Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 21 September 2008

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPP

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

Nuvola flags

These nuvole flags are gaining increased usage on wiki, This is quite worring for me as they are more decorative than standard flags. At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Nuvola_flags,i am proposing to strongly limit the usage of these flags, please comment if your interested .

Required Reading 2 -- MOS

I thought about the objections to my "required reading" proposal (supra) and have this addendum to my proposal. Before you laugh my original idea out of hand, please consider this rejoinder to your objections that there would be no way to know if the user had indeed read the manual of style even if he checked "I agree." I propose that a new user would be required to take (and of course pass) a small "test" of his MOS knowledge before his account be activated. The test would be ten to twenty questions drawn from the MOS with multiple choice answers. The correct answer would be the "best answer" out of the four options given and the prospective user would have to score a 80% (this is subject to debate of course) passing score on the MOS test before his account would be activated. I think a multiple choice objective test would be easier to grade than an essay test, although I agonized over this issue for a while before coming to my conclusion.

A sample question would be like:

Q. Which of the following article titles conforms to Manual of Style guidelines? (select the best answer):

A. JOSIAH A. HARPER (MOVIE)

B. Josiah a. Harper (film)

C. Josiah A. Harper (Film)

D. Josiah A. Harper (film)

Correct answer: D

And so on... Or we could divide the test into different sections, one dealing with MOS, and one dealing with WP:NOT, and whatever other guidelines and texts we wish a new user to be familiar with.

So that's how we know the user has indeed read the texts. Now that this objection has been answered I think its time to implement this policy. The next step is writing the questions -- and I am up to thirty-five different MOS questions and answers so far. Please help. Halli B (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Unless you haven't bothered to read the responses to your proposal above, you must know that nobody supports this idea at all, and it is never going to happen.. And in case you have any doubt, let me caution you now that "disruptive editing" (per your unblock) also refers to disrupting the Village pump (policy) and other pages with nonsense like this. Perhaps you are the one who needs to do some reading, to learn a little more about Misplaced Pages. Or better yet, why not turn your attention to doing something useful like editing some articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Please stop with these nonsense proposals so that real proposals dont get lost in the flow. Resolute 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no use for the test, but if you put together a short (that is, terse) condensation of the MOS (on the lines above, "This is how an article title ...") that would be very handy for reference. A cheat sheet. (I wonder if anybody has actually found all the suggestions for the MOS, let alone read them.) Saintrain (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm.....................no. Celarnor 16:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board, then. :-)

I must say, though, the fact that MoS is discussed a lot these days is, on its own, a good sign.

(Saintrain, either you follow the Manual or you do not; there can be no cheatsheet. What we can do is make it easier for people to find what they are looking for. We are working on it.) Waltham, The Duke of 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm. I want a "terse condensation", you want to "make it easier for people to find what they are looking for". The difference is ??? Saintrain (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the distinction, either. I've only used the MOS as a reference work, I've never actually read it from one end to the other; however, I do think that a highly condensed version would be useful for someone looking to familiarize themselves with some of the basic concepts or looking for a starting point for their understanding of the MOS. Celarnor 06:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the proposer has been indefblocked for sockpuppetry. I think we can safely assume that his or her proposals were more attempts at disruption than improvement. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki brah? I wonder if that means Wiki brah was also Ouijaouija? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And JeanLatore...it's kind of sad he keeps getting blocked, I kind of enjoyed it. Celarnor 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The bad editor

Ok so you come across a bad edit and do a revert which elicits a counter revert and then leads to the talk page. There, through discussion, you quicky come to understand that what you have on your hands is the proverbial, dreaded bad editor. (We all know him. He's not difficult to recognize.) Not a vandal (that would be too easy) but someone who doesn't have policy knowledge, doesn't care to learn it, yet is entirely sincere in their viewpoint. One might say a crusader even. He is passionate, has good writing skills, but... he simply, consistently makes bad edits. He removes good content, questions unquestionable material, assumes bad faith in discussion and, in general, seems to have dedicated himself to a program of steady deterioration of article quality.

