User:Quack 688/WikiJournal

This page is intended as a collection of random thoughts related to Wikipedia. Some might be fully fleshed out, others might be a mish-mash of shorthand gibberish. If anything here ever turns into a proper essay, I might farm it off. Until then, it's neater to keep everything here.

Disclaimer: just because I've written something here doesn't mean I believe it. It could just be a nagging question in the back of my head, that I'm still trying to figure out. I reserve the right to back-flip at any time.

DeleteArticle
User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom/Elaragirl%2C_about_deletion_and_deletionism

(Mention common abbreviations like: or, pov, afd, xfd, drv right at the top of the article?)

Sections to include:

1.25: Should a whole article get deleted, or just some sections of it?

While considering such criteria for deletion as "Original research, violates WP:OR", it is worth remembering that "Article contains OR" and "Article is OR" are two completely different things.


 * "Article contains OR" is not a criteria to delete an entire article, just to delete those sections. The remaining material should then be judged on its own merits.


 * "Article is OR" should be used when the vast majority of the article's content is OR, or the article's very topic is OR. In such cases, the article is a valid candidate for deletion.

However, if an article does contain some well-sourced material, that material might be suitable to be merged into a "parent topic" article. For example, an article about a non-notable music single is inappropriate - it might also contain a large amount of OR. The OR can be removed, and the sourced information can be moved into an appropriate article - one about the album that single comes from, perhaps, or one about the band that performed the single. Once this is carried out, the article can be deleted.

1.3.1.3: add three options

The article meets one of the specific criteria listed at Problem articles where deletion may be needed -> Proceed to Step 4-A

The article needs some work, as it meets one of the specific criteria listed at Problem articles where deletion may not be needed -> Proceed to Step 4-B

The article is in excellent shape -> it need not be considered any longer.

1.3.1.4A: Step Four - Option A: Submitting to Articles for Deletion

1.3.1.4B: Step Four - Option B: Alternatives to Deletion

AfD isn't a forum used to make a point that you think an article needs to be improved. if it only meets a criteria for improvement, do not nominate it!

AfD should only be used if you believe, in good faith, that an article on that subject has absolutely no place on Wikipedia.

You can nominate articles for deletion based on consensus from a previous discussion, but you should not nominate articles you don't like just to make a point.

1.3.1.5: DRV - mention it works both ways, for keep & delete decisions

It is worth remembering that Deletion Review is a process that works both ways. An improper keep decision can be overturned at Deletion Review, and the article deleted. By the same token, an improper decision to delete an article can be overturned. Depending on consensus, such an article can either be undeleted or relisted. This process might be used in a case where an article is deleted for being wholly original research. If an editor can find and list several sources which clearly prove that the article's contents are not original research, the article will most likely be undeleted. Relisting is often used in cases that are less clear-cut. When an article is relisted, it is submitted to Articles for Deletion for a totally new discussion.

Original research or unsourced material?
Original research: material which is the original research of a Wikipedia editor, or from an unreliable source (such as a self-published work) Valid content: material which is drawn from a reliable source

Problem: If no source is listed, how do you tell the difference between them? Is that content "original research" or "unsourced material"?

At first glance, you can't. Why not assume good faith? Ask the editor who wrote it to provide some sources. Try to find some yourself. If a bit of time goes past and no-one can find any reliable sources, then you can consider it OR. Would such an approach work? A five-day AfD should give people enough time to find sources. However, if an article contains some OR and some sourced material, only the OR should be deleted at the end of the AfD - leave the sourced stuff alone.

It's easy to say "That article's incomplete/unsourced/whatever, let's delete it." Of course, by that logic, the only way to get an article past the new page patrol is for one user to work on it alone in a sandbox, and post it when it's complete. Funny, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be collaborative.

Case study: quoting material from fictional sources
(This applies to any work of fiction.)

First, a few relevant quotes from WP:OR:


 * Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation. (emphasis in original)


 * Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. (emphasis added)


 * Anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.


 * Examples of primary sources include ... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

The way I read that, works of fiction are allowed to be used as a source when discussing that work. The key question is this - when does a legitimate plot summary become an editor's personal speculation?

I've made up a few examples from the movie "Return of the Jedi". For the sake of this argument, there are no critical sources discussing the work of fiction. The point of this is to see which claims can be made directly from the work of fiction, and which claims require an outside critical source. I'd like you to look at these six statements, then consider which ones are valid "plot summary" and which ones are "speculative OR".

1. Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine are two characters which appear in "Return of the Jedi". 2. In "RotJ", Darth Vader fights Luke Skywalker on the Death Star. 3. In "RotJ", Darth Vader kills the Emperor. 4. In "RotJ", Darth Vader kills the Emperor to save his son's life. 5. In "RotJ", Darth Vader kills the Emperor in order to save his son's life, and to turn from the Dark Side. 6. In "RotJ", Darth Vader redeems himself by turning from the Dark Side, and killing the Emperor in order to save his son's life.

