Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

__NEWSECTIONLINK__



Notifying Wikiprojects and WP:CANVASS
This issue has disrupted multiple threads on unrelated issues, so I figure I should raise it at a nice central location where we can hash it out once and for all:

Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?

(My position is no, it's not, but I'll save the argumentation for later.) Loki (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be, if the Wikiproject is unrepresentative of the broader community. There are several ARBCOM principles relevant to this, including:
 * Participation:
 * Canvassing:
 * No exception is made for if the forum is organized as a Wikiproject; an influx of biased or partisan editors is an issue regardless of whether they came from a non-representative Wikiproject or another non-representative forum.
 * WP:CANVASS says the same thing; it forbids notifications to a partisan audience, and makes it clear that WP:APPNOTE does not create exceptions to these rules; Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
 * It's important to note that most Wikiprojects are representative and non-partisan; our rules on canvassing only affect a very small number, and even those are only partisan on some topics within their area of interest and can be notified without issue on the rest. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have only a few short things to say:
 * 1. The idea of a "partisan Wikiproject" is ridiculous. If such a thing existed, it would be WP:NOTHERE and get booted.
 * 2. A Wikiproject tending to vote a particular way is not the same thing as a partisan Wikiproject: consider for instance a vote about whether evolution should be treated as true where everyone from WP:BIOLOGY and half of all other editors voted the same way while half of all other editors did (and assuming these groups are roughly balanced). In this case, the Wikiproject members are clearly in keeping with the global consensus and it's a minority of non-members that aren't.
 * 3. The line in WP:APPNOTE that you're quoting was added only about a year ago with little discussion on the talk page. You are in fact one of the people who advocated adding it.
 * 4. Both those lines from ArbCom that you're quoting come from the same case which was about a secret and partisan outside forum. Neither even contemplates the idea of notifications on Wikipedia being canvassing. Loki (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We've had a long history of issues with partisan Wikiprojects, recently for example WikiProject Roads which became so hyper-partisan that it ended up forking rather than complying with policy and guideline when all their attempts to destroy those policies and guidelines failed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If a WikiProject is so problematic/"partisan" that it is causing significant issues and vote brigading, it needs to be taken to Arbcom. A project cannot be considered problematic by definition without at the very least community input through ANI, but preferably an Arbcom case. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. I have been accused of selective notification for notifying Wikiproject Quebec about an RfC concerning a Quebec premier, while not notifying other provincial wikiprojects, which is ridiculous. Anyway, the correct solution to perceived imbalances in notifications is always to notify more editors through various means of mass notification; it is never to accuse editors using these mandated channels of "canvassing" - the latter is what is disruptive, IMO.
 * And concerning BilledMammal's comment on this, the idea that any WikiProject would be a biased or partisan audience is set out here without any shred of evidence. Nor is there any evidence that Arbcom or INAPPNOTE had these public, on-wiki fora in mind when cautioning against partisanship. The fact is that Wikiprojects concern topics, not ideologies (whether on-wiki or off-wiki ideologies) so if you want to be informed on a topic where you disagree with the opinions of the most active contributors, the sensible thing has always been to join the wikiproject or at least to follow its page for updates.
 * Just for emphasis: accusing editors of bias because they belong to or notify wikiprojects is itself a violation of WP:NPA and disruptive. When I was accused of bias and canvassing for notifying Wikiproject Quebec, I felt both hurt and falsely accused - that is, once I was finished laughing at the absurdly false assumptions the accusation implied concerning my views about nationalism. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the intent of this discussion is to determine whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be unrepresentative or mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience and thus inappropriate to notify.
 * Whether any specific Wikiproject is unrepresentative or mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience is a different question that can be addressed elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the question posed in this section as whether it is theoretically possible for a Wikiproject to be biased and notifying it to be canvassing; I think the relevant question is whether this is a practical or relevant concern. What matters isn't the theoretical (how many angels can fit on the head of a pin) but rather the practical (is there an angel on the head of my pin, and if so, does it give me an unfair advantage in discussions to determine consensus of the community on a topic).
 * What is clearly the case is that these kind of accusations - claims that specific wikiprojects are partisan (always without evidence; always a "theoretical" concern) and that notfiying them is therefore partisan - have had real, and unmistakable toxic effects on-wiki. These effects have included individual editors feeling attacked and misunderstood, and also community time wasted on dramaboards, and to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that any wikiproject notification was ever canvassing, though efforts have been (correctly) made to ensure that editors having differing perspectives on issues are also notified.
 * In any event, there is a clear and present cost to the community thanks to toxic discussion when certain editors insist on retaining the accusation of "canvassing by notifying partisan wikiprojects" within their arsenal. Given this evident pain point, it seems clear to me that the onus is on those holding this belief to present evidence that it is a real, not theoretical, possibility. Otherwise we are dragging down the level of civility in the community and wasting the time of editors and administrators just because certain editors believe they ought to be able to make a certain argument - even though, to the best of my knowledge, the community has never reached consensus that this argument was ever borne out in an actual situation on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate; the discussions that Loki linked as provoking this discussion included evidence. However, I won't go into it here, both because I don't want to derail this discussion with talk of specific WikiProjects and because you are topic banned and thus can't engage with the evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Before this is closed, I wanted to clarify that when I said, to my knowledge the community has not reached consensus that any wikiproject notification was ever canvassing, I was referring to the act of issuing an appropriately worded, neutral notification to a Wikiproject. Issuing a non-neutral notification, whether to a wikiproject or a dramaboard, can of course be canvassing. The fairly extensive contributions made to this discussion have confirmed my opinion that a neutrally-worded notification to a wikiproject is never canvassing, and that the solution to selective notifications (e.g., concerning Israel-Palestine issues) is always to notify more editors, bringing in diverse views from other relevant projects or through centralized boards. I don't think this is applied Neutonian physics, here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed with @Gnomingstuff. While I don't deny there have been legitimate and serious issues with canvassing, canvassing is slowly becoming Wikipedia's Stop the Steal. By that I mean, it's a accusation freely thrown out by someone when their idea loses at a !vote or is suddenly drowned out by opposing ideas. The obvious intent is to try for an appeal by mass discrediting any opposing opnion, rather than accept their idea might might have been an unpopular one. So any policy changes, IMHO, should be to clarify what is and is not canvassing and not introduce more confusion and open more doors for appeals and lawyering when ones proposal isn't suceeding.Dave (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: As someone who thinks CANVASS is a bad policy ("good intentions..."), I think notifying WikiProject is a good practice, per Linus's Law. That said, as some others have mentioned, it can be a problem if one notifies only WikiProjects related to one side of an argument. The more, the merrier, is a rule of thumb. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how anyone could consider any WikiProject to be related to one side of the argument. Such an argument presumes that everyone who has a particular WikiProject's page on their watchlist is of the same opinion and such a presumption has no factual basis. TarnishedPathtalk 03:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't presume that. It only presumes that people with a particular interest are more likely to gravitate towards projects matching that interest and less likely to gravitate towards other projects. This is obviously true. The same group of people are able to watch Wikiproject India and Wikiproject Pakistan, but it will not be true in practice that the same group of people do watch them. If an issue regarding a dispute between India and Pakistan is notified to only one of those projects, it is reasonable to suspect an intention to bias the discussion. Zerotalk 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that someone watching Wikiproject India for example may fall either side of being for or against India's interest. It would be a mistake to presume that notifying Wikiproject India in regards to some hypothetical discussion is going to result in an homogenous group of editors all voting along national interests. Tarnis<b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 07:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my experience, most folks watching a given wikiproject page are sympathethic to the entity being covered by the project. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus we're especially looking at you WP:TERRORISM and WP:CRIME, consider yourself WP:TROUTED by the WP:WikiLawyers ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exceptions just prove the rule, trout yourself please. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And anyway, members of such wikiprojects may not be sympathetic to the entity covered, but may be sympathetic to undue coverage of such topics in other articles, for example. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was mostly humorous. I do think this is a good case to merge some topics, like WP:Israel and WP:Palestine which have very limited exceptional/non-overlap. But in most cases, I subscribe to both projects and get duplication notifications/discussions, or the forum remains on individual talk pages, since there's no space for projects to really develop shared consensus. But this is admittedly one of the worst extremes of POV pushing on enwp ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a WP:IsPal project and given the amount of overlap between the WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE projects, there's no reason why both of them couldn't be merged into that. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, what possible reason could there be....... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what the overlap of people who follow all three projects (I do) and the ones who follow both WP:Israel and WP:Palestine but not WP:ISPAL. I wrote a report for Wikipedia Signpost about the complexity of the WikiProjects ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, what possible reason could there be....... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what the overlap of people who follow all three projects (I do) and the ones who follow both WP:Israel and WP:Palestine but not WP:ISPAL. I wrote a report for Wikipedia Signpost about the complexity of the WikiProjects ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Theres no such thing as a WikiProject being "unrepresentative", literally any editor can watchlist any WikiProject's talk page. I watchlist, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria, Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Any notification to any of those I would see. Now there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel, but notifying WikiProjects that have within their scope whatever is under discussion is not canvassing.  nableezy  - 02:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They can, but the possibility that they can doesn't mean the forum isn't unrepresentative if they don't. Consider a hypothetical; lets pretend that 90% of people affiliated (watchlisting, members, etc) with WikiProject Israel are pro-Israel in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict . Clearly, it would be unrepresentative, and a WP:CANVASS violation to notify unless there is an equally unrepresentative forum in the opposite direction that is also notified (perhaps WikiProject Palestine).
 * To be clear, I'm not saying either of these are unrepresentative or mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience; I haven't looked into either of them, and am only using them for the sake of example. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Edited 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) to clarify
 * If something is not relevant to WikiProject Palestine, like say an article on some random company in Tel Aviv, then notifying WikiProject Israel and not WikiProject Palestine would be totally fine. If something is relevant to both, then only notifying one would be an issue. I literally just said, in the comment you are replying to, there are times where notifying only specific WikiProjects that have an intended audience may be an issue, like only notifying WikiProject Palestine about some discussion also relevant to WikiProject Israel. But the idea that a page that any and every registered user can watchlist can be a target for canvassing is silly. I guarantee you "pro-Israel" users watchlist WikiProject Palestine, and "pro-Palestine" users watchlist WikiProject Israel. If the notification itself is neutral, it isnt a CANVASSING violation to post to a WikiProject about a discussion in its scope.  nableezy  - 02:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is similar to how I feel about it too: there are times when notifying only certain Wikiprojects says bad things about the notifier's intent, but I don't think there's ever a time where notifying only certain Wikiprojects ever causes provably skewed results.
 * (Furthermore, not notifying the relevant Wikiprojects is often also suspicious in this way. Sometimes it smacks of not wanting a decision to be scrutinized by people who regularly edit in the topic area.) Loki (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You previously discussed your point of view regarding partisan WikiProjects at, and it didn't get much support. As I said then, WikiProjects are just groups of editors sharing a common interest and working together to further the goals of Wikipedia, usually by working on various initiatives. Most of them are oriented around a content area, and thus attract the knowledgeable editors in that area. Notifying the corresponding WikiProjects for related content areas is considered to be a neutral way of reaching the interested editors who are best able to bring greater context to a decision. It's not partisan to be interested in a content area.
 * There can be groups that, by their nature, have self-selected a set of editors with a specific position on some issue, and thus its members are more prone to make partial arguments for that position. If someone set up WikiProject solely to vote in favour of removing all foreign language names from English Wikipedia articles, for example, then notifying it would result in vote-stacking. However the community has dealt with this by reaching a consensus that the group's purpose is counter to the best interests of the overall project and disbanding the group. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There can be groups that, by their nature, have self-selected a set of editors with a specific position on some issue, and thus its members are more prone to make partial arguments for that position. If someone set up WikiProject solely to vote in favour of removing all foreign language names from English Wikipedia articles, for example, then notifying it would result in vote-stacking. However the community has dealt with this by reaching a consensus that the group's purpose is counter to the best interests of the overall project and disbanding the group. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There have been issues relating to very cliquey Wikiprojects/similar pages. Not a huge number but hard to say "ever". The question says "the relevant Wikiprojects", which is plural, while I assume the issue is usually with a relevant Wikiproject. The common practice of simply notifying all Wikiprojects on the talkpage, with a neutral message the same across all notifications, works fine in the vast majority of cases. CMD (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The question at issue here was originally sparked by someone notifying the relevant Wikiproject and all people on the talk page about an AFD for an essay closely related to LGBT issues. The assertion by some editors for deletion, including the person who started the AFD in the first place, was that WP:LGBT was biased such that notifying them at all, even in combination with a group of editors including some editors known specifically to oppose the existence of the page, was canvassing. Loki (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the only thing that would make a Wikiproject notification a violation of WP:CANVASS is if the notification itself was done in a POV manner, such as calling for everyone at the Wikiproject to vote a certain way. Or you might get called out if it was, say, an RfC on a religious topic and the only Wikiproject you notified was Wikiproject Atheism. Though the solution to such a case is just to notify the other relevant Wikiprojects, which anyone can do. The only other case I can think of that would get you some side-eye and comments is if you were notifying Wikiprojects that very clearly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, such as if it was a Biology RfC and you went and notified Wikiproject Football. Though that would less be canvassing and more just...confusion. Silver  seren C 03:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, notifying WikiProject Football about a Biology RfC would violate WP:CANVASS; see Spamming and excessive cross-posting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, notifying relevant Wikiprojects about a discussion does not in itself constitute violate WP:CANVASS. To be frank, some of the claims that it does have seemed to necessarily—whether the users writing such claims intend it or not—involve prejudicial assessments, such as the presumption that WP:LGBT is somehow inappropriately 'partisan' in a way contrary to Wikipedia's purpose because—why, honestly? Because of a presumption that the project draws in LGBT editors, and on top of that a presumption that LGBT editors are inappropriately 'partisan' about LGBT-related topics compared to cisgender and heterosexual editors? I really don't see how this claim, either in the abstract or in context, doesn't inevitably hinge on prejudicial presumptions about editors that violate the wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct's tenets about collegiality, good citizenship, and creating a pleasant and safe space for participants. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 06:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Notifying a WikiProject cannot ever be a serious canvassing problem, since it's open, widely broadcast message. The issue usually is that some people sitting on a favoured WP:LOCALCON get upset at the extra attention it brings. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen that happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the basic assumption is IMO that Wikiprojects can be watched by all kinds of people. Hopefully several of them do so because of a general interest in the topics that can pop up, and not out of a desire to promote whatever every chance they get. Some projects are pretty close to various CTOPS, like Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan and FTN, but that is still my basic assumption. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In general and in principle, no; but in practice, in the past, certain WikiProjects have been problematic and hard to deal with. For example, WikiProject Pornography fought a long and historically successful campaign to have their own SNG for pornstars, which allowed sources that weren't independent.  The fighting went on for years until the SNG was finally deprecated in 2019 after this RfC; subsequently most of the pornstar "biographies" that Wikipedia used to host got deleted on the grounds that they didn't contain any biographical information at all.  Porn performers' names, dates of birth, nationalities, families and career history outside porn are understandably kept quiet, so all the information we had on these people was pure kayfabe.  And for another example, although the Article Rescue Squadron isn't a problematic WikiProject, it's certainly had its share of problematic members leading to various tedious Arbcom cases.  I think that what history tells me is that where a WikiProject has started to develop their own groupthink and begun to diverge from mainstream Wikipedian thought, then we're going to have a problem; and people getting unhappy about notifying that WikiProject about discussions can be an early symptom of that problem starting to be noticed.  To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any WikiProjects at that stage at the moment, but it's worth keeping an eye on.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Article Rescue Squadron also came to my mind, but that was because how it partially operated historically - a few users were using it to try and vote-stack AfDs with the goal of keeping articles rather than engaging with the arguments for and against deletion and/or improving the article. It took effort but those users were dealt with and that problem has passed. The groups current focus on improving important articles that would otherwise be at risk of deletion is unproblematic. So yes, partisan WikiProjects is a theoretical problem, but unless the OP or anyone else has any actual evidence of WikiProjects attempting to distort consensus then there is no issue here. Members of a WikiProject sharing an opinion is not itself evidence of anything untoward. An editor selectively notifying only some relevant WikiProjects is correctly dealt with by neutrally notifying the other WikiProjects, and, if necessary, separately engaging in dispute resolution regarding that editor. Similarly an editor notifying unrelated projects and/or making non-neutral notifications is an issue with that editor. These are not evidence of a problem with notifying WikiProjects generally or with notifying specific WikiProjects in particular. TL;DR neutral notifications to relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there are cleaner examples. ARS' purpose was to find promising candidates for a WP:HEY response, so it's reasonable for them to talk about current AFDs, even if it did have some problems.  Similarly, I think it's usually fair to notify Fringe theories/Noticeboard about disputes involving fringe-y subjects, even though the dominant POV there is decidedly anti-fringe.
 * In other cases, the only possible connection is that you happen to know this group has an opinion. For example, editors should not notify WikiProject Composers about proposals to change Manual of Style/Infoboxes, because that group has a history of disputes over infoboxes in "their" articles, and because if you were interested in infoboxes, you would probably not know that.  A page about musicians is not an obvious place to look for information about infoboxes.  However, it would be fine to notify WikiProject Infoboxes, because it's an obvious page for anyone interested in infoboxes to be watching.  Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- or something else, and regardless of whether you were actively participating or silently lurking, if you wanted to be involved in infoboxes, you would expect to get infobox-related messages there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Notifying Wikiprojects is generally fine, and not prohibited as a purpose of projects is to provide all kinds of notice, neutral wording of the notice is key, though. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we absolutely want editors familiar with a topic to participate in a discussion. You seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic. Assume good faith until proven otherwise. Donald Albury 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say what you claim I "seem" to have said. Try AGF yourself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To the question, Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS?, you responded "yes", and then said, Suppose a project -- let's say it's astronomy -- has people who are used to what's in specialized teaching or publications. Pinging them when the issue is what's best for the general reader -- let's say it's whether to capitalize Universe -- can tilt WP:MOSCAP talks. How am I supposed to interpret that to mean something other than you are opposed to pinging a project because its participants may have specialized knowledge and would therefore "tilt" (I presume the "wrong" way) the discussion. Can you rephrase your answer to make it clearer to me? - Donald Albury 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will rephrase the words "Try AGF yourself." thus: You said I "seem to be saying that editors that are familiar with a topic will be less interested in what is best for the encyclopedia than editors who are not familiar with the topic" -- which would be an aspersion against my esteemed fellow editors, so you're making a conduct accusation. Then you suggest I try AGF. I'm hopeful that others didn't interpret my remark as aspersion or lack of AGF, perhaps because they can't read any such thing in them, perhaps because they can read WP:MOSFAQ. I won't engage further with you about this, unless you take it to WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a similar interpretation of what your original statement meant. I think this would have been more productive if you'd simply replied "That isn't what I meant; what I meant was..." I still don't know what you meant. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I too thought you meant when you said . You have since stated that that is not what you meant, but you haven't stated what you did mean. Given I misunderstood the first time, I do not think my guessing again is likely to result in my getting the right answer so I will refrain from speculating. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's polite of you. Well, I pointed to WP:MOSFAQ so you know the idea is that Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles. This sort of argument actually did arise in the series of universe|Universe discussions, and I remember an astronomer participant suggested magazines like Astronomy or Sky and Telescope weren't scientific journals, thinking that mattered. I have a vaguer recollection that the WP:CONLEVEL words ("... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.") appeared when another project group thought their rules should apply within their project's articles, but that's not what I had in mind, I was only thinking about and mentioning capitalization of Universe, where I believed that specifically addressing those people would not be addressing representatives of the broader community, and subject expertise is not contested but it's about style not subject. And yes ngrams came up too, and I see that you mentioned a case (maybe a WP:MOSCAPS thread about something in French?) where subject expertise was helpful, ngrams were not. But I believe that in the case I brought up the opposite was true. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was very helpful. I agree that it's important to have some sort of feedback to stay connected with the general reader, and I wouldn't want our running text to read like an Auguſtan newſpaper, with Words random'ly Capitaliſed. On the other hand, the improvement to the reader in clarity, meeting "expectations", etc. for MOSCAPS standardizations like the one mentioned, seems to me about epsilon. If these style confrontations significantly deter motivated editors from improving the encyclopedia, it is a net loss to us in terms of how much the general reader is actually able to learn from the encyclopedia in the future. This isn't intended as a declaration that "the WikiProject is always right"; just a reflection that our standing assumption that "the WikiProject is always wrong" may not actually further the goals of the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was an issue related to this with capitalisation in the rail transport area a while back. In at least instance the MOS-focused editors had not understood that the same 3-4 word term was being used as common noun in one context and as a proper noun in another context meaning things like ngrams were not relevant (as they have no context). This is not something that would be obvious to most non-specialists but is clear to those knowledgeable about the topic area. Subject-specialist knowledge is, in many discussions, important context required to reach the correct decision - whether that decision is to follow specialist conventions or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This touches on something that's puzzled me for years. When a group of editors who are principally interested in interpreting policies & guidelines come into conflict with a group of editors, like a WikiProject, with some subject-matter expertise, we default to treating the latter as parochial fanboys. But it's not clear why this should be so in a broad moral sense: the P&G interpreters are not typically a larger or less hyperfocused group than a WikiProject. I think we tend to assume that because the community at large has ratified P&Gs to embody broadly-agreed upon principles, every statutory interpretation that invokes those P&Gs for a specific case enjoys the same level of broad community support. I'm not convinced that accurately describes the sentiments of the community, though. Choess (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a tendency among some (but not all) p&g interpreters to assume that disagreement of their interpretation is disagreement with the policy/guideline rather than disagreement with their interpretation. In the rail transport area this has on multiple occasions manifested itself with sometimes heated accusations about disliking/objecting to/ignoring community consensus regarding e.g. capitalisation of common nouns when the actual disagreement was whether a given term was a common or proper noun. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, neutrally notifying a WikiProject about a discussion clearly within its subject matter is always permissible. It would not be at all helpful, for example, to prohibit notifying WP:MED on the basis that its members are more diligent about applying WP:MEDRS than the average Wikipedian, and thus "partisan". WikiProjects fundamentally are places where editors can be notified of discussions and editing opportunities related to a subject area. If a WikiProject can't reliably be notified of discussions within its subject area, it can't meaningfully function. It would be fairer to take any allegedly problematic WikiProjects to MfD rather than to try and place restrictions that would allow them to exist in name but not function.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the idea that we should view people with an interest in a topic as being a biased set rather than an informed set is to speak against the value of knowledge. An informed person is of more value in a relevant discussion; we want the deletion discussion of the Smoking cures broken legs AFD to have more interest from those interested in Wikipedia's medical coverage in general and not just those who found themselves part of making such a page. The fact that the medical editors will not come up with the same view as whatever other editors choose to involve themselves in that discussion is a plus, not a problem. The idea that we can contact Wikiprojects only if they will respond in the exact same ratio as other editors would make contacting Wikiprojects pointless as it would have no impact on the results. The idea that Wikiprojects having an informed POV makes them a problem would suggest dismantling the entire Wikiproject system. Selectively notifying Wikiprojects with the intent of skewing results is a problem, but notifying all the obviously related Wikiprojects is not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe there's partisan wikiprojects to the extent that notifying the relevant ones is canvassing. In obvious cases (i.e. only notifying WP:ISRAEL for a dicussion about the Second Intifada) selective notifications could be a sign of canvassing, but properly performed WP notifications are not canvassing. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or at least attempted canvassing. It seems probable all kinds of editors would watch something like WP:ISRAEL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example is if we are discussing whether Foo (film) or Foo (train) is a primary topic or if Foo should be a dab. Notifying Wikiproject Film but not WikiProject Trains might seem unfair.  However, I agree that 99% of notifications to projects do not constitute canvassing. Certes (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if the notification does not meet WP:APPNOTE or is to a project which attempts to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If it is the former, rephrase; if it is the latter, focus on the local consensus-enforcement bit. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The contention I'm trying to argue against here is that there are some projects that are biased such that notifying them at all would not meet WP:APPNOTE. So, could you please rephrase? Loki (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are projects that are so biased that a neutral notification about a topic relevant to their topic area would not meet APPNOTE then the Community needs to have a serious discussion (I guess at AN(I)) about that the problems with it and/or the relevant participants can be resolved. I'm not currently aware of any such groups, but if you are then please present the evidence. If you haven't got any such evidence, then please refrain from casting aspersions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully: the contention I'm trying to argue against here Loki (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem! Loki (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is notifying the relevant Wikiprojects to a discussion ever a violation of WP:CANVASS? No. Can the language of such a notification be canvassing? Yes. Can there be disagreement about which projects are "relevant"? Sure, but I don't see a way to avoid case-by-case determinations of that. All of this said, it's not impossible that a project could function like a canvassing club, but that would need lots of evidence and again should be handled on a case-by-case basis. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects are an accepted option for dispute resolution per the policy . Some issues would be if the notification is phrased in a non-neutral way, or if only a subset of reasonably relevant projects were notified. —Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, and saying "yes" is, inadvertently or on purpose, helping along years' worth of reputation laundering of the deletion crusades waged by like 10 editors against topics covered by certain WikiProjects -- cricket players, football players, roads, I'm probably missing a few -- by creating consensus for reasonable, unobjectionable-sounding policies and/or against scary-sounding straw men like "partisan bias." The idea is to make it easier to do this stuff as covertly as possible, without having to deal with the pesky obstacles of the rest of the project. To establish a kind of pre-emptive canvassing where they are the only people who ever find out about deletion requests. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will also say that my immediate reaction to the accusation that started all this was "not giving notification to anyone who might like this essay that you're trying to get it deleted is also unfair for the same reasons as canvassing would be, and it's weird we don't have a policy about it". Loki (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:APPNOTE leaves no room for ambiguity on this:
 * An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
 * The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
 * The policy says explicitly "one or more WikiProjects" (my emphasis on the word one). Therefore we can conclude from the actual WP Behavioural Guideline that drawing attention of a discussion to only one WikiProject is acceptable per WP Guidelines. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to read all of APPNOTE; the third last paragraph makes it clear that it does not create an exception to INAPPNOTE.
 * This makes sense; why would we ever wish to permit biased, partisan, or non-neutral notifications? BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how notifying any WikiProject could ever be taken as "biased, partisan, or non-neutral notifications" given that there are likely to be editors on varies sides of the coin who have any WikiProjects on their notification list. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INAPPNOTE votestacking is Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Posting to only one WikiProject can not constitute that because an editor has no way of knowing the opinions of every editor who has a WikiProject's page on their watch list. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the context... Not all wikiprojects are created equal, some are good places where non-partisan experts on a topic can be found and some are toxic slime cultures of fans and die hards. The biggest issue for me isn't really notification or non-notification its selective notification... People seem to want to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict so lets use that as an example: if when soliciting comments to a discussion involving the war in Gaza a user notifies only WikiProject Palestine but not WikiProject Israel or vice-versa thats a problem. From my perspective if WikiProjects are being solicited then all of the relevant WikiProjects should be notified, but again it depends on the context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But in that particular example, is it really a problem? Isn't it likely enough interested editors are watching both? But sure, for a Arab-Israeli conflict thing, if you're doing one, may as well do the other. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem likely, everything I have ever experienced on wikipedia suggests otherwise. Notifying different wikiprojects brings different people to the discussion, I have never encountered a topic area where multiple wikiprojects are made up of the exact same group of people. Anything that has the effect of skewing the discussion towards a specific POV is a problem and thats true whether or not canvassing is involved. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I infer a couple of different sentiments in play here:
 * A) "It's just as likely for pro- and anti- users to watch the same WikiProject. It's WikiProject Israel, not WikiProject ProIsrael."
 * B) "In practice, participants in WikiProject Thing are mostly pro-Thing."
 * Is there any way of determining which of these is true? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is getting a list of participants. The ideal list would be a list of editors who watch a Wikiproject, but that data is not available. Instead, I've created an approximation based on the editors who are listed as members and the editors who have made at least five edits to the projects talk page.
 * For the purpose of demonstration I have applied to this Wikiproject US Roads in relation to this RfC; I have done so because the RfC is long past and Wikiproject US Roads has forked, so I feel using them as an example will produce less drama and be less likely to derail this discussion than more recent examples.