Misplaced Pages policy says: Do not bite the newbies and assume good faith, good policies both in the majority of cases. But unless you are willing to spend a considerable amount of your time not, as you'd like, in article space, but in seemingly endless talk page discussion and arbitration, you (I) more often than not just give up and move on. Admirable? No. Practical? Very much so.

Inner Voice: "I just don't have the time man. I came here to write and edit articles."

Alter-ego: "This is a community project. Understand what that means?"

Inner Voice: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, but why should we have to waste so much time in drumming out of the project someone we know from the git-go is simply a bad editor. I'm telling you I just don't have the energy. Let someone else do it. I've got more important things to do."

Alter-ego: "Selfish b@$!@rd. You really shouldn't be editing in a public encyclopedia. Go back to writing your damn book."

I think we've all probably had the harrowing experience of coming across a bad edit, doing a history check of the editor responsible, and to our horror see that this guy has been doing this, not just in this article but all over the damn encyclopedia! He is involving many, many editors in the process described above. Not maliciously, mind you, in good faith, but just laying a path of destruction wherever he goes.

Perhaps sometimes it would be better to just recognize these people up front and to expeditiously get rid of them. Not everybody is cut out to edit an encyclopedia. We are not all Diderots.

Sorry. Just a bad case of schpilkus and I needed to heave. (red face) And here I am standing with it all over my shoes. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like dispruptive or tendentious editing? Remember, AGF and BITE are only guidelines, not suicide pacts. Once someone has been here a while and has been informed of the way we do things, they shouldn't be treated as a newbie. And if someone repeatedly fails to assume good faith of others, that's a perfectly valid reason to stop assuming good faith of them, nor does AGF mean they can't be sanctioned for doing something wrong. In general I agree with you though, we put up with far too much crap from users who just straddle the line between decent editor and blatant disruption. Mr.Z-man 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And far too often we find we've wasted hours of our precious time stretching our credulity assuming good faith on the part of users who are clearly never going to be able to contribute usefully and who, more often than not, turn out to be trolls anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the ones that just don't get it. Celarnor 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You needed something? More seriously, are these folks educate-able? Because if not, it's certainly better for our mission (encyclopedia) to get rid of them. Assuming good faith assumes that they can be pointed in the right direction by pointing them towards the relevant policy-pages, no? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, but our hands are slightly tied. Even with obvious vandals we usually warn 4 times before blocking. But when we're dealing with people like User:Andy Bjornovich (as many of us had the misfortune to do) who seemed like he might be trying to contribute usefully it becomes even more difficult. His situation led to hours of wasted time and pages of discussion over what should be done with him, at least 7 different blocks of at least 3 accounts, input from who knows how many admins, attempts to engage him in discussion, and of course the additional work of reversing his problematic edits. And he's not even the worst example. Yet if an admin is at all stern with an apparently new user who seems to be problematic, s/he's sure to get a WP:BITE reminder. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot depends on the tone in which any guidance is presented. Wikiproject Chess had an over-enthusiastic editor. A gentle request to add citations for each new point did the trick. He's now very useful, and got a Barnstar for his chess work a couple of months ago. Those who get WP:BITE reminders generally deserve them, and have probably bitten hundreds of newbies per WP:BITE reminder. -- Philcha (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. We're not talking about well-meaning users who are ignorant of the rules/policies/guidelines and community standards. WP:BITE and WP:AGF sometimes restrain us from quickly dealing with people who are either simply casual vandals or determined and experienced trolls. AGF and BITE can constrain us in these situations, and lead to time wasting. Using Andy Bjornovich as an example again, look how many editors gave so much of their time trying to gently guide him and giving him the benefit of the doubt, and ultimately for nothing: he was deliberately trolling from the get-go. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the possibility of real pests. I'm also aware that some editors & admins are trigger-happy. -- Philcha (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen both editors who are just too out there to get it and editors who just need a little help. The first get ignored once people realize they aren't part of the second group, and the second group usually gets helped out if they aren't shot down by an admin first, which I think is a bigger problem than the first group of editors. It's a lot easier to ignore somebody than it is to undo a block. Celarnor 06:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution just occured to me but I don't know how practical it would be. The formation of a Stealth Task Force (aka the troll patrol). It would consist of a band of bold editors (admins?) whose task (should they accept it) would be to take calls of help, identify bad editors and trolls, and then use the avenues of wikipedia law (which they would be expert in) to expeditiously get these people removed from the project. Of course it would be essential for these editors to be above reproach and in possession of an impeccable record of fair but firm editor relations. Real heroes, (I've seen several in my wiki-travels) these are editors who have a particular expertise in doing this kind of thing combined with a certain unmistakable stamp of integrity. Does this exist already? Am I dreaming? Or might this be a viable idea? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was tried, it ended really, really badly. Mr.Z-man 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need another CIA or FBI, let alone something with a WP: in front of its name. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adjustment to image tags

