If you expected a reply on another page and didn't get it, then please feel free to remind me. I've given up on my watchlist. You can also use the magic summoning tool if you remember to link my userpage in the same edit in which you sign the message.

Please add notes to the end of this page. If you notice the page size getting out of control (>100,000 bytes), then please tell me. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

I read User:WhatamIdoing/I am going to die and it was pretty good. Can I run it in the next Signpost issue? jp×g🗯️ 11:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want, then I don't mind, @JPxG. The title is a bit shocking, so you might consider whether you want to change it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it and would encourage you to make it a formal essay with a nutshell, shortcuts, and categorization. Maybe even develop the lead a bit more. You can keep it as a personal essay, and thus retain full control, or you can make it an essay in mainspace. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main problem with making it a general essay is that we lose the connection to the "I" whose stats are given. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then keep it in your userspace, but make it an official essay. That way more editors will discover it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You forgot about our inevitable AGI progeny. One ought to be enough.    — The Transhumanist   20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, heaven forfend we have a shocking title, people might actually read it ;^) jp×g🗯️ 22:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can add that to the list of risks you are undertaking.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User talk:Valjean#Hey...

   — The Transhumanist   02:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. The link works now.    — The Transhumanist   19:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of curiosity, which of those tools do you use?    — The Transhumanist   19:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't get to comment on that before the discussion was closed, but had some relevant (I think) thoughts:

It seems to me that "red is a colo[u]r" is absolutely verifiable, with only seconds of minimal effort. But maybe more importantly, "verifiable" doesn't mean "already verified", and people get these concepts confused very often, claiming that something simple isn't "verifiable" because a citation isn't present for it (inline or otherwise), or just reverting it without comment when a cite isn't already present for it, when it is actually easily and completely verifiable (either by 15 seconds on Google – what the end reader is apt to do – or by looking at the main WP article on whatever it is which already has the citation[s], which someone can copy-paste in a quick moment from one article to the other).

Just yesterday I saw someone revert a claim about Blade Runner on the grounds that it wasn't referenced, when the claim is the very first sentence, with citation, in the main article about the term in the claim. Just downright lazy and destructive. Someone made our article factually wrong because they wouldn't spend about the same amount of time it takes to do a revert and write a snarky summary instead to go to the other article and copy-paste an obvious citation from it.

Way too much of this is going on. Editors can get mired in gate-keeping an article in an "every claim must have an inline citation" manner, when policy doesn't actually require that, and it can be done to the detriment of the encyclopedia content. If someone is spending more effort on fighting with others about this than just fixing the claim with an easy citation, they are making a mistake. I understand the urge, since I'm a curmudgeon and I especially distrust IP editors, but just in the last couple of days questionable IP edits without sources have come across my watchlist, and I resisted the urge to reflexively revert, instead looked for a source for their claims, and found they were correct, so inserted citations for them. That urge when it comes up is often worth resisting.

But I'm not sure how to encourage more judgment in this regard, if that's even practical to do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good points. It is often easy to find references for unsourced content that is legitimate, but sometimes not.

Per your point that "verifiable" doesn't mean "already verified", my inclusionist bent tells me we should be consistent, policy-wise, and expect/require that experienced editors provide/verify content that is likely to be challenged. We should not be lazy and expect others to do that for us. We, as experienced editors, should prove we aren't getting ideas for content from our own minds, from our own opinions, IOW that we are not performing OR. As the policy says, we do that by "providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[a] the contribution."^[b]

The policy says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing..." The word that should be fixed is to change "verifiable" to "verified" (by editors). It would then read:

• "All content must be verified by the provision of an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports..."

Now, to make a cohesive statement, we rearrange the existing wording and combine it with the idea in the improved wording above, but without the need to write "verified" (because we are doing it):

• For any material that is likely to be challenged, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. They must do this by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports..."

That wording would end the current détente that creates the existing ambiguity. There should be no doubt.

Newbies cannot be expected to understand this, so we should do it for them and add the sources, but if they aren't easy to find, we can either ask them where they got that idea or we can delete their addition.

Otherwise, editors who understand policy should not be in doubt. They should provide their sources, especially for controversial content. It would save a lot of wasted time on discussions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Ping SMcCandlishReply[reply]

@SMcCandlish, the phenomenon of reverting uncited but accurate and verifiable text is real, and it is seen as a desirable behavior. In fact, the WMF's Editing team has been working on mw:Edit check, to prompt editors to add a source, and they've received at least two complaints this year from enwiki enforcers saying that this is a bad idea, because if newbies add sources, then it'll be harder to justify reverting them.

The wording of the policy is such that editors can, if they squint, they can pretend that "Red is a color" is not verifiable unless there is a little blue clicky number pointing to (e.g.) a dictionary definition. We have been afraid to change that, because we are afraid that it will be abused.

@Valjean, the policy already requires a citation for content whose verifiability is likely to be challenged. We don't need to change the policy to say that, because it already says that. It even uses the word must when doing so. I wish you could rest easy in the belief that when the policy says that an inline citation must be included for LIKELY material, that it actually means that this material at least "should" have a citation. I don't know if you noticed, but your proposal says that every single claim must have an inline citation, even if the claim is as simple as "Red is a color".

The changes I think we could make are:

• Declare that Wikipedia is not a collaborative project, so if you don't add a citation for "your" content yourself, nobody else can/will, so uncited but LIKELY information is an incurable defect (by anyone else) and must be removed as a policy violation (unless and until you personally add the citation because the burden is always on YOU NOT ME!!!1!!); or
• Explicitly declare the mirror of the requirement, namely that, whereas information that is a quotation, is already challenged, is LIKELY, or is contentious matter about a BLP is required to have an inline citation, information that is not a quotation, not already challenged, not LIKELY, and also not contentious matter about a BLP (e.g.,"Red is a color") is not required to have an inline citation.

(Verified is usually used to indicate that someone else read the cited source and agrees that the source says whatever the article says about the subject. A clearer statement would be "All content must be cited", assuming that you actually want all content to be cited, including things that editors will believe is unreasonable to challenge the verifiability of.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without reading your last comment, I had reworded by comment, but ran into a couple edit conflicts, so read it again. It doesn't say what you imply. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And an "All content must be cited to/verified by a source in the article" (inline or not) policy would be a truly massive change, and would result in a really large percentage of our content having to be deleted. That would produce probably a more end-user-reliable work, but at a very high utility cost, for missing articles and missing complete information in most articles that survived the purge. E.g., when I come here as a reader and put in The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon [random example, and I'm assuming it has some uncited details in it, without actually checking], I expect (and happily find) all the basic info I'm looking for in in there. But if that article were denuded of cast, release-date, and other details in random places throughout it, on the dubious basis that because some of it didn't have a citation that those claims were probably lies, then my experience of WP as useful would be seriously harmed. The average reader isn't verifying our citations, but trusting that editors are doing so, adding more of them, and reverting the dubious in the interim, with most claims probably being more-or-less correct, especially when they are not saying something dubious. And this general operating model has served us very well, even if once in a while some nonsense, distortion, or hoax gets through. When this happens, it is almost always because of anonymous IP editors, and I would love to see them banned, but it will not happen in my lifetime probably. The other most common case is inveterate PoV pushers, and we need to take a much more proactive position in banning them instead of really, really reluctantly narrowly topic-banning them only to have them pull the same crap on a different topic. But that, too, will not change much in the foreseeable future because we apply AGF too broadly and wring our hands too much at the notion of losing an "editor", even when it's some clown who costs the project more than they contribute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valjean, I was talking about the proposal 'The word that should be fixed is to change "verifiable" to "verified"', such that the current rule (All content must be verifiable) becomes a requirement for 100%, zero-exceptions citation (All content must be verified).

Your second proposal ("For any material that is likely to be challenged, the burden to demonstrate verifiability...") requires fewer sources than the existing policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does it? I don't think so. It's basically rewording what we already do and what the policy already says. I have never proposed "a requirement for 100%, zero-exceptions citation". I am uncomfortable with the current wording, hence my tweak below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit conflict again...

With regard to "challenged", the current wording doesn't clue the reader into the fact it will be mentioned later:

• "All content must be verifiable. "The burden to demonstrate...."

We should change that to:

• "With few exceptions, all content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. They must do this by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports..."

Then the fact that they are enumerated later makes sense. The reader is already primed to expect an explanation of those "few exceptions". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valjean, about these edit conflicts, do you see the Reply buttons on this page? If not, then I suggest going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion and turning it on, because one of its many features is a magical ability to resolve nearly all edit conflicts. Note the "Visual" and "Source" tabs on its upper left corner, in case it doesn't default to the one that you prefer.

As for this proposal, the current rule is:

1. [stated] All content, without exception, must match whatever that was said in some reliable source(s) in the real world.
2. [stated] Most content (i.e., all content of the four enumerated types) must have a reliable source listed in the article.
3. [unstated] Some content (i.e., content that is not any of the four enumerated types; e.g., "Red is a color") is permitted but not required to have a reliable source listed in the article.

Is this the rule that you want to have? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know of a "without exception" rule. Is that hyperbole?

I generally agree with the next two statements, unless there is some hidden trick there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not hyperbole. If you put content into an article that does not match whatever was said in a reliable source (a source, any source, anywhere in the world, whether that source is cited in the article or not), then you have committed the sin of original research.

The only reason you can write "Red is a color" in Wikipedia is because there exist sources (e.g., dictionaries) in the real world that say red is a color. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I just hadn't seen it expressed that way before.

It's a three-phased system, but with some exceptions:

1. The info must be mentioned in a RS somewhere (ergo, it's "verifiable").
2. Then the editor has the burden to demonstrate verifiability (ergo, to "verify" it).
3. That is done "by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

Note there is no hint of any exceptions there, and I think that's unfortunate. We know there are four named types of information that require an inline citation, but there are more than many more types of information. That's why I favor including mention of the exceptions. This wording covers that problem:

• Current: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
• Revised: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and, with some exceptions, that burden is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (bold change)

I think we're getting closer to an improvement. Do you see any problem with that wording? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editors who like to quote that sentence from BURDEN will be unhappy about it mentioning anything about exceptions.

As a practical matter, the grammar's off. It says that the burden is only sometimes satisfied by adding an inline citation. It doesn't move us towards a world in which we admit that 100% of content must be verifiable but only n% of content must be cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before I answer, is there a typo above? Do you mean "but only" when you write "by only"?

BTW, my grammar is far from perfect. Although I'm a native speaker of American English, I have lived in six countries and speak two languages every day. That means I'm a bit "language confused" at times. I may, without realizing it, translate in my mind and thus carry over the syntax, grammar, or punctuation from one language into what I write in English, and what I write will thus contain errors. I really appreciate it when people catch such errors and bother to let me know. I also appreciate it when they just fix it, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn so I stop making that error. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valjean, yes, that's what I meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I fixed it. Now I'll respond. What would be the better way to get my point across? Where is the error in grammar? (Thanks so much for your patience with me!) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The grammar's the easier one. You've written:

(The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,)

and,

(with some exceptions, that burden is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution).

The "exceptions" was in the second independent clause but has nothing to do with the satisfying the burden; the exceptions are about not having a burden in the first place. You probably wanted to write something like:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability – whenever that needs to be done – lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and that burden is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valjean, I'd like to take you back to the bit that runs:

1. The info must be mentioned in a RS somewhere (ergo, it's "verifiable").
2. Then the editor has the burden to demonstrate verifiability (ergo, to "verify" it).

I think you skipped a step between these two (unless "then" is doing heavy duty). It looks a bit more like this:

I would therefore make your list like this:

1. The info must be mentioned in a RS somewhere (ergo, it's "verifiable").
2. The info has been determined to be one of the four enumerated types.
3. Then the editor has the burden to demonstrate verifiability (ergo, to "verify" it).

Does that make sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed! Very well parsed. BTW, I added what I think is a missing word. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the tricky bit: Do you want to acknowledge the existence of the material that is not required to be cited? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would that be "tricky" for me? Sky is blue stuff doesn't need to be cited unless it is later challenged. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we publicly acknowledge that "some" material does not have to be cited, then we will see disputes over whether _____ is part of the "some" material. At the moment, it is possible to quote isolated lines from the policy to support a claim that a given bit of material must be cited, and it is not possible to quote a short, pithy line back that says that some material does not require citations.

It's possible that if we write, e.g., "All material must be verifiable; however, some of it does not require an inline citation", that we will weaken the righteous certainty of the editors who demand that others add sources to articles, and prompt the content creators to respond to a demand with "See? WP:V says that 'some of it does not require an inline citation', and this is part of that 'some'."

If that's an outcome you can live with, then I can suggest three possible changes offhand:

• [for BURDEN] All material must be verifiable, and most of it must also be cited.
• [First sentence] In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source (e.g., by reading the cited source or by finding a new source if none is already cited).
• Add the definitions from the WP:Glossary for uncited and verifiable as a sidebox, and try for the bigger change in two years (=about how long it takes for a change in the written advice to get incorporated).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nutshells

Current nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

Proposed nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means that nearly all material must be attributed to reliable, published sources. Such material refers to quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and it must be supported by inline citations.

Changes are highlighted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quibble: 'That is done "by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."' is only true of certain classes of claims (even if it covers most of them). We actually do permit "general references" (even if they are discouraged) and they are technically good enough for claims that don't fall into the enumerated categories of claims that require an inline citation. As for the nutshell rewrite, "Such material refers to" doesn't really parse, and more importantly the change loses a crucial point (perhaps the most crucial one). Maybe something like this instead: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, nearly all material must be attributed to such sources with inline citations; this includes quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that Valjean is aware of this; he just seems to believe that "nearly all material" is Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe that's true. I believe that everything but "sky is blue" stuff is likely to be challenged, and because of basic ignorance or cultural differences, sometimes even that is challenged and we then provide a reference, or even easier, a wikilink. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit late but I just saw you it and wanted to say thanks for such a thorough and well thought out close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the nice note. Since it's a hot-button subject, I thought that a thorough explanation would be a good idea. I didn't want anyone who felt like they were on the "losing" side to feel like it was just a knee-jerk dismissal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I'm glad it was well done. Otherwise, dramah would have ensued. On another note WAID, I could've sworn you were a sysop at some point. I am misremembering? Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are misremembering. I have never endured RFA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can understand that, but you'd be fine. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or not. I was at the WMF for ten years, which is a permanent taint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is that, but you could spin it to your advantage in a poacher-turned-gamekeeper kind of way. Everybody loves you. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Love is a strong word, but you'd have my vote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the compliments. I won't run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to also comment that your closure was excellent. I am not surprised I was not the only one to notice. Great work, that was an intense close to tackle. (And I voted on the "loosing" side!). ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 22:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Having someone who "lost" feel like I provided a decent explanation is the highest level of compliment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	You Got A Star! A barnstar, that is...
	For your contributions to the 2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor at a different Wikipedia told me in September that barnstars had become rare there. This sounded sad to me, so seeing this barnstar today made me doubly happy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following your suggestion, I tried some editing on WikiVoyage. (Its been a few years since I contributed on that venue.) But it has a different editing protocol, so I wasn't to successful. I managed to make some changes to Wikivoyage Cemeteries. But I can't find a WikiVoyage page titled "Tombstone tourist". But I can't remember how to get a link between Tombstone tourist and the Wikivoyage Cemeteries page. (This is one of the joys of being a WikiGnome – there is challenge and learning combined.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you prefer the 2010 wikitext editor? If so, then try this link: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Cemeteries?action=submit I'm not sure what your prefs are, but that should open the old wikitext editor, and it will probably make that setting "stick". Go to voy:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-editor if you want to change the visual-vs-wikitext settings there.

If the cemeteries article is getting too big and you have more content that you'd like to add, then start a new page. Pull the templates/codes from top and bottom of the Cemeteries article or maybe from https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Funeral_travel?action=submit, but for the most part, it should be very simple. Once you've got the page created, the Wikidata step isn't difficult. Find the Wikidata item (e.g., by looking for the link to it on the Wikipedia page), scroll all the way to the bottom, and click the little edit button for the right sister project. It'll probably say "Wikivoyage (0 entries)" before you add yours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote: "says on their talk page that "extremely low edit counts" is less than 500, a level of participation that applies to more than 99% of all registered editors. They did not tag editors in the top 1%."

I'm not going to revisit the argument that "registered editors" is a pointless metric vs editors who, you know, actually ever made even one edit. But I think that regardless of which baseline you take, it isn't appropriate for commenting on the participants at an RFC. The statistics on editors who long ago gave up or who joined and edited enthusiastically in the boom early years but faded away.

What you need is some metric that looks at all the edits being made today (or this week or other contemporary period) and examine how many edits each of those editors had when they made that edit. This should then be further refined by namespace, since I bet the "newbie" edit is typically first made directly to an article and less commonly to a talk page and rarely to a Wikipedia discussion like VP. That would give a fairer reflection on the question of "If a random person turns up here on a talk page to vote, what's the typical spread of edit-count I'd expect to see, assuming the vote wasn't canvassed offline?"

Alternatively, one could ask for some self reflection, and ask whether the earliest edits that editor made here, under a previous account deserved to be dismissed as suspicious on the basis that they were not very experienced. Or that it took them thirteen years to amass 500 edits. -- Colin°^Talk 08:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is the statistic for the editors that "actually ever made even one edit". See also Wikipedia:Request a query#Number of active high-volume editors for a number that I think will interest you more. If they aren't tired of me yet, we might be able to get an edit-count distribution for a given week (it'd have to be a full week, because editing patterns vary by week).

I am fully convinced that at least most (and possibly all) of the tagged comments appeared because they learned about the discussion off wiki. However, I'm separately and additionally concerned about creating a standard that says only one out of 500,000 internet users worldwide are allowed to contribute to this discussion. It is very difficult for highly active Wikipedia editors to remember that we are a tiny minority, and that the mass of editors aren't like us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I thought last time we discussed this your "registered editors" was "accounts" rather than "people who have edited". Anyway, yes being canvassed is an issue. I'm not active on Twitter, just occasionally follow links people post, but it seems to be a site that brings people with conflicting views into awareness of each other, so they can re-post things they think are either hateful or stupid and attack or mock them (as well as posts they like). So I wonder what the effect of posting at e.g., some GCF's Twitter account that Wikipedia is having a poll about the definition of sex and whether that actually ends up on a whole lot of trans-activism Twitter accounts too. All it takes, surely, is for someone to re-post with "Look what those GCFs are up to now. Let's stop them." and the canvassing for the 'other side' is in effect too.

I think it would be interesting to know the spread for article and talk pages of how many participating editors are newbies, relative beginners, modestly competent, highly competent, tending towards wiki senility. -- Colin°^Talk 08:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to our newly expanded table, 0.75% of accounts that have completed an edited and 0.25% of all accounts that have registered (most of which never completed an edit) have made 500 edits.

So far, the off-wiki discussion seems to have brought it people who know something about non-human biology. I might wish that they had turned their attention towards publishers of biology textbooks instead of us (and I don't think it will change the outcome; it just makes it more lopsided). On the RFC overall, I feel like we've identified a problem with how we're explaining it. We need to be clearer about the difference between taking two existing, pre-divided groups and deciding which one's male (called "reproductive" in the RFC) vs trying to figure out which group an individual belongs to (called "multifactorial" in the RFC). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @WhatamIdoing, I would like to continue being an admin on the Haitian Wikipedia. Can you support me getting contributors to vote on the "Kafe" page? Gilles2014 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely! WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @WhatamIdoing, thank you for estimating the lead lengths of featured articles! In 2023 the largest article promoted to featured might be 12,000 readable prose words [1]. Please may you calculate the largest promoted each year 2020-23, at the time of promotion, if it doesn't take too long or tell me who can? This might provide an idea on what the length guideline should be or it might just circulate back to the current guideline! Wikipedia_talk:Article_size#Summarising_evidence,_arguments_on_limits Tom B (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, the only way to do this is to open every article and count the words on the page. The Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget (towards the end of the first section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets) will save you some time. Find the version on the day it was promoted (linked on the talk page), and then use Tools > Page size to get the count. For example, today's FA is Art Deco architecture of New York City, and Talk:Art Deco architecture of New York City says it was promoted on September 5, 2023, with a link to the correct version. Click that link, click on Page size, wait for a moment, and it spits out some statistics, including a line that says:

• Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5143 words) "readable prose size"

You would have to do that for each one in turn. I don't know of any automated way to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you, yes this was the exact method i was using! So you simply did this manually, [2] righty ho. I'll look for shortcuts! Do you know anyone who might know please? Tom B (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia:Request a query can't handle this, so if you want a tediously large sample, then I think you would be best inquiring at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). You might leave a friendly "Please see" pointer to the VPT section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. You wouldn't really use a bot to do this, but the programming skills probably overlap. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you. A Lot! Tom B (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the more general question, have you seen @ScottishFinnishRadish using the humorous "tomats" unit? It compares the length of a page/discussion to the length of The Old Man and the Sea, which is 26,531 words long. (SFR, we should create Template:Tomats to auto-calculate the length.) It came up in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#Wikipedia:Article Size and consensus, among other places.

One of the general principles for article length is – presumably; I don't remember seeing this discussed explicitly – "Wikipedia articles should be encyclopedia articles, not books", so an "article" as long as a book would be inappropriate. "Must be significantly less than one tomats, else it has stopped being an article and started being a book" feels like a good rule to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what Dr pda did a decade ago (many of the old beasts have been defeatured):

• User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics.

He had a script that calculated readable prose, but these were measured in KB back then ... after Dr pda retired, no one kept good data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

¶ Pardon my barging in at the edges (periphery) of this discussion, but article length in general has been a very lively discussion/debate at both Talk:Manhattan and Talk:New York City/Archive 21, In the course of those debates. I've found that the easiest way to measure the kB count was to open History and see the most recent edit. [But you may already know a more efficient way of measuring an article's length.] I've used this method in a rather different context, when comparing New York City's length with that of comparable major world cities, such as London. @Tpbradbury, Nikkimaria, and SandyGeorgia: —— Shakescene (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shakescene, That will get you KB (a frequent source of misunderstanding), but not readable prose in words, which is what we're after. To get the readable prose, you can follow the instructions to install Wikipedia:Prosesize. But since we're also after the readable prose from the promoted version of an FA, a script to look in articlehistory for the promoted version is also needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with KB is it measures the size of the wikitext. The same article, if you change whether it uses citation templates becomes "longer" or "shorter" in KB, even though it doesn't change the text at all. At the moment, Manhattan is 12,173 words long, and New York City is 14,569 words long according to Prosesize. That gadget is not perfect (e.g., fails completely on lists) but it's convenient and if it has some limitations, at least the folks who use it regularly know what those limitations are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Safetyism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safetyism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can I ask what your rationale is for placing this tag on some articles recently? They seem very adequately linked to me. I removed one of the tags before I realized you'd added at least a couple. I keep an eye on the underlinked articles category because, as a newcomer task, anything in there gets almost immediately deluged by well-meaning newbies who don't realize they should remove the tags when they're done, which very quickly results in massive overlinking. -- asilvering (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asilvering, I tagged them because I think they're underlinked. The goal isn't a certain percentage of blue. The main goal is to link to articles that people might want to read, and the secondary goal is to link to terms that typical readers might not know the meaning of (so they can hover over the word and get a hint from the preview). If you take a look at the links I just added to the first paragraph of that article, which contains a lot of technical terminology (I know what Peyronie's disease is, but most people don't) in addition to links to highly relevant subjects (e.g., this is a sub-piece of a physical examination, so link back to Physical examination), you can see what I'm looking for. I suggest restoring the tag so that someone can do the same for the rest of the article.

BTW, if the community as a whole is concerned by newbies adding links to underlinked articles, then you should probably check that the Wikipedia:Growth Team features has mw:Growth/Personalized first day/Structured tasks/Add a link turned off locally. Otherwise, I think I'm not sure how (actual) newbies would find such articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I think add a link is a very useful newcomer task. (It's actually the task I started on, as one of the first editors through the pilot of the newcomer homepage.) It's just that when articles are unnecessarily tagged with "underlinked" that it becomes a problem. Since you found so many words in the lead you'd prefer to have wikilinked, I'll happily accept your tagging here as "tagging editor genuinely does desire a great many more links", and I've restored the tag and won't touch the others. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if you'd be interested in User:WhatamIdoing/I am going to die. I ask because if you think the task is very useful for new editors, and you believed that we need new editors, then it seems sort of self-sabotaging to reduce the number of opportunities for new editors to encounter that very useful task (e.g., by removing the tags from the articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm struggling to understand why you've said this in response to my comments. I was not being disingenuous or sarcastic. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't interpret them as sarcastic or as anything other than 100% sincere. What I'd like you to do is to think about these two pathways:

• We dump a lot articles in the underlinked category.
• An editor removes nearly all of them, because if they aren't removed, then newbies will add (more and more and more) links.
• Result: No overlinking, but also no newbies.

versus:

• We dump a lot articles in the underlinked category.
• Newbies successfully make their first edits.
  • And we have to clean up after them, because there are no meaningful tasks that newcomers can do perfectly.
• Result: More editors.

I agree that getting newcomers to remove the tag is a problem. But perhaps you'd be more effective at that if you check for whether the work has (supposedly) been done via this RecentChanges link, instead of looking at what's in the category. In an ideal world, we'd probably have a hundred articles in that category per day, so that we could get 50 new editors to try a potentially helpful task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a bizarre strawman proposition. Who is this editor removing nearly all of the articles in the underlinked category? It isn't me, nor will you see me advocating for that. If you find that person, feel free to engage them in this thought experiment. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December songs

my story today

... now also in the Signpost! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the same thing that brought Aafi here. You have very eloquently put your thoughts, @WhatamIdoing. Thanks for this. I recently encountered that AfC reviewing has become more of a witch-hunting culture, on this encyclopedia. A new editor created an article on a professor meeting WP:NACADEMIC#6, and it was declined twice (within minutes) for pretty much very obscure reasons when there was an open-way to offer more help. Your essay resonates very well. Thank you again, and Yes, I am going to die. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind note. I hope that you have a long and happy life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also came here to say that I appreciated your essay. Happy to see it in the Signpost. /Julle (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our BLP conversation has a weird cross-examiner vibe to it from my perspective. I feel like the info I'm providing is quite basic in nature, surely this is stuff we both know already with our combined >30 years of WP experience? What am I missing/where are you going with this? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just confused. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your !vote there says, if you will allow me to oversimplify, that BLP applies to dead people for an unknown length of time that cannot be determined by actual consensus because LOCALCON (which I wrote originally, BTW, so you may assume I'm familiar with its contents and history) says you can't overrule a policy with a local (i.e., non-representative) consensus.

I'm asking questions because I can't understand why you would take this approach. My basic question is: How the heck are editors supposed to figure out how long that length of time is? In one sentence, you have simultaneously rejected both Wikipedia's ordinary daily operation (i.e., ordinary editing without discussions + consensus-oriented discussions) and the specific proposal (i.e., actual consensus), and claimed that actual consensus is prohibited by a rule against fake consensus. What do you expect editors to do now? Just not edit the articles until the person has been dead for two years, because there's no way to figure out whether BLP still applies before then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few things. First, it'd be more efficient if you had just said that rather than asking questions that in the fashion of a cross examiner, where we're clearly going somewhere but weren't clear as to exactly what you were driving at. Second, the policy already provides a loose length guideline, changes to which are not being considered per the letter of the RfC, of 0.5-2 years. Third, yes, I know you know this stuff, which is why your playing dumb on the talk page is so confounding to me. But as to "what the heck editors are supposed to do now" during that loosely-defined time period: be conservative, provide good sourcing for statements, and discuss proposed changes. Which are all excellent practices anywhere, not just on BLPs and BDPs. If our worst case is sourcing has to be excellent, then the stakes are quite low. I'm unsure where the "just not edit" rhetoric is coming from, is that just more playing dumb? VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either:

• the range of 0.5–2 years specified by the policy actually means "minimum of 2 years" (because during that range, editors should continue to apply the policy) or
• the entire range specified by the policy is real, and there must be some way of determining whether it is 0.5 years for this particular article.

Which do you pick?

NB that I don't actually care what the rule is. My interest is in having the policy accurately reflect reality and useful to editors. If the rule is that it applies for a full two years, then fine – but let's just say that, and not mislead people into thinking that normal rules could apply after six months. If the rule is that it applies for 6 months, then fine – but let's remove the stuff about it applying up to two years. If the rule is that it applies for a time period that is different for each article, then fine – but let's tell people how to figure out what the time period for that particular article is. I do not like gotcha rules; it's unfair to tell people "could be as short as six months" and then secretly enforce it for 24 months anyway, and it's unwiki to say "could be anything in this whole range" but not let the community decide which part of the range is best suited for the particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the 2nd bullet point, obviously. It wasn't obvious what you were driving at since you seem to be fixating on a clause of the policy that's not the subject of the RfC? but not let the community decide which part of the range is best suited for the particular article. No one is proposing that AFAICT. VQuakr (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The policy says "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death". If it is possible for BDP to apply for less than 24 months – for it to apply, say, for 8 months and then stop applying – then who do you think determines when it stops applying? You have opposed stating that the determination is made by consensus. If the decision isn't made by consensus, then the community isn't deciding it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah ok, now I understand I believe (I do think you could have expressed this far more immediately and concisely, but water under the bridge). To my reading (and by context clues many others' readings) the clause "based on editorial consensus" is being interpreted to mean "BDP is optional, whether to follow it all can be decided locally". I am saying that following BLP is not optional when I say it is "not subject to local consensus". How best to follow (for example, how much time BDP should be applied in order to meet the "taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account" directive) is a matter for discussion. I don't think there's any reason to specifically say that, though, since that is the default condition. If you think it is important to specifically say that, let's find a different, unambiguous way to phrase it at least. VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which I what I assumed from the beginning, which takes me back to my original question:

You say BDP is "not subject to local consensus". How do you tell the difference between "a local consensus that this person has been dead for 8 months, and BLP rules no longer apply" and "a non-local consensus" that says exactly the same thing?

If it is possible for BDP to stop applying before 24 months, then there must be a way for editors to figure out whether that has happened. The proposal said "editorial consensus". You assumed that meant "local consensus". None of us want LOCALCON; all of us want true consensus. How do you tell the difference between the two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm asking you this because we've got a problem. Back in the day, LOCALCON was fairly unimportant but pretty well understood: The handful of editors who write most of the articles about classical composers were not allowed to declare that the community-wide infobox rule ("neither encouraged nor discouraged") did not apply to articles (i.e., written by other editors) about classical composers.

We were looking at:

• a group of editors
• making decisions about groups of articles
• saying that the usual rules don't apply

For example:

• WikiProject Composers' self-selected participants
• deciding for all articles on their chosen subject
• that the usual rules about making article-by-article individual decisions about infoboxes do not apply, and specifically that nobody is allowed to put an infobox on "our" articles.

Today, we have editors who seem to think that any decision they disagree with is a local consensus, even when that decision explicitly affirms and complies with the written policy.

For example:

• The editors working on an article
• deciding for this one article that they are working on
• that the usual rules about BLPs (e.g., the policy's exemption from edit-warring rules for content that is sourced but the reverted deems the content "contentious" and the source "poor") for dead people ending somewhere between 6 and 24 months do apply, and specifically that we're going to identify the transition point as n months (with the chosen point needing to be within the policy-stated range).

This has not traditionally been considered a "local consensus"; this has traditionally been considered the ordinary and correct application of policy by editors working in a true consensus-oriented collaboration. But today we have editors, probably misled by the WP:UPPERCASE shortcut (because WP:Nobody reads the directions), who think that this is a "local" consensus.

If you support this approach, then I think your vote is misplaced. If you believe that BLP rules could end before 24 months (as the policy says) and you reject this method for figuring out when the subject transitions from BLP to normal rules, then please tell me how editors are supposed to make that determination (or who's supposed to, if it's not editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* The editors working on an article....within the policy-stated range). Yup, we agree that looks good, healthy, normal editing, etc. What we (sort of) disagree on is whether that's the change that's under discussion, and therefore whether my !vote should be reconsidered. I think the locus of the issue is that we are interpreting an ambiguously-worded clause in the policy differently. When I read the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period, I mentally apply "based on editorial consensus" to the policy, not the length of the extension. The length of the extension is of course subject to editorial consensus, which is the default condition so there's no need to explicitly say so. A local consensus (or any consensus, in the exceptional case of WP:BLP) cannot decide that a given BLP is not subject to the policy WP:BLP at all (a position that I think we agree upon). VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may not be the best way to phrase it. I'm not actually thrilled with the existing wording (e.g., "for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death" – the policy isn't "extending"; it's "still being applied").

How do you expect editors to figure out when BLP stops applying, and how do you communicate that to other editors?

(Of course consensus can decide that a given BLP is not subject to BLP; for example, we decide all the time that a given business is too big to count as BLP.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you expect editors to figure out when BLP stops applying, and how do you communicate that to other editors? Via discussion on the talk page. An article on a business was never a BLP. VQuakr (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "a discussion on the talk page" a "local consensus"?

(According to WP:BLPGROUP, when a business [or other group of people] is "very small", then BLP applies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear WhatamIdoing

Thank you for having me involved in the enriching discussions at User talk:Darcyisverycute/Archive 1#Draft and elsewhere on wikiproject medicine. It's been on my mind for some time, being involved in that wikiproject really felt like I was doing something impactful and gave me a sense of community that seems so fleeting for me. I wish I had the energy to be more involved at the time, as do now that I still hardly have the energy for much of anything... but I hope I can participate in nuanced discussions like that in the future. Something about getting pinged and ask to participate in those discussions was special to me. Not that I mean that as a request like canvassing or something, but just that I hope I'll come back to it and try to engage in those things again when I can find it in myself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this note. But we have important things to talk about: Which Darcy? I assume your username refers to Mr. Darcy. The book is best, of course, but I've seen Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series) and Pride and Prejudice (1940 film). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goodness, I'm not sure how to reply to that >_< I'm actually not sure why my name is Darcy. I agree it's likely to do with pride and prejudice, and now that you've mentioned it, I think I'll try reading the book and maybe watching that 1940s movie too, it's been too many years for me to not know. And too long since I've read a good romance novel. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello WhatamIdoing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. I've been away from wikipedia from a bit with work - getting funding and a little personal stuff. Just like to say it's been really good working (or should that be arguing) with you during the pandemic and I consider you one of the most reasonable people that I interacted with during the whole pandemic even amongst my friends, who include doctors, maths PhDs, people with modelling PhDs who work in Pharma, and doctors who look after the elderly.

Also I think that you were instrumental in effective editing on COVID during the pandemic and wikipedia has done a better job than the entirity of the rest of information ecosystem during the pandemic in terms of sourcing etc.

I was thinking of emailing you to chat about some stuff. Particularly things that may have gone down with fact checkers in the UK if you were keen - but noticed that you weren't emailable - apart from at WMF which you seem to have left in september.

However, I would also understanding if you didn't want to email me. Anyway - hit me up here if you'd like to email a bit off site.

Sincerely, Talpedia

P.S I'd also like to say the interacting with wikipedia has in many ways been defining in my "academic" experience and that the benefits I have found due to what I've done in the pandemic have been highly useful for my career, and the arguments here have given me - in my opinion transferable skills that I use elsewhere. I remember my first edits on wikipedia and how I was rather angry at the time and how you brought me into WP:MED. I also rememebr however... assertive I was in certain conversations - I know that lots of people on wikipedia have more extreme forms of assertiveness, and I don't necessarily see this as avoidable - but I'd like to thank you for being so reasonable in such a stressful time - I am also aware that I may have puyshed a psychotherapist off of wikipedia in my first interaction when they only wanted to help me.

Talpedia 12:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Special:EmailUser/WhatamIdoing should work for anyone who has an e-mail address attached to their account. Feel free to send me a note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the style of argument: Some years ago, my then-boss at the WMF said to me that I argued like I was from the English Wikipedia, and I don't think it was intended as a compliment. The clear and logical aspect is fine, but for all our talk about collaboration and finding compromises, we have a tendency towards immovable and unbending positions.

IMO this works out okay if people feel secure: I will insist on X, the decision will be Y, we all know that I still want X, and I will (assuming it's my job) make all reasonable efforts to make Y happen (or at least not interfere, if implementation is someone else's job). I prefer this to the environment in which staff want X and the boss, who wants Y, is so insecure that he wants them to tell him that Y is truly the best choice and can neither bear the thought that you don't agree with him, nor believe that anyone could work diligently and faithfully towards implementing his decision unless they Believed In™ his choice deep in their hearts.

Fortunately, I never reported to anyone with this problem, and with some of my most successful collaborations, it became one of our ground rules: If it's your decision, then you are allowed to make the wrong decision. I won't pretend to you that I think it's the right decision, but I will make your decision work as best I can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This generalises extremely well to all human dynamics, where it is typically framed as "I support you in your choices even if I disagree with them." Folly Mox (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds similar to this. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree and commit is the business jargon for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, how can, or when will, people feel secure? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By growing up? Or by having people who are already emotionally mature? Management training programs talk a lot about the importance of psychological safety for high-performing teams, but a necessary precondition for that is to have managers who aren't personally offended by disagreement.

In individual cases, it helps if both people are not only trustworthy, but recognize that the other person is trustworthy. Imagine that your boss is synthesizing information from multiple employees. Maybe yours says strongly "yes", but the others all – unbeknownst to you– say strongly "no". If your boss is making the right decision based on all the facts and circumstances, then the decision will presumably be "no". If you can't see beyond your own narrow niche, it will be hard to trust your boss. I imagine that researchers whose clinical trials produce unusual results also have the same feeling when the meta-analysis points the other direction: How could it be "no", when my own trial said "yes"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I asked that question, I was thinking more about organisational, governmental (or between Gov and its people) or maybe national level. Though your explanation about individual cases is very thought-provoking too. But ... editors are people, so just being emotionally mature may not be enough.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a side note, do we have Disagree (and then change one’s mind) and commit? Or, do we have Disagree and commit, but then later disagree again? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We DO. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1191291497

If know by chance, i followed patterns of many clubs without websites having few social links added. Suddenly how to claim which is more official and should it be moved completely...most probably depends on editors mood as here. You edited some linking articles so might know more, appreciate. 93.140.194.58 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rules are pretty simple:

• There should normally be only one WP:ELOFFICIAL link.
• Any link that's been contested stays out of the article, unless and until you have written proof (usually via a simple discussion on the article's talk page) that other editors want it re-added.

If you need help beyond that, then I suggest asking at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi WhatamIdoing! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Your work, both at the foundation and as a volunteer, has been invaluable. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
((u|Sdkb)) ^talk

Solstice Celebration for WhatamIdoing, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello WhatamIdoing: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started a debate at Talk:CITV about whether former programming should be split into a separate article called List of programmes broadcast by CITV. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		Thanks for always making extremely wise, and sometimes unusually clever, decisions regarding matters on Wikipedia. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. What a nice thing to see at the start of my day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, WhatamIdoing, happy new year. I have a question for you, about this edit--sure, links, but that's actually the least of the problems with that article, which I actually redirected yesterday cause it's terrible and it's not likely a notable topic. The effect of that tag seems to be that it shows up in a list of suggested edits for new editors, which in turn seems to be the easiest way for new editors, including paid editors and socks, to rack up enough edits to get autoconfirmed, and as the history shows most of those edits are just really useless. I would like to urge you to be more sparing with that tag. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Drmies, without engaging in the "useless edits for new users help them build experience" bit, just as a point of information, Template:Underlinked will not facilitate this behaviour as soon as Growth roll out the algorithm-based version of the links Newcomer Task on en.wp, the last project still using the template-based version. Instead, almost all articles will be eligible for this task, minus any either transcluding templates or in categories (can't remember) that the community configures to exclude. Respectfully, Folly Mox (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to die one of these days, remember? I actually want new editors to rack up some edits. If they can start that process through edits that you deem "mostly useless" rather than "actively harmful", then so much the better. I think that having them learn to edit on unimportant or weak articles is better than having them work in high-profile, popular, or well-written articles. Having them add links to an article that they hardly make any worse is better than having them get yelled at for screwing up an article that's already pretty good. If they notice some of the other tags, or notice some of the untagged other problems, and try to fix those, then that would be great.

I think there is some personal preference around the number of links. Some editors would like to see a lot of links, some would like to see few links, and most of us believe that our view is in the middle, even when we're not. I'd love to have some solid statistics on, e.g., the typical number of links per sentence/word count in FAs on the day of their promotion. I did this manually about a year ago for the leads only in a few dozen FAs, and found that it was about 1.5 links per sentence or one link per 16 words. I would expect the proportion of links across the whole article to be less than that, for any article much longer than a typical FA lead (which is around 250 to 400 words long).

I'm curious about the algorithm being used for the newcomers' task. My list of candidates is WPMED-tagged articles with a word count between 150 to 2000 according to the Prosesize gadget, that have 0, 1, or 2 links (in paragraphs; e.g., excluding all the links in lists, tables, refs, etc.). It's not reliable, with a few percent (mostly lists) being inappropriately identified as being underlinked when they're fine.

I'm also trying not to overload the category, because multiple editors review the articles in that cat manually each day to pull the tags off when they seem 'done', and I don't want them to have to check 100 articles to find the 10 that are ready to remove. (There are 17 articles in the cat this morning, so I don't expect to be adding any new ones today.) One thing I like about the Growth team's calculation is that it should reduce the effort needed to de-tag articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the technical stuff is a little bit scattered and possibly outdated. :wikitech:Add Link § High-level summary has some interesting implementation details, and meta:Machine learning models/Proposed/add-a-link model is basically a better summary of meta:Research:Link recommendation model for add-a-link structured task. I looked at several phab tasks for any mathsy bits of algorithm, and didn't understand them, but phab:tag/add-link gives an impression of current status, and a release date is coming. Folly Mox (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should clarify that the phab tasks I didn't understand also did not seem to contain mathsy bits. They may be in there somewhere. The code is public, of course, but none of us in this thread want to read that answer. Folly Mox (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those pages don't seem to talk about how the article is selected. Instead, they seem to talk about how individual words/phrases are selected. The old/current version appears to say "Hey, here's an article. You could add some links to it." The new version appears to say "I see that George Washington is mentioned in this article. Shall we make that a link to George Washington?"

@Trizek (WMF), do you have a help page/section somewhere about how pages get selected for this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the old version, it is only based on templates.

For the new version, the algorithm does the magic, based on the potential relevancy of a link. In short, what you describe, plus a way to check on the context to determine if the link should go to the president or the named train.

We also check where the term we plan to link is. We won't create a link in the Reflist section or in an infobox, for instance. And to avoid "paid editors and socks, to rack up enough edits to get autoconfirmed" as @Drmies worries about, the community can limit the number of articles each user can add link to each day (default being 25). Of course, we mustn't forget that WhatamIdoing is going to die, like all of us, and we should not close the door to promising users; socks and paid editors, like vandals, are a minority.

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trizek (WMF), how is the "source-page" selected? That page says the "source-page" is "input", but it does not say anything else about it. Are the source-pages found in Category:All articles with too few wikilinks or through some other method? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a user selects a given topic, we take articles that have less links in compared to the page length. But there is also a little bit of randomness so that users won't just edit stubs or walls of black text. You can find more on T301096#8388234. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't follow the technical details; Folly Mox's comments go right over my head. What I do know is that these edits add up to a whole lot of work, and if we're quantifying everything, then have we figured out how many GAs come out of those edits, and over what kind of time period? Plus, wikilinking is such low-hanging and unpalatable fruit. Trizek, for autoconfirmed they only need what, ten or a dozen or so. If, like me, you spend a lot of time looking at drafts or at COI articles in main space, you'll understand that this is actually a big problem. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drmies, when you say that these edits add up to a whole lot of work, what exactly do you mean? If a newbie adds a link, is that more work for you than if the newbie, say, changes the spelling of a word or the phrasing of a sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not just the newbies, of course, but those new editors have a tendency to link needlessly. Wikilinking is overrated, IMO: I see more overlinked than underlinked articles. Correcting a typo (if they change it correctly) or some grammar, that would be a useful edit: these are not, usually. Moreover, those articles tend to have a dozen or more similar edits in a row by different editors, including reverts, and it can be a lot to sift through, separating the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Different editors have different preferences for the ideal number of links in an article. I would expect some variation (an overview of a highly technical subject probably needs more links than an article about a familiar everyday subject or an article that is mostly a plot summary), but what would you describe your basic idea of the right number of links as? One per sentence? One per paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue isn't how many links should be in an article--it's about multiple links to the same article, sometimes in the same sentence, and the linking of commonly understood terms, the definition of MOS:OVERLINK that new users don't understand. I first encountered this issue late last year, when I noticed scores of new pop-up accounts overlinking articles, then realized that they were responding to newly applied underlink templates. Their intent may be constructive, but imagine this: if we could apply a template that noted a dearth of Oxford commas in an article, what do you think would happen next? Unlike poorly referenced, COI or POV issues, underlinking is not a major concern to an article's integrity. WhatamIdoing, when you drive-by template an article for being underlinked, do you return to see what happens almost immediately thereafter? I'm not cherrypicking, but here are some examples from earlier today: [3] mental illness=mental illness in Ancient Rome?; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15] we need links to 'public' and 'air'? Invariably, it's new users who answer the call, and their linking is generally indiscriminate because they're unfamiliar with guidelines and manual of style. For a while I ran the fool's errand of leaving messages at some of their pages--most said thank you and continued. In several cases they were blocked, or articles had to be protected. Unfortunately, the results tend to be disruptive. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven’t followed the discussion. I agreed that “ Having them add links to an article that they hardly make any worse is better than having them get yelled at for screwing up an article that's already pretty good”. But when newbies reading or answering “the call”, it’s important that they are reminded with a simple note, e.g., “ Do not link everyday words understood by most readers.” plus a link to MOS:OVERLINK (if they aren’t now). This won’t solve all the problems, but should help with most. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did try that, Dustfreeworld, and found several problems. Many, if not most of the new accounts, ignored notices even after being informed of the MOS guidelines. In some cases, this was probably because they weren't proficient in English, and linking seemed like the easiest way to get started here without proficiency (as an example, irrelevant links like the above example of 'mental illness in Ancient Rome' as a link to mental illness). The new accounts tended to go radio silent quickly, which make them look like disposable, test accounts, though some were actually just working up a number of edits prior to their real agenda (promotional or creating an article with good intent). Finally, new accounts descended upon some articles in such numbers that at a certain point, leaving messages with all was an exercise in futility. For example, the late November, early December floods at Free Beer at U.N.C.L.E.. The upshot for many was that anywhere from a 25% to all of their edits were not constructive. My conclusion, fair or otherwise, was that using an underlinked template as a gateway for new editors did not improve articles overall and was not the best way to get them started at Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that underlinking isn't a major threat to an article's integrity. Instead, it is a significant threat to the readers' understanding.

The instructions are: "Add links between articles: Make words from one article link to another article" and "Adding links is the easiest way to edit. Links help readers move between articles to learn more quickly.", with a link to Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/3 labeled "Learn more".

When you click the assignment, there is a series of tips offered:

• Links between Wikipedia articles allow readers to click on something they want to learn more about. They help people navigate easily to other Wikipedia articles.
• All you need to do is add one or two links to make a difference. You don't need to work on the entire article. You also don't need to have any special knowledge about the topic.
• Follow these guidelines when adding links:
  • Link concepts that a reader might want to learn more about.
  • Only link to the first time that word or phrase occurs in the article.
  • Don't link to common words, years, or dates.
• Once you see somewhere to add a link, click "Edit" to get started. Then highlight the word or phrase want to make into a link.
• Click the "Link" button and choose the Wikipedia article from the list to which it should link.
• Either add more links, or go ahead and click "Publish changes…" to publish your edit! Learn more about adding links

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, Too long didn’t read (WP:TLDR) ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC); 03:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been a privilege to play with you all that decade at WMF. Hopefully not sinking soon. Enjoy 2024.

HNY PerfektesChaos (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @PerfektesChaos, we had some good times, didn't we? I hope that you have a good year, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is so blindly obvious but as I don't get why this is so controversial on Wikipedia. Like, why do people here think that editing the complicated wikitext is somehow "better" than using VE from the beginning? Please, enlighten me on this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that most editors believe that it's actually better. You do hear some people saying that, and worse – years ago, maybe in 2014, an editor here said that the visual editor was a terrible concept precisely because if people weren't willing and able to figure out wikitext, then he didn't think they were smart enough to be editors – but I don't think that it's typical.

Here's a question for you: What do you think "making it the default" would mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that default here means that when the new editor press "edit" for the first time, it would show up the VisualEditor instead of the source editor. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When logged-out editors make their first edit, they click the [Edit] button and see a big dialog box with two buttons:

• (white) "Switch to the visual editor", or
• (blue) "Start editing".

It opens the 2010 wikitext editor in the background at the same time. (The 2010 WTE is slightly faster to open for most people, although the difference is not material for editors with average desktop/laptop devices who are opening pages of average length/complexity.)

Getting the Editing team (pinging @ESanders (WMF)) just to switch the blue and white buttons would probably not be difficult. It's maybe an hour's work, if the only thing being done is switching which button goes where. Getting it to auto-open directly in the visual editor, without asking the user to choose, would require design work, user research, and generally the whole ball of wax – months of work.

I just went through RecentChanges for new editors for the last tenth of the day. There were 550 edits total. Here are the numbers:

• 225 in the 2010 wikitext editor
• 194 in the desktop visual editor
• 74 edits in the mobile wikitext editor
• 57 in the mobile visual editor

That's 24% on the mobile site and 76% on the desktop site. It's 46% in VisualEditor (mobile+desktop) and 54% in a wikitext editor (mobile+desktop). I'm not sure whether moving from "about half and half" to "probably about half and half" is important. What do you think?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that you're right. I wasn't aware that there is a dialog for switching to VE editor. I think my concerns are invalid here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You only see the dialog on your first edit, so it's hardly surprising that people forget about it after making tens of thousands of edits. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @WhatamIdoing, I really like what you did in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Lists of pages/Articles. Could you please help me on how to do the Petscan query for WP Classical music? I tried but wasn't successful...

If you know an alternative to watch recent changes to all the articles of a WP I would also be happy to hear it. Looks like there were some tools that helped with that but they are all broken now. Thank you very much in advance. -- Gor1995 𝄞 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gor1995, have you tried to create a new "pile" at https://pagepile.toolforge.org/ ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for answering @WhatamIdoing. I have absolutely no idea how to use this, and could not find any manual or help page... I only managed to create this pile? but i'm pretty sure i'm doing it wrong... Creating a pile will give me a list of all the articles, or i'm supposed to use the pile as a source for Petscan? As you can see it's my first time using this kind of tools... Thanks in advance -- Gor1995 𝄞 00:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think PagePile is an alternative to Petscan (and is less likely to time out). I've never used it before. We might have to ask for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gor1995, it's possible that if you just asked at that village pump, someone would make the list for you. That wouldn't be so useful if you wanted to update it regularly, but it would get you started. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The drive I've mentioned in the PROD RFC is now online: Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024. I know that you somewhat opposed to my backlog drive idea (as this drive only addresses 3k/130k articles in the backlog), but I hope it will be a starting point of a sourcing community if you will, and to be that's much more important than the number of articles this drive addresses. Together, we can accelerate the trend. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not opposed to it. I'm skeptical of it being the only thing we need to do, but I think this could be one piece of the puzzle. I think that limiting the test run to a subset is a great idea.

Are you setting up a dashboard on Outreach? It can auto-detect how many refs each person adds to the identified list of articles. See https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023/students/overview for an example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That dashboard is interesting. I don't think it is really applicable to the event because that ref counter counts a lot of things, not just the mere addition and removal of refs cause a student somehow managed to remove -1346 or add 2855 refs... I probably need to test it out before I use it in the next drive. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, this particular one isn't students. If you look at the work Bon courage does in patrolling articles, I think you'll have no trouble figuring out how he managed to revert the addition of 3.6 bad refs per day last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for all your great edits. I recently made a change to the lede in an article that you have made many contributions to ... and I hope I didn't step on your toes. Poisoned candy myths specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poisoned_candy_myths&oldid=694214532

You had summarized previous text into a much better version, but I think that the holdover statement "No cases of strangers killing or permanently injuring children this way have been proven." was too absolute, and also did not state any time-frame, etc. Someone eventually added a citation, but it was not to an authoritative site. I put a note on the talk page about the edit. BTW, I agree that this issue is more a myth, than a fact. I just think that an encyclopedic article should not include statements that may not be verifiable, or that may become inaccurate at some time in the future. If you would rather address my concerns in another way, I'd will be happy to defer to your experience on this article. Thanks.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note, @Bobsd. However, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to cast doubt on statements made in reliable sources. Reliable sources don't have to prove their claims to our satisfaction, and a lot of POV pushing over the years has come under the heading of "But the source didn't convince me personally!" This statement is WP:DUE because all the reliable sources that address this question say exactly the same thing. Our own skepticism (surely there could have been just one or two little murders that somehow got overlooked?) is not enough to overcome the clear, direct, and uniform statements by reliable sources. We call them reliable sources because we are supposed to rely on them, not because we're supposed to question whether their research was actually good enough to convince us.

If you'd like to read more about this subject, then I suggest starting with https://www.google.com/books/edition/Threatened_Children/8VIg9STL-wUC (written by the foremost scholar in the field, published by university press – this is exactly the kind of source preferred by Wikipedia:Reliable sources). If you search for "Joel Best" halloween at https://www.soc.udel.edu/news-and-events/in-the-media you'll also find a lot of recent sources. There is an update on his original book in this book, which brings it up to 2019. You can see his own summary (and attempt to reduce the number of interview requests he gets each October) at https://www.joelbest.net/halloween-sadism The bottom line is that, despite serious scholarly work and decades of media promotion, there are still zero deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Okay, I'm fine with that. I did not realize that reason.com was a reliable source. The particular cited page was very short and did not point to any external research, and I guess the "Trust me: No one has ever poisoned a stranger's kid with Halloween candy." pushed my buttons. In retrospect I should have researched that, or raised the issue on the talk page first. In general I think that https://www.google.com/books/edition/Threatened_Children/8VIg9STL-wUC would be a much better citation, and thanks for providing the link.

On a personal note, I have to remember that I am no longer acting as a software quality engineer, reviewing specs and requirements for DoD projects. You would not believe the lack of forethought that is found in many critical designs. I was looking forward to retiring in 2021, and spending more time on WP, but the level of random edits, and crazies out there drives me nuts. I think WP would be better served if new articles were left to flourish by getting all inputs, but at some point, they slowly get locked down to more senior editors and maybe eventually need peer reviews before changes are made. Many articles are stellar under the current system, but even then, charges are made with little regard for revision control, etc. Anyway, that's my particular mindset. I read some of your great essays and advice and I congratulate you on your obvious patience contributing 112K edits !!!

Thank you for the very polite response to my concerns.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way we treat newcomers is a real problem. When we started, it felt a little more open. I made mistakes, but nobody ever yelled at me about them. Now I hear that newcomers' first edits are a wall of semi-automated rejection messages, and not necessarily accurately applied ones, either.

With your DOD background, do you happen to have an interest in military history? Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is a group of editors that works together on that subject area, and they seem to be a pretty steady, low-drama kind of group. If you checked out their talk page, you might be able to find something interesting to do, with folks who would have your back.

I don't know if you'll think this is scary or if it'll make you proud of your accomplishments, but you are already in Wikipedia's top 1% by edit count. I encourage you to keep at it, because we need editors like you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please cease. If you continue to oppose the Cabal, you may be eliminated from existence as punishment for your thoughtcrime. 

(jk) vghfr 00:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no cabal, so naturally it is a violation of cabal regulations to mention the cabal in writing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to say I very much like this edit to V. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I hope it (or something like it) will stick. I don't remember us having as much confusion about what OR means a decade ago, but it's pretty common now. Among other things, I've heard claims during the last year or so that all uncited content is OR, and that it's a violation of OR to cite peer-reviewed journal articles that describe original research (some academic journals label the types of things they publish. It's helpful if they add a heading like like "Letters" or "Editorials", but some of them proudly declare descriptions of new studies to be "Original Research" – which it is! But occasionally an editor misunderstands and thinks that WP:OR prohibits us from citing those sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's good as just a general improvement. As with any group Wikipedia has its own terminology and what is meant by the term here may be different from how it is used elsewhere (original research, vandalism, verification). Wikipedia can have a steep learning curve, and clarifying some of the language in the various policies and guidelines would help that.
That it's a violation to use sources that contain original research is one I've seen a few times. As to saying uncited content is OR, there will always be some who try and find justification for their preferred habits. Whether that incorrectly claiming it's OR, misusing ONUS, or stonewalling new content from an article, they will find a reason to impose their own ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in favor of editors doing The Right Thing™, whatever they believe that is. I only ask them to use the correct wikijargon when they're talking about it. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also copied it to Affordable housing in the United States. I'm just letting you this know in case you didn't know that the AhinUS article existed. Thanks again! ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for working on those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this edit: not sure if I'm missing something—did you mean to write that the company sold 200 billion cups of coffee? isaacl (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, my numbers are wrong. Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).