Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

History of this page
The content noticeboard used to be a board where general advice and resolution was sought in regards to content issues. Due to low use of this board, and partly to the board being superseded in function by the dispute resolution noticeboard, this board has been marked as historical. This page is now historical, new posts should be made at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Noticeboard archives

OK, let's see if this works

OK, here's a "high end content question" of the sort I had in mind when I suggested this board:

At some point in the next couple of months, I plan to do a top-to-bottom strip down and rewrite from basics of the (currently horribly messy and rather dubiously 'sourced') Hampstead Heath – as a fairly high-traffic article (about 15k–20k hits per month) the state of this one has irritated me for some time. Should the rewritten version keep the Gallery section? It's an impressive bit of wiki-coding (each caption is a clickable link to the article on the relevant building) and must have taken someone a very long time to set up – but it a) must breach just about every bit of the MOS there is, and b) doesn't actually illustrate Hampstead Heath at all, but is an index of buildings visible from Hampstead Heath (well, buildings that would be visible if there weren't trees in the way). There's also a third "coward's way out" option of booting it across to the separate Parliament Hill article. Any thoughts? – iridescent 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with galleries, but I know it's frowned on in FAC if you go that far with it. That clickable bit is kinda sick, it would be a shame to lose it. My one pet peeve with galleries is presentation -- I like when all the rows are full. rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What actually is wrong with the article? It says the right sorts of things in the right order. The ending sections are rather scrappy, to be sure. (On the other hand, I know from experience that a superficially nice-looking article can grow zits and things on closer inspection). Interested that you cover both Chelsea Bridge and Hampstead Heath. Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The faults with the text are mainly that it's very choppy; a lot of it is sourced to rather dubious sources that need thorough re-checking; there are glaring gaps in the history (the current article doesn't even mention Jack Straw, for example). I'm not suggesting a complete tabula rasa scorched-earth rebuild as I did with Battersea Bridge, but rewriting it with a more coherent structure – and a chronological ordering, rather than the current "list of places on Hampstead Heath" format – and then re-importing those parts of the original article that are legitimately sourced and worth salvaging.

My geographic articles follow the rivers, as they make natural "mini-topics", so you have a broad swathe along the River Moselle (Noel Park, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle etc), and a whole batch along the Thames. Hampstead Heath and Lea Valley Park will probably be the first ones I do on the Fleet and Lea respectively. – iridescent 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have all 8 volumes of Hughson's London (1807) which has some very quaint illustrations - I think it's online but if not I can digitise them. Let me know. I do like Battersea Bridge. Peter Damian (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm some of it appears to be online, but not all of it, apparently. Peter Damian (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For Battersea, I intentionally used Greaves's, Grimshaw's and Whistler's paintings to illustrate the old bridge; they neatly served a dual purpose in illustrating both what the old bridge looked like, and how/why there was such controversy about Whistler's intentionally unrealistic depictions of it in the Nocturne series (the first time a court had ever ruled on the quality of an art work). For most of the bridges, I find the Illustrated London News archive – already mostly online – to be the best source for early images, backed up with a couple of scans of old maps to give a historical context. – iridescent 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not fond of the Gallery in its current form on the Hampstead Heath article I must say. Looking over the article, I reckon there'll be a sizeable increase in size (needs ecology ++) so there might be some more text to slot stuff in against. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, it'll be huge; don't expect it any time soon. I dislike galleries – AFAIK I've only ever used one once (Hammerton's Ferry, and that was under unusual circumstances where most of the images really needed to be there) but the amount of time someone put into that cool absolute-positioned coding makes me a bit reluctant to delete the Hampstead one if-and-when the time comes. – iridescent 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are FAs with galleries, but they are mainly art and architecture articles. I don't see a reason why a gallery would be a bad thing, unless there are more gallery images than text. --Moni3 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My rule of thumb on galleries chimes with what Moni says above. Where the subject is a visual one a small gallery can be acceptable. But for a regular subject like Hampstead Heath I'd likely be objecting to the presence of a gallery. Galleries, IMO, are too often excuses for editors not to to be selective about the images that will best illustrate the subject. I generally recommend moving the gallery pictures to Commons and adding a link from the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Butting in here, I'm of the opinion that galleries should be used sparingly, and only when absolutely necessary to retain an article's comprehensiveness. We have Commons for a reason. Although, I've found {{double image}} to be useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Theory & policy question, good content by a later banned user? Prostitution in South Korea.

Echoed from this discussion. Yes, this was seen on Wikipedia Review, but it's a good question and discussion point, focusing on Prostitution in South Korea. I have no overall opinion (yet) on the content, and want to get a discussion going.

• Article on November 8, 2008. 1046 words readable prose, 13 sources.
• Article on November 20, 2008. 4375 words readable prose, 117 sources. Quick glances seem to show valid sourcing and content.

The 12 days' expansion was by Occidentalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was is apparently a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). These users are blocked, but looking at the entire history of the article[1] I don't see an obvious clue about them having targeted it before. This page was dramatically expanded (4.18x) by a now "banned" user. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) reverted it all here, citing "rv all edits by banned user, back to 9 November".

Here's my question, which seems to come up perennially: is this new content considered by anyone to be invalid since it was introduced by a "banned" user? Would it be against any policy violation if I, hypothetically, edited on this last Occidentalist version and hit save? I'm never sure where people stand on this sort of thing. The longer version of the article on the surface appears to be a much better article. rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy actually is clear on this. Despite what some of our more trigger-happy editors think, there's no obligation to revert edits by a banned user – but if you knowingly allow them to stay knowing a potentially compromised source, then you take responsibility for verification. This used to come up with Peter Damian's edits quite often (i.e., people would revert his valid edits because he was zOMGbanned!!!). – iridescent 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a reason we don't reinstate content from banned users: no other user should be brought into the situation where they have to waste time and energy debating them, if only indirectly through their proxies. I am personally by no means convinced this was good content. It seemed pretty tendentious, sensationalist and POV-pushy. But the nature of the abuse by that banned user means that I have no longer the slightest wish to get involved with the cesspool of that article, and would be surprised if anybody else who might oppose that material would want to. Which means that if you reinstate it now, you will have not only rewarded the banned user, but made their material de-facto unassailable, by rewaring the abusive behaviour. Personally, I would consider any such reinstatement of content in such a case a classical case of illegitimate "proxy editing". Just my personal opinion, and I will not comment further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly fine, well sourced and verifiable content should not be removed, period. There is no basis outside of your personal opinion that you engaged in edit warring with multiple users, indefinitely semi-protected a page (which I just had undone), and wholesale wiped content because you feel that everyone that engages you is now a "proxy." I'm not a proxy, yet I feel that you have abused your administrative powers in edit warring on this page and then protecting the "right" version, and others have felt the same in regards.

I highly suggest that you open up a line of dialogue instead of throwing out veiled threats. You were recently admonished and stripped of your administrative privileges for similar actions. seicer | talk | contribs 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The only edits I ever made on that page were reverts of obvious socks of banned users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to work contributed about prostitution in the Philippines a year or two ago. Appears well-sourced, but blatant propaganda. First question: where are the good sources? Second, if they are good, is there any evidence of WP:SYNTH and all that kind of stuff? Peter Damian (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read the the reverted material more carefully, I tend to agree that it is sensationalist and pushy and dubious original research. The sources are probably good, but they are stuck together in an outlandish and hard-to-verify way. I would have reverted if it were not a banned user (which is the real test). Peter Damian (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing

Once the Olympics kept their ideals of amateur competition so stringent that athletes who had ever taken money for performing were stripped of medal (see Jim Thorpe), and even athletes who paid for professional coaching were regarded with some skepticism as if doing such a thing was one step toward cheating. Now professional athletes perform in the Olympics regularly; whether the Olympics is better off is a good argument to be had.

FA writer User:Nichalp has been editing under another user name and getting paid for it. See the Signpost missive about it. There's an RfC about paid editing here. It might be a more cut and dry situation with Nichalp that a company has hired him to see after their interests on Wikipedia.

So, you who eats cardboard and whey, what if a private grant offered you money akin to a year's salary to write anything you wanted as long as you produced a certain number of GAs and FAs? What if the parameters were narrower? What if you had to produce all your articles in the realm of chemistry, French literature, or Baroque composers? What if the Wikimedia Foundation started to offer monetary rewards for well-written articles? How would money change the culture of Wikipedia? --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion's no secret; whatever the Great Helmsman might say to the contrary, I don't see how "motivated by financial gain" is morally any worse than "motivated by an interest in the subject". Particularly if you're talking about FA level, enough people will pore over it to strip out any bias. Anyway, "you can't write about something you're being paid on because you then won't have a balanced view" is a bullshit argument; almost every music, literature and sports bio is written by fans, and presumably most contributors to Roman Catholic Church, Obama, Lesbian etc all have particular biases for or against. Wikipedia's critics have a valid point in that we're so big that the self-correcting mechanism breaks down on smaller low-traffic articles, but at the GA/FA level there are always going to be at least a few eyes on everything. – iridescent 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Iridescent, for the most part. It's nice money if you can get it, but I wouldn't automatically say that GA/FA will strip out bias. As long as such COI are plainly stated, I'm generally sure the regular policing can take care of it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy writing articles quite a bit, and clearly don't get paid to do it. I wonder sometimes if someone offered me money if I would be as productive as I am. Surely one of the first things to keep me from doing something is to order me to do it. I magically lose all interest. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody's talking about a Citizendium-style "get accredited or get out"; you'd write Torchlight to Valhalla because you were interested in it, and Air Products & Chemicals to pay the mortgage. This is the model plenty of print sources have used for decades; it's also the system that keeps most theaters and orchestras in business. – iridescent 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've written an FA about a company. I didn't know the owner beforehand (even though several people accused me of being a operative for the company) but I did get to know him after I asked for free images and we started corresponding. I often think about how my attitude toward the article might have changed if he had said, "How about a lifetime 50% discount for writing the article?" or similar. He never offered me anything, nor would I have accepted it; I wrote it because I always liked the place. The article was more or less finished before I got to know him; now, I won't even edit the article because I feel uncomfortable doing so. My point is that even though we might tell ourselves we're not affected by the relationship, we can't be sure. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to get paid by the U.S. Navy to write articles about their old battleships. Having said that, I think that writing about old ships is different than writing about current CEOs or companies. What I am trying to say is that I echo Laaser Brain above with the caveat that I think it depends on the topic. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The core issue is conflict of interest. And getting paid to edit something certainly creates a problem in that respect. What are the chances of it being NPOV and including alternate perspectives when it's being done under contract? Just look at the puffery that passes for polical articles when they're edited by partisan supporters and compare it to the hit pieces for figures that aren't popular with the Wikipedia set. NPOV is a core policy and it should always be encouraged. Paid editing is not consistent with the values espoused in this policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said about "editing by fans of the topic", "editing by opponents of the topic", and so on. Just as a fan, opponent, etc can write an NPOV article if they are careful, a paid editor could do the same. Which is why WP:COI doesn't forbid COI edits, it just strongly warns about NPOV and gives advice on how to avoid problems. Anomie⚔ 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal links in footnoted references

Looking through FAs, there doesn't seem to be any common way to handle internal linking in footnotes, the most part are publishers and authors. Most articles are incoherent, with certain publishers linked, others not, and authors most often unlinked; while some at every instance. The general guideline on linking, Wikipedia:Linking, doesn't discuss this case, I suppose there aren't any guideline on this ? So how do you feel about this ? My preference would be to link any relevant link (of any type, not only publishers and authors) for the first time they appear in a footnoted reference. As it's a different part of the article, not the main body, the existence of the same link in the body shouldn't have impact, but for similar reasons to the article body, linking repeatedly the same item isn't necessary. Cenarium (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) would probably be able to explain that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, I only link authors in the references. I haven't yet seen that linking publishers adds much to the understanding of the reader, but if someone links publishers on an article I've got watchlisted, I won't unlink either. As for linking terms in other things, my understanding is that, just like we should avoid linking terms in direct quotations, I avoid linking terms in the titles of books/articles/etc. But this is just my practice, others do differently. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't link terms in a title too, I meant for example locations (Geographical place of publication), they appear from time to time, and when it's part of a larger work, that work. As for publishers, some are often very topical to the subject, and would provide relevant information to the reader. On the other hand, some are very general, but which are relevant or less may be difficult to decide in certain cases, so the easiest way is to link them all at the first instance in footnotes. Cenarium (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually link journal titles when we have an article for the journal, authors as well (but less often). I think redlinks are a big no-no in reference sections. But I agree with all the above that practice varies. Physchim62 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that internal linking of publishers would only make it more confusing for the reader to click on the hyperlink to the article or book. If there is no url, I don't think it would do any harm to link it, but then you run into a consistency issue. So, I'd say, don't link publisher names in footnotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much always link publications in {{cite web}}, mostly because with web sites I think it's best to have a page that allows readers to garner a more informed opinion about the site. Web doesn't have the prestige of print, after all. I do the same in {{cite news}} for plain consistency. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Theology

Most of my contributions are in the area of philosophy and medievalism. I wrote all of Medieval_philosophy from scratch. I never finished it and never bothered to submit to GA or FA because it seems an awful destructive process. I get even more depressed when I see Theology. What a mess. How could any work that pretends to be an encyclopedia have such an abomination? Tags everywhere, the footnotes are actually longer than the article. Half the paragraphs are just lists. Peter Damian (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been lots of discussions about how some of the top-level articles (and indeed top importance) go neglected while people work on sub articles. The problem is that it's a Herculean effort to work on these major articles and many of them would take weeks of research by a collaboration of editors. It's difficult to wrangle all those people into a concerted effort. When and if they get to the GA or FA processes, they are given extra scrutiny because of how broad the topic is. I'm sorry that your opinion of the FA process is that it's destructive. It's not supposed to be! I'd love to see some philosophy and medievalism articles there. If you want to put together a collaboration to work on Theology, feel free to call on me for editing or whatever I can do. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. More generally, I would like to see some guidelines developed about approaching 'big' subjects (sample list below). One guide I always use is that the Wikipedia introduction to any such subject should not be a million miles different from how any other standard recognised secondary or tertiary source approaches the same subject. I.e. if I were to list the introductions of 10 reference works, including Wikipedia, it should not be possible to discern the Wikipedia one. Currently this is far from the case, and it is amazing how much resistance you meet when you suggest it. Mostly because the 'characters' that inhabit these pages have some very fixed and idiosyncratic and usually personal views about what these subjects really are, and they feel that Britannica or Columbia or other common reference source has got it wrong, and this is their chance to put it right. If there were a policy page one could point to, that would be a great help.

WP:LEAD is slightly helpful, but more work needs to be done for the 'big' topics. The problem with these topics is that they are, well, generally very large and have a lot of history attached and have to be approached with generality, which is difficult. E.g. Space for example, goes straight in to the Islamic view of space, without even mention the considerable work done by the Greeks. The introductory definition 'Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.' is also quite strange.

• History
• Geography
• Mathematics
• Physics
• Chemistry
• Time
• Life
• Existence
• Space
• Philosophy
• Theology
• Law

Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)