Based on this comment from Mike Godwin, the WMF's legal counsel, foundation-l, I'd like to open a discussion on our definition of free-images. Currently we define images with non-commercial {{Non-free with NC}} and non-derivative {{Non-free with ND}} as non-free images that should be deleted {{Db-i3}}. Given that Mike indicates that Wikiquote can consider non-commercial vs. commercial use in deciding what text it may use, that suggests to me that we may be able to accept a non-commercial image license as "free" and possibly even a non-derivative license, since what is expected of a charity is different than what is expected of a non-charitable enduser. MBisanz 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It has always been the case that Misplaced Pages could freely use images with non-commercial and non-derivative licenses. The decision to count these as non-free was based on Misplaced Pages's goal of being free-content, which was taken to include freely copyable and modifiable for any purpose. The decision was not made to comply with copyright law. Algebraist 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think any content that we say is free should actually be free. Mr.Z-man 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That we are legally allowed to use images does not make them free. We are "free" to use them, but the goal of this project is to build an encyclopaedia that is "free" in the fullest Stallman-GNU-Debian sense. We shouldn't consider Misplaced Pages to be the end product -- allowing non-free content makes our work harder to reuse. There's no point in licensing all our contributions with the GFDL if we then go on to make it impossible to use it.

For similar reasons, I wholly advocate a prohibition on using fair-use images except where the photograph is directly discussed in the article. I am also very uncertain about the existence of the Wikiquote project -- I don't believe a project that relies entirely on fair-use claims for anything less than 85 years old can be called "free". Sam Korn 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

uhh, isn't that what NFCC 8 is for? ViperSnake151 22:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format requirement?

A poll is underway to require almost all articles to use the date format 13 September 2008. Please comment in this section.

The precise language would impose this on all articles not strongly linked to to the United States, except existing articles on Canada. (New ones would have to use 13 September 2008.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. The above by Septentrionalis is misleading and uses charged, hot-button language like “impose” and “have to use”. A poll is being conducted to see if editors would like to replace the current guideline on fixed-text date formats with revised wording. If the editing community likes it better, then so be it. If not, the current guideline stays. It’s just that simple. This is all being discussed on a talk page, where ideas are exchanged. Greg L (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  The exact wording proposed is:

  • For articles on, or strongly associated with, the U.S. or its territories (or countries listed in this guideline that use U.S.-style dates: Micronesia and Palau), editors should use the U.S.-style date format (“February 2, 2008”), otherwise, editors should use the international date format (“2 February 2008”) in articles.
  • New articles on or strongly associated with Canada should use the international format but, for existing articles related to Canada, whichever format was used by the first major contributor shall be retained.

That sounds like requirement and imposition to me; those who disagree and wish to support on those grounds are welcome to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The longstanding wording included this line: Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format. That use of "should" didn't mean that all articles on (say) France immediately dumped U.S. format. There was no "requirement and imposition", no jackbooted edit-warriors, no ArbCom thunder. Most editors didn't even notice, and kept on happily contributing material in whichever format they felt most comfortable with. Two polls now, and both times it's come out as resembling the same convention we use for units of measurement: In general, Misplaced Pages uses international date format (1 February 2003); however, US format (February 1, 2003) is used in US-related topics. You can't say fairer than that. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another poll on this issue? Is the goal here to have poll after poll after poll until all normal editors decide getting involved with this mess just isn't worth it anymore, making way for the die-hard MOS warriors to claim consensus for whatever they feel like? Anomie⚔ 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there have been more than five or six, counting this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, what is with all this hulabaloo over date formatting lately? Sheesh! Pierre DuPaix III (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is simply that we have no well-defined process for making this kind of decision. Relatively unimportant peripheral debates (like whether to delete an article on some obscure manga character) will proceed along (fairly) disciplined lines, and warrant the benevolent attention of a wise and neutral administrator to decide what's been decided. However important matters like this, concerning guidance affecting hundreds of thousands of articles, are left for the belligerents themselves to hack out, without any clear rules on how to proceed or how to decide what's been decided (or what the outcome should be if nothing's been decided). Hence the hullaballoo and the probably unsatisfactory eventual result. (But suggest remedying this problem in the obvious way - having an AfD-like process for such debates - and you'll be told to go away and stop questioning Misplaced Pages's sacred principles...)--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion (T4)

