result is that a general exception to the canvasing rule is essential is necessary for a just dispute system. Without a just system, there can be no positive outcome from dispute resolution. The wording would be: "The canvasing guidelines are not intended to prevent a person from requesting help, obtaining witness accounts or character descriptions when they are defending themselves from accusations in dispute resolution forums. Such requests must be civil and include a link to the forum where the dispute is being discussed. Excessive requests for help, especially to editors unconnected with the dispute, may still be considered as a factor in determining the outcome of a dispute."

I look forward to a more just dispute resolution system. Travelmite (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I'd replied to Travelmite on Canvassing policy talk page but will make my view known to the wider forum. Wikipedia is not here to provide justice in disputes and it is certainly not a legal forum where character reference and assistance is required. Everything that shows what sort of person any editor is can be obtained from the contributions history. Every interaction, except for oversighted ones, can be brought into the light. Editors who are positively inclined towards the editor in question will find the positive diffs while those seeking the balance will find the negative diffs. Dispute resolution is not about finding positive outcomes but with finding an outcome that does the least damage to the encyclopedia. If both editors come out of the dispute without wrist slaps, blocks or bans then that should be seen as a good outcome. A positive outcome is when the article content being dispute is improved. I oppose the wording as proposed as encourages the formation of cliques and walled gardens. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Strong oppose. Travelmite has not shown that he/she cannot "request help, obtain witness accounts or character descriptions" while staying within the limits imposed by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification and Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. WP:Canvasing already makes it clear that we should avoid asking only editors who we know will be on our side (ie stacking the odds in our favour instead of relying on the merits of the argument). Further, WP:Canvasing already says a good way to ask for help is to put a polite post on a relevant project page. No need for change.  Stepho  talk  04:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for these comments. The current policy assumes that when an accused person other asks for help, they must be doing so as a tricky strategy, as though anyone wearing boots is going to kick someone. It assumes a person is familiar with the canvassing policy and it's practicalities. Nowhere in the dispute help pages is there a reference to the idea that arranging a defence to an accusation is improper. Having read them, I'm still unclear how prohibiting vote-stacking or jury-stacking is equivalent to seeking help. Of course, vote-stacking is improper, but the policy doesn't prohibit vote-stacking if it's done with nice messages. What is ironic, is that a person not in a dispute apparently is free to seek help. Travelmite (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the key difference is in how the other editors are chosen. If you cherry pick the help by asking only the editors that you are pretty sure will be on your side, then this is akin to vote stacking and is considered canvassing. If you ask particular editors from both sides (perhaps they have participated in previous discussions) then this is not canvassing. If you ask particular editors for comments about yourself (eg "am I doing the right thing", "am I being too picky", "am I being too soft") but don't ask them to participate in the article discussion itself then this is not canvassing. If you ask (politely) in a project talk page then this will attract editors from both sides and is not canvassing. So, it is possible to ask for help without canvassing. The key idea is to get a broad base of opinions, not just those on your side.  Stepho  talk  06:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is reasonable in the context of discussing an article. Not so reasonable when the person is facing being permanently blocked. Then the priority is checking the penalty is just. In a dispute between a experienced POV pusher and say an eager young student, the POV pusher can organise their allegation free of this constraint, and the student is left defenseless. The very act of seeking help can get the student in more difficulty. An admin just assumes the persons contacted are biased. Maybe I should seek out some cases to gather some more evidence, because it's better than theoretical situations. Travelmite (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have just learnt that this rule may also limits the person preparing a valid allegation. A person would seek out other victims to prepare a strong case. Those communications could be construed as "canvassing" and swing the case. Travelmite (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose There is no need for "witnesses" because everything is logged. The software itself is the ultimate witness. Evidence is expected to be presented in the form of diffs or other links.

