→Redefining ECP: 2 cents
|
|||
(36 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
||
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]</noinclude> |
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]</noinclude> |
||
== Allowing Master's theses when not used to dispute more reliable sources == |
|||
[[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] generally allows PhD dissertations and generally disallows Master's theses, unless they have had "significant scholarly influence." I feel that this is really locking us out from a lot of very reliable sourcing. I understand that these are often not quite as polished as something like a monograph or PhD dissertation, but often times they are the highest quality sources available about very niche subject matters. They are subject to professional review, they cite their sources, and they are published by reliable institutions. Can we really say that these are less reliable than an entry in a historical society newsletter or an online news report from an assuredly hurried local journalist? |
|||
Just today I encountered a 2022 masters thesis, ''East Meets West in Cheeloo University ''({{doi|10.7916/scmr-6237}}). As far as I can tell, this is the most comprehensive source available on the architecture of [[Cheeloo University]]. But I can't use it, since it's a masters thesis, and as far as Google Scholar can tell, it has yet to be cited elsewhere. |
|||
I feel that people should be allowed to use masters theses in certain fields (I can only speak for the humanities, I'd be interested to know this from a STEM perspective) so long as A) They are not used to dispute something said in reliable sources and B) They are not used to confer notability. I feel this would strike a good balance of allowing us to use these often very useful sources, while still recognizing that a book, journal article, or PhD thesis is probably preferable if you have the choice between them. I'd love to hear other folks thoughts! <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 00:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:In the stem area I would expect that important research would also be published in journals. I would discourage use of Masters theses rather than disallow. One issue is lack of accessability. Even when referenced, may not be accessible. The lack of "peer" review can also mean there are more errors included. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 02:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Is there any public information generally available about the process of publishing masters' theses for a given university? What level of scrutiny or review is generally applied, etc. I think considering whatever information is available there could lend a lot of clarity to deciding whether a given thesis is reliable. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* The rule in question is a counsel of perfection but perfect is the enemy of good and so [[WP:IAR]] applies. By coincidence, notice that [[The Structure of Literature|today's featured article]] is about a work which started as a dissertation. The main thing I notice about this is that the readership for this topic is tiny. If you're working on a topic like the architecture of an obscure university that no longer exists, then you're mainly writing to please yourself and so should do what you think best. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 06:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I both agree and don't, to the extent that I don't think less popular topics should be viewed as {{em|less important}} as regards our content policies. Of course, I certainly understand the distinction between there being less available coupled with internal motivation, and that. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 06:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I'd question whether Master's theses are really {{tq|subject to professional review}} or {{tq|published by reliable institutions}}. By professional review, I assume you mean that somebody examines them. But unlike a PhD examination or journal peer review, which both act as barriers to publication, getting a low grade on a Master's thesis doesn't stop the thesis existing. The author can still put it online – presumably without the grade. Also, and speaking as a university teacher myself, the person who examined it examined it ''as a Master's thesis'', not as a piece of publishable research. A middling or good grade means "I think the student did a good job with this material" not "I think this is a reliable source on this subject". As for publication, in my experience most Master's theses are not published (though those that are, e.g. in a journal, certainly become reliable sources). Some university libraries make archived copies available online, but this isn't really the same thing because again, any Master's theses that meets the formal requirements for submission will be there, regardless of quality. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 07:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Fair enough, I didn't think about the barrier to publication angle. I guess if we think about them more along the lines of a newspaper article (which can be of wildly different quality) then we could just evaluate them on their own merits. Just like how there is great journalistic coverage of some areas of history and archaeology, there is horrible, misleading coverage; and if it's not used as a major source in the article, it's pretty easy to spot when it's the latter. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small> 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Purely anecdotal, but with respect to professional review, the only person on my master's thesis committee (my director) who understood what I was doing left on sabbatical half-way through. His replacement as chair kept me on the straight and narrow in my use of statistics, but knew no more about what I was doing than the rest of the committee. In retrospect, I can say that my thesis did not add anything useful to the sum total of human knowledge. On the other hand, I have dug into the bibliography section in a thesis to find sources I had otherwise missed, but that is a long shot. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* If we would accept a blog post from the university itself (which would be self-published, primary, ''and'' non-independent) for the same kind of contents, then we should probably accept a master's thesis for it. A source only needs to be strong enough to support the weight of the claims it's cited for. If they're non-controversial (e.g., everyone agrees that there are some buildings on the campus), then the source doesn't have to be ideal. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I believe that you are referring to [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. My understanding of that is that we could cite the thesis for statements about the thesis and the author of the thesis, but not for statements about topics covered by the thesis. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Not really. With the possible exception of contentious BLP matter, I think we should accept it for pretty much all non-controversial content. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree that rigid exclusion of master's theses does not serve the project well. The language in [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] regarding Ph.D. dissertations would seem also to address many of the concerns above: {{tq| Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties.}} (Of course, this issue would also be solved more efficiently by treating this guideline ''like a guideline'' to be applied flexibly in service of the mission rather than as a pseudo-policy that must be followed rigidly except in the most exceptional circumstances -- but that seems to be a bit too much to ask these days.) -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] ([[User talk:Visviva|talk]]) 04:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I have come across some very high quality master's theses and agree that rigid exclusion of master's theses does not serve the project well. I had to work around this on [[Revolt of the Admirals]] and it was painful. In the case of my own master's thesis, it was thoroughly reviewed by two external examiners (as well as, of course, by my supervisor). It is available online and widely cited in the literature. The PhD was reviewed by three external reviewers, but is not as widely cited, and while also available online, I never got around to publishing it. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I think there's some regional differences here. In Europe, a Master's thesis isn't examined by a committee and their are no external examiners, just the supervisor. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 06:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree that theses provide weak arguments for controversial points, as do other sources often accepted as reliable such as news articles or [[Replication crisis|unreplicated one-off studies]] (I also think that there are many PhD dissertations that are questionable.) But, in writing research on historical topics, I these can be very useful and informative. They often provide a well-cited overview of a particularly esoteric topic that may not be the focus of a book or major study, which interested readers can read an analyze themselves. I like using them when they can be linked so readers can view them. As others have pointed out, At bare minimum, I'd like to be able to cite them even if they aren't standalone. (e.g., sometimes I can get the point cited by a book by a mainstream press, but it covers the topic in a sentence, whereas the dissertation gives the in-depth detail.) [[User:Wtfiv|Wtfiv]] ([[User talk:Wtfiv|talk]]) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Theses are a mixed bag. Master's thesis even more so. I can say that mine went through a rigorous review process (I had a former president of the Canadian Association of Physicists as an external examiner on mine) as well as one other physics PhD, and had two physics PhD as my supervisors. The comments/feedback were substantive and relevant, and had to be addressed before acceptance. |
|||
:But go to a different department, in the same university, and the reviewing standards and requirements for a master's thesis are quite different.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:As Visviva said above, if people treat the guideline like a policy that "no masters theses can be cited for anything (or they can only be cited if lots of other people cite and repeat what they say, making it unnecessary to cite them), because we assume no masters thesis has ever been reviewed and made reliable; meanwhile, PhD theses are reliable because we're assuming every one has been reviewed by reviewers who know what they were doing", that's a problem (in fact, it's two problems separated by a semicolon). I think it would make more sense, as Visviva seems to be suggesting, to apply the same kinds of evaluative criteria as are supposed to be applied to PhD theses to both PhD and Masters theses, plus OP's suggestion that we don't use them to contradict a more reliable source; together with the fact that tighter sourcing requirements are already in effect for BLPs, medical topics, and various contentious topics, we'd in practice only cite masters theses when there was reason to think they were reliable for the uncontentious thing we were citing them for, e.g. the architecture of a particular university, which seems reasonable. (As WhatamIdoing said, if we'd accept a passing aside in blog post by the university as reliable for saying the buildings were neoclassical, it seems weird to reject a masters thesis all about the buildings being neoclassical.) Notability seems like a separate issue and it seems reasonable to say masters theses also don't impart much notability. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*As per [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]]'s comment, if the underlying research in a master's thesis is of sufficient quality to source, the author should have or would have submitted it for publication to a journal. If sources used in the literature review are beneficial, then just directly cite those, don't cite the thesis (I've used many master's theses to discover references for WP articles, but I've never directly cited the thesis). My thesis was looked at by external examiners but it was certainly not done with the same critical eye as they would have applied to a Ph.D. dissertation. Opening this door seems like a recipe for disaster. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 01:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I think I agree most with WhatamIdoing here. Master's theses face nowhere near the oversight of that PhD theses do, but it's still generally going to be much more thorough work than the newspaper articles that make up the bulk of Wikipedia citations. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 01:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I used to teach a Master's course at the University of Birmingham (UK)aimed at non-college grads. The thesis was just part of the course. There's no way these could have been used as sources for Wikipedia. I've seen a US thesis which was also part of a taught course and not reliably published <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doug Weller|contribs]]) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*What Doug said. The only use I'd ever consider appropriate for a Masters thesis not already cited in a published reliable source would be as a research tool for references. The level of scrutiny such material gets varies wildly, and none of it is being examined as material intended for publication. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I would sooner accept an ''undergraduate'' research paper/thesis than say, a newspaper story from 1900 (which often seem embellished). There's no such thing as a medium that is universally perfect by nature of how it is created. Even the [[Voyager Record]] reflects the biases of its creation and the time it was made, despite the immense cost and effort put into it. Wikipedians who place newspaper articles above master's theses are cherry-picking which forms of subpar scholarship they care about. There are many, many examples or allegations of subpar reporting from A-grade or B-grade news organizations. You could browse through criticism sections on [[The New York Times]] or [[Reuters]], or reference the criticism levied by people like [[Alec Karakatsanis]]. Master's theses should be allowed like most other "reliable" sources - on a case by case basis, subject to comparison to other reliable sources. Such theses are often the best or only source on obscure topics, and average arrive closer to verifiability than their exclusion would. [[User:Anonymous-232|Anonymous-232]] ([[User talk:Anonymous-232|talk]]) 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:This is not really addressing the issues being discussed, which are more about a lack of peer review allowing basic errors in rhetoric and research to be transmitted, rather than the more abstract cultural concerns you're gesturing to. We can't "use them on a case by case basis" if there's no other sources to check them for errors against. They're not reliable.[[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 20:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::The problem is that we have a simple, easy to understand rule against citing Bachelor's and Master's theses, and by overturning it, the doors would be opened wide for abuse. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 11:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've used and seen used master's theses in articles, and agree with a lot of the people here. I'm not sure which if any academic departments fully fact check every claim in the master's theses they go on to approve, but the same is true for most publication media. My position can be summarised as {{xt|Use cautiously and replace with better source where possible.}}{{pb}}{{small|Also, honestly, have yall seen what's out there in the wild in mainspace? The people who frequent this board tend to be responsible editors, and take our sourcing pretty seriously, but the amount of truly garbage sources cited like they're totally unproblematic is deafening. A master's thesis, despite the potential flaws, is head and shoulders above a blog post, a self-published book, a blog post someone uploaded to academia.edu, a google books search result, ''ViralFinance.info'''s "Top 150 Most Disuptive Blockchainers of 2019", an Amazon product listing, a 1930s travellogue published by a popular printing house but cited like it's a legitimate historical source for a period centuries prior, literature that's long been superseded by newer research that's more difficult to access than one-click borrowing from Internet Archive, etc.}}{{pb}}Sorry I kinda lost the trail there. In most cases, a master's thesis will not be the best source. But I don't think we need to (nor, indeed, do) straitjacket ourselves with a blanket ban if no one else has bothered to publish on some obscuratum that would improve an article to include. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 20:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Almost completely unrelated, but if we had something like a {{code|Reference:}} namespace, we could attach things like levels of confidence in a source, and represent that somehow to the reader, like changing the little blue clicky numbers from blue to orange for sources that are not too tier. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] yes! This is something [[:meta:WikiCite/Shared Citations]] could address ~ 🦝 [[User:Shushugah|Shushugah]] (he/him • [[User talk:Shushugah|talk]]) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I see I somehow haven't registered my written support for that project, despite being aware of it for a year or so. I see the allure of wanting to make a big software architecture like that work all across the Wikimedia ecosystem, and have concerns about how it would translate technically into different spaces, ✂️ [three paragraphs of yelling at clouds trimmed and binned] [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 04:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen]] adds icons according to RSP. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 02:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh right there is that, and [[WP:UPSD]] and [[User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter]] also provide borderline similar functionality. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Ready for the mainspace == |
== Ready for the mainspace == |
||
Line 414: | Line 375: | ||
{{colored box|title=Here's what you just posted to AN/I:|content= |
{{colored box|title=Here's what you just posted to AN/I:|content= |
||
{{cquote|1=And what the hell is that supposed to mean? You're being very unconsructive here, in fact, you're being a bit of a jerk. Go away, because you are '''SO''' not helping. — <span style="padding:2px; background-color:purple; font-weight:bold; color:aliceblue; border-radius:2px;">Swanky Signature <span class="monospaced">(''talk'' :: ''contribs'')</span></span>}}<br/><br/> |
{{cquote|1=And what the hell is that supposed to mean? You're being very unconsructive here, in fact, you're being a bit of a jerk. Go away, because you are '''SO''' not helping. — <span style="padding:2px; background-color:purple; font-weight:bold; color:aliceblue; border-radius:2px;">Swanky Signature <span class="monospaced">(''talk'' :: ''contribs'')</span></span>}}<br /><br /> |
||
{{button|Yes, post this comment.}}{{button|Wait, go back.}}|title-color=Red|background-title-color=antiquewhite|icon=Pending-protection-shackle-double-ticks.svg}} |
{{button|Yes, post this comment.}}{{button|Wait, go back.}}|title-color=Red|background-title-color=antiquewhite|icon=Pending-protection-shackle-double-ticks.svg}} |
||
Line 424: | Line 385: | ||
:I avoid ANI as much as possible but I like this idea, and I'm very impressed by this design. That's some legendary Wikitext work. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-thickness: 10%;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 07:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
:I avoid ANI as much as possible but I like this idea, and I'm very impressed by this design. That's some legendary Wikitext work. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-thickness: 10%;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 07:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:We could just have it restricted to popping up for comments that contained the string <code>shit</code>, <code>piss</code>, <code>fuck</code>, <code>cunt</code>, <code>twat</code>, <code>hell</code>, <code>damn</code> etc. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
:We could just have it restricted to popping up for comments that contained the string <code>shit</code>, <code>piss</code>, <code>fuck</code>, <code>cunt</code>, <code>twat</code>, <code>hell</code>, <code>damn</code> etc. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
::I like this idea. [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 00:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::And that could be easily done with an edit filter (I think). [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 01:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Why those? [[Scunthorpe problem]]s aside, profanity is only very mildly correlated with the actual problems at ANI. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 11:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well: a script to detect if someone's saying "asshole" takes fifteen seconds to write, whereas a script to detect if someone's being an asshole takes fifteen years of dedicated research. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia:MOS on Music / Song Track Listing Credits == |
== Wikipedia:MOS on Music / Song Track Listing Credits == |
||
Line 459: | Line 424: | ||
::Because muh hard work putting it all together! I hate to say this, but I think the answer is "keep sending it back to AFD until we get it right". [[Special:Contributions/35.139.154.158|35.139.154.158]] ([[User talk:35.139.154.158|talk]]) 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
::Because muh hard work putting it all together! I hate to say this, but I think the answer is "keep sending it back to AFD until we get it right". [[Special:Contributions/35.139.154.158|35.139.154.158]] ([[User talk:35.139.154.158|talk]]) 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::Can you give one way in which the existence of these pages affects you whatsoever? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
:::Can you give one way in which the existence of these pages affects you whatsoever? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Currently, if I look at the page [[Meanings of minor-planet names]], there are several tables in the article, with hundreds of cells in them, and the majority of them are redirects back to the parent page because they don't have anything in them. Whereas the ones that actually do have entries have specific articles. I think this is basically fine, even if it does give rise to the weird edge-case situation where we end up with some list-section article with onle one or two or three entries. "Fixing" this, I reckon, would involve going through and restructuring all of the articles to have different spans of objects in them, which I think would be insanely complicated. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Formatting for mobile phones == |
|||
Most editors exclusively use a desktop device. They make their additions or changes, preview the result to check appearance, save and move on. |
|||
But 75% of Wikipedia traffic comes from mobile devices and only 25% from desktops [https://www.semrush.com/website/wikipedia.org/overview/], so the appearance of an article on a phone is much more important than its appearance on a larger screen. The techies have done an excellent job of making the mobile interface attractive, but there is nothing they can do about the content. Long paragraphs and tables with many columns are hard or impossible to read on the phone. Short sections with two or three lines on a desktop may look odd, but work well on a phone where the sections fill half the screen.There are probably many other ways in which content looks good on a desktop, but bad on a phone, or vice-versa. |
|||
This is to suggest that |
|||
*A group of editors work out broad principles for the way articles should be structured so they look good on a phone, which is much the most important reader interface, and if possible also look good on a desktop |
|||
*The group then systematically reviews the Wikipedia guidlines to make sure they encourage best practices. |
|||
Comments? [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 12:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think paragraph length should be considered, and I don't see much else to do other than just splitting excessively-wide tables. (And even these have the easy fix option of using overflow:auto.) [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 14:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::As someone who almost exclusively uses my phone to both read and edit WP… my reaction is: “meh”. |
|||
::Paragraph length is not a problem. Very wide tables can be annoying, but I can deal with it. Plus, I can always switch over to “desktop” mode if need be. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do our readers know how to switch to desktop mode? I can't find a setting. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's at the bottom of the page. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But If our readers have trouble viewing an article, would they scroll to the foot of the article and click that link? They might click on "settings" to see if there is another way to view it. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 00:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I find very large paragraphs hard to read even on a laptop. I get lost in them. The news sites I read (BBC, Economist, Washington Post etc.) consistently keep paragraphs below half a screen long. I assume they have style guides that recommend that as easier on readers. |
|||
::I have no idea what overflow:auto is. Is that something that should be mentioned in [[Help:Table]], as simething editors should add to large tables? [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've started [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#table scrollbar suggestion?|a thread at VPT about adding scrollbars]].<br>I don't think any policy change for shorter paragraphs will happen. There's a lot of hardliners that insist Wikipedia being an encyclopedia means we shouldn't have decoration and shouldn't be comparing ourselves to newspapers. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Form factor is a consideration in improving readability with paragraph length. Newspapers, with their narrower column width, use shorter paragraphs than books, for example. Text aimed for phones would very much benefit from shorter paragraphs to break up the text column. Appropriate guidance is tricky for web pages due to the wide variety of viewing devices. I do think that editors ought to keep this in mind, though, and lean towards making paragraphs shorter than they might otherwise. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I suppose, maybe, we could add support for a new markup element like <nowiki><mb></nowiki> (mobile break) that would be ignored in desktop mode, but start a new paragraph on a mobile. I don't know if anyone would use it though. We will never get acceptance on any fixed limit to paragraph size, but should ask editors to at least check how their articles look on phones. |
|||
