[[WP:AUTO]].

I agree that having the subject of an article edit that article should be avoided - unfortunately some of the wikipedians (including Mr Wales*) have edited their own article so it sets a bad precedent. I would like to see those that edit their own article encouraged to request the changes on the talk page and allow others to make the changes.

I don't see what's so bad about having subjects of articles edit their own articles. They may be able to add information unobtainable elsewhere (after all, you can't get a much better source than the subject matter his/herself).

There's the danger of POV-pushing, of course, but I don't see it as much different from fans of something editing the article(s) about the object of their fandom. We certainly shouldn't discourage anyone from editing, in my view.

On seeing the name "Keith Lofstrom", I had to re-read that paragraph a few times. He falls into a very tiny set of people who both deserve an article on Wikipedia & also know me well enough to say more than hello. And what makes your exchange with him all the more puzzling is that he was in the audience of my talk about Wikipedia this summer, & I could have sworn I mentioned the concept of "no original research" in that talk. I do know I've chatted with him a couple of times about making contributions concerning himself, & that it was a good idea for him not to do so. (I even offered him my help in working with Wikipedia.) So I guess I let the project down by not training him well enough. My apologies to all.

But what of when the edit is of merit? Are the most qualified primary sources disqualified from editing the Wikipedia article? Need a primary source published her first person claim elsewhere before it can bear upon the Wikipedia article?

But what if an article contains a widely believed 'fact' that actually is bullshit. eg, Michael was born in Toronto in 1956 and moved to Atlanta in 1961. But Michael finds the article and knows that he was born in Ottawa but his family moved to Toronto some months after his birth. Plenty of internet sites say Toronto but he knows for a fact that it is wrong. Can he correct that, or does he need to produce his birth certificate to correct an error about himself? lol

I've been looking at some pages and noticed that there is a haphazard application of rules on WP, specifically a failure to distinguish between mandatory and optional rules. (a). The APPLICATION of 'mandatory' rules in INDIVIDUAL PAGES should never be a subject for a vote. (b). The ADOPTION of a 'mandatory' rule for Wikipedia en block should be on POLICY PAGES. 3. The APPLICATION and ADOPTION of 'optional' rules in INDIVIDUAL CASES and on POLICY PAGES should be capable of being voted on. I've come across a couple of pages tonight where notes decided that in some articles mandatory rules shouldn't be applied (usually on naming). So you find that 99 articles may follow one naming system, and one doesn't even though the MoS says it has to, because users on a page decided not to. WP needs to spell out clearly the difference in weighing between different types of rules, and so let everyone know what is a 'must' and what is a 'may'. A classic example is one vote where over twenty users have voted to put a page at the location that is contrary to MoS policy. Arguments ranged from * well I like that name * well I always use it * I personally haven't heard any other name used * the Government wants it * it will eventually become widespread * I hope it eventually becomes widespread * I think it will eventually become widespread * we should be encourging it to become widespread * I think the old name is colonial and a lot of others. None of those are criteria recognised in the Manual of Style, which sets the simple criteria 'the most common name used in English', not 'the most common name likely to be used in the future', 'the name we would like to use', or 'the name the government tells us to use' but simply the most common name in use as of now. Yet by using criteria that clash with a mandatory rule, a page is put in a different location to hundreds of thousands of others. One second issue: if we require 'most commonly used name in English' (or in whatever language in another Wikipedia) we need to be able to define an independent, verifiable, objective methodology for establishing what is the most commonly used name in English. A whole host of pages tonight had debates based on the 'well that's how I know him/her/it as' with no form of verification. Straight google searches are worthless because they link to accurate sites and inaccurate ones and other language sites still crop up in English searches if linked to English sites. (An example: last year someone put a dummy page on WP. I deleted it. It was complete fiction. But by then that page had been copied under licence. Now there are over eighty sites on the net that refer to a fact that someone completely made up on WP. The topic is an area i know a lot about. One read of it showed that it was a joke, not real, done obviously by someone who knew a lot about the topic and wanted to see if th ey could 'create' a 'fact' that didn't exist.) We need a clearly defined criteria for sources for establishing 'most common name': Media is key to finding 'most common name' because as they need to communicate to millions they will tend to use terminology they know their listeners/viewers will understand. Obvious sources are * media usage in the large English-speaking countries on EACH continent * Broadcast usage and print usage * academic usage * hardcopy published usage * informal governmental usage In terms of media, for example, that would mean checking BBC, New York Times, The Australian, Reuters, APTV, ITN (the real one, not ours!), South African television and print usage, Canadian tv and print usage, Indian TV and print usage, informal governmental usage in speeches, etc. Formal-legal and diplomatic terminology in contrast is not guaranteed to be mass used (indeed rarely is. How many people say French Republic for France or Poblacht na hÉireann for Ireland in real life?) and so may not help us find 'most common name'. If we don't sort out the mandatory from optional rules, and restrict votes to decision making on the latter, and Wikipedia-wide policy making on the former, then it will cause all sorts of problems as Wikipedia becomes larger. In every encyclopædia for practical organisational purposes the Manual of Style is a mandatory requirement which no editor can breach. (If they try they get the sack.) It is bad enough finding a handful of pages that are the odd ones out and are in effect 'Manual of Style'-free zones. But the more there are, the more people can then say 'well if THEY can ignore the MoS on THEIR page, why can't WE? A professional credible encyclopædia cannot be organised on the basis of everyone on each page making up their own rules. We created the Manual of Style and put enormous work into creating Naming Conventions directly to avoid such confusion and ensure maximum cross-article standards of clarity and comparibility. Thom --------------------------------- Win a Yahoo! Vespa NEW - Yahoo! Cars has 3 Vespa LX125s to be won Enter Now! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Unfortunately it isn't implemented. Any attempt to point out that something is mandatory uses produce the response 'lets vote on it'. Or even worse 'lets vote to stop mandatory rules applying on this page.'