I'd just like to bring it to wider attention that there's a new criterion for speedy deletion: "T4: Documentation subpages of deleted templates". All the usual trappings, including a {{db-templatedoc}} tag, should be in place. There's some related discussion at WT:CSD. It's pretty much a no-brainer (as indeed speedy deletion criteria should be in general), and I'm sure admins have been doing that already anyway, but now we have it in writing.

So, if you were going to delete a template and were wondering what to do about the documentation page, well, now you know. If not, feel free to ignore all this. Thank you, and have a nice day. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'd probably just apply G6 (uncontroversial/cleanup) for those and note the deletion of the parent template if this didn't exist, but I suppose this is more explicit and faster. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on "Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages essays" usage

Should Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages essays be used on articles in the articles namespace? It would seem to pull readers into WP: territory. There are 10 such links at the moment. Mcewan (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought not.--Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ten articles currently link to it. Seems to be the result of people confusing Template:Essay with Template:Essay-like. They should be removed or changed. Iain99 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - looks as if someone has done just that. Mcewan (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy on policy changes

It is proposed to add a section to Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines clarifying the procedure for proposing and making changes to policy and guideline pages. The proposed wording is at WP:Policy/Procedure; please comment on that page's talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! This sounds like something from Misplaced Pages:Requests for process—Tim Vickers' Proposal proposal: "Process to assess the need for a process sub-committee for initial and informal screening of process requests before they are formally submitted to the main process committee." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic, because a lot of good people like to keep up with changes to policies and guidelines and have a hard time doing it. On the other hand, it's hard to see how a proposal that says "you must do X before you can say Y" doesn't contradict current policy from WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post." See WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 44#Using a policy page as a scratchpad to develop a proposal for Kim Bruning's description of what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and their talk pages have had to say about this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Per Kotniski's request, I'll copy this at that talk page, but this kind of discussion is common here at the Pump so I'm mentioning it here too.

Misplaced Pages:Article series has been marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:Article series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. There was no discussion on making the page a guideline, nothing on the talk page at all since May, and it gets the main point wrong, confusing a "main" page with a "summary" page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree reversion, not at guideline level Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

After a long gestation, WP:MEDRS was promoted to a guideline by Davidruben (talk · contribs) on the 1 September. This followed a poll Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Should we make this a guideline?. It had been referred to by WP:MED editors as a de facto project guideline for quite some time, and the page was quite stable. However, those few editors who opposed the guidelines status continue to grumble and two are engaged in edit warring over the guideline tag. The aspects in dispute, as far as you may regard me as a reliable witness, appear to be:

• The promotion of secondary sources over primary (for example, academic review papers rather than primary research papers).
• Discouraging the use of the popular press (newspapers) for medical facts.
• That the guideline was promoted without unanimous agreement.

Those disputing appear to be IMO in conflict with policy pages (see the talk page for details of which), and some have openly admitted to this. Further comment from the wise and experienced would be appreciated. Colin° 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image maps?

Check out the pic on the left at Haumea_(dwarf_planet)#Size and composition, of the various trans-Neptunian planetoids. It's an image map! Since when are image maps allowed? I hated it - I clicked the picture to get a big view, like in every other Misplaced Pages article's pictures, and instead I was shunted over to some article for a reason I didn't understand. Tempshill (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image maps are a standard web page tool, and very useful. Their biggest drawback is that browsers can take up to 0.5 second to show the "tooltip" (usually black text on pale yellow bg) that tells you the destination for the link that your mouse is hovering over - I don't know why, but tooltips for image maps seem to take as long as they did 10 years ago.

You simply have to make sure you click in an "empty" part of the image. -- Philcha (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the web in general, I'm talking about Misplaced Pages specifically. The UI for Misplaced Pages images is that when you click the image, you get the image page. Imagemaps violate this expectation of the user, and I don't think they should be used for ordinary images. I could see it being useful if it were a page-width image of some kind. But that use on that page is pretty awful. Is there a policy for this anywhere? I'd like to clarify the position at that place so it's not an everlong battle against bad ones. Tempshill (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'm not impressed with the one you mentioned - the image needs to be about twice as large. But how about e.g. the one at Coelom? -- Philcha (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a billion times better because it uses the wikilink text metaphor, and because it does 'the expected' when I click the coelom itself - though it does still break my expectations of what happens when you click anywhere in a picture box. Tempshill (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article series no longer marked as a guideline

Misplaced Pages:Article series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

When I place a reference to a website, I always link the dates in a specific manner: for example, if I placed such a reference today, I'd write

Accessed ]

. Today, however, I saw someone removing such a link with a script. Are links of this sort also prohibited now? Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A group of people at WT:MOSDATE argued and fought over date linking until attrition left no objectors to changing date linking from "recommended" to "neither supported nor discouraged". Then they continued to argue and fight until no objectors were left to changing it to "deprecated". And they'll probably keep on it until their local consensus is to declare it "prohibited" so they can run scripts across Misplaced Pages en masse to unlink all dates. Personally I find quite a bit of it pointy but not worth fighting over. Anomie⚔ 21:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They've also argued and fought to require dates to be in "international format" and to hell with Americans. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The above rants are perhaps not quite fair. The move to deprecation came about because the arguments and consensus were overwhelming; such links are obviously undesirable (see WP:OVERLINK) and should be removed; editors shouldn't treat it as personal criticism to see scripts or bots make minor changes to their edits. There is indeed a poll ongoing on making "international format" the preferred format for dates, but it seems unlikely that the idea will gain consensus (in any case it's not the same "they" in the two cases).--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for deprecating date linking are pretty convincing. The whole thing has been the subject of discussion for months and years, and it boils down to the sole advantage of date autoformatting is that a few editors get to see dates in their preferred format. The disadvantages are that the other 99.9% of Misplaced Pages users gain no benefit from the date linking, and if they click on the date links, they get no benefit from doing so. Other links, you go to an article with more information, which makes clicking your way through Misplaced Pages such a pleasant exercise in serendipity. Click on a date (20 September), you get a page full of random stuff, mostly about birthdays. Date autoformatting was a programming kludge and good riddance to it.

The date format thing is quite different. The proposal is to use international format dates for international subjects and American dates for American subjects. We show Queen Margarethe's birthday as 16 April 1940 and George W Bush's birthday as July 6, 1946. Big deal. There's a poll here and far from "a group of people" imposing their will, I think the more editors who have their say, the better. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the proposal is that American formatting may be only for articles which can be classified as American subjects. It used to be, that if the article was neutral as to whether it was an American subject or a European subject, then it would be in the format of that subject, but if it was not a particular subject, then it would be whatever format that it was originally created, but now, if it isn't American, then it is required to be in non-American format. So, in other words, "Fuck you, Americans." Corvus cornix_talk 04:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WRT ADHD Can one cite web based information from the Mayo Clinic?

A simple question. On the Mayo Clinic web page, that institution uses the term "chronic" to describe a mental condition. The web based page was used as a citation to specifically reference that word in the Wiki article, because an editor challenged it's inclusion based on the belief that the reference was of poor quality. Now there is an edit war with the term being put on and taken off repeatedly. Can anyone point to specific policy on this issue or give a thought out opinion?--scuro (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let look at the ref he mentioned: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/adhd/DS00275

• the page gives no references to the literature
• it is self published on a web page hosted by the mayo clinic
• no indication of weather or not it is peer reviewed
• author is give as Mayo Clinic Staff, no one is brave enough to even attach there name to it
• no indication is given that it is evidenced based
• it is not a comprehensive review of the literature
• this I presume is a page for the lay person
• any finally IT IS NOT formatted to wikipedian standard even after I requested a dozen times that he format his references

