Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 58

< Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)
Village pump (idea lab) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (idea lab). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

Dealing with forum bloat

Some high-activity fora (in particular WP:ANI and WP:RSN) are so clogged with activity they become difficult to navigate and can even start to glitch and slow down web browsers. I think it’s a reasonable idea to break these down somehow, probably with case-based subpages. thoughts? Dronebogus (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The main issue with RSN at the moment is that the very large at the top was restored from the archives. It needs to be closed, but that could have happened without it being restored. Anyone interested in closing it? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I still think it’s emblematic of a larger issue— i.e. major fora working more akin to XfDs (lots of discussion and sometimes voting, more than enough for separate pages) but being treated like a simple noticeboard with minimal user interaction (i.e. Wikipedia:AIV) Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
There was a discussion about similar issues here on Village Pump, see WT:VPR#Looking for some unofficial clerks and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 209#SIZESPLIT but for Village pumps. I could see the same idea working, opportunistically creating subpages for large topics, but doing it in anyway automatically could cause issues. Especially on RSN the vast majority of posts get few is any replies, pushing them to subpages would only give them less visibility. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the main solution for RSN is to insist that RSP proposals happen somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
We also need to do better at emphasizing what RSP is for (or perhaps stress what it ISN’T for). It has turned into a general RFC page for sourcing questions, and that was NOT the original intent. It is supposed to be a list of perennial sources (ie sources that are repeatedly discussed), not a comprehensive list of reliable/unreliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Rename it to “perennial sources noticeboard”? Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSP is the list of perennial sources, which doesn't seem to be particularly bloated or diluted. WP:RSN is the noticeboard that deals with questions about reliable sources - both determining the general reliability of frequently-used sources and whether a source is reliable in a specific context - that is very long. We need a place to discuss both types of question the RSN currently deals with and while that doesn't necessarily have to be the same place, there is sometimes overlap between them. I can think of two ways of reorganising that might help:
  1. Leaving all discussions as they are currently until they get to beyond a certain size, at which point they are moved to a subpage that is linked/transcluded from the main page (similar to how some VP and AN/I discussions are treated)
  2. Leaving RSN as is for small, specific discussion with new RFCs being their own subpage. There would be a (bot-maintained?) list of open (and recent?) RFCs at the top of the noticeboard, possibly similar to the recent ECP protections report at the top of WP:AN (but not collapsed) showing the title of the RFC, the source(s) being discussed, date and time initiated, number of comments and timestamp (and author?) of the latest comment and whether it is open or closed (and if the latter when it was closed and who by).
Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It's a common problem that editors open discussions/threads about getting sources added to RSP that have been regularly discussed, they all get closed down quite quickly. Very few source have recently been added to RSP.
RSN isn't usually very long, it only gets so when specific discussions are ongoing. Dealing with those discussions as they happen seems a lot less bureaucratic then setting up a mess of transcoded bot maintained pages.
Also transcluding all pages to one page is worse than having all discussions on one page, all the translcuded text has to be displayed but now with the overhead of transclusion. If the issue on any page is difficulties in display due to size then transclusion is the opposite of the solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've thought about splitting ANI. My current favorite idea is to imagine that we split it according to the day of the week (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Monday, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tuesday, etc.). Everything can get archived together, but you could watch just the one page that "your" discussion is on. Because most are resolved and archived in about two days, the page should be nearly empty by the time it rolls around again. Admins could sign up to deal with a defined fraction of the week's load and not feel like the firehose never stops. We might have less feeling that it's just overwhelming because there are "too many" sections on the same page. And maybe we'd see less emotional spillover, in which I'm so mad about this discussion that I'm too harsh about everything else on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I know this is a minor thing and a bit of a tangent, but ANI is not only frequently large (50+ sections some days, despite aggressive archiving) but it has an unusually high number of revisions, which means that various tools like https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ don't work on it. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea to do an archiving-esque Move procedure on that page at the start of each year (or at least for each decade). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I really like this idea. And the built-in reminder it provides when a discussion has been open for a week (and two weeks) could have a salutary effect. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
What about going the whole way and turning it into dated subpages like TfD or MfD? Each subpage would be transcluded at WP:ANI until all the discussions on it have been closed. This could have the side benefit of making ANI more outcome-oriented, which seems to be a common characteristic of our more functional noticeboards. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Subpages make it much more difficult for people to watchlist the page and become aware of new discussions. Currently you can subscribe to and/or watchlist the page and be alerted to new discussions. With daily subpages you have to explicitly visit the main page and look for changes, watchlist/subscribe to 365 individual pages per year and/or use a workaround equivalent to user:Thryduulf/RfD watchlist. A forum like ANI needs visibility to work. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It needs visibility from admins, and I don't think that will stop. Maybe the peanut gallery watchlisting ANI and showing up for every discussion is actually a bad thing. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 11:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The problem with ANI is that it's too visible. A person with ANI on their watchlist is a person we don't want participating in ANI (I'm joking... kind of.) – Joe (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
As a non-admin, I occasionally watchlist ANI when there's a discussion of particular interest to me, such as unconstructive editing that I've recently helped to deal with. I try not to do so regularly, because it would flood my watchlist with edits which are important to someone but largely irrelevant to me. I would love to have my watchlist show only updates to a particular section. (I'm aware of subscriptions.) Certes (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue with that is we need consensus from uninvolved editors for a lot of proposed actions at ANI. Making it more difficult to keep an eye out for something you may be able to contribute to isn't going to make it better. Also, this is another chance for me to bang the Administration noticeboard, not Administrators' noticeboard drum. AN and ANI are not for administrators, they're for site administration. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We don't seem to struggle to get a consensus of uninvolved editors at other high-volume venues that use subpages, like AfD, TfD/MfD, or DRV. Conversely, it is rare for discussions at those venues to turn into lengthy pile-ons, boomerangs, or unclosable trainwrecks. When was the last time you heard somebody complain that ANI is awful because there are too few opinion-havers there? – Joe (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've also seen many threads there which start with a small group of editors pushing for something, that later uninvolved editors push back on. With less visibility comes less oversight. As a new editor the other high volumes venues you mention certainly felt more cliquey with the same editors turning up in discussion on a very regular basis, something the other noticeboards didn't seem to have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You think that the average AfD, MfD, or DRV would meet a reasonable quorum of uninvolved editors to indefinitely block, topic ban, ban, or otherwise sanction an editor? AfD is chronically underattended, for example, and articles are often deleted or kept on the word of two or three editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. When the outcome is obvious at XfD, a few editors will participate and others will not see the point in piling on: this is a feature, not a bug, and something that we could well try to emulate in our user conduct processes. When they're controversial (as an ANI sanctioning an established editor would be), 10-20 participants is not uncommon. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It's difficult to measure people not posting a comment, but I can confirm what @Joe Roe says: I avoid "piling on" at AFD, especially when the outcome is to delete, because it's unnecessary and might feel hurtful to the article's creator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Subpages make it much more difficult for people to watchlist the page
That's why I thought that /Monday, /Tuesday would be better than each day. People can manually click on seven buttons more easily than 365 (times however many years you wanted to pre-load). However, I believe there is a script-y kind of way to watchlist all the pages for (say) a calendar year, if someone really wanted to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure formally closing all discussions at ANI is a good idea. Currently most of the uncontentious stuff is "closed" by bot archiving; explicit human closes of everything could easily lead to increased bickering about discussion closures for "no one cares"/"no longer interesting"/"nobody wants to act on this"/"no action needed" discussions (usually it is not worth determining which of these is the case). —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