I have no difficulty whatsoever in knowing what mandatory means. It means 'the criteria for forming a judgment must be as defined'. You seem not to understand that votes on mandatory issues on individual pages cannot overturn mandatory rules. They set one set of criteria and one set of criteria only for decision taking. A review of pages shows that some users on some pages are creating their own personalised criteria in place of the mandatory criteria and making decisions that completely conflict with the mandatory requirements of the MoS, based on their own made up criteria. That is not allowed under MoS rules. I don't think, Sam, you grasp the issue.

the MoS does not dictate what opinions are valid. It says it explicitly. Most common name. All one has to is example independent sources involved in communication to English speakers from a wide geographic sources to establish the facts clearly. US: Uses Cote d'Ivoire more than usage. A review of major publications, source books, broadcasters, communication documentation, etc pulls usage in ratio of approximately 75:25 Ivory Coast:Cote d'Ivoire. Africa: Majority uses Cote d'Ivoire. Ivory Coast on sources is used by around 25%. The higher echelons in society tend to use C d'I. Sources used by ordinary populations show much more usage of IC. Europe: Overwhelming majority usage among English sources for Ivory Coast. Cote d'Ivoire primarily used by French speakers. Other languages translate the name into their own language, and use neither the English nor French name in most cases. Australasia: Overwhelming usage in English for Ivory Coast. UK: one major publication, uses Cote d'Ivory. All others either use Ivory Coast exclusively or predominantly. Most style books recommend IC, not C d'I. South America: Usage primarily of IC. Under MoS criteria, the result could hardly be more clearcut. Only one continent uses C d'I, and even there not universally. All overs use Ivory Coast either overwhelmingly or exclusively. In random sampling of sources by state, many countries not merely do not use C d'I generally but never seem to use it anywhere other than in Letters of Credence and at the highest level of diplomatic contact. Diplomatic usage does not match MoS criteria because diplomats amount to an insignificant proportion of the electorate and their usage rarely gets outside each country's small diplomatic community of no more than a few hundred. Even within that community diplomatic usage is restricted to work and does not reflect actual human usage of individuals when outside their diplomatic functions. It is one of the clearest open and shut cases imaginable. Put in ordinary language, the ordinary English speaker on the planet uses Ivory Coast not Cote d'Ivoire. Those that use the latter are aware of the former. Those that use the former are rarely aware of the latter. Under MoS criteria the only place the article can be placed at is Ivory Coast. But as the vote shows, most users aren't using MoS criteria but deciding on personal whims such as 'I like it', 'that's what I hear', 'it is what will become popular', and the even more POV 'we should help encourage its usage'. None of that fits the criteria of the MoS and means that that one article is in a different location to 99% of other such articles on WP, which follow most common usage, not personal agendas. Thom --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Setting aside sarcasm, it appears you still can't grasp that *anyone* might disagree with you. No. I expect professionalism not amateurishness. This is meant to be an encyclopædia, not a colouring book.

The day Wikipedia puts policy above community is the day I leave. The day when Wikipedia decides that it is simply a place for people to chat on talk pages and is not a professionally run encyclopædia is the day when most people will leave. You don't seem to have noticed but a lot of people on Wikipedia do kind of think things like accuracy, standards, NPOV and verifiability matter more than treating the site as some sort of fancy-coloured chat room.

If you want to create a credible encyclopædia and not a semi-literate, semi-credible, semi-accurate joke. YES.

No. I expect professionalism not amateurishness.

It is one of the clearest open and shut cases imaginable. Put in ordinary language, the ordinary English speaker on the planet uses Ivory Coast not Cote d'Ivoire. Those that use the latter are aware of the former. Those that use the former are rarely aware of the latter. Under MoS criteria the only place the article can be placed at is Ivory Coast. But as the vote shows, most users aren't using MoS criteria but deciding on personal whims such as 'I like it', 'that's what I hear', 'it is what will become popular', and the even more POV 'we should help encourage its usage'. None of that fits the criteria of the MoS and means that that one article is in a different location to 99% of other such articles on WP, which follow most common usage, not personal agendas.

On 11/17/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden(a)yahoo.ie> wrote: I don't think, Tom, you grasp my point. The MoS is the list of rules. The rules say that the most common name must be used. The enterpretation is situation-specific. In your opinion, Ivory Coast is more common. In others', it is Côte d'Ivoire.

I've been looking at some pages and noticed that there is a haphazard application of rules on WP, specifically a failure to distinguish between mandatory and optional rules.

None of those are criteria recognised in the Manual of Style, which sets the simple criteria 'the most common name used in English', not 'the most common name likely to be used in the future', 'the name we would like to use', or 'the name the government tells us to use' but simply the most common name in use as of now.

The Manual of Style is mandatory but is being overturned in once off cases as though it was purely a matter for local decision, not Wikipedia-wide policy.

From [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2]]:

Incorrect. As it makes clear, it is governing appropiate editing styles, and used to prevent inappropriate editing style. 'Good reason', which is a term used in official reasoning on Wikipedia and elsewhere, sets a high bench mark which means 'an convincing and conclusive argument that in this one case an exception may need to be made'. It which does not cover arguments like 'we I like this', and 'I think this probably will at some stage in the future become the most used term, therefore we should push it here'. That is just POVing and is not remotely near the standard 'good reason' requires.

Incorrect. As it makes clear, it is governing appropiate editing styles, and used to prevent inappropriate editing style. 'Good reason', which is a term used in official reasoning on Wikipedia and elsewhere, sets a high bench mark which means 'an convincing and conclusive argument that in this one case an exception may need to be made'. It which does not cover arguments like 'we I like this', and 'I think this probably will at some stage in the future become the most used term, therefore we should push it here'. That is just POVing and is not remotely near the standard 'good reason' requires.

On 11/17/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden(a)yahoo.ie> wrote: ... WP:NC is "policy", which means it is official. But the page does carry this proviso: "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention." It's interesting to note that all of the individual naming conventions, for example [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]], are specifically tagged as guidelines, and not policies. Although they carry much weight, they nevertheless fall into your category of the rules that "may" be followed.

Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name.

A classic example is one vote where over twenty users have voted to put a page at the location that is contrary to MoS policy. Arguments ranged from * well I like that name * well I always use it * I personally haven't heard any other name used * the Government wants it * it will eventually become widespread * I hope it eventually becomes widespread * I think it will eventually become widespread * we should be encourging it to become widespread * I think the old name is colonial and a lot of others. None of those are criteria recognised in the Manual of Style, which sets the simple criteria 'the most common name used in English', not 'the most common name likely to be used in the future', 'the name we would like to use', or 'the name the government tells us to use' but simply the most common name in use as of now.

A classic example is one vote where over twenty users have voted to put a page at the location that is contrary to MoS policy. Arguments ranged from * well I like that name * well I always use it * I personally haven't heard any other name used * the Government wants it * it will eventually become widespread * I hope it eventually becomes widespread * I think it will eventually become widespread * we should be encourging it to become widespread * I think the old name is colonial and a lot of others. None of those are criteria recognised in the Manual of Style, which sets the simple criteria 'the most common name used in English', not 'the most common name likely to be used in the future', 'the name we would like to use', or 'the name the government tells us to use' but simply the most common name in use as of now.

* well I like that name * well I always use it * I personally haven't heard any other name used * the Government wants it * it will eventually become widespread * I hope it eventually becomes widespread * I think it will eventually become widespread * we should be encourging it to become widespread * I think the old name is colonial and a lot of others.

One second issue: if we require 'most commonly used name in English' (or in whatever language in another Wikipedia) we need to be able to define an independent, verifiable, objective methodology for establishing what is the most commonly used name in English.

Including, which you don't mention, this: "A republic of West Africa, Côte d'Ivoire lies on the Gulf of Guinea." From the Encyclopedia Britannica, which pays people to get it right.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the MoS does not say 'do what Brittanica does' Brittanica is a business-orientated hardcopy encyclopædia which follows governmental usage to avoid offending native populations because it needs them to buy their product. It is called sometimes 'Strategic Naming'.

They follow their own MoS. We follow ours. Ours is not business based but based exclusively on the most common name principle.

It comes down to the simple option: amateurishness or professionalism. You may think an amateurish make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach is OK. Many on Wikipedia find it Wikipedia's biggest flaw. Accuracy is not "making the English Community" it is knowing what you are doing. Frankly what you seem to hold up as a model is 'WikiIncompetence', You don't seem to have noticed that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a tabloid. Encyclopædias have standards and if Wikipedia wants to be respected as a source book and not become an internet joke it has to have standards. Just because you have problem with definitions, professional organisation and encyclopædic standards does not mean that everyone has.

It comes down to the simple option: amateurishness or professionalism.

But what if an article contains a widely believed 'fact' that actually is bullshit. eg, Michael was born in Toronto in 1956 and moved to Atlanta in 1961. But Michael finds the article and knows that he was born in Ottawa but his family moved to Toronto some months after his birth. Plenty of internet sites say Toronto but he knows for a fact that it is wrong. Can he correct that, or does he need to produce his birth certificate to correct an error about himself? lol