Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) First sentence (April–August 2011) 2012 RfC about the lead section

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This policy (WP:V) mentions self-published works but doesn't define that term. That makes it harder for editors to apply the policy. The definition on WP:USINGSPS (Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same) is not official, since WP:USINGSPS is a supplement. Discussions about whether the policy should be defined, and what that definition should be, are here, here, and here.

Proposal: add the following definition to WP:V and also replace the definition on WP:USINGSPS with: Self-published works are those in which the author(s) of the content have direct control of publication of that content. This may be when they publish directly through their own web site or social media account they control, or when they publish through a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) without any editorial oversight. Please note your agreement or opposition to these changes. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Note that this is an RfC only for the definition of SPS, and has nothing to do with whether and when SPS are acceptable. That can be addressed later, separately. Please don't evaluate the definition as though it means we will automatically reject SPS as sources. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. The definition might not be perfect, but it's clearly better than no definition, and almost no other definitions have even been proposed. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. High time for a more precise definition. I understand that some acolytes of goddess Creepa might get a bit rattled but so be it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written Before this gets too far, the proposal is ambiguous. Should clarify if "of the publication" means direct control of the publication process itself, or if it means direct control of what gets published. Plus the last example really makes a mess out of things....It encompasses published items that are certainly not self-published. A definition that includes all scenarios where the writer can control what gets published would encompass many things that are clearly not considered to be self-published. For example, a prominent op-ed columnist in a prominent publication. Or book author that is so prominent that they are the boss over what gets published in the book.North8000 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not going to be "one definition fits all" situation and there will be edge cases, it is expected for the new definition to be a better starting point for consensus discussions, and if more clarity is needed, a guideline or essay page somewhere can be used to provide examples. But, for example, an op-ed page still should have editorial oversight so thats not self-published, nor is the prima donna writer who may have full say of what is published but still doesn't have the final authority of when the publishing happens. --Masem (t) 13:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably no. Evaluating sources is a skill that takes time to develop, and is really something most people should be able to do in a participatory democracy, and not just as Wikipedia editors. But it's really not necessary to legislate every jot and tittle. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and that pretty much covers it. Critical thinking is required. GMG^talk 13:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a more general note, if someone wishes to propose substantive changes to core policy... you should really like... go write some articles first. I don't mean to be overtly rude, but gee fizz. If you've made six mainspace contributions in the last six years then please go do that instead of doing this. We really are in no particular shortage of people willing to express an opinion. GMG^talk 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The definition above is one I basically proposed, give or take a few steps. This is not out of the blue from the OP's inexperience. --Masem (t) 13:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's...quite a few give or take a few steps. I don't always engage in discussions here, but it's on my watchlist.

That doesn't really change my opinion that no, we are not in dire need of users who will spend two months opining on policy, with no identified real world problem they're trying to fix, when most of us get along just fine with context and critical thinking. This is a solution that's been looking for a problem since early July and still hasn't found one. GMG^talk 14:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: As a "learner"-stage editor who has more than once sought opinions about whether a source is/isn't a SPS for the purpose of determining whether it's allowable under WP:BLPSPS, and who has found that different editors have widely varying opinions about whether a specific source I linked to is/isn't SPS, I absolutely disagree that this is "a solution ... looking for a problem." It's a true problem that there is no good definition and that editors have such divergent opinions about what is/isn't a SPS. I and lots of other editors need a better definition than currently exists on WP:USINGSPS. Also, it's not "quite a few" steps from this diff. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But where is this a problem that requires a change in policy? Where is this a problem where editors have not been able to resolve the issue based on context and consensus and the normal dispute resolution process? I mean, I'm sorry that I don't put terrible weight on the view of those opining on policy where their primary experience is in opining on policy. But...I mean I don't, and I don't think people who spend most of their time on project pages should be trying to make policy. In the vast majority of circumstances, we sort this stuff out just fine without the need for additional guidance. That's pretty much it. I see no crisis where some issue has escalated to ANI and ARBCOM and back down again because people who speak the English language can't figure out what the English words "self published" mean. GMG^talk 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of where is this a problem. There was no consensus (e.g., about whether Just Security is a self-published source), and the reason I asked is because I've been trying to work on the article for United States v. Flynn, where the text involves multiple living people, so I have to figure out when the WP:BLPSPS policy applies. I'm not sure who you're referring to by "those opining on policy where their primary experience is in opining on policy," but the only reason that I, personally, am opining on this policy is because I ran into problems in using the policy when editing an article AND I ran into problems getting consensus about specific sources when I sought it at the RS/N. This is a challenge for me as a newish editor. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GMG: I started editing here maybe 15 years ago but I gave up because of a combination of time constraints, hostility, and the futility of battling cult members who twist policy to serve their agenda, with little help from objective editors or admins. Poorly-defined policy (like this one which lacks even a definition of SPS) plays into the cult members' hands. Recently I tried to make an edit and it was immediately smacked down by a cult member with the edit note, "SPS not allowed". It's not really true that SPS "isn't allowed" (it's acceptable in certain circumstances), but in any event, before I try to start editing in my area of expertise again, it'll help if policy is defined, clear, and consistent. For example, WP:USINGSPS was inconsistent with itself until recently. So, my recent efforts have been to get policy clarified so I can focus on actual editing and not battles about whether something violates policy or not. It's ridiculous that I'm getting attacked for making a good-faith effort to lead a community-involved effort to improve policy. That kind of hostility reminds me of why I stopped editing in the first place, and doesn't make me eager to return. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelbluejay: I'm sorry that that's been your experience, and as a newish editor struggling to implement this policy correctly, I appreciate your efforts here. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelbluejay: If you need some place to contribute where people are nice and helpful, a few of use have been working on a biography of a lady who's been dead for some 200 years, and it's been a few months, and we're almost done. We've actually been collaborating with an archivist from Mt. Vernon in doing so, and she's apparently said she wants to dedicate her forthcoming book to us. You're welcome to join in.

Thank you very much FactOrOpinion. I appreciate the invite, but it seems like you have it covered, and I'm gonna spend my limited time trying to help policy get clarified, and then edit in my area(s) of expertise. BTW, I appreciate your being involved in the effort to clarify SPS from the beginning. It hasn't gone unnoticed! -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help you in any way I can. But if you want to opine on the state of the encyclopedia generally. Then...I'm sorry...but I don't terribly highly value your opinion. But if you want, I have about 200 pages of sources you can help us read so we can improve an article. That's what most of us are busy doing at the moment.

I again don't mean to be rude, but when you come up to a bunch of people who have poured hundreds of hours into reading sources and writing articles, and say "I haven't nearly done any of that in years but lemme tell you how you are all wrong..." I mean...what do you expect? GMG^talk 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know, maybe acknowledging that there's room for improvement, which jibes with WP's values about crowd-editing being the secret sauce that makes articles better. Indeed, most other editors commenting here seem to have acknowledged that clarification of this policy would be helpful. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

crowd-editing being the secret sauce that makes articles better Yeah...so...like...go edit an article. Specifically, go edit something besides Aesthetic Realism, and don't spend two months trying to change policy to win a content dispute. Otherwise, if you need something to spend your time on during quarantine, go spend it on your little website. And for the love of God stop trying to put a half page of commentary in a reference. This nonsense is a copyright violation and a half. GMG^talk 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking me. First, I've stated repeatedly that I'm not trying to change policy, I'm trying to clarify it, and the broad support here for it shows that other editors agree. Can you acknowledge that I'm trying to clarify policy rather than change it? Are you going to attack the other editors here who also agree that SPS should be defined? Further, the edit you linked is not even close to a copyright violation. And as I've already explained ad nauseam, with my limited time, it makes most sense for me to edit in my area of expertise. You don't get to decide how I should spend my brief time on this planet. I'm not dictating how you should spend your own time. Finally, this is uncalled for: "go spend it [your time] on your little website". I'm an award-winning web publisher and my work has been referenced in the New York Times, TIME, Newsweek, BusinessWeek, NPR, WIRED, and scores of other reliable sources. So, you might have a low opinion of my work, but (1) you're not in good company, and (2) there's no need to insult me here. Or is *that* what you think Wikipedia should be about? If so, I'll pass. -23:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is, my first attempt at wording a definition of an SPS was at my comment on this page at "17:15, 10 July 2020" (still visible right now). What you pointed to what a alternate way of viewing why we need a good SPS definition, but not changing from what I'm proposing. --Masem (t) 18:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the core issue still seems to be that newer users don't seem to know how to thoroughly evaluate sources, which is frankly expected. That's not really a problem we can legislate away. Those users need to go, edit articles, get in content disputes, get all up in their feelings, hash things out in detail, and learn to evaluate sources. I still don't see what hand-holding is required here other than leading someone to mainspace. At some level, we can't replicate that with policy. GMG^talk 23:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GMG: Speaking as a newish editor, how do you expect me to "learn to evaluate sources" with respect to whether they are/aren't SPS if experienced editors don't agree on this? If this is as straightforward as you think, how do you account for the differences of opinion in the RS/N discussion that I linked to in my earlier response to you? Some sources are clearly self-published (e.g., tweets, individual Wordpress blogs), and some are clearly not self-published (e.g., traditional book publishers and newspapers), but some are in a middle ground (e.g., expert blogs with editorial oversight), and without a functioning definition or agreement among experienced WP editors, it's difficult for a new editor to learn how to assess those correctly. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, at some level, if you want to learn how to drive you have to get behind the wheel. The manual ain't gonna tell you everything you need to know, and once you start driving you fairly quickly realize that you don't need it to. I mean...I wrote like half of the prose at WP:RSPS and it's times like these that I wonder if I regret it. You can't dummy-proof the world and you can't make it into an algorithm. You're gonna find ambiguous circumstances, though probably only once every few months at worst, and you will need to talk to others and decide what to do based on the situation. There is no level of specificity in "the manual" we can achieve that's going to eliminate that. GMG^talk 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more to the point, when you meet ambiguity just WP:BEBOLD. Use your best judgement. Comparatively few things are standardized here, less things are certain, and no one (if they're not a jerk) is going to fault you for being bold in making changes to an article in good faith. We're all a bunch of amateurs working with a bunch of other amateurs in our spare time to try to create a thing we can give away for free. There's a bar here somewhere, but it's set pretty low at being willing to help out with the work, acting in good faith...and I dunno... being able to take a joke every now and again. If you can manage that then you'll get along just fine. GMG^talk 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong agree. This definition is a big step in the right direction, it would help to clarify many cases (like this one).VR _talk 13:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification is good, but a fixed definition risks being used as a bludgeon over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I'm worried that it risks sidelining good judgement. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This risks divergence with the definition of SPS. At the moment, self-published content from highly reputable subject-matter experts are treated as a special case in the SPS guidelines: this definition does not cover that. Wouldn't a carefully worded but informal summary here that explicitly defers to the definition at WP:USINGSPS be better? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC) --- Postscript - Ah, I misssed that the proposal is to change the definition there as well. I'm uncertain. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proposal to remove the exception for self-published work of recognised subject experts. Zero^talk 14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst, the proposal has nothing to do with whether particular SPS are acceptable, it's just to define what SPS is. Later, and separately, we can deal with the issue of what SPS is acceptable and what's not. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. The definition isn't perfect, but I agree with MichaelBluejay that "it's clearly better than no definition, and almost no other definitions have even been proposed." For those disagreeing, I'd appreciate your being clear about whether you want no definition (including removing the definition currently on WP:USINGSPS), or if you want a definition but disagree with this one, and if it's the latter, I'd further appreciate your proposing a better definition. Rejecting this definition without proposing something better doesn't really improve the situation. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I don't see any downside to adopting this and there is a clear upside, clarifying policy and reducing (not eliminating) ambiguity. The argument that "it's unnecessary" may have been true earlier in Wikipedia's life, but being a crucial part of the world's information and knowledge base comes a responsibility to clearly maintain and describe our policies. Capricious editors should not be the arbiters of policy on a whim based on their interpretation of a SPS; the consensus of the community should always prevail and clear(er) descriptions only help newcomers and administrators alike to edit. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:CREEP. According to the proposed definition, Wikipedia would not be a self-published source because it has "editorial oversight" – AfC, NPP, and other patrollers and reviewers. But Wikipedia is not considered reliable because the content isn't stable and the oversight is flaky. Reliability cannot be determined by such simple-minded mechanical rules. Newspapers have editorial oversight but they are still quite unreliable because they publish in haste and are often biased and sensationalist. Academic journals are quite unreliable too, even if they are peer-reviwed, because they tend to be sensation-seeking too and so overreach or distort the data. Books are all over the place and even academic textbooks can be quite flawed – just read Feynman on the subject. What makes a source reliable is the care, diligence and expertise of the author, not the manner of publication. Don't judge a book by its cover. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, this RFC is not about determining the reliability of SPS, but simply what they are (their definition). Of course, some are reliable, and some published ones aren't, but that is beyond the scope of this RFC. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the proposal and understand it just fine. My primary reason for opposing is that the idea is to add yet more legalistic verbiage. This is contrary to several policies including WP:BURO, WP:CREEP, WP:IAR, WP:NOTLAW, WP:PETTIFOG, &c. My supplementary point is that such legalisms are futile because they do not address what actually makes a source correct and reliable. Consider another reductio ad absurdum – President Trump's tweets. There is some editorial oversight there because Twitter takes down tweets if they fail some criteria, such as COVID misinformation. So the tweets which survive are not SPS? Pull the other one. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't about whether a source is "correct and reliable," only about whether it's self-published (a source might be both reliable and self-published, reliable but not self-published, self-published but not reliable, or neither reliable nor self-published; the two are independent characteristics, even if content isn't evenly distributed among those four categories). Why do we need a definition? Because -- among other things -- the WP:BLPSPS policy precludes using self-published sources for claims about living people, even if the source is a reliable one. As Masem notes, what occurs on WP is post-publishing oversight. Even draft pages are published per WP's interpretation "published" (e.g., "made available to the public in some form"). Same thing with Twitter taking some tweets down after they're published; that's post-publication moderation. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-publishing oversight - aka moderation - would not make that editorial control prior to publication. So this is not making things like, say Wikipedia, or Reddit, or other places that moderate suddenly non-SPS, because the publishing control is still not there before publication happens. --Masem (t) 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also SPS is not strictly saying a source is non-reliable or not. An SPS written by an expert can be a possible reliable source under some conditions, but not for BLP or MEDRS, for example. --Masem (t) 22:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WP:NOTBURO We don't have to give a definition of "self published". We're editors of a formal encyclopedia, we know what self-published means. Plus I think leaving the guideline ambiguous is useful: context is important, and we can't possibly think of every single instance of a self published source. That we disallow self published sources allows our editors on the ground to argue about what is and isn't, and that is a Good Thing. Also, I have to agree with GMG, the proposer seems very out of touch with whats happening on the ground of Wikipedia, they seem to be on a crusade to change backend policy without having worked in the front end for six years! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that MichaelBluejay didn't introduce this out of the blue. There's been a weeks-long discussion here, and there was also a discussion on WT:USINGSPS about the definition being misleading. (@Michaelbluejay:, I suggest that you add a link to that WT:USINGSPS discussion at the top, where you say "Discussions about whether the policy should be defined, and what that definition should be, are here, here, and here.") CaptainEek, you say that "we know what self-published means," but if you read the discussions, you'll see that individual editors each have their own sense of what it means and often disagree with one another about all but the clearest cases. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, do "we" really know that? Let me give you a few quotations from the archives of this page. Every single one of these comes from admins and editors who have made tens of thousands of edits:

• "Coca-Cola's corporate website is written and published by the same people (namely, the employees of Coca-Cola), and therefore it is self-published."
• "Citing Coca-Cola's website for claims about Pepsi's employees is not prohibited under WP:BLPSPS because it isn't a self-pubished source."
• "But Coca-Cola's materials about Coca-Cola are, to the most part, self-published: no organisation with final control over the content stands between Coca-Cola and publication."
• "The definition of "self-published" has always been that no editorial structure stands between you and publication. Coca-Cola has a professional editing process and a legal team that oversees it" [so it isn't self-published]
• "No editorial process stands between the Coca-Cola company as author and the Coca-Cola company as publisher." [so it is self-published]
• "Self publishing" in the Wikipedia sense does not refer to an organization publishing its own material" [such as Coca-Cola, Inc. publishing information on its corporate website]
• "I'm using "self-published source" in the same sense that it's used throughout Wikipedia WP:RS and WP:V discussions - as shorthand for "self-published secondary source". Your comments that you believe that www.coca-cola.com is a "self-published source" indicate that you don't understand the local terminology used by the policies."
• "Whether a source is self-published is determined not by the ostensible facts of publication, but the editorial control.Coca-cola's website is under the control for the company and says such things as the company wishes it to say."
• "My personal experience is being told by [admin] at WP:Notability that Coca-Cola, Inc.'s website is not written and published by the company."

Every one of these quotations used that same corporate website as an example. These discussions happened over the space of multiple years. The opinions asserted are contradictory and mutually exclusive. I conclude that while each of us might be confident that our own interpretation is the One True™ Definition of Self-published, "we" don't know what it means, and some of our confidently asserted opinions must be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, Perhaps I didn't clarify very well, but I think trying to legislate a precise definition will only make it harder for us to enforce. Wikipedia operates frequently on the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. The examples you show above are people going about our regular process, which inherently brings some disagreement and incorrectness. I don't think we can possibly create a definition of SPS that catches every possibility and every edge case, and by creating a concrete definition we inherently create edge cases. For example, what if A. G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, writes an op-ed in his paper? By the above definition, that would be self published, even though I think on the ground we would not describe that as self published. Sure we would probably not use it because its an opinion piece, but is that really self published? I think this is a solution in search of a problem, I don't see an epidemic of people not knowing what a self published source is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, thanks for the ping. It's my opinion that having no definition already makes it "harder for us to enforce" anything, because it has resulted in people declaring contradictory opinions as The Truth. For example, in your example involving a traditional publisher, according to one of the above-quoted Wikipedia editors, Sulzberger's editorial (note that the publisher of a newspaper is not capable of writing an op-ed in the paper he publishes) would be a WP:PRIMARY source and therefore SPS wouldn't enter into it at all, because WP:V only cares about self-published secondary sources. Do you agree with that? Do you want that editor "enforcing" his guess at what self-published means on what you write?

Your unwillingness to have Sulzberger's occasional editorial considered self-published could be solved by using one of the standard dictionary definitions, which usually say something like "work published by the authors, at their expense (if any), except for traditional publishing houses" [such as newspapers]. Providing a definition could, in fact, be as simple as linking to a dictionary definition, or adding a footnote that says "Yeah, we just mean what your dictionary says. Don't go making up stuff about how many lawyers they have and whether the is source secondary here". Thinking that the definition ought to be X instead of Y does not mean that we should leave editors to make up their own definitions of what the words mean.

But let me take it further, since your concern seems to be about usability rather than the narrow question of whether it's self-published: Let's imagine that editors have an enormous RFC, that (for once) most of the respondents even know what they're talking about, and that they somehow conclude that all of all of the Sulzbergers' editorials are self-published. So what? Given that RSEDITORIAL puts strong limits on what and how Wikipedia editors can use opinion pieces anyway, what actual practical difference would that make in any article you write? I challenge you to name any article where your ability to cite an editorial by Sulzberger for a statement of fact (i.e., not merely for the fact that he expressed an opinion) depends significantly on whether we call publisher-written editorials "self-published" or "non-self-published". I'll help you out: the current publisher has published three editorials so far: [1] [2] [3]. The first is currently cited in the BLP about him, the second was added to support a direct quotation Declan Walsh (journalist) by yet another editor who doesn't know what an op-ed is, and the third is not currently linked in any article. Do you have any reason to believe that these three opinion pieces would be unusable even if, in defiance of common sense, we deliberately adopted a definition that explicitly says "anything published in The New York Times with a byline to A.G. Sulzberger should be considered exactly as self-published as a poorly supervised teenager's social media posts"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion, great idea on linking to the discussion at WP:USINGSPS in the RfC snippet. I just added it, thank you. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: "the proposer seems very out of touch with whats happening on the ground of Wikipedia, they seem to be on a crusade to change backend policy...." First, I think I'm trying to clarify policy, not change it, big difference! You might note from my discussion above that I've said, multiple times I think, that I'm not particularly married to any particular definition, as long as we have one. Also, most editors here seem to agree that clarification would be helpful. (2) I can keep repeating myself about my lack of edits. I left because of a combination of time constraints, hostility, and the cult members I was battling twisting policy to further their agenda. As soon as I returned, they instantly reverted me with the edit comment "SPS not allowed" (which, as we know is not true, some SPS are acceptable and some are not). So, I took a look at the policy pages and saw that they screamed out for clarification. I decided to work on getting policy clarified before I edit in my area(s) of expertise again, so I can focus the arguments on article content and not on interpretations of policy. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Awesome post about the disagreement about whether Coca-Cola is SPS! That's exactly why clarification would be helpful. After we get SPS defined, I'm hoping we can also agree on bullet-point examples of what is and what is not SPS, though we might have to put most or all of them in WP:USINGSPS because there might be too much opposition to adding much to this article. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I support having this definition on USINGSPS, I oppose having it here on WP:V. I'd like to see how the definition fares in the context of a guideline before we make a risky amendment to core policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully fair to stick this on a guideline, probably adding to WP:RS/SPS. --Masem (t) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've come across numerous disputes about our definition of self-published source, for example, this rather painful Quackwatch RfC. Both WP:V and WP:USINGSPS will benefit from clearer, updated language. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I remember that discussion, which is typical of the things editors say because we have no definition (and because we think self-published means unreliable).  That heavily-contested RFC ultimately concluded that the website is at least partly self-published, but look at the rationales of the people saying that it's not:  It can't be self-published because it's "a reliable and quality source".  Because it has "multiple authors".  Because there is "informal review".  Because "It's a huge database."  Because it is "an international network of people".  Because an editor believes it "should not be called “partisan”."  Because "It has a terrific reputation".  Because it "is peer reviewed", albeit "not "peer reviewed" in the academic sense, but instead Barrett sometimes (and not always) has articles checked by an anonymous expert before he publishes them."  Because it "has been used on many BLP articles for well over a decade".  Because it is "not a website written in someone's bedroom" (this was before the pandemic resulted in offices closing all over the world). We need a definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this definition is accepted, we'd not expect similar disucssions to vanish, simply that we'd start with a better framework for that type of discussion. Again, not meant to be a firm black-white definition, but a better line that the vague non-line that we have. --Masem (t) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup. There will be uncertainties, but IMO just having a better framework would be very useful. I'd love to have these conversations without someone claiming that huge databases aren't self-published. Also, I think there would be fewer of them (after people have had the usual two years to discover that the definition exists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that again probably depends on the database. Wikidata would be self-published, but something like the NIST Chemistry Webbook would not be (on a first pass thought) Its why at least establishing a definition that removes the "ownership of the published work" from the equation - which is not explicitly said but which too many editors think is the definition - would help. The framework here is to basically get people to identify the author of the piece, and once identified, if there are any steps, independent of the author, that review the piece beyond basic spell-checking/grammar editing before it is publicly published - something akin to fact and/or tone checking. It's why I compare self-published as the polar opposite of a peer-reviewed work, as it is fully-lacking in that peer-review. --Masem (t) 20:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Whether the source happens to be "a huge database" is simply irrelevant to the question of who made it and how it became available to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatAmIDoing: Indeed, some people have the mindset that "self-published" means "automatically unreliable". I'd like to address that issue, but it's impossible to do before we even have a definition of SPS, hence the RFC.

@Masem: Agree wholeheartedly, very well put. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This seems like a well-constructed definition of self-published sources that aligns with how they're generally understood. I don't find WP:CREEP a compelling argument against this—if editors are truly concerned about the length of policies, they are welcome to help those of us at WP:Help Project in our efforts to make beginner versions better. But in 2020, the main versions need to be comprehensive in order to be appropriately authoritative. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed I'm concerned that this might narrow the scope of SPS too much. I see the value in better defining SPS however, I'm not sure I like it being so narrow. I would prefer this be "are generally". My concern is things like a white paper by say a battery company on battery technology trends or an advocacy group publishing a report. Another example would be something like the Honda Ridgeline article that draws heavily on Honda published material. Consider things like a sales brochure or a white paper on the benefits of Honda's modeling and testing of the Ridgeline's chassis. I'll also add what if Honda published a paper on effectiveness of various seat belt and airbag designs. The sales brochures are generally promotional but how would I classify a white paper on seatbelts written by Honda staff? If these aren't SPS where would they be classified? Springee (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is meant to wider what is an SPS. Also, what you're looking with reports generated by larger companies or entities that likely have had internal checks I would say those become primary sources. Do you think Honda is going to let a white paper out without detailed internal review of it? Probably not, so it fails the SPS check (in this definition), but it remains an primary source, and if one is talking about a place where SCIRS is called for, it would fail there as peer-review was not there as well. So it still a "problem" source in many places, just not as an SPS. This would also apply to advocacy groups, including things like the SPLC or ADL. --Masem (t) 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Masem, self-published sources can't "become" primary sources. It's a completely separate axis. There are three independent factors to consider:

    • Is it independent or not? (See Wikipedia:Independent sources)
    • Is it self-published or not? (See Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works)
    • Is it primary, secondary, or tertiary? (See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources)

    These words aren't interchangeable. The hypothetical Honda source is:

    • non-independent (written by Honda about Honda), and
    • self-published (both written and published by Honda – but remember that Honda's an SPS-exempted expert on itself), and
    • could be either primary or secondary (mostly depending upon whether it summarizes and analyzes previous publications, or if it's all new content).

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Self-published isn't meant to replace those, as I tried to indicate, its yet part of a separate axis that I would say is related to the degree of reliable or how many eyes have reviewed the source before it was published. As I mention, it is the opposite of peer-review in this sense. Now, I've not put my head down to it to figure out of cases where an SPS is not a primary source but I do want to say that a SPS must equate to a primary source, I agree it should be considered a separate axes of evaluation. --Masem (t) 04:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      All three of those (and other factors) independently contribute to the degree of acceptability ("reliability").

      In the end, we treat serious failures of any of these factors (and more) in the same two ways. Either:

      1. You can't use the source for that statement, or
      2. You have to write the statement very narrowly, with WP:INTEXT attribution ("Alice Expert wrote that the Sun is very big").

      "Treat it like it's primary" is the same thing as "treat it like it's self-published" (except for BLPSPS) and "treat it like it's biased" and "treat it like it's self-published". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think it would be helpful for people who are confused about primary vs self-published, we could add a section similar to Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent#Combinatorics to WP:USESPS:

• Feel free to copy that table over if you think it would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously when you say "academic journal" that should "peer-reviewed academic journal. There are academic journals you can publish too with no checks and that would be self-publishing as well.
  • And its not so much the issue of people being confused of the difference of primary vs self-publishing. Its where self-publishing applies basically as to when BLPSPS (though obviously understanding that this is a separate concept from primary is necessary). To stress again: right now, the average editor on WP seems to take SPS to read "the author must 'own' the publication" (eg own the blog, own the newspaper). Which covers some self-publishing cases, but not all of them that should be considered in a BLPSPS light, like Forbes Contributors, YouTube videos (not all of them but many), open-access non-peer review journals, etc. It's also asserting that there are limited cases where just because the author owns the publication does not make it self-published, this being like commercial marketing publications, certain types of government documents like final court decisions and passed legislation, and so on (though there are very different cautions to be raised with these here). That's the whole point of introducing this definition is to refine the current clunky implied definition of SPS that doesn't fit all situations well anymore. How to make sure this is distinct and different from primary/secondary or other means to evaluate sources, that's important too. --Masem (t) 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you name a couple of examples of academic journals that claim not to do peer-review (for suitable content)? My impression of the pay-to-publish predatory journals is that they claim to engage in peer review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not as phrased I am uncertain whether we should be defining, but if we do, we need to pick better and clearer examples.
  • a third-party publisher (such as Kindle Direct Publishing) As a publisher myself who uses KDP, I can tell you that KDP is not a publisher. They are a printer and a distributor, but for the books that are released through them, the entity providing the content is the publisher. This gets confused at times because KDP or some similar brand is sometimes listed as the "Publisher" on some book listings; that arises because the publisher is taking advantage of KDP's free ISBNs, and what is listed as "publisher" there is actually the ISBN registrant. However, providing an ISBN is not the act that defines a publisher (indeed, publishing existed before there were ISBNs!)
  • or website (such as contributors on Forbes.com) This one is going to be confusing for those who have not been playing the Wikipedia game for a while. Those of us used to dealing with sourcing issues may know that Forbes.com labels certain content providers as "contributors", and that that is a sign that Forbes is not placing editorial oversight on them. However, in common parlance, a "contributor" would be anyone who is providing content to Forbes.com, including journalists on the front of the site. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can be more exacting in the language to be clear (again, I wrote some of the basics here off the cuff). The KDP, basically the idea is basically, you can prep everything for getting a book to physical publishing through KDP without a single editorial check. That's self-publishing even though you aren't doing the "act" of publishing. More here is the point where the information exists as something not available to the public as something available to the public, not "print publishing" in the traditional sense but more like how publishing works in the world of intellectual property. And with the Forbes.com stuff, this is "Contributors" with a capital "C" that can be seen in their byline and which we can point to WP:RS discussions that show they can produce work and hit "publish" to go to the world without an editor to check it, in contrast with Forbes "Staff" that have editors that check their work. But that's fine tuning the language. --Masem (t) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the person who started this "Let's Define" effort, let me say that I'm not opposed to starting the RFC all over again with another definition. But before we do that, editors should propose new definitions and we should make sure there seems to be some consensus in favor of whichever one we decide to put forth to RFC. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No - speaking as a magazine publisher and tv producer, a self-published source does not necessarily mean that its content fails V - it means editors should take the time to corroborate it. Remember, WP is not about truth - it's about accuracy, particularly in our sourcing, and the avoidance of stating something in WikiVoice that just isn't so - especially when it's based on opinion. Not every article is based on scientific fact. I am also of the mind that we should not put too much trust in the fact a publication has an editorial board or editorial control, except where science & medicine are concerned but then Beall's List taught us something there, too. As so many editors have long since learned with the birth of clickbait media: corroborate which is not the same thing as WP:OR. At this point, I see no need to change policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atsme: The proposal is only to define what a self-published source is. Your comments seem to refer only to how self-published sources should be treated, which is an entirely different question that the proposal does not mention. Also, the aim is not to change policy but to clarify existing policy. Zero^talk 15:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Zero0000; however, self-published doesn't necessarily mean there was no editorial oversight. We are currently seeing editorial oversight on Twitter and Facebook. If I were to self-publish, I would seek (and have to pay for) professional editorial review and fact-checking, but I would not have to share the proceeds with a publisher. The internet has provided a means for experts to by-pass the middleman (publishers), and publishers will eventually become less important as digital publishing grows firmer roots - again, the exception being science & medicine. I don't deny that SPS needs updating, but the proposed update doesn't quite fit the bill. I saw the paradigm shift coming back in 1997 when I penned the craft improvement article "A Tapeless Future" for Outdoors Unlimited, and we are now looking back at the early stages of that paradigm shift. In my view, the problematic words in the proposed change include they control, or when they publish through and without any editorial oversight. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atsme: AFAIK, neither Twitter nor Facebook have pre-publication editorial review. Am I mistaken? Post-publication moderation (e.g., removing content that violates the terms of service, adding notices) is distinct, and it does not impact whether something is self-published, just as WP is still self-published despite post-publication moderation of new articles. This has come up more than once in the discussion, and I think we should add something in the text to clarify this (not necessarily adding it to the definition, but making sure that it's addressed, perhaps in examples on the USINGSPS page). Re: "the proposed update doesn't quite fit the bill," do you have a proposal that you think would be an improvement? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The type of editorial step implied by the definition is a required one in said process to pull the source away from being self-published. That you, prior to a facebook post, can get someone to edit-review it, is fine, but it is not requiried. This would still make it self-published, even though a specific post may not be self-published because of this. Further, I should stress that an editorial review is more than a simple spell check and grammar review. We're talking tone, fact-checking, and general practices to make sure the piece is not introduce clear false statements, nor blatant libel/slander, etc. The type of stuff we'd expect the editorial staff of major newspapers, magazines, and peer-review publications do to. Some of this may be an in-house thing (like marketing materials for a company) which is fine. But most self-published stuff does not have that. --Masem (t) 16:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FactOrOpinion See CBS report, and there are others if you research it. Masem, I agree that the editorial step you describe looks great in theory but we know full well that doesn't happen with breaking news in the biggest most respected online publications. I've argued against using self-published advocacy websites for inclusion of material in WikiVoice, and there were strong arguments in opposition to me regarding editorial oversight but facts are facts, and they can be corroborated whether it is in a self-pubished source or in the WSJ. We've also noted on RSN that quite a few publications/news channels that publish/report information about science/medicine may require better sources. But who exactly is doing the editorial oversight of what experts are communicating, and what qualifies such editorial oversight? Are you seeing my point? As I've said - the exception is science & medicine because in those fields, all players are experts/professionals. I may have missed a point or two, but that is the general gist of my argument. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, even for more RS that cover breaking news, there is still an editor sitting between the writer and the publish button. They be sitting next to each other to make the process faster, but a good RS is not going to let a writer post even breaking news without a check. --Masem (t) 17:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atsme: I didn't see anything in that CBS report about pre-publication editing, only about post-publication moderation. What did you read there that you're interpreting as pre-publication editing? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FactOrOpinion, I would enjoy discussing this with you further but I can't right now because I have other pressing matters, plus I'm on a short leash. Facepalm Quick reply to Masem re:"an editor sitting between the writer and the publish button" - reckon it's the same editor who corrects the errors, does the retractions or makes whole articles disappear after publication? 😊 I agree with you as far as print because there is more time to do what you think is happening with the news Ezines, but that's as far as I'll go. I'm not talking about books, journals, monthly or bi-monthly online articles - I'm talking about online dailies. Our policies already address author credibility well enough. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a very simple way of cutting through all this... if you are not sure whether a source is self-published (or not), TREAT it as if it is (with all the limitations that implies). Focus on who the author is, and whether the “expert exception” applies. Use in-text attribution. Etc. etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  How come you get away unscathed after saying some of the same things I've said, and I get wrung through a ringer? 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support including a definition. This one is a good starting point. I oppose enshrining it as the One True™ Definition that Must Never Be Changed Again, but it's a good starting point and better than what we have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reasons stated by Atsme, GreenMeansGo, and North8000. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is no simple or straightforward definition that will apply to all cases. Even the examples given at Coca-Cola will not be clarified by the definition. Some instances will be obvious, but others not. When the Metropolitan Museum publishes a book about its own history, written by its own curators, is it self-published? Or the NY Times similarly? Or the Library of Congress. It depends on the professionalism of those involved--all 3 are responsible publishers and stand behind this material as they do any other of their many publications. In the other direction, what if X company writes a book about itself, and pays money to some less than scrupulous commercial publisher to publish it--I'd consider it self-published in effect though not in appearance . Commenting on the below, I do not suggest that anyone try a simple definition. Most of our basic terms have no exact meaning: consider reliable. I think this makes 8-7-1. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, the problem here is that this logic is keeping with the old "definition" that "author = the person/entity that owns the publication", which is too limiting. The key for all the cases you mention is if there is some internal process before they print to the own presses that reviews the material beyond a simple spell check, something akin to a peer review, but which can be internal as to make sure the entity's own work isn't incorrect. It's the process of what happens before publication that is what matters and why we need a better definition than the implied "author = owner of the publication". The definition proposed covers the situations that you discuss exactly, but again, it's also not meant to be 100% perfect and meant to also help lead discussions when a fuzzy result is found. --Masem (t) 04:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Suggested closure. I count the voting so far as 8-6-1, so it doesn't appear that we're going to reach consensus. I will close the RFC in a couple days unless there's an objection. If anyone would like to pick up the ball here and try to edit the proposed definition to appease the Opposers and try to get consensus with a new RFC, that would be delightful. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelbluejay, please don't. Firstly, the discussion is still active, so it's inappropriate to be talking about cutting it off. Secondly, consensus isn't determined by counting votes. It's determined by the strength of the argument. For example, bare votes are usually counted less than strong arguments, and sometimes the bolded word isn't exactly where the editor ends up after discussion. In this specific discussion, I'm not sure what a closer would make of @Atsme's comment, which votes against defining the term, apparently on the grounds that whatever any editor wants to call a self-published source could still be a reliable one. That's about as logical as saying that drivers didn't need to know what a Traffic light is, because you don't have to stop when the light's green. (I love her realism about how little fact-checking happens for breaking news, and that once you've decided to put a live video out to viewers with no delay, you're trusting that your staff won't say something completely inappropriate, though.) You need to leave editors to finish the conversation, and then let an experienced closer spend time understanding the arguments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good analogy! 🚦 A blog is self-published, a company website is self-published because corporations are considered a person, but why isn't an Op-ed published in an eZine or online news source considered self-published since they aren't fact-checked, oversighted, and the publication has a disclaimer? WP:RS states: Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Yet, we are willing to accept material in an Op-ed (if we like what they say), or that is self-published by advocacy groups, like SPLC or ADL, despite what WP:RS says about using SPS? I say keep it case by case - material, author, where it originated, verifiability, corroboration. For a project that has an IAR policy, why do we need an explicit definition of SPS? I like having options - options open doors, broaden horizons and provide more opportunities to acquire the sum of all human knowledge. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you believe that there is no editorial oversight in an e-zine? Editorial oversight might be strict or loose, but I'm pretty sure that even in an e-zine, someone else is looking at the piece and deciding whether they want to run what that author has written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that?

• NYTimes Terms of Service: 2.4 Certain Content is furnished by the Associated Press and Reuters, which will not be liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom.
• And about opinions: 5.2 NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk.

Being a publisher teaches you things...and so does being self-published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully concur with User:Atsme on this one. Unless you actually write for a living and have done so for several years, it's difficult to comprehend the rapid evolution of business models in journalism and publishing. (There have been several times in my legal career when I thought about going back for graduate degrees in journalism or history, but each time the poor economic prospects caused me to stick it out in law.) The profit margins are way too lean today to sustain the complex editorial review structures historically used at most high-quality newspapers and magazines, because of how Facebook and Google have carried off the bulk of advertising dollars. That's why more and more publications are switching to something like the Forbes Contributor model, which are actually self-published blogs hosted on the parent website in which stories can go live without editorial review, subject only to contractual clawback provisions under which the parent site can pull down stories after the fact if they turn out to be controversial or inappropriate. Which is why WP consensus is that stories published under that model do not qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I find those quotations uncompelling. A wire service declines to be liable if the Times mangles their article? The Times declines to be held liable if any user "uploads" medical advice in the comments? That's hardly surprising.

Coolcaesar, I'm not looking for "complex editorial review structures". I'm looking for basic editorial oversight, like "Oh, hey, I don't think we want our publication associated with that anti-vaxxer garbage, so I'll pick one of the other 600 things that landed in my inbox overnight". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were folks who weighed in who were not flat out against the idea but against it as proposed. And the variables aren't just the definition itself, but the strength given to the definition in it's wording and positionioning. E.G. mere suggestion / guidance vs. something that claims or would be claimed to be authoritative, and whether or not it has language that limits it's scope of impact (e.g. "for the purposes of....") vs. categorical wording that would send it elsewhere as well. I think that the RFC as is is not going to gain a consensus, but the idea is not dead. IMO if folks would like to pursue it further. I would suggest developing the one clear idea (both the definition itself but also the trappings and positioning regarding the other issues) that is most likely to pass, and then have an RFC to propose that one idea. Sounds slow but "slow" is faster than "never" which is where substantive good ideas typically end up. North8000 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with tweaks. I think that this is a very good starting place and shouldn't be abandoned, but I share Springee's concern that despite the intent, it could ultimately be used to narrow rather than widen the definition of a self-published source (eg. by citing the technical existence of editorial oversight in places where it is plainly woefully inadequate or is not, functionally, performing any meaningful fact-checking.) The most glaring example of a self-published source that does not strictly fit this definition is a forum post - I could post my random ideas in a forum, then say "well, the forum is moderated and the server controlled by someone else, so I don't directly control publication there", which is patiently absurd. Another example would be if I run a personal website, then occasionally have a guest poster - do the guest posts no longer count as self-published because they have to go through me? (This one seems like it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.) I would change "Self-published works are..." to "Self-published works include..."; I agree that anything that fits this definition is self-published, but I feel there are also cases outside it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any tweaking should be clear that if the only "checking" is in moderation post-"publication for the public", that's within self-publication. And it should be clear a third-party publishing on someone else's blog but without any checking is still self-published.
  • But this leads me to thinking that maybe all this is around the fact that "self-published" is the wrong term then here. If this is mean to be the opposite side of the spectrum from "peer review", then maybe these as a whole are better described as "self-checked" or "self-reviewed" works. That stresses better the relationship we want this term to be used for (namely, in BLP situations where someone may write-off-the-cuff and post unchecked facts about a person). The same proposed definition with tweaks applies, but is a better way to think about why we need this term over "self-published" because as read literally, as per DGG above say, there are valid sources of material published by the same group that wrote it that likely has been checked internally by the group - maybe not the rigor of a peer review but sufficient for our purposes, and thus the problem with the "self-published" wording to start. --Masem (t) 04:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• How would we define a site like SeekingAlpha [[4]]. The site publishes contributed articles after they are reviewed by the staff. I guess this makes them a bit like Quillette but in a totally different area (stocks and finance vs culture). To a large extent every article is Op-Ed like in that each contributor is offering their analysis rather than just reporting facts/results (SA does have a section for that as well). However, it isn't a forum where anyone can publish. All submissions are reviewed first. Now, like Quillette, I wouldn't claim this is a RS vs this is a source offering the opinions/analysis of the contributors. However, it is reviewed prior to publication. Questions of WEIGHT aside, how would we classify it on our continuum between peer reviewed and self published? Beyond that, I agree with Aquillion that even if we don't have a consensus at this time, the discussion is productive. Would it be helpful to simply create/offer a series of examples that could be a supplement to the SPS section? Springee (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether we NEED to classify it. SeekingAlpha is opinion journalism, whether it is self-published or not... and opinion journalism ALWAYS has limitations, such as requiring in-text attribution (and Due Weight based on the author’s reputation). I don’t think it MATTERS whether it is self-published or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point which I had temporarily forgotten. "Self-published" is the one of many attributes which determines actual relaibiltity of a source. And we have a few cases where we make special rules bases on whether it is a SPS source of not. Maybe trying to make a set of rules about that one particular attribute is just furthering a cutrtent structural error. Maybe what we probably really need is a "grand unification theory" wholistic plan. (maybe Wikipedia can beat the physiscts to that :-) ) Where we have a set of metrics and attributes to determine the strength (actual reliabiltiy) of sources with respect to/ in to the context of the item which cited them. Coupled with a requirement that certain items (e.g. BLP, controversial or extrordinary claims) requires stronger sourcing and vice versa. Real metrics would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. Given that those aren't always determined, all of the current wp:RS criteria would also be metrics and attributes. Primary/Secondary would still be seperate because that is a matter of avoidig wiki-editor interpretation rather than reliability of the source. North8000 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, SeekingAlpha is non-self-published. It has pre-publication editorial oversight. As noted, whether/how you could actually use it is constrained by its other qualities, especially the WP:RSOPINION rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's time to close this discussion. There are simply too many variables involved when choosing sources - context matters. Our 3 core content policies matter beginning with V - is the material verifiable and not OR - does it comply with NPOV - if it is about a BLP, is it opinion or fact-based material? Science & medicine require the highest standards in sourcing, no argument there - it requires expert peer review/expert editorial boards, whereas most everything else is either fact-based or opinion. We already have WP:MEDRS, do we have something similar for science? If it's a BLP, use WP:INTEXT. As for academic - it depends on the topic...is it math, science, medicine, etc., or is it political? If it's political, is it opinion, a peer-reviewed paper or published book by a historian? Peer reviewed opinions about a politician or politics are not any more reliable than a self-published book by a person who spent 30 years in the top tiers of government - it is still opinion-based, which may be what needs a better definition.

WP:RSSELF states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The first sentence basically helps us identify differentiate an expert from any John or Jane Q. Public with an opinion. I'm not quite sure why "never use" applies to BLPs considering we use journalistic opinion in news sources all the time, including allegations, gossip, and scandals which, unfortunately, have become the norm in AP2. Regardless of publication type, opinions about living people should require in-text attribution, and strictly adhere to BLP, REDFLAG, NOT, etc. - so why not use the opinion in a self-published RS? We use the opinions of SPLC and ADL about living people all the time, despite NOTADVOCACY. It has become a matter of whose opinion we trust, and what exactly influences that decision? See WP:POV creep. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I think that came up in this, is to understand that understanding whether a source is an SPS or not is one part of looking at various facets of a source to determine how it can be be used - as I said way in the other thread, it is a separate "axis" of reliability, comparable to the axes that independent/dependent , first/third-party, primary/secondary/tertiary, etc. Simply being an SPS (old or new definition) doesn't invalidate the source, except for one specific case, that being for use in BLPs; otherwise, people are supposed to consider the SPS nature (old or new) along with these other factors and what we have said in other P&G to determine if it is still usable. A SPS by an expert in the field of science may be a usable source on a topic.

The only issue is that the current version of the implied definition of SPS (which isn't even written down) is outdated, and the new version, which can be tweaked to address issues, is to establish that it is the fact that in an SPS, a writer can publish to the public without any checks or balances - and considering that the only place that SPS is a problem is at BLP, this makes sense, we don't want off the cuff , unchecked statements about BLP even from experts used on BLP pages. But there's more as well, eg considering the Forbes Contributor model, we can get bad research in some cases, etc. A key thing is that source evaluation is always meant to be a consensus-based thing. Our guidelines at WP:RS support the policies, but they are meant as a framework to discuss sources in context to determine when a source can be used. RS/N helps to get wider input. --Masem (t) 13:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:RSSELF does say "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," I simply don't understand that so many people are essentially shrugging and saying "but we don't need to define what a self-published source is in any WP policy, just leave it to people to make their best guess about this." I was also struck by Masem's comment that this leads me to thinking that maybe all this is around the fact that "self-published" is the wrong term then here. If this is mean to be the opposite side of the spectrum from "peer review", then maybe these as a whole are better described as "self-checked" or "self-reviewed" works. Among other things, we don't have a good term for "non-self-published." That is, it's strange for "self-published" to be the referent, and "non-self-published" framed as the opposite, instead of, say, "edited" being the referent and "non-edited" as the opposite. "Peer reviewed" is a subset of non-self-published work, so that doesn't work as the primary referent. If the real issue is whether the source for a claim has a history of reviewing/checking/editing material prior to publication and printing corrections when they discover an error after publication, should we frame it that way instead of framing it as SPS? Should RSSELF instead say "When making claims about living people, only use sources that have a history of editorial fact-checking prior to publication" and eliminate the reference to "self-published"? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as WP:V policy, per multiple comments above about too many variables and and my previous comments before this RfC, and while I could see supporting improved guideline (guideline, is as I said early on the proper way to deal with variables) this needs work-shopping especially as to examples. Anything like this which suggests a wiki or similar online platform, which has an editorial policy and a group calling themselves editors who go over others work pre-publication (as sometimes happens on Wikipedia) still should be classified as self-published. The key to understanding the place of self-published on Wikipedia is first to look to the RS we really want, and then how far the questioned source in issue has moved away from that model of reputation-based, expert publication (see, WP:SOURCE) (and by expert, I am referring to all through the publication process (publisher, editor, author). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of current RSes - not top tier ones for highly contentious claims but otherwise used in a lot of more mundane content - that of the type of WP:NEWSBLOG, they have a editorial staff that appear to elevate it past an SPS (old or new def), but that we're sure isn't doing the type of fact-check a NYTimes editor or a peer-review at Nature would be doing, yet we have zero problem with these sources. That's a fairly different problem and I would argue that, if you consider "peer-review academic publications" on one side, and "personal blog space" (eg SPS) on the other, these would fall closer to personal blog space on this axis. Yes, we prefer more sourcing on the far end , towards peer-review, but we do not discount sourcing from the SPS end but the types of material that SPS and closely related sources that it can be used for have to be carefully chosen. But to that end, these NEWSBLOG-style sources are still not self-published in that way, but they simply do reflect they likely aren't the type of rigorous review we'd like to see.
  • But I do think this goes back to maybe affirming that as part of considering facets of RS, understanding the rigor of how much of a review a piece of source material has had in terms of its reliability is a critical factor, and that is where SPS comes in and why redefining it is important towards that. An SPS is where there has been, effectively, no such review. --Masem (t) 14:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you were quite responsive to my points as I did not say peer-review, which is only one model, nonetheless my position that this should not be here at V stands. I was about to add to my opp comment the following, which you edit conflicted with, perhaps it helps: (Eg., If someone is a professional biographer, who gets a professional editor to go over his work and publish it on Wikipedia, they are self-published. If someone is a professional biographer, who goes through the publication process at Random House, they are not self-published.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, it is not possible for Wikipedians to engage in pre-publication review of edits, unless maybe someone's sending you things in e-mail. Userspace is public. Draftspace is public. Publication == making things available to the public. That's why that big blue button says "Publish" in every namespace, and not something like "Save private copy of draft, secure in the knowledge that if it currently contains libel or copyvios, then I can't be sued for publishing it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, Of course it's possible, Wikipedians are free to share their work on and off Wikipedia. But you seem to be totally missing the point, change out Wikipedia for a number of other ways to publish (do you see the eg, that means example). We should and regularly do judge work in self-publishing, by the reputations and methods of all involved. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A point I tried to make is that in evaluating a site's nature as an SPS if if editorial control is required or a necessary process at that site. That a WPian can opt to get other to check their work before making public is by far not a requirement and thus would fail this requirement, whereas it would be near impossible to bypass this at the NYTimes news desk or the Nature peer review submission process. --Masem (t) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a Self-Publisher Company requires the author to go through their editorial process before publication, they are still self-publishing. Even were Wikipedia to require pre-publication editorial review, it would still be self-publishing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now here is the crux of what is happening and what the important of "self-publishing" or what we imply from it. If that "Self-Publishing Book Company" is actually sending off a fact-checking to check the work, doing a reasonable peer-review job, that's a good thing for us in terms of that book being reliable. It may not be the same thing as a more traditional book publisher, but its something. This may be were we need to throw our view of the purpose of calling works "self-published" out the door , and not get too heads-up in how SPS is presently set. (and maybe why a fresh RFC from a different angle after some review is needed). We want works that have had some type of separate check different from the principle authors. Ideally, people fully independent of the authors with no financial interest in the work (eg academic peer review) but any separation is good. The full absence of this (which includes what we are now calling SPS) is a problem, though other factors still come into play. As I've tried to stress, knowing if this type of review happens and to what degree is helpful in source review discussions. And for the one key policy of BLP, knowing where unchecked sources - what this new defining basically proposes - come in is critical, as they absolutely should not be used on BLP. But again, maybe restrting the RFC with a reframing in this manner is needed, as just saying "oh, replace SPS with this" is far too subtle as this discussion has shown. --Masem (t) 16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we may be back where these policy sections often founder in discussion and drafting: despite every core policy warning against it and insisting Wikipedians not do it, too often a policy section is decontextulized from not only the other sections of the policy it is in but the other core policies -- if one truly works to grasp the essential purpose of not just V, but NOR, NPOV, (and BLP, if relevant to the article), you have to understand this small (SELFPUB) section, is for the purpose and needs to inform and be informed by all core policy. In short, the 'self-published' section of policy, also has a critical part to play in understanding and applying various issues for NPOV, NOR and BLP, in addition to V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That might be reliable, but it's still self-published. The point behind self-publishing is that the authors (including groups/corporate authors) are the ones who decide whether the content is made available to the public. That some authors freely choose (!) a printer that "requires" certain services does not change the fact that the authors are the ones in control. Once the authors can say "If you don't do it my way, then I'll take it elsewhere, but one way or the other, this will be made available to the public", then it's self-publishing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider the following: Book Publishing, Not Fact-Checking: Readers might think nonfiction books are the most reliable media sources there are. But accuracy scandals haven't reformed an industry that faces no big repercussions for errors. It’s a Fact: Mistakes Are Embarrassing the Publishing Industry - "In the past year alone, errors in books by several high-profile authors — including Naomi Wolf, the former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, the historian Jared Diamond, the behavioral scientist and “happiness expert” Paul Dolan and the journalist Michael Wolff — have ignited a debate over whether publishers should take more responsibility for the accuracy of their books." Masem, there are many more just like it. I cannot over-emphasize the seriousness of this issue, and the point I've been trying to make. It isn't new to the publishing industry, but things have gotten much worse over the past decade. As editors, we must exercise good editorial judgment, corroborate the material, and be cautious regardless of the publisher. When factual material is challenged, we analyze the cited source(s) and corroborate it. It is probably best to bring it to RSN and discuss and invite experts, if needed. If it's an opinion, we follow our core content policies and use RS to help guide us. The RS guideline is simple - it's WP:V that may prove more difficult. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)^{Adding more sources: CJR, The Guardian, Vox, NPR - one common sense approach to consider: the publisher is in it for the money, the author is in it to get their story out and the money is their bonus. 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Errors can appear in fact-checked works. That happened, and I'm sure there's even cases of peer-reviewed papers that have found to have errors after the fact. Fact-checkers are human too. It's just the absence of fact-checkers or similar type of review is a worse case. What should be the goal is to be able to assess how much of a SPS-type character a work has if there is a question of its reliability and discuss if that makes it usable or not, and a proper definition (better than "author = person that owns the publishing work") would help a lot there. That also might consider how "reliable" the publisher is too, some publishers are known to be more financially driven than knowledge driven and their fact-checking is less than ideal. All this is about helping to frame RS discussions. --Masem (t) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem - I couldn't resist this "hard truth". It's a behind-the-scenes add to this discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Fact-checking isn't the only, or even the primary, service that's being provided by editorial oversight and traditional publication processes. Traditional publishing, even when we know for certain that no fact-checking was done, helps us understand WP:Due weight (e.g., does anyone other than the authors care about this point?), and provides a basic check on the likelihood of the content being correct (because, e.g., reputable science magazines don't run stories from crackpots claiming that the Sun will permanently disappear next week). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week since the last comment. Is it time to submit a request for closure and have an experienced closer spend time assessing the arguments? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FactOrOpinion, do you think editors have come to a consensus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think that there's consensus, but I'm also not that experienced an editor and don't see how to achieve consensus at this point ("When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal" – WP:CONACHIEVE). It seems to me that having an uninvolved and skilled closer read through the comments and summarize is our best next step for eventually achieving consensus, but I could be wrong about that. Another possibility would be for Masem to read through people's concerns and try to refine his proposed definition in response and then have another RfC, perhaps one that also includes the alternative that I'd initially proposed ("Material is self-published if the person(s) who controlled the material’s creation = the person(s) who controlled whether the material was made available to the public"), which is a smaller change from the current definition in WP:USINGSPS and might be more acceptable to those who opposed. Another possibility is to put the definition aside temporarily and invite people to identify borderline cases – neither clearly SPS, such as social media posts, nor clearly non-SPS, such as peer-reviewed journal articles – and discuss whether we think they should be considered SPS or not and why (not), as that could help us become clearer on what the definition should address and to resolve differences of opinion (e.g., re: whether an edited press release should/shouldn't be considered SPS). We could also search relevant archives for previous discussions of that sort. Then after that discussion, we could see whether anyone has a new definition to propose. Do you have a suggestion for how to make headway from here? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion, I like your analysis of options.

I think we've learned a few things. For example, some editors think the definition itself is okay, but they're nervous about the practical effects. I'd classify all of the "put it in a guideline, not policy, first" comments that way. For this group, one path forward is to make a proposal at WP:RS. I think they are hoping that if it works, it will be followed, and if it doesn't, then it can be disclaimed and disregarded as "only" a guideline. The one downside to this cautious approach is that established editors very rarely read the policies and guidelines, so it's likely to be several years before we could consider "upgrading" the definition to policy status.

There's another (small) group that seems to think that self-publishing is the wrong label entirely. See, e.g., a comment referring to an old ArbCom case. That group might accept the proposed definition as reasonably sound for the real-world, reasonably objective concept of Self-publishing, but thinks that when Wikipedia decries the use of self-published materials, we're actually trying to avoid the use of sources defined by their apparent unreliability rather than by their publication process. (Compare "notable" meaning 'able to be noted' and WP:Notable, meaning 'qualifies for a separate article at the English Wikipedia because someone already noted it'.) You might think of this as the "responsible adult" notion: in this story, Wikipedia doesn't actually care whether the people who write sources also control whether the public gets to see their sources; these Wikipedians only care whether a responsible adult (e.g., a lawyer or an experienced newspaper editor) was around to advise against publishing anything bad (e.g., to avoid libel lawsuits or because it doesn't meet journalistic standards). In this story, everything on the website of a multinational corporation is non-self-published (because Wikipedians believe that their employees are responsible adults), and everything in a predatory journal is self-published (because Wikipedians believe that their employees are not responsible adults). One path forward for that group is probably to reduce the use of the self-publishing label significantly in the policies, and perhaps to use a label like independent editorial oversight more.

There are also some people who are opposed to having a definition. We have muddled along without one, so why upset the apple cart now? Your excellent idea of collecting more examples might reassure those who can be reassured. Others simply may not be convinced that there is a problem with not defining terms. Still others may be opposed to adding any more text to our already-long policies and guidelines.

And, of course, there are always the editors who oppose defining it, because they are unhappy that anything that gets (and deserves) this label is considered a lesser source for most purposes. I think that a definition could reduce the practical problems (by making it easier for non-self-published sources to be confidently labeled that way), but perhaps they worry that it would go the other direction, and even more sources would get (and deserve) that label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per GreenMeansGo evaluating sources is a skill. Editorial oversight can take a number of forms including simple proof reading and spell checking, the content is still effectively self-published and platforms exist to facilitate their publication. I've seen a number of clearly SPS/UGC articles presented as sources where an editor is listed for a webpage (in one instance with her listed co-editor, a pet beagle). Cavalryman (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  @Cavalryman, would you prefer a different definition of self-publishing, or do you prefer letting each editor make up his own definition (e.g., "That's on Twitter, so it's self-published" vs "No, it's not, because the Twitter user claims to have consulted a lawyer first")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to consider any alternate definitions but none spring to mind, I have not given it a great deal of thought. I agree a definition might be handy for some less experienced (Wikipedia) editors, and I still see experienced editors throwing up glangers, the above mentioned example was included by an editor with almost 12 years experience and over 130,000 edits! Cavalryman (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ONUS is often used as a reason for objecting to content, when really it should be a response to editors who insist that any verifiable content can be included in an article. To put it another way, WP:ONUS is sometimes used as an argument for editors who simple don't like a particular piece of content. Almost as frequently, more experienced editors cite WP:PRESERVE—the part of the editing policy that says appropriate material should be preserved or fixed if possible.

To that end, I made this WP:BOLD edit which lasted for 30 minutes before it was reverted.

I am proposing the addition of a few additional words that I think will be very helpful to less experienced editors. The proposed wording is highlighted in yellow below. I'm open to better wording if anyone has any ideas.

While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Editors should strive to preserve or fix content when possible, instead of using WP:ONUS as the only reason for removing or opposing it.

Thank you for your consideration. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, first, I think it would have been more prudent to discuss before unilaterally declaring that a section of the editing policy outweighs a section of the verifiability policy. Second, I've seen "experienced editors" citing WP:ONUS, this is not a case of (argument only newbies make) vs. (argument those who've been here forever know is the Right Way). Third, although I'm not certain I properly understand your objection to ONUS, I noted your wording the only reason; would instructions like this help? The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Editors who object to inclusion of the content should clearly state reasons other than ONUS for disputing the content. (Although I'm not certain I agree with that either, have to think through the implications...) Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your comments Schazjmd. Responding point by point:

1. I didn't think it would be very controversial so I followed WP:BOLD. I am definitely not declaring that portions of a policy outweigh a section of any other policy. I'm only trying to show how they work interdependently.
2. That's very true, and ONUS is an important policy point. The proposal is intended to make clear that it does not negate other policies, but works in concert with them.
3. I definitely don't have an objection to ONUS. I did struggle a bit with how to convey the concept with as few words as possible. Yes, your proposed wording a big step in the direction I'm trying to go. - MrX 🖋 16:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm not sure I've ever seen an editor remove material solely on the basis of WP:ONUS, and I'd be curious to see some examples of that. Is it not possible they're using that as shorthand for "I'm not sure this should be in this article, and we should discuss the matter before including it?" Kind of similar to what we're doing now, really... DonIago (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it constantly, unfortunately. I won't cite examples because it would be calling people out. But in my experience it is very common in political hot-button areas where an editor might have an objection to material that they are unwilling to voice (the Liar, Liar objection). I feel it's also common when an editor wants to stonewall or foot-drag on something - they don't want a discussion to be resolved because they recognize they lack a strong argument and are hoping that by just making circular demands for consensus without seriously participating in a discussion that could reach a resolution, they can get the other person to go away. It's led to some of the most unproductive and frustrating discussions I've had on Wikipedia. Obviously one small tweak to a policy can't fix everything, but I think it is both common-sense and existing policy that if you revert, you must provide some rationale as a starting point for discussions - doesn't have to be a good or strong one, doesn't have to be hard policy, can be as simple as "I don't think it's an improvement", but you have to say why you object to that specific material so the other person can discuss it properly. If you refuse to say why you object, what are you even asking for consensus on? --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But...if a single editor is blocking an addition to an article solely on the basis of ONUS, then why aren't options for dispute resolution coming into play? DonIago (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the pushback that I already frequently observe when material is removed, I am extremely wary of giving inclusionists more text that they can point to in order to argue that the removal was "inappropriate". I would be more amenable to gentler phrasing that encourages options other than removal, but the phrasing proposed above is, to my mind, too strong, and will result in even stronger pushback of "Did you try fixing it yourself before you removed it?" My view is that removal of material is a perfectly valid form of challenge, whether or not it's "best practice", and while other editors may argue that it is not "best practice", we should not give them the additional argument of "And you were supposed to do these things before you removed it." DonIago (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago, those are valid points, and I do think there is some gentler phrasing that we could come up with to tie the two policies together. Maybe something similar to what Schazjmd suggested. - MrX 🖋 16:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought - I do sometimes remove edits I find problematic with an edit summary of "Please discuss at Talk" because there's not necessarily a clear policy-based reason for opposing them, but for one reason or another I'm not sure that they improve the article. For the purposes of this thread, is that equivalent to me just saying ONUS when I revert? DonIago (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't view that as an ONUS argument. There are many valid reasons for removing material or reverting an edit that are not explicitly enshrined in policy. - MrX 🖋 17:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not an improvement" is an entirely valid reason to revert something! You don't need a 'hard' policy-based reason; "I just don't think this makes the article better" is fine. What you can't do is just say "get consensus", because all edits are presumed to enjoy consensus and if your only position is "it lacks consensus" then your objection is therefore nonsensical. (Obviously the implication is that you are disputing their edit, but to do so you have to give at least some rationale, and "it lacks consensus" isn't one on its own unless the lack of consensus is already clear.) The point is that you have to state something - you have to give the other editor some indication of why you're removing their work, otherwise you're in violation of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS yourself. If you say "please discuss at Talk" I would say it's also incumbent on you to actually start the discussion, but in theory putting it in your edit summary can be fine if you think it's very simple. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond semantics, I'm not sure how "please discuss at Talk page" is especially different from "get consensus". Both of those should lead to a discussion if the editor who wishes to add the material wishes to pursue it. Of course, if an editor thought an addition was an improvement, they wouldn't have reverted it to begin with. DonIago (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, "all edits are presumed to enjoy consensus" unless and until any editor reverts it or says that s/he disagrees with the edit, at which point the edit is no longer presumed to represent consensus. Once someone (e.g., Doniago) reverts that edit, then we tend to presume that there isn't consensus. (Unfortunately, editors do sometimes revert changes that they believe are improvements. I once proposed that we create a "rule" to not deliberately make edits [yourself] that you personally believe harm the project, but we couldn't get consensus. There were editors who thought that making edits that they opposed showed that they were collegial, and I guess they didn't feel like they could trust the editors who supported a given change to make the edits themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when you revert an edit, you're supposed to provide an explanation as to why. And citing WP:ONUS is not an explanation, because of the presumption of consensus provided by WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS; this means that when someone reverts an otherwise uncontroversial edit and cites ONUS but nothing else, they're misunderstanding and misapplying policy and ought to have that gently explained to them. You could cite ONUS as the sole reason for a revert the second time you remove something from the article, but not the first, because there's no reason to doubt it enjoys consensus at that point. And if someone is constantly reverting while citing only ONUS, that is a serious conduct issue and they need to be (and, historically, will be) sanctioned somehow. None of this is necessarily clear at first glance from looking at ONUS, which many editors are interpreting, incorrectly, as "you don't have to provide any explanation when removing stuff because all the burden is on the person making the edits" - there are definitely editors who read it and think that they can remove edits they disagree with without giving any explanation beyond WP:ONUS, which is completely unacceptable behavior. If you're saying that you think a non-explanation revert (which one that cites only WP:ONUS essentially is) is ever an acceptable way to indicate your initial disagreement with an edit, I strenuously disagree. Doing that is never acceptable and all relevant policy should harshly discourage it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

> when you revert an edit, you're supposed to provide an explanation

See also Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition#Edit summaries. Sometimes reverts should get the most boring, unexplanatory, or automatic edit summary possible.

I'm going to assume that you meant "when you revert an obviously good-faith addition [because ONUS only cares about the addition of information, not its removal or re-writing] of potentially appropriate information". In that case, yes, there should be an explanation, but (a) that explanation doesn't have to be in the edit summary, (b) that explanation doesn't have to be provided to you until you ask for it, and (c) that explanation does not have to WP:SATISFY you. Some people can identify problematic material but have a hard time explaining it in our weird way of talking through shortcuts. If you look a little higher on this page, you'll see a dispute in which someone thought that ONUS was being claimed instead of a proper explanation, but it turns out that ONUS wasn't the actual problem at all. (It was a simple DUE dispute.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My view is that removal of material is a perfectly valid form of challenge. Absolutely not. Edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until a specific objection has been raised; it is completely unacceptable for someone to repeatedly remove something from an article without saying why they are doing so (and WP:ONUS alone can never be used because, again, it enjoys consensus until they state an objection.) I don't think "state why you object" is a high bar - the rationale doesn't need to be strong, but it absolutely must be present. Part of the problem is that otherwise someone can remove material that they have no valid objection to, citing WP:ONUS, then refuse to engage or say anything beyond repeating "seek consensus" repeatedly (leaving discussions with no way to proceed, at least on lower-trafficked pages, without going to the bother of an RFC.) Requiring that they give at least some rationale for reverting specific to the material they want to remove is common sense. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS doesn't require explanations for reverts. "All edits should (emphasis mine) be explained..." As anyone who's been here for any appreciable amount of time knows, edits are reverted without explanation all the time. Of course, editors who regularly delete material without explanation may ultimately be found to be editing disruptively, but I imagine that only tends to happen in fairly egregious cases. DonIago (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but WP:ONUS is currently being interpreted, in many cases, as supporting / encouraging the idea that someone who objects to an edit doesn't need to provide a reason (ie. it's read as "the onus is on you to explain why you want to add this, not on me to explain why I don't want it added, so I'm just gonna remove it, cite WP:ONUS, and refuse to engage further.") That is obviously not the intent and I think everyone here agrees on that much, but it should at least clarify that somehow - even if you read "should" as making it optional (I do not; most conduct issues require long-term problems before actual sanctions come into play, but the fact that it's clearly sanctionable if it keeps happening shows that explaining your reverts is required), that "should" language ought to be reflected on WP:ONUS to make it clear that you should not cite ONUS alone as the reason for a revert unless the lack of consensus is already obvious. And WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS should be at least mentioned somewhere, since it is vital to interpreting WP:ONUS. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way I read it is that you absolutely are not required to provide a reason. If that was the intent, why use "should" instead of "must"? However, if you don't provide a reason and the editor who wants their material included begins a discussion and you don't participate, then you're forfeiting your right to continue to revert the addition. Or, if you prefer, I'm fine with the notion that anyone can revert an edit for any reason they'd like, but if they aren't willing to defend the revert by engaging with the other editor then they should have no reasonable expectation that their revert won't in turn be reverted. Of course, per WP:BRD, ideally when the edit was reverted any editor invested in the addition should have initiated a discussion, not simply reinstated the text in question. DonIago (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPLICITCONSENSUS says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." I see nothing in that sentence that says anything like "until a specific objection has been raised". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely true that WP:ONUS can be misused to stonewall appropriate content, by creating an impossibly high bar for inclusion and by giving veto power to a small number of editors determined to exclude appropriate material. Arguably, that's happening now in the case that I believe prompted this proposed revision. That said, I'm wary of amending the policy, as the proposed change may inadvertently make it easier to abuse WP:ONUS to force inclusion of inappropriate material. I think we're trying to legislate away what is in reality a user-conduct issue, which is unlikely to be successful and may result in more problems down the road. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, I'm wary of amending the policy, as the proposed change may inadvertently make it easier to abuse WP:ONUS to force inclusion of inappropriate material. I don't think that that's a problem as long as we word it properly. What it needs to say is something along the lines of "if you remove material that is not already the subject of a dispute, you need to present at least some rationale for doing so, other than WP:ONUS itself." That's an absolutely minimal bar and if someone can't do that then I am fine with saying they are 100% in the wrong and should not revert; I don't see how it could be used to force anything into an article unless the person trying to remove it cannot think of any justification at all to remove it that would not immediately get them laughed out of the room... and in that case it belongs in the article, surely. It's not like it's hard to say "rv, WP:UNDUE" or the like - if they literally cannot think of anything to say except "get consensus", then they have no actual objection and the material does, in fact, enjoy consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There are potential unintended consequences, but that's why I included the words "when possible" (which is also part of the editing policy). I have seen both ONUS and PRESERVE weaponized, but ONUS seems to have a much higher potential for abuse. My goal with this proposal is not to create an unmanageable rule, but to increase awareness that it's a two sided coin. - MrX 🖋 19:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Some more words might help. @MrX, what do you think about adding words like "strive to preserve or fix appropriate, well-sourced, encyclopedic content"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Sure, that would make it even clearer and address at least some of the concerns raised here. - MrX 🖋 22:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the important thing is that per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, all edits are presumed to enjoy consensus unless someone has raised a specific objection, and that you must specifically state what you object to about an edit in order to deny it that consensus (unless they are unambiguously controversial because there's eg. a relevant discussion in progress, or they violate an existing consensus or policy.) This means that nobody can or should ever cite WP:ONUS alone as the reason to revert something unless it's already clearly the locus of an existing dispute - when reverting, you need to raise an objection that can, in theory, be discussed or addressed. Just saying "rv, get consensus" is not only against policy, it needs to be discouraged because it doesn't lead to meaningful discussion (how is someone supposed to obtain consensus when they don't know what aspect of their edit is objectionable?) So I agree that WP:ONUS should specifically state something to this effect - something along the lines of Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, edits are presumed to enjoy consensus unless a specific objection has been raised to them; therefore, ONUS alone should never be used as the reason to revert an edit unless the lack of consensus is already clear. Anyone reverting or removing material from an article has an obligation to state a specific reason they are doing so, and WP:ONUS alone cannot be used as such a reason unless another objection has already been raised or the lack of consensus is otherwise clear. I think that at the very least WP:ONUS must mention WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which is vital to understanding it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I put some stuff there.

I disagree and you don't have consensus for it.

Then you need to fix it.

No...you...you don't have consensus for it. So you need to go get consensus.

Nope. It's you're problem now. I put it in the article and now it's your problem to fix it, in any way possible other than removing it.

That's pretty much how I see this going. GMG^talk 18:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is how it already goes due to the problem this suggestion is trying to fix. In your example, I feel the point where discussion became non-productive was with the blue editor's first comment; the person in blue absolutely must state why they disagree in their first statement if they want to raise an objection. It doesn't have to be a good or strong objection (even something as simple as "not an improvement" is fine), but they have to state something in order to start discussions, they can't just revert with no rationale. The reason your example discussion derailed into empty back-and-forth is entirely because the person in blue, due to the current WP:ONUS, thought they didn't have to give a rationale for their removal; that's a mistake we need to fix. I have seen breakdowns like the one you describe constantly. I would say the person in green is 100% in the right (they made a good-faith edit and it was reverted with no explanation, which is against policy.) The person in blue is 100% in the wrong - seriously, user-conduct-level in the wrong, if they're doing this frequently - and ought to be sanctioned for disruptive stonewalling if they keep that nonsense up. When you revert you have to provide at least some reason unless the reason is already clear, that's just basic policy. "I disagree and you don't have consensus for it" is not a reason - "I disagree" isn't a reason, obviously, and "you don't have consensus for it" isn't valid alone per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with IMPLICITCONSENSUS is that a removal is a challenge to any previous implicit consensus. Since consensus can change, a NEW consensus is needed to resolve the challenge. That means going to the talk page and discussing. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it—our patchwork of policies and guideline is ripe for abuse by anyone who is clever enough to use them that way. My interest is with the editors of good faith who are not as familiar will all of our content policies. - MrX 🖋 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the issues here is the time factor. X boldly adds content that Y finds to be a problem and removes some time later. If that it within a day or so, then at this point, ONUS would seem to be on X to get consensus. If that is months later (which no other changes otherwise to X's content), now the ONUS has shifted to Y to get consensus to remove. A question is how long that time frame is before the onus shifts from X to Y, which to me is on the order of a month (the same time we usually give RFCs). Obviously, this excludes content that would fall under 3RRNO like obvious BLP vios. Further, Y's reason to remove should be justified; if Y simply just undid without comment (within the day), X should be able to revert though obviously we want to avoid the engagement in an edit war. But if Y gives a fair reason, like "Possible BLP violation" then that's where discussion should start on the talk page to discuss ONUS. --Masem (t) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that true. I'm not sure I have even seen someone try to restore content while claiming that ONUS is required to remove it, but technically it does seem to fall under the spirit of this part of the policy. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as this leads, ONUS and PRESERVE work hand-in-hand, and that should mean it applies to new additions that are challenges, as well as removals of "long-standing" material (where I'm saying long-standing is material that hasn't been challenged since addition for at least a month, and that includes any talk page discussions). It's a give-and-take aspect here because if you don't include removal alongside addition, you given one direction too much "power" here in debates. --Masem (t) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Masem's describing BRD, which is not how ONUS operates. ONUS is specific to whether information is included at all, which is not precisely the same as whether a given edit is good, or whether some "status quo version" or "stable version" should be prioritized over others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For all purposes, ONUS and BRD all extend from the same principle that we want editors to minimize disruption and work collaboratively, avoiding edit wars. ONUS is more tailored to verifyability, but its same arguments apply all across the board, even though its written towards inclusion of verified material. It's best to think of this issue holistically, not limited to this one situation. --Masem (t) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an improvement, this is already covered by the text related to Note 3. And it's a bad idea to make clear consensus less effective. The practice of inclusion is exceedingly small in burden, almost non-existent (A single editor without others writes: 'Supported arguably relevant statement.CITE'), and ONUS is basically the only way to check. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 3 is kind of useless, similar to printing the Lord's Prayer on a grain of rice. It's in a completely different part of the page, and really doesn't address the issue at hand anyway. I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. - MrX 🖋 19:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not reassuring in the least to have a proposal based on not knowing what is in Core policy. And it's in the first section of the core policy and to claim not to know the first section of core policy is bad policy writing. In Wikipedia, adding is easy, what is hard is broad research, summarizing, and actual editing, and because these are really hard, they need strong encouragement in policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree that we should emphasize the difficulty of editing, since that would seem to be at odds with our charter. Explaining a core policy in relationship to other policies would seem to be one of the objectives of a well written policy page. - MrX 🖋 19:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is chartered as a curated encyclopedia, its charter is explicitly not to take whatever anyone wants to add. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverting is also easy, though. What we want to encourage is not blind "rv, get consensus per WP:ONUS" reverts, but back-and-forth that addresses the actual underlying objections and possible ways to resolve them - this means that WP:ONUS needs to make it clear that reverting requires discussion and engagement. As written, WP:ONUS is sometimes counterproductive in that regard. Another way of looking at it is this - productive discussions happen when both sides have a reason to come to the table. If WP:ONUS is interpreted as too one-sided (ie. making for a default situation where people who object to the material have no obligation to do anything at all, even participate in discussions beyond saying "get consensus"), then it derails discussions and makes it harder to improve articles. We want to make it clear that contributions require consensus and that objections have to be addressed, yes. But reverting should require an actual specific objection - the purpose of our policy on consensus should be to encourage people to work together and reach consensus, and currently WP:ONUS is sometimes undermining that due to a perception that it places absolutely all the responsibility on one party, freeing people who object to additions from any obligation to explain their position beyond pointing at WP:ONUS itself. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing, as it is plainly the case that Wikipedia has no difficulty adding and adding and adding without end. The difficulty is and always has been in actually researching, writing, editing, and producing good encyclopedia articles on which there is editorial consensus. For goodness sake, this proposal sprung from whether a single sentence or part of a sentence should or should not be placed in a single section of a full article, when there is surely no shortage, whatsoever, of content there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with MrX that ONUS is used to exclude content editors don't like, and it shouldn't be. Benjamin (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the same time, I have seen some people when they remove content under valid BLP concerns, be told they are removing content because of a "you don't like that" argument and thus wasn't a valid removal. We need some level of good faith assumption here but we also want those that repeatedly "cry wolf" not to be able to abuse the process. There's a needed balance here that can go out of whack either way. --Masem (t) 19:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When all of the editors at the article are just trying to make it a good article, once material passes test of not being clearly excluded by policies or core quidelines, a weighted decision is made base on degree of compliance with those, plus other considerations such as how controversial the assertion is, degree of wp:relevance, weight based on simply good editing, usefulness of the material, strength of sourcing, and others. When the objective becomes to POV an article, then that process goes out the window and wikilawyering takes over, looking for individual policies and guidelines to force inclusion or exclusion. I think that when someone is doing that, the "besides just citing the policy, please state your concern" concept proposed above should become the widespread norm. Such is just a good faith filter; the person would not be required make or win the case for their concern/objection. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm thinking aloud here, but I'm wondering if a flow chart to demonstrate how onus may apply or what steps one does in challenging material would help ultimately in presenting the practice of ONUS. We need to come to an agreement on how it works obviously, and its something we can't hold anyone's feet to the fire to, but clearly we should have something that could be easily followed if there are questions "okay, where are we with respect to ONUS on this edit war..." --Masem (t) 20:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's really that complicated. All edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until someone raises a specific objection to them. Once someone has done so, those in favor of the edit must reach or demonstrate consensus to continue (caveat: longstanding text is generally presumed to enjoy consensus unless there's a reason otherwise.) WP:ONUS comes into play once an objection (any objection) has been raised, but the presumption of consensus means that ONUS itself can never be the sole reason to revert an edit - someone must first state some specific objection to break the presumption of consensus. I don't think it's particularly onerous or unusual to require that people who are reverting an edit must provide some objection, no matter how brief or simple, to use as a starting point for discussions, and I think that on the whole current policy does require it already. Part of the reason WP:ONUS is a particular recurring problem (and part of the reason it constantly comes up in terms of leading to intractable or unproductive disputes) is because it is somewhat out of step with the rest of our policy in this regard, putting far more burden on one side and far less on the other; it has historically had far less discussion than most of our dispute-resolution policies. This also shows itself in the way that ONUS conflicts with the way RFCs work, in that as written someone at the start of a (non-WP:BLP) dispute can say "this material has been here for a while but I object to it and you must meet ONUS to keep it", then it goes to an RFC, reaches no consensus, and the result is "the material stays because no-consensus defaults to status quo ante bellum, not removal." The fact that ONUS conflicts with our current practice and most other policies leads to unproductive clashes and even edit-wars where both sides in a dispute think that policy and practice backs them up. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm thinking a lot larger here. Something that would start with "you are about to add something to an article. do you think it is contentious?" if yes "consider getting consensus on the talk page before adding", - that type of level, where ONUS is part of the bigger picture. But I could be overthinking this too. --Masem (t) 22:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Several editors have tried to add flow charts to Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm doubtful that anyone has made a complete flow chart, or that it would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a hot-button topic where the interpretation of ONUS is currently holding things up is at Aziz Ansari. (I've asked for administrator assistance but I have yet to receive a response.[5]) I restored the stable version[6] with the edit summary: Restore stable version before edit war. Please collaborate on assault allegation text to avoid continuing conflicts. I absentmindedly assumed that my objections to the changes would be understood based on the talk page discussion, but later in the discussion I clarified that I disagreed with the interpretation of the sources. This explanation was not considered sufficient apparently (or the argument may be that ONUS does not apply to non-controversial edits.)[7] I have no idea if the ONUS policy needs to be changed or clarified to address this, and I have no idea how to proceed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut That discussion (in which I'm a very minor participant) is going nowhere. It's time to use another type of WP:DR to break the deadlock. Possibly mediation or an RfC. Now, do you have to comment on the proposal above? - MrX 🖋 22:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to RfC; it's an entire paragraph where many changes against consensus are being made. Absent any direction or admin assistance the next step is for me to repeat my reversion and if it is reverted I don't know what else to do other than go to the edit-warring noticeboard. That discussion is going nowhere? I haven't yet begun the discussion other than to ask that ONUS be respected so we can begin collaborating on what to change. Unless you mean start an RfC on whether ONUS applies? That's the only deadlock. Examples in this proposal discussion describe a situation which currently exists, so, does this situation at Aziz Ansari illustrate the problem? If so, how can edits to the ONUS policy clarify how to proceed in such a situation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, the "thing to RFC" is whether any of those changes have consensus. If you look at the RFC at the end of Wikipedia talk:External links, you'll see some formatting that would let people vote for version A or version B, if you think that nuance might be unhelpful at the moment. Alternatively, sometimes the better result is a compromise between two disputed versions (i.e., not using any of the existing wording, and starting over from scratch). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure if I'm explaining the situation clearly. There are no two versions to !vote for. There was a stable version for months, and then four days ago many changes have been made to the section, virtually all of them against consensus.[8] (Although there is now consensus on the lead.) The changes have not even been discussed. Editors have repeatedly stated that ONUS should be respected. It only makes sense for the stable version to be restored so that me may discuss the proposed changes. We cannot have an RfC if there has been no discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in replying, Kolya Butternut. There is no requirement to discuss changes in advance. ONUS is not meant to require people to obtain written permission in advance of editing an article. It is not meant to give special rights to some previous "stable" version. The fact that a given phrasing or approach to an article is "longstanding" does not give it special value.

When there are a lot of small changes, rather than two, then editors may be able to simplify the discussion by taking each severable change separately. For example, you can start a quick discussion about whether it's better to say "an article on the now-defunct Millennial/Gen-Z women's website Babe.net by Katie Way" or "an article on Babe.net by Katie Way". And so forth, through all the smaller changes that can be discussed separately. There's already a large discussion in the talk page about the overall balance, and discussions about small points may be quicker and simpler than either overall balance or suggesting that we start over from a particular old version.

My main encouragement to you is to remember that you never have to wait for the other editor to start the discussion. If you think edits need to be discussed, you can immediately start that discussion yourself. Reverting first is not a requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I still feel we're talking past each other. An editor made edits which I felt were against policy, I reverted them, he reinstated them, and I felt that he demanded that I discuss my objection to each edit before each should be undone, essentially reversing the onus. No one is suggesting there is a requirement that changes must be discussed in advance. I disagree that a longstanding, stable version does not have special value; it has the value of consensus, which new challenged edits do not. The elephant in the room is the disruptiveness that has occurred there. You said that reverting first is not a requirement, but respecting the reversions of challenged text until a consensus can be achieved is a requirement, otherwise it is an edit war. At the moment, however, my reversion remains. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The longstanding, stable version does not have a value of consensus, as of the moment when the other editor wants to change it. The fact that someone changes it is a piece of evidence that the longstanding, stable version might not be the true "consensus version".

Respecting the reversion of challenged text is not a firm requirement. It's a good idea in most cases, but it's not a firm requirement. In particular, ONUS says that if the challenged edit is to remove content, then the content stays out until there is a consensus to include it. Looking at your reversion here, the person violating ONUS is you. User:SPECIFICO removed this sentence with an edit summary of "No consensus for this in lead of BLP". The next day, you added the disputed content back in. ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Note the word I underlined: it's "inclusion", not "making changes" or "removing disputed content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, the lead is not what I have been discussing here. As I tried to explain to you above, there is consensus that there is no consensus on the lead. As for your interpretation of WP:ONUS, it is my understanding that Masem, at least, does not share your interpretation. I cannot discuss with you how to handle a situation where ONUS was not being respected if we do not agree on the interpretation of ONUS (and if you are unfamiliar with which edits I am actually discussing.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know his opinion about whether ONUS you to achieve consensus for including that disputed content, rather than making the person who wants to exclude it demonstrate a consensus for removing it, then we can just ask him:

@Masem, ONUS says that the person who wants to include disputed content has to achieve consensus for that. Kolya says that there is no consensus including this material in the lead. Per ONUS, do you think Kolya should be sticking the disputed content back into the lead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya's talking about a body paragraph that's in dispute, not the lead in Ansari article. It was changed in March 2020 (IIRC) and then has been under a slow edit/reversion war since, more heated recently. This is where ONUS would be IMO for any changes from the pre-March version. --Masem (t) 20:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, the disputed content that Kolya added before achieving consensus to do so was first added in April 2020. Does that mean that you think Kolya's action to re-add the disputed matter complies with ONUS?

(Yes, I know that Kolya would like us to focus on other edits, but the rules are the same for both sides, and if you come here to complain that the other guy has edited with achieving consensus first, then IMO you ought to not do exactly the same thing in exactly the same article a few days later.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disagreeing with you that when I reinserted the text in the lead I did so improperly; it was an oversight. Please discontinue this thread. I am finding it disruptive to rehash settled disputes while ignoring the issue at hand (but which has actually cooled off at the moment). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, which time was it "an oversight", KB? Was the oversight the first time you reinserted it? or was the oversight the second time you reinserted it? That BLP violation had been removed by multiple editors previous to your first reinsertion. It was an edit-war in progress. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The oversight was thinking it was longstanding text. But that mistake of mine has no bearing on the present discussion, which is fruitless, so please do not respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Because once it was identified by multiple editors and removed as a BLP violation, "longstanding" had nothing to do with it. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with my understanding of why I felt it was proper to remove the text. I had been unaware of the BLP exception to ONUS, and there appeared to be no BLP violation. Please stop making statements which I feel require me to defend myself. I have no interest in this thread. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "BLP exception to ONUS". BLP is our core policy. Anyway, ONUS is about keeping verified but UNDUE content out of articles, not blocking article improvement by claiming the status quo trumps valid uncontroversial improvements. I believe @MrX: explained that to you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Ansari&diff=975033815&oldid=974896328 early in your second "ONUS" edit war. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:ONUS redirects to Verifiability which is a core content policy, and it supports the removal of material that shouldn't be included: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The purpose of ONUS is what this discussion is asking to eliminate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right, we know that. That's why we're here on the Verifiability talk page!❤ As you point out, however, ONUS is about omitting verified information, and not about keeping stale information after it's been improved by ordinary edits. Now of course some ordinary edits are not improvements. But the current situation that KB reverted en masse a set of ordinary edits while repeatedly declining to disclose or discuss what perceived problems warranted that revert. And then she started citing WP:ONUS instead of telling anyone why the reverts. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false narrative. If you want to argue, ping me to your talk page. And the focus on me for reinstating well-sourced factual text into the lead, which three other editors had also done[9],[10],[11], is only distracting from the controversial WP:NPOV and WP:V-violating edits you made which you had reinstated against consensus.[12] The ONUS is on you to discuss your edits; you have only demanded that I justify my reversions and shown no interest in explaining your edits.[13] (But you did question whether the word "polarised" was found in sources. It is: the Ansari case is "one of the most polarised cases of the 'Me Too' moment".[14] Please continue this discussion elsewhere; correcting all of your false statements is taking up too much space here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where WhatamIdoing is looking: [15] is the first key edit that Kolya did in April 2020 which was to RESTORE the preview removal of body text from the article, this after a bit of mess in the lede. Before that, there was no issue with the inclusion of the allegations since they first arose in Jan 2019 that I could see. That's long-standing that Kolya was properly restoring as best as I can tell. Everything since that April 2020 has been slow edit war fighting over that. --Masem (t) 01:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How it really works (when it works) is that many factors are taken into consideration when making a decision to have the material there / not there. And "onus" and "preserve" sort of say the status quo gets a bit of influence as one of those factors. Or to say that using the borderline case as an example. "IF all other factors are equal, the status quo prevails". Despite the "many factors are taken into consideration" being how wikipedia actually works, the structure of policies and guidelines relevant to that process never structurally acknowledges that and instead each one strives to define what should overall happen relative to just itself which creates a logical mess but then the squishy wikipedia systems finds a way to make it mostly work despite that. MrX's proposal is sort of two proposals:

• One is a sort of "what should happen overall" statement: "Editors should strive to preserve or fix content when possible" which IMO tries replace the entire described process with one sentence, which IMO would be problematic
• The other in essence says "do not use WP:ONUS as the only reason for removing or opposing it the presence of material." which I think is an excellent proposal. It's not a "change", it's a statement of how wikipedia works (when it does) that needs saying. Some other ideas proposed above would also be good procedural corollary add-ons to this. In essence saying "don't just invoke wp:onus, add some statement about your concern or concerns with the material when doing so."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the others above that ONUS has been misused in some instances. Simply throwing up your hands and pointing to ONUS and saying "there is no consensus" isn't a valid reason for keeping content out of an article. There needs to be a reason, grounded in policy, to exclude the content. -- Calidum 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not make it clear; what is the difference between ONUS and BRD? It almost seems like ONUS makes BRD mandatory. (At least in situations where changes are too contentious to be PRESERVED.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found MASEM's 13:39, 28 August 2020 comment above explaining this. Do folks agree with that interpretation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see this as a needed change. What it promotes is a good idea in practice but shouldn't come across as a requirement of ONUS. I don't recall any cases of ONUS being used as a sole justification though I'm sure it happens. Looking back at the edit summaries of the recent article that raised the ONUS question at AN, ONUS was never used as a sole reason for reversion. In general terms, I agree that reverting newly added content and citing ONUS alone is not going to go far. Consider if MrGreen adds new content. MrBlue removes it with the sole comment "ONUS". MrBlue might as well have said NO CONSENSUS. Both indicate that the edit was rejected but offer little actionable feedback. Absent a meaningful objection is should be easy for MrGreen to follow BRD and make a case for inclusion. When the opposing reason is an implied "I don't like it", it should be reasonably easy to persuade other editors to MrGreen's POV. Yes, it may be frustrating for MrGreen to have to better articulate why the text should be included but is that really a bad thing? If MrBlue actually has good arguments in mind but failed to make them the talk page discussion should bring them out. While I can't cite a specific case, I suspect most cases of "ONUS" occur when a discussion has occurred, no consensus has been reached but an editor decides to restore the contested material anyway. So if MrGreen restores his disputed edit, MrBlue or another opposing editor could reasonably say "ONUS" as the reason for a follow on reversion as it indicates the discussion has not resulted in a consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that if editors are going to be challenging additions or removals on ONUS, the lack of a reason is going to hurt them, and as a counterpoint to that, they will strongly boost their case is that after such a reversion, they are at the talk page in a new section explaining their revert and while they think it is a problem. Doesn't mean that it is necessarily a "good" reason, but it shows that the user is questioning the addition. But again, this is not a process to be gamed; if this is the twentieth time the user has brought up a compliant on roughly the same material despite previous consensus , that's an issue too, but that's single editor behavior problems. But in general, we want editors to speak out why they think ONUS needs to apply, and the earlier and more verbose they are, the better to which other, uninvolved editors can judge the situation. --Masem (t) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No change necessary - when material is challenged, ONUS is an important safeguard in our core content policies and an integral part of the consensus building process. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme, looking at the above claims about "status quo" and "long-standing" text, I wonder whether we do need a change, specifically to say that ONUS applies regardless of whether an editor believes that the disputed content is "status quo" or "long-standing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent point, WAID. I agree that just because something is long standing, it neither automatically belongs nor should it automatically stay - The longest running hoax comes to mind. We also have situations of old news that requires updating/replacement. I would certainly consider changing my position with a little tweaking of the proposed changes - maybe add a footnote - and also include clarification of long standing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned this above, but I feel that the key to long-standing text is that it has an implicit consensus from the number of eyes that have seen it and accepted it. Every time someone edits a section and leaves something in, that represents a (slight, but still meaningful) endorsement of the text they retained, and over an extended period of time this builds up to a consensus that requires that an editor demonstrate that that implicit consensus has been overturned if they want to remove that bit. The implication of this is that it isn't really time but edits (or perhaps "editors that have viewed this text without removing it") that really matters. Any longstanding text on Donald Trump unequivocally enjoys consensus and (if anyone objected to its removal) would require a demonstrated consensus otherwise to remove. Longstanding text on a less-trafficked article, on the other hand, might have a weaker consensus or even none at all (if there's reason to think few people actually saw it.) A corollary to this is that more visible text builds implicit consensus faster - if something is longstanding in the lead of a high-traffic article, it definitely enjoys implicit consensus; an obscure detail in a footnote 3/4ths of the way down the article might not enjoy the same support. Another advantage to this interpretation is that it encourages stability in highly-visible areas, where it is more important - that need for stability is part of the reason status quo ante bellum has always been part of our policy regarding disputes with no clear consensus, and is part of the reason the interpretation of WP:ONUS that allows for the removal of longstanding text without a consensus has clearly never been supported practice, but on an article or area that few people see, it is less pressing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an important point, but it does not address OP's issue. ONUS is about due weight, not QUO. There is also related discussion at Bradv's talk page RE 1rr. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If ONUS is primarily about WP:DUE, then maybe it should be in that policy instead of this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ONUS doesn't say anything about WP:DUE. WP:ONUS just means that claiming WP:V is not enough to make disputed changes without achieving consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's incorrect. Per OP, it is not about "disputed changes". It is about what is included. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic an editor can blank large sections of consensus text from an article and cite ONUS to argue that the text must remain out pending discussion. According to Bradv[16] and El C,[17] WP:ONUS is about disputed changes. (Sorry about the pings, but this disagreement will just not end.) Unless there is an obvious BLP violation, the ONUS is on the editor(s) who want make disputed changes which would add, remove, or alter text in the consensus version. Perhaps ONUS should be added to the WP:CONSENSUS policy as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  During a dispute, especially during a complex dispute of the sort that prompted this discussion, nobody actually knows which version is "the consensus version". Therefore I conclude that the actual effect of privileging "the consensus version" would be exactly the same as saying "the WP:QUO version" in the same place.

  For example, when you reverted to what you call "the stable version", so that "Ansari briefly receded from the public eye following the incident, then began in May of 2018 to return to the stage" turned back into "Ansari receded from the public eye following the incident, and beginning in May of 2018 he began slowly returning to the stage", you'd have said that was "the consensus version", wouldn't you have? (What surprises me is only that you thought that it was worth reverting.)

  But: the whole point of a content dispute is that an editor disagrees that the "status quo version" actually has consensus! That editor might be right or wrong, but once there's an obvious dispute underway, you have to reach consensus before you can declare any version to be "the conensus version". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Per MrX, ONUS is required to remove text "under the spirit of this part of the policy",[18] and per Masem ONUS "applies to new additions that are challenges, as well as removals of "long-standing" material".[19] I'll spare the pings; I think there is consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I've been pinged to this conversation, I'll try to offer some thoughts about ONUS. Fundamental to this discussion is the fact that ONUS is part of the Verifiability policy, and a corollary to it. In essence it says that just because information is verifiable does not mean it automatically goes in the article. There may be other reasons to exclude it, and it is still subject to consensus. It does not mean that information can be excluded just because consensus hasn't been formed yet, nor does it mean that the current version is always endorsed and any additions have to go through an RfC. It certainly does not mean that any editor can remove whatever they want without explaining themselves or appealing to other policies, guidelines, or precedents.
  By way of example, consider the process of creating a new article. If you write a brand new article, I can't just delete it "per ONUS". I would have to present a valid reason for its deletion, such as it not being notable, not being verifiable, or not being encyclopedic. And then we take that argument to the community in the form of an AfD, wherein other editors can weigh in as to whether we need an article on the subject you just wrote about. While that conversation happens, the article stays.
  Of course there are a few important differences between adding content to an existing article and creating a new article. The former has a history, it has precedents, it has vested contributors, it has readers. A new article has less of those things. But without being able to create new content and write new things, we would not have an encyclopedia. This is important for those advocating a liberal application of ONUS to remember. Yes, the burden to get consensus for additions lies with the author of the content, but all other collaborators need to be willing to express their arguments for why the content does not belong, and those arguments need to be based on prior consensus (policies, guidelines, precedents). In short, I DON'T LIKE IT is not a valid reason for removing other people's hard work. Remember, it's easier to destroy than to create. Vandals destroy, Wikipedians create. – bradv🍁 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bradv, thank you, but I'm not sure if that addresses the point of contention. If Editor A adds Verifiable text to a consensus version and Editor B removes the text citing Policy 1, the ONUS will be on Editor A to achieve consensus before restoring the text. Now, if Editor C removes Verifiable text from a consensus version citing Policy 2, and Editor D restores the text disagreeing with Policy 2 or citing Policy 3, will the ONUS be on Editor C to achieve consensus before removing the text? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See below Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to Bradv's comments above, I think ONUS is really just centralizing an idea that exists already but is spread over other policies. I don't think anyone disagrees that all that is verifiable is not always DUE for inclusion (perhaps I should use BALASP instead of DUE?). I may be able to verify the tire pressure for a Boeing 747-200 but such information is probably not significant enough to make it into the Wikipedia article. How would we decide if such a fact should be included? Well if consensus via discussion says it should be included. If consensus doesn't support inclusion then I'm in the wrong if I add it anyway. Thus ONUS is just codifying that I need my newly added material to pass VERIFY, and CONSENSUS before it is included. Presumably to pass CONSENSUS it will have to have shown it was DUE for inclusion.
  So what about ONUS and removal? Well let's assume I did add that tire pressure to the 747 article and two years later someone noticed and wanted to remove it. We'll again ONUS will apply. I can say it should remain and now we have a debate about WEIGHT/DUE and CONSENSUS will decide if it remains. The fact that it's been in the article for a while means it has a small SILENT consensus. In my view that means if you have an exact 50/50 split with equal policy arguments (often a case where editorial judgement is the real decider) then I give a slight lean towards the status quo version of the article. Call it a 51% for status quo. That is still a no-consensus resulting in status quo. In my opinion this matters in the specific case of 2 vs 1 editor disputes. I feel that over 2/3rds is generally a consensus result. If the 2 editors favor a status quo result I would call that consensus. If the 2 editors favor a chance I would say they don't have consensus because of the slight edge given to status quo. Still, that's my opinion. Anyway, in a case like my beloved tire pressure I think it would be hard to defend it's inclusion absent some additional facts. If my only source was a service manual then it would be easy to say RS's don't talk about this fact thus weight isn't clear thus CONSENSUS to remove. Thus the ONUS on showing that the tire pressure is DUE is still on me as the editor who wants it in. That is true even though it was part of the article for some time. So even though it was RS'ed to say a service manual, it had poor sourcing in terms of our hierachy of RS and thus poor WEIGHT. CONSENSUS was against on grounds of WEIGHT and the long standing text is removed. ONUS wasn't so much the reason to remove as the mechanism by which it was removed. If I tried to put it back in other editors could say the ONUS to show it should be included is on me, not those who want to remove it. Springee (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's helpful to have detailed examples, but to start with the simple question, would you say the answer to my question above is yes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• But actually I don't think your example works...you're saying there would be consensus to remove because your sources are bad. That's not how consensus works. If you think your bad sources are good, and two editors think your bad sources are bad, because the ONUS is on them to remove the text the text will remain until another sensible editor comes along to tell you your sources are bad. Unless there is an obvious BLP violatioin, editors cannot override your !vote just because you're wrong. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to be careful with calling the source "bad". The Boeing factory service manuals need to be legally right else lives are at risk. I would argue they are about the most authoritative source when it comes to that particular number. As such I think the number passes V with flying colors. The issue is if such information is little more than trivia in the Wikipedia article. Presumably if I had access to the service manuals I could fill the wiki article with things that are factually correct but of trivial WEIGHT. ONUS is saying that just because my source passes V doesn't mean it has WEIGHT for inclusion. A CONSENSUS discussion will decide if it has WEIGHT. If yes then it stays. ONUS is saying that question of due WEIGHT can happen even if the content is long standing. If someone says this material has no weight then it's up to those who want to include it to establish that weight via the consensus process. Springee (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Service manuals are "reliable". They aren't "independent", and they aren't "secondary", which are qualities that matter a lot more for determining DUE/BALASP questions than for merely determining whether the source can be relied upon to verify the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was split off from #ONUS, above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This basic question needs a direct answer, perhaps an RfC is due? I propose the following text:

Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?

For example: according to WP:ONUS, if Editor A adds Verifiable text to a consensus version and Editor B disputes the addition by citing Policy 1, the ONUS will be on Editor A to achieve consensus to add the text.

The question is: if Editor C removes Verifiable text from a consensus version citing Policy 2, and Editor D disputes the removal by disagreeing with Policy 2 or citing Policy 3, will the ONUS be on Editor C to achieve consensus to remove the text?

Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused... in your scenario, Editor C has ALREADY met any potential ONUS, as they have stated a reason for removing the text (C thinks it violates Policy 2). The ONUS is now on those who wish to keep the disputed text to achieve consensus that it does NOT, in fact, violate policy 2. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor C cited policy 2 to remove consensus text, and Editor D disagreed with the policy 2 violation or cited policy 3 to retain the text. The ONUS is with Editor C. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No... it is still up to Editor D to convince Editor C (as well as Editors E, F, G, H, etc) that policy 2 is being misunderstood, or that Policy 3 somehow negates Policy 2. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So would the RfC question I posed answer whether your interpretation or mine is the correct interpretation of policy (or what the policy should be)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not. The ONUS is still on those who wish to add or keep the disputed material. In this case, They need to demonstrate that their interpretation of policy has consensus. If they can successfully do that, then they can apply that interpretation to the content dispute. But if their interpretation of policy is flawed, then they have not met the ONUS on the content dispute. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, I've been wondering for a few weeks whether ONUS is about "disputed text" vs "disputed fact". There are many ways to present a given bit of information, which means that it's possible to dispute Presentation #1 of Fact A, without disputing whether the article should say something about Fact A.

To use the tire-pressure example above, I could support inclusion of a fact about tire pressure, supported by the cited source, but still object to having the exact pressure readings for the different types of tires under different conditions spelled out in a long paragraph or table. If I'm willing to include a fact ("Tire pressure is about six times the typical pressure for a car tire") and someone else wants to spell out that this means between 200 and 205 psi as measured on cold tires while the ambient temperature is 15±10 °C, but 220 psi when the weather's hot, and 190 when it's cold and there's a formula for guessing the pressure when the wheels are hot (but you really shouldn't use it), then I'm not sure that ONUS applies at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My first thought was this question is easy to answer, ONUS makes no exclusion/limitation for new text only. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. However, in thinking about my reply I can see a potential conflict with how we often operate so I think the question is fair but not articulated well.
  Consider a case where [Factoid] is long standing. Editors Q and R present reasonable arguments that the content is not DUE and remove it. Editors S and T present reasonable arguments that the content is due and restore it. We now have no-consensus on inclusion of the [Factoid]. If ONUS applies to all content, new and established then, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", suggests that Editors S and T have failed to get consensus for continued inclusion thus the [Factoid] is removed. However, NOCON says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". So NOCON says the article should be restored to it's prior state. Thus in the specific case of no-consensus regarding the removal of verifiable content it appears ONUS says no-consensus means remove while NOCONSENSUS says restore. Since ONUS and NOCON are both part of policy this appears to be a direct policy conflict.
  Note: This question would not apply if the new edit wasn't a question of removal of content, for example a change in text order or edit to the lead that doesn't remove content from the body of the article. Springee (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, although it does make sense to find where we disagree, the purpose of this new section is to discuss whether to have an RfC and what text to use. The long complicated examples in the previous discussion above distracted from a simple question. Would you change your Editor identification letters? It's confusing to use the same names for different scenarios from the RfC proposed text.

The question I pose does apply to any disputed changes, including text order and edits to the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is you need to clearly articulate where you think there is a disconnect. I don't think your current question does that. I think my scenario makes it clear that in that case we have a conflict between ONUS and NOCON assuming ONUS will apply to existing content as well as new. If it only applies to new then ONUS and NOCON don't conflict. Springee (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What RfC text would you propose to address the disconnect which you perceive? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, about "We now have no-consensus on inclusion of the [Factoid]", I will add that we now equally have no-consensus on the exclusion of the [Factoid]. ONUS puts its thumb on the scale and says that [Factoid] should be excluded.

I think NOCON (which I wrote; it is a summary of rules and practices that are defined elsewhere) is wrong. I think it should be updated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that in a case like my hypothetical, [Factoid] should be removed correct? I personally don't have a preference but I can see a situation like this coming up as a RfC. If a closing editor agrees that the discussion is a clear no-consensus, should the closing editor then say "material goes per ONUS" or "changes are rolled back (material stays)" per NOCON? Is this specific conflict something that should be discussed and resolved via a RfC? I don't have a feeling as to which way is better. Has this been discussed in the past? Springee (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, you created the WP:NOCON policy, but you didn't add the relevant text which states that no consensus to remove content results in the content being kept. The first editor (who is currently active) who edited the relevant policy text is Born2cycle. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process for ONUS looks more like this:

If:

1. The article contained [Factoid], where [Factoid] is a verifiable piece of information.
   1. How long the article has contained [Factoid] is irrelevant to ONUS.
   2. Who added [Factoid] is irrelevant to ONUS.
2. Carol removed [Factoid].
   1. Carol's edit happens under circumstances that a reasonable editor would believe that there is some good-faith, potentially good reason for removing it (e.g., it is not obvious vandalism, it is not a ridiculous edit, etc.). A simple example is that Carol's edit summary said something like "Rm trivia per WP:DUE".
   2. Carol's apparent goal is that [Factoid] not be mentioned in the article. (Simple example: Carol's edit summary is not something like "Rm bad grammar".)
3. Dan wants the article to include [Factoid].

then:

• Dan may not insist that the article contain [Factoid], either now or in the (near) future, unless and until Dan can demonstrate that there is a consensus for doing so.

This means:

• Dan may revert Carol (what if it was a mistake?) if Wikipedia:Reverting seems like a reasonable response, but probably only once.
  • No response suggests a silent consensus.
  • Re-reverting or complaints on the talk page indicate that Dan needs to show evidence of a consensus to include [Factoid].
• Dan may make a bold edit that attempts to find consensus through compromise, e.g., by including [Factoid] in a different section, with more sources, using different phrasing, etc.
• Dan may start a discussion (an RFC might be overkill). The result of the discussion could be:
  • Consensus to include: Dan can add [Factoid] to the article.
  • Consensus to exclude: Dan cannot add [Factoid] to this article.
  • (True) No consensus: Dan cannot add [Factoid] to this article at this time. Dan is welcome to keep trying to form a consensus for its inclusion at a later date.
  • The result of the discussion, however, should never be summarized as "per ONUS" or "per NOCON". Those are procedures, not content policies. The result ideally would be summarized as something like "Editors agree that [Factoid] should be included because it is neutral and verifiable" or "Editors do not agree to include [Factoid] because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

As for the procedure, since I installed that part of NOCON without an RFC in the first place, I don't think we need an RFC to improve it. The key point is figuring out whether the community actually wants more BRD/QUO (better for article expanders) or ONUS (better for people trying to keep garbage out of the mainspace). We shouldn't continue with the current system of having two contradictory rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... I should add that it's possible to have both rules, without a contradiction, if you apply ONUS to inclusion/exclusion questions, and the BRD/QUO to everything else (e.g., phrasing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the artfully stated hypothetical that begs the central question: Did the removal constitute a change to a "consensus"? There are millions of infrequently-edited low quality and sparsely watched articles on Wikipedia that we are all working to improve over time. The proposition that an editor can call any old content "consenus" merely because it's stood for X weeks or months is contrary to every principle of editing here. Note that KB is engaged in a campaign to restore an old deprocated version of a certain article now repeatedly, incorrectly, and at exhaustive length citing "ONUS" despite a clear consensus among recent editors that the current version is an improvement. So it might appear that any improvement of policies and guidelines is secondary here. Please folks, let's not encourage an RfC based on a miscast hypothetical scenario with 7-8 undefined variables. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes too many words to explain how you have conflated a small piece of truth with a large amount of falsity, and I don't want to get too distracted, but I will point out my relevant comment in the talk page section which refutes your narrative: [20]. My comment is referring to this rewrite which is entirely separate text from the "direct apology" text which has the shaky consensus you reference.

SPECIFICO, you are reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors. I will apologize for exhaustively citing ONUS during our disagreement over its interpretation; had I thought of it I should have begun this discussion earlier. Hopefully this will clear things up.

The question is not whether there is consensus; the question stipulates that in the hypothetical there is consensus, so your concern is unfounded. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) added diff Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) added diff Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No that is begging the question. To wit: Can one assert "consensus" merely because text was in the article X weeks or months ago, even in a Class C thinly edited article that relates to a WP:NOTNEWS inserted 2 years ago? And I provided the link to the article talk page just to point out that, in this case, there is clearly consensus for the newest version rather than the fossil you insist must be restored, based on an erroneous understanding of ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you propose RfC text which would address the question of whether my "erroneous understanding of ONUS" is actually correct, or whether your understanding of ONUS is correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just like to point out that this likely relates to an ongoing dispute concerning Aziz Ansari that the OP and several others (including myself) are involved in. -- Calidum 18:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, yes, Calidum, it very obviously does relate to that article. There are several links to specific diffs in the discussion above. However, we have much bigger fish to fry here: There are many editors who believe that the "status quo version" has some special standing in policy. They are hard-pressed to find any policy that says this, but you know how it is: someone reverts you when you're a newbie, and tells you that some WP:CRYPTIC shortcut says that they win, and you believe them, and repeat the story to the next bold editor you encounter. One long telephone game later, and we have people who believe that as long as their favorite fact isn't about a BLP and stays on the page long enough, that it should be permitted to squat there forever, or until an RFC forces a change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a content dispute includes a disagreement over policy interpretation...there's nothing nefarious about it. At this talk page I have seen that many other editors also disagree on its interpretation. Firstly, my proposed text doesn't say "status quo version"; it says "consensus version", so your concern is another cat to whip. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a content dispute is a disagreement over the content and policies and guidelines are the mechanisms and methods of of the clash.North8000 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that a particular content dispute happens to include a disagreement over policy interpretation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WhatamIdoing: Most of the diffs were added after my comment. I just think it's helpful for users to know the locus of the question. -- Calidum 17:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existing onus section is a logical mess. I think that the only reason it's even in wp:ver is to tone down the widespread urban legend (that meeting wp:verifiability is a force for inclusion) because the key statement "Meeting wp:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" is missing. (So the reason it's here is probably just avoid mis-use of wp:ver. And anything that is not in for that purpose does not belong in wp:ver.) In doing so it wades into a mess. A prescriptive "what should happen at an article" based on only one factor (previous/current state) whereas inclusion/exclusion is always a multi-variable decision. But it only wades into that mess for addition of new material. I think that it would be a bad idea to double that mess and depart from this original intent by applying it to removal of existing material, and such would also make wp:ver clearly not the place to do it.

But somewhere we need to say "when making inclusion/exclusion decisions, give the status quo a little extra sway, and when doing so, also consider strength or weakness of it's position as the status quo" North8000 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite... the fact that some bit of text or some factoid is “status quo” can be given extra “consideration” when initially deciding whether to challenge, but I don’t think it rises to the level of “sway”. If the reasons for removing outweigh the rational for keeping, we remove. Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I made a poor choice of word, but I meant to it a little bit of weight in the decision. To give an example, if all else is equal, go with the status quo.North8000 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the intent and implications of ONUS implies both ways when coupled with other policies like BRD:
  • If you are trying to add new material that has not be in the article before, and are reverted, the onus is on you to seek consensus to make that addition
  • If you are trying to remove material that has enjoyed "long-standing consensus" to be in the article, and are reverted, the onus is on you to seek consensus to make that removal, unless that removal clearly meets one of the WP:3RRNO allowances. (eg obvious BLP/NFC/copyright violations, etc.).
• It logically follows and simplifies several situations if it was read to be like that. The only qualification is what is "long-standing consensus" would be, and I've suggested that's something that is at least a month with at least 10 different editors having touched the article (with earnest editors, no random IP edit nonsense) to be taken as implicit acceptance that the content was fine. If you talking only one edit in a month, maybe not so much. There's a judgement call here but ONUS has to tie to BRD: if you are reverted, take it to the talk page, don't edit war. --Masem (t) 17:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Masem, I have two concerns with this formulation. The first is that WP:V clearly relates to "not all verified content automatically belongs in the article" per [{WP:DUE]]. I think that's why we see ONUS on this page. The question as to what processes best promote consensus is addressed on our policy WP:CONSENSUS. Further elaborations, in my opinion, are more fitting there. My second concern is that, as a matter of real-world editing experience, implied consensus depends on the subject matter and sourcing and how widely edited the article has been. Good Articles, or articles widely discussed in top-flight academic sources, may be presumed to have implicit consensus when content has been stable over some arbitrary period of time -- think Battle of Hastings. But millions of our articles are weakly sources, thinly edited (often by "enthusiasts") and often based on news reports or special interest publications. That category of millions of articles tends to have persistent shortcomings that are often improved when an editor comes along to fix them or apply a broader or longer-time perspective. For articles like those, there can't be any presumption of consensus let alone valid content and sourcing. I recall an article I worked on over a period of years. At first it was rather sensationally called Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and was one big BLP violation about a harmless young man who was emotionally disturbed. It took YEARS to remove the BLP nonsense and rename the article 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident. There was never consensus for the standing version. But if I understand your formulation, the very fact that an article is neglected and relatively insignificant, lightly edited, and marginally sourced, would confer consensus on the very articles that most need improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Masem, BRD isn't a policy. The first sentence still contains the word optional. If you think it would help, then we can go underline that word to make it pop out at people who might otherwise be misled into thinking that it was the One True™ Way of editing.

  Your interpretation of ONUS is merely QUO. You could shorten your two bullet points to a single sentence with no material loss of content: "If you change QUO and are reverted, the onus is on you to get consensus".

  ONUS is not meant to enshrine QUO. I think it conflicts with QUO when the QUO version contains potentially bad content. If someone gets garbage into an article – there was a made-up name for a chemical in one of the high-traffic diabetes articles for years before someone attempted to double-check it – then ONUS says that the suspected garbage goes out until there's a consensus to include it. Under your QUO-oriented story, any idiot editor could have pounded on the table and insisted that the hoax name be kept in the article unless and until there was a documented consensus to remove it. That's not how Wikipedia's supposed to work. We are supposed to be able to remove unverifiable garbage without having to first get written permission to do so.

  Also, your QUO-oriented approach is the opposite of WP:CHALLENGE. Under your approach, editors would only be able to removed unsourced information until that doubtful or inappropriate content could be declared the "quo" version, and after that, they'd have to seek consensus to get permission to remove bad information. This is a bad idea. That's why ONUS and CHALLENGE don't support QUO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Without endorsing every word of your exposition, I think it's very helpful and a constructive way to clarify the matters discussed here. I think that we should refer to WP:CONSENUS -- which is a policy -- to handle the BRD-related discussion and ideas. I personally doubt we'll come up with anything that isn't already in ONUS or CONSENSUS, but by all means we should see whether they can be clarified or improved. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If garbage goes into the article that doesn't clearly meet one of the WP:3RRNO, and that garbage has consensus, then the garbage stays until we get consensus to remove. The decision about what constitutes garbage is made by consensus.

  This proposed RfC is about the removal of consensus text, so the concerns about when longstanding text qualifies as consensus text is a separate, but related subject.

  We could write that once a change to consensus is clearly contentious, the status quo ante version should remain in place pending discussion. This may function as a sort of a trigger for WP:Consensus required. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Trigger? What you propose is the exact opposite of what's written at WP:Consensus required. Please review that page. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please review my comment. My suggestion was about something new, so whether that is the opposite of Consensus required is irrelevant. But discussing changing policy at this point is just muddling things when we haven't agreed on what the existing policy is, which is the purpose of this proposed RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You're still operating under the assumption that there exists such a thing as "consensus text", which is doubtful in general but which almost certainly does not exist in the middle of a significant dispute about whether that text should be changed. Seriously: If you persist in calling disputed text that's been around for a while "the consensus text", then we could end up with an RFC summary statement that says "There is a consensus against keeping the consensus text in the article". That's silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Still"? "Persist"? I'm not sure what comments of mine you're reading. My question is in the context of an edit to the "most recent consensus", it doesn't involve evaluating whether longstanding text is consensus or not; I am repeatedly saying that for this question it is stipulated that there was consensus before the edit was made. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But you did not have consensus. 8 editors said you were arguing against consensus. So why do you still persist? SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what you're even talking about; if you're talking about a content dispute, please stop bringing that into a policy discussion. Just because a question arises during a content dispute doesn't mean the question is about the disputed text. I'm only "persist"ing at trying to unconfuse the conversation from comments like that. And you're pushing the envelope on your logged warning against personal comments on talk pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Something to keep in mind: There is a HUGE difference between text that has previously been discussed (where we can point to the discussion and say “as of this discussion there was a consensus to say X”) and text that simply has never been challenged before. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "achieved a consensus when it was discussed" is different than just "was discussed". North8000 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my text in bold above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000 - True. There are three levels of consensus to consider: 1) discussed with a clear consensus achieved in the discussion. 2) discussed briefly, without overt consensus, but the resulting text left standing for a long time. 3) text left standing for a long time, but no discussion (what people call “silent consensus”). The the first carries a lot of weight when it comes to ONUS... the last hardly any weight at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If we agree that changes sought to a previous consensus will not be implemented when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, then I am not sure what WP:ONUS means besides "V is not enough for inclusion". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're correct: ONUS doesn't mean anything besides 'V is not enough for inclusion', and that it doesn't mean something like 'long-standing text is preferred when discussion does not result in a clear consensus'. The only thing that ONUS adds to 'not enough' is designating the editor (i.e., the one who wants to add [Factoid] to the article) who has to prove the existence of consensus under a specific situation (i.e., that someone wants to add [Factoid], and its addition is disputed by others). ONUS is irrelevant when people aren't trying to add facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why the concept of "long-standing text" keeps making its way back into this discussion when it is unrelated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the disputed text that you keep calling "the consensus text" is what other editors call "the long-standing text". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop confusing the discussion by bringing content disputes into this. I have stipulated that the hypothetical text in this policy question is "consensus text". Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kolya, your hypothetical question is a content dispute. Editors C and D don't agree on the best version to have in the article, right? That's a content dispute. It is hopefully an amicable and easily resolved content dispute, but it is still a content dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You literally just brought the Aziz Ansari article content dispute into this discussion at 16:19, 30 September 2020. Your comment is found in this diff, scrolling past the paragraph from another editor which you deleted a space from: [21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The content dispute at the Ansari BLP is why you came to this page, so it's a handy example, but your hypothetical about Editors A, B, C, and D is also a content dispute. You cannot discuss what ONUS says that editors should do during a content dispute without, well, talking about content disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

• Oppose RfC We should not consider amending policy to pursue an article talk page agenda at a random WP article. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RfC. If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. It has served us well. The circumstances that started this discussion are not too encouraging of a change either. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this RfC However, I think it would be good if we could come to some sort of consensus (RfC or otherwise) regarding the example WhatamIdoing articulated here [[22]] and I asked about here [[23]]. Springee (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It would be a good idea to note that the status quo should be given a tiny bit of influence in (multi-consideration) include/exclude decisions, but prescriptive wording, and doing it here would only make the existing structural problem worse.North8000 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This RfC proposal is not about amending policy; it is not about fixing policy; it is not about adding wording; it is about interpreting policy. The proposed question was:

Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?

Any potential change to policy doesn't make much sense if we can't agree on what the policy is. Lastly, the circumstance that started this discussion was a disagreement over the policy interpretation, and the outcome of this proposed RfC wouldn't effect that dispute at this point where an editor has added disputed text against consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:consensus is the closest thing to a real guide in this whole area. In my view wp:onus should be deleted. It's only there as a band-aid because we've failed to put the badly-needed sentence "WP:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" into wp:ver. IMO the onus topic doesn't belong in wp:ver and what is there doesn't cover the topic. The relevant example here is that it doesn't cover existing material, and an RFC can't decide that it says something that it doesn't.     IMO the only reason wp:onus is heavily used instead of wp:consensus which covers it better is because it's in a more prominent policy, and because it is short and because it has a convenient handle "Onus" unofficially attached. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to: an RFC can't decide that it says something that it doesn't, I would remind that the purpose of the RfC is to figure out what it does say, so if the RfC finds that it does not say something then it has done its job. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Oppose. WP:ONUS applies to the insertion of text, not the deletion. WP:CONSENSUS is adequate to address removal of text for which there was previously a consensus. -- Calidum 15:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And it's clear from that page that there needs to be some evidence of consensus -- a talk page thread at least, RfC, poll, or broad discussion and lots of active editing that left the content in place. I happened to check the Aziz Ansari talk page and I note that the talk page consensus was actually against even having a separate section regarding the bad date. So claims of any consensus to elevate the mishap are not supported. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread is continued at #Related discussion, below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Calidum outlined exactly my thoughts above. ONUS is clear on the insertion of new edits. If there's any sort of status quo, WP:CONSENSUS covers that, and WP:SILENCE covers the more gray area where the strength of the particular edit needs to be weighed on a case-by-case basis whether it's for removal or keeping it. That isn't something we can particularly prescribe in specific hard coded policy due to those dynamics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

• This thread is in response to the comment at 16:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC), above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not get distracted by comments like this which blur the focus of the question and add false narratives about content disputes which may scare editors away from discussing good faith policy questions. Again, the question here is in the context of changes to text which does have consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not clear what you mean by calling WP:CONSENSUS "false narratives about content disputes". It is not any kind of narrative. It is our core policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need ONUS to deal with situations when consensus exists. ONUS exists to deal with situations when consensus doesn't exist, and both sides are declaring that it's the other side's job to prove that their version is the right one. ONUS says that V is not sufficient, so it's the "inclusion" side that has to prove consensus for inclusion, and not the "blanking" side that has to prove consensus for removal. This is because the community decided in the early days that no information is better than bad information.

  The answer to your bold/green question is: No. ONUS does not apply equally to additions and removals. ONUS applies "unfairly" to additions. However, Wikipedia:Consensus applies equally to additions, removals, and changes. This means: if you want to tell editors that they're wrong for changing your preferred text, then you need to say "per CONSENSUS" when you revert them, and not "per ONUS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing has answered both the specific question and also reflected on the broader question. On the specific question, since wp:onus does not discuss removals, then it does not cover them. It's as simple as that/ Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying, but I am no less confused. WhatamIdoing said that NOCON is wrong, so I don't think this is simple.

So in your interpretation of policy, if I'm hearing you right, when an editor adds text to a previous consensus that editor has the ONUS to achieve a new consensus, but when an editor removes text from a previous consensus the removing editor does not have the ONUS to achieve a new consensus? What does it mean to cite CONSENSUS when you disagree with the removal of text if not that the removing editor has the (lowercase) onus to achieve a new consensus? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel nervous about introducing a suggestion in the context of a discussion about policy interpretation, but based on my understanding of policy at this point, I think it would make sense to remove the shortcut WP:ONUS from WP:V, and change the text of the "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" section to :The onusWP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and add the WP:ONUS shortcut to WP:CONSENSUS. It sounds like the only reason ONUS usually applies to adding text but not removing text is because there obviously was no consensus for text that never existed, but for existing text that does have consensus, the onus is on those who wish to remove it. If that's at all an idea worth considering we can start a new discussion. "WP:VNOTSTUFF" isn't a great shortcut, so I'd propose "WP:VNOGUARANTEE" ("WP:VNOG"). S Marshall has been heavily involved in WP:ONUS discussions; I'm curious what they think about the WP:ONUS interpretation and our suggestions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for !votes and relates only to whether to RfC changing ONUS. Please place any "suggestions" in a different section or a new section. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's not what this RfC proposal is about, as I've repeatedly clarified. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what RfC you might have wished to mount, this section is only for !votes as to whether to mount the RfC. So please move new suggestions or other thoughts to an appropriate section. They do not belong here. As a further thought, since there is SNOW opposition to any RfC, I suggest you withdraw and close the larger section about whether to have an RfC and start over with your latest suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, the entire reason I started this RfC proposal was to unconfuse the previous discussion by posing a precise question, but you initiated the !voting by misrepresenting my question, so it's not clear what any of this means now. I haven't been arguing in support of my RfC proposal, but certainly there isn't opposition to any RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been pinged on this topic, S Marshall thinks that yes, ONUS does apply to the removal of text, and yes, it should. There's a creative tension between ONUS and PRESERVE. Wikipedia articles need to be a summary of what the reliable sources say about a subject, so we need mechanisms for removing information that isn't reliably sourced, and also mechanisms for restoring information which is. ONUS is the former and PRESERVE is the latter. On another matter mentioned above, S Marshall does think there should be a presumption to include reliably sourced information. What else are we for? The answer to disputes involving reliably sourced information is often to move it rather than cut it.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall, the text in question says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It does not say anything about the removal of text. Regardless of whether WP:V should treat all changes equally, can we agree that, since ONUS limits itself to "inclusion", it currently (as written) doesn't apply to removals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My position is that if a good faith user removes information, then that information is "challenged or likely to be challenged" within the meaning of the first sentence of WP:V, and it therefore can't be put back without an inline citation to a reliable source. I'm saying that this applies irrespective of whether this is longstanding text or a brand new insertion.

  I ought to clarify that the question upon which I was pinged read: Potential RfC: Does ONUS apply to removing text? and I answered using the language of the question. In fact, my view is that WP:V doesn't relate to "text" at all. It relates to information, irrespective of the exact phrasing used to express that information, so the word "text" in my answer above should not be taken out of context.

  The "good faith user" bit is important, because sometimes the appropriate response is RBI. WP:ONUS and WP:CHALLENGE are, potentially, very useful to griefers and bad faith editors of various kinds, because these rules empower users to remove information very quickly and demand lots of painstaking source-finding work from editors wanting to reinsert that information; this creates a power-imbalance and an effort-imbalance in favour of the remover, and WP:PRESERVE is needful to leaven the loaf. ONUS and PRESERVE need to be read together and I've often wished they weren't written in different policies.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a way they are... WP:PRESERVE is followed by WP:DON’T PRESERVE. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, CHALLENGE only applies to unsourced information. Once it's got one potentially reliable source after it, you can't CHALLENGE it. CHALLENGE lets you remove unsourced information; ONUS lets you remove sourced information.

The question at the top of this section says "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?" In other words, we agree that if I remove something and a dispute arises, ONUS says the other editor has to prove that consensus is in favor of inclusion, and the OP wants to know whether, if I add something and a dispute arises, can I also declare that ONUS says the other editor has to prove that consensus is in favor of removing it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm asking at all. But you think NOCON is wrong, so you should probably discuss how you think that should be changed to conform to your interpretation of ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Please could you give me an illustrative example of what you are asking?—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about changes to a preexisting consensus. I have now formed the opinion that for verifiable text, the burden is equally on those who wish to add, remove, or change text from a previous consensus, because NOCON usually results in no change. The question was: "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text [from a consensus version] as it is does to add text [to a consensus version], and by extension, to make any disputed changes?" It's confusing because WP:VNOTSUFF includes WP:ONUS which is also about consensus building. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me: The question at the top of this section says "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text as it is does to add text, and by extension, to make any disputed changes?"

Kolya: No, that's not what I'm asking at all....The question was: "Does ONUS apply equally to remove text [from a consensus version] as it is does to add text [to a consensus version], and by extension, to make any disputed changes?"

I almost laughed out loud when I read that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the part in between where you misrepresented what I was asking. My participation in this discussion mainly consists of having to correct misrepresentations, so I don't see what value there is in continuing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you think that the part of WP:NOCON (which you didn't write) which states that in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, is wrong, and you want to change it to bring it in line with your interpretation of WP:ONUS. While my thought is that NOCON and WP:ONUS are correct, but that ONUS needs clarification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The onus to achieve consensus is on anyone who wishes to change consensus, per CONSENSUS. The repetition of only part of the concept of CONSENSUS in WP:ONUS does not invalidate the other half which is not articulated. The only thing that is causing confusion is the handle "WP:ONUS". That's why I suggested that we do not change the meanings of the policies, but just change the text to "The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", where WP:ONUS links to WP:NOCON. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Help me out here, Kolya Butternut, because I've wracked my brains and I'm not able to understand your position in any way that doesn't completely overrule WP:V. In your reading of our rules, if I dispute some information in an article, and I remove it, can you can simply put it back without sourcing it, citing CONSENSUS? How then am I able to exercise WP:CHALLENGE?—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Once information is sourced, then the adding editor has the onus to achieve a new consensus, which I think is the same onus one has whether the change to consensus is to add or remove. I think we're talking about different things? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, it's me who's confused.  :)—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you agree that this concept of (lowercase) onus applies to any change against consensus? I feel like where everyone's getting hung up is over longstanding text versus consensus text. Like I said previously, I think the only reason that adding new text involves a special onus is because obviously there was no consensus for text that never existed. But in a hypothetical where we stipulate that some text which is removed did have consensus, then the same onus would be on the moving editor to achieve consensus for removal, because no consensus results in the status quo consensus. (But everyone has the onus to argue their opinion, so perhaps "burden" is the better word.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the recent history of electronic cigarette, you'll see a bunch of removals of sourced text, by me. This is longstanding text which is eminently verifiable and which, I presume, enjoys consensus; and I've simply removed it, where I think it's uninformative, incoherent, borderline unintelligible, or all three. I would like to be able to continue to do this. As long as our rules allow that kind of behaviour then I'm fine with tweaking WP:ONUS.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, bold edits are fine where there isn't an established dispute. If an editor was defending the consensus text then I think you would have the burden to change it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Each edit is to comply with the Content policies (all of them), so there are several ways for an addition to be 'wrong'. It is trivially easy to add to the pedia, and under Note 3 of WP:V it is trivially easy to add ostensibly sourced information. ONUS is the method to test compliance with all other policies (BURDEN is specific to V), thus ONUS only applies to additions and proposed additions (as BURDEN does, also) -- while PRESERVE works when either all policies have already been met, or in the editor(s)' view(s) they are substantially met. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why WP:PRESERVE is balanced by WP:DON’T PRESERVE. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a pretty typical problem: Someone makes a bad edit. Another editor reverts it, and cites a policy or guideline as the excuse. Upon investigation, the cited policy or guideline is irrelevant, or doesn't say what's claimed. But that often just means that the reverter is bad at keeping the policies straight; it doesn't mean that the edit was good and the revert was bad.

  I very frequently see this in medicine-related articles. Someone will revert a bad edit "per MEDRS", when technically the main problem is WP:UNDUE weight on some unimportant detail, or spam. If you're trying to add a sentence about the best flavor of cough drops to Measles, then finding a better source won't solve the problem, because the problem is that information about cough drop flavors does not belong in that article at all, even if you turn up a truly magnificent source for it.

  In the instant case, it's clear that ONUS has self-limited the requirement to disputed inclusions. But ONUS isn't the only thing that our collection of policies and guidelines have to say about disputed changes; if you want to remove something, you still need to get consensus for it – just "per WP:CONSENSUS" (which requires every edit to have consensus, regardless of whether the edit includes, excludes, or modifies something), and not "per ONUS" (which sets a special role for the person who wants to include a fact that others don't want included).

  It is a little bit like a court case: you're expected to charge people with the correct thing. If the person was obstructing traffic by jaywalking, you don't charge them with obstructing traffic by driving too slowly on the highway, and when they object that they weren't driving and it wasn't a highway, you definitely don't say that's close enough for government work and besides, walking is practically the same as driving and little streets are similar to highways in some respects. Experienced editors should be able to get these things right. In the case that brought Kolya to this page, the correct charge isn't an alleged violation of ONUS (at least for most of the changes). The correct charge was an alleged violation of Wikipedia:Consensus. What ONUS says is unimportant, because the Consensus policy is sufficient to cover it all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The only "special role" for the person who wants to add text which is different from the persons who want to change or remove text is that adding text requires a justification besides WP:V. The onus to achieve any new consensus is on those who wish to change it, because no consensus results in the previous consensus version.

  Again, bringing content disputes into this policy question only muddles things. The lack of consensus was repeatedly cited in the content dispute you reference. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bringing content disputes into a policy question about content disputes clarifies things, because it lets us wonder things like "Hmm, you keep saying 'consensus text', but you also say 'lack of consensus' a lot, and those are opposites. I wonder whether the version you're calling 'the consensus text' actually had any demonstrable consensus at all? For example, someone removed a description of Babe.net from that BLP article – was there an RFC anywhere, or at least a substantial discussion, that concluded that description of that website should/shouldn't be present in the article? Because if there wasn't, then we have no good reason to believe that either of those versions is 'the consensus text'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just above when I asked you to stop confusing this policy discussion by bringing a content dispute into it (obviously referring to Aziz Ansari) you claimed that the "content dispute" was actually about the hypothetical.[24] Now you're explicitly bringing the Aziz Ansari content dispute into this and confusing things. As I have repeated endless times, in the context of this policy discussion it is irrelevant whether we had consensus to include the fact that Ansari was criticized for not directly apologizing during his Netflix special to the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct.^[1] You clearly have strong opinions about the Aziz Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct text, so I would ask that you discuss that at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Aziz Ansari. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This page has nearly 3000 followers. Just from a statistical point of view: If any of them had agreed with, or even understood, what you are saying, that would have become evident by now. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence says otherwise. Permutations of this discussion have been going on for years on the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kolya, the only thing I could tell the editors at Ansari is what you all already know: it's a BLP, which means the default is to remove contentious matter unless and until there is a clear consensus that including it is both verifiable and neutral. That won't help you with things like whether Babe.net should be described (because a website is not covered by BLP), but presumably that's not the center of the dispute.

  What I can tell you here, in the context of the one (1) sentence in this one (1) policy that you keep asking about, is that the word "inclusion" does not mean any and all additions, removals, or changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel I have no choice but to be a broken record: please stop bringing unrelated content disputes into a discussion about policy where the question involves what to do in the context of changes to preexisting consensus. My previous comment was referring to years of talk page discussions about the interpretation of ONUS on this talk page, not Aziz Ansari. It's odd that you seem so invested in the content dispute at Aziz Ansari when you admittedly do not know what the dispute is about.

  You're still not representing my question accurately, but I already know we don't agree, so there is no need to respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is not just anything, consensus is agreement based in policy which is exactly what ONUS requires, and if consensus over text is brought into dispute than the consensus needs positive demonstration according to policy (including in CONSENSUS, ONUS, and NOTE3, they all work the same way), otherwise it is without consensus, and according to policy (including in CONSENSUS, ONUS, and NOTE3) sometimes it's easy to demonstrate consensus and sometimes it's more involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk page

SPECIFICO, with this edit,[25] you reverted my refactoring[26] which had corrected your refactoring[27] which had moved an editor's comment and taken my comment[28] out of the context of "the preceding message to which it referred and without which position its meaning is obscured". You characterized my edits as TPG violations when what you described was actually what your edits had done. Please restore the original version which keeps my comments in context. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:ver isn't the place to talk about inclusion/removal decisions, WP:Consensus is the place for that and the place where it is handled much better. The only purpose that the competing fragment of wp:onus in wp:ver serves is a weak attempt to stop the common mis-use of wp:ver which to say that meeting verifiability is a reason or strong force to include the material. (how many times have you seen the edit summary "undo removal of sourced material"?). So the solution is to replace "onus" in wp:ver with "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. See WP:Consensus for the decision-making process regarding addition or removal of material.". And change the target of the wp:onus re-direct to WP:Consensus. That's my proposal, open to tweaking. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems right, I have been confused about this for a long time. "undo removal of sourced material" is frequent typically because the reason given for removal in the first place often doesn't cut it. In any case that seems more like a consensus issue, solve with an RFC if necessary, that sort of thing.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting by leaving all the language the same but moving the ONUS shortcut to CONSENSUS and using a wikilink like so: The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed text, "not a reason for inclusion", was previously added to the policy[29] and there was an RfC which resulted in its removal.[30] S Marshall, you were one of the initiators of the RfC, do you have any new thoughts about this language? And what do you think about my proposal in my previous comment? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are a lot of facets to this that are hard to summarize in a pithy sentence in a policy, or even a paragraph. I stand by my previous statement that there is, in practice, and ought to be, in theory, a presumption to include reliably-sourced information on Wikipedia, and that if information really is reliably-sourced then it's often more appropriate to move it to a different article than to delete it entirely; but the matter is very nuanced and our wording needs to be hedged with exceptions that can be invoked when we're dealing with controversial topics, biographies of living people, or inexperienced editors. I wonder whether we should start a separate essay about removing reliably-sourced content, with a view to promoting it to a guideline after some testing?—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall You and I have discussed this before. I believe that your objective is that if material is suitable for an enclyclopedia and is compliant with policies (e.g. wp:verifiability) that we should encourage (not discourage) its inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. I agree with you on that. I would ask you to make a distinction between that and saying that compliance with one of those policies (being reliably sourced) should be a universal argument for a particular inclusion in a particular article.North8000 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with North on this. But I would go farther. The extent of the world's verified knowledge is many times greater than all the combined encyclopedic narratives we would ever want to publish as articles. DUE WEIGHT and Noteworthiness reduces it by 50-90%. For example, we don't publish the local Atlanta weather on the date of publication of Gone With the Wind, even though it's reported and verified. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks S Marshall, and do you have thoughts about starting with my suggestion to leave the text the same but replace "onus" with WP:ONUS and move the shortcut to CONSENSUS? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll reflect on that, and get back to you in due course.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd advocate the change that I proposed, but changing the target of the redirect this would be a step towards solving the structural/overlap problem. Decision-process issues are naturally the topic of wp:consensus, and decidedly not the topic of wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that these are two distinct and independent policies. We can't link a content policy to a conduct policy. That's a recipe for maximum confusion. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:I agree about the separation, actually that is my point. Kolya Butternut's proposal (which I was expressing support for) to change the target of the re-direct is a baby step towards that separation. My proposal at the start of this sub-thread would separate it fully plus solve a lot of other problems. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Shortcuts

• WP:VNOTSUFF
• WP:VNOG

"WP:VNOG" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.

