User:Dank55/Interesting Wikipedia links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Dank55/Essays/Archives/2008/April#temp

− –

WP:MOS#Other matters

Contents

[edit] subheading with 4 equals signs

[edit] subheading with 5 equals signs
leading semicolon


You can see an example of a German "Lesenswerte" ("worthy of reading") page at [1].

Die folgenden Artikel sind fachlich korrekt, belegt, ausführlich und informativ. Deshalb wurden sie mit gekennzeichnet. The following articles are correct with respect to their subject, (well) sourced, extensive and informative. For these reasons, they are denoted by .

WP:FIRST

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve

This is a good article. Click here for more information.

User:AndyZ/Suggestions


User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a

WP:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance

WT:Words to avoid#Proposal concerning controversy, argument and phenomenon

User:Durova/The dark side

WP:RfA

http://wiki.ts.wikimedia.org/view/Main_Page

WP:WikiProject Council/Noticeboard/Notes

WP:Flagged revisions/Quality versions

WT:MoS#WP:Good Article Usage

— "real" mdash

WT:Flagged revisions#This is the end.

User:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js

08/04/03 WT:CITE#When is it okay to remove a "citation needed" tag?

WT:When to cite#Citation in lists

WT:MoS#Loanwords and the inclusion of original terms in parantheses


From WP:WHEN#Citation in lists: Is citation necessary when all the information and source of an item are already available in the item's main article? Is there need to repeat the citation in the list? --Kvasir (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To some extent this depends on the list. Some lists have strict inclusion criteria that require citation (even if it repeats a citation in the main article), others do not. Local consensus should govern here. Also, if someone is challenging whether a particular entry qualifies for the list, then the citation should probably be repeated. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

... (Also, from Archive 25 at WT:V: "The policy doesn't require that everything has to be individually cited - far from it. Most things only need to be 'verifiable' in theory. Only contentious material, quotes, and material likely to be challenged are required to be individually cited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)".


EB, Encarta, and various online scientific journals all use something that is approximately one space, maybe a little narrower, when listing a single number in scientific notation, surrounded by text; probably everyone has seen this, but if not, search for "Avogadro's number" or "electron charge" in an online encyclopedia. I have no problem with the proposal to have our scientific notation template use a slightly smaller space. On the other hand, the practice is common among scientists and engineers to squash things together as an expression gets longer, including in journal articles, and spaces in scientific notation are some of the first things to go, in my experience. It's more difficult to demonstrate "tendencies" with links, but if anyone doubts this, I'll comb through a relevant journal and do some counting. We don't have so many Wikipedia pages filled with complex equations that this needs to be considered now, but I'm hopeful that we'll have to consider it in the future.


at User:koavf ::::I'm thinking of running for admin in the autumn, which may be really dumb, because whenever I see something that seems like an unspoken, simmering conflict, I will say something, so I've stepped on more than a few toes and the opposition to my RfA will probably throw a party and sell tickets. But still I do it. I've been in a privileged position in some ways, and sometimes what I say helps. In this case, basically I goofed. My perception before I spoke up was the same as yours, I think: people were being reasonably polite and appropriate, but some were groucy that this was taking up their time, and there was an undertone of "Does this guy have a POV?" I was trying to solve both problems at once ... I bought the general idea, but I reacted to the idea that this RfD was "wasting people's time" about the same as I would react to Jon Stewart saying that Larry Craig was wasting Jon's time. People are generally willing to cling to an RfD discussion about "Celebrate Bisexuality Day" like white on rice. I was also attempting to give you what interviewers call a "cremepuff" question; I thought the "cabal" language made it clear that I was expressing something ludicrous, unbelievable, and that you would probably say something like "of course not", and put the matter to rest. I was surprised by your response, and note that I didn't say anything more after that.

There is a little more to say about the general subject of bigotry, of the right towards the left in the U.S. and vice-versa, of a majority of people in Western democracies towards people who have expressed religious preferences or sexual identities, but there's no need to cover it here or now. I think I could legitimately be accused of ownership of the issue, and it's also not appropriate to keep talking when, as you correctly point out, all is well (and I'm hip-deep in various Version 1.0, policy and style guidelines wars, and haven't finished my work on Robot. Thanks for talking. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Academia:

Okay, some things just came together for me, and I'd appreciate some help researching and tightening up this idea. Consensus of Wikipedians should obviously be the determining factor in anything inside the scope of the WP:STYLE1.0 project, roughly meaning Version 1.0 formatting issues. I'd like to see some debate on the following topic: the second most important factor should be using formatting that is most acceptable to academics.

Now, I personally have never felt comfortable in academia. I suspect Jimbo and many other Wikipedians feel that academia is not up to the task of building and sharing knowledge; see for instance Wikipedia, and just this year, the Capetown Declaration. I see much of the same all over Wikipedia.

A majority of academics don't like us very much, either. Academics have been extremely slow to support even their own online journals, even when those journals represent work of the highest caliber. Academics believe in paper. This is why the friction between academia and Wikipedia so far has been relatively mild; even though it irks most academics when someone consults Wikipedia instead of the "rightful" experts in the field, we are for the most part off of their radar screen. A majority of academics don't even think of using Wikipedia as a guide to finding good peer-reviewed references in their field, much less as a good source of information in itself. A majority, but not all: see

When we produce a printed Wikipedia, we enter their turf, and we can expect a stronger reaction. If our formatting is useless for their purposes, and if the appearance of the printed version isn't an improvement over the online version, we can expect them to be increasingly derisive. If our formatting reliably follows style and citation guidelines that they can cut and paste and use for their own purposes, then we can expect more of them to do that. And for anything that can be traced back to Wikipedia, we can expect them to comply with GFDL, increasing our exposure and reputation.

Academics are already using Wikipedia

simultaneously arguing that it's so trivial that no one should care, and that it's so overwhelmingly dangerous and important that it must be stopped at all costs. wp works as a unique and irreplaceable social-networking site, and anything that increases readership, completely regardless of the quality of the articles or the bad reviews, increases the value of the social-networking. also: either you're completely unfamiliar with the predilection of publishers, journalists and especially academics for a paper product (even when supplemented online), for reasons that we're not going to be able to change with any clever argument about how great Web 2.0 is, or else you are aware, but you think that increased interaction with these people will be pernicious for Wikipedia. Which is it?





there are some problems with en-dash: WYSIWYG, or rather, a surprise. the villain here is the hyphen, which doesn't show up in our edit screens like it should, so the en-dash is different. Maurreen, is it your sense that there are just a few copyeditors at N&O who distinguish en-dashes from hyphens, and most journalists don't want to be bothered? what then are the odds that we can "sell" an en-dash? why not just have "space hyphen space" display as en-dash, including in title?


List of North Carolina hurricanes (1950-1979) August 20, 1950 – Hurricane Able permission—this does not-include

WikiProject Ships Barnstar
I like the look of the Wikiproject Ships Barnstar..............................

http://inside.wikia.com/wiki/Special:ImportFreeImages

Template talk:ImageStackRight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive125#Please_help_me_bring_more_roboticists_to_WP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive126#Robotics_again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle

Wikipedia:Template messages/WikiProject notices

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Connections to real-world objects and locations

User:superluser

WP:Expert retention

WP:Edit summary legend

Template:Talkback

WP:Starter toolset

Welcome. It's a good idea to read the tutorial, especially Wikipedia:Tutorial (External links). External links that are not sources for the article will be reverted unless they're discussed first on the article's talk page. - Dan


I'm currently working on an essay about altruism, in the sense that game theorists, economists and anthropologists understand the term. My sense is that Wikipedia was able to "conquer the world" because the rules promote altruism and frustrate the things that tend to thwart altruism.

Someone could hand you something or take you to a place that you're unfamiliar with, and you could get trustworthy, vandal-free information about the place or thing from Version 0.7.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing#Speculations regarding German Wikipedia Dank55 (talk)

Agreed with Random that parts of the above discussion concerned policy and therefore don't belong on this page; we've been having the same problem on other talk pages recently. I'm wondering if this article page doesn't contribute a little bit to the confusion between policy and guidelines. It starts off clearly enough: this is a style guideline, WP:V is policy. But then it has the standard Policylist template, and graphics tend to stand out more than words, and the next several paragraphs make reference to WP:V and mix policy and guidelines together. I'm not positive that this is a problem, but maybe it would be a little clearer to remove the Policylist template, then put everything we want to pull in from WP:V in one paragraph, repeating that it is policy, then repeat at the top of the next paragraph that everything that follows is not. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Not creating a new section for this comment was deliberate ... I'll give it a section of its own if it it arouses discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Journal papers, both academic and technical, tend to lean in the direction of preserving quotations and giving more attribution than is strictly necessary to prove a point, whereas mature Wikipedia articles tend to lean in the opposite direction. Academic writers use attribution of their and their allies' work to get grants, attract good students, and win arguments, and there's nothing wrong with that, in theory. And to be fair, academic papers are often seen as one volley in an extended barrage, so proper attribution and exact quotations help avoid the Telephone game. Encyclopedias, by contrast, aren't so interested in who-said-what-when, unless there is a clear divide of opinion and both arguments have to be represented separately. In fact, the more "reverent" attribution in an article, the more likely it is that it will provoke an edit war. This may shed some light on the well-established policy that User:Random832 is referring to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....I'm thinking that this difference between attribution in journal papers and attribution in Wikipedia may be the reason why none of the several teachers I know find Wikipedia an acceptable source for student's papers. The less "reverent" the attribution, the longer it will take for them to change their minds. In my opinion, my preference would always be to know specifically what was copied directly from elsewhere.Lvklock (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a given that more, and more specific, information is better than less information, as long as it's relevant, but some relevant information belongs on the talk page, or linked. An encyclopedia article shouldn't come close to saying "X said, word for word, the following, on this date in this place. Then Y said this. Then Z said this". An article writer has the job of reading the arguments, coming to an independent conclusion of what's important, and then quoting or paraphrasing only the bits that support the important points. And, I don't believe I've read anyone suggesting that Wikipedia should be used as a source, but then, the things I don't know about Wikipedia could fill an encyclopedia. See for instance WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT in this very article. If an article isn't mature enough to have sources for everything, then that's one good reason not to cite it as a source, and if it does give a source, and you're writing a paper on the subject, it's best to consult the source, in which case you should cite the original, not Wikipedia.
Also, I meant "reverent" in the sense of "revered, respected and adored", so that's a bad thing, at least here. A journal article that implies that your professor is the acknowledged world expert in something and quotes them word for word may cause their competitors to gnash their teeth, but it won't start an edit war. On Wikipedia, it probably would, so we have to be a little more careful that quotes aren't too long and don't give the impression of taking statements at face value. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article WP:Mediation

Okay, I am definitely missing something, and I can't find an answer in the most recent discussion on the subject, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 23#Wikipedia as an SPS. This is from WP:SPS, part of this article, and therefore policy: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources". But if you look at the left on any article page, you'll see a tool called "cite this page". So...we're supposed to cite an article, and then say, "but whatever you do, don't believe us, because Wikipedia can't be used as a source"? And if the tool isn't helpful enough, we have an entire page devoted to teaching you how to cite Wikipedia as a source, WP:Citing Wikipedia. I'm stumped. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. People can use whatever sources they want, including Wikipedia, elsewhere. In context I don't think this is at all confusing. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

←That's a reasonable guess based on what WP:V says. After all, there are many reasons you wouldn't want for WP to reference WP, including the Telephone game. And that's exactly why the language in WP:V needs to change back to what it was six months ago, when it was on a different page ... because the reasonable guess is wrong. I've dug up the discussions, and it doesn't reflect them at all.

I need to report back to WP:WPMoS, which is a project to work on all style guidelines until they reflect consensus, are easy to understand, and don't contradict. Clearly, there's work to be done here. I already mentioned the link at Archive 23, and there's a long and nuanced discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 21#Links to other WP articles do not count as references. What's really interesting is the historical page at Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ. The "Are wikis reliable sources?" subhead says:

Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Despite the above, some Wikis sponsored by the wikimedia foundation are in fact intended to be reliable sources. Notably the Wikisource and Wikinews projects, which provide notable documents in the public domain and copyleft, and events in day-to-day news, respectively. If circumstances require linking to a wiki page — for example, if the wiki itself is a notable project — it is best to use the permalink feature common on wiki software. Common wiki platforms, including the MediaWiki software which underlies Wikipedia, incorporate a feature allowing one to link directly to a version of a page as it existed some time in the past.

So that clears up one mystery...the link at the left is for when circumstances require linking to a wiki page. Examples from the discussion at Archive 21 included articles about Wikipedia itself. But the mystery at WP:Citing Wikipedia remains; it is completely out of sync with the three links I gave. It doesn't get to "You should not cite any particular author or authors for a Wikipedia article, in general" until the 12th sentence, so it's easy to miss. It also completely contradicts both the two linked discussions and Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ (which is historical, but it's very recent history, and that part of it had strong support over a long time). Again, Wikipedia and other wikis are "...not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources". And this just makes sense; it's not a slur against Wikipedia, it's a simple acknowledgment that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and they do. This also makes Wikipedia Version 1.0 all the more interesting ... because it will not be a wiki, and won't be editable, so if we want to make a case for a version of Wikipedia that could conceivably be a useful source, that would be it.

As I say, all the discussion I read was quite clear, and I don't see any reason why the long-standing language I just quoted about reliable sources was dropped; there was no support for dropping it. The article became historical for other reasons, and the language never made it into WP:V. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


A locating engine performs the computation of locations of objects and persons based on methods of multilateration or triangulation. This applies mainly with real-time locating systems (RTLS) and navigation support systems.

Some suppliers describe the approach as a positioning engine, however no position is affected, but just a location determined.


[edit] Features of a generic locating engine

In terms of informatics, the process of locating based on distinct results from distance metering is performed in a locating engine. The prerequisite is the metering. Both processes may be implemented independently and thus tailored independently to various requirements of application.

Such locating engine combines algorithms of geometry or topography with algorithms of filtering. The key issue of qualifying such locating engines is with the problem of sets of metered distances never matching in one coordinate, but in areas encircled by circles (TOA) or hyperbolas (TDOA). The task for the locating engine is to calculate promptly (in real time) for any real location a best estimate for the coordinates of the real location.

The method of locating with an RTLS in any systems layout is always a special method out of the family of methods for dead reckoning. The location of any bearer of an RTLS node may be located with a typical accuracy. This varies with the RTLS deployed and with degradation in the actual operational situation. To make clear, that Real Time Locating with an RTLS is an operational means to achieve some information about a momentary location with only short-term validity, the term "guess" is used. RTLS is always a best guess to support an operation. At no extent it may be used to interrogate map information with topographic or geodesic accuracy.

The tendency to apply for patent rights on applied mathematics where time is a parameter leads to closing the books on algorithms. The quantity of granted patents on special breeds of locating engines will rise. Currently few offers are on the market for either open source, closed source or closed applications including locating engines. The composition of such engine from scratch is not necessary. Mathematical libraries offer a large variety of building blocks. However, the quality of any solution is ruled by experience with the error models of metering and the cohesion control with networking.

The interested party must test the offerings to find the best fit for supporting operations. There is no general approach to success.

[edit] Unambiguousness

To obtain an appropriate result with locating, not only precision is required, but primarily the unambiguousness of data for processing is required.

That is quite simple to comprehend:

  • On a trajectory, it is sufficient to know two way points to determine a third location. Any leg defined with two known way points gives a unique set of coordinates for any third way point on the very same trajectory, disregarding the orientation of the trajectory on a surface or in a space. However, the trajectory must be well defined. In the case of a straight line, the two way points with coordinates and a Euclidean norm for the trajectory fulfil this condition.
  • On a surface, it is sufficient to know three way points to determine a fourth location. Any triangle defined with three known way points gives a unique set of coordinates for any fourth way point on the very same surface, spanned with the triangle and disregarding the orientation of the triangle in a space and the planarity of the surface. However, the surface must be well defined. In the case of a plane, the three way points with coordinates and a Euclidean norm for the plane fulfil this condition.
  • In a space, it is sufficient to know four waypoints to determine a fifth location. Any tetrahedron defined with four known waypoints gives a unique set of coordinates for any fifth waypoint in the very same space, spanned with the tetrahedron and disregarding the orientation of the tetrahedron in space and the orthogonality of the space. However, the space must be well defined. In the case of a plane, the four waypoints with coordinates and a Euclidean norm for the space fulfil this condition.

To obtain an appropriate result with locating, not only precision is required, but primarily the of sufficient complete data for processing unambiguous results is required.

In any 3D Euclidean system of coordinates, the Euclidean distance is the metrics to determine the position of objects in an interrelation. In a simplified 2D system of coordinates, the Euclidean distance simplifies to the Pythagorean distance. The inversion of the distance calculus (quadratic equation with three resp. two variables) delivers the coordinates of a current location. This requires proper distances for at least 4 known locations (in 3D) or at least 3 known locations (in 2D). Any lesser reference point count delivers ambiguous solutions.

Then, fulfilling the condition for unambiguousness, metering shall be performed from or towards various reference points to calculate the unknown location as the unknown position inside a plane circle triangle (3 reference points in a 2D space with three distance circles) or inside a spherical tetrahedron (4 reference points in a 3D space with four spherical shell surfaces).

Even with a sufficient count of reference points ambiguousness resides. The first reason is the time consumption for measurements and the motion of the target to be located. The other insisting reasons are pertaining even motionless scenarios. The reasons are the key problem of metering:

  • Accuracy,
  • Reproduceability and
  • Resolution
  • Noise

Thus the demand for highest precision reprehends the requester: An increase in precision does generally not solve the problem. Finally noise will be kept as the residing challenge. Generally mathematics and physics provide the escape at reasonable cost, but not with increase in accuracy only. That may be observed with the geometric solutions in locating engines. The center of gravity approach in 2D and 3D concepts leads to poor results.

[edit] Data sets

Location data ages with motion. Thus a data set for locations must include coordinates and a time of capture. This applies as well in asynchronous metering concepts. To perform locating properly, most systems apply sequences of computed locations as a track. To align these data sets, date and time comply with the needs.

To serve communication between nodes, time accompanies location data. To ease this communication, data is conveyed in containers and wrappers. Respective standardization is common for the communicating of maritime coordinates as well as satellite data. However, communication for other terrestrial usage is normally defined with proprietary methods. Hence, RTLS comply with standardization of ranging, but not with any standardization of computed data.

[edit] Mathematical modeling for locating

Applying RTLS or other locating hardware requires equivalent methodology to make appropriate use of obtained measures. This shall be comprised in an RTLS locating machine that keeps the user and applicator free of considerations about how to obtain best estimates for mobile positions. Such locating machine e.g. for planar motion in buildings and on plane surfaces comprises at least of the following:

  • Measurement computation to cope with the stochastic errors of metered distance values, thus reducing noise.
  • Modeling the mesh of nodes and distances as a stable network of controlled topology and as a virtual surface.
  • Conformal modeling matching the real operational surfaces, to serve location data for physically purposeful positions e.g. outside obstacles and driving or settled on a plane.
  • Providing stable tracks according to inherited motion capabilities, i.e. not jumping aside nor forth and aback and keeping steady speed and acceleration.

This list may be extended upon sound modeling concepts. Interested parties may believe, electro technically sound solutions alone do not cover this modeling requirement even by most skillful measuring methodology.

[edit] Geometric models

Basing concept of the geometric approaches is determining the area of the own location with plane circles or spherical surfaces. These 2D-circles or 3D-spherical surfaces around the transmitter position describe the range with the measured distance from any metering node. Hence several distance circles (at least 3) or spherical surfaces (at least 4) around the corresponding transmitters define a planar polygon or a multihedron and the own real location is assumed lying in the center of gravity of this polygon or multihedron.

To encircle any area or volume greater zero, tolerances are added to the measured distances for computing the location. Many of the RTLS systems in market use such a simple 2D- or 3D- geometric approach for modeling the location of metering nodes. The concept postulates that the circles describe planes or surfaces that would include area or volume greater zero or just tangle in one position. However, the easiest understanding with such didactically skilled models coincides with a very bad performance considering stochastic and systematic errors.

Success with such model is in fact hampered by multiple path errors, statistical errors and metering inaccuracies. Such approaches fail in highly dynamic environments and may show severe jitter even with nodes at zero speed. Beyond this, the involving of more than the least required number of reference nodes (3 for 3D and 4 four 4D) increases the complication. The interested user should not assume that such simple approaches would allow for the good performance or high precision with systems as e.g. with GPS in open air. Some higher level of sophistication is required to obtain sound results.

[edit] Analytical model

Basing concept of approaches with higher abstraction is a distance matrix of all pairs of nodes that performed cooperative distance metering. Some of the elements of this matrix may remain empty or distances are not metered simultaneously. The approach serves complex error models and will deliver appropriate estimates for real location. In case the inverted matrix exists, the model makes use of a priori knowledge about known distances to and coordinates of anchor nodes and the time series of error converges to sufficient low values.

[edit] Differential model

The other model based approach to motion detection with RTLS is the computing of differentials of the position information.

[edit] Instantiated models

The easy approach however in modeling is just recording and plotting constant field characteristics with the operational equipment for locating in the operational ambience. Such mapping of propagation characteristics requires the following for confinements as rooms or rack alleys:

  • uptaking mapping instances per confinement
  • precise maps valid for the existing equipping in the confinement
  • no change to the local furnishing in the confinement
  • few interference of moving objects other but those to locate

Then the model to support locating exists in an instance for each confinement. Such approach does not work in open air, however, there normally is not much to plot. Additionally, with such vast preparatory infrastructural work, what remains to earn the attribute "real time"? Hence this concept works in a well known environment and somewhat low grade equipped buildings. When equipment is not highly electrified, motion of any objects remains at low speed, population is sparse and whatever challenge is absent, then such approach might suffice. Whenever changes in the vicinity generates changes to the plot, there must be either an adaptation of the plot or some adaptivity in the system. Some products are rather successful based on this concept.

[edit] Solutions

[edit] See also


I'm beginning to see Wikipedia articles (and, by extension, the Wikipedia itself) as analogous to whipping cream. At first there is great anticipation as the raw material is revealed and the process of whipping it into shape begins. When conditions are right, at some point, the churning and friction result in something approaching ideal -- well structured, tasty, substantive.

The problem is that the whipping never stops. What was near-perfect turns into homogenous goo; the main ingredient hasn't changed and it's still capable of meeting basic dietary needs, but far less enjoyable to consume.


[edit] Trivia sections in Duck Soup and Marx Brothers

Hi, Ed:

Wanna talk me through these two edits at Marx Brothers and Duck Soup? I'm especially surprised about the latter, as there's a note about the issue on the talk page. Yet your contribution to the talk page (fortunately, you wisely thought better) was this. I'm a little confused by your desire to edit war here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1) There's a distinct difference between trivia and miscellaneous facts.

2) In any case, trivia is discouraged and not forbidden.

3)A trivia tag represents an editor's opinion about trivia. Removing it represents an editor's opinion about tags whcih disfigure a page and made it more difficult for the reader, who has absolutely no interest in Wikipedia's policies. Such notices belong on the talk page, which is where editors go, not readers. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood how such tags work. As such, I feel happy enough to put the tag back on the Marx Brothers page. You might want to have a look here. Moreover, as you can see, I did raise the issue at the Duck Soup talk page, and you summarily decided to ignore the fact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it. I read it, considered it, and rejected it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in with an uninvited 3rd opinion here. I'm familiar with some of Jbmurray's work, and I have carefully read Ed's Wikiphilosophy. I respect both of you quite a bit, and I would rather you get this sorted out. About the part on trivia sections, I have to confess that I'm not the expert, although I have aspirations of someday being a "style guidelines guru". Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines was just created (I think, because there was a question about it on WP:VPP, and it just showed up in the style guidelines.) I confess that I haven't even read it, but both the guidelines and looking at articles written by the people who wrote it would probably be helpful. I know that the general idea behind "no trivia" isn't that we think movie trivia is bad, at all, it's just that it's done so much better in so many other places that Wikipedia is generally not trying to compete, and movie fans have tended to be a bit of a handful in the past...they tend to take as much rope as you'll give them, and then some. See www.wikia.com for a much more complete treatment of many entertainment topics. Having said that, I don't have a position on entertainment articles, it's not my field.

Ed, you say in your wikiphilosophy: "..it is being applied to simple observation and summarization, which are core requirements for any Wikipedia article. Not only is this ridiculous, it is untenable and unenforceable." It depends entirely on what you mean; can you give me an example of something that someone has reverted (preferably a GA reviewer or someone with reviewing experience) that you want to defend on those grounds? This is a key point, and people tend to make mistakes in both directions, from what I understand from the endless discussions at WT:V and elsewhere. (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And, even more obtrusively, I read the RfCU on you and left a msg there. I think you're making a couple of technical mistakes, Ed, that might well get you into trouble; I see no evidence of a madman run amok. We need to chat about {{fact}} tags. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm always willing to learn, and I generally don't have a problem admitting that I've made mistakes. My take on tags in general is that for the most part they represent one editor's opinion of a situation, and are therefore as subject to deletion as anything else, if, in another editor's opinion, the tag is unjustified. It seems ridiculous to me that all the text in an article is challengeable except the part which is plainly an opinion.

