Wikipedia talk:Content forking/ownership fork proposal

''The below is a proposal to clarify content forking by adding ownership fork. While POV forking remains related to an attempt to evade neutral point of view policy, ownership forking relates to an attempt to evade consensus policy. Basically, I reworked the existing content forking guideline into these two types of forks. I do not think I added anything new to the guideline; I more or less tried to add workable clarity to the existing material.''

''Among other reasons for the proposed change, creating the distinction may help in AfD discussions. For example, as described in Articles for deletion/Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling, talk page discussions made it clear that material from a contributor was WP:original research (among other problems). Instead of trying to resolve that discussion on the article talk page, the contributor exhibited ownership over that material and attempted to evade discussion of that material by creating a new article. In other words, the predominate reason for creating the new page was to avoid the original research discussion about that material. The predominate reason was not to avoid neutral point of view policy. At AfD, several editors stated that it was a POV fork. However, the contributor argued against that assertion since she really was not trying to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. If ownership fork were available, it would provide a way to give a clearer characterization of that situation and others like it.''

Like any proposal, please feel free to revise the below. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 08:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is an attempt to evade neutral point of view policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. An ownership fork is an attempt to evade consensus policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid decisions or the likely decisions of a discussion about that material. Whether a POV fork or an ownership fork, content forks are undesirable on Wikipedia as they avoid consensus building and violate our most important policies.

What content forking is
In general, content forking are techniques used to evade applying one or more policies to content. Such forks may be nominated for deletion.

POV fork
A content fork may arise when a contributor desires to overemphasize or underemphasize viewpoints or facts on a certain subject by creating another version of the article (or another article on the same subject). This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. Since the generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain topic should be treated in one article, POV forking is considered unacceptable.

Since what qualifies as a POV fork is based on a subjective judgment, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy. Remember, regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the new article was a good idea, but was approached without balance.

Ownership fork
A content fork also may arise when two or more contributors disagree about a section of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as an "ownership fork" of the first. Since the generally accepted policy is that content disagreements are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation rather than evasion, ownership forking is considered unacceptable.

Since what qualifies as an ownership fork is based on a subjective judgment, do not refer to forks as "ownership" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of consensus policy — when there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. It could be that the new article was a good idea, but the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it.

The most blatant ownership forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article (in some cases people have even converted existing redirects into content forks.) However, a new article can be a content fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article title. If one has tried to get one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight has never occurred inserted into existing aviation articles and other editors have rejected such original research as absurd, the answer is not to create an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" where this theory is expounded. On the other hand, if it is not a purely personal theory, and such a theory has been discussed in published independent sources, and the editors resist attempts to have a proportionately small mention or even reference in the article, and dispute resolution had failed, and if there is other content, then a good faith attempt at an additional article might be justified.

In line with Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a topic that it justifies a separate article.

Examples of content forking

 * 1) Editor A tries three times to insert information in an article section called "Philosophical and/or political views" of article XYZ; each time the change is reverted by other editors based on XYZ talk page discussions that the material is original research. Rather than continue to try to resolve the matter through discussion, Editor A creates a new article named Philosophical and/or political views of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, Editor A uses material from the "Philosophical and/or political views" section of the main XYZ article along with the disputed information addressed in the XYZ talk page discussions. Philosophical and/or political views of XYZ is known as an ownership fork. Here, Editor A seeks to defend the disputed material from assertions of it being original research by inserting the material in a different location from where it otherwise is being treated. The creation of an ownership fork is contrary to Wikipedia's  Ownership of articles policy.

What content forking is not
There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork.

Project-level forking
There is a difference between content forking and the legitimate practice of project-level forking. This latter occurs when someone wishes to create their own wiki, according to their own standards and practices, but they want to use Wikipedia's content as a starting place. As long as the new project adheres to their obligations under the GFDL in exchange for use of this content, this is perfectly acceptable. Project-level forking is discussed in more detail at Forking FAQ.

One such Wikipedia fork is Wikinfo, whose major difference from Wikipedia is in fact its approach to content forks: multiple articles covering a topic from different POVs are actually preferred to Wikipedia's goal of a single article covering the topic from the neutral point of view. Wikipedia's policy is that this practice is not a legitimate way for contributors to deal with a lack of consensus. Thanks

Accidental duplicate articles
While Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance that they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article and not the main article on a topic.

Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. One should give the benefit of the doubt to the creator of a duplicate article. Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article and the article fork listed for deletion.

Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles
Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the topic in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the topic of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View and consensus.

Articles whose topic is a POV
Different articles can be legitimately created on topics which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its topic is, the point-of-view topic is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article topics.

"Criticism of ...." articles would seem to inherently advocate the topic's negative point of view. However, there is no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles in general are always POV forks. While it is possible for criticism to be an NPOV evaluation or judgment of something, it more often degrades into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic. Critique is a somewhat elevated term for criticism and review is used as a synonym for these but may also imply a more comprehensive study. Naming an article "Critique of ..." or "Review of ..." rather than "Criticism of ...." may make it easier for the article to achieve NPOV. "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. Once spun off, "Criticism of ..." articles should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

Related articles
Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a content fork.

Temporary subpages
One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed refactorings, rephrasings, or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial topics or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is -- without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version.

Just as "spinout" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have also sometimes been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace, however accidents happen and those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it.

Please turn categories off for temporary subpages. For example, if you want to write a temporary subpage for the article George W. Bush then make sure that you turn off all the categories for this article. You can turn off a category by placing  before the category and   after the category. For example       turns off this category. Alternatively, place colons : before a given cat to "turn it off" like so :Category:Turned off cat and yet have them still be clickable. Turning off all categories is required to ensure that temporary subpages are not mistakenly seen as official Wikipedia articles when browsing through a category.