New editors are not expected to know all of the Policies. In the case of inadvertent canvassing, normally the only result is an educational warning not to do it again, and canvassed individuals may be set aside when evaluating the outcome. Alsee (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - declare your defense, including relevant links. These links are the only witnesses you need - because we know you didn't fabricate them. On the outside chance you were a good enough hacker to fabricate them, you could equally fabricate the testimony of other users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose: As I tried to explain at WT:CANVASS#Right to defend yourself, there are a number of ways that other editors can be notified of such things without running into problems with WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification. Moreover, while it's understandable that an editor may be upset when they are being discussed at AN/ANI/AN3 (something similar happened to me and it's not pleasant), the editor still has to try and stay cool and resist the impulse to immediately do something that may only exacerbate the situation. This is what, in my opinion, WP:CANVASS is all about. As others have pointed out above, it's highly unlikely for a new editors to be bitten over something like canvassing at ANI, unless they take a battleground approach to the matter and draw further attention upon themselves per WP:BOOMERANG. The saying is that "diffs don't lie", so asking others to be a "character witness" is really quite pointless if the diffs show the editor to be in the wrong. Similarly, no diffs or bad diffs almost surely mean that no action is going to be taken, so once again no need for character witnesses. The best thing to do in such situations is to stick to commenting on the diffs and provide clarification using relevant policies and guidelines as needed. Other editors will then examine all the arguments presented and then try and reach a consensus as to what kind of action (if any) needs to be taken. It's not a vote where the "winner" is determined by who brings more "friends" to the discussion. The same thing basically applies to article content disputes, other noticeboard discussions or deletion discussions, etc. where arguments based upon policies and guidelines almost always carry more weight than those which are not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a new copyright strategy that is being considered by the Legal department. The consultation will take the form of an open discussion, and we hope to receive a wide range of thoughts and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see new RfC on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. Funcrunch (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The annual Request For Comment to set rules for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. As in recent years, the rules from 2015 will remain in place unless changed by consensus during this RFC. The RFC is scheduled to last approximately 30 days, and should end after September 30. For anyone interested in participating, the RFC can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016. Thanks in advance for your participation. Monty₈₄₅ 01:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

WP:Categorization is not clear on this matter (see the title). For example, suppose Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States was a set category, should then Nuclear power in the United States be included in this category?. Contradictory answers can be given:

1. No, because “Nuclear power in the United States” is not a member of the set of “Nuclear power stations in the United States” which is the membership criterion for this category.
2. Yes, because “The article itself should be a member of the eponymous category” (from WP:EPON)

Is there an established policy, guideline, or de-facto good practice on this?.

I couldn't find a better place where to ask this question, Is there is a more appropriate venue please tell me. Thanks.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC).Reply

Best practice is to make an attempt to link to the closest related article in the description text of any category. In some cases, this will be an exact textual match, but sometimes it will only be a near match. The example you gave should be linked. --Jayron32 01:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have started a discussion to adjust the protection policy related to manual posting, please see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#ECP_-_Remove_manual_AN_posting_requirement if you are interested. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ever since I first came here, I have seen a number of debates and controversies over whether certain mass killings should qualify as terrorism and be categorized under it because of the perpetrators' motivations, and what the inclusion criteria is. For example, in regards to the killing of Jo Cox, some users believe that it should be categorized as terrorism now because the perpetrator espoused right-wing motivations and killed a major political leader, and others believe that it should wait at the moment because legal proceedings are still ongoing and the perpetrator's mental health should also be considered. In another example, the Charleston church shooting: some users think it should be terrorism, others believe it should not be because WP:RS seems to vary on the issue.

There have also been content disputes and concerns over lists of terrorist attacks (i.e. Lone wolf (terrorism), List of terrorist incidents, 2016, Terrorism in the United States, etc.), some of which I was involved in. In the disputes, users debate about whether certain attacks should be included because they look like terrorism even though officials in the investigation, and RS, have not mentioned or confirmed a terrorist motivation. For example, I was in a discussion with a couple of users at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 over whether the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers articles should be included in that list, even though they weren't officially categorized and no terrorist angle was mentioned in the investigation or RS.