As for "fact" tags, it seems to me that they can represent a number of different things:

1. An editor who wants to undermine a fact, by, essentially, labelling it as suspicious.

2. An editor whose knowledge of the subject is deficient and doesn't realize the obviousness of the fact being labelled.

3. An editor who has questions about the verifiability of a fact and want to provoke a citation.

I gather that official policy only recognizes the final possibility, and wants all fact tags to be dealt with as if they were reasonable and justified calls for citation, but I've seen them used much more often for the other two reasons, i.e. POV-pushing and stupidity. Now, perhaps my experience with such tags used as "opinion grafitti" and shows of lack of knowledge has warped my perception of them, and made my response to them somehat knee-jerk, so I am not honoring legitimate "fact" tags when they're posted -- I will try to take more care in my evaluation of them to avoid that error.

Now the sense I'm getting is that my take on fact tags runs contrary to policy, so can you (Dank55), give my a thumbnail sketch on in what way that is the case, or give me an idea of how policy (or is it a guideline?) can be followed and still deal with the illegitimate fact tags of #1 and #2? Thanks. (Not to put you on the spot, or anything!) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take, in rather general terms, for what it's worth...
  • Every edit made by any editor represents one editor's "opinion."
  • As such, equally, every edit is subject to change or dispute.
  • But my rule of thumb is that a good-faith edit almost always indicates that something is wrong and should be changed, if not necessarily in the precise way that the editor suggests.
In other words, even if an edit is wrong or mistaken, it indicates that the original text could be clarified or improved in some way. So if someone adds a fact tag, and you really don't think it should be there, I think the thing is to reword so as to make it clear that the fact tag is not required.
Obviously, this is more work than simply reverting. But it ultimately makes for better articles, and prevents edit warring. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In general, when I see a fact tag turn up in an article I'm watching, sometimes it's valid and sometimes it seems like it was posted by an idiot: "The sky is blue." {citation needed} However, I also see that as a challenge to prove something is correct even though I already "know" it's correct, and by doing that investigation, I might find additional useful info that could be added to one or more articles. And once in a blue moon, I might even find that what I "know" to be correct is not correct. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

←Those are good answers; here's another. When someone asks you to source things you don't think need to be sourced, there are several things you can do, depending on how wrong you think they are, whether it's a pattern or just the one time, whether they're being a jerk, etc. Those two answers are good for the general case: try to make a change along the lines suggested and see if it works; be willing to think about it and do a little research; maybe it will all work out. But some editors are harder to deal with, and then you have to know your rights and obligations. If it's material that everyone who reads that particular article is already likely to know, the best thing to do is to try to convince other people that you're right. If you say "A whale is a mammal" and someone asks you to source that, list a college zoology textbook in your general references and tell them to look it up themselves. Some people will say you need to give an inline citation every time you're asked, but for simple questions that are covered in a general source, you'll probably be okay with just the general reference. If they're slapping {{citation needed}} tags all over your articles, you might take them to one of various dispute resolution forums: WP:DR, WP:WQA, or WP:THIRD. When you're there, you'll probably want to claim that, in your view, they were violating WP:POINT, the part that says that it's wrong for them to "impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community".

But one option you don't have is to tell them you're not going to source it and revert them when they take it out. WP:V#Burden of evidence, first section, first two sentences, in bold: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If someone challenges a sentence, no matter how trivial, you can ask them to leave it for a couple of weeks (more or less) while you search for a source, but if you don't find a source, they can remove it. This isn't a Wikipedia policy, this is the "core content" policy, along with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If they don't understand that Wikipedians don't generally source that kind of statement, then they might be guilty of WP:POINT, and you may be able to use that to win some kind of dispute resolution process, eventually, but until then, you still have to source the statements, or lose them. You can't say "not gonna", and then revert. If you do, that's one of the criteria at pages like WP:TEND that can get editors blocked. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses, all of which were helpful, although I think perhaps they may underestimate the misuse of fact tags. Still, as I said, that could very well be my own biases showing, and I'm going to try to be more open minded about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree with that. I was just focusing on how to keep you out of trouble. Most opinions I've heard lately agree that fact tags are a plague. The original idea was that they would shame people into fixing it right away; the reality is that WP is covered in fact tags. It's also agreed that there are people who use fact tags as a way of reviewing without thinking: instead of learning the subject and figuring out which things are basic and which things aren't, they just insist that everything be sourced, in a mistaken belief that WP:V says that's okay. I understand the frustration. On the other hand, most of the editors and reviewers at the WP:GA level get it approximately right, so we're winning, it just takes time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)