Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutrality Project

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, Unnecessary.

No delete opinions were given, several opinions were speedy keep, with good grounds. General consensus is that Misc For Deletion is not a means to decide on whether to start a project or not. This request was not necessary. --Kim Bruning 11:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Neutrality Project

I have been pondering this one for a few weeks, and have decided that this needs to be determined before the participants get too involved or this project becomes entrenched to the point where discussing the merits becomes too difficult. It is better to resolve it relatively early on. The intentions behind the project are good, but I do not think this is the way to do it. The key issue is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We already have the POV check and related templates ({{POV-check}}, {{POV-check-section}} and {{POV}}) Wikipedia:POV Cleanup, and established content dispute resolution policies and mechanisms. Any editor in good standing is capable of revising an article so as to ensure it is balanced. We do not need a wiki-club to set themselves off from the community that projects some sort of authority that isn't necessary and, in a way, usurps the role of all editors. Agent 86 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - with obvious admission of bias. There might be problems, or different ways of implementation, and I would be very open to them. The thing is, everyone says "that's a problem, fix it" without providing an alternative way to do anything. I can't fix problems if I don't know what people's problems are, I'm not a mind-reader. Talk page discussion on the project regarding this is encouraged and appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nature of some WikiProject type groups have lead to an MfD being used to decide their fate, but I see no reason why we need to take this to MfD. Even if this project "closes down", I still don't see the need to delete the pages. Whether these concerns are valid or not, at least take it to the talk page of the project. Different approaches to editing are not always bad, even if they seem a bit redundant in some aspects (I'm not really sure if it is redundant or not, but ether way..). -- Ned Scott 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. My personal opinion is that a project like this is better served by just being some sort of noticeboard. However, that doesn't mean that it can't exist, since people are by no means obligated to have them resolve neutrality disputes. I intend to never do so, but as long as they're not intending to enforce their edits, like certain other projects did... *cough ELAC cough* -Amark moo! 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone is trying to force a certain version, it wouldn't be very neutral of them :-) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

• Keep, more like a noticeboard for requests though, but its a very different way of a WikiProject. Its mainly like a place where they assist you in neutralising the article. IMO, I don't see why this project should be deleted. Its doing well and its just a different approach of doing things. Don't see any bureaucracy in this WikiProject or whatsoever. Terence Ong 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think an MfD is the right place to decide the fate of the project, but after having a quick look at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project and its sub/talk pages, I do get the impression that the project (or rather, the members of the project) speak with an authority that they do not have. I can't really point my finger on it, but the way requests are accepted/declined and comments ending in "On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project," sound more official than they should be. Being a member of this project does not mean that you're especially good in defining what's neutral and what isn't, or that you have any authority in doing so. But that's exactly the impression I get when I look at the project, and I don't think that's a good thing. --Conti|✉ 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was just about to post the same thing as Conti... there is something a bit "off" about this. Seems process centric and laden with titles and decorations and so forth. Has this actually worked a number of times in the past? MfD may not be the place to decide the fate of this but it merits some discussion. No decision on what I think just yet, pending more info. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been something people have complained about in the past, without offering ways to change it, or alternatives. That's my frustration, really. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • OK: ... Lose all the trappings... i.e.: fancy formatting, false suggestions of moral authority, governance, etc, and just leave perhaps a place for people to point out that there are potential issues and for volunteers to comment on what state things are in. As it is, I think it's divisive. Further... I point to not necessarily positive trappings of this project in your own signature, User:Wizardry_Dragon. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It's tangiental, but how is "Neutrality Project" with a link to WP:WNP offensive? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Carries a connotation of some authority that is not present in reality. The links to esperanza in people's sigs tended to be looked at with some trepidation and that wasn't even a group that claims what this one does. I note that people don't normally put that they're a crat, or a Beatles project member, etc. in their sig. You may not see the problem, but that itself is part of the problem right there. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, from the point you wrote that, till the point I wrote this, I counted no less than fifteen -different- projects in people's sigs. If it's a Bad Thing^TM, then I'll remove it in mine, but it's not just I that does it. (And aren't sigs odd things to be upset over? *scratches head* Tony Sidaway's sig RFC has to have been the stupidest RFC ever.) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Fifteen? Wow! I had no idea. Well, can you give me any examples? Do any of the rest of them give the same sort of connotation that "The Neutrality Project" does? Maybe the problem is more widespread than I realised though. Was Tony's sig RFC the stupidest ever? not sure that's relevant, that was about sig size, not content. Your sig IS big in source though, it takes up 3 lines in my window, now that you mention it. But that's not relevant here. What IS relevant is that this project has a lot of trappings and the trappings can easily mislead some folk (in my view anyway) into thinking there is some official standing, when there isn't. That's what I am concerned about, more than your sig. Your sig is just ONE trapping. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, why not be bold and take out things that are Bad Things^TM? To go on a tangent, I have a love/hat relationship with the indicators, and introduced them to make it clear when cases are rejected that they are. There have been a few cases where there is simply a very vocal minority that sees a problem when consensus is that the article is fine, and I introduced them as a way to gently cluebat these users that their requests were disruptive. If you have a better way, please go ahead and feel free to implement it. Contrary to any impressions, you don't need my permission :-) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I went ahead and removed one thing that appeared to be dead weight, the approval process for requests. This simplifies the process to: (1) Place a request, (2) hope for feedback. The value added by the approval process was not clear; anyone is welcome to revert but I would request they explain what the approval aspect is intended to accomplish. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't mind the ad in the sig. Actually, I do mind ads in sigs, but I do mind ads in sigs in general, and that has nothing to do with the neutrality project. So let's use a more obvious example: Don't use "On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project". Ever. Because that indicates that the words you wrote before that sentence are in some way official and in some way important, more official and more important than those words by other people who didn't wrote "on behalf" of something. I'm sure that this wasn't your intention, but that's the way it comes across. --Conti|✉
      • No, it wasn't, and I didn't read that as ever meaning that, however, this issue was raised with me on IRC, and I do see how it could be taken as such, and have since ceased to do so. Have other users been doing this? If so, they should be gently reminded that the WNP has no special authority, because it doesn't. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Why would this be deleted, it is a good project for wikipedia.Tellyaddict 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• ZOMG! Procedural Speedy Keep. Procedure can be silly sometimes. Just keep going, if the neutrality project sucks, it'll fail, if it rocks, it'll run. Good luck, and have fun. :-) --Kim Bruning 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, there has been a lot of MfDing of various things going on lately, but if there is a problem with something, that problem should be attempted to be addressed first! Only after there is little hope of creating something that the encyclopedia finds useful (not to say that this is or isn't) should something be put up for MfD. -- Natalya 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep based on the fact that I have yet to see a single policy reason for deletion. Anyone? If you're going after things that already replicate what any editor can do and have templates, well, better kill the CVU, Kindness Campaign, Welcome Campaign, and every non-topic Wikiproject such as WP Inclusion and WP Systemic Bias. Spare me. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The very first reason I gave was based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. Item 2.4 of that policy is "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", which I clearly linked in the nomination. In all fairness, I did bring my concerns to the creator of this project a few weeks ago and I think "taking it to the talk page" would bear little fruit as the audience would largely be limited to those who supported the project in the first place. The guidelines for project namespace clearly state, "To make information easier to find, try to avoid creating new pages in the project namespace unnecessarily. If you want to add material, you might discover that the same thing already exists somewhere else." I pointed out the duplication, above. In any event, despite WP:BOLD, it is customary to discuss proposals for new policies, guidelines and projects ahead of time. As that discussion was never held, and because I in good faith believe that this qualifies for deletion, it is fair and proper to bring this to MfD. Instead of focussing on the procedure, I would like to focus on the merits of this project. Agent 86 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Clue: no one else agrees with you. Clue: If you want to discuss the merits of the project, you should do it at the PROJECT. You didn't do that. As for new wikiprojects, again, there are dozens that are started with no discussion at all. If you had concerns, you should have addressed them on the project. As for good faith, your statements here, particularly where you claim most of these organizations are "groups of editors who set themselves up with an extra air of authority" doesn't sound like you're assuming much good faith on the part of anyone else. This is not suprising, as it seems everytime I see AGF nowdays is when someone else isn't following it. To me, you should have tried to resolve the concerns you had on the project talk pages, then MfD'd. You want us to decide the merits of the project, and EVERYONE so far has said the merits of the project are fine...so, what exactly do you see that's so horrible it should be deleted? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I fail to see how the ad hominem attack or the ad populum argument addresses the merits of the topic at hand. By the way, what policy reasons do you have for "keep"? Agent 86 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The project does not fail the Deletion Policy for miscellany, where it CLEARLY states that a project should be sent to MfD only when it is guilty of being "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem." (emphasis mine).

2) Also in deletion policy, it again clearly states "Any problem with a community-accepted policy or guideline page, including m:instruction creep" should result in you coming up with proposed solutions, and then you "Make the proposal on the talk page, seek comment in community discussion areas.".

3) WP:AGF, since you flung it up, although it isn't a policy, since it says "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate", yet in your statements here and on Peter M. Dodge's user talk page, made it out as if all members of the project were out to assert their own importance and authority.

4) WP:CONSENSUS. The majority of the community sees this as an unnecessary deletion. The only reason you have given so far is you don't like it and you think it fails WP:NOT. The portion of not talking about bureaucracy does not say "Projects can't try to organize how to help Wikipedia". I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument, and ad populum is not even valid, since there is no appeal to the masses -- they simply rejct what you're saying, and in a consensus based forum, that's equal to "no". Your argument, that MfD is a place to discuss a project's failings, is false. Your argument that the guidelines for proposals are talking about GUIDELINES, POLICIES, and not WIKIPROJECTS. I'm sorry, but if you conflate the two, and make completely spurious arguments (and they are) then it's hard for me to accept what you're saying on merits that I can't find, so sorry. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Kim has it right. It's good to encourage neutrality on WP, to state the obvious. The worst thing the project can do is not help; don't see how it will hurt. IronDuke 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.