User:Geo Swan/opinions/responsible use of maintenance wikitags

The wikipedia has a bunch of maintenance tags that editors are encouraged to place on articles when they think they require attention. The editor chooses the tag to signal the kind of attention they think the article needs.

A few of the tags, like different variations of  , when used properly, automatically instantiate certain wiki processes. But most tags, like , , don't.  Most of these tags expand to a little note to readers, drawing their attention to the general concern the editor who placed them had. However, recognizing that this was insufficient, these tags all inform the reader, that, for the detailed discussion as to why the tag was placed, they should look in the article's associated talk page.

This is a problem. In my experience most editors don't follow up their placement of the tag by starting a dialogue about why they placed it. In my opinion, that is irresponsible.

The rest of us aren't mind-readers. We shouldn't have to guess at why someone put a ,  or   ''' tag on an article. If they don't start a dialogue on why they think an article is biased the rest of us can't even know in what direction they are concerned it is biased. I keep having the experience of having certain passages I have written being criticized for both being both "anti-American" and pushing a pro-American bias.

There are a dedicated crew of wikipedians who go around, dating cleanup tags, or other similar tags. I don't think I understand why they are so dedicated. They put more effort into putting a date on maintenance tag than the original editor who placed it, put into placing it, if that editor failed to start the dialogue on the talk page.

My advice to those dedicated crews would be: "if the editor who placed a tag hasn't explained themselves in a reasonable period of time, then the tag is just cruft, and should be deleted on sight." So, what is a reasonable period of time? IMO a week is plenty long enough. Heck, a day is plenty long enough. Maybe an hour is not long enough, if the reasoning is complex, and hard to explain.

In my experience a few wikipedians, unfortunately, wield maintenance tags like vandals, to push their own personal POV. IMO, this is another reason why maintenance tags that don't have any discussion on the associated talk page should be removed on sight.

Here is the example that prompted me to write this opinion piece. The tag was placed a year ago, by an editor writing from an anonymous IP. Here is their contributio log. They only contributed, from this IP address, one single day. They placed a couple of jokes, made some minor, responsible edits. But more than half of what they did was place   tags they didn't bother to explain. And, if I can bend WP:AGF for a moment, their choice of which articles they did other editing work to, and which they merely applied a   tag to seems to reflect a bias around religion.

In my opinion, nothing is really "obvious".

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)