See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Where WP:ONUS would (I assume) be another redirect for WP:NOCONSENSUS (or other section in WP:CONSENSUS). Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A content policy can't link to a conduct policy. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, why is that? (Genuinely curious, I haven't encountered that rule before.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's apples and oranges. They are complementary but not equivalent. Conduct has bright lines, whereas content can change. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality links to WP:Editing policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or phrased more on point: WP:NPOV links to WP:PRESERVE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifico, Kolya is right. There is no such rule. Content policies can and should refer to behavioral rules whenever appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they cannot refer to one another. That's why I said they are complementary. But a direct link so as to define one as equivalent to the other is not right. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS already links to WP:PRESERVE using this text: presented instead in a different article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as it is not needed and also would result in confusion as it changes the meaning of a commonly used link. The current setup of everything is fine and does not need changing, as it works. Don't fix what ain't broke. It also makes no sense: what does "what to do when there is no consensus" have to do with who has the onus to get a consensus for their preferred edit? Last but not least, I oppose this whole ongoing effort, as above and here at WP:CON, which results in making it harder to remove existing material. There are many low-traffic articles and many POV and fringe theory pushers out there. As I said there:
• "Here's a scenario for you: You stumble upon an obscure article on a topic you are familiar with. You notice some content that has sources but that is in some way fringe (synthesis, poor sources, misuse of sources, or some combination thereof), and/or that is undue emphasis on some POV, and remove it. Some editor, either its WP:OWNER or someone who has it on their watchlist but doesn't know the topic well, reverts you because you "removed sourced content" and it looked fine to him, and says that per WP:ONUS (the version you are advocating for right now), you need to get a full-on consensus to get it removed. Yes, there are ways to do so, but they may not get enough attention, and besides, the point is that this alternate version of ONUS made it much harder to do so.
• Wikipedia's quality comes just as much from what we keep out as what we let in. Since your goal seems to result in making it much harder to keep some things out, I have to oppose that."
• As a core content policy at the heart of what we do, any changes here must have a very good reason. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal does not change the meaning of policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal changes the meaning. Maybe that's a good thing – because I believe that right now, ONUS and NOCON are saying exactly the opposite in one situation – but I think it constitutes a change from "those who seek to include disputed content" have to "achieve consensus for inclusion" (or out it goes) to those who seek to change content have to achieve consensus for a change (or else we stick with the previous version). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it's an albatross that would thwart article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure I see the difference. NOCON says the same thing as onus only more, that's why it makes sense to redirect the onus wikilink to NOCON. To tweak your words, "those who seek to include disputed content" have to "achieve consensus for inclusion" (or out it goes) to those who seek to change content have to achieve consensus for a change (or else out the edit goes)." In both cases the change is reverted if there is no consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing from a rule in which disputed content gets removed to a rule in which disputed content may be retained. Those are not the same. It might be a good change, and it might make the written rules better align with the community's preferences, but it does still constitute a change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost. ONUS and NOCON both say that changes to an article must achieve consensus in order for them to stick; it's just that ONUS only speaks to new additions whereas NOCON speaks to all changes. We disagree on the interpretation of ONUS, but the intention of this proposal is not change the policy based on this interpretation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as unnecessary. I also oppose any repointing of WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS or any page besides this one. That shortcut has always applied to insertion of material and I see no good reason to change it. -- Calidum 14:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There's no need to do this, and good reason not to. The standard use of ONUS is to remind people that the burden of proof rests always with those seeking to include disputed content, and has to, because anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter - we rapidly establish that consensus for inclusion exists where removal of long-standing text is obviously capricious. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change: "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion"

Basically, we have a structural problem (Wp:Ver wading into and duplicating / conflicting with something that is rightly covered in wp:consensus) which has to be in place because it is a partial fix for a widespread problem related to wp:ver (people saying that meeting wp:ver is a reason for inclusion rather than just a requirement for inclusion). And, like always, the big fuzzy Wikipedia system somehow mostly makes it work. I am on board to work really hard at the fix I proposed at the beginning of the "How to quickly fix it all" because it would be an immense clean fix on the structure problems and also a fix on the big "reason for inclusion" problem. If 1-2 people fully support it I'd work harder on that; otherwise I'd probably just let it fade away. I'm getting really worn out on participating in in the flurry of proposals here and on related pages which wouldn't do much either way and plan to sit back rather than weighing in on every one of them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, before you go, could you verify if your suggestion is to completely replace the text of WP:ONUS with this: Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. See WP:Consensus for the decision-making process regarding addition or removal of material? It sounds reasonable; I just know that it has been proposed for many years, so I want to hear more from participants in the past discussions in case there may be any subtle consequences from that change that I'm not aware of. Perhaps to address S Marshall's concern, we might want to keep the text certain information...should be...presented instead in a different article in some form. Perhaps: Verifiability is a requirement for information in the encyclopedia, but not a reason for inclusion in an article? Kolya Butternut (talk)

• One concern... there are OTHER policies and guidelines that might mandate removal of material (and which would over-rule even consensus - NPOV, and COPYRIGHT come immediately to mind, but there are others). Any replacement needs to mention this. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my proposal. The sentence that Blueboar has a concern about is there to help make it fly but is superfluous and could be dropped. Or else modified to handle Blueboar's valid concern e.g.: "WP:Consensus and other policies provide guidance on the inclusion/exclusion decision-making process." North8000 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Editing policy covers those concerns, so we could just add another wikilink. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to any modifications in that sentence, doubly so that would get people behind the idea. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit lost. I made this a new subsection if that's ok. I added your proposal as it would appear in WP:V; please correct it as necessary or move it to the beginning of this subsection.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Shortcuts

• WP:VNOTSUFF
• WP:VNOG

"WP:VNOG" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.

See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. See WP:Consensus and WP:editing for the decision-making process regarding addition or removal of material.

The WP:ONUS shortcut would redirect to WP:CONSENSUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS is not about consensus. It is about NPOV WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, the proposal links to the editing policy, which includes NPOV and WEIGHT at WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, a reference to a complementary subject is not the same as a redirect or definition. This is a dead end. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there is some semantic confusion here. If others agree with this please share. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the best solution would be to simply replace the entire section with "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" This solves the issue with wp:ver, and defers to all of the other policies and guidelines to handle everything else. The second sentence is just to try to get support for the change. My thinking is that some people would not immediately take in the structural solution just described and seek to have something in place to fill wp:onus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, since consensus governs most aspects of our editing, there is no reason to mix it up with ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Still oppose, per my 03:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC) comment. This is a radical change to our policy regarding inclusion. I don't see that there is necessarily a contradiction with WP:NOCON, which talks about modifying or adding material, not just removing, and which says a "lack of consensus commonly results" - note: not "should result" - in retaining the status quo. And even if there was, that can easily be addressed on the NOCON side, as WhatamIdoing tried to do here, and who was reverted over 3 weeks later by Kolya Butternut. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Three weeks later plus 19 hours I reverted it,[31] when I first noticed the change. I had already expressed disagreement with WhatamIdoing's proposal to change NOCON on October 1st when I said: "you think that the part of WP:NOCON... is wrong, and you want to change it to bring it in line with your interpretation of WP:ONUS. While my thought is that NOCON and WP:ONUS are correct, but that ONUS needs clarification."[32] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So you are saying the proposal here is a "clarification", but WhatamIdoing's edit was a "change". That has it exactly backwards. She was clarifying NOCON, but the proposal here is a change. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, it's based on our differing interpretations of the policy. And as I said in the edit summary, "The Consensus Required DS should be consistent with WP:CONSENSUS. This has been interpreted in discussions linked from here: [33]" Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My own interest is structural. The common wp:ver-related "reason for inclusion" problem which is why wp:onus is in wp:ver, and that wp:onus is a misplaced overlap with wp:consensus which is the proper place for it. Kolya Butternut's main concern seems to be ambiguity in wp:onus but seem open to broader fixes. WhatamIdoing's edit is a good attempt to resolve it but I (possibly as a balance tipper) supported it's reversion because it further entrenches the noted structural problem. To me a partial fix seems obvious. Unless one says that the two policies conflict, just cover and clarify onus at wp:consensus. Sort of like what WhatamIdoing was working on but without referring to wp:ver (onus). Without changing the redirect and without incorporating my proposed change. Those could come later.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I missed this: WP:Consensus required. Since this is just a strict version of WP:Consensus, I believe it shows that there is no greater burden to retain text than there is to remove text (besides the normal exceptions per WP:EDIT).

I'm not sure how we could change NOCON (or CONSENSUS generally) to cover and clarify the concept currently described at WP:ONUS without also using the word "onus" and becoming the more appropriate wikilink location, but I'm open to suggestions.

Also notice the use of the word onus here: A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so at WP:Silence and consensus. This sounds like there is a burden-shifting process when it comes to consensus, or generally that everyone must participate in the consensus-building process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut, could you please tell us what a "Consensus Required DS" is, ideally with a link to a page about that? WP:Consensus required discretionary sanctions is a not a thing. So – Nintendo DS? Dal segno? Data science? DS register? Help us out here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

When I wrote NOCON, some of it was easy. WP:ELBURDEN could be copied over almost word for word, and nobody cared. But this particular line was added later (and by someone else) because there were pretty significant disagreements. We kept talking about it after I posted the main parts, and I was never satisfied that we'd identified the community's actual best practice in those discussions (which happened on at least two pages, if you want to dive into the archives).

The problem you run into in these discussions is that different groups of editors have different goals.

One group wants to put their thumb on the scale in favor of stability. Once they've gotten something settled into the article, they don't want it to change. This group of editors usually seems to edit in what I'll call 'stable' subject areas (such as famous paintings – subjects that don't change noticeably from one day to the next, but you get tired of arguing about the same thing) or in highly controversial areas (such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or politics in general, for which avoiding edit warring – or even any editing that isn't absolutely necessary, since who knows what tiny, seemingly unimportant change could set off another massive dispute – is an important goal).

The other group of editors is very concerned about accuracy and maintaining our encyclopedic nature. The prototypical examples of this group are editors who deal with self-promotion and paid editing, and editors who work to remove pseudoscience and other garbage. When you're looking at what you think is a WP:PEACOCKy description of an antivaxxer or quack, and a normal discussion doesn't settle it, it's very upsetting to be told that "Wikipedia's policies require" the article to keep what you believe is inappropriate content just because it's been there long enough that the bad content counts as the "status quo". In this context, the QUO-oriented editors are basically saying that since a thousand innocent readers have already been misled, we need to keep misleading the rest of them. You can see why that's a bad idea. These editors cite Jimmy Wales about "no information is better than bad information" and want to remove what they think is bad information.

Now if you check Kolya's edits, you'll see that there are lots of edits to high-volume controversial subjects (e.g., sexual harassment scandals). It's not surprising that someone who edits those articles might sympathize with QUO's "Peace for our time" approach. Many of those articles will be much easier to write several years from now, but for right now, the work is just to minimize screwing up, which is mostly accomplished by minimizing editing. I've worked on some articles that fall into this category; I spent several years explaining to well-meaning editors that when the scholarly sources about Breast cancer awareness differed from their personal beliefs, then the article needed to be based on the scholarly sources. "QUO says I get to keep my long-standing text, so go away" would have been a shortcut to the same end result.

But if you're going to be editing, say, articles about altmed products, then "Get this garbage out of Wikipedia" is the order of the day. Here I'll ping User:Alexbrn, whose average net contribution to Wikipedia articles is actually a negative number. He spends his days protecting Wikipedia articles from garbage. I don't think that we should be putting barriers up that say he can only remove bad content either when that content was recently added to the article, or when he can prove that there is an active consensus in favor of removing garbage.

This is the fundamental problem with what Born2cycle added to NOCON: Either we can live in a world in which I get to keep my long-standing text merely because it's long-standing, without there being an active consensus to keep it, or we can live in a world in which Alex gets to remove long-standing garbage, without there being an active consensus to remove it.

Right now, I believe that ONUS says Alex can remove the garbage, and that NOCON says that he can't (in the absence of an active consensus). We should not have policies that contradict each other. There may be a middle way. Maybe QUO is fine some subjects, but areas plagued by paid editing have a default to remove disputed information, just like we default to removing uncited controversial content about BLPs. But the current system is IMO bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping WAID. I confess I've not ever much paid attention to WP:NOCON. It seems to me there is a lot of redundancy and overlap with the PAGs here. Skimming through the discussion above I think some editors do not fully grasp what consensus is: it's not a democratic vote, but weighted in favour of the PAG-compliant "side". If I alight on some obviously garbage content (for reasons of POV or V, say) and remove it, and some editor argues to retain it, the consensus fully is with me because the only "proper concerns" are with me; the other editor's concerns are improper and thus literally do not count in the assessment of consensus. Thus the current text of NOCON, in setting up special cases for BLP and COPYVIO, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus. Any obviously policy non-compliant content may be removed immediately from an article because any such removal will be an automatic expression of consensus with the community at large who wrote the PAGs. Of course, in so doing, one has to be confident it is "obviously" so otherwise trouble will ensue! Perhaps one way to patch this up would be to quote WP:CON at WP:NOCON to point out that consensus is only ever a view aligned with with the WP:PAGs and not to be confused with mere local editorial agreement? Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOCON was meant to be entirely redundant. The idea was to list what was already in "the rules" elsewhere.

We are, in NOCON, talking about what happens in the event that a discussion ends with a "true no consensus". This happens when different editors have different ideas about, e.g., promotionalism or potentially offensive content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for writing that excellent and thorough summary. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next step

The small group here is not going to change these key policies. I suggest posting any proposals at the Village Pump policy page, where a far-reaching question like this will get more attention. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. This is the talk page of the involved policy and is heavily watched. But either way, unless a smaller group decides on it and gets behind it, it would be doomed as is any significant proposed change under the Wikipedia process. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen above through this whole section and under #ONUS, this has already been discussed to death for months and no consensus to change the policy has developed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussions were about different things. Here, there is still no consensus on whether ONUS applies only to new inclusions, so discussion continues to clarify the policy based on one interpretation or the other. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal has merit. Pity there is no easy way to just try something for a time to see whether the opposition fears come to anything.Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, in my experience, it takes editors about two years to notice that a change has been made to the written policies. That makes it hard to try something for a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a change to this page, it should be discussed here. However, it'd be a good idea to advertise it at a village pump. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus required says removing longstanding text requires consensus

This explanatory supplement illustrates the enforced version of WP:Consensus, which should be consistent with WP:ONUS.

Addition:
Editor1 submits a new addition;
Editor2 reverts, removing the addition;
Editor1 now needs to gain consensus on the article talk page for re-adding the addition.
Removal:
Editor1 removes longstanding portion of text;
Editor2 reverts, re-adding the text;
Editor1 now needs to gain consensus on the article talk page for the re-removal of the text.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an attempt to legislate clue, and misunderstands what "consensus" is (it is not just agreement). Sometimes reverting new content is obviously bad; sometimes defending longstanding content is obviously bad. If we elevate processology to look like it enables such obviously bad things, we're not helping. This is given as a "possible scenario" because it's just that. In some cases it would not apply. Alexbrn (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, I don't know what "legislate clue" means; this is an existing explanatory supplement. I'm not sure I understand; the word used is "consensus", and it's not being described or narrowed to "agreement". The normal rules of the editing policy of course still apply. Sometimes reverting new content is obviously bad; sometimes defending longstanding content is obviously bad. The "possible scenario" is not inconsistent with that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legislating WP:CLUE is trying to codify the understood subtleties of best practice and in doing so failing to capture them, because they resist codification in something terse and brief like a single Wikipedia policy section. Explanatory supplements of course have to force in the WP:PAGs but to repeat, the problem I'm seeing here is a repeated failure to understand what "consensus" is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the above example is missing something like this:

Removal:
Longstanding text was added but never discussed or challenged - lets assume most editors, if asked, would say content is UNDUE;
Editor1 removes longstanding text as UNDUE (passes V but ONUS says doesn't ensure inclusion);
Editor2 reverts, re-adding the text;
What happens next?

My reading of ONUS says Editor2 needs to justify and gain consensus for inclusion. I understand this isn't how it often works but that is my read of what ONUS currently says to do. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is confusing things. This (WP:Consensus required) is talking about text which has already achieved consensus for inclusion (at least implicitly). Evaluating the strength of the consensus is a separate issue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is text on Wikipedia that has no consensus (most extremely, vandalism that has stuck), or consensus in name only (i.e. to be ignored). To repeat, consensus does not just mean agreement. It's good to clear that crap out with vigour! Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we're talking past each other, so I'll just say again that I am not talking about text which has no consensus, and of course crap can be removed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that @Springee is correct. That scenario is missing. This is not "confusing things"; this is the main point of the dispute that we've spent the last two months discussing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wikipedia:Consensus required page possibly isn't as clear as it needs to be, but those editing rules only apply to articles that have the "consensus required" restriction applied to them as a discretionary sanction. The page is not intended as a general rule for editing. – bradv🍁 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bradv, what do you think about removing the supplement tag from that page, and moving it into the ArbCom pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can an interview with an actor that is published in a blog, be used as a reliable source? e.g This link - X201 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X201: Technically, yes – citing interviews is what Template:Cite interview was created for – but you're going to be limited here. A garden-variety interview is a primary source, and a garden-variety blog is self-published. This blog might be one step up from a typical blog, but it's still self-published. No article can be WP:Based upon this type of source. You will need to use WP:INTEXT attribution, and you will need to be cautious about what you use. You won't be able to use it for anything controversial or about BLPs except maybe the person being interviewed. (Technically, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says you can't use it even for that, but I don't think that the rule was meant to encompass this situation, so for perhaps the first time ever, I'm going to recommend that you Wikipedia:Ignore all rules there – or perhaps that you pay more attention to WP:NOTLAW than to the exact text of BLP.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Citation_cleanup#New_maintenance_template_idea:_Source_title_missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]