In addition, I had seen some odd examples listed in Lone wolf (terrorism), which I had since removed. For example, the 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers ([1]), the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting ([2]), and the 2014 Isla Vista killings ([3]) were listed but removed by me because of terrorism was unconfirmed or even not mentioned at all. But given the motives of these events (anti-government, racism, sexism), I would understand why people would feel a need to list them as examples.

With the consideration that most of my examples are content disputes, I understand that VPP is not where content disputes are resolved. However, I saw a commonality with all of these examples and more: a widely varying opinion between users over what should qualify as a terrorist attack, and a lack of common understanding over inclusion criteria. For example, if the Dallas shooting is considered racially-motivated violence, should that be classified as a terrorist attack with that kind of thinking? Or would it be a WP:OR violation to say it now when terrorism has not actually been confirmed by officials and RS?

My apologies for the long post, or if anything doesn't seem to be clear, or if this is even relevant here. This is my first rodeo here. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given that "terrorism" is a WP:LABEL, it should only be applied in a factual manner if the authorities responsible for investigating the case have decided to call it as such. I have seen many cases of editors using either public commentary (but not from people involved in the investigates) as well as their own personal theories (that is, OR) to declare something factually as "terrorism" which we absolutely should not be doing per LABEL. It's reasonable to cite attributed opinion that something may be terrorism, but that's different from treating it as a fact (as for example, listing something on that List of terrorist incidents article). --MASEM (t) 17:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely wrong to call something terrorism that hasn't been so designated by responsible authorities. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion on Talk:Terrorism in Europe#Distinction goes in a similar direction. Theoretically spoken, there may be cases where the reputable sources call it "terrorism" and a clear statement by the authorities is missing (maybe because they want to hide something, think of states without free media). These cases should be included, too, based on good sources in the respective article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's a careful line to draw here. I can see a case where there is an incident of international impact where the nation that it happened in and leading the investigation have opted to not call it terrorism, but high-level officials in other nations (who are likely going to have information on the investigation in detail) call it terrorism. That's a time to be reasonably careful on using the term. On the other hand, if in the same situation, it's not high-level officials of other nations, but the press at large that want to call it terrorism (without having any other information), that's a problem. A key thing I've seen it basically using the word of the press or people that are not in any position of authority to assert something is terrorism, which we should be avoiding. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Largely d'accord with this, the other way round we have to keep in mind, that not everything which is called "terrorism" by authoritarian states is in fact "terrorism". For Turkey, most of the Kurds are terrorists, for Russia the Ukrainians and vice versa, but in fact this can be doubted with very good reasons. So we also have to be careful with such labels by authorities, especially of more or less authoritarian states. And this is the point, where the free media are "back in the match", which quote e.g. experts on terrorism.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to mention, but there is also a special case when Islamic terrorism is involved. For example, a great number of terrorist attacks in lists are Islamic terrorist attacks, most of them very recent. In cases like Nice, Orlando, and the like, where the investigation is still ongoing, would it be a WP:OR violation to label them as terrorism (even if sources and officials say it is) when the investigation may ultimately not come to that conclusion. Hypothetically speaking, of course, but from my position, the distinction between terrorism and not terrorism seems to be clearer for non-Islamic attacks.