 * "Members" are determined by either being listed on the member list or having made five or more edits to the talk page
 * I didn't review multi-choice questions to keep the analysis simple, and I didn't review low participation questions as they lack sufficient data.


 * The evidence tells us that for some Wikiprojects there are topics the editors are collectively biased on, but I don't think it is true of the vast majority of Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Why do you think this approximation is any good? Clearly the list of members is a lot more likely to actually agree with the project of the Wikiproject than the list of watchers, right?
 * 2. Roads is a bad example exactly because they forked. Your argument would be benefited more by a negative example: if you could show some Wikiprojects where the membership does not seem to share similar opinions on topics relevant to the topic area that would at least prove WP:LGBT is exceptional. Loki (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. The result is the unchanged if I only include editors with at least five edits to the talk page.
 * 2. The question is "can a Wikiproject be partisan", to the extent that notifying them is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population. Roads is a good example of this because they demonstrate that it is possible. If you believe all WikiProjects are partisan, then I encourage you to provide the evidence, but I am skeptical. Alternatively, find a WikiProject that editors would not expect to be partisan, link a few well-attended, centrally-held, binary RfC's that the WikiProject was notified of, and I can do the analysis for you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is to me a centrally flawed concerned; it basically brings it down to "it's okay to alert a Wikiproject only if they are so in accord with non-members that it makes no difference in the results", which is silly. We want informed people making decisions based on being informed, and information should be something that changes perspective. (It is also impracticable; we cannot be effectively surveying a given Wikiproject for their view in advance of notification, so implementing the idea that notifying a relevant-but-biased Wikiproject is canvassing would in essence shut down notifying Wikiprojects at all.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this data, but I interpret it quite differently from BM. For one thing, I would not regard the population of "non-members" who participate in a discussion as a kind of target for how the members of an "unbiased" wikiproject should be distributed. We have no way of knowing how well "non-members" represent the rest of the community or why they were motivated to participate in the discussion
 * Also, I want to point to the actual impact of the participation of project members on the four proposals mentioned. The first proposal was supported by members and non-members alike, so the participation of members was not likely to affect the outcome. The middle proposals were supported by members and opposed by non-members, and therefore did not reach anything approaching consensus even though members disagreed.
 * The most interesting case, though, is the last proposal. The net preferences of members and non-members pretty much canceled out, leaving the discussion seemingly deadlocked. I would argue that this is actually a desirable outcome of member participation; if we assume that members are more likely to be contributing to content development in this area, then it is better to have a non-consensus in which their voices are heard (motivating further discussion and new proposals) than a clear consensus against in which their perspectives are seemingly excluded.
 * And of course what makes this case relevant is also what makes it unusual: that members of a single wikiproject, sharing similar views, make up such a large portion of those !voting on a set of proposals. The much more typical case is that appropriate notifications of projects with different perspectives, or the use of WP:CENT, dilutes the participation from any one group to a small - if sometimes the best-informed - part of the whole. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think both are true depending on which project we're talking about, there is a large diversity of WikiProjects and no generalization is going to apply to all of them. I will also note that some wikiprojects are strongly "anti-thing" like WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Alternative medicine. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We need to give up the idea that all Wikipedia editors are at the two extremes. Either ideal where the objectives of Wikipedia fully overrule biases, or where where biases are so strong that they overrule the objectives of Wikipedia.  In reality most editors are somewhere between those two extremes.  Conversely, give up the idea that mere expression of concern of biased-influenced editing is is a severe accusation and violation of wp:AGF. On average, a wiki-project is typically going to be slightly biased. Regarding notifying them on a contentious  topic, this should be recognized (and adjusted for by casting a wider net) but IMO it doesn't rise to the level of precluding notifying them or considering it to be a wp:canvas violation. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the notion that a WikiProject can be considered or  without the involvement of Arbcom or some other discussion venue; otherwise, those are just an editor's personal opinion. I am also concerned with the conflation of specific canvassing cases which occurred in private or semi-private off-Wiki venues (EEML and Tropical Cyclones) with on-Wiki WikiProjects. Curbon7 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Thryduulf's point (and Curbon7's too now I guess) here that a claim that an Wikiproject is so partisan that it is inappropriate to notify them of something within their scope of interest is a user conduct issue, an accusation of which should only be made with evidence at an appropriate forum (AN/I, but also AE or ARCA for CTs). Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is certainly possible to CANVAS via a wikiproject notification … by wording the notification in a non-neutral way with the intent of generating desired support/opposition to an issue. However, that is a flaw with the wording of the notification, not the location of the notification. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think neutral notification of relevant WikiProjects is almost never canvassing. Part of the disagreement centers on the word partisan, which has expansive enough of a definition that we can be talking about very different things. BM's analysis of various WikiProjects above has no way of distinguishing between problematically partisan ("we vote differently than the general community because we're non-neutral") and positively partisan ("we vote differently because we know more than the general community"). I think Nat Gertler's thoughts on this are well-stated. A case against a WikiProject needs much more evidence, being essentially a misconduct allegation against a large group of editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * what about the other point raised which is about selective notification of relevant WikiProjects? If someone notifies one relevant wikiproject but not another could that be an issue? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think commonly understood best practice is to notify them all if you're going to notify one. I sometimes think it's overkill. For example, I remember at least considering notifying some projects about a dispute related to J. K. Rowling and being torn about whether or not to notify WP:WikiProject Gloucestershire. I certainly wouldn't hold it against someone if they did so, and I wouldn't call it canvassing if someone left it off. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In cases like that it makes sense to consider whether the specific dispute is relevant to that WikiProject. For example, if it was a dispute about whether Yate (where she was born) should be described as being in "Gloucestershire" or "South Gloucestershire" then the Gloucestershire project is definitely relevant. If the dispute was about which articles to include in her bibliography then the relevance is harder to see.
 * In general I don't think it should ever be regarded as wrong to notify all the WikiProjects that have tagged the article, or all the ones that are not tagged as inactive. If you think there is a relevant project that hasn't been notified, then the best thing to do is notify them and AGF that not doing so was not an attempt at canvassing unless you have a good reason not to. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn’t great to selectively notify, but the answer is to then notify the other relevant wikiprojects.  nableezy  - 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * An issue seems to be that the "is relevant to that WikiProject" test can be surprisingly subjective and unpredictable, as far as I can tell. People employ different (often unstated) heuristics to estimate relevance. Regarding "the best thing to do is notify them and AGF", this is my view too. I wonder about the scope of the AGF policy and its relationship to project notifications and the WP:INAPPNOTE guideline. AGF applies to individual editors. Wikiprojects are collections of editors. So, the AGF policy presumably extends to Wikiprojects as collections of editors. In that case, bias/canvassing concerns presumably always need to be evidence-based. Given the scope of AGF, assuming it extends to collections of editors with a shared property (like project membership), allowing people to use their own biases (maybe rebranded as 'common sense') to make non-evidence-based guesses about project bias impacting apparent consensus seems a bit inconsistent. Having said that, the AGF policy probably has its limitations in contentious areas where there is polarization and dishonesty (sockpuppetry), but it is policy, nevertheless. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On this question of selective notification: for a certain RfC about René Lévesque (former premier of Québec) at article Talk, I notified wikiprojects Canada and Québec, but I was told that that was somehow canvassing. The editor making the accusation then proceded to notify wikiprojects for the rest of the Canadian provinces that had nothing to do with Lévesque's career.
 * I didn't formally object at the time - based on the "more eyes" theorem - but the notifications of apparently unrelated wikiprojects did feel to me like canvassing. What is the evaluation editors here would make that kind of (presumably tit-for-tat) notification? Newimpartial (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between Wikiprojects, though. I can remember some of them listing AfDs for "their" articles on their Wikiproject page and descending en masse to vote Keep - topics that spring to mind were aircrashes, tornadoes (and US roads before they threw their toys out of the pram) - whereas participants from many other Projects treated the AfDs impartially and were quite willing to get rid of articles that didn't meet policy). Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that while current policy does allow for the notification of WikiProjects, it is clear that there is a bias for folks involved in them to keep articles that are in their subject area, as no single WikiProject is representative of the overall community, which is why it is considered a specialized community in the first place. While it is an open message available for everyone to see in theory, in reality it will only be seen by a segmented and unrepresented faction of the overall community, and the evaluation of sources is not something that people can't do simply because they aren't in a WikiProject related to the article at question. Even when the wording is neutral, often the notification will come from someone who has already voted !keep, so how is that (or any other vote) a neutral notification? Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * could not be more wrong. First of all, you're assuming this only occurs for AfDs, when in fact AfDs are probably the one of the fewest things notified to WikiProjects (RMs and RfCs likely being the most). Additionally, your assumption that it is primarily people who have X opinion on the topic are the one's who notify is just not backed up by reality, to the point it seems you are arguing against notifications altogether. I think you are focusing too much on the why question (Why should WikiProjects be notified) rather than the what (What WikiProjects should be notified). Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and my opinion may be a bit biased just because of what WikiProjects I have viewed in the past. I have seen notifications for RFCs and RMs as well, and it should be made clear that the wording is neutral while also explaining why the project deserves a notification. Let&#39;srun (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as likely to come from someone !voting delete, if they are on the losing end! — Iadmc  ♫ talk  21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone with a strong opinion is notifying in an attempt to sway the discussion (which does happen, but is far from the only or even most common reason) then it's equally likely to be someone arguing to keep or delete if it's going the other way, or more likely from someone arguing for deletion if it looks to be headed for no consensus. It's probably equally likely to come from either side if the trend is merge or redirect. Not that notification in such circumstances is guaranteed to have the desired outcome - I recall one discussion a few years ago where someone arguing for deletion notified a WikiProject with the intent of preventing a no consensus outcome. Several editors saw the notice and showed up to the discussion but were evenly split and it still closed as no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because an editor has domain area knowledge doesn't mean they are willing to bend English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. Domain area experts typically know the best reliable sources for their area of expertise, the most reliable indicators that the standards for having an article can be met, and what achievements are actually significant versus those that just sound impressive to someone unfamiliar with the domain. If there are cases where editors fail to adhere to general consensus on the standards for having an article, then I feel the community should deal with these situations individually. If mechanisms like WikiProject article alerts aren't going to be used to notify editors interested in a topic area, there isn't a scalable way for those interested editors to be involved in related discussions. In my view, I think that will reduce the effectiveness of these discussions. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:APPNOTE is clear that notifying one or more WikiProjects is appropriate notification. The argument that notifying specific WikiProjects may result in an influx of editors who are not representative of the Wikipedia community is not a convincing one because there may be editors who fall on either side of debates who have those WikiProjects on their watchlist. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of the above discussion has gotten fixated on the outcome, but what primarily matters in determining whether something was or wasn't canvassing is the intent. If someone selectively notifies me of an AFD because they think I'll vote keep and I vote delete, that initial message was still canvassing even if it didn't have the intended outcome. Similarly, if someone is posting to WikiProject X and not WikiProject Y because they believe members of project X have a predetermined point of view or opinion supportive of their position, that's canvassing, even if it turns out everyone from project Y watches project X's page, or most of the people watching the X page hate X, or whatever other reason the outcome might not be as the poster intended. Canvassing doesn't have to be successful to be canvassing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you've determined a method of reading other people's minds, intent is generally determined by actions/outcomes (baring a confession). So if someone notifies WikiProject X, we can generally assume that that someone is a rational actor and would know they can't guarantee who's going to see that notification at WikiProject X or what side of a question they would fall on. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that it can be challenging to determine intent directly, but outcome is not an adequate proxy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the unified position expressed by several editors so far, that WikiProjects are in essence editorially neutral—or at least should be treated as such without further considerations—is hard not to see as purely wishful thinking, I'm afraid. That anyone is allowed to participate is not a compelling observation: people post in WikiProjects informed by their previous experiences there. People often commit shades of canvassing by going to where they think the editors that seem reasonable are.
 * I broadly echo the aphorisms above that more is usually better within reason, and that we should perhaps spare some introspection to ensure that paranoia about canvassing doesn't become a problem for our mental health individually or collectively. It's really hard to unpoison wells.
 * I'm not sure any explicit conduct policy or guideline is workable here—we have to resort to interpreting incidents on a case by case basis.
 * Remsense 诉  09:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If individual editors are engaged in canvassing, they should be taken to some noticeboard to face some sort of sanction. If a WikiProject broadly is engaged in widespread and pervasive canvassing, it must be taken to Arbcom to be shut down and blocks to be dished out. If there is insufficient evidence to justify an Arbcom case, the WikiProject is by definition not problematic. Curbon7 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "If there is insufficient evidence to justify an Arbcom case, the WikiProject is by definition not problematic." Thats just silly, its like saying that unless there is sufficient evidence to justify an Arbcom case against an individual then their behavior is by definition not problematic... The vast majority of problematic behavior falls under the line of what should be brought as a case to Arbcom. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Action against individual editors may be taken against them through noticeboards like ANI, so I think that is a completely different situation. I think a better comparison is with admins, as both do ultimately fall under the purview of Arbcom (considering desysopping equivalent to shutting down a WikiProject). Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason why such a rigid view like this is appealing? The all or nothing approach would seem destined to inspire resentment and suspicion. Remsense  诉  18:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think individual editors should be able to designate a project is problematic or partisan or whatever other word you want to use (and thus open up for sanctions), I think that is a power that should be reserved to Arbcom. I do not see this as rigid at all; if anything, the free-for-all approach seems more inclined to . Individual editors who are causing problems are still be dealt with through the usual processes. Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is we shouldn't be operating in terms of designations at all unless things have really gone pear-shaped. Every WikiProject is likely to be conspicuously imperfect if used as the sole pool of editors invited to decide an issue, and bad things happen when potential problems have to snap to either sanctionable problems or non-existent. That's what I got out of what you said anyway—maybe I'm totally biffing it and we don't actually disagree about anything of substance.
 * A point I'm grasping towards is: what some may worry are issues with a given collective might just be noise, or otherwise resolvable on an individual basis as per usual. It is very hard to extirpate that mode of thinking once it becomes endemic to a social environment, and I worry. I will irresponsibly invoke the term "witch hunt" but only for its didactic value—hopefully clearly illustrating my worry about thinking in terms of classes and cliques rather than individual good-faith editors, each with their own agency. Remsense  诉  20:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

section break 1, charter topic
I am writing to request feedback on the meta:Movement Charter by 25 June to publish as community reactions in the next issue of The Signpost.

Hi I am Lane Rasberry / user:bluerasberry. I am an editor for The Signpost. I also organize wiki stuff off-wiki in lots of ways, including in-person Wikipedia meetups and professionally as a Wikipedia researcher at my university.

I am writing to share the news that somehow - perhaps as an endpoint to 10 years of strategic planning - wiki governance has produced a draft Movement Charter. There will be a global ratification vote on it 25 June through 9 July. Lots of people have lots of views of this. My view is that this document would greatly influence and justify how the Wikimedia Movement spends the US$1,000,000,000 (billion dollars) which the Wikimedia Foundation is likely to collect over the next 6-8 years.

I am writing here to seek comments and reactions to the Charter. Also, please if you respect the views of any other individuals or organizations, then ask them to comment. I want to publish this in the next issue of Signpost to help inform voter decisions on the ratification. I also asked for comment at meta:Talk:Movement_Charter and Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks for any reactions. Feel free to post here, in the newsroom, or anywhere just so long as you share what you did for reporting in The Signpost.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is that it doesn't feature the word "encyclopedia", and that's a shame. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned the statement "The Wikimedia Movement is based on and embraces a factual, verifiable, open, and inclusive approach to knowledge-sharing", while full of good things, foregoes "ethical" or any other terminology that would be fight against justifying a pirate site. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This 'movement' is, needless to say, a fiction. People who edit stuff on WMF-hosted websites are no more a 'movement' than Redditors, or people who use X-that-used-to-be-Twitter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump : The “Wikimedia Movement” refers to the totality of people, groups, and organizations who support and participate in Wikimedia websites and projects. It includes all of those who operate within the policies, principles, and values of the movement. It's a thing but still you point that it is really a fiction. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  21:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of what the WMF claims in regard to this supposed 'movement', when trying to justify their funding efforts. I have seen precisely zero evidence that anyone has done any research into the extent those who use WMF websites actually subscribe to the 'principles' and 'values' claimed, or that they consider themselves a part of any particular 'movement'. There is nothing whatsoever in the terms of use that describes such particular beliefs, and it would be grossly improper to require them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This just reads like meaningless marketing jargon to me, like calling a shopper doing some price comparison "the client's purchasing journey". That's not what a "journey" is, and this is not what a "movement" is. JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump@JoelleJay Yes. Marketing probably. I Follow the WP:5P and all that goes with it. I know nothing of 'principles' and 'values' of WikiMedia. A ficticious jargon and a waste of time no one will read. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The 5Ps only apply to the English language Wikipedia, and while we adhere to them, there is no shortage of evidence that not everybody agrees with them. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe the WMF should spend that money employing people in developing countries to digitize their print media rather than using it to create more and more ideological focus groups that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The WMF's flight of fancy took off long ago, and it has completely lost contact with Wikipedia or any other real-world activity. It now exists mainly to deceive donors who think they are supporting Wikipedia into financing unrelated activities.  I often consider making a constructive edit but do not bother, knowing that it would be abused in this way.  I am not part of any so-called Wikimedia movement, and it does not represent me in any way. Certes (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * God, how good would a developing country media digitization effort be... and the WMF has the means to make it happen! ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 05:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be the single most effective method the WMF could employ in its claimed campaign against "systemic bias", it would naturally stimulate Wikipedia involvement in underrepresented regions in addition to providing relatively cheap-to-WMF employment, the cost for digitization tools and webspace would be minor, the optics would be fantastic...but nope, gotta spend millions of dollars giving grants to special interest groups with limited Wikipedia relevance or to clueless initiatives to write articles on topics that neither proposers nor reviewers noticed already had articles... JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * initiatives to write articles on topics that neither proposers nor reviewers noticed already had articles... Has this happened? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ lol. WMF please, a developing world digitization project. University of Burundi is digitizing their theses right now and it's incredible the knowledge they're opening to the world. And they're doing that with University of Burundi funding. Imagine the good that could be done! ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 03:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the Movement Charter is not a good idea. the voting process gives it the illusion of a formal new legal structure and government system. imho, it has the drawbacks of both a core formal government process, and an informal grassroots process, and none of the benefits of either one. Sm8900 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, if we're going to be !voting. I've given up on non-Western topics I've suspected to be notable before because of a dearth of online, accessible sources.  Bremps  ...  06:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who the hell are the "stakeholders"? Does the W?F think we care about this corporatese nonsense? I know they're out of touch, but still...
 * This isn't nearly as bad as the magnificently nonsensical Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025/Product & Technology OKRs, but still fails to actually establish anything useful.
 * And there are of course sneakily vague bits. Take, for example,
 * “policies applicable to them” is as open a loophole for the W?F to ban a few people they happen to not like for whatever reason as I've yet seen. How about
 * “policies applicable to them” is as open a loophole for the W?F to ban a few people they happen to not like for whatever reason as I've yet seen. How about

I, for one, will be voting against this W?F nonsense. Cremastra (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They can make up arbitrary rules for me to follow, but they won't change my current behaviour which I believe to be perfectly reasonable. Of course, they can office-block me for pointing out their deficiencies.  However, if they do that to everyone, they will soon find themselves with no community and a stale encyclopedia that no longer generates the donations that pay them for watching us write it. Certes (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cremastra, you have already individually agreed, on at least some twenty thousand separate occasions, that you will follow those policies. Have you ever read the Terms of Use?  I suggest that you do so, paying particular attention to ==Resolutions and Project Policies==, which says "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable."
 * While I'm here, I'm always surprised to see people, even editors who have been around for a while, claiming that "the movement" is something that was created by the WMF and has nothing to do with us. The idea of 'the Wikimedia movement' was created by volunteers.  It dates back to at least 2004, when the WMF had zero paid staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I support the Wikimedia movement. I contribute to four Wikimedia projects and wish more people would do the same. Cremastra (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Certes agreed. Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've had enough and reluctantly decided to retire, but I hope others will continue to restrain the WMF tail from wagging the Wikipedia dog. Certes (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that's a lot of words to say nothing of substance. ltb d l (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ltbdl Sm8900 (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

section break 2, charter topic

 * Hi all - wearing my Movement Charter Drafting Committee hat here for a minute. I can quite reassure you that the WMF was not directive in what is contained in the Movement Charter that will be voted on starting next week. In fact, getting the opinion of the WMF on various topics was really difficult, especially in the early days as we started the process. The content of the Charter is largely reflective of recommendations from the 2030 strategy initiatives, which were released back in 2019 (it was released just as the world came to a screeching halt with the pandemic). We have no idea on the Drafting Committee how the WMF Board of Trustees will vote when it comes to the Charter; we'll find out at the same time as the broader community does. The ballot has two sections: a support/--/oppose section (with the "--" taking the place of the word "neutral" as it's hard to translate into some languages); and a comment box.  People can vote any way they feel is right, AND they can include an extensive comment on their reasoning. Several people in this thread have expressed opinions; I hope they will vote and include those opinions in their ballot. A summary of all of those comments will be published, regardless of whether or not the Charter is ratified.  If it is ratified, we have a Charter. If it is not ratified, we will have a much better idea of how individual community members are thinking, and that will definitely help in determining next steps. We have had so few individual community members participating in the discussions leading up to this ratification vote that there's no way to predict an outcome.  We just hope that people will participate in the vote itself, and tell us what they're thinking.  What do you like about the Charter? What do you not like? What made you decide to vote the way you did?  We really look forward to finding out more.  I know you'll see more about this ratification vote in the coming days and weeks, and I hope a lot of people participate. Takes off MCDC hat and goes off to eat dinner.  Risker (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What are the languages where we’ve been able to translate the draft charter but haven’t been able to translate the word neutral? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is not ratified, we will have a much better idea of how individual community members are thinking, and that will definitely help in determining next steps.
 * @Risker Under what circumstance will the Movement Charter be considered "dead"? There is a non-zero part of the community which considers the Movement Charter efforts structurally flawed enough that it needs to stop. I personally think the efforts so far are underbaked and overly convoluted at once; but am not sure if that requires more effort to fix things, or the charter should just go away.
 * Community fatigue is a thing (with so many elections and ratifications happening over the last few months) and I'd like a bit more clarity on what circumstances would lead to either outcome. Soni (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , there isn't a good answer to this question. A lot of it is dependent on (a) the actual results of the vote and (b) the nature of the comments received. We will have to wait and see. Risker (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess pre the actual charter vote, my main question is just... "What's the point of all this?" I've tried to follow the entire discussion in meta, here and elsewhere. Nowhere can I find a clear simple articulated "Here's why we're doing this", as opposed to "People in this meeting back in 2021 recommended it" and "We've been working on this for N years, here's a timeline".
 * Why is the MC a thing? What does it change for day-to-day work in the projects/top level decisionmaking? Will the movement charter be binding over WMF? The community? How is this different from ToU/UCoC/WMF's Annual Plans? Similiar question for GC/GCB but with U4C/WMF BoT? Will the decisions of GC/GCB be binding over anyone?
 * I can probably think of a few more adjacent questions. It's not that none of them have been answered if you carefully read between all the lines, it's that the entire process could really use a "Simple answers FAQ" instead of a "Here's all the ways you can help the MC" style FAQ page we have. I remember giving this feedback to someone from WMF/MCDC working on this, but the FAQ continues to be as unhelpful as ever. Soni (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Soni I agree, that level of clarity and simplicity is needed. A Charter and Council tend to help movements with coordination, something we do need and expend many head-desks trying to work around in its absence. In particular, even our own Foundations have a hard time coordinating with the communities they are designed to support. I tried to motivate a few specific goals here.
 * Zanahary and JoelleJay, digitization of sources and archives is indeed one of the greatest ways we can advance knowledge and fill gaps in coverage. It's not always clear where we can have that impact, but a project to identify such initiatives and what they need would be promising and could help better direct funds. The 'special interest groups' you mention that got WMF grants in the past were just chosen from the pool of knowledge projects nominated for consideration, after a public call. I don't know if that will happen again, but a) this is the sort of thing that is clearly aligned with our mission that we can do now, and b) a Global Council is imagined as the community-run body that could prioritize and act on that, more meaningfully than disparate community feedback on sporadic calls for nominations or requests for comment. – SJ +  14:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your meta:User:Sj/Design chats/Charter/en is much more human readable than the current document. Nice job. For whatever reasons, official documents on meta seem to have trouble not being written in hard-to-read product manager speak, which probably drives away readers that are not experts at navigating meta bureaucracy. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this is the sort of thing that is clearly aligned with our mission that we can do now. If you're referring to the Knowledge Equity Fund, I think many would disagree that that is aligned with our mission. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Novem Linguae, thanks kindly for the feedback. As to that quote, I mean that digitization of notable, educational, underrepresented source materials is clearly aligned with our mission, and also aligned with the stated goals of (in this case) the KEF and (in general) other WMF grant programs.  KEF had an open call for nominations for its first two rounds.  A nom for a specific project along those lines might well have been funded, and the remaining funds in that pool are presumably still dedicated to addressing systemic bias in knowledge.  To the extent that we're not supporting high-impact low-marginal-cost work like primary source digitization, it isn't for lack of either resources or stated priorities, but something messier. – SJ +  16:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm surprised that digitization efforts haven't already been funded... Surely I'm not the first person to bring up that idea? It seems so obvious... JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Digitization efforts have been funded, see for a very interesting example Wikisource Loves Manuscripts/Mission List which includes palm-leaf manuscripts from Bali. (I am also aware of a project to digitize the local laws of some parts of the Philippines which has had some success, although I cannot off-hand remember what that was called or find the relevant meta-page.) If there are reasons more is not being done, it is not due to the idea not being considered but as Sj notes "something messier". CMD (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Palm-leaf manuscripts, how awesome! I would love it if Malagasy sorabe could be digitized, in that vein—but really just digitizing the archives of major institutions of developing countries would rocket the world so far forward. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear! Although those seem to be focused on primary source digitization? I'm talking more about digitization (and hopefully OCR) of secondary, academic/other print media (along the lines of Trove, but more limited in scope) that editors could then use for sourcing articles in underrepresented areas. I feel like using the WMF's largesse to hire local people to digitize their country's sources would be the most obvious and most feasible method to effectuate "knowledge equity" in a way that actually directly aligns with "improving the encyclopedia". JoelleJay (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say anecdotally that primary source digitization is the most common focus of efforts I am aware of, so you may be right that there is a gap. One possibility is that there are simply far fewer complications regarding copyright etc. with primary sources, which may be quite old. I do think it is highly unlikely that the WMF would hire local people to do digitization. What they would be more likely to do is fund someone else to do it. If the goal is digitizing from a university or similar that would fit into the well-trodden WP:GLAM process. CMD (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sj, @Novem Linguae, i have started work on a draft charter of sorts of my own. i could really use your input, feedback and advice. could you please go to this page, and let me know what you think? you are welcome to comment on the talk page. and also i would be glad to incorporate this with anyone else' ideas and efforts, as well. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i agree completely, the draft by @Sj is outstanding. good work! Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have voted no to the Movement Charter, for two reasons. The first reason is because the text is not in Norwegian bokmål (my native language). Such a document must be available on all Languages used in projects. When the text is only translated into major languages, that says a lot about the views inside Wikimedia Foundation regarding the volunteers that is the core of this project.

The second reason is that I do not see the need. Such a text will, in the best of circumstances, provide nothing to the party, but more likely add to the bureaucratization of Wikipedia, which we do not need. We allready have a lot of functioning projects and local chapters, we do not need the kind of formalisation or funding law that this seems to be. Ulflarsen (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have voted "No" as well. for me, nothing is defined clearly enough.
 * @Soni, the crucial answer is that the movement charter people consider themselves a counterweight to the wmf. however one problem is that the mcdc is just as legalistic and formalistic as the wmf bureaucracy that they are claiming they wish to counteract, imho. Sm8900 (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ulflarsen i totally agree with you. as you note: Such a text will, in the best of circumstances, provide nothing to the party, but more likely add to the bureaucratization of Wikipedia, which we do not need. We allready have a lot of functioning projects and local chapters, we do not need the kind of formalisation or funding law that this seems to be. Sm8900 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

section break 3, charter topic
in my opinion, the movement charter should not be ratified. one main concern I have is about the Global Council. if the global council was really meant as an active dynamic pipeline for new ideas and empowerment, then there would have been active efforts already, to move ahead with those ideas, in my opinon. also, my real concern on this is that if this is voted into being, then those serving as the global council can decide they need to be a major governmental body, even if the community never intended for that to happen.

if this had simply been implelemented little by little without a vote, then their role could have evolved naturally. so therefore I feel that firstly this process of voting for approval for this is superfluous. and also it might give the illusion of awarding the global council some major legislative powers.

one problem in my opinion is that the mcdc think there is an obvious  justification for the Global Council as a counterweight for the wmf. so there has been little communication about how it would actually work. so because of that, I feel we really need to put the brakes on this idea.

Here is a video call from the page shown below. for me, this video raises a lot of questions, and doesn't provide the answers we need. and even if it did provide the answers, then it should have been displayed to the community much more prominently.

'''link to view ALL videos: Movement Charter/Community Consultation. look at this!! screenshot from video above. the Global Council would only meet once a year!!! so then, how much would it actually do??!!!
 * Video, 48 minutes: MCDC AMA April 26 2024.webm
 * Video, 26 minutes MCDC Open Community Call April 4 2024.webm

feel free to comment. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

here is a screenshot fromthe 26-minute video above. imho, this illustrates the problem, the proposed goals for the "global council" might or might not be okay. but why are we being asked to ratify them as one of the top governing bodies? who would advocate for this?

what are we being asked to agree to? what would be the agenda and the policies of this new body which will have immediate authority, with very little discussion previously for the community as a whole? and also, this will be the council for the whole movement? the whole thing? ALL of the foriegn wikipedias?? that's a whole lot of stuff!!

and if that's the case, then '''why does the English language wikiedpia take precedence? ''' and if the council only meets once per year.... then who do you think will be running the committtees, and setting the entire agenda? that's right! the English Wikipedia!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * tagging @Ulflarsen, @Soni, @Certes for input. Sm8900 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * here is a noteworthy screenshot from the 48-minute call, showing the Global Council Board. so would this be the actual effective group in the council? just 5 to 15 people? 'and also... again, the actual Global Council only meets once per year???!!! what the heck?
 * Board data.jpg
 * --Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

the details above on the actual powers of the Global Council Board do not appear in the Charter at all!! and there is nothing that says the Global Council meets only once per year!! and there is nothing about the Global Council Board being the entity to do all of the actual work!! Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sm8900, when an entity talks about "the" annual meeting, they usually mean the legally required annual meeting for a corporation, and are not claiming that there is a maximum of one meeting per year allowed for the group. I'd say that you can fairly read that line as saying "We are creating an actual, legal US corporation for you, and you are responsible yourselves for complying with the US corporate laws, which require things like an annual meeting."
 * Also, it doesn't say that the English Wikipedia takes precedence. It says that the original version of the documents (which happen to be in English) take precedence over any (potentially incorrect or misleading) translations.  This is standard in contracts around the world (just with different languages being more commonly used in the original versions).  As an obvious example, the strategy goal of Knowledge equity was translated once into "knowledge stocks-and-bonds" by good-faith Wikipedia editors.  With paid editors, we've had problems for years and years with paid professional translators who translate free of "The free encyclopedia", using free-as-in-freedom (libris), into free-as-in-free-beer (gratis) even after we told them that it's the free-as-in-freedom word.  You don't want a mistake like that to be relied on during any legal dispute.  That's why you specify which version is the real version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * why does the English language wikiedpia take precedence? In what ways do you think enwiki would take precedence in the Movement Charter / Global Council process? – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you dig into it, the major consequence of the charter is to create a body that has a plurality (12/25) of members directly elected by the community, that has the power to:
 * Tell the WMF what it's long-term priorities should be, including for software development
 * Regulate the activities of affiliates
 * Determine where grant money should be allocated
 * If you're worried that the community has lost control of the WMF, the affiliates, and/or is spending money in the wrong way, then this is your best chance to rectify it and you should vote yes. It remains to be seen whether the Global Council will be given sufficient teeth to actually do any of this, but there's at least potentially a significant transfer of power back to volunteers here, which is presumably why the Board of Trustees (who stand to lose out), are opposing it.
 * But man is it hard to dig that far in. I try really hard to avoid the knee-jerk hostility to the WMF that is so common on enwiki but dear God, the single best way they could use their big pot of money is to send every single employee and committee member on a plain English writing course. I've lost count of the number of times I've given up on a seemingly promising WMF document because it's written in utterly impenetrable corporatese. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t get how this movement charter can come into force if the board of trustees opposes it? Aren’t the Board of Trustees the ultimate authority here? Have they agreed to be bound by the outcome of the vote? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that analysis holds up. The current WMF is also run by a body that has a plurality (also n-1/2, plus Jimbo) of trustees elected by the community, which has the power to do all of those things and more. Creating a new larger body to do some of this work isn't guaranteed to rectify any current problems.
 * The WMF board liaisons' open letters to the drafting group seemed pretty clear about why they weren't happy with the charter drafts, and it was not about power transfer, but more about underspecification and unaccountability. The board pre-committed to transferring regulation of affiliate activity and allocation of grant money to more distributed community-led bodies [like the proposed global council committees focused on those areas], and it seems a version of that will happen by January of next year regardless.
 * Agreed that the charter and associated docs are pretty impenetrable. Considering the wealth of spectacular writers in our community, that's just an unnecessary self-own.
 * Barnards.tar.gz Each of the community vote, the affiliate vote, and the WMF Board vote has to support the charter for it to come into force. But the level of overall support will influence how quickly and determinedly we all push to get to a version that reaches consensus approval. – SJ +  17:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sj, Sm8900 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current WMF is also run by a body that has a plurality (also n-1/2, plus Jimbo) of trustees elected by the community. The current composition of the Board reserves 8/16 seats for trustees elected by the community and affiliates. Of the 12 current Trustees, only four represent the community, and given that the affiliates determined who got on the ballot, you could question even their mandate. Representing organised Wikimedia affiliates is not the same thing as representing project communities. One of the good things about the proposed Global Council is that it recognises that.
 * We can only speculate why the Board liaisons are opposed to this. This is politics, ultimately, so the reasons they gave are not necessarily to be taken at face value. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The affiliates pick the top 6 candidates that make it to the BoT ballot? Very interesting. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since early on, the BoT selection has given both individual contributors and affiliates input into its composition. For a while there was a very explicit alternation b/t community election and [chapter/affiliate] selection every other tranche.  In 2021 we had a straight community election.  In 2022, after a discussion about how to improve past affiliate selection processes, affiliates chose a top 6 followed by community election. – SJ +  19:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary delay in publishing articles translated for $$ by an NGO
So, I just stumbled upon WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA. TL;DR, there is an NGO sponsoring translating high quality articles between Wikipedias. But on EN due to our COI/PAID policies they are required to use AfC, which means that their articles, which usually are very good, are delayed through AfC backlog, to which they also contribute. I think this is an excellent initative that however needlessly clutters AfC due to our current rules, and I'd like to suggest we consider giving it exception from the COI requirement to use AfC. It makes sense to direct paid-for spammers to AfC, as their articles are often problematic (notability, etc.) but what we have here is very different (translations of good quality articles from other wikis - ex. current drafts include Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara, Draft:Spa Conference (2-3 July 1918), Draft:Formal procedure law in Switzerland, etc.), yet this stuff is caught in the same "COI" net. (See project page linked above for links of articles already published, links to drafts waiting for review, and their instructions to translators) Thoughts? (Courstesy ping project founder @7804j). PS. A question to 7804j - how are articles chosen for translation? How is the system designed not to be abused by spammers? Perhaps if an exception is granted on en wiki, it should not apply to articles about companies, products or living persons? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that "this is an excellent initative" or "that their articles, which usually are very good". They have caused a lot of work; mostly these are machine translations by people whose English is rather poor. The titles chosen are often completely ungrammatical (Greek Classicism Sculpture was a typical one) or inappropriate, & in the past they have chosen often subjects we already have. The texts are just whatever the language taken - usually Portuguese, Spanish, French or Italian, has on their wiki, & the quality of the original is often poor, & errors introduced by machine translation go uncorrrected. There have been numerous complaints. They have got slightly better, but I think still don't publish a full list of articles they have paid for, whicgh they should.  The Open Knowledge Association isn't really "an NGO" - as far as I can see it's a single Swiss guy with a bit of money to spend, who you have rashly decided to endorse. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the principle is sound: high-quality articles can and should be translated into languages where they're missing.  Doc James ran a similar program for certain medical articles a few years ago (e.g., during the Ebola and Zika outbreaks), to public acclaim.  However, he was working with pre-screened professional translators, and OKA seems to have struggled with quality control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the ODA model makes absolutely no attempt at quality control. As will be clear to anyone who reads one of them, they are just machine translations dumped onto en:wp with no aftercare. Many that were forks were just turned into redirects, which the ODA doesn't appear to have noticed. The ones that are left take a lot of cleaning up, when some regular editor can be bothered. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that your anecdotal analysis above is different from mine. The articles from OKA I've seen seem pretty decent, at start+ class, and would survive AfD if nominated. Can you recall which articles were redirected - and prove that they are a rule, and not an exception? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether they would survive Afd is almost all about the notability of the subject, and that is not usually an issue - the quality is. In fact the worst issues arise when they tackle very prominent subjects. I never claimed that redirected ones were the "rule" - I make no attempt to search out OKA efforts, but then clearly neither do you. Draft:Crow-stepped gable is a recent creation, objected to, for which we have a redirect already in place. Not much of it will survive, I'd imagine. If they kept proper lists of their articles on wiki I would be able to find some, I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * List here; may not be everything. Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think that is at all complete. The template was only set up in October 22 (by 7804j), well into OKA's project. Stuff may have been added later. You used to able to access an off-wiki spreadsheet 7804j maintained, but I can't see that you can now. User:7804j? For example, the earlier efforts of User:Racnela21, one of the most prolific OKA editors, are not templated - see the 48k bytes of Brazilian Romantic painting (typically, initially called Brazilian Romanticism Painting). Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This list contains all articles created by OKA after the template was created. Oka was created relatively shortly before the template was created, therefore there are not many articles without it (probably 90+% have the template). The off wiki tracker is still at oka.wiki/tracker 7804j (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to highlight that quality is not really the topic of this discussion, since this is about whether COI should require all paid editors to go through AfC and, as you pointed out yourself, AfC's goals are not primarily to check quality. I'd suggest moving the OKA discussions somewhere else such as our talkpage in the intertranswiki project 7804j (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Piotr brings up "would survive AfD" because that's the standard AfC uses. If OKA articles typically have quality issues that wouldn't be enough for deletion, then there's no point insisting they go through AfC – assuming reviewers are doing their job properly, they'll just send them right through. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Things that would make them fail Afd include repeating articles we already have under a different title, a perennial problem with OKA, which reviewers don't always pick up, but sometimes do - as currently at Draft:Crow-stepped gable. Besides, some reviewers (perhaps not "doing their job properly" - how shocking) insist on minimal standards of coherent English, etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Health translation efforts from English to other languages are still running. https://mdwiki.toolforge.org/Translation_Dashboard/leaderboard.php Our translators are mostly volunteers with a mix of Wikipedians and professional translators. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Piotrus,
 * Thanks for initiating that discussion! I am fully supportive of such an exemption, as I see this AfC requirement as additional red tape that consumes a lot of time for OKA translators and AfC reviewers.
 * Our core principle is that our translators are free to work on anything that interests them. We provide them with a monthly stipend, some training on how Wikipedia works, but we then see them as volunteer contributors on whom we impose some process to ensure they do not abuse the grant and provide overall value (eg, quality checks, quantity checks). To help them find articles to translate, we curate an optional backlog (at oka.wiki/tracker). Articles of this tracker primarily consist of "Featured" and "Good" quality articles from other Wikis, as well as red links from these articles. We also complement this with articles that we find important, eg, about geographical features such as lakes, mountains, etc. The broader principles for articles prioritization are described at oka.wiki/overview
 * Note that there was a similar discussion in the Interwiki talkpage, which can provide useful additional context.
 * Regarding Johnbod's response, I would like to bring 3 points of context:
 * 1) While overall quality is good, it may vary. Because we have many different translators, with difference levels of experience, the quality will not be uniform. We are providing them with training, and we have observed their quality improved over time. We stop providing grants to translators wjth recurring quality issues. Overall, I do not agree with Johnbod's characterizarion of a high degree of quality issues. Often, the issues raised with OKA's work were not due to the quality of the translation, but because of the source article itself. We have published several thousand of articles, most of which are still live with very minimal change vs their original published version.
 * 2) This discussion is not about assessing the quality of the work, but whether the COI requirement to go through AfC should apply to OKA. The only reason why our translators go through AfC today is because of the COI policy, which was not created primarily to check quality of paid translations but to eliminate bias. Therefore, I don't think such arguments are appropriate in the current discussion.
 * 3) Our funding comes from many different private individuals, but it is true that currently I am the main donor. That being said, this should not make any difference as to whether we can be called an "NGO". Would the Gates Foundation not be called an NGO just because most of its funding comes from Bill Gates? We have over 15 full time translators who agree to do this work with a very small stipend, much smaller than what they could earn in a regular job, so the work of OKA is much more than that of a single person 7804j (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't care how high quality the articles end up being, if you have a financial tie to a subject you should go through AfC.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Getting paid to translate an article about Brazilian Romantic painting (popular in the late 1800s) is not exactly the same as having a financial tie to the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to couch any action in terms of "an exception" for a named user or group. Rather, I would prefer to see an adjustment to WP:PAID to make a modification to allow "philanthropic paid editing" where the articles in question and the content added are chosen by the paid editors and there is no oversight by the payer. At that point, individual articles and editors would be subject to the same kind of oversight as any other. It seems to me that philanthropic paid editing to expand the encyclopedia is within the scope of WP:HERE, and this should not be formulated as an "exception" as if something were wrong with it in the general case. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with U|Lee Vilenski}} if you have a financial tie to a subject you should go through AfC, The given example [[Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara is very poorly translated. Theroadislong (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping: . Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing, OKA editors don't have a financial tie to the subject. They're paid by an organisation to edit Wikipedia, but the selection of topics is independent. It's basically paid editing without a COI, which is a bit of blind spot in our current policies. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. What "tie to the subject" is there in "Renaissance in Ferrara"? We might as well call COI and PAID for School and university projects or most of WP:GLAM stuff, and various edit-a-thons, since there is $ involved in it as well. Do we require AfC from Wikipedians in Residences? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I would be interested to understand what are the requirements for projects such as the ones you mentioned to *not* qualify as paid editing. As you pointed out, Wikipedians in Residence do not need to go through AfC -- what are the formal criteria/policy allowing them to be compensated without being considered paid editors? 7804j (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As per foundation:Policy:Terms of Use/Frequently asked questions on paid contributions without disclosure, Wikipedians-in-residence are still considered paid editors for contributions for which they are being paid. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes, but as I read it, they are free to make edits of their choice without even disclosing their paid status, as long as they are not making specific edits about the payer institution. The way I read it, is that GLAM employees do not need to disclose because: "Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution". That section recommends a simple disclosure for W-in-residence, but only in the case where they are "specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed". Paid status need not be disclosed for general edits unrelated to that. Do you see it differently? Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, and so has previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. If they are being compensated for a particular contribution, as per the section you quoted, then they fit the definition of a paid editor. foundation:Policy:Terms of Use#Paid Contributions Without Disclosure does not distinguish reasons for the paid contributions. isaacl (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes they do fit it if compensated for a *particular contribution*, and the Paid FAQ linked by the foundation Policy you cited above specifically calls out the circumstances when paid editors do *not* need to disclose their contributions. Those circumstances match those of paid OKA volunteers, who, had they been a Wikipedia-in-residence or a GLAM-paid instead of OKA-paid, would not have had to disclose their status, according to the wmf policy FAQ itself. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the English wikipedia we do require that disclosure "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." Even if the foundation FAQ says that per the foundation they don't per English wikipedia they do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is giving specific examples, and is non-exhaustive. As explained in the first paragraph of the section, you are only required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project. This is in accordance with the actual Terms of Use: if you are being specifically compensated for contributions, you are a paid editor, but this does not extend to your contributions that are not within the scope of your compensation. If you are being paid to edit about your employer, that's within the scope of your compensation, and so the relationship has to be disclosed (and the example is about this specific situation). isaacl (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So in the same line of thought, this means that all articles created by Wikipedians in Residence in the context of the organization that pays them need to go through AfC (as @Horse Eye's Back suggests in the comment below), is that also your understanding? 7804j (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that "Wikipedian-in-residence" is just a self-described title, without any oversight from anyone involved with the WMF or Wikipedia, so the scope of their role is entirely decided by their employer and them. Some of those who have participated at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure have said that they do not edit Wikipedia as part of their role; they provide education and support to the institution's staff. isaacl (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Do we require AfC from Wikipedians in Residences?" The outcome of the recent case involving the BYU library's Wikipedians in Residence clarified that the community does in fact expect Wikipedians in Residence to use AfC. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot "philanthropic paid editing". I like the term - hope it makes it into our updated policies. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is one reason I prefer the term financial conflict of interest. "Paid editing" focuses on a transaction—being paid to edit—but the real issue is the tendency to bias created by some financial relationships. Wikipedians in Residence are the paradigmatic example of people who are literally paid to edit but don't have a conflict of interest; it seems like OKA translators are another. If we shifted the guideline to talk about FCOIs instead of paid editing, the need for an exception for philanthropy would disappear. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. There is nothing inherently wrong with folks making $$ out of volunteering. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By definition you can't make money out of volunteering, if they're making money they're working not volunteering. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can make xxx$ out of a full tims job and only half of that when editing Wikipedia, it becomes more a hybrid role than pure full time job. Our translators usually give up much better paid opportunities for being able to work on Wikipedia. 7804j (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I would not pursue this line; it's a distraction, and a loser. Volunteering/working is binary, there is no hybrid, in-between, or threshold of payment so low that it is not "working". Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the context of Wikipedia I agree with you that there should be no distinction in the policy. I just wanted to call out that many of these paid editors do so not because they are interested financially but because they care about Wikipedia and just need some money to pay rent and food (thus why we call it a grant/stipend). Sometimes people are being overly harsh on them, so I think it's important to highlight they also do some personal sacrifices to do that job. 7804j (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And WiRs get paid stipends and such, and we still consider them volunteers, no? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We consider WiR and such to be paid editors if they are paid (there are volunteer WiR who don't get any compensation). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making the distinction between working full time and working part time, not between working and volunteering. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am making the distinction between working full time in a for-profit translation company that pays well, and working full-time through stipends from a non-profit organization like OKA that pays a lot less. OKA editors accept a much lower grant than what they could earn elsewhere because they know it's an important cause. 7804j (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And what is the distinction? Neither of those is a hybrid situation or volunteering... Taking a lower salary to work in a job you want to work in vs one which pays more but you don't want to do is not volunteering, almost all of us do that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians in Residence all have signficant conflicts of interest, primarily in relation to their employer. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone has significant conflicts of interest, primarily in relation to their employers. The issue is whether they make edits in those areas or not. If a WiR at the Museum of Nowheresville was editing Museum of Nowheresville, there'd be a problem. If an OKA translator was editing Open Knowledge Association, there'd be a problem. But that's not what we're talking about here. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not able to square "Wikipedians in Residence are the paradigmatic example of people who are literally paid to edit but don't have a conflict of interest" with "Everyone has significant conflicts of interest, primarily in relation to their employers" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So OKA has been on my radar for some years now due to off-wiki reports sent to the paid editing queue. I was extremely suspicious of it at first and (along with others active in UPE patrolling) worried it would be a sort of front for the usual abusive paid editing. However, I have to hold my hands up and say that it's been c. five years and nothing like that has come up. From what I've seen, the selection of topics is genuinely made based on what's missing on enwiki, and the quality of the translation are at least no worse than average. You perhaps made an initial strategic error in structuring/talking about this as "freelancers" doing "paid editing", because this puts you in a category of people that the volunteer community, for good reason, have come to be very sceptical of. Essentially identical activities that are framed as grant-making or residency do not raise the same eyebrows, especially if you can get some sort of buy-in from the WMF (which is not hard).
 * Quality is a separate issue and something that pretty much always causes friction when people who aren't very familiar with Wikipedia are incentivised to contribute to it en masse. There is no easy to solution to this. Specifically, making them go through AfC isn't going to help – AfC reviewers don't have the time to do a close reading of drafts to look for translation issues. They'll take a look through for major problems (which OKA drafts don't seem to have) and for notability (virtually guaranteed because these are substantial articles on other Wikipedias) and then pass it through. So we'll end up with the same outcome as if they were created in mainspace directly, just with some extra volunteer time wasted within an already backlogged process.
 * As to whether OKA creations need to go through AfC, I am usually the last person to point this out, but technically this is a request not a requirement. AfC is broken by design because generally we don't want to encourage paid editors by giving them an efficient route to publication, or encourage volunteers to do work that someone else will get paid for. As Mathglot says, Neither our COI policy or the AfC process was designed with 'philanthropic paid editing' in mind. I think it's fine for OKA editors to bypass this and create directly in mainspace. This isn't an exception our a change to the rules, it's just applying WP:IAR and recognising that forcing good faith creations into a broken process because their creator got a stipend while writing them, or because they might have some translation issues, is not in the spirit of WP:FCOI. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe "extra volunteer time wasted" - exactly, this is the problem I am trying to address. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Joe Roe!
 * Initially, I also thought that the AfC requirement for paid editors was a request and not a requirement. However, @Seraphimblade raised in my talk page that any OKA editor creating an article in the mainspace without going through AfC would be blocked. Hence why we started requiring all our translators to go through AfC since early May.
 * I agree with you that it was a mistake from my end to have initially used the term "freelancer". Our translators are volunteers receiving a grant to cover basic costs of living (~400 usd per month for the ones working full time). Going forward, I will make sure to always use the more accurate terms of "Grant/stipend recipients". I did not want to use the term of "Wikipedians in Residence" as it seemed to me that this requires that the work be related to the institution itself. I wasn't aware that there are options to get buy-in from the Wikimedia foundation, but I will explore this avenue as it will indeed help with acceptance of OKA among the community.
 * In general, I strongly with the idea of introducing a broader exemption to the AfC requirement of the COI policy to either philanthropic institutions that do not target specific topics and give high degree of freedom to grant recipients, or to payments that are too low to represent full wages (e.g., <xxx$ per month/ per hour).
 * 7804j (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically you might want to look into meta:Wikimedia thematic organizations or one of the other categories of meta:Wikimedia movement affiliates. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever avenues you explore, I would not get into proposals related to trying to find a threshold where a payment is "too low" to make a difference, and thus presumably not trigger a PAID concern. Experience with paid crowd-sourcing platforms such as MTurk shows that micropayments may attract volunteers for certain tasks, even sometimes for a larger than average task such as a translation. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This might be a dumb question, but I'm tired and can't find it: where in the policies do we require paid editors to use AFC? Primefac (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COIEDIT states that paid editors "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, so here's this month's OKA thread, I thought I'd miss it!
 * If an organization of this sentiment really wanted to help the English Wikipedia, they would be working exclusively on poorly developed vital articles. Then there would be no AFC necessary. The English WP is far past the point where creating new articles is an effective way to make meaningful improvements. Unless, of course, this creation targets areas of systemic bias where there is a genuine dearth in coverage.
 * To me this appears much like the organizers have gone so far in one direction that whether or not their effort is actually worthwhile is no longer a consideration. Even with their current infrastructure, it would be considerably more effective to take EN FAs and translate them into other languages.  Aza24  (talk)   07:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've created 68 articles, the last one two weeks ago. Are we to understand that that was the last one we needed? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Halleluyah, we are done! <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia does not need new articles nearly as much as it needs improvements on existing ones. As I said, the only exception is to fill systemic bias gaps, which yes, includes a woman poet! Comparing a single editor with an entire organization does not track.
 * Unfortunately, the OKA is fundamentally flawed in this regard, but it doesn’t seem like an object of concern for them.  Aza24  (talk)   17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I should add that if I'm being overly critical, it's because this organization should be held to a high standard. Sine it is under the guise of effective altruism, the former "effective" qualifier needs to take more prominence. I can't see anywhere that it's even been considered how to most effectively help Wikipedia. Otherwise, the OKA would have approached the community before founding, to identify what is actually needed. Since they didn't, now we find ourselves in these same threads, time and time again.  Aza24  (talk)   17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be about your opinion on how work on Wikipedia ought to be prioritized, and is a red herring. One of the central features of a volunteer organization, is that volunteers work on articles of their choice, not articles of your choice, or some committee's choice. Thank goodness I didn't have to listen to you, or I never would have had the opportunity to translate that article about a medieval Catalan peasant uprising, when there were no doubt many hundreds of thousands of tasks more urgent than that one at the time. The OKA volunteers who translate articles of their choice in their own manner should be held to the same standard I was, namely, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and nothing else. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness I don't have to listen to you either!  Aza24  (talk)   19:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aza24 I do not think this is the right place to discuss this. This thread is about whether to make changes to the AfC requirement of COI, not about how OKA prioritizes articles. So I would suggest moving that discussion for example to the OKA taskforce talkpage.
 * That being said, we (OKA) already operate along the lines of what you seem to recommend. Many if the articles our translators work are are about neglected topics in EN wiki, for example, articles about geographical features of non-English speaking countries (eg, Spain, Latin America) or non-English speaking historical figures. I would actually argue that improving coverage on these topics is much more important than extending already extensive articles on important topics. But most importantly, it takes different skill sets to translate vs expand articles. The editors who receive our grants would not necessarily be sufficiently familiar with these topics to be able to expand them starting from scratch.
 * Regarding your recommendation to translate from English to other languages: we do that already. We published thousands of articles in the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia, with a strong focus on under represented topics in these Wikipedia such as mathematics, computer science, etc. There's been a lot of off Wiki analysis of opportunities to maximize impact on donation that went on before we decided to set up OKA the way it is, and I'm happy to share more detail about the rationale if there is interest 7804j (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to retract my comments. Given your response, I don't think I'm nearly as informed as I should be on the organization to be casting such aspirations/critiscms. Also, my comments seemed needly inflammatory; my apologies. –  Aza24  (talk)   20:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aza24 I just wanted to say that it is quite rare to see folks backtrack and even apologize in Internet discussions (and that includes on Wikipedia). Regardless of the issue at hand, I would like to say I very much respect and appreciate you for what you have just said above. Cheers, <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How did feline hyperthyroidism come up then? Traumnovelle (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I see a nescessary delay, there is no rush and that absolutely needs to be treated the same way as other paid edits. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that paid editing is fishy due to the presence of inherently non-encyclopedic motivation, which may ultimately lead to poor quality translations of selection of poorly referenced source articles. As I see, OKA is fairly new and it is probably not flooded with quick buck seekers, but things may quickly change when rumors spread on how to earn some extra easy cash off google translator. I took a quick look at OKA articles submitted in AfC and all my random picks seem to have good quality. So here is my suggestion: How about vetting decent contributors to bypass AfC? - Altenmann >talk 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I could see creating some sort of “fast-track” for reviewing these articles, but some sort of review is still necessary. If for no other reason than preventing duplication of topic with existing articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could get behind a separate lane so to speak, I just really dislike the idea of creating a loophole. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * HEB, Can you expand on what you mean by the idea of "a separate lane"? I wouldn't favor a change that referred to OKA by name (except at best in an explanatory note as an illustration of a general point in line that requires an example). Plenty of generalized guidelines have logical carve-outs that need to be explicit, for example, the guidance that strongly discourages external links in the body of an article specifically states that it doesn't apply to inline citations. We could follow that approach.
 * But there may be even a better way to deal with this. Currently, the first line of WP:FCOI says this:
 * Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals.
 * In my view, this is the crux of the problem, because it *assumes* that an employer's goals are in conflict with Wikipedia's goals. But what if that is a false assumption? I believe the general problem we are addressing could be handled without any specific carve-out, by altering it as follows:
 * Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict when their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals differ.
 * If the goals of an organization do not differ from Wikipedia's goals, then no separate lane or carve-out is required elsewhwere. This somewhat leaves open the question of what we would define as Wikipedia's goals, but Purpose (info page) says this:
 * Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. ...
 * The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style".
 * If a philanthropic organization's goals are the same as Wikipedia's, and there is no organizational oversight of payees' output, then it seems to me no special lane is required. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The practical question is who's going to decide which edits do or do not need independent review? If in practice this can only be done on an article-by-article basis, then I don't think much is gained by setting up a new decision branch that comes before using the articles for creation process. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lane or whatever isn't me idea so I don't want to speculate on it, in general I think what we have now works. In terms of the hypothetical unless they themselves are wikipedia how can their goals be the same as Wikipedia's? Generally organizations have self promotion as a goal and that is forbidden per WP:PROMOTION. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The organisation's goals may be the same but the individual's goal may be to try and make as much as money as quickly as they can which can lead to machine translations + quality issues, which I've notice in the one OKA article I came across. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That could be a problem if the payment model is Piece work, but it's unlikely to be a problem with a set monthly stipend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Page Patrol process should already cover most of the review requirements, no? 7804j (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Question: do we actually have some specific consensus that these uniformly awful translations should in fact be submitted through AfC? That would be such a good thing! Every one of them I've seen so far (mostly relating to horses) has been created directly in mainspace, and requires an amount of clean-up that seems to be far beyond the editor resources we have – with the result that overall this project is making the encyclopaedia worse, not better. I've asked myself several times why these pages were not being submitted as drafts, but not until now seen any discussion of them; if there's an standing consensus that they should go through AfC, I'll be draftifying several of them in the near future. Sorry, but oppose any kind of AfC exemption for the moment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , First: imho, you should draftify them regardless, if they are not ready for mainspace, not because there is or isn't some guideline stating that they should all go through Afc. Secondly, do you draw a distinction between awful translations produced by paid translators and awful translations produced by unpaid translators that go straignt into mainspace, and if so, what criteria should be used for each? Granted, the former are easier to find due to categorization. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think enough concerns have been raised about poor translations here that the argument to skip the AFC process is quite weak. I will also add that unedited machine translations are an extreme drain on experienced editor time, resulting in diffs like this one from 2021. If unedited machine translations are occurring here, this could turn into a big problem and big cleanup effort, and once sufficient evidence is gathered, we should attempt to communicate these concerns to the event organizers. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence that OKA translators are creating unedited machine translations. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like @Johnbod (mostly these are machine translations by people whose English is rather poor) and @Theroadislong (Has this been machine translated? There seems to be a lot of mangled content here? in Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara) might disagree. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed - 7804j has never denied that these are machine translations, and they normally appear on en:wp in a single edit, & are not edited further except for a couple of tidies. There is no evidence that they are edited machine translations when OKA bow out, and they should be treated as "unedited machine translations" - what other evidence of absence would there actually be? Other volunteers are left to do things like categories and links, which they normally lack. Very rarely does anyone do the complete rewrite that ones like Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara need just to be comprehensible to an average English reader. To anyone who think OKA texts are "generally good" or "decent translations" I would say: just try actually reading that one - which btw will probably get far more views than most OKA efforts, as there is a real topic there. It covers our existing School of Ferrara but that is so crap I don't object on WP:FORK grounds, though it is typical that OKA haven't addressed this. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're applying a really high standard here. For example, the original title of Brazilian Romanticism Painting, and yes of course that's not perfect English, but does it impair the reader's ability to understand that the article is about Romanticism in Brazilian art? No. I see the same kind of thing reading through the rest of the article and other OKA articles: uneven English, yes, but perfectly comprehensible and, more importantly, sourced encyclopaedic content. The rest will be ironed out with time, like how you corrected the title of Brazilian Romantic painting a couple of weeks after it was created.
 * It's actually quite easy to verify whether a machine translation has been edited or not: just run the original through the same translator. For example, here's how DeepL handles the first paragraph of the first section:
 * The Este court in Ferrara was one of the most vital in northern Italy from the end of the 14th century, when Niccolò d'Este started the university and initiated the construction of the castle[1]. The courtly connotations were pronounced, as evidenced by the interest in the world of fairy tales of medieval heritage, as evidenced by the numerous novels of chivalry that enriched the famous library, in astrology and esotericism[2]. On an artistic level, Pisanello, who produced various medals for Lionello d'Este, was highly appreciated, as was the illuminated production, both of an international nature, in which Belbello da Pavia (author of the Bible of Niccolò d'Este) stood out, and updated to humanism, such as that of Taddeo Crivelli (Bible of Borso d'Este)[2].
 * Compare that to the draft:
 * The court of the Este in Ferrara was one of the most vital in northern Italy since the late 14th century, when Niccolò d'Este funded the University of Ferrara and started the construction of the Castello Estense. His courtly features were prominent, as evidenced by his interests in the fable world of medieval heritage, astrology and esotericism. On the artistic level, Pisanello, who produced several medals for Lionello d'Este, was highly regarded, as was the illuminated production of both international in which Belbello da Pavia (author of the Bible of Niccolò d'Este) stood out, as well as update to humanism, such as that of Taddeo Crivelli (author of the Bible of Borso d'Este). 
 * Again, it's not perfect, but it's not somebody just acting as a conduit for automated translations, which is what the practice of draftifying these is supposed to filter out. OKA editors are using a machine translation as a base and then proofreading it, which in my experience is what practically everyone that works in more than one language does these days. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you think this demonstrates. It could be that they used a different translator. If you are suggesting they used the same one, then manually touched it up, the effect of their changes has on the whole made things worse, no? To someone who doesn't know the area, both versions of the passage are basicly gibberish in the details. To bring either up to even mediocre WP standards, a total rewording is needed. This is typical (ok, this example, which Piotrus selected, is worse than most of theirs these days).  Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Including estabilished and experienced editors like myself. (I machine translate and proofread my own articles between en and pl, for example). Nothing wrong with using MT as long as one knows how to proofread stuff (and if the original article of course is of decent starting quality to begin with). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See
 * Deepl translate of the German lead gives me: Feline hyperthyroidism is a disorder of the endocrine system in domestic cats (feline, adjective from the Latin felis "cat"), which is characterised by hyperthyroidism. It is the most common hormonal disorder (endocrinopathy) in cats over ten years of age, whereas hyperthyroidism is much less common in other pets. The disease is often characterised by weight loss despite increased food intake, is usually detected by blood tests and is easily treatable.
 * I believe the whole article is probably just a straight up machine translation. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , one of the points of this discussion, I believe, is that there is a difference between poor translations in general on the one hand, and translations by paid OKA editors on the other. Can you confirm that the translations in your 2021 link above as added to Cemetery of San Fernando were from OKA editors? Because if they weren't, everyone, I think, is in agreement that there are very many poor translations by new editors. The question at issue here is whether that applies to OKA editors as well, to such a degree that Afc is necessary for their contributions. Mathglot (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm that the translations in your 2021 link above as added to Cemetery of San Fernando were from OKA editors? They were not OKA editors. That link is just a generic example of how much work machine translations are to clean up. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're asking about this specific case or translations in general. If it's the specific case of OKA, it sounds like you've found a bad run of horse-related translations, but myself and others have seen a lot of decent translations from them too. The reason some are asking OKA translations to go through AfC is because they're paid for them, not because they're translations.
 * If you're asking whether there is community consensus for draftifying poor translations in general, I'd say the answer is no. Unedited machine translations are fair game (a legacy of the WMF's failed experiment with auto-translation, I believe), but if it just needs copyediting then draftspace will not help. AfC reviewers don't routinely do anything about translation issues, as long as it's a viable article. Instead there's the Cleanup translation family of templates and an active patrol that deals with them in mainspace. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The WMF has never attempted to do anything with auto-translation. They accidentally (and briefly) enabled exactly the sort of "machine translation as a base, but then proofread it and clean it up" system that many good editors use themselves, from Spanish to English (only that language pair) here, and then turned it back off when the error was pointed out to them.
 * In the meantime, one (1) editor dumped a bunch of unedited Spanish mis-translations in the mainspace, and we panicked and created Security through obscurity restrictions on all editors ever since. Which is to say:  I can, and have, used machine translation to English in the Content translation tool, but most editors, including those with far better translation skills than me, won't be able to figure out how to do that on their own.  In the meantime, most editors are pasting the contents into machine translation in another tab, and thereby screwing up links, templates, categories, and formatting.  Anyone who's been paying attention will know that this is typical of our community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing Indeed. My students do translations for class assignments, and I often tell them not to bother with the official Wiki translation tool because it doesn't work due to the reasons you discuss (i.e. their work can't be easily published). Then, of course, they struggle with code etc. eating our class time, so instead of having let's say a discussion about free culture or such I have to spend time doing activities about how to add hyperlinks or templates or such. On the bright side, they eventually learn the code, at least some of it. But it is still embarassing that I have to tell them "don't use the official tool, it is not friendly enough". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was referring to. A promising tool that was killed by a botched deployment – typical of the WMF in that era! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Administrators' noticeboard/CXT, then your summary is extremely misleading, as it was about the extremely poor translations from many editors, with that Spanish editor as the most visible example. But upon rereading that discussion, I see that you were trying to muddle the waters and defend the indefensible by providing wrong numbers there already, so I guess hoping that you will change now is rather useless. Fram (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved Draft:History of Caraquet back to draft space yesterday. It would be nice if such articles didn't start with presenting speculation by one local amateur historian and genealogist as if it was accepted truth, even though it disagrees with nearly all actual historians and the available evidence. The remainder of the article isn't much better. Fram (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fram What policy allows you to draftify such an article without consulting the community? I believe AfD is the only acceptable option (or perhaps PROD/CSD if not contested). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD, why? The topic is probably salvageable, the article is largely rubbish, so the paid editor can make sure they write a decent article which at least follows accepted science, instead of blindly copying what another Wiki has produced. Fram (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see draftification listsed as an acceptable ATD. Sure, the article needs various fixes, but I don't see why they cannot be done in the mainspace. If you think it should not be in the mainspace, we need a community consensus (i.e. through AfD) on whether it should be de-mainspaced. Single editors do not have the power to delete (hide) articles - this is a task we relegate to the community (outside CSD-level garbage) and this is hardly at that level. See also WP:DRAFTNO. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see it listed under incubation: "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 whole incubation subsection is actually about draftification, incubation and draftification appear to by synonyms... Maybe we should just use one term as it seems to be causing confusion?) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Before the Draft: space was created (late 2013), that section of the deletion policy was talking about the Article Incubator. Before the Article Incubator was created (in 2009), we moved such articles to the creator's userspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is the ambiguous "Wikipedia's quality standards". Some AfC reviewers seem to decline anything that's not GA-level ready. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's quality standards" does not mean GA and I don't think you will find a single editor who will publicly say that. If an AfC reviewer is doing that on the DL then bring a case against them and get their privilages stripped, someone being an abusive jerk isn't the wording's fault its the absusive jerk's fault. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We do have a mismatch between the mainspace's actual standards and what it takes to get an article out of AFC. For example, we had a chat last week about why "too short" was listed in WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions as a reason to decline an article.  We agreed to change it.
 * Looking at 10 recently accepted articles, the Page Size gadget shows a median new article accepted by AFC is around 400 words. A quick visit to Special:Random indicates that the median Wikipedia article (most of which are not new, and some of which are very well developed) is less than 200 words.  I don't think that AFC should be expecting the typical new article to be twice the length of established articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back I've seen some articles declined, by various reviewers, where I am sure those articles would not be draftified or deleted at AfD. Declining articles because not all content is referenced, for example, is I think pretty common (but I don't have a solid sample to say if this is a systemic problem, or I just stumbled upon some expections). Now, it's great to prod new editors and tell them to make sure everything is referenced - but if they don't do this, should their content be declined and even deleted, even through the same article, if published in the mainspace, would at best get some facts? For example, recently Draft:Battle of Pinsk was declined due to no inline citations (it only had general links). The creator, fortunately, addressed this and now the article languishes in draft queue, even through it's obviously good enough for mainspace. But even without inline citations, it would've been fine as a stub/start-class; having inline citations is not necessary (not that I am not saying we should not push for their addition, I am just saying - the rules don't say lack of inline citations is sufficient reasons for not publishing content). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * PS. Even AfC reviewing rules linked just above state that declining article due to lack of inline cites is an error: "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material about living persons." <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have accepted this draft, though the lead section needs re-writing per WP:LEAD. Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Theroadislong. I know some reviewers worry about what will happen if they accept WP:IMPERFECT articles.  If the reviewer doesn't accept such an article, they break the nominal rules and often lose content (because the original editor will give up), but if they do, then someone who doesn't know the actual rules or who disagrees with them might come yell at them.  If they do it more than rarely, the reviewer can end up at risk of a serious attack.  One 'mistake' in 100 adds up to a lot of mistakes if you review thousands of articles, but nobody at ANI says "1% possible error rate"; they say "Obvious WP:COMPETENCE problem; here are a dozen he screwed up on!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think about the issue:
 * AFC is essentially broken by design (See Broken by design)
 * It takes an enormous amount of time
 * Reviewers do thankless work and don't want to exhaustively review a translation
 * Reviewers are technically speaking supposed to allow things that are notable & not promotive through regardless of translation qualify.
 * The articles are accurate & unbiased but badly translated
 * Looked at a couple, consider Brazilian Romantic painting. The subject is notable and the article is probably going to be helpful to somebody, but the sentence "This pictorial production was part of the local evolution of the Romantic movement" seems typical. "Pictorial" is a word I assume is more common in portguese, but when used for no reason makes things jarring and hard to understand in English.
 * That one can probably be improved (though it would be a lot of work, given the length). But if you consider Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara, even the lead is genuinely difficult to understanding the meaning behind. Content can't be fixed if it can't be understood in the first place.
 * Normal Wikipedia articles are also terrible
 * The current policy on badly translated articles is to leave them up, even if they're just -- in French.
 * There is Pages_needing_translation_into_English
 * So, probably let them be created without AFC, but maybe the NGO should have someone who has native-level proficiency in English review them if they're not by professional translators? Because some of the text in Renaissance in Ferrara is bad, and Brazilian Romantic painting is obviously very oddly worded as of the first sentence. Maybe it's ok if some of the articles on Wikipedia are badly worded. Especially because AFC is not designed for this. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The one thing that AFC *is* designed for is finding articles that duplicate material already present on Wikipedia, as in Draft:Wooden_house (see reviewer comment). That is important. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a COI. The editors are writing on random topics they choose. Presumably they have no financial or other interest in the topics they are writing on. If individual editors have a COI, they should of course declare it and go through AfC. If an article is really terribly awful and not notable at all, it will be deleted, merged, BLARed, etc.; if an article is really terribly awful and of marginal notability, someone at NPP will probably draftify it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break (translated for $$)
There have been a lot of assertions unsubstantiated opinions about the quality of OKA-generated content that range roughly from it sucks to very good, with little to back it up. As of yesterday, articles which have been assessed for quality and which carry the OKA template on the Talk page now appear in the standard, quality-assessment categories; the parent category is OKA articles by quality. (A flat, quality-agnostic view is available here.) I am not knowledgeable about how these ratings are assigned, but afaik it has something to do with the Afc process. It might be interesting to compare the quality distribution here with that of all translated articles. In any case, at least we have some data to look at, instead of just raw opinion. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Anything B and below is pretty much meaningless in terms of measuring quality as anyone can assign these ratings and they are not given much oversight/critical evaluation. I don't doubt some quality translated articles can exist but offering money for a task that can be very easily automated is a terrible idea as proven by the multiple examples of terrible articles.
 * @7804j I don't know how your payment model works but if you're paying per article that's a bad idea. Why not pay for good/featured articles instead? It would be much harder to game such a system and would result in better quality if editors were required to work on an article beyond creation. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not paying per quantity, but per hour of work and instructing that people should focus on quality. Our translators are also paid when they work on improvements of existing articles. 7804j (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you measure hours worked given people are working remotely, is it just a trust based model? I can still see someone abusing that through using a machine translation then claiming they did it manually to inflate hours worked. Time clock fraud. Also what put feline hyperthyroidism on the radar, if I may ask? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that while hours worked could be an interesting question and relevant for OKA's bookkeeping and financial health, the question of whether OKA is being defrauded by its users is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia article quality is concerned, so can we drop this line of inquiry, or move it to the OKA external website, and stick to the question of how this relates to Wikipedia?
 * As far as feline hyperthyroidism, I don't understand what you are asking; afaict, you were the first to mention this article. If you meant, "How did this topic get picked up by an OKA editor?" then I would say that my understanding is that OKA editors get to work on any topic of their choice. Is that what you were asking? Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the category Category:OKA articles by quality, Mathglot, as a useful list of OKA articles. Unfortunately our assessments are normally almost entirely based on length, regardless of quality - and many OKA articles are all too long. I see there are ZERO A/FA/FL/GA class articles, & the great majority are B or C. Taking Brazilian Abolitionist Confederation, a 37 kbyte B-class slab from the dreaded User:Racnela21, this is in principle the kind of article I'd support, as being something we are unlikely to cover otherwise, even if it has only had about 40 views a month, a quick skim finds "The document also reports on other aspects of the history of the advances and setbacks made in the Empire's path towards abolition, which is described as a fatality that "caused slavery to become a fact and, what is more, to obtain universal tolerance". Huh? Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Zero sounds like the right number. The total number of A/FA/FL/GA class articles in the encyclopedia is 59,491&#91;source&#93; and I would expect a sample of 60,000 articles drawn randomly from 8M articles in Wikipedia to have about 0.007 articles rated A/FA/FL/GA class. By that reckoning, we should see the first high quality OKA articles appear when the total number of OKA translations reaches somewhere between 200 and 1,000 times the current number. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're putting this paid editing on par with mass stub creation by now-banned users and all the terrible articles that wouldn't (or shouldn't) survive AfD. A lot of these articles are machine translated without any work in fixing them put into them by the 'creator'. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My calculation is bonkers and I was going to redo it, but frankly trying to play a numbers game and somehow measure that against an unknown number of articles that shouldn't survive Afd is a distraction. In any case this is only a sliver of a much bigger issue, already being discussed in other forums, namely that of machine translation and AI output being added to the encyclopedia. This sliver is getting more attention because of the paid aspect, but it goes far beyond that. How are we to deal with that? Somebody said, "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it," and quality ratings seem like the first step. If they are strictly connected with length, do they have any value at all then? Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear to those looking on; the calculation is not just wrong, it's wrong by many orders of magnitude and should be ignored. if about 60,000 out of 8M articles are A/FA/FL/GA, then that is a rate of 0.007 per article. If you then sample 60,000 articles, you would expect (60,000*.007) articles to me that class... not zero, but 420. If the OKA articles were as good as typical for reaching those classifications, we would expect to see them. (A reference above suggests there are 7000-and-some Oka articles, so we'd expect around 50 meeting that class.) This is not to say that there aren't other considerations, such as the age of the article; how many articles as new to engWiki as the Oka ones are of that class? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It also takes time and motivation to achieve GA or FA. So don't expect new articles to easily reach that standard. For B class someone should have checked that it was well written. So hopefully B class OKA assessment is not just based on size and pictures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, all too clearly they haven't - see various complaints above and elsewhere. Many of these are translations of FA/GA articles on other wikis. Even allowing for different standards, if they were in comprehensible English, many ought to at least pass GA. But neither OKA or anyone else is interested in nominating them, if only because they would often need a total rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The featured article on de.wiki I saw translated by OKA had multiple prose lines that were unreferenced. Whether that is due to article deterioration or if it passed like that I am unsure of. But machine translation introduces many issues that would result in an article failing GA class. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that's just how dewiki does things. They use very few inline citations, even in Featured Articles.  Today's Featured Article there is w:de:Paul Maas (Altphilologe), which has ~1,300 words and 10 refs.  About half the paragraphs have no citations at all.  Their wiki, their rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Policy against demands of proof of non-existence
Now and then someone tells me something like "What proof do you have that J. Random was not a Christian?" I know this is a logical blunder, but I cannot remember any rule against this in our WP:V rules. Neither I remember the name of the fallacy. Can someone remind me? - Altenmann >talk 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Proving a negative? Similar to but not the same as Argument from ignorance? Idk if it is in WP policies, but I would want proof (sourcing) that he was. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * but I would want proof (sourcing) that he was -- My question is about demanding a proof that 'he was not. - Altenmann >talk
 * Proving a negative is philosophically too broad. But Evidence of absence seems to suit Wikipedia's approach to WP:TRUTH: our WP:V requires evidence. - Altenmann >talk 17:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about this for statements within an article context, in which case I would need to see an example statement in which it's a problem. If the article on Judy Random states that she was a Christian, I would expect that to be sourced, as well as any statement that she was not a Christian (which is a sourcable thing.) If you're talking about in discussion, that seems quite allowable thing to ask, depending on what was being discussed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. Talk pages are not an idle chat: they are about article content. Of course you can say in talk page anything you want, but if the implications are to change article content, then the arguments must be based on reliable sources. Of course, there are discussions where opinions of editors do matter, such as article titles (heck, take AfDs), but still, they must involve arguments, not opinions, and arguments boil down to shat is said in "real world"- Altenmann >talk 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, the point is, if an article wants to claim that Random was not a Christian, you do actually need a source that says Random was not a Christian. I don't see what's hard about this.  WP:V requires verifiability for all claims, including negative ones. --Trovatore (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it does matter. Your initial post seemed to be seeking a rule against it, and you're on a page for discussing policy. The verifiability policies already cover this for article content, and there's no particular need for a rule against it elsewhere. The example is weak, as it seems quite possible to source a statement that Judy Random was not a Christian or to specify that she held some other religious belief. But if someone is asking that on the talk page, it seems quite a reasonable response to a talk page statement that she was not a Christian. It should not be disallowed to ask that as a response for a claim. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I stated my question incorrectly. Let me set it closer to the issue: Someone added Category:Buddhists to a bio. I removed it and I was reverted because I didnt provide an evidence that a person was not a Buddhist. What would be my proper counter-argument. WP:CATV didnt enlighten me. Sorry for my fussy brains. - Altenmann >talk 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS is on the person doing the adding to justify the addition. Usually, one could expect WP:BRD but that's not compulsory. So discussion on talk to resolve. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. WP:ONUS is what I needed. - Altenmann >talk 18:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The above collapsed discussion does raise a point that sometimes troubles me. Category links don't have footnotes. In theory they're supposed to be justified by sourced material in the article, but you can't necessarily tell which cite justifies the category.Of course in most cases this is not that much of a problem, but it can become one when someone adds a category that makes a potentially contentious claim. I remember this specifically over someone wanting to add category:Whitewashing in film to The Last Temptation of Christ (film), which struck me as an uncited criticism of the casting. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one way to resolve this for categories without an clear justification in the prose (or which might do if prose is removed from the article for any reason or perhaps even just reworded) would be to put a hidden comment next to the category link with a source or explicit link to the relevant section of the article (e.g. "see criticism from XYZ Group", "source: P.D. Michaels, 2024", "Ref name=BBCNewsApril29"). Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's better than nothing, but it seems more aimed at editors than at readers. --Trovatore (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (A distinct but related concern is that categories can appear to make assertions in Wikivoice, which we have to be careful about.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Categories are supposed to be for defining characteristics. If it's a defining characteristic, it really should be in the prose (although with the way we create categories like "Left-handed Inuit arcwelders from Texas", it may be a combination of different sections of prose.) Per WP:CATV, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."-- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Something else related to the collapsed part of this discussion, but not mentioned there, is that sometimes justification for a category can be implicit. For example if a person is verifiably Swedish and verifiably a member of an organisation that requires members to be Buddhists, you don't need an explicit citation to add Category:Swedish Buddhists to the article unless there is evidence they are/were not Buddhist (perhaps they renounced that religion later in life). Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP anything contentious or potentially defamatory absolutely needs to have the higher standard of proof, something innocuous is usually fine at the lesser standard (although obviously better is always preferred if possible). A person's religious beliefs are something that can be contentious and some people would regard some mischaracterisations as defamatory, but not everybody and not always. Given the content in the article I am completely confident that describing Ackerman as Buddhist would not be defamatory even if correct, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest it is contentious. My gut feeling is that they are probably nominally or casually Buddhist - someone who doesn't actively practice the faith but would tick that box on a form. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think someone adding a category which casts the subject in a negative light, most especially if a BLP, ought to be prepared to defend the addition if challenged. Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everybody who adds anything needs to be prepared to defend it if challenged. In the example above the defence would be exactly as I've laid out - they are/were Swedish, are/were a member of an organisation that requires members to be Buddhists and there is no evidence the person adding it has seen to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so out of curiosity I took a look at that category, which has only two individual bios at the top level, one of which is Malin Ackerman. Ackerman's bio categorizes her as both a "Swedish Buddhist" as an "American Buddhist".  However, the body asserts that she was raised Buddhist, and mentions her "Buddhist upbringing", but does not assert that she is currently Buddhist.
 * Not sure there's a broad policy conclusion here, but I think it's worth noticing that articles are not always entirely careful about these things. Thryduulf, this is arguably similar to the case you mention.  She was raised Buddhist, with sources (I haven't checked them, but that seems not on-point in this discussion), and we have no active assertion that she decided she wasn't a Buddhist anymore.  Is that enough to put her in the cats?  My intuition is no, not when the article uses language that seems noncommittal on her current status. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a similar issue with people adding categories like Jewish Conservatives to Benjamin Disraeli, who was certainly not both Jewish and Conservative at the same time ... Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disraeli is not even an edgecase - the lead of the article makes it very clear that that category is incorrect and so should not be on the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I picked the category out of thin air, so it's interesting you found an edgecase! Reading Ackerman's bio (but not the sources), I'd say that if the standard is "on the balance of probabilities" then the category is correct but if the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" then it isn't (not because it's necessarily incorrect, but because there is reasonable doubt).
 * So the analogy with legal burdens of proof could get a bit strained, but I'd kind of suggest that the (underused) clear and convincing evidence might be a better way of thinking of it. "Eh, it's probably true" doesn't strike me as good enough to add a cat, particularly to a BLP, even if we think the subject probably doesn't mind being called a Buddhist. --Trovatore (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think categories are (or should be) limited to current status. Babe Ruth is not currently a baseball player, but he's probably properly in those categories. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, new one on me. I did not know that Babe Ruth was a Swedish Buddhist.
 * Anyway I think that's a bit of a different issue. Ruth's profession was ballplayer, until he retired.  That's what he was known for.  Ackerman is not particularly known for being a Buddhist, as far as I'm aware.
 * It does raise some interesting questions. Eldridge Cleaver became a conservative Republican, but is most known for what you could call "far left" activism, to the limited IMHO extent that that terminology makes sense.  Does he belong in e.g. "socialist" categories?  I really don't know. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need "Lapsed ..." categories. Donald Albury 23:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the idea that categories should be a single-moment snapshot rather than reflecting the wide range that has been noted is wrong. We have a list of American politicians who switched parties in office -- which party's categories should they be under? Both! There may be some categorization that only applies to non-notable periods of their life -- Jane was baptized but declared herself an atheist when she was 12, long before she became a professional cat juggler, so she certainly doesn't belong in Christian cat jugglers and perhaps not even in Christians at all, but if she switched from atheism to agnosticism mid-career, then she does belong in both atheist cat jugglers and agnostic cat jugglers. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Categories are fundamentally for navigational purposes. If someone is looking for articles about ____, then they should find the articles related to _____, even if occasionally that article says "Well, you might have thought he was a ____, but the truth is rather more complex and interesting than that". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that viewpoint but I don't really agree. The problem is that an article's presence in a category often appears to be an assertion (in Wikivoice no less) that the subject of the article satisfies the category's defining criterion.  If there were a way to make it clear to readers, including casual ones, that that is not the case ... but there isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the biggest problem imo, with cats. I stopped paying attention to them for that reason, as long as people are not using cats to enforce or contradict content in actual articles, fine with me. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In some cases it can be mitigated by renaming the cat to make the criterion more objective. For example I happened to see that the category I called out, category:Whitewashing in film, is actually at CfD.  I think a lot of the problem would go away if we renamed it to something along the lines of category:Controversies over whitewashing in film.  It's reasonably objective whether there was a controversy; you can support that with one reliable cite.  Whether the film is actually an example of whitewashing is much more fraught. --Trovatore (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, the second sentence of the Categorization guideline literally says "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a hierarchy of categories".
 * I conclude from this that categories are therefore fundamentally for navigational purposes, equivalent to something in a navbox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That might be the goal, but it doesn't trump V or NPOV. I sharply disagree with the idea of providing categories that might appear to make contentious claims just because they might help someone find something. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We follow the same basic rules for all forms of navigational content. That means that if it doesn't have to be cited in a navbox, it doesn't have to be cited in a category, or a ==See also== list, or a disambiguation page.  None of them should be unfair ("non-neutral"), but the primary point of all navigation is to help people find things, not to hide appropriate content away because someone might jump to conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting an article in category:Foos, on its face, makes the claim that the subject of the article is a foo. That ineluctably implicates V, and the claim that it is a foo must be cited (if contentious). --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See also why exists.
 * But I wonder whether we have the same idea about what's being "contended" in that small minority of cats that are actually contentious. I think that what matters is whether the article would be of interest to someone looking for articles about _____.  This would include articles that are not, sensu strictu, actually about _____.  For example, if you look in Category:Planets, you will find 13 pages and one redirect that are not planets.  If you take the POV that putting an article in Category:Planets means you are defining that article's subject as "being a planet", then you will be unhappy to discover pages like Definition of planet and Equatorial bulge in that cat, because those subjects are related to planets but not actually planets themselves.  OTOH if you take my POV, which is that putting an article in that cat means that someone looking to learn more about planets might be interested in those articles, then you won't have any concerns about the contents of that cat at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, if we could make your POV clear to all readers, including casual ones ... but we can't. --Trovatore (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We could. If we wanted to, every content cat page could have an explanation at the top that explains what a category is, what it means for a page to be listed there, and how to use the page.  We haven't chosen to do this yet, but there's nothing stopping us from doing so, if we thought it was really important to explain to readers why Category:Planets does not exclusively contain articles about planets.
 * Actually, we already do, to a very limited extent; it looks like there's a link to Help:Category at the top of every cat page. That's more of a how-to/editor-help page, but we could change that to a reader-help page, if we wanted to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's only if they go to the category page. The casual reader is only seeing the bottom of the page where it lists that this person is in Category:deadbeat dads and Category:pervs and skeezes with nothing covering the fact that he's in those categories as a critic of those people. (Obviously, I'm feeling far too lazy to look up a real example this morning.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're in the article, and it's important enough for the person to be in the cat, then there should normally be some content in the article itself that makes the relevance reasonably clear. That doesn't require the article to say "Ro Righteous is a deadbeat dad", but it should say something related to the subject (perhaps "Ro Righteous has repeatedly introduced legislation about child support payments"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because if there isn't any relevant content in the article, then there's no navigational point in putting the article in [Cat:Deadbeat dads]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Categories are definitely a navigational tool...... when Wikipedia began we thought it'd be a good way of collecting data and analyzing relationships between articles. However categories are so unstable that data can never be reproduced for any real academic analysis. This is also a problem with our vital articles Moxy 🍁 00:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they're still a pretty good way of collecting data and analyzing relationships/various other things. They're certainly useful for building graphs and graphs can be very useful. There can be a lot of instability and confusing weirdness, but for the one fairly large topic area I've looked at, there are plenty of relatively stable structures in the networks too (that can be easier to see when edges are bundled e.g. here). Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Idea is cat= List= navbox sort of thing, I get that but they are susceptible to manipulation and lots of editors can't be bothered to check, including me, although I used to. I might correct if I happen to notice something weird or outlandish, but all this diffuse, parent/child blah, nah. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The copyright policy for paintings is not taken seriously.
See commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright for a parallel discussion.

The copyright policy for paintings is clear. See en:Wikipedia:Public_domain. A painting being created or even exhibited is not the same as it being published. Finding a publication that printed a copy of a painting is difficult and annoying, so it is rarely done.

Some files (for example, File:Henri Matisse, 1909, Still Life with Dance, oil on canvas, 89.5 x 117.5 cm, Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.jpg) have publication information. But some files (for example, File:Henri Matisse, 1904, Luxe, Calme et Volupté, oil on canvas, 98.5 × 118.5 cm, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Centre Pompidou (detail lower center).jpg), maybe most, don't.

I've listed these for deletion, and I've gotten significant pushback, with notes that these are important paintings or are widely used, or other things that are irrelevant to their copyright status.

It looks like the de facto policy is to not bother with this sort of thing. Is that the actual policy? It's not taken seriously on Commons, either. grendel&#124;khan 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, unless there's documentation it was published in the sense of reproduced before 1928, the copyright extends to 70 years from the death of the author. This is true in both the US and France. So this would need NFCC until January. If there are routine exceptions they should be incorporated into NFCC. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m confused. An old painting itself is in public domain, and a photo of a painting cannot be copyrighted. Museums like to claim otherwise. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As was alluded to above, the copyright clock does not start until the creative work is published or the author dies, whichever comes first. The copyright status of a photograph is irrelevant to the copyright status of the work of art captured in the photo. Donald Albury 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What's the reasoning behind using the Life+70 rule for copyright in the United States? We'd have to be certain that it was never published, per the Hirtle Chart, right? If it was painted in 1900 but first published in 1965, it would be copyrighted in the United States until 2060 at least, wouldn't it?
 * From what I understand, either we show that it was published before 1929, or we have to prove a negative, which can be hairy. grendel&#124;khan 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If no evidence of publication has been presented, then we default to Life+70, which is why it was brought up. Publication in another country would go by their public domain rules. But, absent that, we have to default to rules in the United States, as that is where Wikipedia is based. Hence Life+70. Silver  seren C 16:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if the creator died before publication, then Life+70 takes precedence over any later publication of the work by third parties, as far as I'm aware. Silver  seren C 16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do "we default to Life+70"? We just assume that it was never published? That seems pretty unsupportable for works by well known artists.
 * And I don't think that posthumous publication changes anything, at least not according to the Hirtle Chart. Where did you get that idea? The copyright would pass to an inheritor or estate, which could then authorize publication just as the original artist might. grendel&#124;khan 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have to assume that it was published or it wasn't published, we just embrace the fact that we don't know, and thus that we do not have clear knowledge that the work is in the public domain, and therefor (however you feel about the ethics) we would be putting ourselves at legal risk were we to treat it as public domain. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the argument here, . Grendelkhan is arguing for the painting to not be in the public domain. But if we go by the rules we have, which is Life+70, then the painting is in the public domain as of this year, since the creator died in 1954. It is that which Grendelkhan is arguing against. Silver  seren C 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed a word and caught the flip side. Have we checked for a copyright renewal? (But let's remember that if it was published originally in the US in the 1929 to 1963 corridor, it would still have to have had its copyright renewed to still be protected.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Life+70 takes precedence over any later publication of the work by third parties, as far as I'm aware Tangential, but there are special rules for posthumous publication. Life+70 is true if it was published posthumously after 1978. If it was published posthumously before 1978, it's just automatically protected until 2048. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)  See below &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 95 years from publication only applies to works with unknown authorship. If the author is known, then its life + 70.<span id="Masem:1720371281318:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(policy)" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect; please see the Hirtle Chart. United States copyright for most works with known authorship lasts for 95 years after publication. grendel&#124;khan 16:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if publication occurred before the creator died. Otherwise, Life+70 takes precedence over publication by third parties after the creator's death. So you would still need to have evidence that the creator published the work prior to their death. Silver  seren C 17:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for life+70? Good faith answer: To ensure authors and their heirs have a long period to benefit from creative work. Practical policy answer: it was a standard European countries could agree on, and which US was happy to agree to later. Cynical answer: So the rich can get richer without having to do more creative work.
 * But yes, if there isn't evidence that it was published, it's usually safe to assume it was unpublished. The duration of protection for unpublished works. Since the unpublished duration is usually the same or longer than the published duration and because there's a whole different set of rules for posthumous publication that catches exceptions, erring on the side of considering it unpublished means assuming the same or longer duration (i.e. safer). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pardon me; I was asking why we use the Life+70 rule for US copyright determination, not why it exists in general. Can I also ask what part of the Hirtle Chart you're referring to that involves posthumous publications? How exactly do the rules differ? grendel&#124;khan 18:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't know about the Hirtle chart, but I recall reading something about posthumous publication and the 1976 [amended] law. I might have my wires crossed, though, and since this is also tangential to the issue at hand, I'll just strike that comment. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Life+70 rule applies in the U.S. because the U.S. has ratified the Berne Convention. One quirk of that ratification is that some works created by non-residents of the U.S. that were in the public domain in the U.S. went back under copyright protection. Donald Albury 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to know anything more than the general foreign layperson about US copyright law, but I can see that no evidence has been presented for the title of this section. Copyright issues are taken very seriously at English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've raised some good points, as have others in the replies. However, I believe the true answer to your question lies in the fact that the copyright policy, in the instances of the paintings you point to, is not construed by editors as a 'moral' policy i.e. a policy contributing to the enforcement of the general goals of Wikipedia, but rather a legal policy, one that exists solely because of threat of legal retribution, at least in regards to said paintings. I suppose if some of these artists' estates actually started complaining, you wold see the policy being enforced more often.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 01:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a matter better addressed on Commons, where most of the images in question are actually housed and where there is the power to enforce? Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. This issue should be handled on Commons, not here. Nosferattus (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unmaintainable lists
Although we have generally avoided creating insane lists like List of notable men, List of albums (a redirect), List of roads in California, List of bird species, etc., there doesn't seem to be any clear policy against creating such lists, other than the vague guidance at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SIZE, and WP:LISTCRIT, which collectively discourage such lists, but don't seem to prohibit them. Because of this vague guidance, we sometimes end up with lists that are basically unmaintainable (especially with our shrinking editor base). Lists like: Many of these lists are either arbitrarily populated (and misleadingly short) or they were heroically filled out by one editor and then left to rot. My questions are: Nosferattus (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
 * List of people who died in traffic collisions
 * List of women writers
 * List of kidnappings (may lock-up your browser)
 * List of monarchs of fictional countries
 * etc.
 * 1) Is this a problem?
 * 2) If so, how can we better prevent such lists from being created?


 * FWIW, some lists display Template:Dynamic list, stating that the list might never be complete.—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We used to have lists of people by name. Many of the broader lists, some of which pre-date the introduction of categories in May 2004, have been deleted/rationalised over the years. Graham87 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In some cases the scope of the lists should be clarified and/or long lists split into more focused sublists. e.g the List of kidnappings would benefit from tighter inclusion criteria and splitting (probably by date or location). Each of the lists needs to be evaluated individually though and I don't think there is anything we can (or should) do to prevent lists being created. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure these lists are a bad idea in principle, or that we should have a policy against them, but I agree that the implementation is problematic. It feels like the ideal solution would be improving the category UI (current category views don't support easy full text search across all items, for example), or some sort of "Autolist" feature that derives equivalent list pages from category data (optionally pulling in the lead paragraph of each article, or wikidata items, to form a table). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We already have what is essentially a much improved version of both categories and lists in the form of Wikidata. You can generate such an 'autolist' from Wikidata using Wikidata list. Unfortunately, a vocal group of editors managed to block us actually using Wikidata on enwiki early on, based on a severe case of not invented here syndrome, so we can't have nice things like fr:Archives_de_l'État_de_Neuchâtel. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting... do you have a link to where that consensus was established? Was it about Wikidata generally or about the Wikidata list template specifically? I can see some limitations of the template, but the approach seems promising. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a nice summary of the major discussions at Wikidata. There's never, as far as I know, been a clear consensus against using Wikidata-generated content in mainspace (be that Wikidata lists or Wikidata infoboxes like Infobox person/Wikidata), but a few editors opposed to it were very effective at simply edit-warring out all instances of them, citing the lack of affirmative consensus to use them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Current consensus is based on this RfC from 2013 -- a few months after Wikidata went online -- which resulted in It is, on the other hand, not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia at this time. There were many reasons. Especially at that time nobody really knew how Wikidata even worked. The biggest remaining objection, expressed in another RfC last year (which found no consensus to change the status quo), is that it requires going to Wikidata to edit such articles, plus some fears that Wikidata is subject to less scrutiny as those changes won't show up on watchlists. The thing is, enacting a full ban like we have basically kills the idea of those improvements ever happening. WMF builds things they know will have some kind of measurable impact. Despite "Wikidata editing from Wikipedia" being a perennial request and even sometimes goal for the WMF for the past decade, it's not realistic to expect them to devote real resources to actually getting it done when there's no guarantee we'd even allow it. But it would also make no sense to invest resources into drawing from our category system, which is both localized to enwp and a clumsy, ancient system compared to what Wikidata can do. Back to the point of this thread, yes, an article like "list of women writers" is a crazy, unmaintainable list (btw, Nosferattus, I think the most relevant guideline is WP:SALAT), and would make a lot of sense to be updated via Wikidata. But since we can't have nice things, and because we do allow index articles, the best we can do is split it up by e.g. nationality or era. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What would be your opinion of a list like List of notable women or List of albums? Clearly more granular lists would be preferable in those cases, but why? What is the threshold for a list being unmaintainable? It's interesting to me that even Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name was a contentious discussion (and originally closed as no consensus). Surely, our resources are better off not devoted to such Sisyphean tasks. Nosferattus (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think such lists are beset with practical problems. In practice, there aren't enough heroes available to watch and maintain them. Many aren't just lists of articles, but also contain content, which needs sourcing and verifying and copyediting and all the other things that make an article good. Now, that's a problem that many niche-subject articles have, but at least niche subjects can have a small enough scope that an article can be plausibly materially complete, without degrading over time. In contrast, these list articles go out of date immediately and need constant effort to maintain. A list article might be considered maintainable if it was popular enough to attract the requisite army of editors, but that might then result in another practical problem: List of notable women might be hundreds of thousands of entries long, likely hitting technical limits.
 * I took a look at Wikidata list, and although I like the result that has been achieved on frwiki, I could understand reticence to start using it to replace big list articles. For a start, it's much less accessible to editors, requiring proficiency in SPARQL as well as Wiki templating. It seems to depend on a bot rather than being updated in real time? That's a departure from the normal editing workflow. I'm also not sure how closely Wikidata's notability and sourcing practices match up to Wikipedia's. Might we be auto-importing junk? Nevertheless, exploring the option of using Wikidata or Wikipedia's existing category data, or some other system-based solution, seems to me a more promising line of enquiry than expending tons of manual effort maintaining unusably large articles. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * List of notable women and List of albums should be (redirects to) indexes of smaller, more focused lists. There is no single answer to this question as it depends entirely on the context of the list - for example how many entries there are, how much information there is about each entry, how complete is the list (can it ever be complete? c.f. Wikidata's concept of expected completeness)? How objective is the definition (compare e.g. List of US States and List of shades of green)? How objective are the inclusion criteria? How granular is the list? What sublists do or could exist? In some cases the answers to these questions vary over time, e.g. prior to circa the 2010s a single list of exoplanets would have been regarded as a manageable finite list, since then the number known has increased exponentially. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to echo Thryduulf, it is a very common practice to split very long lists into a group of smaller more refined lists, and leave the original title as an index of lists. This could very easily be done with all of the current lists named by time period or geographic scope. BD2412  T 17:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are "only" about 6+ million pages on Enwiki. The universe of overlap among those 6 million pages, and traffic accidents, or kidnappings, is maintainable. The advantage of a list vs. a category is the list allows short descriptions, sortable columns for data points, etc.. This is not a bad thing. There are encyclopedias devoted to woman writers (often by country or time period). There is also an encyclopedia of kidnappings. We are not creating topics out of thin air, in most cases. Something like List of monarchs of fictional countries is a little strange but maybe it's a topic covered by RS? The statement "left to rot" is another way of saying "left to be further improved by someone else", which is how Wikipedia is designed. I've done this myself, and seen others do it. If it takes 1 months of 10 years, what's the rush? Wikipedia is not a finished product.  --  Green  C  17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've thought about this a lot because I see them in NPP and there is not much guidance on this and because it spans multiple guidelines (lists, notability, wp:not, and verifiabiltiy) none of which really cover it. ("Verifiabiltiy" because inclusion on a list is implicitly a statement that they are/meet the criteria of the list)  IMO one good criteria would be that there is a reasonable likelyhood that some readers would look for it and find it useful. Which would include these criteria: Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Some selectivity    So "list of humans" would not fulfill this criteria
 * 2) Not overly specialized in some abstract way (usually on "compound criteria" lists) So no "List of US senators who are 5' 7" tall"
 * 3) Somewhat objective (vs. subjective) criteria. So no "list of good US Senators".   But "list of notable violin players" is somewhat objective and OK.

Not to get off the original topic, but as far as the secondary topic of how to populate lists and the discussion above of things like using Wikidata, it may or may not interest anyone that a Wiktionary user developed a javascript for populating ~lists by scraping categories' contents, discussed here, which is another possible idea (it pulls and displays definitions, but it's possible to imagine a Wikipedia implementation pulling e.g. shortdesc or infobox contents or lead sentences instead), though the benefit of "this is the contents of category X, just as a list" is admittedly debatable. (Or perhaps Wikipedia already has its own such gadget...) &#45;sche (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind me going even further off topic, I've proposed a split at Talk:List of common misconceptions and I'd value any and all opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages of contentious topics
Per WP:CTOP, many pages don't allow certain users to edit the page, or post in the talk page, but allow for all editors to request an edit on the talk page. Is the requesting editor allowed to respond to a reply on their request, in order to further explain the request/its reasoning, or to question a denial of the request?  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * IMO, no. WP:ARBECR intends that non EC editor contributions be limited to (straightforward a la WP:EDITXY) edit requests only. If an EC editor were to specifically request clarification, then that could be responded to, but otherwise once the edit request has been made, then it is a matter for EC editors to decide whether to implement it or not. Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion they absolutely should be able to do the first, because it is very clearly within the spirit of the exception and is a clear benefit to the project. The second is a much greyer area, I think it should be allowed as long as it doesn't stray into discussion - a single request for explanation (especially of jargon or references to past discussions) if the denial is unclear or a "I think you've misunderstood my request because..." as long as it's done in good faith. Do note though that some editors prioritise strict adherence to the letter of the rules much higher than I do (some accept even edit requests only begrudgingly). Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My rough metric is "could this response reasonably have just been a stand-alone edit request". If an IP requests and edit adding the language "She was born in 1887", and it's declined due to a need for reliable sources, a response with links to such sources is fine. It's just bureaucracy to require them to submit a second edit request.
 * If the decline is at all an indication that the change itself is opposed, further replies from the IP could not reasonably be an edit request, since edit requests are for uncontroversial changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-extendedconfirmed users are excluded from the consensus forming process. So, unless the responding party has clearly misunderstood the request, they are limited to responding to a request for clarification from an extendedconfirmed user. That's it. And I would say (based on experience in the PIA topic area), if they show any sign of a sense of entitlement by not complying with the rules they should just be blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sean.hoyland @Firefangledfeathers@Thryduulf@Selfstudier There is now a case about this editor at AE Doug Weller  talk 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug, and thank you everyone for your responses. It seems a certain user (unfortunately with a previous vendetta against me) has jumped the gun and opened a case relevant to this discussion. I don't want anyone to waste their time, so I'd recommend not worrying about it too much. Take care.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 10:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL
An RFC proposing to move WP:MASSCREATE out of WP:Bot policy has been started at WT:Bot policy. The mass page creation policy itself is not being changed in this RFC beyond removing BRFA as the supposed venue and BAG as the supposed approvers. Please comment there if interested. Anomie⚔ 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Unnecessary line on fundraiser banner
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Unnecessary line on fundraiser banner. – Exclusive Editor Notify Me! 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:V relating to photographs
How to photographs align with WP:V? Consider an example "Jane Jones drove to work in a blue Chevrolet" where sources describe Jane Jones driving to work, have a picture of her blue Chevrolet, but do not explicitly describe the vehicle as blue. Would we be able to describe the vehicle in our articles based on the photograph publish in a WP:RS or only based on prose descriptions published in WP:RS? I took a glance at WP:V and couldn't find anything. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If a photograph is published in a RS, we generally trust that the photograph is what the RS says it is. Synthesis can still creep in though. In your example, if the RS just says “this is a picture of Jane Jones’s car”, then it’s possible that she drove to work in a different car which might not have been blue. If the RS says clearly “this is the car in which Jane Jones drove to work”, then I think it would be verifiable to say she drove to work in a blue car. If this turns out to be an important or controversial fact (e.g. for Blue–green distinction in language reasons), we might want to ask for the assessment of “blue” to be made by the RS rather than by the editor.
 * If the source isn’t explicit in text, then it may also be a question of whether that information is due. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 24.125, is this related to the tag you added to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, July 2024 about whether the would-be assassin was actually a white person? I don't think anyone has any genuine doubts about that, and a couple of minutes turned up sources like these:
 * "a tall, slender, white man who wore glasses and had long sandy-brown hair"
 * "According to the FBI, the shooter was identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, a white male"
 * I don't think you should assume that the information was added on the basis of a photo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That series of lists does seem to have both V and DUE issues in the race column. I spot checked a few. There are cases where the person’s race is not mentioned and there is no photo, making it look like race has been inferred from name by the editor. There are cases where the person’s race is not mentioned and an image is given, and the editor may have made their own judgement about what their race looked like. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Logo's stance on ® and ™ in logos
''Following discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey. Read it for more information.''

WP:Logo doesn't say whether ® or ™ in logos are discouraged or not. If the entity itself uses its logo with these marks on its website, should the marks then be edited out, or remain? Here are some pages using logos with these marks: Amtrak, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, United Airlines, Five guys, New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Titleist, Puma (brand), Discovery, Inc., Spotify, Hammarby Fotboll and 2026 FIFA World Cup. As far as I can tell, most pages on Wikipedia uses logos without these marks. Jonteemil (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If a mark owner is consistently presenting their mark with the registration symbol (as they should be), then it is really not our place to alter the image to something different from its normal presentation. BD2412  T 16:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As was stated in the hockey Wikiproject discussion, the reason that entities themselves use such marks when presenting their logos is in the active defense of their trademark. That neither compels Wikipedia (or any other entity) to do the same, and as you were told, MOS:TMRULES already sets forth "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context."  While you responded that TMRULES does not explicitly include images, the same principle remains valid.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.   Ravenswing      17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note this is a slightly different question than you posed on the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page. I don't know if I'd recommend editing a trademark symbol out of an image. As I stated in the other discussion thread, though, trademark symbols are not part of the trademark. Thus an accurate depiction of the trademark does not include the trademark symbol. If other qualities between a choice of two images are relatively equivalent, I feel a version without trademark symbols would be a better illustration of the actual trademark. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with isaacl that I would not recommend editing a trademark symbol out of an image, but that's just because it's not important. This is so unimportant that if we had multiple versions of a given logo, it would be extremely low on my list of reasons to prefer one or the other.  It'd be more pointful to argue over the relative merits of SVG vs PNG vs JPG than to worry about this.
 * I think this type of question tends to arise because someone is trying to do the right thing, but please let us reassure you: Nobody is legally required to display the ® symbol on someone else's trademark. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?
We have recently had a slate of discussions at Move review wherein discussions had run for the requisite seven days (or had been relisted and run for fourteen days or more), and had the typical handful of participants, and were thereafter closed as moved, and where post-closure challenges were made asserting that because of the scope of the subject, more time or participation was required. An example is the still-pending discussion of the disambiguation of ABC News, and the move of the subject previously at that title to ABC News (United States). Another discussion with a comparable move review was the move of Chairperson to Chair (officer), for which it was noted that despite near-universal support for moving the article away from chairperson, a pervious discussion had rejected Chair (officer) as a title.

We currently have one set of rules for carrying out a contested or potentially contested requested move. We have no mechanism for identifying proposed moves, merges, or other changes that could arguably require some lengthier discussion time or higher standard of community participation. We do routinely notify relevant Wikiprojects, and allow anyone to relist a discussion if there is an absence of clarity on consensus. I am bringing this here to figure out if we do need some extra set of rules for discussions that deal with higher-profile topics, or will involve fixing a lot of links and templates, or deal with a subject that was previously discussed and reached a different consensus. I am not comfortable with the idea that some unwritten rule exists requiring different treatment of such cases. The rules should be written. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE</b>]]) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE</b>]]) 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE</b>]]) 02:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RMRELIST is a fine rule, and already contains guidance telling editors to publicize an RM as widely as needed. We shouldn't start carving out exceptions, especially when we can't predict them from the outset (for example, I would not have expected ABC News to be all that contentious). Additionally, "I didn't get a chance to participate" is not a good reason to overturn an otherwise correct close. If somebody thinks the consensus developed in the first discussion was horrendously wrong, they can open a new one. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had thought about this, having made closures on highly linked articles before when I initially started nosing around at WP:RM. Checking link count wasn't really in my workflow, and still isn't because there are not many of such discussions that I had closed.
 * While WP:RMRELIST is sufficient for most pages, but there are some which may bode well have better outcomes if the discussion was directed to more people. The banner on the article is placed by a bot, which means that many active registered editors may miss it if the option to exclude bot edits in the watchlist is enabled. Not many would go on WP:RMC to look for articles to be moved as well, despite the high pageview counts (I suspect that many of the regulars load the page multiple times in the day).
 * It would be good to have at a minimum that the link count of the pages requested for be displayed in the notice generated by the requested move/dated template. At the very least, closers may take a pause before closing the RM discussion early.
 * It would be nice to have a centralised notification somewhere on a highly trafficked discussion page (Open tasks at WP:AN?) to list some RM discussions based on number of links to the articles involved. Exact criteria can be fleshed out separately. – robertsky (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think creating bright-line prescriptive rules on this subject is likely to lead to undesirable bureaucracy rather than any actual improvements in the space. Rather than the arguments about "Topic X is prominent enough to have merited a longer RM" being resolved, I think they'd just change shape and instead manifest as "Topic X is prominent enough to have fallen under the Popular RM Ruleset". (I also share voorts' stance that these assertions are generally fairly weak. It's not practical to keep discussions open indefinitely for fear of someone missing out.) I'm also concerned that, if we create additional procedural hoops for RM closers to jump through, it would exacerbate the existing issues where controversial or complex discussions linger unclosed for weeks beyond their intended end dates.By and large I think the status quo already works, but if there is consensus to implement a change, I think robertsky's suggested minimum options – displaying link counts on the banner, or having centralized notifications somewhere – would strike a decent balance between increasing visibility and protecting the closure process from overcomplication. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One factor that inflates link counts is that if a template containing links to articles is included on a page, then every article linked in that template shows up in "What links from here", even though the link is only in the template, not elsewhere in the article. Some templates have hundreds of links in them. In other words, link counts are not a particularly accurate way of judging how many links will need to corrected after a move. Donald Albury 12:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the widespread (over)use of navbox templates has made "what links here" virtually useless for many types of articles, sadly. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we should have tools to determine how many actual non-template generated incoming links an article has. BD2412  T 15:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be more useful to have "What links here" ignore links in templates. Donald Albury 16:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ideally I think it should be an option for "What links here" to show or hide links present only in transclusions, and also an option to show only pages that link via transcluded templates (grouped by template) given that its possible that some links wont show as being from the template namespace if they only appear based on parameters. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is always best to have options. BD2412  T 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a nice plugin here to find source links that are not part of the template. Check it out at User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js and add it to your Special:MyPage/common.js file. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this falls under WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. If you're closing a move request where there have been half a dozen previous requests that closed the other direction, or you're closing a move request that requires editing tens of thousands of pages, it's common sense to wait for more input. Similarly, if you close a move request, and lots of editors come out of the woodwork and say they would've participated had they seen it, then it should be clear that the discussion didn't necessarily capture the wider community consensus and should be re-opened. WP:RMRELIST is a process page, not a policy or a guideline, and it shouldn't be treated as prescriptive. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Maybe it is "common sense" but it's not the rule, and closes that are valid under the rule should not be overturned based on some amorphous notion of common sense. Also, for a discussion that has already been relisted once, or has been moribund for days, how long should we "wait for more input"? What is the signal that it is enough? BD2412  T 17:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When no more comments are being made, and or the arguments are exclusively repeating themselves, then the closer can determine the strengths of differentΩ arguments rather than popularity of said arguments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have seen discussions where that is exactly the case, but where the discussion once closed is still collaterally attacked for having been closed with too little participation, because the change was to a high-profile topic. BD2412  T 19:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 What rule are you referring to? And even if there were a rule, a rule being overturned based on some amorphous notion of common sense is exactly why we have WP:5P5 as a pillar and WP:IAR as a policy. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * I am referring to the operations of Requested moves that are laid out on that page. There is a process for proposing a move, a set time period for discussion, and a process for resolution of what has been proposed. There is no allowance there for declaring an article to be special for purposes of carrying out this process. BD2412  T 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be an allowance because that page is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * In my extremely limited experience, the problem lies less with how long RMs are open and more with whatever smorgasbord of reasons causing move review to be unpleasant to closers (and potential closers). Even in less controversial RMs, there's an unfortunately non-negligible probability of some individual going to closer's talk, failing to articulate which significant evidence or fact was overlooked or WP:RMCI clause violated (per MR's instructions), ignoring any response by the closer that isn't acquiescence, and dragging the closer to MR, where the discussion remains open despite the giant "this is not the place to relitigate RMs" sign on MR's front door. Even if I snapped my fingers and RMs, effective immediately, have to be open for at least three months (like the I/P-related RM open since April), someone's going to come after closure at 3.5 months and argue I don't agree with it and didn't get a chance to voice my opinion so clearly it wasn't open long enough and not enough of the right people were notified, etc. What we need is a culture of compliance with and better enforcement of existing rules, so that RM closers have the support of the community and its norms when closing controversial RMs. If we do so in a way that helps people who are actually following the MR instructions by allowing the community to focus their resources on closures that actually need fixing, even better. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this. If in fact MR closers are reopening RM discussions based on these kinds of weak/irrelevant arguments, than there's an issue with how consensus is being evaluated at MR that needs to be addressed with the regular closers there. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We also need people to relax a bit about these things. Some high-strung vitriol comes out over what amounts to a trivial matter, and one that can always be subject to a new consensus-testing process in the future. BD2412  T 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an evergreen comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The people posing the question do have the option of using RFC rather than RM, giving a (minimum) 30 day discussion period.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They have the option of using RFC, yes, but there is no requirement for this. It remains permissible to use Requested moves to propose even a move that is bound to be highly controversial, for a high-visibility subject, with substantial implications for incoming links. The friction is arising where that process has been used in its normal way, and people disagree with the outcome because the article to be moved was of that higher level of controversy. BD2412  T 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought RM was the exclusive forum for requesting moves. I think there'd be several valid procedural objections for using an RfC instead of RM. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe we have used RFCs before where it proved impossible to reach a consensus as to a move target, and a broader rule needed to be established for the handling of the entire class of cases. BD2412  T 21:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The ongoing Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs, which while not a move request in and of itself, will be used as the justification for multiples moves pretty much regardless of what the outcome is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I voted to relist at that MR, but for the broader procedural question, I think the status quo is fine. The healthiest use case of MR is actually precisely this - when there's a close that is totally valid by the rules, but Other Stuff (TM) came up, and whoops it's time to IAR it.  There's no need to change policy - 98% of closes can continue at a fast pace, and MR can quibble on the 1% of bad closes, and the 1% of times where a close was good but New Developments means that the close should be overturned anyway.  That seems like a healthy ratio.  SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The express purpose of MR is to determine whether the closer acted incorrectly, and expressly not to introduce new variables that should have been introduced in the initial move request. I see too many complaints of move requests not being extended from editors who could have extended it themselves while it was ongoing, too many complaints of lack of notification from editors who could have done some notifying, and too many efforts to relitigate the underlying issue rather than evaluating whether the close was within policy. BD2412  T 22:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To analogize to the legal space, an appellate court generally won't address (or will give more deference to the trial court) issues that weren't raised in the court below. MR is designed to review whether a close is reasonable—a pretty low standard—not to force the reopening of long and contentious RMs. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, editors can't extend it? A relist is the equivalent of a close, so someone who's !voted shouldn't relist, since if they could there could be a naysayer's veto of the losing side just spamming relists.  (They can obviously make "please extend this comments!" but there's no guarantee that they'll be heeded.)
 * And yes, MR is not RM round 2, but I don't think that's the case here nor is it accurate to portray it as such. Especially in cases where the issue is simply turnout, there isn't really a great need for "finality" or some such (that's what RFCs for if an issue is truly radioactive).  Take the broader question.  A nominator proposes a move, and it's largely ignored.  2 editors show up out of nowhere on Day 7 and !vote support.  A closer sees this and reasonably closes as non-controversial and moves it.  99.5% of the time, the story stops there, it was indeed non-controversial.  0.5% of the time, people involved in the topic come out of the woodwork and say "whoa, that's not right."  There is very little harm in letting a courtesy relist happen, so that's what the nominator should do to such a good-faith request, and they should be taken to MR otherwise.  Maybe nothing changes, but maybe 20 other editors in the field pop up to say that the move was a terrible mistake.  Who knows.  But there is 0 harm in at least exploring the possibility of the latter case.  (The other option is giving leave to file a new RM, of course, but then that might annoy !voters in the previous RMs who feel like they have to copy-paste their arguments to ensure their !vote "counts.")  SnowFire (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no limitation provided as to who can relist a discussion, nor is there any policy that says that "a relist is the equivalent of a close", so, yes, any editor can relist the discussion, including one who has !voted. I think it's fairly obvious that an editor who spammed relists would get called out on that, and it is not a behavior that has occurred in practice. BD2412  T 23:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. See WP:RELIST: "Editor qualifications to relist a discussion are the same as required to close a discussion."  Someone who has !voted can't close, so therefore they can't relist either.  I agree that the behavior does not happen in practice, but that's because it's prohibited, and we should not encourage involved editors to perform a relist - they are not a neutral source for if a discussion has sufficient consensus for a close.  (Oddly enough, a position I feel is closer to yours, in the name of making speedier closes!)  SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I've learned something new, then. As far as I recall, I have relisted discussions in which I was a participant on several occasions, usually because someone made a new proposal that was worth additional time to consider. I have never been criticized for so doing. BD2412  T 03:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your relists were fine, but point is we also shouldn't hold it against one side that they didn't force a relist themselves, because technically they shouldn't do that. SnowFire (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. High-profile, or previously contested, or technically complicated cases, all need a Rule that the next random nominator must point to and summarise the previous RMs, and mention technical issues.
 * The bad things to be prevented are a surreptitious move in a holiday period, or exhaustion of opponents allowing win by tendentious teamwork, or a consensus based on inadequate information.
 * Rules should be documented, YES!
 * Inadequate nominations should be speedy closeable for being inadequate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the rule that would be most useful might sound more like: If a consensus forms to move the page, and the result will require updating links in other articles, then no more than ____ articles may be updated per day (perhaps 50 or 100 per day, for the first week).
 * If you move the page, and the redirect stays in place, and someone complains (bad close, new information – the reason doesn't matter) and those complaints result in reversing the decision, then it's no big deal. You move the page back, and you're done.
 * If you move the page, and the redirect doesn't stay in place (e.g., gets converted to a DAB page), and the decision gets reversed, then you may need to update all of the linked pages, which can be a huge, watchlist-flooding task. Also, it's more likely to happen, because the watchlist flooding will attract attention and irritation to the recent move request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extent of WP:CHANGELOG
@HyperAccelerated entirely removed the "Version history" section of KDE Plasma. Upon being informed that DragonFly BSD had a similar section, they also removed it from that article, citing WP:CHANGELOG in both cases.

The policy specifically states against an "exhaustive" log and additionally encourages third-party sources. In both cases, third-party sources were used in addition to first-party sources. I believe that in general, the two version history sections were useful, although perhaps they did not need to be as detailed as they were.

How should this policy be applied? Blanket removal of the two sections seems a bit of an overreaction to me. iczero (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The section that was on KDE Plasma strikes me as a good example of the kind of thing that WP:CHANGELOG is about - I would support that removal. It was an list of every version, many with little or no information on the contents. And the article also has prose sections on the major releases separate from the table, which serves as the 'summary of development' which WP:CHANGELOG suggests should be considered instead. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Iczero, I think the main problem is that different editors have different ideas of what "exhaustive" means, and that you would probably get a more practical answer from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing.
 * One idea that I've had (wrt to previous disputes, because this happens several times a year) is that it would be helpful to have one or two Essays that illustrate it. I imagine, for example, someone finding a freely licensed changelog for a notable open-source product, pasting the whole thing into the essay, and then saying "This is what exhaustive looks like" (a section that repeats the original almost in its entirety) and "This is what an encyclopedic summary looks like" (a good summary, with third-party sources) and perhaps one or two other examples (one that's borderline and one that's far too short to useful?).
 * In the meantime, it's possible that the short list at Featured articles would contain a good example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking the temperature on NACs in CTs
This is not a formal proposal, but may be a precursor to one. WP:NAC is generally cited as the roadmap for non-admin closures. It cautions non-admins against closing potentially contentious discussions, but does not prohibit them. It is also only an essay; but the relevant policy pages that I skimmed do not appear to make distinctions between admin and non-admin closures.

We have a good few experienced non-admin closers. Their decisions are, best as I can tell, not inferior to admin ones. However, based on the caution against contentious closures by non-admins in WP:NAC, I believe they are challenged far more frequently, and consequently their closures often end up costing, rather than saving, the community time (if this comes to a formal proposal, I will do the archival research needed to show this).

I'd like thoughts on a) whether we should prohibit non-admin closures in contentious topics, as a means of saving community time on close reviews; and b) what the best way to do this would be, given that WP:NAC does not currently carry formal weight. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts.
 * First, there are levels of contentiousness, with ARBPIA at one end and ARBBLP at the other. While non-admin closures may be more likely to be challenged for the former to the point of costing community time, I am certain that is not true of the latter.
 * Second, I am certain this does not apply to request moves. As a NAC, I close a lot of RM's, and as expected given the volume a number are challenged. I haven't found it any more likely that those I close within contentious topics are challenged than those outside, and given the number closed to the number contested I am certain that these closures have saved community time. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally think we should be offloading bureaucratic workload from admins, not piling more on. If there are specific subject areas that become magnets for poor NACs, existing processes are sufficient to curtail those without instruction creep. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a regular NAC, I'm not sure NACs are challenged more often than admin closures; even if they were, close reviews are relatively rare (for example, as of December 2023, there was an average of 2 close reviews per month as discussed here). More importantly, we shouldn't be taking editor's powers away just because some editors spuriously choose to challenge closures solely on the grounds that they were done by non-admins. As for NAC, I read that just as you do—as a word of caution, not as a command. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thinking out loud, but if NACs are costing the community time in contentious areas, I think it would be better to have a new "userright" (for want of a better term) called "discussion closer" that gives users who have it no extra tools but the same weight in closing discussions as an admin has. Such a right would need to be conferred in a process only slightly heavier weight than file mover - I'm thinking something like request open 2-5 days, consensus in a discussion that has at least 5 supports from admins and/or discussion closers (no consensus after 5 days = not granted). We would then recommend that discussions that are or which are likely to be contentious be closed by admins or discussion closers.
 * NAC would be explicitly not a permissible ground on which to challenge a closure by a discussion closer - if that's the only reason given the challenge would be speedily declined, if it was accompanied by other reasons then the portion of the statement relating to being an NAC would be struck.
 * Actually, even without the discussion closer status, speedily declining any review request where NAC is the only ground would be a good thing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * speedily declining any review request where NAC is the only ground would be a good thing – This, 100%. As Vanamonde noted, there's no actual policy or guideline that says we give admin closures more weight. Indeed, per WP:NOBIGDEAL and WP:ANOT, being an admin doesn't give anyone special authority over content decisions or determing consensus. To the extent that people read WP:NAC as implying that admin closes are better than NACs just because the closers have a mop, it ought to be clarified. I'm against the new "userright" because I don't like the idea that some editors determinations of consensus are weightier than others. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the admin-non-admin distinction, but in general, there most certainly are editors who shouldn't be doing NACs. We need to allow genuinely bad closures to be reversed: we also don't want the closer's status as a non-admin to become a distraction. I'm open to other ideas on how to achieve that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In such cases, the review request needs to say "this summary does not accurately/fully represent the outcome of the discussion" rather than saying "the wrong kind of person wrote this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think making it clear that only very experienced closers should close complicated or contentious discussions is sufficient. Relatedly, one of the things I look for at RFA is difficult closes the candidate has made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As a somewhat irregular NAC-er focussed on AfDs, I can appreciate where this is coming from - although my (purely anecdotal) observations of DRV would say this is not, relatively speaking, a problem in that sphere. I think the question is less about status (admin or not) and rather experience; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to setting some thresholds (edit count, participation etc) for NAC on CTOPs, but I don't see a strong enough case yet for exclusion. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Like anything else on the wiki, the qualification to do most things is that you know how to do it, and having a mop is no promise that you do. I'm sure most of the regulars at WP:AfD, admin or not, know the details of our notability guidelines better than I do; it's absurd to suggest that I'm better qualified to close a complicated AfD just because 19 years ago, 27 people thought I'd be an OK admin. Our current NAC mindset is an anachronism and should be done away with. RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We should root out and destroy every suggestion that discussion closure is an admin task. It makes sense for the admin noticeboards, and is vestigial in most other places. I like Thryduulf's user right suggestion (I know others have suggested something similar in the past) and speedy close suggestion, though I've rarely seen a situation where NAC is the only objection. We should guide newer closers to less controversial discussions, and we should explicitly indicate that experience multiple discussions is necessary for closing contentious, major discussions. We should still allow for challenges based (in part) on lack of experience, it's just that many non-admin closers are much more experienced than almost all admins. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't any different from any other process. I spend a lot of time at DYK.  For all the chaos that goes on there, there's an effective culture of new people being groomed to take on greater responsibility.  You start out by doing your obligatory initial reviews and move on to more complicated things like building prep sets.  People inevitably make mistakes, the mistakes get fixed, experience is gained, and the cycle continues.  WP:GA works the same way.  And WP:FA.  And dozens of other nooks and crannies of the wiki where just plain editors sans mop keep everything going.  As it should be.  When somebody's been working in an area for a long time, they become an expert at it.  The idea that some random admin who's never worked in that area could possibly do a better job is absurd. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roy.
 * @Firefangledfeathers, even a "major" discussion on an officially Contentious Topic™ can sometimes be easy and uncontentious to summarize. The ideal result of an RFC is that everyone already knows what the outcome is.  A given participant might be inclined to privately summarize that outcome as "The community is a bunch of jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes", but even the most passionate editor on the "losing" side can often recognize when a consensus has been reached for the "wrong" result.  In such cases, we don't necessarily need a highly experienced editor to state the obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. I meant contentious in the non-trademarked sense. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Outside of deletion discussions and other outcomes that need an admin to carry out (where it absolutely does make sense), I view invoking BADNAC as essentially scope creep. You don't need to be an admin to close RfCs, at all. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss people who bring it up as baseless wikilawyers either. Usually what they're trying to allude to is that contentious discussions are hard to close and therefore that the community expects someone with experience in making successful closes to do it. This is a good and widely agreed upon principle, but it's not written down with a handy shortcut, so BADNAC gets invoked instead. If we articulate that broader principle somewhere, I think we'll see BADNAC cited less often. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Outside of deletion discussions and other outcomes that need an admin to carry out (where it absolutely does make sense). There's no fundamental reason why a non-admin can't close an AfD as "delete" and then find an admin to actually push the button.  In fact, it looks like Db-xfd covers exactly this use case.  This is similar to how non-admin SPI clerks can determine that an account is a sock and should be blocked and then have to go find an admin to do it for them. RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No fundamental reason, no, but why create the extra work and complexity when we have no shortage of admins willing to close AfDs? Any process that requires admin intervention should be left to admins unless and until it becomes obvious they need the extra help (as with SPI), as matter of efficiency if nothing else. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's over-broad. I think you shouldn't have to be a sysop to close an RfC that's about making a change to a fully-protected page, for example.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pressing delete from a closed AfD feels like a situation where an admin would need to verify consensus in the first place and so now you've spent the time of two editors where one could have done. Beyond that, I am pretty staunchly opposed to admin close creep in places like RfCs. When I was a regular at AfD, I found non-admin work to be far less "right" than with RfCs; I think it attracts a different kind of non-admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would distinguish between a discussion close that's a content decision, and one that's a conduct or technical decision. There are philosophical and principled reasons why we absolutely must not give sysops special authority to make content decisions. Conduct decisions in CT areas, on the other hand, are best reserved for sysops even where an unelected person could make them.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are non-admins (like S Marshall) who would be in the top 10% of admins regarding closures (even if I disagree with one) if they were one.  And vice versa.   It's just that the odds and optics are better when it's an admin. I think that the current guidance on this is about right.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There a many inherent reasons for people not to close long, complicated, or contentious discussions, so I see the lessening of the pool of willing closers as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Amending BADNAC?
I want to be very clear that when I opened this it wasn't because I felt some NACs were inappropriate, but because I wanted to avoid spurious challenges, or challenges where non-admin status was muddying the waters. It's fairly clear that there is strong support for not limiting NACs; so what do folks think of an alternative approach to address the problem I mention, and making BADNAC contingent strictly on experience rather than admin status: that is, essentially striking BADNAC#2, and perhaps strengthening the reference to experience in BADNAC#3? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of striking #2. I think #3 could be struck too; if somebody inexperienced is really good at evaluating consensus and has read Wikipedia's PAGs, I don't see why the close ought to be overturned on those grounds alone. But, I can live with #3 as it's currently if there's consensus that that kind of limitation should be in BADNAC. Also, I've notified WT:NAC of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The likelihood that someone using an account with few edits will do a passable job on anything except the most obvious cases is low. Also, it gives anyone on the "losing" side an opportunity to suggest that the newbie is a bad-hand sock, which is more drama that we would like to avoid.
 * BTW, "experienced editor" appears to be a label that there are different views about. @Levivich and I were chatting about this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians:  Can someone who has "only" been editing for a year (the median account activity is one day), with "only" 500 edits total (more than 99.25% of accounts that have ever made a first edit), averaging "only" one edit per day during the last month (less than 10% of currently active accounts), be truly considered "an experienced editor"?  If you'd like to provide a third opinion (or fourth, or fifth), please share your idea of what the minimum standard for "an experienced editor" could be over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we need to temper our expectations regarding how we treat newcomers on Wikipedia, instead of limiting them because others might have bad faith objections.
 * As for a rare but pertinent counterexample, I noticed 's close of an RFC within their first 50 edits. It was well reasoned, not "exceptionally obvious" and pretty much the exact close I would make too. I did end up suggesting they edit other parts of the Wiki first, simply because I know how contentious challenges can get. But should they (or editors like them but with 500 more edits) be restricted from one part of the encyclopedia just because they read the rules before they start editing?
 * I think it's far more important that close challenges cite an actual policy being broken instead of just BADNAC. If a close is flawed, it will be flawed on multiple grounds. Soni (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree in general, CTs excepted, non EC editors cannot close or even participate in internal project discussions. Otherwise I don't object to NACs in principle, if they are messed up, as some will be, we have the procedures to deal with that. Learning by doing is not a bad thing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your observation that they get challenged more often could be right and a reason to advise non-admin to be careful (thus keeping it included as advice at NAC) without doing the wrong thing of making that advise a prohibition, which is what people are objecting to here. I think some data more than than the philosophical discussion above could be useful in making this kind of decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Stricter policy for unregistered ipv6 users vs ipv4 users
It is well established that unregistered (ip address) users are an important part of the Wikipedia community. However, a clear distinction can be made between ipv4 and ipv6, as the latter can be easily manipulated to create sock puppets and obscure other bad faith actions. The nature of ipv6 makes tracking, blocking, banning nearly impossible.

But the same is not true of ipv4 users, where the limited address space is a reasonable restraint, vs the virtually unrestrained nature of ipv6 unregistered users. Ipv6 creates a dense forest of ip addresses that bad actors can easily use to hide within.

I have personally experienced certain users (who are otherwise registered) logging out, and using a number of ipv6 addresses to harass and/or make bad faith edits. If unregistered users were restricted to ipv4 addresses, it would maintain access for unregistered users, while usefully hampering bad actors rolling through the nearly unlimited ipv6 addresses.

Of course, there should be no restriction connecting by ipv6 for registered user accounts.

Summary
Restricting only ipv6 unregistered users improves admin control, while not unduly hampering good-faith unregistered users' access to edit. Myndex talk  09:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Most people have no control over whether they use ipv4 or ipv6 addresses, and many who might have control won't know this. For most, the restriction would be completely arbitrary. There is also not a lack of harassment from ipv4s. CMD (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to unfair and unnecessarily discriminate against ipv6 users, who likely don't know they're ipv6 users, and can't control it. I don't know whether my IP is "ipv4" or "ipv6". I have noticed that some IP users are just numbers, like this: 40.7.211.792 or something, while some are more like 2f:00e::56a8:9000s. I assume that's the difference. Cremastra (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)