User talk:Neutrality/Survey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Neutrality

You have new messages (last change).

Talk page guidelines

Sign and date your posts. Please bear these items in mind when posting to this talk page.
Please, no personal attacks. Express your opinion without calling other people's motives into question.

[edit] Straw poll: This set of polls is premature and will only be divisive

[edit] Agree

David Gerard 10:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Schools is coming along fine. This set of polls is an example of how to nuke emerging consensus from orbit.
Sjakkalle 10:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC). Agreed, we work on consensus building, not poll taking. This is too early because there is still movement taking place at Wikipedia:Schools. Sjakkalle 10:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Lupo 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC). It is completely unclear to me what the poll would be about, and the propositions themselves are phrased in a very biased way (for instance "Certainly we can agree that..." in proposition 5). Call this off.
Kappa 10:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC) This proposed poll is not based on principles that have consensus, and so has no chance of creating it.
R adiant _* 11:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC) A poll doesn't create consensus, it can merely show an existing consensus. There isn't any on this issue, so we are trying to create one through discussion.
Lupin 13:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC) I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the comments of David Gerard, Sjakkalle, Kappa and Radiant. Which is the better route to building consensus - presenting a series of propositions as a fait accompli and forbidding people to alter them, or engaging in a dynamic debate?
BaronLarf I'd rather work towards consensus as we have been at Wikipedia:Schools as we have been for the last couple of days. This is going to take compromise, and the poll won't do that. --BaronLarf 13:56, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
--Unfocused 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC). I'm not sure we can actually set a line; we look to see where the line draws itself in our community, then put neon signs around it to say "HEY, If you step over this, people will want to know why." The debate we have now won't move the line, but maybe we can agree in general about where it is right now. And once we're done, it'll start moving again. ;)
Netoholic @ 16:06, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Vegaswikian 17:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)The issues in Wikipedia:Schools may not even be an issue over deletion. It may simply be an issue of criteria. A proposed template to use instead of sending everything to VfD seems close to having a clear consensus to be used. If so, there should be no deletion fights for a while while the criteria is developed. While there is no consensus on the criteria yet, there are some options that can get us to something that can be used. Waiting to see what comes out of those discussions would be wise in my opinion. Based on the votes and comments here I think consensus may be closer then I thought. Let's give that process time.
Hedley 12:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
This poll will only confirm what we already know: that there is no consensus yet regarding school articles. Kelly Martin 16:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've worked to edit this poll to make a set of workable propositions with a realistic chance of gaining consensus while providing useful and sensible policy outcomes, and extending the review period and removing the wording that seemed to be there solely to deter all editing of the wording. I have consciously and gratefully imported ideas that emerged during the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Schools. The version I arrived at was this. I think it was a step in the right direction. Neutrality has chosen to revert the wording and the review period. The poll as configured would be extremely divisive. I concur with David Gerard. I commend all reading this page to the discussion on Wikipedia:Schools. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

This vote is designed to complement and enhance discussion, not to replace it. Radiant notes that "polls don't create consensus, they merely show an existing consensus." I agree. Consensus is achieved by determining the will of the community and knowing what people agree on and what people disagree on. John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address that "let us focus on that which unites us instead of that which divides us." Consensus-building and survey-taking are not mutually exclusive. If you are concerned about the content of the poll, make suggestions for expansion, deletion, or rewording.

As far as Wikipedia:Schools—which is linked from the poll page—what consensus has emerged over there? If that page is so truly useful as to render this page obsolete, where's the emerging consensus? The purpose of the vote is not to draw a fine line—a litmus test. That's why it's a deletion principles poll, not a strict deletion criteria vote. Let the poll go on. 16:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have modified Proposition V to address Lupo's concerns. Neutrality^talk 16:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

If that page is so truly useful as to render this page obsolete...

To make sense of that statment requires a clear understanding of what the purpose of this page actually is. This is not clear to me. Is it an attempt to define guidelines or policy? Is it merely an opinion poll of personal interest to you? Or is it something else? How do you envisage the results of this vote being used? The answers to these questions seem shrouded in mystery to me. Lupin 14:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This poll appears to be for Neutrality's own personal use, since he is the only one who can edit it. Kappa 14:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

In which case should it be moved to his userspace? Thryduulf 15:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it should. (Hm, that means that he'd be the only one to vote, and everything would unanimously pass... :) ) R adiant _* 14:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, userfy. I've already posted to his talk page that I would politely participate, provided that it was clear that this was his poll and not an official poll. I would suggest userfying the poll page and posting an explanation where it was about the difference between user polls and official polls. Include a link to his poll on his userpage that encourages everyone interested to participate there, and leave this talk page here. Were I familiar with the steps necessary to do so, I would have done so days ago. Leaving it here confuses his own motivations with actions decided by the consensus of the community. --Unfocused 17:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't vote on everything, including this