possible idea; entry compiling overviews of multiple novels, in a single series

hi all. i made the article below in my own userspace, to compile plot summaries for all novels in a series, namely the Aubrey-Maturin series, by Patrick O'Brian. what do folks here think of this, as a possible model for a type of article?

as far as I know, there is no rule currently against this type of article, but I wanted to get a little feedback here, just to see what reactions or comments on this type of article people might wish to express.

appreciate any feedback. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I don't really think Wikipedia would be the best project for it, as this is mostly based on summarizing primary sources. However, it would be great to envision this as a separate Wikimedia project, if that can be possible! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTPLOT seems like the relevant guideline here. While an encyclopedia article on a series of books can be appropriate (and indeed we do have Aubrey-Maturin series) an article which does nothing but summarise the series, as this seems to be, would not be. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
TV Tropes has recap pages for series {example} Mach61 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
That is very long. Maybe incorporating condensed synopses of each entry just like List of Black Mirror episodes vs longer summaries on each individual article into Aubrey–Maturin series#Series would be more appropriate. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed revision of the COI guideline

Our current Conflict of Interest guideline is 6000 words - or 0.2 tomats - long, and often ambiguous and confusing. To address this we have recently been discussing at WP:COI a replacement, and I'm opening a discussion here to get further input on it now that it has gone through a few rounds of revisions.

It is considerably shorter than the current guideline, at just 1000 words, and is intended to be clearer about what restrictions apply to which editors. The intention is that it would replace the current COI guideline; the current text would be moved to an explanatory supplement where it could be edited and pruned as appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft of the proposed guideline

To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal, professional, or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.

Financial Conflict of Interest

An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:

  • Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles.
  • Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
    • Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. For example, an editor who is a major shareholder or partner in a business could materially benefit from increased sales due to enhanced visibility of their product on Wikipedia. Conversely, an individual who holds a inconsequential stake, such as a small fraction of a percent of shares in a publicly traded company, would not be positioned to experience noticeable financial gains from such coverage.
    • Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.

Non-financial Conflict of Interest

An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:

  • Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
  • Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
  • Significant Roles: Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
    • A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
    • A precinct captain for the Democratic Party would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
    • A presidential elector for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest.

Managing Conflicts

  • Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
  • Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, transparency is required; they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.

Exceptions

Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.

General exceptions

  1. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
  2. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
  3. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
  4. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
  5. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.

Wikipedians in residence

A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:

  • Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
  • Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR

Reporting suspected violations

When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our no-outing policy; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia.

  • User talk page: Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the COI warning template as appropriate.
  • COI noticeboard: If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
  • Private communication: For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and for paid editing concerns, reach out to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.