Done? Here's my thoughts on the matter:

1. Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine are two characters which appear in "Return of the Jedi". This isn't even a plot summary. This is a statement of fact about the work of fiction itself - there is absolutely no way this can be considered OR. 2. In "RotJ", Darth Vader fights Luke Skywalker on the Death Star. This is a very basic plot summary. It's verifiable, and is a direct summary of something that is explicitly shown to happen in the movie. Anyone without specialist knowledge can watch the movie and say that this happens. 3. In "RotJ", Darth Vader kills the Emperor. This is another basic plot summary, but with a slight twist. There have been plenty of examples in fiction (not just science fiction) where characters that were presumed to be shot/stabbed/exploded reappear later in the plot. Obviously, if the "dead" character comes back, you can't say someone killed him before. But what if the character doesn't reappear? If Vader throws the Emperor down a shaft, the viewer sees a massive explosion, and everyone assumes the Emperor's dead, can we say, "Vader killed the Emperor"? Or must we always use weasel words like "presumably killed" or "allegedly disintegrated"? How much death do you need to see? Do you need an autopsy?

(Extended credit question: What about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?) 4. In "RotJ", Darth Vader kills the Emperor to save his son's life. This plot summary includes a motive. This motive is directly linked to the chain of events which precede it:

"Emperor zaps Luke -> Luke asks Vader to help him -> Vader kills the Emperor to help Luke"

What about simpler motives? Imagine a novel which says, "As the car sped towards him, Bob jumped out of the way." This sentence states the character's actions, but his motives are only implied. Do you really need a statement that specifies his motives, like "Bob told Greg, 'The reason I jumped off the road was because that car was going to hit me'"? How would that work when discussing movies and television shows, where characters rarely explain every action in such detail? 5. In "RotJ", Darth Vader kills the Emperor in order to save his son's life, and to turn from the Dark Side. Two problems here. First, the chain of reasoning,

"Emperor zaps Luke -> Luke asks Vader to help him -> Vader kills the Emperor to turn from the Dark Side"

isn't as clear-cut as the previous example. Where does the Dark Side thing get mentioned? Second, this requires a clear definition of what "turning from the Dark Side" actually is. It's not as well defined as, say, walking through a door. If there's a specific criteria mentioned in the film for what "turning from the Dark Side" actually means, then we could possibly use this. If not, it's a matter of judgement by the viewer, and should be considered OR. 6. In "RotJ", Darth Vader redeems himself by turning from the Dark Side, and killing the Emperor in order to save his son's life. This is pure viewer analysis on the development of Vader's character, and, unless it's made by a critical source, must be considered OR.

Community-building
I'm still thinking about that Esperanza MfD, and what it means for community-building groups on Wikipedia. Any such project should do the following:

1) Promote the use of existing Wikipedia community-based programs and ideals 2) Think up new programs and ideals which might be beneficial to the Wikipedia community

I originally thought of this alternative:
 * Esperanza is a philosophy of XYZ.
 * Here are a few Wikipedia programs that try to implement the ideals of XYZ.
 * If you like the ideals of XYZ, jump in and work on a few of these programs.
 * If you really like the ideals of XYZ, you can add yourself to a list of editors, publicly stating that you support this philosophy.

However, I'm not a big fan of that anymore. Any group with a membership list runs the risk of encouraging another isolated group to develop. A strict membership list sends the unconscious message, however unintentional, that "members" have more rights in the project than "guests". Also, "spreading hope" and "community-building" are different. One project that tried to do both might lose its focus.

One thing I want to make clear: bureaucracy is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with the goals of the groups. The need for group structure is directly proportional to the number of active participants.

Note that I said "active participants" - that means "people who are directly involved in the group's activities", not "people who've added their name to a membership list and walked off". There's been a bit of research into the need for structure at certain group sizes:. The problem Esperanza faced is that its original governance structure, with multiple elections and staggered tranches, was simply too bureaucratic for a group with its number of "active participants".

This bit might be controversial to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that people are losing hope and leaving an organization that was founded to stop people losing hope and leaving an organization ?

Massacre
Relevant articles: List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada List of Hamas suicide attacks Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks (AfD for 3 previous lists - result: keep) Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces (result: delete)

I've been trying to think of incidents in recent history that have been widely referred to as "massacres". The only ones I can think of are where a large number of people were killed, one by one, in cold blood, e.g. Columbine, Port Arthur, and Beslan. Note that in comparison, major terrorist bombings in recent history have usually been referred to as bombings, suicide bombings, or terrorist attacks, not massacres.

I had a look in one of these lists, and picked Jerusalem bus 19 massacre at random. Two sources are provided on the list, a third appears in the article itself. one two three. The only source where the term "massacre" is used is in the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I would therefore suggest that its use for this incident is a violation of POV.

What happens when some neutral sources call something a massacre, and others don't? How many neutral sources do you need before you can call it a massacre, or even an alleged massacre? To be honest, I don't know. But if the only source that calls something a massacre comes from one side of a conflict, the term shouldn't be used. "Attacks", "Suicide bombings" or "Military operations with civilian casualties" seem like terms that are more NPOV, and verifiable. Note that legitimate massacres can still be included in these lists, because the definitions are kept as general as possible. Compare these:

"List of insane Roman emperors" - first, the title itself is POV. Second, even if that list were allowed, you'd have endless arguments over what qualifies someone as insane. What qualifies as insane behaviour? How many sources do you need before you can categorically label someone as "insane"?

"List of Roman emperors" - this list is based on verifiable criteria. Also, all emperors can be added, sane or not. Any mention of whether or not a particular emperor was insane belongs in the article for that emperor.

Above all else, we need to be consistent with the use of terms such as these - both in lists, and within individual articles.