[edit] Proposition V

You've modified Proposition V? Oh, I see: the notice which says "Please do not edit this page" applies to everyone except Neutrality, who we must rely on to read our concerns on this talk page and make any changes that he sees fit to make in a timely, impartial manner. This is not the wiki way and is somewhat absurd. There is no reason for editing to be restricted to Neutrality. Lupin 22:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Although I don't agree even next week will be soon enough, nor that a first poll that attempts to cover so much ground all at once will be useful, this entire page started because there was something Neutrality wanted to measure. It's not a policy proposal. I think we can all afford to give him the courtesy of designing his own measuring tool, even if we don't agree with it. You could easily create a Wikipedia:Schools/Wiki edited poll regarding deletion policy. I think that in the future, if the user wants exclusive edit rights courtesy, yet still wants feedback, it should stay userfied and linked from the Wiki discussion space rather than moved from user space. Here in Wiki space, people expect things under development to be more directly collaborative. --Unfocused 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I don't really understand what you mean when you say we should give Neutrality "the benefit of the doubt". This page is outside of userspace, yet we are being expected to adhere to some abitrary rules imposed by one user about who can edit the page. I don't get it.

I don't want to create yet another page, because I believe that having this one alone is bad enough (hence my vote above). However, given that this poll does exist and that it is likely that any result will be used to justify future actions, I am quite peeved that one user is attempting to give himself an exclusive monopoly on editing it. Lupin 00:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is to act as if this page is still in his user space for now. That's probably where it should have stayed until it was more ready, but since it's here, I'm suggesting we act as if it is in user space for now rather than push him to move it back. If you're really itching to edit the page, why not ask him how long he wants exclusive edit rights? Unfocused 01:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my proposal and I have every right to politely ask that you not edit it. Neutrality^talk 02:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you're unilaterally declaring it will run as a poll at a particular time a remarkably short number of days away, and it is not a personal page but something looking for all the world like a poll on policy. You can fully expect that it will be added to by others after polling opens, for example.

What on earth requires you to take a poll so very soon, and what on earth requires that the questions in this poll be kept under your exclusive control? If you just wanted to work out people's opinions for your own curiosity, what's it doing out in Wikipedia: space rather than your own personal space? - David Gerard 03:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur with David on both points. 1. Is anything outside of your userspace "yours"? Once you've released it into the wilds of Wikipedia: space, you've let it go. It belongs to the community. You can politely ask that it remain as is and others can just as politely state that they wish to change it. It if wasn't ready for prime time, you should have left it in your userspace. 2. There's been a rash lately of things that (IMO) shouldn't be voted on turned into votes. This is only the latest, and I predict the same lack of success. Your aims are noble; your methods seem destined to lead to the opposite of their intended ends. Polls discourage discussion, and furthermore, there is already discussion happening on other parts of the wiki as pointed out elsewhere. Insisting that the questions themselves be non-editable only further intensifies this. (Also, m:polls are evil.) I would respectfully ask you to reconsider this: I am in favor of your goals but not of this way of achieving them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was an assume good faith situation, but your latest statement seems very possessive. If you want exclusive edit rights now, I hope you will take this back to your user page to develop rather than let yet another wikifight develop over it. --Unfocused 03:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is your proposal, Neutrality, then it belongs firmly in your userspace. Once it moves outside your userspace, it becomes editable by all and sundry. I ask that you either move it back into your userspace or remove the notices saying that only you are worthy to edit the page. Lupin 03:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above, and I think it would be a bad thing if this poll were opened for voting any time soon. There are 13 people so far who oppose it, as above, and none that support it, save Neutrality himself. I've asked on his talk page to please put a stop to it, I hope he will accept the fact that consensus agrees with his ideas but does not agree with this method. R adiant _* 07:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Approval voting?

I would much rather see this "poll" structured as a survey with some sort of approval voting, instead of the current either/or, First past the post voting. I suggest that instead of the current Propositions I, II, III, and IV, Proposition I should be turned into "1a: Inherent notability of primary schools", with a one or more alternative propositions for primary schools. For example, Proposition 1b could be: "All primary schools should be kept, but merged into an article on the town or school district unless they have some "outside" notability (major court cases, significant news events, state or national academic or sports notability, etc.)". Proposition 1c might be "All primary schools should be merged", and for the deletionists, 1d would be "Primary schools are not inherently notable and require some "outside" notability for inclusion on the Wikipedia". BlankVerse ∅ 06:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting failed miserably on the prefixed styles issue - leading to a lot of unnecessary acrimony. Remember WP works by consensus rather than majority voting, and approval voting does not help us achieve consensus (which can usually be taken as being 75-80%+ support for a measure). Any consensus (or potential consensus) will shine out by normal support-oppose voting, particularly if accompanied by comments. Also, if no consensus is going to be possible, that will also be obvious. Kind regards, jguk 12:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Substubs

I've removed my name from the "substubs" option. I've also changed the word "substub" to "stub", as the character of a substub is apparently "The term implies the information in the stub is insufficient or hard to interpret". I do not accept that substubs are valid Wikipedia articles--if an article does not enable the reader to identify a school with ease it doesn't belong on Wikipedia and may be deleted if not converted to a stub--yet a minimal stub is acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References to notability