Also, if an attack barely gets any coverage and only has passing mentions in list articles (see the articles in List of terrorist incidents, 2016 for examples), should we include that even though the investigation may still be ongoing? Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

It can always happen that later investigations prove officials and the media wrong, Islamistic or not. Wikipedia should be based on the best sources available and therefore show their actual state of knowledge (e.g. as in the respective article), but it can never grant that the state of knowledge of the officials doesn't change. In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported. But terrorism in some regions (near ISIL territory for example) is happening on a daily base. Maybe in some cases there will never be an investigation sufficing Western standards, but there are also sources that are usually reliable for such regions which cover also the official statements. And I view it as very important that Wikipedia collects such incidents because they show the whole tragic dimension of that phenomenon.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

"In fact, I don't know of too many cases regarding terrorism, where things turned out to be completely different than initially reported." I can definitely name the 2016 Munich shooting as an example. Everyone, including the media, got really riled up when the eyewitness account mentioning "Allahu akbar" got involved in the scoop. Then more details about the perpetrator came in, we realized he is either a right-wing extremist or someone out to copycat a school shooting, and the Islamic terrorism angle got mostly thrown out the window (save for those conspiracy theorists who would believe the German media is covering it all up). Parsley Man (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, and how many of the terrorist cases is that? 0,01%? Besides of that, it was clear relatively fast that this case was a little special. In the overwhelming majority of the other cases the things are not completely different than we are initially told in the media, especially not in the Islamistic sector. There are even cases which seem to be "normal" stabbings like the case of Safia S. in Hanover main station, that later turned out to be a terrorist act. Or the Islamistic teenagers in Essen who blew up the Sikh temple. Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts? I would say no, that is the normal error margin of media/officials/Wikipedia.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Now, is it violation of a label that we put those away initially as "normal" criminal acts?" Yes, when WP:NOR is concerned. I don't know if sources or officials have classified that Sikh temple bombing was classified as a terrorist attack, but if not, then there's definitely a problem if we go with category guns blazing and then the investigation proves us wrong. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Parsley Man (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the List of terrorist incidents, 2016, it was decided that we would included suspected terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist attacks are included when the perpetrator appears to have a political motivation, or if the attack occurs in an area where terrorist activities are common and in the fashion of what a terrorist organization would do. Why is this? I would say the overwhelming majority of attacks in these lists are suspected terror attacks. This is because the attacks often take a long time to investigate, with sometimes the results never being released in the media if the attack is minor. The list likely would not really have anything on it if we did not include these attacks. A politically motivated attack is the same thing as a terrorist attack. If sources state that the perp appears to be politically motivated, but it does not state terrorism, the attack should be added. Beejsterb (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess the question here is whether it should be considered a WP:NOR violation or not, if sources say the attack in question was politically motivated but do not mention terrorism. I guess it does seem obvious in some cases but other times it does not, Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward for instance. Racial motivation, from what I'm seeing, falls into the spectrum of political motives but the shooting did not look like terrorism, judging by the media coverage, at least. Parsley Man (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that on many images of Area 51, signs can be seen saying that photography is prohibited. In the light of this, surely all such images should be deleted? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Unclear see Freedom of panorama and that it applies to buildings in the US. If taken from outside the boundaries of the site, then it becomes an issue of public place. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Almost certainly not. For one thing, in a lot of cases such buildings may fall under {{PD-USGov}} unless they were built by contractors, or commons:COM:De minimis would apply. And if memory serves, Area 51 is old enough that limitations of commons:COM:FOP#United States would not apply because of missing copyright notices and the "public space" rule not existing yet. Finally, I am not sure if such "No photos" rules affect the FoP status at all. Probably a better question for commons:COM:VPC though, more copyright experts work there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@RegistryKey and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Why does everyone always assume that copyright law is the only law we have to abide by and if images are illegal for any other reason, it's all hunky-dory? As I mentioned on the talk, it is explicitly illegal to photograph defense installations. I also don't edit Commons anymore, for legal and moral reasons. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to assume anything. Commons policy spells out that Commons is not concerned with non-copyright restrictions of this sort. If there is a problem, it's between the photographer and the institution forbidding photography. c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid that I am not morally able to participate in a site that freely admits to violating US law and makes no attempt to rectify it. Good-bye. Commons had this problem, Wikipedia does, I'm sure all the Wikimedia projects also do, so you won't be seeing me around. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply