Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Global agenda

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Userified as User:Wavelength/Global agenda. The people supporting deletion are not discussing whether the page should be deleted but whether the policy of having a global agenda itself (and then within that, what to do) is a good idea. The consensus is that this is a Category:Wikipedia draft proposals at the end of the day. If there's consensus against the policy of Wikipedia having a global agenda in the first place, then that would be tagged as Template:Failed proposal but that doesn't mean the page itself is worth deleting (historical purposes). The talk page discussion seems to presume that there is a consensus supporting having a global agenda rather than proposing that there be a global agenda and then discussions about what it should be/how it should be done. There seems to be very little (if anyone else) supporting this proposal and rather than be listed in Wikipedia space, it should be userified as an individual editor's personal view absent some evidence of support. There hasn't the formality of an RFC or other determine whether the proposed policy (of which there is basically two lines) has been rejected so an actual failure notice is premature. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Global agenda


I'm surprised that anyone would create a page like this. WP (or for that matter the WMF) should not have any "global agenda" save to create a neutral compilation of free knowledge. I appreciate that there are global problems that need fixing, but that it not Wikipedia's job. It flies in the face of neutrality, and it is a gross deviation from our mission. This page is meant for "using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges". How would the proponents of the page propose to do this on Wikipedia? Manipulating the articles? That's POV-pushing. Holding discussions about world problems in projectspace? That's WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTPOLITICALTHINKTANK. What is acceptable is writing neutral and well-sourced articles concerning such matters, but that is already being done and needs no coordination.