:::::That is straying beyond the point of this idea, which is just to get a working group together to discuss ways editors could improve the appearance of their articles on phones, and to adjust our guidelines accordingly. There must be a number of things that would help. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's not just a matter of inserting paragraph breaks – paragraphs should be constructed to have smaller scopes. The key issue is as you've stated: there are practical limits to how many different devices editors are willing or able to check. The design problem is that a scalable responsive design needs to constrain the layout possibilities in specific ways, but this goes against decades of English Wikipedia tradition. For example, historically, editors position elements as they see fit based on their limited testing. To improve display on narrow width devices, there should be strict rules to follow on floating elements left or right, with size and spacing specifications. I might be mistaken, but my instinct is that there isn't sufficient support for this amongst those who like to discuss these matters. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::(Tapping this out with one finger on my phone) If Wikipedia ignores advances in UI design it will slowly die. I know there is a lot of inertia, but am inclined to be optimistic. Maybe there are three separate threads. |
|||
:::::::1. Guidelines for editors to make their articles more readable on phones, |
|||
:::::::2. Technical fixes to make them more readable, |
|||
:::::::3. Ways to make editors more concerned about how the 75% of readers will view their work. |
|||
:::::::The last may be the most important. If the buttons at the foot of the desktop edit panel were "Save . Preview . Mobile view . Diffs", and Mobile View showed a window with the article in a typical-sized mobile phone frame, that could do a lot of good. I am sure others who are interested in the future of the mobile Wikipedia will have better ideas, maybe some radical ones. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 00:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Wikitext at present doesn't provide a way to automatically constrain layout – say, with target slots for floated elements with specific sizes and spacing. Introducing this would be theoretically possible, but would be a very large effort in converting existing articles. So I suspect the existing approach of just relying on editors manually identifying problematic layout and making ad hoc corrections will continue. That has its limits, but probably has the best benefit-cost ratio for now. |
|||
::::::::The Vector 2022 skin follows responsive design principles, but they aren't enabled due to community resistance. If at some point the community is convinced to allow it to be switched on, there is the possibility of unifying the default mobile skin with the default desktop skin. This will make it easier for editors to simulate the narrow width display of any device, since they will have roughly (though not necessarily exactly) the same appearance as on a narrow desktop window. In the meantime, I agree that a "Preview with default mobile skin" could be helpful. |
|||
::::::::Regarding general writing guidelines: it's hard to give specific advice when the device display widths can vary so much. I think editors won't want to write for the narrowest width, which would lean towards many small paragraphs, and less dependence on images or other inset info. For better or worse, the reaction to the Vector 2022 skin revealed there are many vocal editors who will remain unconvinced without specific A-B testing performed with a wide sampling of the Wikipedia audience (and maybe not even then). Thus I can only think of broad guidance such as "keep in mind that narrower displays will have less room for floated elements", "paragraphs will take up more vertical space on narrow displays, so keep them a bit shorter", and "avoid really wide tables". I'm dubious, though, that a significant number of editors would find this advice and remember it. It could still be helpful for editors who go around fixing up articles, of course. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
I think we will have to rely on editors doing the formatting, rater than trying to enforce it. Most editors will not read the advice, let alone follow it, but it can be useful as something to refer to during discussions, even if it has to be a bit vague. Editors doing clean-up may find it useful. I find that images generally work quite well on the mobile. I use thumbnails with default properties, not too many or they stray far from the text they illustrate. On a mobile, they appear in front of rhe text, which is fine. They should never be more than illustrations, obviously, because blind people cannot see them. That is another subject... But what it we proposed the following at the foot of the desktop edit window? |
|||
{{User:Aymatth2/sandbox/savebuttons}} |
|||
That is, strongly encourage editors to look at the 75% view before saving. Of course, some will pay no attention to how the page looks on a phone, but more editors may start considering it. Would there be violent pushback from the editor community if this were done? [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 12:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"The techies have done an excellent job of making the mobile interface attractive," Sorry, but this statement makes me distrust anything you say. The mobile interface is a hideous, godforsaken monstrosity. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 11:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree. It's lightweight and optimized. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:An imperfect approach would be to have a preview link with <syntaxhighlight lang="urlencoded" inline>&useskin=Minerva</syntaxhighlight> at the end. <ins>Update: <syntaxhighlight lang="urlencoded" inline>&useformat=mobile</syntaxhighlight> is used by the mobile preview gadget.</ins> Editors would have to adjust their browser window width to test different sizes. This could be implemented in a user script or gadget to test it out. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 13:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I am not sure that many different sizes are important. If it looks ok on a 40-character wide phone/window and on the editor's full screen desktop, it probably looks ok on other sizes too. But the Mobile preview should open in a window that can be resized. That is detail though. The big question is whether a change like this, affecting all editors, has a hope of being accepted. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 14:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The imperfect approach I am thinking of would just be a link similar to the existing preview link, so it would appear in the same window in the same way. You can resize the window to check any width you want. (I don't really agree that a page can just be checked with one smaller size, but that's a finer level of procedure.) I suggested implementing it as a user script or gadget first, so people can try it out and then its usefulness can be gauged. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There's a gadget "Mobile sidebar preview: show page in mobile view while browsing the desktop site" which shows the mobile view at the side when on the desktop site. I feel like there used to be a gadget/script to do something similar only when editing/previewing, but can't find it now. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<span style="color: #080;">"?!"</span>]] 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think "Mobile preview" needs to open a separate window about 2.5" text width plus horizontal and vertical scroll bars . It should not be a gadget that editors have to install, and should not fill the edit window. When I use mobile preview on a page after saving, it shows just a bit narrower than the desktop view, otherwise not much different. Images and infoboxes float as usual. I do not get the effect of viewing on the phone. I can resize the window, although I cannot get it quite as narrow as my phone, but I don't think editors will bother to resize. They will glance at the mobile view, looks fine, move on. When they click on "Mobile preview" they should see it the way it will look on a typical phone. They can then resize to see, e.g., a larger mobile screen. |
|||
:::::That said, if we bring this to a formal proposal, we can encourage editors to try the gadget and try mobile preview and resizing. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Many gadgets are on by default. The reference hover-preview is a gadget. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I would caution against treating your typical experience as being typical for everyone; there are a lot of different devices out there and conditions vary in different countries. That being said, I enabled the mobile sidebar preview (thanks, [[User:The wub]]!) and I think it does a reasonable job. If it could be enhanced to support preview during editing, that would be great. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Assuming a separate window opens, default the size of a typical phone, we could give it a menu (maybe drop-down or icons) to let the user select other common formats. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Personally, I think just something ~400px wide is enough; the height doesn't really matter much, and the iPhone SE is 375px wide. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 20:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Sure; that functionality could be implemented now in the gadget, even without a separate window. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I can.t find the gadget. Maybe it has been disabled. I used to have the script that did it while editing, but got rid of it recently. I had not used it for years, and it was acting up. |
|||
:::::[[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think this is triggerable from site JS and I'm not saying that a "Mobile preview" button should be abandoned, but most desktop browsers have a responsive-viewport mode. You open DevTools (usually with F12 or Ctrl/Cmd+Shift+i), and click on the button with a phone and a tablet. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I am sure there is a way. If we got agreement, which may be very tough, we should be able to get the MediaWiki software changed to support it if need be. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's a browser thing, so as a matter of security I'd expect it to be isolated from webpages. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, I think it would be a security vulnerability if a web site could trigger your dev tools to launch. I'm aware of this functionality, but I think something like the existing mobile preview gadget is much more likely to be used by a broader segment of editors. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Jinx! [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I see websites opening sub-windows all the time. No idea how they do it, but I don't think there is a security issue. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sub-windows are just other websites while opening devtools is sort of like opening your command prompt. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 18:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Also note that opening up lots of windows is a common ad spam and malware technique, so browsers started to block that behaviour. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I can't see the browsers blocking Wikipedia when it opens a second window within the first. But maybe it could be done with some sort of <div> floating on top of the edit window, and displaying the visible part of the mobile rendering of the edit box content. I have great faith in the ability of the techies to find a way. Assuming it can be done, what would the more conservative editors object about? They still have the "Desktop preview" button, but now they can see the mobile 75% view. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 22:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Browsers usually block new windows that aren't directly from the click of a button or link. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::In this case the new window would, I presume, be from a click on a link. The target url would return a window the right size and position. But the real question is whether the editors who think mobile phones are just a passing fad will reject the idea out of hand. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 00:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I believe we should reject editors who believe phones are a passing fad instead.<br>Anyway, I feel like the approach of the gadget—adding a button that makes the mobile version show up at the side—would be better than necessitating the editor to switch to another window or unfullscreen the previous one. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 00:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I wasn't commenting on a specific implementation for either the existing gadget or a new gadget/script. I was just responding to your reply to my comment on the security concern with opening new windows. Changing the page layout to add a sidebar, which is done by the current mobile preview gadget, sounds more like what you mean by a "sub-window" (there is no sub-window concept per se in HTML, leaving frames aside). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{User:Aymatth2/sandbox/savebuttons}} |
|||
::::::::The important thing, I think, is |
|||
::::::::*The editor sees a line of buttons at the foot of the edit window something like the crude mock-up above |
|||
::::::::*"Mobile preview" is placed before "Desktop preview", since it shows what 75% of readers will see |
|||
::::::::*When they click "Mobile preview", the editor sees the edited page in mobile format, the same size as on a typical phone, with horizontal and vertical scroll bars if needed. |
|||
::::::::*It would be nice, but inessential, to be able to resize the preview to see the appearance on smaller or larger phones or tablets. |
|||
::::::::If the cleanest way to achieve that is to open a sidebar, no problem. We should stay receptive to other techniques. As I type this reply, I see a preview that shows how it will look on the desktop below. I don't know how that is done. Maybe a sidebar is just a variant. |
|||
::::::::My main concern is resistance to adding yet another button to the editing interface. I wish we could anticipate the objections. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 13:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, you've already mentioned your concern, and I stated how implementing the feature in a gadget or script would allow feedback to be collected. |
|||
:::::::::Have you tried the current mobile preview gadget? It adds a preview off to the side of the main text flow. You can close it and then there will be a button in the horizontal menu bar below the article title that lets you re-enable the preview. I think using the same interface would be a good way to go. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 14:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I can't find the gadget. I go to Preferences - Gadgets and it is not in the list. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 14:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I found the problem. Not using the default skin. Yes, that looks good, although it needs sideways scrolling. |
|||
::::::::::I agree. A good first step would be to get a version built for the edit window, and get feedback. Once any problems were cleared, it could be launched from the new "Mobile preview" button. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 14:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I think it would be better to just reuse the existing mobile preview button that appears in the horizontal menu bar when the preview sidebar has been collapsed. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Do you mean the menu bar right at the foot of the page? |
|||
:::::::::::::<small>Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Code of Conduct Developers Statistics Cookie statement Mobile view</small> |
|||
::::::::::::I think very few editors know it exists. We need something conspicuous when the editor goes to save their changes. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::No. With the mobile preview gadget enabled, there is a sidebar with the mobile preview, which has an "X" button that lets you close it. As I mentioned, this causes a button to appear in the horizontal menu bar below the article title that lets you re-enable the preview (next to the watchlist star). If the gadget were extended so it supported previewing the page during editing, then editors could just turn on the preview using the same button. This re-uses their experience with the mobile preview gadget. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::The little [[File:Phone-apple-iphone.svg|20px]] button at the top right. I see it now. That is good when editors are testing out mobile preview, but as long as the gadget is optional, few will see it. Once it is enabled by default, some may click on it. But until a "Mobile Preview" button is enabled beside the "Save Changes" button, editors are much more likely to preview the desktop version and not the mobile version. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Getting people to try out an optional gadget is how we can gain feedback before changing defaults (such as enabling the gadget) for everyone. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Fully agree. The first step is to get the gadget written. I assume it will be an adaptation of the current gadget, adapted to use the edit window text. Then it is optional for a while until fully proven, then default for a while, then the last step is the "Mobile Preview" button. It could take quite a long time. What would be the right forum to ask for development of the gadget? [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 22:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{outdent|14}} [[WP:US/R]] [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. I will wait a few days to see if anyone wants to add to this discussion, then go there. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 17:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Resources on severe mental illness pages == |
== Resources on severe mental illness pages == |
||
Line 634: | Line 511: | ||
**Wikipedia is not prepared to recommend products and services. If we start doing this, then certain organizations get government, foundation, and other funding and while others do not. Organizations will pay staff to persuade Wikipedians, sponsor Wikipedians to travel, send their staff people to conferences, talk about the partnership in the media, and advise the wiki community with expertise that is difficult to evaluate. Managing endorsements requires staff, and the first step is not to make endorsements to see what happens. |
**Wikipedia is not prepared to recommend products and services. If we start doing this, then certain organizations get government, foundation, and other funding and while others do not. Organizations will pay staff to persuade Wikipedians, sponsor Wikipedians to travel, send their staff people to conferences, talk about the partnership in the media, and advise the wiki community with expertise that is difficult to evaluate. Managing endorsements requires staff, and the first step is not to make endorsements to see what happens. |
||
:Again, I support the development of the idea, and someone should apply for a grant to develop all the reasons for and against. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
:Again, I support the development of the idea, and someone should apply for a grant to develop all the reasons for and against. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Very good point, especially regarding the non-neutral position that Wikipedia would have to take when recommending services. These are not comparable to external links, which are just showing links where relevant information can be found, without recommending the services provided in these links.<br>It's not even a question of "managing endorsements would be complicated". Managing endorsements would make us fundamentally non-neutral. We shouldn't be recommending products and services to begin with. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
::Very good point, especially regarding the non-neutral position that Wikipedia would have to take when recommending services. These are not comparable to external links, which are just showing links where relevant information can be found, without recommending the services provided in these links.<br />It's not even a question of "managing endorsements would be complicated". Managing endorsements would make us fundamentally non-neutral. We shouldn't be recommending products and services to begin with. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product. All of the arguments above can easily be handled by just providing official resources. Additionally, the anti-LGBT hotline falls under WP:FRINGE and isn#t relevenat to the current discussion. [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 16:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product. All of the arguments above can easily be handled by just providing official resources. Additionally, the anti-LGBT hotline falls under WP:FRINGE and isn#t relevenat to the current discussion. [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 16:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::{{tq|A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product.}} It is, by definition, a service. And anti-LGBT hotlines are relevant to the discussion because, sadly, some countries' official resources ''are'' anti-LGBT. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
::::{{tq|A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product.}} It is, by definition, a service. And anti-LGBT hotlines are relevant to the discussion because, sadly, some countries' official resources ''are'' anti-LGBT. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
Line 693: | Line 570: | ||
::::::Resources that I had in mind when I posted the proposal (not meeting the criteria of 'maybe we should stick to government-sponsored organizations' because I don't have time at the moment to do research and I happen to know of these off the top of my head) would be [https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/ NEDA] and [https://anad.org/eating-disorder-helpline/ ANAD], whose hotlines connects individuals with treatment options (ANAD was the first ED hotline to exist which I think is also a neat fact to stick in an article somewhere), [https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert EatRight], which has a directory of nutritionists and dieticians (who are an essential part of recovery, as people with EDs need a very specific diet to avoid [[refeeding syndrome]]), [https://www.nami.org/findsupport/ NAMI], which provides general mental health group support, and [https://eatingdisordersanonymous.org/ Eating Disorders Anonymous], which might be a helpful tool for someone who doesn't need traditional inpatient treatment. [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 04:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
::::::Resources that I had in mind when I posted the proposal (not meeting the criteria of 'maybe we should stick to government-sponsored organizations' because I don't have time at the moment to do research and I happen to know of these off the top of my head) would be [https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/ NEDA] and [https://anad.org/eating-disorder-helpline/ ANAD], whose hotlines connects individuals with treatment options (ANAD was the first ED hotline to exist which I think is also a neat fact to stick in an article somewhere), [https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert EatRight], which has a directory of nutritionists and dieticians (who are an essential part of recovery, as people with EDs need a very specific diet to avoid [[refeeding syndrome]]), [https://www.nami.org/findsupport/ NAMI], which provides general mental health group support, and [https://eatingdisordersanonymous.org/ Eating Disorders Anonymous], which might be a helpful tool for someone who doesn't need traditional inpatient treatment. [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 04:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Slightly more awake addition to this: Eating Disorders Anonymous is also a good resource for those who can’t ''access'' inpatient treatment, but it’s an option many in ED communities are completely unaware exists, so I believe linking that one specifically would have a rapid positive impact on those affected, especially for users in the US (where it can be prohibitively expensive and/or not covered by insurance) and the UK (where I’m less familiar with the topic, but believe there are also some issues there with waiting times and quality of treatment facilities). [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::Slightly more awake addition to this: Eating Disorders Anonymous is also a good resource for those who can’t ''access'' inpatient treatment, but it’s an option many in ED communities are completely unaware exists, so I believe linking that one specifically would have a rapid positive impact on those affected, especially for users in the US (where it can be prohibitively expensive and/or not covered by insurance) and the UK (where I’m less familiar with the topic, but believe there are also some issues there with waiting times and quality of treatment facilities). [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
*I have to confess that I have never really understood the overall meme of mental health hotlines. You see them in a bunch of cases (notoriously, near the ends of subway platforms). My main experience with them is that they are obnoxiously and insistently slathered over my screen if I try to look something up which happens to be tangentially related to a contentious mental health topic. The impulse is very easy to understand, as it's a syllogism you see all over the place: "suicide is a tragedy, something should be done about tragedies, and this is something". Here is something to consider: many of our readers get to Wikipedia by way of a search engine. If you search for "suicide" you're ''already'' forced to scroll past a full screen's worth of paternalistic lecturing from Google LLC, so are we actually providing any benefit by making our readers sit through a second one after they click the Wikipedia link? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 00:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If you don't believe me, here is what you see when you Google "suicide" (I am in California so your results may vary): |
|||
|
|||
{| width="50%" |
|||
|
|||
| {{big|Help is available}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| {{small|Speak with someone today}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| '''88 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline''' |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| {{small|'''Languages:''' English, Spanish}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| {{small|'''Hours:''' Available 24 hours}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| {{clickable button|asdf|Call 988}} |
|||
|
|||
| {{clickable button|asdf|Text 988}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| {{clickable button|asdf|Chat}} |
|||
|
|||
| {{clickable button|asdf|Official website}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| |
|||
|
|||
| {{right|Learn more • Feedback}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
|colspan="3" | {{big|Connect with people you trust}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
|colspan="3" | {{small|From <u>International Association for Suicide Prevention</u> · <u>Learn more</u>}} |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
|colspan="3" | If you’re struggling, it’s okay to share your feelings. To start, you could copy one of these pre-written messages and send it to a trusted contact. |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| Reach out |
|||
|
|||
| Contact a loved one |
|||
|
|||
| Express your feelings |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
| When you get a chance can you contact me? I feel really alone and suicidal, and could use some support. |
|||
|
|||
| I don’t want to die, but I don't know how to live. Talking with you may help me feel safe. Are you free to talk? |
|||
|
|||
| This is really hard for me to say but I’m having painful thoughts and it might help to talk. Are you free? |
|||
|
|||
|- |
|||
|
|||
|colspan="3" | {{small|For informational purposes only. Consult your local medical authority for advice.}} |
|||
|
|||
|} |
|||
|
|||
After this, there are three videos hoisted to the top of the results: "Suicide: Facts & Misconceptions You Should Know",『How Do I Ask For Help If I’m Thinking About Suicide?』and "Teen Suicide Prevention". All of this takes up about a full screen on a normal computer. Then you scroll down past another screen or so of offically-approved links to suicide hotlines (one from the California State Portal, one from the CDC, one from the NIH, and then one from the WHO). Only then, after Google has diligently eliminated all possible sources of legal liability (e.g. repeated CYA disclaimers about "consult your local medical authority") do they permit the Wikipedia link to appear. I copied the full text content of the search results page into a reading-time estimator, and it gave me 1:54. This means that someone who clicks on the link to [[Suicide]] from a Google search does so after having spent nearly the entire runtime of ''Led Zeppelin - IMMIGRANT SONG.mp3'' having helpline numbers shoved in their face. Are we really, genuinely, helping this person, or are we just making ourselves feel better, at the cost of diminishing their ability to read the article? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think anyone is suggesting something intrusive that would diminish someone's ability to read the article. The suggestions I've seen so far are a hatnote style one line at the top which would likely be in italics, or an addition to the infobox, or a small box above/below the infobox with a page of resources linked to from it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 01:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If you read the conversation, we are talking about a small link to mental health resources for issues ''that are not suicide''. I would appreciate it if this conversation would stop getting derailed by what I was unaware is a controversial topic. I recognize that there are mixed opinions on suicide resources and warnings, which are numerous- this is not the case for other mental health issues, such as eating disorders, or this conversation wouldn’t be taking place. [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I wouldn't say it's getting derailed. Suicide is the option that has the most pre-existing consideration within Wikimedia Foundation projects (see [[WP:Mental health resources]]) and is also the one with the most correlation in other encyclopedias/etc. Yes, it's divisive, but those opposing them for their "efficacy" are opposing ''all'' mental health resource links for their efficacy from what I can see. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 05:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't see a lot of evidence that people are thinking about anything except suicide. In fact, I added a link to [[Diagnosis of autism#External links]] a couple of weeks ago. It's about mental health. It's a resource. It's a link. There's been no opposition, and I expect no opposition (assuming nobody decides to be [[WP:POINTY]] after I mention it here). I'm hoping that some readers, particularly high school students writing the predictable paper for health class, will click the link and learn something (e.g., that the diagnostic process for autism involves fairly ordinary personality-type quizzes). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's a good data point, but I think the original proposal was for them to be more prominent (i.e. infobox, a box above/below the infobox on the side, a hatnote, etc) rather than relegated to the bottom of the page in EL. I agree that putting them as EL isn't generally considered controversial. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 05:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]]'s original proposal here was to have a directory of information in a section within the article. [[User:Berchanhimez|You]] jumped in early on and started advocating for a prominent "call to action" at the top of the article. Then [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] jumped in with some more status-quo options (e.g. external links that could comply with [[WP:EL]] and in-article coverage in line with [[WP:DUE]] rather than against [[WP:NOTDIR]]) but also refuses to accept that people can make a distinction between those and yours.{{pb}}To my eyes, the rest of the discussion seems to have been supportive of [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:EL]], and opposed to top of the article calls to action and to article-space directories other than the already-existing [[List of suicide crisis lines]]. Whether the line on more subtle hatnotes has moved from the very subtle one approved in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide]] is unclear. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I believe that people can make a distinction between different forms. However, I don't believe that putting an oversimplified line in [[WP:PEREN]] that says the community has a consensus not to "Add prominent links to crisis hotlines on relevant articles" will result in people making that distinction. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: You believe people won't read more than the heading of anything, so if it's not possible to state as a soundbite then it's not possible to state at all. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 10:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I went with suicide, because it's the one thing where the argument is ''strongest'' for including some kind of hatnote or warning label. For e.g. anorexia or bulimia, the case is quite a bit weaker, since there is not a possibility that the person is imminently about to die -- they have just as much time as anyone else, they just have a mental disorder. They are just as intelligent as anyone else, too, and I don't see why we need to give them additional hatnotes on top of an article that's already about the disorder (we don't have hatnotes at the top of [[bandsaw]] that tell you to wear safety glasses, or [[gas metal arc welding]] that tell you to make sure your ground clamp is connected, et cetera). People with anorexia can read, yes? If you Google "anorexia", you already get reams of stuff about how to get help and where to get help and here's a helpline and et cetera. The intended demographic of this intervention seems extremely small: people who have a mental illness and desperately need help for it, who are wise enough to be reading a Wikipedia article, but not wise enough to be able to type "[name of disorder] help" into a search engine? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 07:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think the important thing to remember is that, while yes, many people treat Google as a first source of information, our articles are linked to throughout the web. For all we know, someone's reading an article on some blog somewhere that has a link to our article on suicide, and it may not even be a clear link (perhaps it was an [[WP:EASTEREGG|easter egg link on that site]]). Many people also do use our interwiki links and/or search bar to get to articles directly, rather than dealing with the ads/promoted links on Google/other search engines. Sure, I don't think anyone going to the Canadian Encyclopedia is so internet unsavvy that they can't go to Google and type in "X help". But that's not why their hatnotes exist. It's because people arrive at articles they don't intend to, or that they may have intended to but only after going down a rabbit hole of seeing things that have triggered them to be thinking about committing suicide. Let's use an example - someone hears a nice [[Avicii]] song that they enjoyed, and they come to look up the album/song on Wikipedia. They then click the article about Avicii, because they want to read more about him - without even thinking about suicide. In reading our article, they read about his suicide, and that gets them to thinking about it. There isn't currently a wikilink to [[suicide]] in his article that I can see (though there maybe should be?) - but they now, thinking about the topic of suicide and seeing that a musical artist that they enjoyed committed suicide, happen to go to our article on suicide, in a time of distress. Not because they came to Wikipedia thinking about suicide - they came here for information on a song/musician. But they ended up on our article about suicide nonetheless. ''That'' is the "intended demographic", and for those with mental illness, going down those rabbit holes that lead to researching suicide or self-harm is all too common. It costs nothing for us to add a ''prominent but not intrusive'' list of resources for them to use if they want to stop going down that rabbit hole but can't do so on their own. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 08:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::This is really well worded and a great descriptor of why I made this proposal, thank you! [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 16:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::"they have just as much time as anyone else, they just have a mental disorder" |
|||
:::[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4102288/ Eating disorders have the highest mortality of any mental illness.] This is being proposed because an issue I struggle with isn't very well known and I didn't realize help existed for it, let alone that it was a problem that I needed serious help with instead of just being a 'personality quirk'. I'm not sure why you think reading an article on one of the most popularly used websites on the internet makes you 'wise', but no, for a lot of these resources googling doesn't really provide resources or help- it's just WebMD summaries of how to spot early signs of those issues in kids, because god forbid those kids not figure out there's a name for what's wrong with them until later and want to fix it. [[User:Ju1c3machine|Ju1c3machine]] ([[User talk:Ju1c3machine|talk]]) 16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I note that there have been over a hundred responses to this, but only one ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&diff=prev&oldid=1230958328 this one] from {{u|Rosguill}}) has come with a [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant source, and that was inconclusive and about suicide prevention lines, which we are told is not the subject of this discussion. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== why I am voting no on the Movement Charter == |
== why I am voting no on the Movement Charter == |
||
Line 810: | Line 778: | ||
:::This does amount to <10 a day though. Which, considering that AfD handles something like 50-60 discussions a day, isn't all that much. It could well just be ten newbies curiously clicking through to the category then thinking, "well, this isn't useful". And maintaining these categories isn't free: each discussion must be manually sorted. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
:::This does amount to <10 a day though. Which, considering that AfD handles something like 50-60 discussions a day, isn't all that much. It could well just be ten newbies curiously clicking through to the category then thinking, "well, this isn't useful". And maintaining these categories isn't free: each discussion must be manually sorted. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:I agree that these categories are probably no longer needed. Perhaps the users of the categories disagree, though, so in the spirit of [[WP:LEOPARD]], it would be best to tag the categories for [[WP:CFD]] so the users are notified properly and can explain the advantages of the categories over the deletion sorting lists (if there are any). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 09:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
:I agree that these categories are probably no longer needed. Perhaps the users of the categories disagree, though, so in the spirit of [[WP:LEOPARD]], it would be best to tag the categories for [[WP:CFD]] so the users are notified properly and can explain the advantages of the categories over the deletion sorting lists (if there are any). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 09:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Redefining ECP == |
|||
Once again concerns about ECP being too easy to work towards have been raised at AN. My concern with this is that we are [[WP:BITING]] good faith editors who see the requirements and, not knowing that we don't want editors working towards them, decide to do so through productive and good faith edits. |
|||
Rather than repeatedly taking such editors to AN or ANI, or otherwise sanctioning them, the best solution is to change our requirements so that even if an editor chooses to work towards them we can have faith than they have obtained a {{tq|minimum level of understanding and competency}}. As a simple and conservative change towards this, I suggest that to obtain ECP an editor must have: |
|||
* 500 edits outside of draft and user space (noting that articles written in draft or user space but moved to article space will be considered article space edits) |
|||
* 200 of which are more than 250 bytes |
|||
Implementing this can done with a simple adminbot, which would check whether users have met the requirement and grant them ECP if they have. Users who have already been granted ECP will be grandfathered in. |
|||
{{ping|Iskandar323|Amayorov|EggRoll97|Swatjester|starship.paint|Sean.hoyland|Selfstudier|xDanielx}} Notify editors who participated in the recent AN discussion. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I know there have been concerns about me gaining ECP in less than a week, but I must say that it certainly wasn't easy. It took me around five days of non-stop editing and learning, practically without taking a break except for sleep. |
|||
