Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • Coverage of user pages (and user talk pages) and maintenance of articles needed.
    • Other:
    • Probably time for an archive

Contents

[edit] Where's the line?

But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it.

Where's the line? I'd like this page to include some guidance on specific "I own the article"-type behavior that should be avoided. (Particularly in the case this paragraph discusses, when an editor has uncommon expertise and/or interest in an article.) -- Rbellin 23:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] But don't waste time trying to change someone's mind.

Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process. But don't waste time trying to change someone's mind.

I've removed that last sentence, I don't think we should ever be advising people not to talk to other editors and try to make them see your point of view. --fvw* 14:43, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

[edit] Direct release to the Wikipedia Organization

Will it ever be likely that, instead of having to release it under the GFPL, Wikipedia would allow us to release our rights directly to the Wikimedia Foundation? I like to write for charity purposes, but I would much prefer not to release my works under a GNU-owned license. Almafeta 03:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dedicating copyright to another person or an organization requires that you have a signed written document authorizing the dedication. It's possible, but I doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation wants that responsibility. That said... you do realize that Wikipedia being available under the GFDL doesn't make it "owned" by the Free Software Foundation, right? --ESP 03:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It wouldn't be hard at all; just add a checkbox under 'This is a minor edit' stating 'I release the rights for this article to the Wikipedia Organization.' Other websites do it. Almafeta 16:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not technically hard to do, but the WMF would likely then be "personally" responsible for any copy-vios, or libel. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Do we own our user pages?

Shouldn't we be specific about whether or not Wikipedians own their user pages? I have seen some editors who tell people, "Feel free to edit my user page" (I think Jimbo is one of them), and others who do not want their user pages edited by anyone else, or who keep a count of how many times their user pages have been vandalized. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example is talk page vandalism where someone's words are rewritten to have a different meaning, sometimes in order to set them up for an accusation under WP:NPA. (This is usually only done by vandals who don't understand how to use page history.) This has happened to me at least once, and an admin considered the act a blockable offense (fraud) and blocked the vandal who rewrote my comment.
So that's my question: under what circumstances is it "okay" to remove a comment from a talk page? For your own talk page, can you remove any comment? Can you only remove personal attacks and attempts to reveal personal information (address, phone #, etc.)? Can you rewrite other people's comments about you and leave their signature attached to the new words, as was done to me? On someone else's talk page, do you have the right to retract or alter your words by removing some or all of what you've written? Do others have the right to revert you doing this? This seems to be a pretty large grey area in WP:OWN, unless I'm missing something. Kasreyn 23:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And for that matter, what about user subpages? I keep a list of my favorite quotes under my userpage. Do I have the right to remove or edit a quote someone added to it without my permission (if such a strange thing should ever happen)? Does anyone else have the right to remove or edit a quote they find offensive on my quotes file? Kasreyn 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems no one is willing to answer... (cricket sounds), dare we be bold and make make a revision to this page mentioning ownership of userspace (including subpages)? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake (Prophesize|Witchcraft) 01:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In case it wasn't clear, the anwer is (and always has been) no. We cut people a lot of slack over user and Talk pages, but no they do not own them, they can be deleted if they are abused, locked if people insist on using them inappropriately, and are of course open to being edited mercilessly. Wikiquette says we allow people to say things in their own words on their User and Talk pages, but that's about it, and even that is trumped by WP:NLT, WP:CIV and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, no ownership of anything, including user pages, but I think you will be forgiven for reverting an edit to your userpage or sub-page, and I doubt that there are many cases where someone will be able to enforce an edit to another user's sub-page, unless there is an obvious and demonstrable reason. User:Pedant 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaptly named

I think this page should be renamed. I'm currently trying to tell a new user that he should be more flexible in allowing his own content to be edited mercilessly, but if I have to refer to this page it comes off really bad. He is not trying to "own" articles! He is just, like so many new editors, not very used to people commenting, changing and reverting his work within several minutes of making them! We could be more understanding of that by renaming this article to "Letting your contributions go" or something of the sort. It would show much more Tacttm on the Wiki side.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Anyone else like it? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake (Prophesize|Witchcraft) 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think The Minister is right that this title does not convey the appropriate message. I personally think "Ownership of contributions" would be a better title, as it confronts the real issue (people getting upset about changes to content they have added), and also includes Categories, Portals, Templates, etc. in one fell swoop. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Nscheffey, The porphet wizard, and The Minister: changing 'articles' to 'contributions' covers a lot more, and makes it clear that one doesn't own even one cherished sentence. User:Pedant 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it covers a lot more—because they are two different issues. We don't need that. Gene Nygaard 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Letting your contributions go" would be more tactful than "Ownership of contributions", and it's important to be tactful with new users. (It's mostly the newer users who need to read this, too.) This way it sounds more like guiding, helpful instructions rather than a rigid code. Also, it's important to make sure they understand why it's better to not be possessive. They aren't used to our policies and customs yet. Jobarts-Talk 01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Letting your (stuff) Go" is a cute title that could be misunderstood. I like it, but.... ;) As someone who just found this page (I was talking about this issue at the edit war talk page, calling offenders "page squatters"), I think it needs to be clear and concise, even to non-native EN speakers. How about Ownership of content since this applies to categories, pages, sections, sentences, images, etc....? — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to expend to all content namespaces

How about expanding this policy to the image:, template:, category: and portal: namespaces? It would merely require a few edits to replace "writing" with "material". Circeus 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. See my comment in the section above. — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes

I made a couple of changes - hope that's ok - a couple of the points were quite misleading, especially the idea that, having released something under the gfdl you could also then release it under any other licence. I changed that to read 'some other licenses'. While I guess you could release it under any other license, you would open yourself up to some fairly predictable lawsuits if you did. Gravitor 17:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright ownership

I removed the text as part of a campaign to streamline policy and avoid duplicatation of material among policy pages.

This matter is more fully addressed at WP:C, which I believe is where it belongs. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors citing their own webpages

Is this an appropriate place to discuss the issue of an individual creating, maintaining and controlling a personal website, and then coming here as an editor and using its content to provide information as secondary sources in Wikipedia articles? For example, in an article about apples, the editor archives a lot of newsgroup discussion about new apple varieties under development, and then goes to our Apple article and cites his personal website's newgroup archives as a secondary sources under a section which he might title, ==new apple varities==. Terryeo 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, this isn't really the appropriate place. Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources would be better if you haven't posted there already and the accompanying guideline (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) already seems to cover this. But the short answer is: a personal website usually isn't a reliable source, since anyone can start one and post whatever they like, and therefore as a rule shouldn't be used as a reference in an article. - Bobet 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually a personal website would usually be okay, if belongs to someone noteable in their field (or if it belongs to the person who the article is about) as a source for views etc attributed to them. It's really not any different from a blog in this respect. However David is right that it would fall foul of COI requirements for someone to be adding their own website and obviously we don't add Joe Blow's website Nil Einne 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

I have a strong objection to User:Viriditas' recent edits to this policy, the User is currently involved in a dispute which he is characterising as an ownership dispute, and editing the relevant policy at the same time. See Talk:Hippie. I would appreciate it if a neutral party would look over the edits to insure they are appropriate. Thanks User:Pedant 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted then since they were made in order to fit a dispute that he is having with other editors (Not me I'm neutral). The edits were made in semi-bad faith in order to make it appear that he is following policy. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very serious claim. Please provide evidence. How were the edits made to make it appear that I am or am not following policy, and how do my edits to the policy page deviate from the core policy? More importantly, how do my edits to this policy page give me an advantage? The edits were made as new content, as I have not edited the original or core policy in any way. I have in fact, expanded upon the policy, using examples and information that I have gleamed from the wiki. Awaiting your response... —Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the worries expressed above, I think his additions are valid examples of the issues addressed by this policy. I would vote for their reinstatement. AndyJones 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again as a neutral party if consenus say to keep them then that is fine but for right now I don't think he should make changes to a policy while in a dispute that involves this policy (Makes it look like he is not neutral in my opinion, and only making them in order to make his side stronger (Again this is the way it looks to me)). So I would advise that he not make edits to this policy for now until his disupte is settled. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these allegations are being made by User:Pedant, an AMA advocate, who appears to be involved in a content dispute on Talk:Hippie, of which I am the receipient of his complaints. He is currently in the process of expanding his complaint against me on various talk pages, RFC pages, and policy pages. In the process, he has dragged in an innocent editor by the name of Aeon1006, who is also an AMA advocate. I want to apologize to Aeon1006 in advance, as I had no idea Pedant would do this. Pedant's behavior is starting to look like wikistalking. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
appears to be involved in a content dispute (quote Viriditas) User:Pedant: It is far more than a content dispute, just look at the page in question, I'm not expanding the complaint, Viriditas is expanding his offense! I have asked for help from one of the AMA coordinators in finding an advocate, because I'm not sure how advocates advocating for advocates should be handled:
"I think I might need an advocate soon. I'm not sure how we do that... any advice? My situation is an editor making wholesale bad changes to an article that I and 3 collaborators worked for the last month on. The 'other' editor has refused discusssion, has made comments that read as if he knows best, ignored other editor's comments, and requests for discussion, and now has created an RfC, in part citing WP:OWN, while at the same time editing the policy at WP:OWN, apparently with the intent of making our dispute 'clearly fit' the policy. It's going to be kinda grim, as there is about 20-30 feet of text to read to really understand what's happening. Any advice on this would be welcome, I prefer to read it here on your page though, if you don't mind. User:Pedant 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)"
...and Aeon responded saying he would handle my advocacy himself. I'm not stalking Viriditas whatsoever (I've never even looked at Viriditas' User page, or contribs) I've been working with 3 other editors for weeks on Hippie and then Viriditas inserted himself into the group, and began barging around giving orders and generally chasing off anyone who disagreed with him. He has refused to discuss any of his edits in any substantial or collaborative manner. Basically either he or I is wrong because there is no possibility of us both being right. I'm losing the ability to even feign civility in this case and I'm going to rely on the rest of Wikipedia to fix the damage Viriditas has done. I'm not willing to work with Viriditas on anything at all any more. I've totally lost it. User:Pedant 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Just want to let you know, that I'm always willing to work with you, and my door is wide open. If you can comment on my expansion of the policy, I would appreciate it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again as a neutral Party I would like to advise both sides to seek mediation on this issue to prevent it from getting out of hand. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this on the policy pump to get more community consensus. This is a policy, and needs the community to approve any edits. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the additions. I got into a series of minutia-related conflicts a few months ago with an editor who did these sorts of things (including the snide remarks in the edit summaries), and actually stopped working on articles in that subject area for a while because it became more a source of frustration than a source of good feelings about making good articles. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If the additions in question are represented by this edit, then I like them too. The first two examples ring true with me. Thankfully I haven't ever seen the third, but I can add my own experience. To those who are worried about changing policy, I don't think a list of examples is actually a big deal. Melchoir 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The new edits seem more appropriate to an essay than a policy. I don't think they're incorrect, so much as a little too focused on a specific type of ownership, potentially making the policy harder to use in other situations and as behaviors change. I'm also generally in favor of keeping policies as streamlined as possible. The longer and more specific they are, the harder they are for people to absorb and follow. Using an essay instead of adding to a guideline gives more flexiblity allowing users who just need the basics to get them fast, while others who want to explore the (or quote) the philosophy and impact in depth can read more. --Siobhan Hansa 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I've gone through this page's history more critically, and it does appear that previously, there wasn't any prescriptive material on identifying or dealing with Owners. I would support splitting the new material into an essay or even a guideline. Melchoir 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I added the new material. Addressing both Melchoir (who did a fantastic job copy editing) and Siobhan Hansa, I agree with keeping policy streamlined, but a page like WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:DEL and others, inform the readers with examples and suggestions. I could certainly see it being spun off as an extended essay if it was to grow twice as large, but at the very least, it helps readers and editors to see examples. —Viriditas | Talk 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If the examples were short and concise I might agree (although I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other policies cut a bit too :-) But to me these examples dominate the policy to an extent that they give unreasonable prominence to a couple of types of ownership, and in far too much detail. I think this makes the entire policy look like it's limited to the examples given, and the way those examples are wrtten makes it difficult to draw more general guidance that can be applied in a broader context. --Siobhan Hansa 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Would you mind taking a stab at shortening the examples and related items, and splitting the rest off to an essay page? As long as there are brief examples, and a pointer towards resolution, I support a split. —Viriditas | Talk 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I might agree. I would prefer the changes not be made. I thought the policy was excellent before. --Siobhan Hansa 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem, but the policy did not give examples before; most policies provide examples. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Group ownership

I assume this includes articles about groups; this would preclude any 'ownership' by those in that group; eg. the article on Masons would not be restricted to editing by Masons only. I was just looking for something stating exactly that so that I could be reassured; I found this, which I assume it includes. Please let me know on my talk page. Scoutersig 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope so. An editor created an article about his daughter (who was murdered February, 2006), which was userfied and Afd'ed. He also created a page about the non-profit organization he formed to educate and also influence legislation, named after his daughter. That article still exists, but complaints about it usually result in a rebuttal from the editor that the complaints are personal attacks and in bad faith. Concerns about notability and conflict of interest don't seem to be penetrating the editor's consciousness. It would be humorous but for the tragic circumstances that instigated it all. ... Clear case IMHO of a person who is a member (or in this case, started) a group/organization, insisting on creating an article about it here, arguing with editors about notability (with only one newspaper article to cite), and also fending off comments with complaints of persecution. Almost makes me want to add Wikipedia is not ... therapy to the appropriate essay. — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page squatters

I asked something like this question on Wikipedia_talk:Edit War, but it seems that WP:OWN is the more appropriate policy forum.

  • I've noticed on several articles that there are regular editors who chide newbies and revert edits with arguments like, "This has already been discussed endlessly, please read the Talk page archives." (And when you're ready for retirement and have finished reading endless kilobytes of old Talk pages, then you can edit, chum.)
  • This isn't quite a case of having to ask an editor's permission to edit, or posting a request to come aboard topic on the Talk page, so much as just staying, "This our club, you have to read the rules before joining."

I'd like to add an example quote or brief description of the behavior, as it differs from those who've created a page or are even principle contributors. Anyone can make the assertion, and thereby discourage new users from being bold. I'll post a couple of suggested examples below. — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Events

  • New edits are reverted, with the reasoning that the edit is similar to one suggested previously, and deprecated by editors at that time.

Comments

  • "This has already been argued and decided before. Please read the Talk page discussions before making new edits to this article. Thanks."
This isn't actually an ownership issue, unfortunately, it's a dispute resolution issue. Look at it from their point of view. They hammered out a painful compromise, probably not completely satisfying anyone, but leading to some kind of consensus version. Then someone who wasn't involved in the compromise comes in, and makes a change, probably strongly favoring one of the sides that was involved in the argument. Either they act as they did, asking the new contributor to participate in the discussion on the talk page - or the entire idea that people can reach an agreement on talk pages becomes invalid. So, unfortunately, without knowing what exact page you are referring to, I can well imagine the other side may be right. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
While there are probably some constructive ways to handle it without biting, this type of activity is actually somewhat necessary. In articles about controversial topics consensus is necessary in order for there to be any progress, but it can't be required to try for a new consensus every time a new editor chimes in. Evolution was nearly paralyzed by repetitive arguments that recurred on a near-daily basis until regular contributors started being firm about "Read the archives" type comments, and the same was true of Abortion. In certain topics with extensive archives, most of the issues have been resolved through consensus over a long period of time. Unless some kind of new information is being provided, it shouldn't be necessary to revisit the same point of controversy day after day, just because a new editor hasn't had a chance to sound off yet. Of course, someone bringing new information to the topic should certainly be given a chance to discuss it. Doc Tropics 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Such article should probably have a section at the very top hammering issues that have been discussed at length and their resolution, with link to relevant archives and a warning that arguments brought without having actually read these will be outright ignored. I would explain that to a new contributor and then say that if he really wants to reopen the debate, he'd better have good new arguments, and thus he should read the archives. If explained in a level headed fashion, the user will either give up or actually be stubborn and read the archives. If a warning has been issued, he might be ignored later. Circeus 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could report these were controversial pages like "near-term abortion," "creationism," "Michael Jackson," or "was Liberace gay," but the examples I encountered were popular topics like Blade Runner, where the previous editors could be pretty much self-anointed experts. Please follow with me, I'm talking about page squatters, and example comments/warnings. I agree, that a new editor -- in a perfect world -- will be sensitive and aware of last year's debate about "did Deckard lose a tooth in his fight with Leon," but this shackles policies like "Be bold" and "don't bite the newbies." If new editors can't make an edit without being idoctrinated with a page's history, then ... we slow down churn of a page. Maybe I'm off-whack, but I don't think churn should generally slow down as an article gets older. The very real and beneficial risk here may be that WP articles are never really done. ... Oh boy, getting too philosophical, too late at night. I retire to pillow-mode. EOL. — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject consensus

I'd like to alert editors here to an issue which has has come up along the lines of the above comments about pre-existing consensus, which has proceeded to Arbitration.

In a nutshell: The question is whether or not WikiProjects, or other groups of interested editors, are allowed to come up with guidelines for a set of articles, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence with other Wikipedia-wide guidelines. And further, whether or not any articles in conflict can be reverted without going through normal RM processes.

As a longer version: There are WikiProjects related to television episode articles, who have come up with recommended naming conventions for the articles within their sphere of influence. Some of these discussions, as mentioned by AnonEMouse above, involved long and painful consensus-building debates, which resulted in compromises which may not have been in strict accordance with Wikipedia-wide guidelines. For example, about a year ago the Star Trek editors came up with a naming system where all episode articles use a consistent suffix such as (<seriesname> episode) (see the subcategories at Category:Star Trek episodes), even if not specifically required for disambiguation purposes. A few editors on the other side of the debate claim that this practice is in violation of WP:DAB guidelines, and they have been sweeping through thousands of television episode articles, moving them without discussion or any attempt at WP:RM.

It's my own opinion that WikiProject consensus should be respected, but "ownership" issues are being raised.

In any case, it's moved on to ArbCom at this point. Any interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion and/or offer statements, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions and the related Evidence and Workshop pages. --Elonka 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the long and painful consensus-building debate the Star Trek editors had, that resulted in a naming convention? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What're you, a glutton for punishment? Fighting insomnia? ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) (old school Trekkie)
Actually, I just want to confirm that that debate actually happened - in this particular case there have been a number of times when it was claimed that there was a consensus discussion and there turned out to be none. Until I see it, I'm skepticial. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I just had an experience like this. I noted that The Wicker Man was the "main topic" page for that term, with a link to the the 2006 remake and The Wicker Man (disambiguation). Seemed damned inconsistent to me. Over at the Wikiproject Film style page, was a clear guideline instructing that when two films of the same name were made, each would be titled TITLE (YEAR film). The older would be moved. I posted my intent to move and got some arguments in answer (I'm paraphrasing mercilessly):
  • This is the original film, dammit, not the cruddy awful remake, and deserves to be the "main page" – IOW the version we all know and love takes precedence;
  • There are many pages for films that have been remade where the original film's page is still the main topic (Night of the Living Dead, Cat People, The Italian Job, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) – are you going to "fix" all those?;
  • Guidelines are only that, and not to be taken too literally.
I chaff at all those for the following: 1) WP is objective, and NPOV means not playing favorites. 2) Others' mistakes don't mean that we repeat the mistakes like lemmings. 3) Guidelines provide consistency and credibility to WP as a reference. Willy-nilly deviation from guidelines turns it into an acid party of information.
Fortunately, someone pointed me to WP:DAB#Primary topic which clearly asserts that if a certain title or usage is clearly predominant, make that the "main topic," link to a disambiguation page, make the disambig' page link to an unambiguous page which redirects to your beloved main topic page. Say that five times fast! Clearly contradicting what the Film Wikiproject dictates. Another example might be if Freddie Footinmouth decides that Blade Runner needs to be the disambiguation page, and wants to move the current film article to Blade Runner (film) (currently a redirect page). Those who adore the film and squat upon teh page will administer the VK test to you without delay, and declare "time to die." Same with Wicker Man. Personal passion and bias overshadows as innocent an idea as "let's keep WP consistent." (sigh) I fear there is no answer, just a long road of compromise and flexibility ahead. (off the soapbox) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership versus Ownership

I inserted the sentence "Ownership must not be confused with leadership. Leadership is accomodative, ownership is exclusionary." into the Project page. It was deleted by another editor (fair enough), but rather than reverting it, I present it here for discussion. What I mean is that leadership means being bold and taking charge, but working in a cooperative way so that nobody is arbitrarily ignored (of course trolls and PoV editors may become ignored after a while). Perhaps some places where the article uses ownership in a positive sense, what is really meant is leadership. Ownership is on the face of it not the Wikipedia way and is a negative, while leadership is fundamentally positive. When leadership becomes abused it becomes ownership. Leadership doesn't necessarily mean doing all the work or even taking credit. Some leaders work in the background without much fuss and hullabaloo. Anyway, I am interested in your thoughts. Hu 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that since no one is an official leader (as in we don't vote for people to lead projects/portals/articles (the only votes are for admins, and they aren't 'leaders' in that sense), it is not really in the scope of Wikipedia. (It makes sense—but I think that it doesn't quite apply.) —ScouterSig 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no official leadership, but there is no official ownership, either. Leadership doesn't require voting or appointing. You know the old saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Leadership is a natural outgrowth of Wikipedia's "Be Bold" policy. Leadership can just "happen", for example when an editor watches a page and manages discussions and works to gain consensus when needed. There are many ways to exercise leadership and most of them have nothing to do with politics. Hu 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found that some editors are very confused when it comes to this issue. They may notice that a certain editor has assumed a leadership position so that the quality of an article can be maintained, and they immediately assume that editor has crossed the line into ownership--even though the editor may be very inclusive and accomodating in his approach. One experience I had recently involved such an editor staging a "hostile takeover" of an article--now he "owns" it (!) and chases away anyone who substantially modifies his edits. Apostle12 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording?

common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.


--end paste--

Where the text says "as each edit box states", I do not see it in my edit box, so is this test still accurate? Navou talk 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see it, it's at the bottom. --Howard the Duck 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Is there a template that I can use to warn a user who's become too possessive about an page, and who has serious ownership issues. [User:Perfectblue97|perfectblue]] 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the "owner" is reverting edits regularly and rapidly, three-revert rule warnings would be apropos. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostile takeover?

Here are the removed sections:

Hostile takeover
Sometimes an editor who is very competetive will try to solve ownership issues by substituting himself as the primary editor. This is not unlike a hostile takeover in the business world, where an individual or a company possesses sufficient capital to buy a controlling share of stock in the company to be taken over. "Capital" in this context consists of the willingness to overpower an existing primary editor, or multiple editors, gradually forcing them out as they tire of incessant conflict. "Survival of the most obnoxious" is a term that has been used to describe this process. In any case, the new primary editor is no less in violation of Wikipedia ownership policies than the former primary editor or multiple editors, and the only solution is to withdraw voluntarily.
Collaboration
Most case of ownership conflict could be avoided if the parties in question were to remember that intense conflict is often indicative of the potential for intense collaboration that would be much more productive for all parties concerned. A related topic would be a concept promoted by Karl Jung called "The Shadow."

I added these sections because I believe they address a rather common problem. In their zeal to curtail ownership behaviors, some editors become guilty of same. Incidentally, I have seen other sections added to this policy without any discussion. Apostle12 08:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What do people think of this new section? Seems unnecessary to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, unnecessary. I'm not a big fan of those who add sections to official policy without so much as a suggestion or request for feedback on the Talk page. I'd support you if you reverted it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. -Will Beback · † · 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Apostle12: I have to add that repeatedly restoring your removed text after a request to discuss here first is disruptive editing, and does not "sell" your addition. It also seems as if you were enacting a "hostile takeover" on this policy page. I hope you've decided to chill out a bit and let others comment on your idea. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I restored the text once, not "repeatedly." It appears here for purposes of discussion. Apostle12 07:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but Policy pages are a special case where changes (especially rather large ones like this) are best discussed before a change. Circeus 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Also, I'd like to suggest that the "Ownership examples" section would be better put below the "Types of ownership" and "Resolving ownership issues" sections. Providing positive and constructive advice is better before providing negative examples. Jeff Carr 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No advice to try editing elsewhere?

In some ways, coping with edit conflicts may be similar to coping with loss. This may be particularly true when someone pours hours of effort into editing an article, only to find it speedily deleted, or altered in a way substantially destructive to the earlier author's work.

How about adding something to the guideline article about how to avoid this type of loss, or reduce its psychological impact? Currently the article advises: If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.

In addition to that, I would advise:

  • Find another outlet. There are thousands of wikis. Probably there is one more hospitable to a particular non-neutral point of view. If not, start one. Wikipedia is not "the only game in town." Editing elsewhere need not be mutually exclusive with editing on Wikipedia. Having another outlet where one's edits are more likely to "stick" can help one relax when the same edits get clobbered on Wikipedia, because the consequence is no longer the total destruction of one's effort. Coping with a loss is easier if one finds an equally good replacement.
  • Stick to small, constructive edits. If one finds oneself embroiled in Wikipedia debates, perhaps a scaling back of ambitions is in order. Rather than write vast new articles from scratch, stick to making small improvements to existing articles, without substantially changing their present content or tone. If an article has been around for a while, and had substantial edits, it may be somewhat stable, and any edits that obviously make the article better at what it already does are likely to "stick." Many articles need improvements. For example, many articles mention technical terms without clearly defining them in context, and without linking them to appropriate defining articles. Occasionally articles misspell such technical terms, or the names of famous (unlinked) people. Many articles on computing, for example, lack sufficient links, making their buzzword blizzards harder to decipher.

--Teratornis 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious Question about removing WikiProject tags

Curiosity ... Is there a recognized protocol about adding or removing WikiProject tags from city articles? There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.

Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.

That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.

It would seem at first glance that all the cities in Southern California could appropriately remain as part of both WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California - it is after all one state! There are many articles across Wikipedia which have multiple WikiProject tags.

I don't know what the answer is if there is a recognized protocol about the following:

  • Is there a consensus here about who can add and who can remove WikiProject tags from city articles?
  • Is there a consensus here about when a city article can have more than one WikiProject tag?

Are there any observations that anyone in this group has about this situation? You may wish to leave your comments on those project's pages; however, any comments left here will also be posted on those pages. Spamreporter1 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, adding a WikiProject tag to an article, is as effective as trying to sell sand to an arab, or ice to an eskimo. It imparts nothing, and is to all intents, quite useless. Anyone can still edit the page to their hearts content, regardless of what the Project team may be trying to achieve. Until Wikipedia starts to recognise this, then anarchy (which is what it is) will remain the norm. You can tag and article to the "ends of the earth", but it really makes no difference.Sheepcot 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

It appears that this policy does not count when it comes to essays, and can be disregarded. Personally, I think that is a mistake but apparently a majority of editors disagree with me. Therefore, I propose that this policy be amended to clear up this issue. The amendment would be something like:

This policy does not apply to essays in the Wikipedia namespace. The scope of essays may not be increased, and addressing particular arguments may not be appropriate.

I think this is only fair to clarify this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are essays in WP-space that are intended to evolve the same way articles do however. I would think that the kind of essays you describe belong in Userspace rather than WP-space. Borisblue 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would this not apply to essays in WP space? Anything in WP space is fair game for any editor. If you have an essay you want to "own" do it in user space, and even then there's still the possibility it may be edited by others or even deleted. Nobody owns anything on WP, not even your own user page. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Or just require a large banner reading "This essay is owned by User:EssayOwner. Do not edit it without permission" Which would convey the fact that an owned essay isn't going to be taken very seriously. --W.marsh 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I know this is going to sound a bit stupid, but is this a serious proposal? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
While some leniency is given to people in their userspace, they do not own it. And starting an essay in the WP namespace does not mean it is yours. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I added another common one I see a lot; feel free to revert, but I think it shows that we need to not bite the reviewers. — Deckiller 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update/proposal

This policy needs to be updated to include some mention of this ruling. I thought I'd include it here before making any major changes. If no comments are made I'll include it in a week or two. Quadzilla99 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear what I'm saying is it's not an instance of ownership, by definition, when one editor quibbles with another over two different acceptable formats. For instance a new editor to an article decides that an article should have different section titles, different terminolgy, etc, the general editors are indifferent, and there is an edit war over the material between the new editor and the original editor or someone favoring the original layout. According to the ruling if both formats are acceptable, and there is no clear consensus or valid reason for this change, then the form of the original contributor would win out. Quadzilla99 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshell: weak statement

If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.

The usage of the word "allow" imlicitely bears a smell of ownership: that you are asked to exercise your good will and allow others to edit. IMO the statement must be bold and strong: you may not prevent others from editing. If you agree with me, please make a good English from my suggestion. (Although I understand that this is nitpicking, but I really hate owners (probably because of being born in a communist state) :-) `'mikka 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A fair comment, I have changed the nutshell. Hmmm... that has a nice ring to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link Error

When I clicked on this link, it gave be a 500 internal server error. Is this a transient thing, is it just me, or is it a bad link? Does anyone have a replacement link or should it be removed all together?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example of ownership outside

The similar collaborative encyclopedic project Everything2.com has a "write-up" system where a regular user can only add content as their own "writeup" and cannot edit another person's "writeup", does it count as a form of ownership of articles (I'm not saying the practice in Everything2.com is bad, just asking)? Wooyi 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, address misuse

Recently, an editor who I reverted once, and two other editors reverted subsequently, tried to push the idea that we were violating WP:OWN. He used as part of his justification for this claim the fact that the talk page featured a scope tag from a related Wikiproject, and suggested that we were all "[projectname] people who violate OWN." I'd like there to be a clear disclaimer in this article that points out the idea that this is talking about specific behaviors, and not project scope tags or other indications that groups of Wikipedians take an interest in the content of an article. -Harmil 06:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership by projects

I suggest that the section on "multiple editors" should be amended to refer specifically to WikiProjects; there are cases of such projects effectively claiming "ownership" of articles covered by the project. Andy Mabbett 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Those who know what they are talking about, to be a certain extent, write the articles on that subject. Over matters not related to policy, the consensus of those who write the articles is entirely reasonable as a guide as to what to do. Providing they don't do anything against policy, which naturally reflects a much more important consensus. Moreschi Talk 15:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Why?": To emphasise current policy. Ownership is against policy. Andy Mabbett 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing misleading information is not against policy. Making editorial stylistic choices when it comes to removing infoboxes is not against policy, either. Moreschi Talk 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid raising red herrings such as "Removing misleading information is not against policy.". Andy Mabbett 11:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It would seem, however, that only [1] the opinions of established editors are valid and those of others are discarded, even if they're only trying to help. Gretab 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How does "Do not sign what you do not own" apply to images and image filenames?

[edit] I don't think this article is clear.

The article talks about owners but also says that nobody owns parts of articles. That sounds contradicotry to me.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.225.32.222 (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2007

[edit] I think article should comment on fine line between "Multiple Editor Ownership" and "Consensus"

I think it needs to be clarified that there will be times (particularly in the case of WP:BLP where the subject has been recently involved in a controversial event) where reaching a consensus may be so monumental that a sort of "Multiple Editor Ownership"-esque situation arises, but that's okay. My example is what happened with the Michael Richards article shortly after the Laugh Factory incident. It took nearly a week for the serious editors to reach a good consensus on how to reflect the incident in the intro text. At that point, a decision was made not to let anyone change the intro, because even changing a word or two could wreck the fragile consensus. I think that is acceptable, and is different from Multiple Editor Ownership.

Perhaps I'll be WP:BOLD and make the change myself... ---Jaysweet 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally got around to doing this. Any objections to what I wrote? --Jaysweet 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No real objections, but you might want to wait for someone to comment. Maybe announce at the policy section of WP:VP first? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests to slow down as ownership?

The article currently says that remark like "You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" is evidence of ownership, but I do not think that is the only possible interpretation of that. In fact, I think that just the opposite behavior of editing very extensively without considering the reaction time and absorption capability of other editors is the real sign of ownership. One of the principles of the Harmonious editing club is to slow down and give other editors plenty of opportunity to react to edits. Making many changes in an article makes it more difficult to deal with the issues, increasing the chances of triggering an edit war if people can't absorb multiple issues at once. Urging people to slow down may also be a helpful intervention to try to encourage Staying cool when the editing gets hot. So I think that requests to "slow down" should be removed from the list of ownership traits. What do others think? Buddhipriya 01:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


I quite agree. I was indirectly responsible for the addition of this item, because I once asked an editor to please slow down in his extensive editing of the "Hippie" article. The editor in question responded by adding "requests to go more slowly" to the list of items indicating ownership traits.
Since then, the "Hippie" article has suffered several rapacious edits by rather aggressive editors. And those of us who might previously have felt justified in requesting such editors slow down, self censor because we don't want to be accused of "ownership."
I would submit that caring about the progressive evolution of an article is not evidence of an ownership problem. Quite the contrary; incremental changes are almost always a team effort and encourage active participation by many editors.
Once again, the "Hippie" article is a good example. Following the last rapacious edit, most editors left in discouragement. Had we felt legitimized in saying "Please slow down" that exodus might have been prevented. Apostle12 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
In general this article needs to be tempered a bit. Almost all of the behaviors mentioned in the article are suggestive of ownership, but aren't necessarily proof that someone is owning an article. In the right context, many of these "bad" behaviors might be justified.
I wouldn't be worried about being labeled an "owner" by asking someone to slow down so you can talk about the changes on the talk page. As long as you are open to the new changes and just want to discuss them, I think it is fine. --Jaysweet 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to slow down my editing of most articles, though slowing down on articles where their is controversy would probably be a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The fine line between "ownership" and "upholding consensus" section

Just setting this for discussion. Something about this should probably be mentioned, but not without heavy discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, I think. For the time being, maybe Jaysweet can write it as an essay and link it in the "See also"? Circeus 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 :) I tried to get a discussion going (see above) but nobody responded, so it seemed like the best way to get people's attention would be to boldly modify the article. I figured it would get reverted, but hey, now I have at least two people reading my comments!  ;p
I'm sure anyone who has worked on a highly controversial article, particularly when WP:BLP intersects a scandalous current event (Mel Gibson DUI, Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident, etc.). has experienced what I am talking about. I recall in particular with the Michael Richards article, the intro text had an inline comment saying that nobody was allowed to modify the sentence about the Laugh Factory or add anything to it without first discussing on the talk page, or else it would be considered vandalism. That sort of smells a bit like ownership, but I think in that case it was justified, since there had been a lot of strong feelings about what exactly to say, how to say it, etc.
It would be nice to have something in the policy (or perhaps in a linked essay, as Circeus suggested) to both a) help people understand that just because a group of editors may be reverting them, it might not be ownership if the topic is controversial or WP:BLP; and b) give advice to editors involved in protecting controversial or BLP articles on how to make sure they don't cross the line.
The most common problem I see coming from this is a good faith edit being reverted (legitimately, because of established consensus) but being called vandalism in the edit history by another well-intentioned editor. I've seen flame wars break out just over that. I think people need to keep in mind that a new editor to the page isn't necessarily going to read the talk page first (can anyone say they read 100% of the Talk page 100% of the time before making an edit? I don't think so) and that they may inadvertently make an edit that goes against consensus while still having the best of intentions. Calling that person a vandal serves no useful purpose, and yet I see it happen all the time.
I dunno, these are just my thoughts on it. --Jaysweet 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Calling people who make good faith edits vandals, or good faith edits vandalism, is never okay, certainly. And consensus should be open to new debate. But if someone comes into the article X every day and says "X is a Y", despite consensus that X is not a Y, there shouldn't have to be a new debate every day to establish that there's still a consensus. At some point, it's justifiable to tell people not to change it without a discussion first, thus avoiding a long time spent with no new result until someone has a good argument against the consensus. Calling it vandalism is not okay, but saying "don't do it" is. -Amarkov moo! 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If a considerable amount of discussion has been spent to arrive at am acceptable wording, comments are sometimes included to avoid re-igniting the issue. There are prominent comments warning about unannounced reverts in many Digimon articles and in the FA Mount Rushmore (people adding any random appearance of the thing, or turning the prose into a list. I revert to the original FA section on a regular basis). They are not considered "vandalism," but the revert is grounded into the quite obvious comment warning. Circeus 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This is great stuff, that is exactly what I would like to see codified: That it is okay to put an inline comment forbidding editing a section without prior discussion on the talk page, but when reverting someone who violated that prohibition, it's not advisable to call it "vandalism" on the first offense (of course it would be completely different if someone ignored the warning repeatedly). When people start throwing around the word "vandal" because someone made a good-faith-but-still-inappropriate edit, that's when the line has been crossed from upholding consensus into ownership.
On a related note... It might make some sense to mention in the WP:Consensus policy the utility of using inline comments to warn people of fragile consensus. As I said, nobody reads 100% of the Talk Page 100% of the time before making an edit, but if someone goes to make an edit and sees an inline comment, they might be more likely to think twice. Encouraging people to make judicious use of inline comments to protect a fragile consensus could also be a positive thing. --Jaysweet 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I just started trying to tackle a related problem at content forking. and discovered the situation is not covered under ownership policy. One contributor tries to insert WP:original research into an article, talk page discussion ensues where the material generally is seen as WP:original research by three contributors. The three contributors keep the material out of the article by continually reverting the one contributor. The one contributor runs off with the material (exhibiting ownership of that material) and starts a new article. I do not think this ownership situation is described in ownership policy. The proposed clarification to the content forking guideline is on the guideline talk page at Ownership forking revision proposal. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Mediators often take ownership of an article to resolve disputes about that article. I believe there is an article space template for this very purpose (e.g., don't make changes without first discussing them on the talk page). However, it generally does not seem appropriate for someone (or everyone) involved in an ongoing dispute to take ownership of an article and state not to change it without a discussion first. Amarkov and Circeus's points about resolved disputes are good. It would be too unwieldy to always have to run off to get a mediator to deal with the matter or an admin to protect the article. The vandal comment, of course, it out of line. However, there are other policy and guidelines that deal with inappropriately calling people vandals, so it might be instruction creep to add something in this policy about inappropriately calling other vandals. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The fine line between "ownership" and "upholding consensus"

In some cases it may be difficult to distinguish between a "tag team" of editors establishing illegitimate ownership over an article vs. a legitimate attempt to uphold a consensus established after much reasoned debate. In the case of highly controversial articles or current events, the consensus may be so fragile that even a slight change in wording could cause the agreement to fracture. Alternatively, in the case of biographies of living persons, the need to avoid legal complications may create an incentive to exercise very strict control over a particular article or section.

Editors involved in upholding an established consensus should exercise care not to cross the line into ownership. Always be courteous to those who attempt to edit an article in good faith, even if their changes need to be reverted in order to conform to the existing consensus (labelling a well-intentioned edit as vandalism in your edit summary is a great way to start an unnecessary fight). And remember, newcomers may always have something new to add. The main difference between consensus and ownership is that consensus is always open to new debate.

I copied your edit in so that it was obvious what was being discussed.

I'm interested as it joins with a few other related threads around policy, including one on libel where I was not happy with the implication that it is OK for Wikipedia to repeat potentially libellous comments as long as they were well-sourced. Fundamentally, it is not the role of an encyclopaedia to be a source on all possible information and there should not be any embarrassment about removing contentious information. Taking the Mel Gibson incident, at the time it was occurring there was a lot of disinformation being circulated about what actually happened, and it would be beyond Wiki to safely come to a view on what happens. I think sometimes you need time to pass to let the "facts" settle down.

I think it is helpful commentary, and if it linked in to some fundamental policies to remind readers that it is not the intent to be the perfect repository of all possible information nor is Wikipedia a newspaper then it has the makings of useful guidance.

The bit that gets lost with reversion (by implication, ownership) is the ability of a topic that is a pretty caterpillar to go through being an unattractive chrysalis on its way to being a butterfly. Sometimes it is necessary to have faith in the editing process.

Guardianship of articles is a good thing, ownership (as expressed in Wiki terms) is not. One can easily move from one to another. Spenny 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:smatprt violations

At least six editors maintain here [[2]] that smatprt is trying to own Shakespeare articles, being on a mission to replace any mention of the Stratford man with the Earl of Oxford. He refuses to stop doing this and edit wars to keep his material in articles. Unless an administrator helps out by banning him there is no way of stopping him ruin the Shakespeare project. (Felsommerfeld 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

It should be noted that this complaint appeared after I filed an administrative incident report [3] against Felsommerfeld for making mass deletions of referenced material. The administrator on that case has warned Felsommerfeld about this and posted advice to the mainstream editors of the Authorship page (who keep deleting material there, too) here: [4] and here: [5]. Felsommerfeld's implied threats to retaliate on pages like this are here: [6] and here: [7] and here: [8] Thanks for considering this info.Smatprt 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inviting a Third Party to come in and make changes

I think I encountered a “tag team” once. I let go of the article and later found that six weeks later a third party had come in and, after some conflict, made the changes. I’m trying the idea of using the Talk page to post a link to the reverted version with my edit, inviting a third party to come in and make the changes Dhammapal 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What ownership is not

There has been a persistent tendency for people who don't get their way in consensus editing to accuse the other side of owning the article (often as a WP:CABAL) and then point to this policy to back themselves up. It might be a good idea to indicate here that just because you can't get other editors to agree with your proposed changes to an article doesn't mean that the other editors are guilty of "owning" the article. ScienceApologist 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that Ownership of Articles is a key Criticism of Wikipedia and should be mentioned in the Criticism of Wikipedia article as it is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN

I’m sure there are dominant editors who spend more than 12 hours per day editing Wikipedia monitoring their watchlist for any changes to their favorite contributions. Dhammapal 11:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership examples

The section "Ownership examples" is not written like a policy; it is just a list (or two). The individual quotes leave a lot to interpretation and may even backfire.

One egregious example is the quote "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?". While the aggressiveness of this quote does convey an air of ownership, the meaning of the quote itself counters the whole idea of WP:DISENGAGE. In my experience in conflict resolution, there is a strong correlation between users who feel very possessive about material and users who rush into editing without slowing down. Politely asking the other to slow down, while doing the same, is a very effective way to reduce conflicts. Even if that request is worded more aggressively, it can be helpful, as long as the other person can see the message through the aggression.

At least this example should be removed, but all of them should be seriously examined for their potential to backfire. — Sebastian 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is one editor I repeatedly clash with who completely revises an article in a flurry of edits, usually during a very short period. When I once asked him to please slow down and work with me to incrementally improve the article, he added the above "Ownership examples" section to this page. I saw this as an attempt to bolster his position. Apostle12 07:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This probably isn't important...

Okay, this probably isn't important, but I thought the sphinx was of Egyptian mythology... - ~VNinja~ 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In this context, it is the Greek sphinx who poses riddles. The sphinx comes from a multi-cultural background. GundamsRus (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving ownership issues

Is there any way to buff up the "Resolving ownership issues" section with helpful hints of how such disputes can be resolved with minimal conflict? As it is, it seems rather ineffectual. GundamsRus (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] userpage

but do we own our userpage at least a little more than an article? even a little bit?Д narchistPig (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should at least own our userpage.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See above, #Do we own our user pages?. In the sense that is being used here, I think we do own our user pages. Obviously we don't legally own them, but we have a lot more control and authority over them than anything else. Still, we can't put anything we like on them, and there are other sorts of behaviour that are inappropriate too. I think a section on user pages is long overdue here. Richard001 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on comments

At the beginning of the section "Wikipedia:OWN#Comments" I'd like to insert the comment: "The following comments are examples of sentiments that this policy discourages".

Is that ok?Bless sins (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary, especially with the last comment. Richard001 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ExpertContributor

I have added a mention of this template to this policy page. It isn't that well known (even less so than {{maintained}}, which I have also added a link to), but I can only presume people are okay with it seeing that it hasn't been proposed for deletion. I quite like it myself.

I also think we need a page or section of a page on article maintenance (all we have is the template linked above). It could perhaps be included here, since it probably doesn't merit its own page (e.g. Wikipedia:Article maintenance or Wikipedia:Maintenance of articles; these could redirect to a section here). Again, because the template has survived several deletion proposals I assume the majority of editors don't mind it. Richard001 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the use of this template should not be encouraged, especially since Wikipedia:Expert editors has been rejected as policy. The template is bad for the same reason that policy was bad: at best, it doesn't mean much, and at worst it promotes inappropriate page ownership. Experts (and I happen to be one myself) can justify their edits like everyone else. This being a policy page, which shouldn't contain items that are against consensus, I will remove that mention of it for now--obviously further discussion may reveal consensus runs the other way, and if so it can be added back. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)