Discussion

Any way to internationalise the bit under Significant roles? A "precinct captain for the Democratic Party" doesn't really map intuitively onto anything in my experience, and others may feel similarly. Folly Mox (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I tried to think of a few as I didn't consider it ideal either, but I couldn't think of anything more recognizable. If you have any ideas I would be glad to change them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I am really not liking the direction this proposal is taking us. This focuses on the editor and not the edits.
Having a conflict of interest should NOT bar anyone from editing as long as their edits are in accordance with our content policies and guidelines. Even a paid editor is not problematic UNLESS they are editing in a way that is contrary to our p&g.
I agree that it IS all too easy to (even unintentionally) edit in a way that is contrary to p&g when you have a tie to the topic… and so I agree with requiring disclosure. After all, when you disclose, others can better guide you when you unintentionally edit in a problematic way. BUT… those with a conflict CAN edit properly with such guidance.
The flaw isn’t in having a conflict of interest… the flaw is in allowing that conflict to impact one’s editing. And THAT is resolved by addressing the edits, not the editor. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the flaw is in allowing the conflict to impact one's editing. However, I don't believe it's useful to focus on the edits within the conflict of interest guideline. All edits are held to the same standard: they are proper if they align with our content policies and guidelines, and improper if they don't.
Instead, we should recognize that editors with a conflict of interest can make significant positive contributions but also face an increased risk of making problematic edits - especially ones that are difficult to detect and address. Our goal should be to minimize this risk without hindering those positive contributions, and we can achieve this through two complementary processes: providing additional guidance to editors with a conflict of interest and subjecting their edits to greater scrutiny.
A conflict of interest guideline that focuses on the editor, promoting transparency and disclosure, supports these processes, and allows us to better manage the risk. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar, the only thing that matters is the edits. Everything that isn't directly supporting the inclusion of good edits and the exclusion of bad edits, regardless of source, is irrelevant. The significant majority of this proposal is focusing on completely the wrong thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Blueboar and @Thryduulf, can't the same thing be said about the existing COI guideline? Is this really "taking us" somewhere new, or is it "keeping us exactly where we have been since 2012"?
Related to the comment from @Curbon7, I think the most recent major change was when Gigs and SlimVirgin largely re-wrote COI in 2012. If memory serves, the goal was to make COI focus on the editor instead of the edit, because real-world definitions (e.g., for corporate board malfeasance) focus on the individual actors instead of the actions. For example, if a non-profit board member owns an office building, and offers to rent badly needed office space to the non-profit at a massive discount, he can theoretically get in COI trouble for voting to accept his offer, even if that's clearly the best possible thing for the organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's COI policies don't ban those with a COI from editing. However, they do require you to:
  1. Disclose that COI
  2. Keep any bias in check
  3. Involve other editors to verify all edits are unbiased
  4. Avoid letting your voice "dominate" any articles on the topic.
The editor matters because we don't have perfect information. If a rando gives a citation for "Bob the scientist says X", it's reasonable to include this in an article, and I won't give it much thought. However, it's possible Bob's view falls outside the mainstream; to determine that, I'd need to learn all about X. I can't do this for every possible X, so I take a shortcut: if a COI editor who would benefit from X writes this edit, I make sure to be extra-careful when reviewing the edit. –Sincerely, A Lime 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think rather than re-writing the guidelines entirely it may be more wise to trim the guideline section-by-section. I'm not sure many editors have an appetite for a ground-up re-structuring which to some may seem to be the addition of new guidelines and removal of existing one; the issue with huge proposals like this is the risk of a controversial change in one spot derailing the entire thing. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    As a matter of practical politics, you're probably right. I don't remember a wholesale re-write ever being adopted in one go, though we have (10+ years ago) made really substantial changes to some policies through a series of edits. But it's also helpful to look at the potential goal. If it's going entirely the wrong way, then we might not want to propose any of the changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think an attempt at a ground-up restructuring is worth attempting; a lot of the changes only make sense in context, and I feel trying to run a dozen RfC's will quickly fatigue the community. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Worth the effort; there are many problems caused by the current guideline. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Make the edit request facility optional

An uncontroversial, "change X to Y" request can be done just as easily using a normal discussion thread. The edit request facility exists for low-activity protected articles where there is a need to summon an editor to handle the request; otherwise the request could sit unseen or ignored for years. In my experience, edit request is used far more often for changes that are not uncontroversial, and/or are not in the required "change X to Y" format. This is because users don't take the time to read the instructions presented to them in the request path.

It should be possible to turn off the edit request facility at articles where it isn't needed; i.e., articles that always have editors around. In such cases the edit request path could be replaced by instructions directing the user to the talk page (or saving them a step and presenting the same thing they would get by clicking "New section" at the talk page). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well it is already optional and editors do make requests in text only. The template makes it formal and encourages identifying the exact change, although often not used correctly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The use is optional; the facility is not. Again in my experience, editors are spending too much time rejecting "invalid" edit requests (which also wastes the requester's time).
The facility summons an outside editor by placing the article in a maintenance category for that purpose. In my 10+ years at normal-activity articles, I've yet to see a request handled by such an outside editor. Rather, the request is invariably changed to answered=y by a "local" editor, removing the article from the category, before an outside editor arrives to handle it. So, for a normal-activity article, what's the point of the category or the facility? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Not every request-reviewer is that lazy. Quite a bit will engage in discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
And they will do so improperly, all the more reason to turn off edit requests. The edit request instructions are quite clear: "What an edit request IS NOT for: [...] making a comment or starting a discussion: go to the talk page [...]". Again, if discussion is the goal, there is already a way to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. But should people new to a topic carry the burden of assessing whether a talk page is active? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. If you're referring to the requesters, they wouldn't have to make that assessment. It would have already been made by the article's editors (or not). For example, the editors at Donald Trump would turn off the edit request facility and any user clicking "View source" on the article page would be directed to the talk page (or, as I said, the box would be presented to start a discussion thread). More precisely, they would be presented the option to start a discussion thread, just as they're presented the option to submit an edit request today (big blue button).
And, again, if they don't seek discussion—if they have something clearly uncontroversial—a normal thread works equally well for that purpose. Heading: "Typo correction". Comment: "Please correct the spelling of 'envirmental' in the 'Climate change, environment, and energy' section. ~~~~". Done. The only material differences are (1) a more meaningful section heading, hopefully, (2) no need to change to answered=y, and (3) no maintenance category pointlessly involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Then just add the edit notice for articles where all edits will be controversial. I don't see why we should remove the ER facility, which is still perfectly good for uncontroversial edits. I don't see why editors already being available is a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mandruss: The facility summons an outside editor by placing the article in a maintenance category for that purpose. In my 10+ years at normal-activity articles, I've yet to see a request handled by such an outside editor. Can you please clarify what you mean by this. Many volunteers watch CAT:ESP and related pages and handle requests. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: I'm sure they do, but I've never seen them handle one at an article that always has editors around to handle it. Not once in 10+ years. They simply can't get there fast enough, presumably because they are processing a FIFO queue containing a number of older requests. Even if they could, why bother them when they aren't needed? They have many requests to handle where they are needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a lot of high traffic articles here. In my experience handling well over 10,000 edit requests and patrolling all of the edit request queues, edit requests are often ignored by the regulars on well attended talk pages, and edit request patrollers handle requests on those articles very often. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Great. Then those articles would not turn off the edit request facility. Hence "optional". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Pages that are protected are normally of interest to many editors. So hopefully they are on watchlists. Also I expect that admins the protect, add the page to their watchlist so they can see any requests or edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
That reads like an argument for eliminating the edit request facility entirely, which would be a step too far in my opinion. It's certainly not an argument against making the facility optional at article level. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
And the argument is very wrong too. There are plenty of obscure protected pages. High-risk templates. MediaWiki-namespace pages. Gadgets like MediaWiki talk:Gadget-watchlist-notice-core.js, where even the edit request template itself has failed for two months. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I implemented this a while ago per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Possible new tool/technique/procedure as {{Manual edit requests}}. It never got used then because the person who was advocating for it retired due to unrelated drama shortly after that discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I still don't see why editors being already available is a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You're choosing to frame this in a greatly oversimplified way that ignores points already made. I hate circular/repetitive discussion, and I suggest a re-read with more effort to see a different perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Bump. It's been said, not by me, that Idea Lab is where good ideas go to die. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if that's true, I don't think the precondition is met for this one.
Suppressing the normal edit request mechanism IMO should only be done for pages where it makes it too easy for confused users to make completely misplaced edit requests (e.g. all the people who used to wind up at Template talk:Reflist trying to add references to some particular article, or Help talk:Edit summary trying to add a summary to their edit). If people are using it to make appropriate requests, even if malformed and even if the article always has editors around, then it's not a problem. Especially in the "always has editors around" case, those editors can handle it.
Above you complain about Rather, the request is invariably changed to answered=y by a "local" editor, removing the article from the category, before an outside editor arrives to handle it, which IMO is the mechanism working as intended: an editor answers the request and sets answered=y. Just because that happens to be an editor who'd have seen it anyway because they watch the page is not a "problem" that needs fixing. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is that, where there is no need to summon someone via the category, there is no need for the facility. That's it. In my nine years at the perpetually-protected Trump article, perhaps one in twenty edit requests have resulted in an edit to the article—and it could have been done using a normal thread. The other nineteen have been malformed, controversial, attempts to start discussion, or requests for permission to edit the article directly. That is a distracting waste of resources too easily avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not that I don't understand your point. It's that I disagree that removing the edit request pre-fill would make things better, outside of your own personal annoyance at seeing the edit request template. You or other editors on the page are free to retitle sections and mark the "bad" request as answered when you answer them. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I think you do misunderstand my point, unless you're saying that the distracting waste of resources is acceptable. If that's the case, I invite you to come spend a few weeks at the Trump article; might change your perspective. We have more important things to do, and not enough time to do them. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
On second thought, it's not a good time for your visit. The article talk page has been temporarily semi-protected due to vandalism related to the conviction, and I think that's preventing edit requests. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't stand Trump. Anomie⚔ 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding the proposal; currently I'm interpreting it as "disable the ability to create edit requests on controversial pages/pages with lots of watchers". If that's the case: last year, I made an edit request to the List of Conspiracy Theories article, which is unsurprisingly a controversial article and has over a thousand talk page watchers. By your criteria, I'm pretty sure edit requests would have been disabled. As it was, it took 23 days for anyone to bother to respond, during which time (if my memory's correct) it became the 12th-most-stale edit request on the entire site. ...had your proposal been in place, and had my request been forced to have been opened as a normal thread, it would have vanished into the void and would still be unanswered today. Because surprise surprise, the ultimate responder found it through the Edit Request Tool, not from watching the talk page. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:BC84:B937:5E69:2838 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)
That's the general gist I saw when I was I patrolled edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The proposal is to give an article's editors the power to turn off the edit request facility if they judge that it's doing more harm than good at that article. The test is not an arbitrary one based on # of watchers or anything else. Are you suggesting that decision would be made at List of conspiracy theories? Made on what basis?
Regardless, it's not like the decision is irreversible. If your normal thread sat unanswered for a long time, would that not be a clear reason to turn the facility back on? If your edit request went unanswered for 23 days, how is that an argument against this proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing what it really does. The template attracts the patrollers. If they close an edit request it doesn't mean that the watchers of that particular article can't action or respond to the request in any way they see fit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If I've failed to make the point about "distracting waste of resources", I guess there's nothing else I can say. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
What you call waste, we call extremely effective redundancy. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misreading, but it is unclear what resources are being wasted (server kittens?) or that anyone is distracted. One of two things is true. Either the request is answered by someone who is patrolling the categories for edit requests, in which case the system functioned as expected. Or the request is answered by a talk page watcher, in which case the proposed change would make no difference except perhaps cosmetically due to a different template. I suppose there is the tiniest chance that a patroller inspects a request at the precise instant a talk page watcher answers it and edit conflicts, but the benefit of eliminating an extremely rare occurrence is more than outweighed by the extra complications entailed by the proposed change. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I doubt that new users would be able to know how to request turning the facility back on, nor if there were a facility because it was turned off. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source engine