:But anyway, I think yours is a great suggestion! Is there some concept like a cumulative edit to a page? Because otherwise a user could simply insert-delete a wall of text multiple times to meet the requirements. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd say a user inserting and deleting a wall of text would be blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]] before they get to ECP. Also, I genuinely don't think non-stop editing for days without taking breaks except for sleep is healthy. Not in terms of your edits, but in terms of actual health. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with this. I'm not concerned about editors who obtain ECP through bad faith edits, as they are easy to identify and there is no [[WP:BITE]] issue in sanctioning them for it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that a qualitative strengthening of the requirements would be beneficial. I mentioned the spirit of the 500/30 rule before, and in my mind, the spirit is indeed to build up both editing experience and community and guideline familiarity. This actually helps editors who are interested in getting into contentious topic areas in the long run, as it ensures that they begin editing in such areas on a more solid footing and are less likely to inadvertently run afoul of the brighter red lines. The measure ignoring user spaces would improve the qualitative bar a little, though I wonder if it is enough. I might also exclude talk, since chatting in talk, especially with the more recent reply function, often really isn't anything akin to editing. Also, I have certainly seen disruptive users rapidly racking up edits through very vapid or actively disruptive talk page contributions. I totally agree with the 200x250 part –assuming it is feasible to implement. However, I might also add a further dimension, and that is time. The 30 days rule only requires that an account ''exist'' for 30 days, but I think the original spirit of this was that an editor ''edits'' for 30 days. Again, if practically implementable, it would be good to tighten this to 30 days in which actual edits were made – a metric that, again, would provide some assurances that a user has spent a decent amount of time actually becoming familiar with everything. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If we're using an adminbot to apply the rights, almost anything is feasible. |
|||
::Personally, I would prefer to see some talk space participation, as collaboration is an important part of editing. Adjusting how the 30 day rule works could be useful, although I'm not sure how you propose this is done - perhaps the clock starts after the 100th edit, rather than when the account is registered? |
|||
::One thing to keep in mind is that previous discussions suggest that the more complicated the requirements are the less likely they are to be supported by the community, which is why I've kept them simple this time. However, we could always run an RfC with multiple options? The status quo, a conservative option, and an ambitious option? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Even the clock starting from the first mainspace edit would be an improvement – so 30 days since an account nominally goes active in mainspace. This would weed out accounts that just boot up to sniff around, play around in the sandbox, comment in talk and gentrify their own user pages, among others. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Is there perhaps another way to frame this? I'm not opposed to the general idea of using a minimum edit size as a proxy for edit quality, and why that works neatly from an automation standpoint, but it's not without it's problems either. But it seems to me that the real problem we're trying to solve for is edit count abuse that leads to post-confirmation problems on ECR articles, specifically. Communicating expectations of editors is good, but we can take a step back and look at the reason why that expectation arose -- it's not really about the 500 edit requirement and what they did to meet it, it's about demonstrating that one knows how to play by the rules and can edit constructively with others (particularly AFTER their 500th edit). Now, let's say we had a hypothetical user who achieves ExC status through 500 meaningless, insubstantial edits -- but then goes on to have a productive career subsequently and either never edits on ECR articles or does so only in a constructive and harmless manner. Is that user a problem? No. More importantly, is the fact that the user gamed the system to get their ExC status a problem, if they're not actually displaying any problematic behavior? IMO, no. So, separate from the above discussion about edit size and counting active editing days instead of account age, what I'd like to see, is a way that specific problem users (and ONLY them, not every single extended confirmed editor) can be reported and have their pre-confirmation edits put up for review if they're behaving badly post-confirmation; with the result of having their extended confirmed status be revoked if necessary. I'm assuming that would take the form of a new noticeboard, but possibly could already be covered by an existing one? I hope I'm explaining it clearly enough. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If the goal is to expect constructive contribution from people before they can get ECP, then no automated way of assigning it will be sufficient, as it will still not show constructive ability to collaborate. Any set of "metrics" one can define, including edit count, days active, edits in certain namespaces (such as Article or Talk), size of edits, etc. will either be gameable just as easily as it is now, or will result in it being unnecessarily difficult to obtain to prevent that gaming. Only if there is truly an issue with the current way (assign it automatically after 30d/500 edits), then the only real other option is for it to be assigned manually, such as by request on a permissions noticeboard (or a new board set up for "experienced confirmed editor" confirmation or similar). I do not believe that is in the spirit of the ECP, however, which was intentionally not supposed to be a "trusted editor" but just a "second level autoconfirmed". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ([[User:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 03:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
Before commenting, note:
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.
« Archives, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
I'm here to solicit opinions about what it means for an article to be "ready for the mainspace". This phrase has turned up in hundreds of AFDs during recent years. Here's the story:
You are looking at an article. You have determined that the subject is notable, and that none of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion apply to the article. Another editor says to you: "I don't think that article is ready for the mainspace".
What would you guess that the editor means? Is that consistent with our rules, such as the WP:NEXIST guideline or the WP:IMPERFECT policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
;-)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace, so maybe a change to that guideline could be required to make it clearer? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you have determined that the subject is notableper @WhatamIdoing's original comment? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the topic is plausibly notableto draftify. An unsourced article with a claim of significance (or notability) could fit this description, not being eligible for WP:A7 but still not meeting the referencing standards for mainspace. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, to emphasize the obvious, "ready for mainspace" is a vague subjective term. Probably the only more objective term that could fall under that is "allowed to exist in mainspace" and the most universal standard for that is "likely to survive a reasonably well run AFD". And for an article (NOT article content) NPP and AFC passage ostensibly follow that. Which in turn (presuming no eggregious speedy or wp:not violations) the main criteria ends up being passing wp:notability. Many people (e.g. at AFC, during mentoring, and in this thread) set a higher standard for "ready for mainspace" which is that the content of the article and the article does not have any significant problems or shortcomings. Yes, this is a double standard, and can make AFC a somewhat rough and arbitrary path. But we need to recognize that it is only human by the person reviewing it. If somebody took an article to you that was allowed to exist in mainspace (usually a wp:notability decision on the topic) but which was in really bad or undeveloped shape, would you be willing to bless putting it into mainspace? Most people would want it to meet a higher quality standard before they would personally say "ready for mainspace". North8000 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than trying to define it, I think we should purge it from guidelines and templates in favour of listing specific problems in an understandable way.I agree with this. U ideally we would not move something out of mainspace or disallow moving it into mainspace unless there are problems that are all of specifically identified, actionable, adversely detrimental* and not trivially fixable (anything that is trivially fixable should just be fixed). *"adversely detrimental" means things like failed verification or no evidence of notability, not merely lacking inline sources, cite templates or being "too short". Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WAID that there is a real problem here. If you read the subpoints of WP:DRAFTIFY#During new page review, then it's clear that obviously unready for mainspace
is intended to refer to a fairly narrow set of seriously problematic articles: something less than a stub, deletion almost certain, etc. But divorced from that context, "not ready for mainspace" admits a much wider range of understandings, as we've seen above. For example, the draftify script leaves the canned edit summary Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace
followed by a selection of prespecified reasons why the article is not ready, which include things like it needs more sources to establish notability
and it has too many problems of language or grammar
– a far cry from very little chance of survival at AfD
. A similar message is given to the creator the explain what happened to the article. If you look at the logs, the vast majority of moves to draft use one of these canned reasons: people take their cues on what they should and shouldn't do from the UI in front of them, not the guideline. Taken out of the guideline and into scripts and other pages, the phrase "not ready for mainspace" itself has taken on a life of its own and is used to systematically circumvent the deletion policy on a daily basis. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Mandate edit summary linking to WP:DRAFTOBJECT in every unilateral draftification.
The more I think on this years old idea the more I think it should be done. In practical terms, it is a simple thing to write into draftification scripts. For manual draftifications, these draftifiers are probably not experience and the rule is even more important. For consensus based draftifications, via AfD or informal discussion, they should link the discussion.
I suspect the rule should also strongly encourage including WP:DRAFTOBJECT in the usertalk explanation (automatic by the scripts), but not mandated due to occasional complications such as the first page author being an IP or banned user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong place for proposals, and I would oppose it anyway, as mandating a link to an essay is a bad idea, as it gives the impression that DRAFTOBJECT is a policy without going through the policy validation process. E.g. the "you can't draftify again" part is being misused by some people to object to redraftification a priori, pretending that it isn't allowed. Often the same people who then object to an AfD because AfD is not cleanup, leaving not much room for other options to deal with very poor articles which, yes, aren't ready for the mainspace. Yes, the drafter could in theory do a complete cleanup of the article, providing coherent prose, sources, ... for a subject they know nothing about, where the sources are in a language they don't speak. Realistically speaking though, the best solution is to move the page to draft again and again until the creator or someone else with the time and knowledge to deal with it turns it into an acceptable article. Fram (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the proposal would be defacto ratificationif in effect the idea is to make DRAFTOBJECT policy then that should be the proposal, rather than discussing edit summaries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace). Apparently it's okay to use a non-policy to justify moving tens or hundreds of thousands of articles out of mainspace, but not to remind the creators that they're entitled to move it back? – Joe (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
won't retain them [...] either(emphasis added) and
[t]he solution is not "let them figure it out entirely by themselves" nor "fix it for them without even making them try"(emphasis), i.e. if the aim is predominantly "retaining editors", then absolutely, the current method does indeed not work well for that purpose. I just do not believe the course of action suggested by you would work any better, for the reasons outlined above (and would come with an additional hidden cost: still no long-term retaining of productive editors, but an increase in workload as a result of these editors leaving a little later)
poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. – Joe (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where was it decided that mainspace needed to be 'guarded' from such things?Among various places, in the WP:ATD-I section of the WP:Deletion policy, which states
Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace, optionally via the articles for creation (AfC) process.; the WP:DRAFTIFY of the WP:Drafts explanatory essay, which states
The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is acceptable for mainspace; during the RfC which proposed the creation of a Draft namespace and which explicitly described one of its potential uses as a successor of the now-historical WP:Article Incubator; during the various discussions and decisions which led to the existence of said now-historical Article Incubator. AddWittyNameHere 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and guideline pages are seldom established without precedent[3] and require strong community support. Policies and guidelines may be established through new proposals, promotion of essays or guidelines, and reorganization of existing policies and guidelines through splitting and merging.[...]
Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy status. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy.and
Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines.and
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores materialand
Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed.?JoelleJay (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not ready for mainspace" is pure "I don't like it"-ism
if an article is:
it *is* ready for mainspace. it does not need to be draftified.
It can be tagged to the skies. It can be ignored in NPP for months or years. It does not need to be put into a box labeled "go away you suck". New articles and new users are awkward teenagers that need a little patience and encouragement and many of them *will* grow into beautiful competent adults. Sending them away to reform school in the mountains is just avoiding dealing with our own discomfort with our own flaws and imperfections. NPP should ideally be a "gates wide open come on in" group of greeters who are there to welcome new articles and new users to the party. "Hi here's a cocktail. It's crazy up in here. Here's the syllabus and another cocktail and a cookie and also a kitten. Don't mind them, that's a WikiProject, they're kindly fanatics."
Shitty articles are good actually. Shit is fertilizer. Shit is rich in nutrients and promotes growth. Scrubbing the world of shit reduces cholera transmission but also increases the prevalence of autoimmune disorders. There's got to be a balance.
Anyway, IMHO, "not ready for mainspace" is mean and vague and more harmful than helpful. Even the worst article that meets the standard above should be greeted with a compliment sandwich: "Thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia! Your passion for this topic is so evident. I wanted to let you know that that according to our current guidelines, this article may be [list top 3 problems here]. Let me know if you need any help resolving these issues. We really appreciate you contributing to the sum of all human knowledge. There's so many topic domains that still need attention and we so appreciate your participation in growing the project."
Anyway, please enjoy the snacks and thanks for coming to the party. jengod (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed, so just no to the first bullet point. 2. This is a nonsensical dichotomy that isn't worth addressing. 3. Literally every edit is "preventing other editors from doing the work that they'd like to do", just because YOU have decided it's "worse for the encyclopedia" if "Bob" doesn't get a chance to mentor someone doesn't mean this is objective fact, and it certainly doesn't mean it's objectively better that "Alice" doesn't get to remove unsourced and potentially false or misleading junk from the encyclopedia, or that it's "better" if we prevent her from "doing what she wants to do" by forcing her to do more than "consider" options other than removing the material. The author of the content certainly wasn't prevented from "doing what they wanted to do" despite failing to comply with core content policies. If Bob is so worried about draftification hurting a new editor's feelings, then it's up to him to be faster at NPP, or to watch Alice's contribs, so he can insert himself as a mentor for this hapless noob; it's certainly not Alice's responsibility to prioritize Bob's goal of "retaining editors who didn't put even minimal effort into reading our rules" over her own immediate goal of "improving encyclopedia quality". JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a diagram that visually translates my understanding of what the phrase "not ready for mainspace" means. What do you think about it? (The boundary between the "not ready for mainspace" and the implied "not unready for mainspace" is the line between the grey and greenish block in the background.) —Alalch E. 16:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason ... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.
The LLM is functionally just as banned as the editors who use itWhere is the consensus for this? The only discussion I recall came to the opposite consensus - i.e. it's not LLMs that are bad it's bad output from LLMs.
any content it generates can be presumed likely to feature the same issues that led to it being deemed unreliable.again, citation needed. If the content it generates has issues deal with those issues, if it doesn't then there is no problem. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are unreliable.is unclear? As the raw output of LLMs is consistently inaccurate/fake enough for there to be consensus that LLMs (/their output, whatever) are unreliable, and that any news media created via LLMs is also unreliable, that raw output should not be added to mainspace. Editors whose natural product is routinely that inaccurate, hallucinatory, and/or nonsensical would be blocked, and editors who repeatedly introduce raw LLM content would also be (and have been) blocked.
This is not a joke proposal.
I'd like to propose some kind of reminder/checker that automatically runs at AN/I, in the style of [1]. Actually reading it back to the user is good, but a given user's computer probably doesn't have the sound turned on all the time, so a pop-up dialogue box, with a five-second delay before the user can click "continue" would probably work too. Something like this:
Here's what you just posted to AN/I:
“ | And what the hell is that supposed to mean? You're being very unconsructive here, in fact, you're being a bit of a jerk. Go away, because you are SO not helping. — Swanky Signature (talk :: contribs) | ” |
Thoughts? Cremastra (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
shit
, piss
, fuck
, cunt
, twat
, hell
, damn
etc. jp×g🗯️ 00:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading Let_It_Be_(album) #Track_listing and perplexed to find the tracks credited to Lennon–McCartney. While this was the mythos at the time, later scholarship has done a great job distinguishing many of the Beatles tracks as predominantly or entirely written by Lennon or McCartney. I can't seem to find the style guideline on this, but I assume it's something like "song credits should be as written on the original release."
This is unencyclopedic and ahistorical. While most song credits will line up neatly with later scholarship, some rare cases exist where listed credits were chosen for political or business reasons.
The style guide should default to credits as printed (except in cases where artists changed their name later), but allow for those to be de-emphasized in favor of newer research. For example, Let_It_Be_(album) #Track_listing's writer credits should be almost the same as the lead vocalist credits. Anonymous-232 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AtWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000, it was suggested to start a broader discussion about what to do with these lists. We have now 568 (and counting) such lists (Category:Lists of meanings of minor planet names, and while the lower-numbered ones are about notable subjects where the lists are perfectly acceptable as is, the higher-numbered ones are a collection of explanations of the names of obscure asteroids, named after obscure people (e.g. the great-grandfather of the discoverer of the asteroid, Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000). Should these be deleted, merged, ...? Simply keeping something like Meanings of minor planet names: 618001–619000, a one-entry list sourced to a primary source, seems to go against all notability guidelines and what is accepted for other topics. And where is the cutoff between the notable ones and the non-notable ones? All ideas to help write an RfC or other proposal about this are welcome. Fram (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, on the pages for “Eating Disorders” and “Anorexia Nervosa” include a section about what hotlines and organizations are available for eating disorder treatment in predominantly English-speaking countries. It’s very likely that struggling individuals may come to wikipedia to learn more about what they’re dealing with, and how someone can access information about treatment is objectively relevant to the topic. Ju1c3machine (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations... or issuing public service announcements- nobody's asking for "public service announcements" style of information. What people are asking for seems to be similar to what The Canadian Encyclopedia publishes on their articles directly about suicide. Also from WP:NOT:
Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated.- this is referencing actual lists that are not encyclopedically relevant, not what's being requested here.
Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work.- as shown above, many encyclopedias do publish resources as part of their encyclopedic mission. Also from Wikipedia:Advocacy § Identifying advocacy:
Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint. It may be a hypothesis which they feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community; it may be alternate or revisionist interpretation of a historical event or personage; it may be additions to an article about an organization to portray it in a positive or negative light. The essential problem is that these goals conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia.- resource information is not advocacy by any definition. The only applicable part of this could be "an adjunct web presence for an organization", but even that doesn't really apply, since nobody is advocating for any specific organization to be represented, but general information. The potential for the resources to be used to advocate for specific organizations can be handled through guidelines on how the specific information displayed is to be selected, where it is to be displayed on the page, and carefully selecting which pages they do display on.
You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves.- there is no "record" attempting to be "set... straight", and in fact, we wouldn't be "rid[ing] the crest of the wave ourselves". Many encyclopedias that are online include these resources already, and in fact many non-encyclopedia websites do too. We would be following, not leading, in that sense.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.- again, as showed above, encyclopedias do contain this sort of information sometimes.
A disclaimer in a Wikipedia article is a statement or warning that the article is not appropriate, suitable, or guaranteed for some specified purpose.- again, not what's being requested here. While some may desire for these notices to include a statement about what is included in the article, that is not what the basis of this is about. Again, see The Canadian Encyclopedia - a simple statement
To reach the Canada Suicide Prevention Service, contact 1-833-456-4566.would suffice, even without the first sentence they include about the content of the article.
External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article.Nobody is proposing they be placed in the body of the article, but instead in a header or infobox style. And to note, infoboxes already allow external links in them, so there's a huge precedent for external links not being relegated to the bottom of the page when placing them at the top is more useful to our readers.
Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.Pretty clear that this is "further research..." and is "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article".
Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?(emphasis mine). It's not trying to right a great wrong, because there is no "great wrong" being righted, this would be purely informational in nature. It's not a disclaimer, because nobody's suggesting this be simply be a warning about what follows in the article (which would be a disclaimer), but to more prominently place relevant and helpful information towards the top of the article in some way. Not advocacy, because nobody is suggesting we advocate for anything - providing this information at the top of the article(s) in question would serve an informational purpose for our readers. While it's certainly within us editors' discretion as a community here to decide "we don't want to provide this information", there's really no policy reason that we can't. And even if there was, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia - "A comprehensive reference work (often spanning several printed volumes) with articles" - and to provide useful articles for readers... in a way that the reader will understand and find interesting. Whether we want to admit it or not, some readers will be directed to Wikipedia when they are searching for information about suicide, mental health, rape, etc. and currently, the primary place they will see it is the very end of articles in External Links - which does not serve our readers who will in a time of distress see a long article and likely never make it to the EL section. For all of the above reasons, I support further discussion, and workshopping of an infobox or top-banner style notice to be placed on pages that would provide this information. I would be happy to workshop some examples of formatting if it would be beneficial to this discussion or an eventual RfC, but I would need others to input on the best way to provide geographically relevant information - is it that the banner links to a separate page (whether in article space, project space, or elsewhere) that contains resources by country/location? Or is it the use of geo-notices as proposed here? Or is there another way that wouldn't require the user to click through to a separate page? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated.does not apply here, especially with the proposal of making separate pages for this information. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product.It is, by definition, a service. And anti-LGBT hotlines are relevant to the discussion because, sadly, some countries' official resources are anti-LGBT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People with cancer aren’t at risk of dying imminently by suicide if they don’t find another path forward.- they well might. Cancer comes with elevated suicide rates, particularly when the prognosis is poor and/or quality of life is significantly, long-term impaired—concerns about the former and ways of hopefully tackling the latter are both better discussed with a doctor than an amateur volunteer without access to your medical information.
Offering people an option other than “keep looking at articles about depression/suicide until you do it or get tired of it” isn’t the same thing as “contact your doctor to discuss medical concerns”.Going to be a little more explicit here about my mental health/experiences with mental health crises than I would otherwise be: in my case, that "offered option" would increase rather than decrease the risk I am at.
add resources for where someone can find treatment options for mental health problemsUsing your Anorexia nervosa example, what specific resources or links would you add? Some1 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me, here is what you see when you Google "suicide" (I am in California so your results may vary):
Help is available | ||
Speak with someone today | ||
88 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline | ||
Languages: English, Spanish | ||
Hours: Available 24 hours | ||
Call 988 | Text 988 | |
Chat | Official website | |
Learn more • Feedback | ||
Connect with people you trust | ||
From International Association for Suicide Prevention · Learn more | ||
If you’re struggling, it’s okay to share your feelings. To start, you could copy one of these pre-written messages and send it to a trusted contact. | ||
Reach out | Contact a loved one | Express your feelings |
When you get a chance can you contact me? I feel really alone and suicidal, and could use some support. | I don’t want to die, but I don't know how to live. Talking with you may help me feel safe. Are you free to talk? | This is really hard for me to say but I’m having painful thoughts and it might help to talk. Are you free? |
For informational purposes only. Consult your local medical authority for advice. |
After this, there are three videos hoisted to the top of the results: "Suicide: Facts & Misconceptions You Should Know",『How Do I Ask For Help If I’m Thinking About Suicide?』and "Teen Suicide Prevention". All of this takes up about a full screen on a normal computer. Then you scroll down past another screen or so of offically-approved links to suicide hotlines (one from the California State Portal, one from the CDC, one from the NIH, and then one from the WHO). Only then, after Google has diligently eliminated all possible sources of legal liability (e.g. repeated CYA disclaimers about "consult your local medical authority") do they permit the Wikipedia link to appear. I copied the full text content of the search results page into a reading-time estimator, and it gave me 1:54. This means that someone who clicks on the link to Suicide from a Google search does so after having spent nearly the entire runtime of Led Zeppelin - IMMIGRANT SONG.mp3 having helpline numbers shoved in their face. Are we really, genuinely, helping this person, or are we just making ourselves feel better, at the cost of diminishing their ability to read the article? jp×g🗯️ 01:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
suggest you vote "no" on the current vote to ratify the Movement Charter. for more discussion,
feel free to read this section: meta:Talk:Movement_Charter#Why I voted "No"
here is a quote from that page, by someone else there, not myself:
I cannot support a charter that provides for representation of/selected by affiliates (as opposed to community-elected members who happen to also be involved with affiliates) on the Global Council, for substantially the reasons I stated at m:Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 5#Mdaniels5757's thoughts. Ultimately, I am concerned that affiliates, as a group (1) are distinct from the community at-large, and therefore (2) have different interests than the community at large. This causes the potential for a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation; affiliates should not have a vote in movement-wide funding distribution matters. Although I think the small changes to voting thresholds were a step in the right direction, we are still a far way away from a Charter that I can support: one that centers the entire Wikimedia Community.
thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
link: meta:Movement_Charter#Global Council#Initial creation and future expansion
it's not some secret club of power-hungry weirdos. Well, maybe weirdos, but it's usually really easy for other weirdos with an affiliate nearby to get involved in that process and have a say -- it's not particularly exclusive.
it is a new council, correct?- FWIW the "not particularly exclusive" was still part of my response about affiliates, not the global council. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each talk page has banners about the specific WikiProjects it falls under. For example, Talk:Henry VIII includes WikiProject banners for Biography, Military history, and England, among others. These all make sense as the article is intrinsically relevant to these subjects. But then occasionally you also see banners like Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Template:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, Template:WikiProject Women in Green, and Template:WikiProject Women in Red. These aren't actually relevant to the subject, and they don't really tell us anything meaningful about the article. It doesn't change the article's status because of where someone got the idea to create it or why someone copyedited it. What they do is contribute to banner blindness. Is there any value in keeping these banners in article-talk namespace when they primarily serve as an "our group was here" notice? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering whether there was a way to improve Category:Wikipedia cleanup by subject, at the moment it looks like people have to group articles manually. It doesn't seem like articles are assigned part of a wider topic/s on creation, if I'm not mistaken, which would make it problematic to group based off of subjects and tags. I was just thinking it'd be useful to have subjects like Science, History, Geography, Culture and society, Miscellaneous etc.Kowal2701 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some tool through which we can see Wikidata items that have lots of articles and no enwiki article would be a great way to improve the encyclopedia and get important articles written. If something has an article in 25 languages, and none in English yet, that's a good sign that we need to get moving. What do you all think? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self explanatory, I think it would really help in preventing vandalism. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what was suggested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Community discussion recommended, little progress has been made since then. I have updated some portals such as Portal:The arts and Portal:Science, but the result has been less than satisfactory. The concept of a portal based on transclusion seems to me to be far superior to the concept of a portal based on sub-pages. But even it has a lot of problems, such as script errors and unreliable transclusion of content. I have ideas for a simple portal concept, based on .css, WP:LINK and KISS principle like Main Page or WikiVoyage Main page[3].
But one step at a time, before proposing something new, I would like to discuss whether the subpage model is really obsolete and whether it is positive to ban the use of Subpages in portals. Per WP:SP 4. Portal subpages—for Portal-specific templates and content.
Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It must be done right. These portal conversions are being done too hastily by people who don't know the subject matter. For example the bio of Jamie Lee Curtis was once transcluded on Portal:Sex work. Schierbecker (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Curated subpages" and "transclusion directly from articles" can both be used and both make sense. Selected anniversaries like at Portal:Germany are an example where I think the subpage model is superior. On the other hand, direct transclusion is the only sensible choice for selected articles that can easily go out of date, like all BLPs. —Kusma (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When nominating an article for deletion, Twinkle (and other tools, presumably?) asks you to categorize it into an AFD subcategory, for example: Category:AfD debates (Science and technology). Tools now also very helpfully include integrated deletion sorting, which essentially duplicates the subcat process while providing much more fine-grained sorting than something as broad as "science and technology". It therefore seems redundant to me, but I thought I'd ask here first as sometimes there are other issues invovled that may actually be helpful to some users. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again concerns about ECP being too easy to work towards have been raised at AN. My concern with this is that we are WP:BITING good faith editors who see the requirements and, not knowing that we don't want editors working towards them, decide to do so through productive and good faith edits.
Rather than repeatedly taking such editors to AN or ANI, or otherwise sanctioning them, the best solution is to change our requirements so that even if an editor chooses to work towards them we can have faith than they have obtained a minimum level of understanding and competency
. As a simple and conservative change towards this, I suggest that to obtain ECP an editor must have:
Implementing this can done with a simple adminbot, which would check whether users have met the requirement and grant them ECP if they have. Users who have already been granted ECP will be grandfathered in.
@Iskandar323, Amayorov, EggRoll97, Swatjester, Starship.paint, Sean.hoyland, Selfstudier, and XDanielx: Notify editors who participated in the recent AN discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there perhaps another way to frame this? I'm not opposed to the general idea of using a minimum edit size as a proxy for edit quality, and why that works neatly from an automation standpoint, but it's not without it's problems either. But it seems to me that the real problem we're trying to solve for is edit count abuse that leads to post-confirmation problems on ECR articles, specifically. Communicating expectations of editors is good, but we can take a step back and look at the reason why that expectation arose -- it's not really about the 500 edit requirement and what they did to meet it, it's about demonstrating that one knows how to play by the rules and can edit constructively with others (particularly AFTER their 500th edit). Now, let's say we had a hypothetical user who achieves ExC status through 500 meaningless, insubstantial edits -- but then goes on to have a productive career subsequently and either never edits on ECR articles or does so only in a constructive and harmless manner. Is that user a problem? No. More importantly, is the fact that the user gamed the system to get their ExC status a problem, if they're not actually displaying any problematic behavior? IMO, no. So, separate from the above discussion about edit size and counting active editing days instead of account age, what I'd like to see, is a way that specific problem users (and ONLY them, not every single extended confirmed editor) can be reported and have their pre-confirmation edits put up for review if they're behaving badly post-confirmation; with the result of having their extended confirmed status be revoked if necessary. I'm assuming that would take the form of a new noticeboard, but possibly could already be covered by an existing one? I hope I'm explaining it clearly enough. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]