As David Gerard said, notability was rejected. We can't use that as a synonym for "acceptable as an article on Wikipedia" because that's an utterly false correspondence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

He's got a point there. A poll on whether schools are notable is irrelevent until we first hold a poll on notability. Which is another can of worms. R adiant _* 07:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why a vote?

m:don't vote on everything. I don't see anything covered in this poll that doesn't appear on VfD on a regular basis. Instead, we should use sensible discussion to get consensus. R adiant _* 07:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also, m:instruction creep. And also, this poll is misnamed since it isn't about deletion principles, it's specifically about schools. Also, you left out universities. And (V) is redundant with the definition of stub. R adiant _* 07:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
This poll is designed, obviously, to be more general and policy-focused than a single VfD, which is very specific and article-focused. A Wikipedia-wide poll also allows us to find out consensus among users, which doesn't emerge on VfD where many users do not participate. Saying that "voting is evil," "don't vote on everything," etc. does nothing to help a consensus emerge. Why derail the poll now? We're not rushing anything, we've got a one-week review period and then two weeks of ballots. --Neutrality^talk 13:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Because "The aim of this vote is not to ascertain majority opinion, but to garner consensus." is a contradiction in terms. One creates consensus through discussion - one polarizes the issue through voting. There presently is a discussion elsewhere that is coming close to getting a compromise on the whole issue. It would be far more productive to contribute to that. If you look at the VfD votes on the schools you nominate, it will be obvious that there is no consensus on the issue. This has been tried several times before on VfD, and the end result is the same. R adiant _* 14:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. One week is far too little time to get some meaningful, reasonable propositions on the table, which is what is needed if we have any hope of consensus. Lupin 14:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition III seems content-free

In order to be accepted as valid articles, all articles, including schools, must have some degree of significance or notability in addition to verifibility and neutral-point-of-view.

If this proposition were accepted, it could only be used to reject articles which do not have some degree of significance or notability, or in other words, those articles which have zero significance and zero notability. I cannot think of a single topic which has does not have some significance or notability for someone, no matter how slight. So I don't see how this is a useful proposition. Lupin 13:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you propose an alternate wording? Neutrality^talk 13:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

No. The obvious solution to the problem would be to set some arbitrary threshold of notability and put that forwards as the proposition. Unfortunately, such a proposition (and any meaningful reformulation of proposition III that I can think of) is inherently flawed as it cannot be seen as being NPOV. Lupin 13:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Antoher problem with setting thresholds is the boundary condition. If we suggested that having 2000 students makes a school worthy of inclusion, what do we do with schools of 1995 students or thereabouts which don't meet any of the other supposed criteria? What about a school that qualifies purely because of a headcount of 2005? We need rough conditions rather than clear-cut ones, since that way we have a "Yes/No/Maybe". If policy dictates "Yes", whereas the content of an article suggests "No", any attempt to get rid of it will be grounded. Similarly, if policy dictates "No", whereas content might suggest "Yes", it doesn't look good for people wanting to keep and expand it. Whereas a "Maybe" gives a chance to talk about things. Unfortunately, people that label themselves as "inclusionist" tend to be unwilling to discuss (I notice a good bunch of names notably absent from these discussions, and a couple of others who have chimed in briefly to reaffirm their view, and nothing else). Chris talk back 23:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition IV: unclear and not a deletion principle

In order to be accepted as valid articles, all articles must include content that reasonably distinguishes them from other articles of a similar nature. There should never be any doubt over which item is being described. If an article is ambiguous, it should be edited in order to add identifying features so as to resolve the ambiguity.

Please define the word reasonably here. This is highly ambiguous. A proposed amendment:

In order to be accepted as valid articles, all articles must clearly identify their subject so that there is no doubt over which item is being described. If an article is ambiguous, it should be edited to resolve the ambiguity.

I'm not certain what the point of this proposition is, though. It says nothing about deletion principles, rather it is an entirely common-sense editing principle. Lupin 13:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposition IV is unreadable and I don't see how anyone can be expected to garner meaning from it, let alone vote on it. It reads as if it has been inserted into the poll in order to confuse people and deter them from voting. It urgently needs to be clarified, or else just deleted. Tannin 14:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Make these "deletion principles" deletion principles

These principles, purporting to be deletion principles, do not once mention deletion! Instead they adopt the nondescript term "valid article". Please make it much clearer how these propositions may be applied to deletions: "An article should not be deleted if.... An article should be deleted if...". Lupin 14:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

If this is put to a vote, I predict that the result will be similar to that in Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Voting never leads to a consensus. Voting can merely show an existing consensus, which is rare, and in this case there isn't one. As should be obvious to any VfD regular. R adiant _* 14:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Oh I've just been boldly jumping in and editing for clarity. I thinkt he word notable is too contentious here and think it should probably be replaced with alternate wording where it appears, because non-notability is not, in general, an accepted criterion for deletion. In the proposals about primary and secondary schools, for instance, I've edited to reword for inherent encyclopedic nature (a bit of a mouthful but I think it expresses the sense of the proposition without getting into arguments over notability).

Another problem with those two is that if (as I should expect) those propositions fail, what does one do with existing perfectly good articles that happen to be about primary or secondary schools? The prospect of another rerun of the recent mass-deletion listings is not one that I regard with pleasure, and the consensus hysteresis is such that those propositions could fail comprehensively and yet lining up primary and secondary schools for deletion would still have little success. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenic page: notability or deletion criteria?

Is this page about establishing notability or deletion criteria? These are not currently connected in wikipedia. The Propositions should talk about one or the other and not both in order to be clear and unambiguous. Lupin 15:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Please do not edit this page"

....unless you happen to be Neutrality. Hm. Lupin 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the edits are a useful way of working out what we mean. It's okay for Neutrality to add or remove stuff he thinks doesn't express what should be decided, and same goes for you and me. Hopefully one day soon (!) we'll arrive at consensus on what is to be decided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't think editing should be restricted to Neutrality. Lupin 16:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A proposed new proposition

[edit] Proposition V: Schools and notability

Certainly we can agree that some schools are encyclopedic, though the reasons that we consider them encyclopedic cannot be entirely codified. Examples include but are not limited to measured academic excellence; being the first school established in a region; the first school to develop or adopt a new teaching method; a unique and significant curriculum; general significance in culture, academics, or athletics; architectural features of the school buildings; stories in the news sections of national print newspapers or their websites; use of the school grounds as a location for feature films, documentaries, or television shows; and famous or infamous alumni.

Personally I don't see what this adds to the page. Lupin 15:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this could be one very useful thing to come out of this poll: it may be possible that, in the absence of agreement on anything else, we could all agree on what it is that, as a matter of practical experience, tends to make a school article hard to delete. I've seen a lot of school articles listed for deletion recently, and in voting "keep" I see a lot of the above items being mentioned. One school had a TV serial filmed in its grounds, other schools have beautiful architectural features, others are mentioned by some authority for academic excellence and so on. I think this is the one item in the poll that actually reflects how we do things now rather than attempting to make policy with a view to changing things. I think the former method may be of more value in the long run because it will tend to be more likely to gain consensus and it will tend to save time when people are trying to make their minds up about whether to list a school on VfD or just mark the article for cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest rewording the polls

An example: In order to be accepted as valid articles, all articles, including schools... I see a gap. Among some, it seems a substub is less than a stub, a stub is less than an article, which itself is less than a featured article, which is less than a perfect article. Which article level are you expecting a vote on? If you clearly and explicitly define what level of development you're referencing, you'll have a much better measure of opinions. --Unfocused 03:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've wikilinked Wikipedia:Substub for clarity. See also the "differences between a stub and a substub" section. Neutrality^talk 04:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a step in the right direction, but suggests I didn't really communicate what I was thinking well enough... I don't mean this as a rant, but to point out that I see vast differences between stubs and articles and expect very different levels of competence from each.

Duplicate content not directly related to these poll questions has been deleted from this location: this material is found at Wikipedia:Schools#Unfocused's proposal. Please make comments about the deleted content there instead. Sorry for any inconvenience, I should have linked the content rather than post it in two locations. I know better now. Unfocused 04:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Substubs are just very small stubs with little or no context. Generally what happens when one of these gets listed is either it gets spruced up to stub (so people can see what it's actually about) or expanded to quite a respectable article. If neither of these happens it tends to get deleted. Some substubs get speedied out of hand because they qualify as patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've already assumed that substubs are dead, I noticed their gravemarker on ~~Radiant!'s~~ an administrator's (I don't recall which) talk page after my first comment on this. My later proposal (the big text block -since moved here) assumes they don't even exist anymore. --Unfocused 17:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC) (strikeouts/revisions)--Unfocused 17:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC) (replaced block of text with link to same) Unfocused 04:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It was on WP:WSS. I've copied it to my talk page since I had rather much to do with that. But there no longer is such a thing as a 'substub'. They're all 'stubs' now (and the difference was never that clear to begin with - maybe in theory, but not in practice from the categories). R adiant _* 07:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

This poll needs to be completey redone to not be about deletes but rather about when a school deseves to be its own article rather then being part of a school district article or a community article. As the poll is currently structured it does nothing to solve the problem and could in fact make reaching a consensus more difficult. Vegaswikian 18:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. R adiant _* 07:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of the vote

"This is a poll to gauge community opinion on basic deletion principles as well as some issues related specifically to schools."

"As well as some"? Excuse me, but where did that come from? Not a single one of the propositions is not very specifically related to schools. Three of the five propositions even have it in the title. I suggest rewording the sentence above and moving the poll to Wikipedia:School article deletion principles poll. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is full. Go away.

Over the past few days I've been beginning to wonder why we're always talking about subjects in terms of whether the "deserve" articles. Does X or Y "deserve" an article or is it bette dealt with in a larger article? Although there is a clear policy in place that any editor should simply merge such an article into the wider subject, it seems to me that there is a perception that this isn't enough. Somehow these articles, even quite well written ones, are so bad that, rather than an editor simply performing a merge and redirect, we have to call on an administrator to jump up and down on the article until it goes away (this isn't actually what we do when we delete articles, but it has the same effect).

Why is this? Why is there so much pressure to delete articles, which needs a discussion in VfD, when any editor can just up and perform a merge-delete any time he feels like it?

I'm beginning to feel that this may be a human perception problem. Has anybody else ever had the feeling "oh no, Wikipedia is full of drek!" I get this any time I looked at an article about some Pokemon character or a weapon used by a minor bad guy on Page 282 of a book. Now some of this may genuinely not be worth even merging because nobody in his right mind would ever type the name of the article in, and the books are not referenced outside the book.

Then of course, I don't want to merge it because *somebody might revert my merge". Then I've wasted my time. And the damn thing's still there!

So much easier if I just list the thing for deletion and walk away. Fire and forget. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it is just easier to VfD something then it is to merge it, especially if the place it should be merged into does not yet exist. I agree with you that some of this may have to do with stuff that likely should be someplace else. I have often wondered if there should be a Games wiki. If we can reach a template solution for schools, then we could also develop one for game characters and one for ... Vegaswikian 19:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've learned that there are editors, not all newbies either, who are under the impression that a merge is something that only an admin can do. Part of that is sometimes simple ignorance of how to make a redirect, another is the often erroneous belief that merges will end up being the hard way, by actually merging histories rather than redirecting and copying over the interesting parts. A related belief, even for people who do know about redirects, is that there is that leaving them around is some kind of major problem. There aren't many times when that is actually the case, and we have WP:RFD to deal with those exceptions. That doesn't account for everyone or everything by any means, but it definitely wouldn't hurt if more editors were made aware of their options. --iMb~Meow 22:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

- In my case, I have put something on a VfD forgetting about the merge. Of course the vote was to merge to the article I mentioned also contained the information. So another case of forgetting about the merge. Maybe some avoid the merge since it takes work and can loose history information unless an admin merges the history file (I think). I also stongly believe that a template that suggests a merge puts off the VfD and encourages a better solution. Vegaswikian 22:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

- - Okay, that helps to illustrate the problem, we do need to have better information out there (or rather, make it easier to find). Making a redirect out of an article keeps the history, and we are fine with GFDL compliance in that case. It is only if someone then wants to delete the redirect that we have to start worrying about merging the history somewhere. --iMb~Meow 23:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    - Some excellent points here. Would it be a good idea to start a Mergism Awareness Plan (or MAP for short, sorry but who can resist a TLA like that?) VfD is overloaded, and it would be useful if people were to consider a merge a good alternative to a VfD listing. Radiant_* 07:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
      - Yes, information is hard to find on how this thing works. I have had my hand slapped a few times by being bold and being wrong. But I hope I am learning from those mistakes. Yesterday, I believe in one of the village pump sections, there was an entry about a user trying to do a merge and another user kept reverting all of the changes. So just merging also can have problems without support for reasonable merges. Finding information is hard. Try to find a correct category. I was told that when I used stub in one place I was wrong and should have used a better one. I looked at what was used and still believe that stub was the better choice, but it was not worth doing anything about. So, anything that makes it easier to find the right policy or style answers would be very helpful. Of course, then we would need to read it. :-) Vegaswikian 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Narrow"?

Proposition III doesn't address many of the problems that have covered notability prior to now. Most users on Wikipedia are clear with the idea that just because someone or something is not known to them, that it is not automatically non-notable. As I've mentioned before, notability is in itself POV and the wording of this proposition allows for too much POV to creep into decisions like this, particularly the use of the phrase "something or someone which is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact". How do we define "narrow"? Would 2, 20, 200, 2,000 or 20,000 people be a candidate for notability? How would this stop spammers if their article appeared neutral, even though their firm is on the net and perhaps known by a circle of, say, 100 people? Jamyskis 09:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We have articles on Florence Nibart-Devouard and Angela Beesley, but we are trying to purge schools?

Wikipedia will forever be systematically biased if we take decisions like this. Pcb21| Pete 13:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This statement is flawed, and has no logical basis in this or any other reality. Chris talk back 04:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is important. Therefore any article about Wikipedia is notable as is any important member of the Wikimedia staff. That said, I'm all for the inclusion of schools, they are all notable IMHO, though not as notable as the top staff of Wikimedia. Jamyskis 14:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the board of directors of the world's largest company. How many have Wikipedia articles? How does Wikipedia's "importance" compare with theres? It is ludricous to pretend that Wikipedia is not systematically biased here, and is symptomatic of a wider systematic bias that VfD tends to reinforce. Pcb21| Pete 15:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, calm down. The reason that Walmart's directors aren't on Wikipedia is because, like me, they're relatively unknown people in comparison to people like, say, Michael Eisner of Disney who ends up in the media quite a bit. When Walmart is mentioned in the news, it is just "Walmart", names are rarely mentioned. If nobody's written an article about the Walmart execs, and it bothers you, maybe that's your cue. Jamyskis 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course I can write articles about them. But don't you see a problem if there is a prelediction for VfD voters to want to keep articles about Anthere, but delete articles directors of other entities? Pcb21| Pete 15:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent. I'm not impressed by "this article exists so this one shouldn't be deleted" arguments. Schools may or may not be an asset to Wikipedia. I happen to think they are, I didn't always think that but I became persuaded of this. Whichever is the truth, it is not decided by appeal to the existence of non-existence of other articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is an attempt to make myself clear:

Wikipedia is not consistent. I agree. That's fine. Wikipedia is even systematically biased in coverage because of its self-selecting set of editors. That's fine. Over time our coverage on all topics is improving so this systematic bias is unimportant in the long run.

However when it comes to deletion systematic bias matters! Let us suppose we are (as a mass) biased towards having a high degree of tolerance for technology articles of borderline notability, but a low degree of tolerance for arts articles of borderline notability. Then, even in the long-run Wikipedia will be damagingly lop-sided in favour of its systematic bias.

To be as good as encyclopedia as Wikipedia can be, we should eliminate this source of bias. Instead this poll is suggesting that "tyranny of the majority" is the way to sort out the schools problem, i.e. reinforce it! Pcb21| Pete 15:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. Schools are notable to just as many, if not more people than the Wikimedia Board Members. Hedley 12:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

When one of those articles went before VFD the vote was 15 14 in favor of keep. You can't get much closer to 50:50.Geni 18:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability

It seems misleading that this poll refers to wikipedia:notability for a definition, when the current content of that page was imported from someone's user page, presumably for the sake of this poll. Previously it was a redirect to wikipedia:importance. Kappa 04:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposals containing references to notability in this poll are probably not going to win consensus. I suggest that more neutral wording be used. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll start date and duration

I am uncomfortable with the fact that the poll start date and the duration of the poll have been unilaterally decided. I have therefore removed references to May 25 on the page and propose that we discuss these details on this page.

My preference is to start the poll "when it's ready", that is, when concerns expressed here are adequately reflected in the page. Lupin 15:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, what concerns would you like to see addressed? Neutrality^talk 15:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

All of those which remain unanswered above - this is quite a long page. Lupin 15:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

My principal objection, however, is that although there may well be four days until the poll, any objections or concerns raised above can be unilaterally vetoed by Neutrality, since he claims to have sole editing rights to the page. Thus he can merrily ignore anything that is said on this page and continue to revert changes made by others. Lupin 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

We need a good long time to reach some kind of consensus on poll wording. I think at least a couple of weeks would be required from today. I don't agree that any one editor has control over poll wording--how would he enforce it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony; this poll should definitely not start this week, as the wording is heavily controversial. If it is to have a chance of convincing the community, then the community must be able to edit its wording. Personally I believe the poll should not be held period, as with many people who put their name in David Gerard's straw poll above. But I am willing to reconsider iff it is substantially reworded. Give it a couple of weeks, at least. Radiant_* 07:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree with Tony, which makes three of us. I only know of one person who wishes to hold the poll on the 25th. I will therefore change the date on the page to two weeks from the 21st May, which is the 4th June, subject of course to consensus being reached on the terms of the poll. Lupin 13:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of very short stubs

I edited proposition IV to read as follows:

Proposition IV: Validity of very short stubs

A school stub is a valid article if it says something as simple as "X is a Y school in Z"; in other words, to be a valid stub an article simply needs to identify a subject in a verifiable, neutral manner. Therefore, such articles should not be deleted, but it may be appropriate to merge the information, with a redirect maintained in place, with an article about a school district, a community, or other appropriate administrative unit to which it is affiliated.

From looking at discussion on Wikipedia:Schools, I think this better reflects a proposition that we would have a reasonable chance of getting consensus on. I am still concerned about the "should not be deleted" part because this kind of dictatorial judgement is very, very unlikely to command consensus as a general policy for an entire class of articles--there is in fact no type of article on Wikipedia that we have policy that they should not be deleted, and I don't regard the proposition of creating such policy to be realistic or desirable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, I have reworded:

''A school stub is a valid article if it says something as simple as "X is a Y school in Z"; in other words, to be a valid stub an article simply needs to identify a subject in a verifiable, neutral manner. As an alternative to deletion it may be appropriate to merge very small stubs, with a redirect maintained in place, with an article about a school district, a community, or other appropriate administrative unit to which it is affiliated. This does not require a listing on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The poll proposition has now been reworded to read:

A school stub is a valid article if it says something as simple as "X is a Y school in Z"; in other words, to be a valid stub an article simply needs to identify a subject in a verifiable, neutral manner. Such stubs should not be deleted. On the other hand, it may be appropriate to merge very small stubs, with a redirect maintained in place, with an article about a school district, a community, or other appropriate administrative unit to which it is affiliated. This does not require a listing on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

The problem as I see it is (and I'm sorry for reiterating this) that we're extremely unlikely to get a consensus over any proposition making an kind of article, let alone a stub article, undeletable. It is completely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

How about splitting it? Maintain the wording of Proposition IV and add another proposition:

It may be appropriate to merge some schools to an article about a school district, a community, or other appropriate administrative unit to which it is affiliated. This does not require a listing on votes for deletion.

I'll add it in 24 hours if nobody objects? Neutrality^talk 18:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think we all want to stop the contentious discussions we have had on VfD of late. The best way of doing so, in my opinion, is to make it absolutely plain to all those intending to make such listings that they do not need to do so but can instead just merge to a community, school district, Local Education Authority or other article, and they don't need to go to VfD at all.

Redirects are cheap and I'm convinced that this would be both a popular and effective solution to the VfD warring. To that end, we should avoid mentioning deletion at all; this suggested solution is also in line with current deletion policy, which says that deletion is not an appropriate thing to do with a subject that is "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed wording seemingly intended to deter editors from editing propositions and adding them

We can't have a poll until we agree on the wording. I've removed wording that appears to be aimed at deterring people from editing the wording. To have any weight, the terms of this poll should be a product of consensus. I've also extended the preparation time of the poll to give us all a chance to agree on the propositions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the poll has shown tendencies towards stating one or other extreme of the keep/delete schools issue. I'm trying to work towards things that I hope we can all agree on. I don't think we can agree that all schools should be kept, but I think we can agree that some schools should be kept. I think references to notability are likely to polarize, so I've removed them and replaced them by more neutral wording. I've tried to make proposals useful without being contentious. I want to see an outcome we can all get behind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing this page

As of the date of this comment, I will no longer be editing this page, and I ask that everybody else do the same. It is four days until the start date. If you don't like proposal or the wording of the propositions, vote against them. Neutrality^talk 18:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page. Neutrality^talk 18:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

The logical thing to do would be to extend the review period (which I did) and remove the artificial attempts to stop people editing the wording (which I did). You reverted these. This is not going to make this into a useful survey.

In view of the fact that some thirteen people have expressed support for David Gerard's statement that "this set of polls is premature and will only be divisive", I urge you to open up this poll to editing and put the review period back indefinitely. We can hold a poll if and when there is substantial support for one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, I hear and understand your request. However, I have chosen not to abide by it for reasons which I believe I have made clear above. I cannot understand how such a request could expect to be honoured outside of userspace. Lupin 19:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting this page for the following reasons:

No consensus on content. See straw poll on talk page. Not listed on WP:PP. No other reason to protect (no ongoing edit warring)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the page to the last version by Tony Sidaway, as I cannot see any explanation here for Neutrality's reversion. Apologies for failing to provide an edit summary - I pressed enter by mistake. Lupin 19:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New policies or guidelines

I've removed "not intended to form new policies or guidelines"; if we get consensus on one or more of the propositions, then we will have new guidelines. Neutrality^talk 16:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This poll itself does not have consensus. Kappa 23:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Kappa is correct. Also, neither guidelines nor policy can be created through a poll. R adiant _* 07:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slippery slope

We now have people voting that every church/mosque/synagogue in the world should have an article. If we agree that every school should have an article, where do we stop? If every school, then every church/temple, then every public building, then every shopping mall, then every building ever built in the world. Rick K 23:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing that a school "can" have an article is not saying it "should". We stop when things cease to be verifiable and/or important. Kappa 23:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- No we don't. The Schoolwatch group votes keep on every single school. Rick K 04:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

~~I guess you're right. Thanks for the correction. Rick K 23:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)~~ This comment was inserted by an anonymous vandal masquerading as me. Rick K 04:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

So basically the idea is that these things should be allowed articles if they reach a certain standard, and if they fail to do so, the information can be merged into a larger page. This has a lot of support over at Wikipedia:Schools Kappa 00:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not true. The Schoolwatch group is lock-step voting keep on every single substub on every single school. Please show me where any one of them has ever voted delete on any single school. Rick K 04:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pacific Coast Academey Kappa and Klonimus vote to delete because it had no useable information and/or the wrong title. If there is any usuable info, there's no need to delete it, but the schoolwatch doesn't fight tooth-and-nail to prevent tiny stubs getting merged, AFAIK. Kappa 09:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Just as data point: I would guess you assume I'm part of Schoolwatch, since I've voted "keep" on every school since I started my account here. I find every item that I vote on directly at VfD. I pay no attention to Schoolwatch, although it seems I agree with them virtually always. I examine each and every article on verifiability and NPOV. I just happen to believe that "vanity" is not a quality that applies to institutions. I have not ever voted blindly, or in deliberate lock step with anyone.

Since Wikipedia is not paper, I'm perfectly happy to slide all the way down the "slippery slope" that you seem to fear so much, as long as there is enough third party verifiable information available for the articles, and enough space on the servers. If someone wants to come along and merge them, leaving redirects and disambigs in place, you'll find no complaint from me, but I think that should be the job of a database to categorize and sort items as much as it is an editor's. I don't understand; what's the fear? As long as the data has verifiability and NPOV, what greater purpose is served keeping it out? What greater purpose is served by one large merged article versus a dozen small article that can't be accomplished with additional categories and subcategories?

Voting "keep" preserves whatever limited data that exists for any given article. It doesn't stop anyone from coming along and merging them into an article on the appropriate district later and posting a redirect. The only time I know of that this has been opposed has been a recent item where the merge involved removing virtually all data from an article that was considerably more than a stub.--Unfocused 06:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

So you really, honestly, believe that there should be an article on every verifiable building, person, word, thing, etc. in the world? Rick K 06:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your tone suggests that you think it is obvious that we shouldn't. Why shouldn't we? Pcb21| Pete 07:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There very well could be, but it is a self-limiting phenomenon. Editors add where there is interest (usually personal, since no one I know is being paid to do so) and do not add where there is none. (But every article, no matter how small, should have references included.) As long as it is truly NPOV and third party verifiable, I don't see why not, but I don't think it will happen. Is this the fear? Too many articles? Too many books in the Library of Alexandria? ;) --Unfocused 15:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It could be considered impractical. One could hold the opinion that there will never be a good article on every verifiable building, for instance. One could even hold the opinion that many school stubs are unlikely to ever be expanded. Read m:eventualism vs. m:immediatism. There is really no point in arguing about this; we should agree to disagree. If you suggest that we should have an article on every verifiable building (or school, or whatever), the best course of action is to prove the others wrong, by writing them. Nobody's stopping you, and a well-written article is very unlikely to be voted to delete. Radiant_* 07:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- This relects my point that verifiable and wikipedia:important buildings can be the subject of good articles, without accepting that they should all have short, uninformative stubs written about them. Kappa 09:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

..there will never be a good article written about every verifiable building..

This may well be true. However, it is not my personal belief that wikipedia should strive at all costs to make every article a "good article" if that means throwing away information which cannot be made into a "good article". Rather I believe that wikipedia should aim to be a repository of accurate neutral information - all information which its editors see fit to contribute. Putting "quality" of an article as measured by its interest to large numbers of people or the quality of its prose style on a pedastal should not (in my opinion) be what this project is about. A reference work may contain many really boring articles about obscure subjects which almost no-one reads, but that's why it's a reference work and not a novel.

Some editors seem to me to be very concerned with the way wikipedia appears to people browsing at random, and wish to eradicate or improve those articles which fail to make a good impression. This may appear to be a noble goal. However, when they find articles which they cannot to see a way to improve (and which in some cases may in fact be unimprovable), their answer is to remove their content. I think that this is a dangerous philosophy.

This is not an argument for never deleting an article. In some cases, articles supplied to wikipedia do not meet standards of neutrality and accuracy and the community cannot see how to fix these problems. Then deletion seems to be a logical route to take. Lupin 14:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

Why on earth is this poll advertised on Wikipedia:Recentchanges? New guideline proposals are rarely put on there AFAIK, and this one is very controversial in the first place. In fact I would be tempted to hold a poll to hold off this poll, if that weren't so paradoxical. R adiant _* 14:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's also been the /topic in #wikipedia for a while now. Lupin 14:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

With what results, for us non-irc'ers? R adiant _* 14:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing too spectacular - just another advertisment. Lots of irc'ers told Neutrality the poll was a bad idea, too, when he first came up with it. Lupin 14:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- In other words, holding the poll after all these objections seems like a prime example of WP:POINT (not to mention WP:NOT a democracy), wouldn't you agree? R adiant _* 15:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Since this is User:Neutrality's own poll, and consensus against even having a poll appears to exist, why doesn't someone just userfy it, delete the reference from Special:Recent Changes and be done with it? I'd rather not see another RfC. It seems to me that he's almost completely unresponsive to questions and criticisms, so why should we tolerate this in Wikispace? Because he's an admin and one of only twelve arbitrators? These arguments triggered by his unilateral behavior is contributing to discord, and drawing energy away from those who are conversing in good faith. (If I fully knew the implications of moving his poll to his user page, I would have done it days ago.) --Unfocused 16:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userfication

I moved the poll to my userspace at User:Neutrality/Survey. I'll move it back to the main namespace when the poll opens. As of now iIt's "frozen in place" now. Neutrality^talk 02:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I really appreciate you userfying the poll. The problem is, it doesn't belong in Wikispace once open, since this is your own personal poll and not the result of consensus. I think you'd be better served by trusting the community to participate in good faith where it is, in your own user space. I hope you will consider this option when the date comes. --Un focused 03:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Unfocused. This poll has an even weaker claim to a place in the Wikipedia namespace now that it is residing in your namespace during the so-called "review period". Lupin 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this as withdrawal of the survey. If and when it's moved back we can continue to develop it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Before a poll would be publically held (if that is still the intent), there should first be consensus on the wording. R adiant _* 08:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The thing that convinced me that Neutrality no longer intends this to be a public survey is this edit summary to his latest edit: "rv - if you want to change it start your own survey." He regards the page as his personal property. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. He has also removed all messages about this poll from his talk page with the rather endearing edit summary "rm bullshit/spam". Repeat after me: assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith,... L upin 20:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/User_talk%7ENeutrality_Survey_4047.html"