Created a prototype 'reliable source engine' (you can try it here) to simplify finding reliable sources. Is this something that already exists? That others might use? (if so, maybe Wikimedia can partner with Google to make the search engine ad-free?) Superb Owl (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I just tried it and liked the results. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
See WP:WRS. --Talky Muser (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Love it! Maybe that's something to implement to the Find sources link present in most citation needed templates? But, it already seems to exist as above. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all! I pinged User_talk:Syced/Wikipedia_Reference_Search#Relationship_with_WP:RSP? for feedback and to see if they think it'd be helpful to have more versions and added a second version narrowed down to reliable sources without paywalls. Superb Owl (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSSE is another. Levivich (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh awesome! I added all of these to the esssay Wikipedia:Advanced source searching#Niche search engines so they are all in one place Superb Owl (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Awesome! I'm definitely bookmarking it for later use. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Would love your thoughts when you've tried it!
I also just filtered-out opinion pieces when possible.
And also confirmed that all of the other existing search engines include at least some sources where there is no consensus on reliability. Superb Owl (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Whales

We don’t have enough content about whales. The whale content is lacking. Are kids going to be successful if they’re not skilled in whales? The answer is no. Hence, we need more whale content. First, how do they breed? Second, what do they like to eat? Third, 2603:7000:4EF0:9ED0:F9B8:A706:2018:DF70 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Moot We already have sweet Jimbo Wales. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
And {{whale}}! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
[cetacean needed] —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
fixœd Aaron Liu (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Third, how often do they explode. —Cryptic 15:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
We can talk about whales during lunch. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
We have a lot of content on this subject, but (per WP:ENGVAR) we use the UK spelling … without the “h”… see: Wales. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've created a task force homepage. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you mean how often does he explode. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Dark Mode as a Premium Feature

If dark mode was offered as a premium feature I'd be pretty likely to pay $0.99 per month for a premium "membership".

Offering this feature would help my eyes and could be a great way to get users to support the site more consistently. 2601:644:9282:65E0:6844:BE91:592E:183F (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dark mode. You can sort-of get it for free. And it would be grossly improper to charge for it. The WMF don't really need the money anyway. They are rolling in it, and a great number of contributors here consider both the way they raise funds and some of the things they spend it on to be less than optimal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate your response. Good to know they aren't hurting for funds.
I've used Wikipedia extensively and have donated/contributed multiple times, and thought since I could be convinced to pay for this feature it was worth mentioning as a possible fundraising tactic.
Perhaps it would be grossly improper. Admittedly, I would trust an official Wikipedia feature more than installing a browser extension. 2601:644:9282:65E0:6844:BE91:592E:183F (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I have been using the Dark Mode Gadget for I think a couple years. Some pictures came out wrong, but not enough to persuade me to give up the lovely darkness. Several minutes ago the notice came up that the Gadget was interfering with the new Dark Mode Feature, so I clicked the deactivate and found the correct option in Preferences. Very nice. Well, I don't notice if there's any difference. Alas, I have forgotten which pictures came out wrong with the old Dark Gadget, so don't know whether that was fixed. Anyway go, go, dark! Jim.henderson (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a night mode; see mw:Reading/Web/Accessibility for reading. You can feel free to take that amount and donate it to a charitable organization whose goals align with Wikipedia, or some other Wikimedia Foundation project. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hall of Fame?

What are your thoughts? Is it going to work? Comment down below. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

i think it would be pretty cool, maybe for significant editors. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hall of fame topic; section break 1

  • I'll bite. What do I get? Like, a room with a comfy chair? The one caution I would have about this is that there are some editors whose positive contributions to the encyclopedia would unquestionably earn them a spot, but who are presently indef-banned for other reasons. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    "The one caution I would have about this is that there are some editors whose positive contributions to the encyclopedia would unquestionably earn them a spot, but who are presently indef-banned for other reasons." That's a good point. Though, IMO, I don't think HOF should be behavior-exclusionary and should be open to anyone who has made an enduring impact on WP, regardless of how they made the impact. For instance, I say induct Jordan French (maybe not in the inaugural cohort, but eventually). Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Chetsford on this. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    French certainly made an impact but then so did many LTA vandals. If this idea is adopted, it seems appropriate to limit membership to those who have shown altruism rather than encouraging those who make Wikipedia worse for personal gain. Certes (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    Never say never. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's a good point, Certes. I think this was intended more as an exaggeration for emphasis that we not be rules-bound for a HOF, but probably not a good example to underscore that! Anyway, I agree with your suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • We already have a lot of perks for experienced editors (Special holidays, Wikimedian of the Year, Editor of the Week, Service awards, ...), and I honestly don't think we need yet another way to separate "elite" Wikipedians from the rest of us. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Similar to Internet Hall of Fame, to be serious, there would need to be a reliable advisory board. They can help surface little known but important people from the early founder days. It could be a popular vote nomination process, like the Nobel, but picking the winners would need a small august body, known for deep institutional knowledge and experience. After a few rounds/years of winners, those winners then become members of the advisory board. Overall this is probably something that should be organized by WMF. Or you can just do it, but it will be another "This one is special. This one is also special" award. -- GreenC 18:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    @GreenC, i like the discussion here of this idea, but how about an opposite approach? such as, anyone who wants to be in the hall of fame, can be?? and maybe split it up by topic, so that it would have some actual useful format to make it readable to others? Sm8900 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I like it. While we may have a superfluidity of awards, these cost essentially nothing to produce so I'm not sure I ever understand the resistance. All recognition systems are voluntary and those who don't approve can opt-out. Moreover, a HoF -- if managed through some approximation of the way GreenC describes -- would be different from existing accolades which are either interpersonal recognition (editor to editor) or metric-based recognition (e.g. Four Award, etc.). Chetsford (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hall of fame topic; section break 2

  • Of course they "cost nothing to produce", that's not the problem, the problem is that they give one more excuse to divide Wikipedians between "the ones who have power" (i.e. the unblockables) and the plebs like us. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It might be a good idea. 3.14 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The key questions for any initiative is what is the objective, and how helpful is the initiative in achieving this objective? For recognition programs, it's important to also consider how the selection process will work, and whether or not it will create more difficulties than benefits gained. Recognition programs are tricky because the flip side of selecting some is that many others are not selected, and that can result in conflict. isaacl (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    That's how recognition programs work, but I don't think they'll necessarily cause any conflict. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    "it's important to also consider how the selection process will work" After the inaugural cohort is selected, maybe it should become self-perpetuating with all prior inductees selecting each subsequent cohort. (Though you'd still need some system to choose the inaugural cohort.) This would mitigate politicization and degradation as inducted members would have a vested interest in maintaining its reputational coherence. Chetsford (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    That would be difficult if they are dead or so long retired from WP they don't give a toss about the place anymore/are out of touch about who is still active and "deserves" a shout. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    "would be difficult if they are dead" I imagine it would. Chetsford (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    I would object to exclusion of the deceased. There are some amazing editors who left us too soon, but with great work done first. BD2412 T 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    We don't mean a blanket exclusion, just that we will ensure that batches of cohorts keep on coming; this line of discussion was about a proposal to have each cohort select the next. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think we'll select a cohort that are all dead or inactive, for the reasons you've mentioned. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think it best if you don't have any intake at all: voting for one's friends make this an inbred and insular process. As I've said before (as has Chaotic Enby), this is a bad idea - divisive and with the potential for conflict when the "wrong" people are elected and the "right" people over looked. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The English Wikipedia Hall of Fame idea sounds peachy keen, as Babe Ruth would say before tying his hands behind his back and hitting a home run with his neck (Ruth is, all kidding aside, the most underrated ballplayer in baseball history). The initial "class" obviously would include J and L, the pioneering heroes of our story, and I can think of several others who would be obvious. That first class probably shouldn't be large, maybe 7 or 8 inductees. Then the rules get tricky, but doable. In a perfect world we'd lock J and L in a room until they get to a place where they can come up with a plan of how to handle this that everyone says "Of course that's how it should be done". But, bottom line, I think an EWHoF is a good idea all around (without WMF involvement). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • A second rate popularity contest with ill-defined criteria? What could possibly go wrong. Terrible and divisive idea. You think someone's great - give 'em a barnstar, or, even better, leave them a thank you note, but to 'promote' people who will undoubtedly be divisive to others? That way grief and conflict lies. And this ignores the fact that "hall of fame" is not a worldwide concept that people everywhere readily grasp or buy into.- SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    Schro, the procedure is akin to the Wikimedian of the Year, except that it exclusively concentrates on the English Wikipedia. There's a purpose for these initiatives, and I firmly disagree that this is a "bad idea." Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    You are, of course, entitled to disagree. For what it's worth, I think the Wikimedian of the Year is a fairly crap award too, being a process with no criteria and something else that divides, rather than unites. Most people are happy to do the work for the sake of the work, not to seek vacuously external praise or validation just because they've caught the eye of someone powerful or happen to be pushing a zeitgeist line of thinking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    As you haven't yet stated the purpose behind your suggestion, nor proposed a process, there isn't enough info to understand the potential benefits and costs. There's an understandable view that costs quickly outweigh benefits as any process involves more people, adding up to more total effort expended. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hall of fame topic; section break 3

I don't much like anything on Wikipedia which encourages elitism, political campaigns, cliques, inequality, etc. I can imagine that many wiki-politicians would waste a lot of time campaigning to be elected to a HOF and that the results would be divisive. "How come so-and-so got elected, and I didn't?" Smallchief (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • I think this sort of thing is better left to other sites. Maybe the people who hang out at Wikipediocracy would create a Wikipedia Hall of Fame? Or would it become a Wikipedia Hall of Infamy? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    I especially don't like the idea of putting infamous characters in a HOF. Follow baseball standards. Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson are not in the baseball HOF because of scandal, despite being qualified. No bad actors, no matter how famous, in a HOF. Smallchief (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    Good point, but Wikipedia is not baseball. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed. Baseball is a sport where defeating others on the field is encouraged. Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavour where it's frowned on. Certes (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, this program is designed for honoring purposes rather than competition. I hope that's clear to all. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    In that case, it seems the honor should not be of the Wikipedian itself, but of the work that they accomplished in a given area. That's why the Barnstars exist, of course. Just as WP:NPA encourages us to comment on the content and not on the creator, so too should we be aware to not place individual people on a pedestal.
    Frankly I find it disappointing that, in bringing forth the idea, the OP has not brought forth any comprehensive or detailed arguments in support of this idea and in response to the above critique. We are simply discussing a nebulous concept of recognition, which I think Wikipedia already addresses, and which if people really needed to see more of, they could use other websites or mediums for this purpose. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    And we do celebrate content, quite satisfactorily, with DYK and TFA. So there is no need for a "hall of fame", it's just more self-congratulation. Cremastra (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

section break 4; [wikilounge idea]

Section break 5

  • Editor of the Week was set up with a specific goal in mind: to demonstrate appreciation of specific positive behaviours and collaborative spirit by its recipients, with an explicit disclaimer that it's not intended to be a judgement about their overall characteristics. It was deliberately set up as a no-big-deal award with a very lightweight process, to avoid making it something that people would argue a lot about. The original pool of candidates was lesser-known editors, in order to give them a bit more encouragement to continue contributing, but has since been broadened to anyone. It's basically a slightly fancier barnstar, with some people slapping recipients on the back with a "good job". As a result of this carefully planned design, it hasn't fostered division. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Many such award schemes have been previously proposed. Only two, to my knowledge, still function: WP:QAI, because of the dedication of one editor, and WP:EOTW. If you want another one, set it up and run it yourself—if people like it, you can then apply to formalize it as a Wikipedia-wide process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not sure what I'm opposing here, but whatever it is, I'm against it.
Anyway, the Service Awards are good because they are purely mechanical and entirely removed from politics. Entirely: If you're banned, you qualify. If everyone hates you, you qualify. If you drove your car up the steps and into the door of the Wikimedia Foundation offices on purpose, you qualify. Also, you continue to accrue service time -- which is measured from the date of your first edit, and does not take into account gaps -- after you're dead. So, if service time is the limiting factor for you, you will progress up the levels even after your demise, and I know of one editor who is. So... Maybe our Hall of Fame could be only for deceased editors. After all, you have to be dead five years before you're eligible for the baseball Hall of Fame. Then I think most people would be "Oh its nice to remember Smith" and not upset about the politics. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

How about a Hall of Shame?

I know generally we are a bit negative especially when it comes to disruption, which is why we generally note previous hurdles as a cautionary tale of what not to repeat. A reminder everyone is human. A hall of fame will make editors more concerned with scoring brownie points than actually improving the project. Awesome Aasim 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:STOCKS, more than this would actually be more harmful than it might help. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I know. I was just thinking about why we have a hall of shame but not a hall of fame. Awesome Aasim 00:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The stocks aren't a hall of shame, it's a humourous list of mistakes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Awesome Aasim, isn't WP:Long term abuse already kind of that? — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
That page should not really be intended to be a 'hall of shame' due to WP:DENY and WP:BEANS (none of which apply to the village stocks in comparison). Xeroctic (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have a hall of shame. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

An idea that might work: A Wikipedia statue

In place of the Hall of Fame, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, how about this: Wikipedians can request that the Foundation agree to raise funds for and construct a Wikipedia statue featuring Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger, and a stylized rendition of Wikipedia and Wikipedians enlarged and forever enlarging behind them (with, of course, the incomplete-globe logo somewhere in the mix). This should be a major statue, not a small standing one, and incorporate the full quality and historical significance of the encyclopedia.

Wales and Sanger should have no veto in the idea of their inclusion in the statue but both probably should have input on the final design of their figures portrayed at the time of Wikipedia's founding. Many of the world's major sculptors should either compete for the final design or submit ideas for it. If done well, with a full mix of realism and modern art, it would be beautiful, educational, and honor the two initiators, the tens of thousands of volunteers, and the concept of knowledge itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Would sound good to me, though I fear that some may think it's spending they should focus on technical debt, which may or may not be valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Aaron. It feels like a reasonable idea, the community asking the Foundation to do something like this. As for expense, focused fundraising works. Major funders, both former and potential, often like to focus their money on specific goals. Some may delight in funding the expansion of tech, others would appreciate the chance to fund an artwok, some might be glad to fund a full evening Wikibanquet as well as add more scholarships to the regional conferences. A large well-done statue (and please also appreciate the Wikipedia Monument) dedicated to the free sharing of knowledge would catch the eye of some art loving major funders, so that shouldn't be an issue. If I was a tech giant it'd be funded already. Imagine the design proposals that would come in. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Simpsons did it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A true Wikipedia statue should be a big framework sphere like this but with the design of the Wikipedia globe logo, and made of little shelves. The public to be encouraged to climb all over it and place (and remove) items of their choosing on the shelves. A webcam to make it a live-streaming sensation. Activate the fountains below to hose it down regularly. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Guy brings Vitamin C effervescent tablets Aaron Liu (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
An interesting idea, if one drops the silliness of including Sanger. The man had as much input into the founding of this as Ronald Wayne did for Apple. That is, hardly a thing. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Lack of Filipino folk arts

It has come to my attention that Wikipedia lacks info about Filipino folk arts. So far I've only seen three pages of Filipino folk songs, and in the folk section of Dance in the Phillipines a plethora of some dance's pages haven't been created. Obviously I'm not trying to say that we should add EVERY SINGLE BIT. But it would be nice to add others. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Try being bold and editing pages yourself to see what you can improve. – Teratix ₵ 14:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
To underline what Teratix said, every page on Wikpedia was created by someone. You can be that someone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I (kind of) take my word back for Filipino folk songs, I've done some more research. I don't know the exact amount but it's more than three pages. But Wikipedia is still missing some more, the absence of Filipino folk dances is still present. I'll be sure to make their Wikipedia pages as soon as I can. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
As good old dear Liza would say, then fix it dear Henry then fix it. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll make sure to make their Wikipedia pages as soon as I can. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Please do remember I am a new user, it'll take some time. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Cyb3rstarzzz, if you haven't already, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines and its discussion page. It looks like it's active, so you might be able to find another editor there who has some familiarity with the topic or who would be interested in coordinating efforts. hinnk (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edits feature

I was thinking that there could be a new feature where someone makes an edit but instead of applying it, ticks a box so that it has to gain approval from one other editor to be applied (and can’t outright be refused). This is a much less time consuming method that would replace talk page spam and be more of a proposal. It would also be ideal for contentious topics, to stop incorrect or uncertain content from being applied. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like Wikipedia:Pending changes? Anomie⚔ 12:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes but as an option per edit for an editor, or give the edit a timer of a few hours until it’s automatically applied, during which someone can revert it preemptively Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Is it worth the effort to distrust an editor so much that we need a giant conservatorship scheme? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not to distrust the editor, it’s for edits where the editor is unsure Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu My reading of the OP is that it's partly intended for editors to apply a "please check this" flag to their edits. This would only be used by editors who are editing in good faith but are unsure of Wikipedia's norms, etc (the vast majority of whom will be newcomers) so this might be a good way reducing entry barriers for some but I don't think it would be at all effective at reducing spam, deliberate misinformation, other bad-faith editing or those who are confidently wrong in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes correct, and it could be a less inflammatory way of doing WP:BRD on contentious topics or controversial edits Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Only when the editor is not confident they are right. To catch the bad faith and confidently wrong it would have to apply to all editors (or all (extended-)confirmed editors), which is what pending changes is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Editing already effectively works this way, especially if a "proposed edit" has a timer after which the edit is automatically accepted. Any edit can be reverted, so in effect every edit already is what a "proposed edit" would be under this scheme. I wonder if there's some value in making this into a technical restriction we could apply to problematic editors? Right now, if we identify that an editor's work is problematic, all we can really do is talk to them or else ban or block them. A sanction where we could impose pending changes on just their edits might be a decent lower-level enforcement mechanism. Then again our technical options for less-than-total blocks are already getting kind of complicated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You're right that a "proposed edit" with a timer is sort of like the status quo, but the status quo means that edit is published and likely to be read by some readers, the binary between published and unpublished edits facilitates conflict Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You still seem to be conflating things. This feature would either apply to all editors or be opt-in.
  • If opt-in it might have merit as a feature for good-faith new editors, but it would be useless at best against bad faith and confidently wrong editors so it would be a waste of time to discuss it in relation to the latter.
  • If applied to everyone it might be effective against good and bad faith errors, but it would duplicate the existing pending changes, so it would be a waste of time to discuss it.
So forget bad faith editors, controversial topics, BRD, etc and develop this as a proposal solely to reduce barriers to entry for not-yet-confident, good faith new editors. We need more of those people so reducing barriers to entry for them is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes completely agree, I'm not tech literate so I would struggle to progress this but I'll try and lay out what I have in mind Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea is a checkbox next to where the editor types the edit summary, to make this edit a "proposed edit", which appears in the edit history at the time it is 'published' and the edit is automatically applied after a chosen period of time, I suggest the options being 10 mins, 30 mins, 1 hr, 2hr, 6 hr, 12hr, 24 hr. Other editors, when reading the edit history, can either 'support' or 'oppose', support applies it immediately, oppose reverts it (reasons are given for both). If the edit is reverted, you accept it or move to the talk page.

The policy around this would have to be clear to counter spam or wasting editors' time. It would also have to counter page ownership, guardianship, and unnecessary reverting. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also anyone can revert an edit that has been supported, it is not necessarily consensus 2 v 1 Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't feel like you've taken Thryduulf's comments into account. A spammer doesn't have any incentive to opt into a mechanism intended to counter their work. And by design, your proposal is to ask other editors to consider proposed edits, so it's not countering additional effort from other editors. As written, it's encouraging editors to make proposed edits with the cost of additional work by others. Depending on the relative amount of good-faith edits that end up getting reverted today, versus ones that don't, in theory this could be a net gain. My instinctive feeling, though, is that the target audience isn't large enough for it to significantly reduce net effort. Thus I agree with Thryduulf that it would better to focus on encouragement as a goal. I suggest reading about Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool, which has some similarities to your proposal. It was discontinued as the amount of useful suggestions was completely swamped by the numbers of poor suggestions, and there wasn't enough volunteer effort to handle them. isaacl (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This isn't anything to do with spammers or bad faith editing. It is a feature for newer editors who're generally unsure and unfamiliar with policy. To be clear it is an option, most editors will not check the box. The second paragraph there was just about writing policy around it and foreseen problems. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I apologize; your second paragraph is a bit unclear to me. I suggest avoiding the word "policy" in that context, as it seems you're saying that the procedure should strive to avoid unhelpful suggestions, rather than suggesting relationships to policy. You could try discussing your proposal with WMF Growth team to see if they've considered anything along those lines. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, yeah I could've worded it clearer Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Could you clarify what 'and can’t outright be refused' means, and what problem it solves? If an editor checks the edit and see it's in error they can still just revert it, if they check the edit and don't think it's appropriate why then waste another editors time doing the check again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Please ignore my first two comments, I later combined them Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply properly. It encourages new people to edit wikipedia who're put off by their unfamiliarity with procedure and can facilitate master, student relationships between editors. It also means editors who're unsure about their particular edit can seek approval so that false information/edits contradicting policy are not published, even if for a short time. It can also be a less inflammatory method of doing BRD on controversial edits on contentious topics/pages. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It can also be a less inflammatory method of doing BRD on controversial edits on contentious topics/pages Don't understand this, what does "doing BRD" mean? Or why is doing BRD inflammatory? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Acting boldly on controversial topics can produce genuine conflict between editors and make it harder to work collaboratively, especially if editors are emotionally involved. This feature could provide a more measured way of going about it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, a proposed edit can be outright refused/reverted by one other editor Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
If the edit has been made, it is not really "proposed" is it? And isn't it the case that any editor can already revert it? Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you’re misunderstanding, which is fair because I haven’t been clear, the proposed edit is not immediately applied or published. It appears in the edit history like a published edit but isn’t yet one. After a chosen amount of time, during which it can be prematurely reverted, it can become a published edit. Another editor can immediately apply it if they agree with it and bypass the timer. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The German-language Wikipedia does this (with their version of Pending Changes), but it's applied involuntarily and per-user (e.g., all inexperienced users), rather than edit-by-edit.
There have been times when I've wished to have someone else check an edit for me. Here's one that I would have flagged for review. Ten years later, it's still in the article (and I still think it's correct). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Could do with a source though lol Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Its bad enough that my typos may not be corrected for years, but I only noticed this error 8 years later. Donald Albury 23:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea: essentially, allowing editors to apply pending changes to their own edits on a per-edit basis. I like it. I think you'd need someone to add to MediaWiki the ability to do per-edit pending changes (not sure if that's possible with current software). It could help reduce edit wars and BLPvios and the like. Levivich (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Another use case would be an intuitive replacement for edit requests. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, maybe the timer could have an option of unlimited, which would be the only option for non EC users on certain topics? Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_58&oldid=1231518259"