--Doc James (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay there are two issues here. Three if you seriously want to get into formating issues. One if this specific web page is appropriate, and two if they are appropriate in general. - I disagree with the term self published. This comes from the Mayo Clinic and not from an individual. Nor can one at all assume that the author would not know the literature, that it would be peer reviewed, or that the material is evidence based. I don't know how DJ can at all assume that it comes from a lay person.--scuro (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflic hence same level of indent) It is not completely clear which article this is about (I guess ADHD), so I have to answer without seeing the in situ debate. My first question is why this debate is there at all, why can a mental condition not be chronical in the same way a physical condition is (ie why does it need a reference at all)?

Doc James mixes weak and reasonable counter arguments in my view. From bottom to top

* Not formatting to Misplaced Pages standard is not disqualification of the source (although annoying)

* Popular science (aimed at lay person) is perfectly acceptable

* That it is neiter evidence based nor a literature review is problematic

* Many sites and organisations do not attribute information to a single author (has often nothing to do with bravery but with institute policy), this is not necessarily a disqualification of the source.

* Peer review would make the souce better; self publication is not very strong; and references to literature would be preferable.

Altogether I would judge this source as marginally acceptable in the context where the claim is not exceptional (so no exceptional evidence required) and the soure being a fairly well-known serious institute. A better soure maybe desirable (I think Doc James should provide it), but not essential. Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would consider Mayo Clinic pages to be reliable sources. Now, a reliable source may be mistaken, and in that regard primary literature and literature reviews do have higher authority than websites. Doc James, if you want to challenge this, I don't buy your arguments that that Mayo Clinic web pages should simply be ignored. However, I would buy an argument that literature sources describe ADHD as not chronic, or evidence that they refrain from using that word. So, in my opinion, simply believing that the Mayo Clinic pages may be wrong isn't adequate ("verifiability, not truth"), but if you can show via other sources that they are likely to be wrong, then that would justify removal. Dragons flight (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and hope my list showed a similar sentiment; as Dragons Flight response. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So I have provided a couple of other published sources. This is what is currently in the main paragraph: ADHD is generally a chronic disorder with 10 to 60% of individuals diagnosed in childhood continuing to meet diagnostic criteria in adulthood. I have provided two references. One a systematic review from 2008 the other a NEJM publication. http://ti.ubc.ca/en/letter69 Elia J, Ambrosini PJ, Rapoport JL (1999). "Treatment of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder". N. Engl. J. Med. 340 (10): 780–8. PMID 10072414. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The lead paragraph also says: characterized by a persistent pattern of impulsiveness, hyperactivity, and inattention. This is from the DSM IV

All three of these are more reliable then the mayo clinic web site and they are all formatted properly. I do not feel that one need to state a third time in the lead that ADHD is always chronic when sometimes it isn't.

--Doc James (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the DSM IV, but your other sources appear to be fairly conclusive.

As I stated above, without the context I could not interpret the issue in detail.

In the light of the sources provided by DocJames I would say that the ball is now clearly with Scuro to provide equally authorative sources to show that at least the debate about chronicness (if that is a word) is still alive. (note that popular science often is slower in uptake compared to scientific literature, and that Mayo's website is probably slighlty outdated (not violating is reliableness per se) rahter than biased.) Thanks for providing the relevant references here DocJames Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does his sources say and how does it relate to the issue at hand? Do the websites refute the term "chronic"? Or did he just post some websites up there that relate to medication and what not? I'm very confused by what he posted. How does treatment relate to chronic?

Does this: always present or encountered  ; especially : constantly vexing, weakening, or troubling <chronic petty warfare> b: being such habitually <a chronic grumbler> = this: continuing or inclined to persist in a course b: continuing to exist despite interference or treatment <a persistent cough> <has been in a persistent vegetative state for two years>? The Mayo clinic and many other institutions/experts use that term for a reason. The symptoms may be persistent but the condition is chronic. The proper order of things is for him to give proper sources to refute the term. --scuro (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream belief may not be grounded in cutting edge research, not even mainstream research by very good specialists (nobody doubt Mayo there, nor its good intentions). By listing peer reviewed papers for scientific journals, Doc James has provided cutting edge and recent research, which can only be counterargued by similar sources (ie peer reviewed scientific papers) and not by popular scientific pages by practitioners. Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

DSM refers to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is the book that is used to describe mental disorder. It does not refer to ADHD as chronic. Another reference www.uptodate.com doesn't use the word chronic either. Doc James (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To what extent is DSM peer reviewed? (I would put more trust in the scientific papers - but then again I am writing those so maybe biased - compared to books summarising a selection). Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The DSM is what the field of psychiatry is based upon. It is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Has a complicated story behind it. It is extensively peer reviewed. --Doc James (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the debate is about whether the word "chronic" adds anything to the article. Diseases can be acute or they can be chronic. I don't know how commonly the word "chronic" is used w.r.t. psychiatric conditions, because they are almost all chronic. You hear "acute" used for the exceptions, like "acute amnesia", etc. As far as the discussion about reliable sources, which belongs on WP:RSN, this is very WP:LAME. Yes, the Mayo Clinic is most definitely a reliable source for medical matters, and we have a template for citing web pages. And yes, the DSM is the standard reference manual for mental health professionals. That's a little bit like saying Webster's Dictionary isn't a reliable source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same about the chronic issue in relation to WP:LAME. Not being a psychiatrist myslef I didn't know DSM.

Re Mayo Clinic. Yes the Mayo Clinic is reliable; nobody doubts tat. However their public communication may not be presenting most recent findings (there is no way of checking this, as DocJames correctly states it uses neither references, nor is peer reviewed). The public webpages maybe simplified public directed articles, infrequently updated, and cared for by the communication staff of Mayo (with advice of the medical staff no doubt). In general this will be reliable, but if it contradicts published scientific articles (as those provided by DocJames) the peer reviewed articles are just better. Arnoutf (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it is not just one citation from the article that has been stripped, but many citations, terms, and passages, have been stripped. All in short order. The article is a shell of what it used to be. This is important and not lame, Doc James has not really responded to requests seeking consensus, so rules become all the more important.

I think you all missed that the citations that Doc James gave here have NOTHING to do with the term "chronic". Here is another factoid- the DSM4 is a diagnostic tool and not a piece of academic literature. It's 14 years old, so much for "cutting edge" and "refuting" the source.

Reviews are not god like. They are static and several reviews on the same topic can have dramatically different viewpoints. There are also differing levels of quality. Simply posting a review does not trump everything on an issue. That is what talk is for, to vet this out in a civilized manner. It would be deeply appreciated if Doc James used that tool to seek consensus and make the article the best it can be, instead of responding with a terse quip like, "Uhh-no".--scuro (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, this debate is about a very general point about ADHD in the lead paragraph, so it would be appropriate to cite basic information written for a lay audience. Most scientific papers are going to be about some very specific aspect of ADHD, and a paper written for experts is not going to recap the sorts of things we need to explain in the lead. The doctors already know ADHD is a chronic condition.
• However, this is a really weird edit war; it looks like there is no controversy over several cites using the word "chronic" further down in the article. The only debate is having "chronic" in the lead sentence. In that case, I could take it or leave it. I feel that because the lead sentence already says ADHD is a developmental disorder, that already implies chronic, so the extra "chronic" is redundant in the lead sentence.
• I'd also like to clarify if there's any doubt as to what "acute" and "chronic" mean in medicine: "Acute" is something you get all of the sudden, like an injury or a fever, and hopefully recover from. "Chronic" is something that might wax and wane, and sometimes it can be worked on, but it tends to stay with you. High blood pressure, diabetes, and dyslexia are all "chronic" conditions. Also, "chronic" does not mean "cyclical", a chronic condition can be constant too. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation for the term "developmental" was also stripped, as was the citation for "disorder". I would deeply appreciate further insights about citing web based info from excellent sources. As a general rule can we say that they are acceptable and if there is disagreement discuss in talk?--scuro (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned numerous times. What I do not like is the sloppy editing. Links that don't work. Few references properly formatted. And no improvement in these upon multiple requests. This is a medical article and the parts about medical things should refer to medical resources. The parts not about medical aspects of ADHD do not need to refer to medical resource.