This project was built as an encyclopedia, a gazetteer, and almanac, and a community. It was not built as an advocacy site, and this site and the Wikimedia Foundation are not [supposed to be] an organization of political advocates. This falls afoul of Wikipedia's policies. It should be deleted. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments: The entire contents of Global agenda are "This page is to be used for setting out a plan for using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges. Please discuss this plan on the talk page." There is no mention of advocacy—especially, there is no mention of political advocacy.  If people are in general agreement about global challenges, then they can address them by themselves without political governments.  However, there can be internal negotiations about procedures, so there can be various internal ( non-political ) advocacies converging toward a consensus, in the same way that negotiations take place on many Wikipedia pages.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Using the power of Wikipedia" is not among the goals of wikipedians. The goal is to create wikipedia. Anything else is distraction and waste of already scarce workforce of wikipedians. Let WMF awash in donations they don't know how to spend worry about the World Peace. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My motivation for starting Global agenda came from comments in the third paragraph posted by Jimbo Wales on his talk page at 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC). That paragraph is reproduced below.
 * Those comments were made by Jimbo Wales, and I am very interested to learn his thoughts about Global agenda.  Please note that the discussion began with an appeal to use links on Wikipedia to help victims of the 2015 Nepal earthquake, and that many non-political organizations providing that help are listed at "Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake".  The scope of Global agenda does not need to include political matters.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or move - As the creation of this page was generated by a comment that I made, I was asked to comment on this MfD. First, the Wikipedia community has, at times, engaged in what is hard to characterize as anything other than "political" action - most notably in the case of Sopa/Pipa in the English Wikipedia, but also similar actions in other major languages such as Italian and Russian.  Second, many times there have been discussions about what moral responsibility or ambition we might have with respect to global crises of various non-political kinds. I remember in particular a big debate about whether to run some kind of banner around Hurricane Katrina, and a similar debate about the 2004 Tsunami relief efforts.  All of these debates and discussions are valid and important and as the nominator has said, there are some very strong reasons to be cautious here.
 * But if we are going to act in some cases, and not act in others, using or not using our (rather larger than most people here realize) global power, then we should have a clear-cut set of principles, formulated in the abstract during calm times, to guide us. Therefore, the purpose of this page is valid.
 * The reason I say "Keep or move" rather than simply "Keep" is that I'm open to a rename or a move to a different place. But shutting down the discussion pre-emptively before we have a chance to formulate and clarify ideas, doesn't mean deciding that we will never do anything.  It means deciding to continue acting in an ad hoc and relatively unprincipled way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sad that Jimbo decided to finish his argument with an insult to all wikipedians, of kind "deciding to continue beating our wives". In fact, there is nothing wrong in acting ad hoc, because you cannot invent a rule for every accident. In fact, the whole wikipedia policy has been evolving in an ad hoc way: all additions to it have been purely ad hoc: a new rule was created only when a significant particular necessity arose. The same is here: the page Global agenda is empty. I read it that the necessity is hot here yet. And for such cases we have a principle, too: "use common sense", i.e., hardly "relatively unprincipled". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - how do you know what policies or guidelines or whatever might be discussed? Nobody does. If/when some do, you can !vote on any proposal. Meanwhile, allow discussions, don't stifle it by deleting things. I'm really amazed and baffled that you're choosing to delete a blank non-article page, based on the 2-word title. 88.104.23.173 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - we are not here to "address global challenges", we are here to build an encyclopedia. Debating whether and how to use Wikipedia to save the world will only be a distraction from that. The "clear-cut set of principles" should be "don't do it". I supported the SOPA action, with some qualms, but that was an exceptional case, and to go any further is to start down a slippery slope taking us away from our core purpose. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like you to consider it from this angle: with SOPA (and similar actions around the world) we are already doing such actions and without any abstract principles to guide us. If the "clear-cut set of principles" really should be "don't do it" then we'd best host this discussion and determine that, rather than continue in an ad hoc fashion.  My own view is that we should do some things, and we should clearly delineate it so that we don't go down a slippery slope.  I think the current path we are on will lead to gradual and unprincipled expansion simply because we haven't had this kind of discussion in a non-crisis time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have the principles already: the First Pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and What Wikipedia is not, including Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." This seems to be a proposal to discuss bending those principles. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems perfectly reasonable to have this page, even if it will end up merely saying something along the lines of "we are not here to address global challenges, we are here to build an encyclopedia", as JohnCD argues above.  Deli nk (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT should cover that quite easily (and if it doesn't, maybe a sentence could be added). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * delete WP:NOTHERE-kind of page. "Gigantomania" and "delusion of grandeur" terms come to my mind. As if creating the greatest encyclopedia ever is not enough. To the point: I see no explanation how the suggested political stuff can help in improving the encyclopedia we are building. Yes, there are lots of noble goals, like Save the Rainforest, World Peace, etc., but there are better venues for pursuing these.  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments: As I stated above, the scope of Global agenda does not need to include political matters. Also, there are some possible initiatives that can improve Wikipedia.
 * (1) Improving literacy can lead to increased numbers of readers and editors.
 * (2) Improving income equality can lead to a reduction in the number of dead links to external pages that need to be discontinued because of insufficient funds.
 * (3) Improving civility can lead to improved collaboration among present and future Wikipedians.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, and manufacturing cheap computers will make them affordable in African villages thus more wikipedians increase coverage of African topics in unreferenced articles. Or lobby to ban Facebook, so that people stop idle socializing and start writing wikipedia, like it was 11 years ago. None of our business, I say. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. It also comes to my mind that once we start identifying any agenda other than you know what, the whole idea of WP:NPOV lands on a very slippery slope. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: JohnCD puts it well: we don't need this page because we already have pages that discuss "a plan for using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges": the pages are WP:5P and WP:NOT, and the plan is "we don't". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 08:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or at a pinch userify. I can see no circumstances in which Wikipedia should ever be "using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges". Abandoning neutrality would be such a fundamental change, it would need a huge RFC (and would probably rip the Wikipedia editor base in half, given the number of resignations it would provoke). If someone wants to start a userspace essay on why they think Wikipedia should abandon NPOV, feel free, but there's no way this should have the stamp of apparent legitimacy by being in project space. – iridescent  10:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments: At User talk:Jimbo Wales (version of 14:10, 9 May 2015), I posted these comments [at 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and 03:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC) and 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)].
 * Please note the last six words of the second last sentence ("if details are not decided carefully").
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing your point. Abandoning NPOV would be the most fundamental change in the Wikipedia's history since "cite your sources" was pushed through more than a decade ago. "Deciding on the details" would be a WP:BIKESHED discussion, since there's no possible way to "address global challenges" which isn't going to alienate a significant number of editors. – iridescent  08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing your point. Abandoning NPOV would be the most fundamental change in the Wikipedia's history since "cite your sources" was pushed through more than a decade ago. "Deciding on the details" would be a WP:BIKESHED discussion, since there's no possible way to "address global challenges" which isn't going to alienate a significant number of editors. – iridescent  08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep at least until content is developed. I am quite open-minded about what types of content should be allowed in project-space. If you disagree with what you think is proposed to be here, then comment on the talk page or discuss with relevant users. Deleting the page before it is even started doesn't seem like a great way to work collaboratively. If you don't think Wikipedia should have a global agenda, then maybe that can be the content of the page, with explanations as to why. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - my feeling is that this is obvious Meta fodder. With SUL and even automatic transfer of log-ins, there's little excuse left not to use that site for what it's for. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or move - Since this type of question has come up before, and since it is very likely to come up again, we should have a place to discuss it. Ultimately that may be on meta, but until we get a better idea of the scope of what we're talking about, I'll suggest it stay here until the folks who started it come up with a limited scope (within a few weeks I hope). I've put my specific thoughts on what it could do at Wikipedia talk:Global agenda.  It would be stretching thing to say that my ideas are political, they are just about external links to charitable organizations helping people after natural disasters. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep. While I strongly agree with non-political stand of WP, I must also agree with User:Wavelength that a Global agenda does not need to include political matters. And I'm wondering if pursuing any agenda would divert a lot of resources away from building the encyclopedia. Anyway, it's a little premature to delete this page as per User:This,_that_and_the_other. On the other hand, this discussion should really be held at Meta-Wiki. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong meh - This is borderline out of scope and these proposals seem alarmingly unrelated to the WMF's Mission Statement (which, let's remember, is about education). But I'm pretty sure this will go down like a lead balloon anyway, so we might as well let the community reject it the "right" way.  -- N  Y  Kevin   02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedians can address global challenges within the scope of building an encyclopedia, simply by contributing to the quality and quantity of articles closely related to those challenges, with a neutral presentation of views. (There can be links to pages with additional information on other Wikimedia projects and on websites beyond Wikimedia projects.)  However, it is important to remember that humans have limitations.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note the reason this entire debate started;
 * I thought it'd be helpful to readers to add an external link to 'Donate' to April 2015 Nepal earthquake - see . Is all. Discussion here 88.104.21.80 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So where do we draw the line on advocacy? Let's draw a line in the sand between education and advocacy. Educating people is a tool to encourage advocacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * VERY STRONG DELETE. Wavelength, the author, has a history of creating pages that are outside of the scope of WP and this is definitely one of them. Wavelength has taken the comment from Jimbo too far, and I am surprised at the comments made by Jimbo in this Mfd.


 * As others have stated here and elsewhere WP works within the mission statement of the WMF and within the principles of WP. Any political action should be taken by the WMF. Leave WP out of it.  WP is an encyclopedia.  We inform and educate. By doing that it allows others to be guided in their political actions.


 * I think I was neutral on the SOPA blackout but in hindsight it should not have been done. Let's not cross the line to political advocacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The phrase "global agenda" does not mean "political advocacy". I myself have never intended that Global agenda be used for political purposes, although other editors may wish to use it for those purposes.  It can still be used for many non-political non-advocatory purposes, such as the improvement of articles in Category:Disaster management.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Point taken but the title name is very suggestive of using WP for, well, a global agenda. My rationale for deletion remain the same. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is a two sentence page with the suggestion to discuss it on the talk page.  This is not how WP works. If the page creator cannot be bothered to put up more information the editor should have discussed it before creating a page that is currently going nowhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * At 01:42, 3 June 2015, I added a new section with the heading "Charitable donations" and the following content adapted from the talk page.
 * Any link to a page asking for donations should be in the section "External links".
 * Any such link should be in an article about a particular catastrophe.
 * Any organization represented by such a link should be well-known and internationally respected.
 * All funds raised via such a link should go to victims of the catastrophe.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At 22:04, 4 June 2015, Staszek Lem removed that section.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * re "This is not how WP works". No, this is not how wikipedia works. Any important changes in work of wikipedia must start with a group of people working on a draft. Then a draft is submitted for community approval. And only when community approves it, it may be posted as wikipedia's policy or guideline or agenda. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia's "Global Agenda" is its 5 pillars.Bosstopher (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: For the record, here are links to two archived discussions related to Global agenda.
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 188 (April and May 2015)
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 188 (May 2015)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bosstopher. Jimbo and whoever else subscribes to his "moral agenda" need to lose their god complex. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's two sentences saying nothing and pointing towards no policy, politics, or trend. Those people who are completely losing their shit over this should come back when there is something outside of their completely imaginary fears. --Calton | Talk 09:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There already is a global agenda, which is the WikiPolicy to keep a neutral point of view. That in itself is an agenda, so I see no reason to delete this particular page; it could be used to synthesize the policies with clear goals (whether written or otherwise). --92slim (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to meta, https://meta.wikimedia.org/ Nice idea, more to do with WikiMedia than WikiPedia.  On Wikipedia, it fails WP:NOTADVOCACY.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.