Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No authors?

From the beginning of this page:

"Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article."

If this is the case, why are we referring to various editors in our personal appeal banners as "authors"? One two three... 22:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say take it up at the meta discussion about those banners. What it says here is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the basic premise confuses authors, editors, and owners; typically muddy wikithink in other words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the piece about "authors". I would say that someone who writes a Wikipedia article is certainly the "author" of that article, not just an "editor". However, that all has little to do with the point of this policy, which is that you don't own an article even if you wrote it. Ucucha 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me about that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, come to think of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to 4. Examples of ownership behavior

I'm inclined to add the following. Are there any improvements/objections? - Pointillist (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist-centricity

1. If you find yourself checking your watchlist several times a day for articles you have edited, you may be thinking in terms of ownership. Because no one owns any article, there is no requirement to watch articles you have created or contributed to, so you don't need to check to see whether your edits have been vandalised, challenged (e.g. for lack of sources), discussed on the article's talk page, and so forth. The only page you are expected to keep an eye on is your own talk page. Your time on Wikipedia (and outside it) may be better spent with less attention to your watchlist.

I don't much care for it. There is nothing wrong with maintaining articles you've improved. This, no matter how it is sliced, makes an evil of virtuous conduct.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that Pointillist added a datestamp just above here after only doing a partial signature. I would not want it thought I responded in the same minute that he posted!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll continue below. Pointillist (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Making "an evil of virtuous conduct" isn't my intention, of course. Having lurked here for a long time AFAICS watching pages does tend to encourage inflexible/ownership-style thinking. I've done a fair bit of searching over en.wiki tonight and there does seem to be ambiguity about watching articles. Can you improve my proposed text to find a middle ground? - Pointillist (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll give that some thought. It could be difficult. Perhaps you might want to notify WT:FAC? They might have views on the tension between the conduct you are concerned about and not wanting to have FA's deteriorate so that editors have to spend time dealing with them at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's too deep for me, I'm afraid. If there's no need to clarify watchlisting in general then there's no need to appeal to the FAC leadership. Anyway I have a self-imposed rule to drop things after three attempts, so if no-one else wants to talk about watchlisting I'm outta here - Pointillist (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. I would say that anyone who does what you described probably also does some other act of ownership, so I'm not certain that your proposal is a must-have. Perhaps others feel otherwise. You've made your proposal less than an hour ago. Let's see what people think.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I find this proposal incomprehensible. What definition of "ownership" is it based on? There may be no requirement to watchlist articles you've created, but this seems to be suggesting that you shouldn't watchlist articles you've created, which is absurd. In what way is it better to leave them to editors who in all probability know less about the subject than you do? Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm commenting because this discussion showed up on my watchlist. :-) I, too, don't see a conduct issue with respect to watchlist checking. Ownership comes down to conduct that occurs after seeing something on a watchlist (or elsewhere), not to the act of seeing, itself. It may well be neurosis to check one's watchlist frequently (uh-oh!!), but it isn't ownership. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've come to the same conclusion. Watchlist may proceedprecede ownership-style action, but it is not itself an ownership action. I do not see that any language is needed here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On the assumption that you mean "precede" then I agree. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that sometimes happens with me. One word is decided upon, my fingers type something else ... sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I fell into the trap though. I have this page watchlisted, therefore I must think that I own it. Can we not consign this proposal to the bin of complete and utter bollocks? Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to be nice to a well-meaning editor, Malleus, and am not phrasing things like that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be nice, as sometimes you have to tell it like it is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm trying to get over the shock of Wehwalt agreeing with me about something! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

An unusual experience, I agree. You have to remember though that Wehwalt is an administrator, so one of his opinions is worth at least two of yours. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, 2 x 0 = 0. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the block gun? No? I thought not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

????? I meant me = 0. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you think your opinion is worth nada? I was thinking more of the cowboy movies anyway, when you have to hand over your guns to the dishonest marshalls before you're allowed into town. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to being an admin, I also sign comedy acts. You guys will star in the Sandbox Saturday night!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. Actually, I think that Wehwalt and Malleus make a splendid pair. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This idea might fit in better with the kinds of behaviors discussed at WP:TE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Watching an article is not a sign of ownership. I don't think that telling editors not to watch for vandalism is wise.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anyone thought I was trying to be well-meaning, that was not my intention. - Pointillist (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So you weren't trying to be well-meaning? Are you sure that's what you meant to write? Think about what the opposite of "well-meaning" might be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If I've said something stupid I don't think being well-meaning is much of a defence. I don't like the ambiguity about watch-listing. If we don't expect editors to watch-list their articles, we should say so as I proposed. On the other hand if watch-listing is a vital defence against vandalism – as this propaganda piece claims – we should say that instead, e.g. Please watch articles you have created or contributed to, to check whether your edits have been vandalised, challenged (e.g. for lack of sources), discussed on the article's talk page, and so forth. Don't stop watching until you are confident that several other editors are actively watching. That would be an interesting guideline, given that the number of active editors is falling and new editors aren't likely to want to watch ex-editors' articles. I appreciate that FA and major GA pages will always be watched, but who wants to keep an eye on fragments like Kilburn Priory in perpetuity? I'd love to tempt MZMcBride to report how many articles aren't watchlisted at all. Even where articles are watched, I've seen many instances of subtle data vandalism (city climate tables are easy targets) that are such brief blips on the radar that they don't get noticed. Malleus Fatuorum, will you be editing here when you're eighty? If not, who will be watch-listing what you have contributed? - Pointillist (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We do the best we can here. No one expects that we will be here forever. Hopefully the wiki will last, and if it does, I have no doubt others will carry on. Yes, entropy is an issue for articles as well as people, but we do our best to keep back the tide as long as we can on both counts. As some of those metaphors started to bubble and hiss when I mixed them together, I think I will leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid that I've misplaced my crystal ball, so I've got no idea what I'll be doing when I'm eighty, or even if I'll make it to eighty. But I'm somewhat optimistic that by then a rationally run replacement for the present chaos will be in place somewhere else, on whatever wikipedia mark 2 will look like, so there will be less need, and ideally no need, for the inordinate amount of time to be wasted in dealing with vandalism as is currently spent. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your ground seems to have shifted none too subtly though. At the beginning of this thread you appeared to be discouraging editors from maintaining watchlists (or at least checking them, which comes to the same thing), but now you're lamenting the fact that many articles aren't watchlisted? Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm interpreting it as a nihilistic view: as articles are not going to be maintained forever, why maintain them at all? By the same token, as we will not live forever, we may as well all head for the suicide machines.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. I don't like the ambiguity about watch-listing. I don't like the way that the leadership team is adhering to the idea that "anyone can edit" means "anyone can vandalise", which apparently assumes a perpetual supply of RCP-ing and watch-listing editors and administrators, because I've never seen a consensus for "anyone can vandalise" and I think it wastes the time and effort of useful contributors. I don't like the feeling that people with a biased POV watch articles while neutral editors move on. The software should tell us who is watching an article and if too few people are watching it there should be a special system for reviewing changes. I believe in wikipedia and most of its editors. The only thing I'm nihilistic about is the motives of the Foundation. They should get off the fence: do articles need to be watch-listed, or not? When an article isn't being watched, then what? - Pointillist (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Pointillist, I have always been under the impression that watchlisting articles you have worked on is a good thing, that you thereby prevent deterioration in the article. I work in the trenches, and few of the articles I've worked on are famous or widely watched. Nevertheless, they do get vandals now and then, and vandals can be subtle if you don't know the subject matter. They will change one digit, and all everyone will see is an edit with a character change of zero, and perhaps people won't even bother to look at it. I do look at it, and I do know the subject matter, and I make the correction. If I didn't watchlist those articles, well I suspect Wikipedia would have a little more uncaught vandalism in it than otherwise. We have three million articles, and many fewer active editors, and if you don't know the subject matter, it's easy for stuff to get past you. I hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. - Pointillist (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor change to Featured_articles section

In line with the assume good faith policy, I am proposing that we change:

Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article;

to

Editors are requested to take particular care, at their own discretion, when editing a Featured article;

or something similar.

Any objections to this? Zuggernaut (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That would water down the message, if not be a contradiction in terms. "Care" means serious attention; especially, for example, according to Webster's, "attention accompanied by caution, pains, wariness, personal interest, or responsibility." Besides, it doesn't just say "care," it says, "particular care." It implies going the extra mile. "At one's own discretion", for example, according to OED, means, "at one's own sense of fitness, mere good pleasure, or choice; as one thinks fit, chooses, or pleases." One exercises one's own discretion by being true to one's own principles, compulsions, choices or experiences; one exercises particular care, by being responsible to others, and that involves give and take. That's why it is considerate to discuss on the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that in line with what F&f is saying above, I'm not seeing what "at their own discretion" is bringing to the party. As opposed to someone else's discretion, for instance? Clearly the word "own" is redundant, which sets a poor example, but I'm still not getting the distinction between "particular care" and "discretion" in this instance. Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for the change. It seems to be to be a watering down, to say, "yes, we know your opinion is just as valuable as those of the people who did all the research, Randy from Boise."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is actually wrong. We always request that editors take particular care with FAs. The other editor's discretion does not stop us from requesting that they take particular care. Whether they should use particular care is up to their discretion, but we always make the request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Defined and active Process as in the case of deletion, etc.

This is a really common problem and even otherwise good editors engage it. It's perhaps not as bad as it was at one point but it's still a major problem which an explicit process would go far to reducing. It is especially commonly encountered if one is performing constructive edits by IP. The example comments by me and others using named accounts on user:NickOrnsteins page are a good example. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that example, and I'm not sure what kind of process one could create for it. I agree with you that the reversion should at least have had an edit summary. It seems to me that it would simply be a matter of raising the concern on the article talk (per WP:BRD), based on the argument that the content was improved by your edit (and leaving talk of OWNership out of it for the time being). Absent a reasonable reply after a sufficient period of time, you would then be justified to revert his revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well not concerned about that particular case, it's an underage editor and not a typical case. just suggesting that there should be some standard rules such as you suggest as there are supporting other policies. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:OWN extend to files?

Do the principles in WP:OWN extend to files? Seriously, we have this policy discussing text contributions, but what about images and other media? Do the same principles apply to them? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunemusic (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Really. We have templates like {{keeplocal}} and the like that seem to give people wider latitude to "own" certain parts of things, and am seeking clarification why WP:OWN seems to extend less to non-text contributions, and whether such things are violative of policy. In other words, if text was transwiki'd from, say, here to Wiktionary, there would be no question about what it would be if someone added the original material back, or otherwise demanded that the original material remain on Wikipedia despite being transwiki'd. Yet if we move something to Commons (basically a transwiki process), certain folks around here who use that {{keeplocal}} tag will scream bloody murder if we dare complete said transwiki process, moving an image file from en.wiki to Commons. That would seem to go against the spirit of WP:OWN, and if the policy does in fact extend to files in the same way it applies to text, then we need to clarify that in the policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would cautiously agree with you. I'm saying "cautiously" because I'm aware of the deletion discussion for that template, where the issues were more complicated than ownership. However, I definitely do think that the spirit of this policy is that no content on the Wiki is owned by any user, and that should not be limited to text. I would certainly consider it to be potential OWNership if a user uploads a file, then objects when another user uploads a derivative version of the file. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any further back-door attempts to override the strong consensus that the Keeplocal template be respected. Anyone can upload these images anywhere they like; given that they're free, the uploader can't object. Similarly, the uploader can retain a local copy if s/he wants to, and there's no reason to interfere with that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that any further discussion of keep-local, if any, should be at WT:NFCC, at the front door, as it were. Are there any other file-related issues that pertain to OWN? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NFCC doesn't seem to pertain, since this is about free content, and ownership issues related to it. I picked my venue carefully. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, keeplocal only says that a copy of the file should be kept here, not that another copy cannot also be kept at Commons. If someone were to say that their local file must not be duplicated at Commons (assuming it were acceptable under Commons' requirements), that might perhaps be OWNership, but I'm having trouble seeing how the existing system contradicts OWN. Here is not the venue to discuss doing away with local files entirely, that's for sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this question further (and it is an interesting question intellectually), it seems to me that, even if we were to agree to modify this page to indicate that OWN applies to all content, including files and not limited to text, you would still have trouble winning the argument that keeplocal would be in violation of it. Keeplocal applies only to the storage of files on a server, not to the inclusion of files on any page. A file would have to be part of a content page, not simply its own file page, for OWN to become an issue. If someone were to edit war against removal of an image from a particular page, where the disagreement was on the basis of content concerns, and the user insisting on continuing to use the image was saying something like "I've always considered this image to be an important part of this article", there might perhaps be a valid OWN issue, but that's not what keeplocal is about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried so much about keeplocal right now, though that is the line of thought that brought me here. I would, however, like to see the policy clarified on whether it applies to everything, and it seems like some wording changes to that effect may be a good idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Then I think the next logical step is to try to identify where else there might be OWNership concerns about non-text content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate vs. unconstructive

RE: diff As per WP:IAR, "unconstructive" makes more sense. And edit might be inappropriate by breaking some rules, but that does not necessarily mean it should be reverted. --Surturz (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. For example, violating WP:3RR is definitely inappropriate and a no-no, but could be okay under certain circumstances (e.g. consensus has been reached on talk page). --Surturz (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe "inappropriate" was in the version that gained consensus, so you shouldn't be reverting to change it over an objection. Both words mean "unhelpful" in this context, but inappropriate is slightly broader, and slightly better writing, than unconstructive.

For anyone reading this, the sentence in question is: "In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can think of many 'constructive' changes that should be reverted because they are inappropriate, e.g., changes that add detailed information to article X, but which ought to have been added to article Y. A change need not be "unconstructive" to be worthy of reversion.

I also disagree with the assertion in an edit summary that "inappropriate" is a meaningless word. I admit that it assumes that our community is capable of using judgment, but, although I admit it that is not universally true for each individual, it is not a general assumption that I'm inclined to apologize for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" assumes the reader knows what edits are appropriate and inappropriate. Since this article is educating the reader as to what is appropriate and inappropriate, that assumption is incorrect.

"Unconstructive", while not a fantastic word, at least refers to the effect of the edit on the quality of the article. "Inappropriate" merely indicates the standard of behaviour exhibited by the editor. Perhaps the entire para needs re-writing; it doesn't really tell the reader much. I think a better scenario to describe would be where an editor, new to an article, makes a change that repeats editing history. For example, this thread :-). Where there has already been a kerfuffle over a topic, and a long talk page WP:CONS building process, and an editor new to the article might insert a good faith edit repeating a common misconception or whatever.

The current para doesn't really say much except that reverting bad edits is not ownership. --Surturz (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" describes the edits, not the behaviour: "... a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits ..." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that. Maybe I have a different dictionary. shrug. --Surturz (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

How about we replace the existing section with the following (I find this happens all the time on WP):

--Opening old wounds--

Sometimes an editor, unaware of the history of an article, will insert text that opens old wounds among the regular editors of that article. For example, there may be a prominent article in reputable journal that states "Widgets cause cancer". An editor puts that in the "Widgets" article, an edit-war ensues, and eventually a consensus builds among the regular editors of that article that the reputable journal is incorrect. Some time later a new editor puts in the same misconception - that widgets cause cancer, with the same "reliable" source, and finds themselves quickly reverted by the regular editors. This is not ownership, although to the new editor it would look like it. The onus is on the regular editors to explain to the new editor the history of the topic, and not simply revert quoting "consensus".

--Surturz (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC) On a second look, current text is better. --Surturz (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

large improvement by FT2

FT2 has just made many changes, due to a comment on foundation-l. I've reverted his edits citing grammatical and factual and errors.[1] And he has complained.[2] I'll leave his grammar and style for someone else more competent; the factual errors include:

• "Every edit ever made to Wikipedia has included a statement that other editors may edit or delete their work." — (surely he cant mean the edit includes this statement) show me this statement on the first edit of Wikipedia.
• "The main reason Wikipedia is so successful is <blah>" — prove it.
• ".. all pages are the product of group collaboration." — there are pages without only one contributor.
• "Each user adds something to the work of others." — I've seen some users who dont add much.
• "Anyone can work on any page.." — some pages are locked.
• "On Wikipedia, editors work together rather than fight" — sometimes.
• Each editor is told when they make any edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Similarly, if you do not want your ideas challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them." — no, the message only says the first sentence. Prior to this edit, the second sentence was clearly separated from the first sentence.
• etc.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like the edits as a whole. The page became a lot more wordy and, in my opinion, less clear. FT2, what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I prefer the original wording[3]. It doesn't have the depth, but it is more clear and concise. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy pages set out reasons and expectations as much as realities. Some pages have one contributor, but the same principles apply as on pages with more than one. It seems the main concerns are that these edits highlighted how Wikipedia is intended to (and in principle) works. That's needed - it explains why this policy exists. I have no issues with criticism on the basis that it doesn't work that way always and shouldn't represent Wikipedia as if it does. It is as important to explain why and how it should be a given way, as to allow that it's not always like that in practice.

@Karanacs - what I'm trying to achieve is to put myself in the shoes of a newcomer, and ensure that this page explains non-ownership without WP:BITEing. As currently portrayed it almost comes over as "If you post anything we can change it so f*** you". It has a good reason behind it, it needs the newcomer to understand his posts are of the nature of a contribution to knowledge, and the gentle observation that we all work together. Then, for all but the most fanatical, it will start to make sense when we say "you don't own the text you write. Nobody does. We work together, contributing to free knowledge".

On a side, this is the point of collaboration. Each editor has a view on what "best explains" something. By working together we often get closer to the best of each. Now that you've both explained your concerns (thanks!), it becomes possible to craft an updated introduction in a way that avoids both the issues highlighted on foundation-l, and also the issues you noticed. That's inherent in a collaborative work. It might take a few times of refining and bouncing ideas back and forth to find something all feel to be acceptable. That's inherent too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FT2, for the clarification. I thought the changes were on the whole more BITE-y - that we were now saying over and over "this is what the message said - can't you read?"

I did like the following passage and would like to see it reinstated:

" It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. "

I also liked the change to the nutshell.

Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Before even getting to the merits of the proposed changes, I'd just like to point out that not everyone subscribes to e-mail mailing lists. Particularly when we are talking about policies, I'd suggest reproducing any such discussions on-Wiki and seeking further consensus on-Wiki prior to making major changes. (As is now happening below.) Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rework of nutshell + intro

	Current	Proposed wording
Nutshell	You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so.	Individual users do not have exclusive control ("ownership") of articles, templates or other content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is collaborative, so when you create or edit an article, you should expect that others will edit it. Within reason, you should work together with them and not prevent this process.
Intro	All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.	All Wikipedia edits and content become part of the wiki upon being contributed. They are all open to collaborative editing by other people. However skilled and knowledgeable you may be, and regardless of your standing in the Wikipedia community or elsewhere, we are all working together creating free license knowledge for the world. Edits made to Wikipedia should be considered as a contribution to world knowledge. As a result, no individual or group, not even the creator of a page or someone connected with its subject matter, has the right to control (or "own") an article's future development, nor the right to prevent reasonable editing within Wikipedia's policies. Users who do not wish their writing to be modified by others should not put them anywhere on Wikipedia. Instead, consider putting them on a personal website where you alone have control.
Overview	Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.	It is natural to feel possessive about material you contribute to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others or believe their version is "correct". It is also quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. If this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an "owner" of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. One reason Wikipedia contains the range of knowledge it does, is that with very few exceptions, pages are open to collaborative editing. Almost anyone can work on almost any page, provided they follow Wikipedia policies. Each user can add something to the work of others. If you believe other editors are harming a page you have worked on, then talk to them, discuss your different views, try to understand each others' perspective, or ask other users' opinions. On Wikipedia, editors should work together rather than fight for "control".

Rationale:

Nutshell:

1. Less "bitey" ("You" do not own -> "Individual users" do not own)
2. Avoids wikijargon ("exclusive control" probably makes more sense to non-editors than "ownership")
3. Longish parentheses removed and commas used instead. Sole parenthesis now is just one word, to introduce the term "ownership"
4. Softer tone ("Know that..." is quite declaratory and harsh in tone)
5. Explains reasons, again in a softer way ("Wikipedia is collaborative so you should expect others to edit")
6. Less bitey tone, again ("you should not prevent them" -> "you should work with them and not prevent this process")

Intro:

1. Explains it better. Contributions become part of the wiki (which is world knowledge), not a personal website. If that's explained then a lot of this policy falls into place.
2. Softer tone ("we are all working together")
3. Adds COI ownership, which along with authorship related ownership issues, is the most common issue and worth noting
4. Slightly softer, less pointed, and covers groups as well as individuals ("No-one" -> "No individual or group")
5. Advice and fair warning: users who don't want their text edited should put their writings on a personal website, rather than Wikipedia. (Otherwise users will think "all I have to do is say "don't edit this")
6. Takes out the repeated points per Karanacs (now saying over and over "this is what the message said - can't you read?"). On reflection I agree, I had kept the same point multiple times where it only needed saying once. Hopefully better now.

Overview:

1. Softer tone ("Some contributors feel" -> "It is natural to feel")
2. Largely expanded rather than changed.
3. Append some explanation how how this policy fits in, how it works, and what we do in lieu of ownership (eg in case of dispute) -- noting John's concerns about avoiding non-factual over-statements:

• One reason (not "the" reason") Wikipedia contains this range of knowledge is that most (not "all") pages are open to collaborative editing.
• Almost anyone can edit almost any page, provided they do so within policy.
• Each users can add something to the work of others (although in some cases they don't)
• If you feel another users work is harming a page, try understanding, discussion, extra eyeballs, or help, not "fighting".

Try that as a 2nd draft. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have low enthusiasm for these changes. To my eyes and ears, they just seem a lot more verbose. When I read the two versions side-by-side above, my reaction is that what's on the left is clear and to-the-point, whereas what's on the right verges on tl;dr. I'm very sympathetic to the concept of not being bitey, but I don't think that's a problem here. This language isn't a message delivered to an individual user. I also note the concern about not relying too heavily on Wiki-jargon that will be unfamiliar to new users, but here, it seems to me to be explaining the meaning of terms that are what this page is about. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have admired changes made by FT2 to policies in the past, but these proposals seem too waffly, and they obscure the point: no one owns an article. Attempts to be warm and welcoming are fine, but there is no point luring new editors into a trap by downplaying WP:OWN. In particular, the nutshell must correctly frame the situation, and advising them that "Within reason, you should work together with them and not prevent this process" would be read by some as "when we say you don't own the article, we don't really mean it". There is no actual problem that needs to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think that the text is more "bitey" and less explanatory than it could be. It helps newcomers to be clearer why things are so - and many OWNership issues seem to involve relative newcomers. Can you take a look and see what improvements you reckon could be made here, if you think these are going too far the other way? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Too wordy. --Surturz (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nutshell (break)

@FT2: I don't find the original wording to be bitey, nor do I think the proposed wording would ease the pain for a professed expert who finds that "their" work is being changed by others. The message is that an editor's work does not belong to them, and there is no way of both conveying that message and massaging hurt feelings.

Here is my proposal for the nutshell:

No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so.

I'm not going to push for it, but that reads better to my eye, and is possibly less confrontational. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Better than what we have at the moment, for sure. Would it hurt to add that if they don't like the changes, discuss them with the editor concerned? The notion of dispute resolution rather than fighting may not be known to many newcomers. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's desirable since people will be directed to this page, and the nutshell should provide guidance. I tried a change to the nutshell. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I like that change to the nutshell. I think it's an improvement. The only issue I notice is that, by removing the part about templates and other features, it's possible for someone to construe the present wording as meaning "any article" and not extending to anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a defect. While no nutshell is immune from misinterpretation, we might see if a couple of words could be added. The first sentence of what is there now (which is the first below) is nice and simple, and includes "any page" which covers user pages and everything—good. Some possibilities follow:

No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia.

No one owns an article or any page or feature at Wikipedia.

No one owns an article, template, or any page or feature at Wikipedia.

I think the extra words are a bit ugly, and would like "any page" to be retained. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "No one owns any article or other content at Wikipedia."?

That said, I would like to see this changed to "No one has exclusive control over the content of any article or other content", because the current nutshell and wording is plain wrong. It says that pages do not have an owner. They do - the foundation owns the content of the wikis, legally, and the author has the legal copyright in them (albeit licensed universally for reuse and derivative works). In this sense "owner" is pure wikijargon, what we actually mean is the right of control. That is what pages actually don't have. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this compromise might work: - "No one "owns" the right to dictate the content of articles and other pages on Wikipedia.", or "No one has any right to claim control ("ownership") over any article or page on Wikipedia."? These keep the familiar word but ensures it's technically accurate too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

With the caveat that I know that I'm splitting hairs, I take Johnuniq's point about "page", and I would balance the technical correctness of Foundation ownership against WP:KISS. I suggest inserting "other kind of" before the word "page", so it would read: "No one owns an article or any other kind of page at Wikipedia." Is that good enough? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody owns this huge volume of knowledge" sounds very strange, and implies anyone can handle it however they like, answerable to nobody, since we're saying none of it has any kind of owner - ie it's a kind of orphan property. In everyday English that's what "owner" always means. We mean nobody has a right to assert control, whiuch is also WP:KISS and has the advantage of being everyday English and accurate too. We explicitly do not mean "Nobody owns the content". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of an entire article

This policy discusses only editing. I feel that it should cover the case where a creator claims ownership of a complete article that has been deleted by a deletion process and/or oversighted, and wants 'his property' sending back to him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that does apply. Just fleshing out the idea, I think there's a difference between situations where something needed to be oversighted, and something that was simply deleted through AfD etc. on notability or similar grounds. In the latter case, requests for an administrator to undelete so that the author can work in user space to make something better can be entirely reasonable, and would not be OWNership as you discuss it here. I think there may be a distinction between wanting to improve deleted content in user space (good), and simply wanting a deletion process to be reversed (potentially bad). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolving ownership issues

This section is not very useful. I have been struggling with an ownership issue and I don't know how to resolve it.--Taylornate (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I'm sympathetic. The reason it's vague is, I think, the fact that there is no simple solution. Generally, your best bet is to get more editors involved, so that it isn't just you and someone else. If there are content issues, you could try an RfC. If you feel the other person is being incivil, you could ask for advice at WP:WQA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A confusing statement?

The article says: Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Leaving aside for a moment what a "primary editor" may be, this seems to imply that if contributions and input from fellow editors are ignored then being the "primary or sole editor" does constitute ownership. I propose replacing this sentence with what it probably meant to say: Being the creator or most prolific editor of an article does not constitute ownership. This also removes the term "primary editor", which itself implies some sort of primacy of one editor over another. In fact on re-reading it the entire paragraph (the final paragraph in the "Overview" section) needs work to make it clearer. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User Papaursa

Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -

'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'

Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. (BigzMMA 10:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

Comment

Is this "v good-faith but poorly written edits lacking critical details (and a bit peacocky for my taste, too)" an example of ownership of articles. I think its best to let the user remain anonymous to prevent complications, but is this really? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 06:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention, my edits looked a bit something like this: In a survey conducted in Spring 2011, Yale ranked 4th on best undergraduate teaching. In 2011, the university was ranked as the 2nd most valued college, with about 56.6% of university students receiving need-based grants, profiting from an average discount of 73%. But the editor ended up reverting this edit, claiming it to be 'peacocky' for his taste. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the wording of the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy. It sounds as if you are looking for a noticeboard to discuss some content issue. I'm not sure of an appropriate place, but starting at Talk:Yale University might be a good idea. Possibly ask at WT:WikiProject Universities for other opinions. However, no the above summary does not indicate an ownership problem: it's just a normal disagreement over whether certain text is or is not appropriate (and the text does sound a bit peacocky). Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish's insight

(this first paragraph I copied here from his talkpage) Yeah, too right, it does go over into NPA. I hadn't had a good look at that one or considered it. What I had been doing was besides that part, grouping some of the different kinds of comments to help clarify why they are bad comments, and give editors direction in what they should do. If you tell a person / child / editor only what it is not allowed to do, and nothing about what it could / should / can do, then the only things they have in their head are the wrong things. So there is rebellion or subversion to choose from. Besides giving the direction, I think linking between the pages would help a lot to explain why some ownership comments are wrong, like some of these

(these ones could be added under the attack section of the page, or grouped as the personal attack examples)

1. "You are a new editor"
2. "You don't have enough experience"
3. "You're ruining the article"
4. "Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article. Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest in this article. Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes. You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened. Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile. Toodles! :)"
5. "You marked my article for deletion."
6. "you're driving other editors away from this project."
7. "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
8. "Your work is purely childish and unhelpful to the article."

So rather than a mixture of comments with no form, I was grouping by type and then working to explain what is wrong with those comments, so a small excerpt pointing out NPA with a link across to that policy may turn up the clarity. There are other groupings as well, I should write those up so we can look at what is wrong with them and link across to the policies that cover that subject. Penyulap ☏ 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Other groupings

Discussing yourself, not the content (not a personal attack, but violates the third pillar)

1. "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work!"
2. "I/he/she/we created this article" (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).
3. "Hello, and welcome! I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help, however I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will immediately proceed to ignore them."
4. "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
5. "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."

or how many people you are (third pillar again)

1. "We think you should you should make some small edits first, it would be better for everyone.
2. "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."
3. Do not use "We" when you actually mean "I", then discuss the content, not yourself
4. any sentence containing "the other editors think" rather than "see the poll in archive 6"
5. "Please clear this with project X first."

but that would just be personal ownership, rather than ownership that may verge on personal attacks Penyulap ☏ 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

timetable (linkable, but mostly an essay sort of level link)

1. "I don't have time to look into this right now, but I prefer some other version"
2. "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
3. "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
4. "Please refrain from making any major changes while I am away"
5. "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."

maybe adding soft advice like 'When you don't have time to research, check references and new material, but other editors do, it may be time to consider 'leaving it to them' until you do have time.' Penyulap ☏ 08:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What prompted this discussion was an edit to the policy page that I reverted. To make a long story short, please let me suggest the following. I don't really think that we need to make any major changes to this policy page or to its organization, but maybe a "Further information: Wikipedia:No personal attacks" hatnote at the top of the appropriate section (which one?) would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's interesting the way that you phrase that, because I genuinely want to help improve the way that the list of comments itself is presented, so a broader range of editors can understand better the reason why each kind of remark fails, and what policy is associated with it.

Thing is, I just got through doing a little bit to help with the WP:BRD essay, which outlines how to prompt discussions :) sorry, the co-incidence makes me smile a little bit. That one is just an essay, and this one is policy, however I'm pretty sure that the list could use a little help in specifying what is wrong with each comment, rather than just saying they are wrong because it's ownership. Sort of a see also and main poicy for each comment so it links through to the related pages.

I generally gain more ideas from critique than agreement, but as far as I can see, we are on the same page. A hat-note would simply be ideal, I feel that the closer to each remark the better the the chance of associating the remark with the policy and editors clicking on through if they don't understand the problem with the remark. But which section ? that is the question indeed. The comments don't have order beyond all being ownership. Personal attacks like "Your work is purely childish and unhelpful to the article." are positioned next to "Please clear this with project X first." which violates the third pillar, so there is no section to hat-note in a meaningful manner just yet. That's what I'm thinking. Penyulap ☏ 03:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure third pillar and personal attacks can be grouped, but there would be others no doubt. Every comment that is wrong has reasons why it is wrong, where there is more than one tangent of further study, I feel we can avoid dead-ends. Penyulap ☏ 03:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I've put the note at the top of the section that lists all of the examples, and it's good enough for me. Thanks for drawing attention to the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's said that compromise is "finding a solution nobody likes". I'm more optimistic than that. Certainly it can't be perfect for everyone, but expressing the concept in mandarin would let a billion people understand the concept, and that majority would consider it good.

Hey, I'm not looking for perfect, I'm looking for something that will help guide newbies like I was, to identify the many ways ownership expresses itself. Sure you, and I, and everyone reading the talkpage know what ownership is now, but I feel it's missing some fundamental guidance, and helping it to be just 'good' for a larger number of editors is something I'd like to do, so it's good for you and good for me, or at least the people we were when we started. Penyulap ☏ 08:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should be made to read this policy

Even though this policy dates back to something like 2005 (according to the edit history), it's amazing that I only just learned of its existence today. Although I edit as an IP now, I am an experienced Wikipedia editor with some 30,000+ edits and one of the reasons I no longer edit regularly, or under my username, is because the experience I had with so many editors who claimed ownership of an article really soured me on the project. I wish some of the "Wikia" sites also followed this policy. In my opinion every Wikipedia editor - especially those who register accounts - should be made to read this. If more people were aware of the policy we might see fewer edit wars and bad blood. Just my 2 cents; as with most things there's always room for improvement, but this policy (now that I know it exists) gets two thumbs up from me. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

+1 Penyulap ☏ 11:57, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

For consideration

There's a sort of inverse annoyance that's prevalent, which is assigning ownership to others. For example, when someone makes a contribution, then someone else decides that the reference is in an outdated format or the fair use rationale isn't specific enough. First they go through the history to find out who to blame, then they summon up some long-winded template full of links to long-winded policy pages, all because they want you to fix it yourself. Wouldn't it be much simpler and kinder if when someone finds a weakness in Wikipedia, they would just address it directly instead of going to all that trouble just to nag someone else? Most of the time, the course of correction is clear and Wikipedia can go on improving itself without calling people on the carpet. In the case that more information is needed, wouldn't it be more collegial to ask the question instead of framing the oversight as a violation? --Dystopos (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

exactly. But what would we clog the server space with, if not 6 pages of discussion about a particular change by a dozen people who don't want to simply make the change to the one sentence ? Penyulap ☏ 11:58, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

a few additions

I would like to know if these are spot on, or no good...

1. "You should try making some small edits first"
2. "If bob disagrees with your decision that a given subject is notable, then it's clearly non-notable, isn't it?"
3. "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."
4. "This edit wasn't discussed first"

Penyulap ☏ 21:54, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I think 1 and 4 are spot on! I'm not so sure about 3, because it could just be an honest disagreement, or a misunderstanding of whatever the proposed change is. I guess 2 sort of is ownership, but it may not be a clear example, first because it divides the ownership between two users, and second because I did a sort of double-take wondering who the name referred to . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

sweet, you know I think someone missed the cosmic opportunity to revert me on number 4 :)

I'll work on the others, and try to better capture the essence and separate it from the gf comment sort of thing. do you think there are others in the article that we could improve? Penyulap ☏ 01:26, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

would it be helpful if I make a separate list, with examples of the multiple editor ownership, so that 2 is a little clearer as an example ? Penyulap ☏ 22:50, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

"See also" section

I would suggest to cplit it into two subsections: "Policies & guidelines" and "Essays". While essays are instructive and fun to read, when I go to a policy page, I want to look into policies in the first place and I want to know what to click without wasting my spare time (which I would rater spend on editing). Especially, I have to agree with Nikkimaria, sometimes this "See also" section gets bloated. Is there a place to "metadiscuss" the style of policy/guideline pages? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

Several significant changes have been made to this policy recently; I've twice reverted them, the second time asking the editor concerned to make a case for them here, but I've again been reverted. I re[eat my request that the changes be discussed here in order that consensus can be reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted three good faith edits that made the page less clear to me. I wanted to say the edits were good faith, but no edit summary appeared. Sorry if I did it wrong, but there was no edit summary to explain. It is important for this page to be clear. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

But there were edit summaries for each of the three edits you reverted, MT. Perhaps you meant to revert different edits? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly. I meant there wasn't an edit summary for me. Usually there is an edit summary for me, so that when I revert, I can give my reason - but it just reverted and I couldn't explain: In this case, I preferred the version before the last three edits because it was clear to me and that I realized the new edits were made in good faith. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summaries didn't make much sense, however, Nikki. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What specifically confused you about them? The first eliminated the oddity of "articles you have on your watchlist", because a) not all contributors have or use watchlists and b) ownership deals primarily with editing, not simply reading/watching. The second eliminated some of the less relevant essays, because SEEALSO bloat dilutes the value of more relevant links and makes that section unnecessarily long. The third removed a link from See also that is already present in the body of the article, which is proper procedure according to WP:SEEALSO. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that Melodia was referring to edits summaries like "cons sa" and "rm2". You didn't merely eliminate the reference to watchlists ([a reference] which seemed fine, to me) but replaced it with a reference to "an article that you maintain", which is a new concept and not one which sits well with the theme of this page. Also, I do not agree that Wikipedia:No vested contributors (for example) is "less relevant" here. The relevant sections should be returned to the version prior to your changes until consensus for them is demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should suspect that at all, given that the first summary you cite was not among the edits in question here, and the second is a fairly standard abbreviation for "remove 2". What would you suggest as a replacement for the bit about watchlists? I also tried "an article that you edit", but Melodia quite rightly pointed out that that isn't really correct. In terms of the see alsos, I'm sure that there are a number of potentially relevant essays that might be linked, but such a section quickly becomes bloated, and on a policy it's particularly important to point readers to only the most relevant and supported pages - so WP:Disruptive editing, probably WP:CONLIMITED, but certainly not every potentially related essay out there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

<clears throat nervously, me too, got to be nervous here> (I'm commenting because apparently by not commenting further, I'm a diva, according to Nikkimaria's definition of diva.) So you're saying that speaking in code that new editors won't understand is good? MathewTownsend (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm saying we should avoid the use of "watchlist" in this particular context, because it's not particularly germane to the point and because not everyone uses or can use a watchlist. I'm also saying that having a very extensive see also section might be intimidating or confusing to a newer editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So, we disagree. And with few others commenting, also with divided opinions, the status quo prior to your edits pertains, until and unless you can make a conving case for them (your 'slippery slope' style straw-man argument not being one). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you agree that removing the reference to watchlists was fine, do you have any suggestions for alternative wordings for that section, or are you okay with Melodia's solution? I'm afraid though that the status quo would be the wording that stood for over a month prior to your recent edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not agree with its removal; I meant that the reference was fine (I'll amend my post, above). There is no time limit on challenging disputed changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Realistically there has to be some kind of limit, even if not set in stone – if I reverted an edit you made weeks, months or even years ago citing WP:BRD, you'd quite rightfully object. Can you explain why you support the "watchlist" bit? To me it doesn't seem relevant to the point being made there, and excludes some editors who may still display "ownership". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this page for three days because of the slow-moving edit war that's been ongoing for several days. Please discuss here, and feel free to let me know if it should be unprotected sooner. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is already taking place, above (at #Recent changes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And now I wish I had fully protected this page too. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When one editor writes the article

I think this is a particular problem because an editor who has written all or most of the article often seems to feel ownership especially if it has FA. They often talk about "my work", "articles I wrote", guard their watchlist, and act in every way that it belongs to them. There is an article somewhere about "diva" editors. If wp is really interested in retaining new editors, I think this attitude needs to change.

Editors with "ownership" issues typically do not edit collaboratively with the community but write the article themselves, perhaps with a few "trusted" friends. Perhaps wp needs to decide whether they are apart from WMF goals or not. Perhaps wp should be split into the existing encyclopedia, and a special "literary magazine" for FAs (whose editors choose to be in it - e.g. "diva" editors could put their articles there) with different rules. Since FAs usually have low number of page views, perhaps this could be achieved without harming the encyclopedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unredacted, as responses don't make sense responding to nothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WP is interested in acquiring new editors, but is also concerned with retaining the editors we already have. I'm sure your post here is in good faith, but your attitude seems contrary to the latter goal. Splitting FAs into a separate site (and, based on your comment, not retaining them here - please clarify if this is not the case) would most certainly be harmful. What kind of generalist encyclopedia does not have an article on lettuce, for example? On the numerous heads of states (including about a dozen US presidents) whose articles are FAs? Anyone is welcome to copy articles elsewhere for any reason, of course, but this approach seems wrong-headed, and perhaps disregards human nature. The page you refer to, WP:DIVA, concerns editors who retire or threaten to retire when things don't go their way; the types of people you actually discuss, though, are those who exhibit pride in the work they contribute to our community and our project - and that pride is not limited to FA writers. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP isn't seriously interested in retaining editors at all, just empty words. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WP isn't a sentient entity (yet :P ).

There are obviously different perspectives on all the meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, and many of us are going slowly insane, whilst trying to mediate and translate and interpret and clarify the different perspectives, and their contextual validity in realworld situations. Ie. trying to point out the "idealism vs practicality" problems in many circumstances, to the people with extreme-stances who refuse to acknowledge the validity of the bloody large spectrum of subjectivity. (Plus all the miscommunications that arise from different languages/cultures/ages/assumptions/motivations/etc).

WP:RETENTION is a gathering-area, that is warmly appreciative of new ideas and methods to aid in preventing problems that lead to unnecessary stress. They're after ways to keep newcomers editing, and to keep oldtimers from retiring/fading. Grease the wheels, sand the splinters, smooth the way. It's definitely not a simple or completable task, but we're used to that, right? :) —Quiddity (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have fully supported Lettuce and supported its appearance as TFA. I just passed Cabbage as GA by the same editor. But that editor Dana boomer doesn't have ownership problems and always responds positively to any suggestions and is willing to consider them. This is in contrast to editors who watchlist their articles and instantly revert any changes without an open mind as to its constructiveness. So there is a difference in the way editors respond. Many, like Dana boomer are open to suggestions and are not defensive, while others are instantly defensive and close minded. The close minded attitude doesn't encourage new editors or contribute to editor retention. It seems to indicae ownership issues. IMO; this should not be encouraged. Overly watchlisting seems to contribute to this bad practice, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this you've invested the effort to write exactly zero FAs. I think that perhaps when you've demonstrated a little more commitment to quality content than you have so far then your opinion may carry a little more weight. Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's a difference in the way editors respond, but your original post doesn't exactly seem to be acknowledging that. To perhaps make this a bit clearer: on your userpage, you mention "my dyk", "my barnstars", "articles I started". Does this make you "apart from WMF goals"? No – it's perfectly appropriate for you to take some level of (dare I say it) ownership of what you've done here. There's a very big difference between that, which actually helps user retention, and the behaviour I think we are trying to discourage with this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that FAs have rather few page views therefore they don't matter also needs to be challenged. For instance, Manchester United F.C. had more that 680,000 page views last month,[4] and Moors murders had almost half a million.[5] Anyone who seriously believes that a credible Wikipedia would be better of without either of those articles, or that the maintenance of their quality ought not to be a priority, needs to have their bumps felt. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To choose just one of MatthewTownsend's articles at random, Peter Askin had only 165 views last month; even Gropecunt Lane managed to put that in the shade with more than 10,000 views[6], as did Tickle Cock Bridge a mere GA that still had almost ten times the page views of Peter Askin.[7] Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, in fairness to MathewTownsend he was the co-writer of today's featured article, which is probably getting tons of views today. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And writing FAs isn't the sole mark of a useful editor. Everyone contributes where they want to, whether gnoming or mediating or cleanup or helpdesks or refhunting or coding or etc Etc etc. Some breadth, some depth, some both. —Quiddity (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, off topic, but I have a lot of respect for the people who spend hours each day reverting vandalism. Always nice to see those guys on my watchlist. 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But which got only 969 views last month.[8] Nobody has claimed that writing FAs is the sole mark of anything, but the attitude on display here is that it's nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Gee, Malleus Fatuorum, that's kind of a low blow, putting down my tiny article. Is this because I expressed my opinion above? (And I do have a FA.) Just because I spend my time copy editing other people's articles (many of which do get to FA) and doing GA reviews (many of which also do get to FA), is that not important enough for me to be allowed to express my opinion? Considering Peter Askin is only two sentences long, doesn't have the word "cunt" in it, has never been advertised on the main page, GA, or FA, and has no name recognition, that a pretty good number of views, don't you think? I know you're proud of Gropecunt Lane, but any article with "cunt" in it is going to get lots of hits. Likewise for famous murder articles. It's just that having reviewed over 180 GAs recently, I have my own impression of how different editors respond and how they use their watchlists (or perhaps they patrol recent changes, I don't know). But I'll withdraw my comment if it offends you. Really, I'm very sorry to have upset you. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you change Tickle Cock Bridge to "::::::::" Matthew? And if you took the trouble to look you'd see that I've done more than 500 GA reviews, so I've likely got a better idea of what I'm talking about than you have. Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And looking at "your" FA I see that you in fact contributed almost nothing to it except for a few copyedits,[9] so perhaps that goes at least some way to explaining why you can't understand the issue that's being discussed here; you've never written anything worth spit, so of course you have nothing to feel protective of. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please, let's not get into a dick measuring contest here. This page is meant to discuss improvements to our Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Therefore it would have been a good idea not to begin this section with a blanket condemnation of all FA writers as "divas". Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, I've redacted my comment. I realize that I'm not welcomed here, and that Malleus Fatuorum is important. I'm sorry I expressed my opinion. I've only been editing less than a year and don't know how things are done. I thought I was posting in the same vein that others do. I know that only long time editors are respected and that my contributions to the encyclopedia are minimal. I've reduced my editing considerably lately, due to my perception of the atmosphere, and I guess this is a sign that I should reduce it more. Sorry for the offense I've given. I understand my editing is not welcomed. I know I upset Nikkimaria because I removed a link to Simple Wikipedia, because I didn't know those links always exist. Nikkimaria chastized me for this mistake. Please, both Malleus Fatuorum and NIkkimaria, accept my apologies for my offenses. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

and sorry for whatever I did to Tickle Cock Bridge, as I know Malleus Fatuorum is proud of that article. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And still you persist with your misunderstandings. I'm no more proud of Tickle Cock bridge than I am of anything else. What I was objecting to was your Puritanical replacement with "::::::::". Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I wasn't upset by your removal of the interwiki, and the issue is not that your editing is not welcome. You just seem to be becoming a bit agitated here, and are thus perhaps not expressing yourself as clearly as you might normally do. I'm sure, given your reaction, you can empathize with the defensiveness someone might feel at having the value of their work questioned or having it suggested that they are unwelcome on Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I made a couple of mistakes. I accidentally screwed up Malleus Fatuorum's Tickle Cock Bridge. I didn't mean to do it. It wasn't a Puritanical replacement with "::::::::" as Malleus Fatuorum assumes. But I see that I'm not welcomed here. Editors such as Malleus Fatuorum see fit to make unfavorable assumptions about me personally and what he presumes are my views. Yes I'm agitated and I don't like to be belittled when I've tried to be a good editor here. I've been chastised twice for two innocent mistakes. (I was trying to copy Tickle Cock Bridge bridge for my comment in response to Malleus Fatorum's belittling of my efforts here on wikipedia. I've worked very hard here. This is not a friendly place. I don't feel free to make anymore comments on this page. I'm not one of those allowed to have an opinion here. I certainly didn't expect to be personally attacked because of a comment about Ownership. Kinda seems like this page has Ownership problems. I'm not allowed to have an opinion and my words are twisted and interpreted in the worst possible way. I've seen plenty of discussions about "divas" and I hadn't know it was a forbidden term here. Again, I'm sorry. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I really don't want to further upset you, but...you're kinda acting like a diva here. Perhaps it would be beneficial to step away from your keyboard for a bit and come back to this discussion with an open mind? After all, you opened this section with a strident proposal, and it's certainly not unthinkable that people might have strong opinions, even criticism, of such a proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So it's ok for them to have strong opinions but not me? In what way am i a diva? ("A Wikipedia diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief.") Is that what I'm doing? Who's the diva here? If others hadn't gotten so upset over my comment and felt the need to ridicule me, attack me personally as a puritan because of a ridiculous mistake I made in trying to link to Malleus Fatuorum's article Tickle Cock Bridge, this wouldn't have happened. If other, superior editors can attack me personally and belittle my contributions, then how am I the diva? I belittled and attacked no one personally. I made a general comment. I was then personally belittled and attacked, with examples of my editing put up for ridicule. Malleus Faturorum points out my pathetic article Peter Askin and says I didn't deserve the FA I received. He says: "According to this you've invested the effort to write exactly zero FAs. I think that perhaps when you've demonstrated a little more commitment to quality content than you have so far then your opinion may carry a little more weight." ok, I get the message. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I'm not saying you can't have strong opinions, you just need to consider other peoples' perspectives and keep in mind that commentary such as that with which you began the section is likely to elicit passionate (and critical) response. You are upset because you feel people are ridiculing you, and that's understandable – but other people might feel upset because of what you said about them, and you need to be aware of that. You say that you "belittled and attacked no one personally", but while you might not have done so by name, your opening remarks attacked a whole class of editors. As to the diva issue, consider the comments that immediately preceded my remark: "I see that I'm not welcomed here...I don't feel free to make anymore comments on this page. I'm not one of those allowed to have an opinion here...I'm not allowed to have an opinion". You might not have intended it that way, but this reads as a search for validation, and the exact kind of "storming off in a huff" that DIVA warns against. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, please stop attacking people and thus derail the discussion. MathewTownsend has all rights to express his frustration, which serve as an example of problems at hand. He does not threat to "punish" wikipedia by leaving the project. He works hard despite obstacles he feels. His opening remark (if it is the one which starts with Editors with "ownership"...) correctly expresses worries about "a whole class of editors". If someone is offended by his remark then,.... well... "pants on fire". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Staszek, as I just said, he has every right to his opinions. What he does not have the right to do is attack others while complaining of being attacked himself. What he is doing is not conducive to a productive policy discussion. (You may need to check your understanding of the idiom "pants on fire", as you do not appear to be using it correctly.) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nikki, my point is these people themselve seem to be very prolific in badgering each other and your intervention (and mine; my mistake) does not quench the fire. Therefore I've been sugesting to abandon this thread, since it is useless for the policy. Just leave it for those who are not done with venting their frustrations and move on. For example, why don't you comment on my two new sections below? Or bickering is more fun than working on the improvement of the policy? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a question you ought to be addressing to MathewTownsend, whose hypocritical and insulting comments started this mess. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, all said, what is your particular suggestion again, to improve this policy? If none, then I suggest to close this thread deteriorated into bickering. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

His suggestion is quite visible at the start of this section. Basically it's OK for him to list "his" articles on his user page, but not for anyone else to list "their" articles anywhere. And all FA writers who've ever tried to defend an article they've been involved with from turning into the usual Wikipedia grey goo should be exiled with their articles to some new site. Which will be no loss to Wikipedia as FAs get very few page views anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you are not helpful. The question was not to restart bickering, but to contribute to the quality of the policy. Once again, if there is nothing to say towards the quality of the policy, I strongly suggest to shut this section down. Are there any WPBOLD admins around? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And your contribution was helpful? Get real. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

re: "helpful?": Maybe not yet, but... See Tryptofish below (especially his emphasis). How many people must repeat that for you to get the message? Also, I have made a specific suggestion (below) directly relevant to part of the edit war at hand. Please discuss it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no amount of people that will shut me up in the face of hypocrisy, dishonesty and nonsense. Just doesn't happen. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. By powers vested unto me by me hereby and henceforth I declare you official owner of this thread. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What powers might they be asshole? Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all references to "my" on (my) userpage. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Section break

(Clears throat nervously...) Anyway, I think that the way this page discusses featured articles is alright as written. But if anyone feels that it needs to be revised, let's do please discuss that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll wade in. I think it should stay as written. Here's the deal: I write almost exclusively alone so I'm not sure where that puts me in regards to the comment posted at the top of the thread. I've worked on pages with high page views and pages with low page views; pages that I've rewritten entirely and others that I took from a one sentence stub to FA level. Some pages I take to be reviewed although given the animosity against FAs and FA writers I do so less these days. I think that does a disservice to our readers, because I think the little gold star is for them, not for the person who got it on the page. Generally I keep the pages on my watch and this is the reason: I buy books, go to the library, travel to university libraries, get myself behind paywalls to find sources. Then I read - a lot. Once all that's done I work on the page and make many many edits. Sometimes over a thousand. So if later someone throws a "fact" in a highly viewed page I've worked one (note I use the singular personal pronoun) that I know is rubbish or just plain wrong, because I've spent and hours of research, why shouldn't it be reverted? Apparently this is no longer allowed - hence I don't bother to bring pages beyond a certain point completion. But I do think the writers and researchers who spend a great deal of time bringing a page to FA level know the material and thus should be the steward for the page as long as they're still active editors. Just my opinion of course. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add: this obviously does not preclude additions of well-researched and well-written material. Furthermore, if the article is changed in a manner that's substantively different, or new research brought forward, expansions suggested, etc., then of course that's fine. Often, however, talkpage discussions are necessary to discuss issues of weight, etc., in terms of new additions. But these are all part of the normal editing cycle. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And that normal editing cycle doesn't need - indeed, precludes as a matter of policy - stewardship by one editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently this is no longer allowed" that's bullshit, and if you don't know that, you should. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia." Who defines "unconstructive edits"? Hopefully unconstructive edits are reverted even when there is not a "core group of editors". If so why emphasise it in this section?

There is a flaw in the sentence "In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly." It is mixing up conduct with content. For example let us suppose that some of the the stewards make uncivil comments? Does that mean that unconstructive edit should then be included in the article? Of course not!, but uncivil comments are a very good tactic that stewards can employ (particularly against less experienced editors who have not come up against such vitriol in past talk page exchanges) to divert attention away from material or layout that they disprove of (especially when the proposed edits are constructive) in articles that they "steward". If WP:CIVIL was enforced against "stewards" who repeatedly use the tactic, instead of their apologists and "useful fools" (Lenin) protecting them (with comments about how much they contribute to the project etc) at ANIs and other disciplinary forum, then there might be some merit in this paragraph, but without a strict enforcement of WP:CIVIL which does not seem to be possible for high profile editors, then this paragraph harms the articles it sets out to protect.

"Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." This is a contradiction of bold. It also makes assumptions that the FA process never fails -- which I know from personal experience is not necessarily so. This sentence encourages such "stewards" to prevent others changing the article not because the article does not need it but because the changes have not been discussed first. As soon as discussion starts they get bogged down in a morass of unfocused comments -- in what is, whether intentionally or not, obfuscation. The GA and FA process needs a good shake up to put in some checks and balances. Until such time that happens this section should be removed from this guideline as it encourages the worst forms of ownership that I have seen on Wikipedia.

We have 3 content policies and the editing policy to govern content and consensus to govern how those content policies are implemented -- warnings over ownership are a useful adjunct to consensus. We do not need this get out of jail section in this ownership guideline to unpick the usefulness of the guideline for specific types of articles.

-- PBS (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Yes, Yes! this what I was trying to say (very badly). The Wikipedia:Ownership of articles page suffers from ownership, as does this talk page. It is written some place else that page owners or "stewards" should not instantly revert an edit (as often happens) without evaluating the edit first. And the FA process is imperfect. But "stewards" don't allow improvement.
  Also, what does this mean: "The Terms of Use make it clear that there is not only nothing strange about an editor caring about the material he has contributed, and not only is it normal, but it is legally required (everybody is legally responsible for his own contributions)." as a rationale for "stewardship"? Once an editor's words are modified, they're no longer the editor's words, so no legal responsibility. Weird interpretation of the legal warning. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• RE: featured articles, there are a number of featured articles that were promoted 5 or 6 years ago that probably wouldn't pass a GA review today without substantial fixing up (maintenance tags, uncited sections etc.). In those cases, I think anyone who cares should boldly make drastic changes. If something was promoted last week after a detailed FAC candidacy, it would generally be a terrible idea to jump in and make major adjustments. Not all featured articles are of the same quality! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vertical and horizontal editing

Some of this discussion has spilled over to user talk pages. One comment in particular I thought was an excellent one, made by Choess over on SlimVirgin's talk page. The diff is here, and it is well worth reading, especially the second paragraph (which should be quoted here, but I'm going to ask Choess first) where the tensions between 'vertical' and 'horizontal' editing are described with great clarity. The full thread at the time of Choess's comment is here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Diva?

re: common response by an editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project. -- sounds like WP:DIVA to me. Shouldn't the phrase be wikilinked there? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that bit should probably just be removed entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On the second thought I agree; "common response"? Any stats for such bold claim? Also, the subsequent advise smacks attack, inappropriate for a policy. Besides, "diva syndrom" is not specific to "article owners". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"User pages" section

IMO "User pages" section is misplaced. First, they are not articles. Second, there is a whole separate policy, WP:USER, and in fact this section here is a fork of the latter one, which should be discouraged for several well-known reasons. Instead, I suggest to replace it with the following item in "See also":

• For the issues of ownership of user pages, see Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages.

Comments, please. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps mention it in the "overview" instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

At odds with WMF policy

Ik think I understand the purpose of this page pretty well, and as far as I understand it, I don't disagree with it. However, the tone seems based mostly on anti-elitist sentiments. It is not surprising to see this page used so often by groups wanting to establish ownership over pages that were built by single editors.

A phrase like "All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively." is weird; there is lots of content for which this not true at all. The sentences "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others." are at odds with WMF policy. The Terms of Use make it clear that there is not only nothing strange about an editor caring about the material he has contributed, and not only is it normal, but it is legally required (everybody is legally responsible for his own contributions). And this is in fact nothing new, after all who wants to read an encyclopedia that has just been thrown together by uncaring passers-by. Such value as Wikipedia has lies in material contributed by editors who cared strongly about what they were doing and who put in the effort to get it right. Caring about one's contributions can have different causes and can have different effects on Wikipedia (just like other phenomena, like, say, collaboration which can be beneficial as well as quite lethal). There is a huge difference between somebody who pushes a PoV and fights off anybody who wants to turn a page in a more policy-compliant direction and an editor who painstakingly puts together a high-quality page and is unhappy about users wanting to see their PoV represented and inserted. There are all kinds of situations where it is highly desirable that a user keeps up the quality of a page over time, updating it and weeding out inserted junk, as long as he keeps an open mind. As it is, this page does not address this variety at all. Nor does it puts things in perspective; the overall WMF vision aims to achieve the best content possible and this page should reflect that; the behaviour of a user cannot be evaluated apart from how it fits in other policies (especially the core content policies). As it is, this page breathes the philosophy "hey, here is a user who knows something about what he writes about, take him out back and shoot him", which is so common in Wikipedia (again not compliant with WMF policies; the WMF quite likes editors who can put together high-quality content, and are willing to do so). I see I am not the first who made this point, nor am I likely to be the last. A copyright owner (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Like most any perfect law, WP:OWN can be gamed both ways. It can and is used in cases such as you mention: a group of subpar bullies wants to get rid of a strong editor, which may be the original contributor, or someone who took responsibility later and greatly improves and maintains the article, and who keeps the article clean from the POV and/or other unacceptable things which the bully group wants to insert. That deliberate abuse of the WP:OWN policy happens all the time.

Then there's also the other case: A strongly biased editor digs in at an article or array of articles, makes friends with well-established likeminded editors and admins, then uses WP:OWN to thwart any attempt at getting him and that POV (and/or other silly things he likes) out of the article in question. That also happens all the time.

Without binding content arbitration, problems like this cannot and will never be resolved. Therefore, any attempts to establish any form of content committee is immediately shouted down by those who favor the status quo. Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't contribute, don't donate, read only with great care. --78.35.248.247 (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Using multiple IP's is another way to game the system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of policy re revision of content which has inline citations from reliable sources

I revised this paragraph today so that it read as follows:

Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. One should therefore be cautious about deleting or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if the content was written by one editor and is referenced with inline citations from reliable sources. In such cases it is more effective to leave a comment on the article's Talk page outlining your concerns about the content, and leave time for other editors' responses before deleting or rewriting it. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)

My revision was reverted, and I'd appreciate knowing why it wouldn't be a useful addition to Wikipedia policy to require that editors should be cautious about deleting or rewriting large amounts of content which is referenced with inline citations to reliable sources. It seems to me that Wikipedia users benefit from content which is referenced with inline citations from reliable sources, and that other editors should use caution in deleting such content. NinaGreen (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Caution, sure. But the proper way of dealing with the information depends very much on what it is - it's quite possible for information to be reliably sourced and still inappropriate or contrary to policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the change, with an added caveat. Please try to make improvements rather then reverting. And please use specific, meaningful edit summaries if you do revert; "per editnotice" is not adequate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why we have the editnotice: to remind editors to discuss changes to policy pages before making them. Both of you seem to have overlooked it, though, which is why I directed your attention to it. Now, unfortunately, your caveat does not completely address my concern - it addresses the "contrary to policy" issue, but not other areas of inappropriateness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked both what the edit notice actually says, and my comment above, "Please try to make improvements rather then reverting". Perhaps you might suggest an acceptable compromise now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good joke

This article is funny! Ha ha... Imagine if Wikipedia took steps to prevent so-called "ownership". Why, it would be near unrecognisable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.50.125 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Primary editor

There is some talk that so called "primary editors" have certain veto powers in their articles. This need to either be codified or refuted here. Agathoclea (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. It is true that some people viewing the WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes case have thought such an argument had been proposed, but no one has made that suggestion. In fact, the editors who are maintaining the articles in question are among the best and brightest at Wikipedia, and they are fully aware of, and endorse, WP:OWN. Everyone knows that no one owns an article, but it is also true that no one owns the top-right hand corner of article pages. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So you would agree with adding "the primary editor does not want x" as an example of ownership? Agathoclea (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's an over-simplification. If someone who happens to be the primary editor says "I do not want X", that is their opinion, and obviously WP:OWN is not saying that the primary editor cannot state their view. I don't think it needs any clarification, but WP:OWN could possibly say that the fact that someone is the primary editor does not give their opinion any special status. In the same way, the opinion of an editor who is new to an article does not have any special status either.

The real meaning of WP:OWN is that disagreements are resolved by following the principles of established policies, guidelines, and best practice—the fact that one side might have written the article is not relevant to those procedures. On the other hand, there are many cases where a proposed change is not clearly justified by applying the principles mentioned. It may happen that general consensus cannot resolve a disagreement based on standard procedures—that is, the issue boils down to some like this, and some like that. In that case, I find it obvious that there would need to be a good reason to make a change against the views of a group of editors who have built the article (I'm assuming a good article, not something like a POV or FRINGE nightmare). Nearly all experienced editors know that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS means a group cannot make special rules for "their" article. But the infobox wars show that some cases are not clear—good arguments can be presented from both sides, and in the absence of a policy or guideline or consensus from a widely discussed RfC, it is a fallacy for one side to accuse the other of ownership—just because someone happens to have written an article does not mean their opinion must be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tangential discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline

Hi. There's a tangential discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mobile site strapline about, in some ways, whether articles should be signed. Any and all are welcome to participate in the request for comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Footnote in lead

200.120.158.78 wants to change the first sentence (diff) from the first of the following to the second (this uses em dashes rather than the IP's double hyphens):

All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively.

All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and others—is edited collaboratively.

I'm thinking the edit is useful—why use a somewhat pompous footnote when the alternative is short?

References

Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP's edit doesn't change the meaning and is stylistically preferable. See no valid reason for reversion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is an "internal document" intended for Wikipedia editors, simplicity is not only preferred, but usually appreciated. Let the "dashes" remain. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 04:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A needless footnote

It struck me, reading this page, that it made no sense at all to have a definition of what is actually covered by the policy taken outside the text and put into a footnote, instead of being right there in the text. Inexplicably, though, it seems that people prefer to have vital information in a format that means fewer people will see it. Why is this? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No response to my question, just continuing reverts without anyone bothering to attempt any explanation. Why is that? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How spectacularly rude that people ignore my questions and prefer to just talk amongst themselves about my edit. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Spectacularly rude..." Now THAT is funny. "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." You wish to make a change to this page. The burden is on you to establish a consensus for the change. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fucking hilarious. So, to clarify what you're saying - I made a change to the formatting of a sentence and therefore it's ok for people to ignore me while talking about that change amongst themselves? 200.120.158.78 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to make a change to this page, you need to find a consensus to make that change. Instead, you went ahead and made the change. It was reverted. (It would have been a bit better if the reverting editor had explained why, but we do get a lot of drive-bys from IPs.) Having failed to seek consensus, you now missed a second chance to discuss the reverted change, which would have put things back on track toward finding a consensus for or against the change. Instead, you reverted to your preferred version with a non-reason reason. This was reverted with the edit summary "Don't change policies without consensus" (as the page header explains). You reverted this with a condescending edit summary making it clear that you didn't particularly care why you were reverted. You were reverted for insisting that your change without consensus is "right". You were reverted again, with a suggestion that your insisting on changing without the required consensus was a WP:OWN issue. You reverted this (still no consensus...) stating "reverting without giving a reason is tantamount to vandalism - don't do it again" (most of the edit summaries gave reasons). You cannot ask a question, forge ahead without waiting for an answer and demand to know why no one is talking with you.

If you return from your new block and still wish to pursue this issue, you will want to build a consensus BEFORE you make the change again. A helpful hint: A battleground mentality will not help. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)O.M.G

Rewording

In the quote "Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article." it gives bad info to new editors about to be cautious about being bold. Even in the context, it is misleading. Any thoughts? Jamesjpk (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Much as I'm a fan of being bold, I think that advising new editors to "be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content" is actually good advice, not bad advice. --RexxS (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Attitude of personal impact on life stories of the famous

I've asked a question here and I welcome comments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

True fact about ownership

People actually own physical sources of information like books, magazines, audio and video recordings, manuscripts and the like. Multiple people simply own different pieces of the content. It's just the whole pages that are not owned by a single person. --47.150.82.221 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about refactoring

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary

The WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy gives this example: "If an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership. Actions: [...]  • An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version."

Does reverting a change simply because it's "unnecessary", without claiming it's detrimental, indicate ownership behavior? ​​ Bright☀ 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Necessary context for this can be seen on Talk:12 Monkeys. --Masem (t) 21:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that reversion of a change solely because the reverter finds the change unnecessary is an indicator of ownership issues – but not proof – for the reason of assigning priority. Reversion of another editor's good-faith contribution should not be undertaken lightly, and rarely for reasons that do not consider whether the change improves the article. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Trimming ownership behavior examples

@Nikkimaria: you suggested trimming the example statements for the ownership behavior section, which I think is reasonable. How does this look for a mildly condensed list? I tried to remove the redundant or less plausible ones.

1. "Are you qualified to edit this article?" / "You only have X edits." (pulling rank)
2. "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)
3. "I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
4. "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/their/our approval."
5. "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first."
6. "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." (a misapplication of WP:AINTBROKE; see WP:DONTREVERT)
7. "Undo peanut-gallery editor" / "Revert drive-by edit"
8. "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously."
9. "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
10. "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote."
11. "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Have changed your list to numbered, hope you don't mind. I think #4 should be removed or altered, as it's not entirely clear what "it" refers to. I disagree with your changes to 6/7 - note that DONTREVERT is an essay, and part 2 of #7 duplicates #8. Would suggest combining 10 and 11. Also would like to retain the "vandalism" mention from the current version, as something that comes up fairly often is people calling an edit vandalism just because they disagree with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's an update that addresses those things:

1. "Are you qualified to edit this article?" / "You only have X edits." (pulling rank)
2. "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)
3. "I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
4. "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."
5. "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first."
6. "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." (misapplying WP:AINTBROKE)
7. "Undo peanut-gallery editor"
8. "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously."
9. "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
10. "I haven't had time/don't own the book to confirm what you wrote."
11. "You're vandalizing my hard work"

Does that look good to you? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to modify a policy when involved in a disagreement. Sdkb's interest in WP:OWN with diff (including "This page has been on Wikipedia twice as long as you have") comes from their rejected change at Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man where the talk page includes Guy's comment "The page has been on Wikipedia for probably twice as long as you have." Thinking that is an ownership violation is a misunderstanding by Sdkb—it's a straight-forward description of the fact that Reichstag is well-watched and frequently used, and has been well accepted for a very long time. It is not satisfactory to expect other editors to debate whether WP:OWN should be changed at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I read this page most recently because of the textbook ownership behavior at that page, yes, but the suggestions I made were just since I noticed that this section could use some revamping. My goal isn't to modify the policy to give myself a leg up — you can see that I unpromptedly withdrew the example from JzG when I condensed the list just since on second thought it seemed mostly redundant to what was already here. Do you really want to steamroll some basic pruning? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I also watch Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and so noticed the edit adding a link to your new essay Wikipedia:Read before commenting. That is another example of your good work, so thanks. However, it is never desirable to discuss changes to a policy or guideline under the circumstances set out above. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough. This was a case where I could either take on some work despite being involved or presumably let the work go undone, and I like to think I'm able to be objective enough that taking it on would be a net positive, but I realize it may not always come across that way to others. I'll consider trying to hand work off to other editors in similar situations in the future rather than doing it myself. (And just for disclosure purposes, none of my other suggestions here or at WP:TPG have any connection to specific matters with which I'm currently involved.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Examples

@Nikkimaria and anyone else who wants to comment: the prior thread just got archived. Does this look okay for a pruned list of examples?

1. "Are you qualified to edit this article?" / "You only have X edits." (pulling rank)
2. "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)
3. "I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them."
4. "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."
5. "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first."
6. "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." (misapplying WP:AINTBROKE)
7. "Undo peanut-gallery editor"
8. "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously."
9. "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
10. "I haven't had time/don't own the book to confirm what you wrote."
11. "You're vandalizing my hard work"

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no response here, I'm going to go ahead and implement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

As seen with this edit, I questioned the "without approval" text including "their/our" since asking an editor to not make changes because the text is disputed and WP:Consensus should be achieved first is usually not WP:OWN behavior. But editors usually state "without consensus" instead of "without our approval." I would think that only newbies and other inexperienced editors would state "without our approval." But then again, consensus can be achieved via things like RfCs and/or asking a WikiProject to weigh in and without the editors' approval. So maybe this text should stay the way it was, before my edit. I removed "I haven't had time/don't own the book to confirm what you wrote." because editors commonly state this at talk pages during disputes and it's usually not an WP:OWN matter; it's usually a matter of trying to work things out and form consensus. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted myself on the "without approval" aspect. As for the "don't own the book to confirm what you wrote" aspect, I suppose it's there in cases where editors are trying to block content because they don't trust what an editor added. In some cases, such as if an editor is a WP:Fringe POV-pusher, they have a valid reason to not trust what the editor wrote. But maybe this should be added back as well. Still, I'd prefer than an even number of examples are in the section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, editors who make the claim in #10 should be referred to WP:NONENG or WP:OFFLINE. I'm not sure how often that behavior is used for ownership purposes, though. If not often, then I'm fine leaving it out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

As usual, no need to ping me, Sdkb. The "don't own the book to confirm what you wrote" thing usually isn't about WP:NONENG (non-English sources). And even WP:NONENG is clear that English sources are preferred, and states, "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." As discussed at the talk page for WP:NONENG, there have been cases where editors have faked material because what they added is in a foreign language. But in that case, WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (linked at WP:SOURCEACCESS) is an option. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN

There is an RfC on the following link: Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections. It concerns dispute over tagging the BLP article with template messages which point to the possible COI and OWN issues that plagues the article for more than a ten years.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PWN" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:PWN. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 17#Wikipedia:PWN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Good articles

A section about Good articles was added in 2016 [10], based on zero discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Ownership of content/Archive 3#Good articles), with the section header modified in January 2021 [11] (which invalidate a number of previous links to the section).

Review by one editor is not a community process, and I question where this is a helpful addition to this page. While there are some very competent GA reviewers, the process is not broad enough for this distinction to be made here. Talk:Clique (song)/GA1 is a Good article review (listed), and Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Discouraging edits to articles that have been reviewed by one editor is counter to what Wikipedia is about. I have removed the GA content from this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I support SG's edits. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. Anyway, the GA process is supposed to be lightweight but end up with an article of reasonable quality (see any GA review done by Eric Corbett, who always made sure everything was correctly done). See Talk:Soho/GA1 as an example. Anyway, if an IP adds unsourced content to GA, and is reverted because it doesn't meet the GA criteria (and the editor(s) watching the article don't feel like doing somebody else's work for them and chasing for sources), reverting that with a summary "back to consensus / back to what passed GAN" is not ownership. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Informed analysis for an example. I might also add that simply having a FA star just means the article at some point in the past met the FA criteria at that time - were this not the case, WP:FAR wouldn't exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That review of Talk:Clique (song)/GA1 is terrible, by the way. I've started a discussion at WT:GAN about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. We have two editors opposed to what was a unilateral addition, based on no consensus,[12] with the one editor who originally made the addition re-instating it[13] nine months after it was removed.[14] Perhaps if Eric Corbett (or Geometry guy) were still conducting GA reviews, there would be some logic for this wording. But they aren't, so here we are. With 35,400 GAs, there are an amazing eight up for reassessment at the moment. We should not be constraining editors from editing GAs, which are nothing more than one editor's opinion at one moment in time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Separately, the addition of Good to the section heading has broken necessarily links all over creation. Perhaps a separate GA section would have been a possibility. We find ourselves in an odd situation when one editor can change a policy page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Late to this discussion, but I agree that this page should not reference good articles. As noted above, one editor (pace, even a Corbett!) cannot make a consensus. The reason FAs are "protected" from significant change is because that very consensus is deemed to have been established at WP:FAC, i.e. multiple editors agreeing that in a certain condition it represents our finest work, etc. The GA review process contains no such mechanism for consensus building, merely an opportunity for two editors to agree with each other. And the more I look at the narrative here, the odder it becomes. Chronologically:

• A bold edit was made [15] by User:Ritchie333 in January 2016 ("note on GAs");
• It was removed [16] by User:SandyGeorgia in February 2016 ("remove content that was added with no discussion, see talk");
• SG then began this talk page discussion the same day;
• SG's removal was supported by User:Buidhe;
• R333 restores the material [17] in November 2021 ("add practice for GAs)";
• In December 2021 R333 joins this discussion, defending his position [18];
• On the main page, R333 reverts himself [19] the same day due to this discussion ("rv while we discuss this");
• Four days later R333 restores the GA material [20] ("no objections on talk").

• I draw a number of things from this sequence of events. This is a policy page, which means Changes made to it should reflect consensus; this was clearly not the case. Although normally I, personally, might consider the passing of a few years sufficient to establish a new consensus on any other page, since the change did not reflect consensus at the time it cannot enjoy that legitimacy. This is copperfastened by a breach of WP:ONUS—also policy—which states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I also personally consider the restoration of the material only four days after commenting here—in which no one else was pinged—while the discussion had been open a month to be highly dubious. So, in summary, we have policy pages being significantly changed unilaterally, challenged material being restored on another two occasions, at least one breach of policy, and an all-around disingenuity. SN54129 16:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)