By the way the DSM4R was written in 2000 making in 8 years old not 14.

And also love the WP:LAME. It so sums up this whole thing.

Doc James (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Implementing Flagged/Sighted Revisions

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war/Workshop#Community_discussion_strongly_urged, the community has been urged by Arbitration Commitee member User:Newyorkbrad to consider the use of flagged/sighted revisions (amongst other possible remedies), to assist in reducing the risk of articles that deal with living people, and the harm that can result.

Therefore, I am opening this discussion, to present a proposal for the use of Flagged/sighted revisions to reduce the risk of situations like the one discussed in the ArbCom case. That is: In certain, high profile articles, the crush of editors is not always conducive to taking due care to prevent violations of WP:BLP being inserted into articles. Such a situation (and the resulting wheel war of protection/unprotection that occured) on the article for Sarah Palin led to the above mentioned ArbCom case.

Flagged/Sighted Revisions, should, at a minimum be in place on WP:BLP articles, (and ideally, to my thoughts, be in place on all articles.) To prevent complaints that this gives administrators too much power to determine what content Misplaced Pages produces, my suggestion is that a new "right" be granted, comparable to the rollback right recently introduced. The new right would allow administrators, bureaucrats, or stewards to grant a user the ability to mark articles as flagged or sighted.

This right should be fairly easy to grant (say, 500 edits or so, it should be fairly automatic). However, any editor who has a block for violating Misplaced Pages's rule on edit-warring, or breaking the 3 revert rule, should not be granted this right automatically.

See Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions for more information. SirFozzie (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Been considered and they suck. We can't keep up with marking new pages as patrolled. Keeping flaging up to date would be imposible and would rapiadly result in unacceptable degrees of lag for new users.Geni 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's better then the alternative. At the worst time in Sarah Palin, there was more then one edit per minute. That provided no time to review sources, or even really add any information yourself to the article, because you would edit-conflict with anyone for any edit of substance. Of those edits that were completed during that time, 40% of them had what was considered BLP Violations (either untrue, or inadequently sourced information) I disagree that it "sucks", as well. It would keep articles from having to be semi-protected or even full-protected as much. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But Sarah Palin is a unfair example to be used as an example that all articles should be placed under Flagged/sighted revisions. This type of situation doesn't happen every day. --Patrick (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

But it's a good example of the harm that BLP Violations can do if left unchecked. SirFozzie (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh rate doesn't appear to be as high as the current pope's was back when he was elected and we survived that.Geni 02:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. The entire extension should have been pitched long along. I agree with Geni, it would be an unnecessary burden with the amount of edits made and also the number of users. Also, it would make any new user feel like he is not a part of Misplaced Pages, since their edits would have to be approved. --Patrick (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be too much focusing on the Wiki part of Misplaced Pages the part that says "Anyone can edit", and not enough focusing on what the core mission is for Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia. We have a duty to present neutral, factual information. Any editors who will leave because we do not take their edit as good automagically is not much loss. Imagine the decrease in G***p style vandalism as well. SirFozzie (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But we might lose the editor when he finds that his edit that he made to an article 8 days ago has not been approved, not because his edit is bad, but rather nobody has checked it and trust me, it will happen. --Patrick (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the proposal pretty much as currently written. This is desperately needed for some articles but I might suggest that if approved we have a test roll out on an uncontroversial set of articles to iron out any major implementation issues. I realise that there is a test wiki, but that is no substitute for true live usage. CIreland (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a legitimate question whether flagged revisions will do any good at all. I am very curious to see how they would work out, but I'd suggest a small trial, and only on articles that are highly likely to have defamation problems. How about rolling out flagged revisions only on articles that, due to their subject matter, enjoy a high risk of needing full protection for extended periods of time? The hard part will be the political uproar due to setting up two or more classes of editors, but we did survive rollback, and we tolerate that not all editors are admins. The uproar is likely to be less severe if only a small set of articles are flagged, so the non-flagging editors appear to be second-class citizens only on very few articles, just the most troublesome ones.EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you support it being placed on BLP articles, or articles that would qualify under WP:BLPSE? SirFozzie (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines