Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

[edit] Nuvola flags

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

[edit] How many editors have actually read the Manual of Style?

Supposedly, all guidelines represent consensus, and changes to them represent consensus. This is shown by the active consent of those who choose to participate in the process, and the silent consent of those who do not, but who follow them. My question is this: how seriously do most editors actually read and follow the Manual of Style? If we are required to obey its prescriptions, do we owe it to ourselves to be more concerned about it?

Supposedly, we don't require editors to read anything about the project or have any project-specific knowledge beyond how to edit a wiki and the short statement of NPOV and its corollaries, Verifiability and No Original Research. If you know your subject, cite sources, write decently, have a basic sense of fairness and are civil, you should be able to edit for a long time without ever needing to look at a policy or guideline.

Returning from a long wikivacation, I happened to run across a couple of MOS-related issues that surprised me: sometimes on talk pages, and sometimes when I was sharply reverted with a "per MOS" comment. The issues themselves are secondary: We apparently have stopped using bluelinked dates and apparently we have always used so-called "logical punctuation" of quotations, which contravenes the quotation-punctuation style that most of us were taught in school. OK, eventually I will get used to the first, and while the second strikes me as wrongheaded, it is clear that the regulars consider this a closed issue.

I am, however, left with the following observation: in comparison to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the MOS appears to me to have grown both in size and in prescriptivity during my absence. The size is daunting: far beyond what anyone but a committed editor would read. It reads as more prescriptive about details than verifiability policy and reliable source guidelines. The tone of related discussions on the talk page, and of many MOS-inspired edits that I have seen, seems to be "do this or your contribution is unwelcome." Perhaps that improves Wikipedia; I'm not sure.

Whereas one can apprehend Wikipedia's core policies from the nutshell description, the MOS is a mass of details, most of which have little to do with one another. One can't "get" it at a stroke, and one cannot reason a particular provision from first principles. That means, in effect, that each detailed provision must have its own detailed consensus. If, as I suspect, most editors have never looked at the MOS except when they are in doubt about a point, that weakens the nature of the implicit consensus. In practice, it would be much easier for a concerted group to foist a doubtful change on the MOS than on any other policy or guideline with such wide implications.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I'm the exception for never having paid much attention to the MOS. The claim of the regulars on the page is that it is widely read and agreed to. Maybe the consensus is stronger than I suspect. But, if I am right, perhaps we need to encourage more Wikipedians to pay more attention to it. I can think of no harm it could do, and it might do good. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one have never so much as looked at the majority of MOS pages, let alone read them completely (and I'm getting along just fine). The only time I look at a manual of style page is when I'm unsure of how to properly format something, or there's a disagreement over some inane detail. For the most part, MOS pages appear to be surrounded by the same group of editors who seem to get an adrenaline rush at featured article noms and GA reviews when they find some obscure rule to enforce, declaring "non-compliance". You've linked too many common words. That should be a non-breaking space, not a normal one. Dashes, not hyphens. Leads must have 4 paragraphs or less (remove the space between paragraphs 4 and 5, making one long paragraph, and you're good). WP:PUNC!!! More people should pay attention to the discussions on MOS pages, but fewer people should actually pay attention to the MOS itself. Then again, I'm bitter from all the rain and could just be rambling. - auburnpilot talk 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amazing that copyediting for style has become an adversarial process in the review discussions. One would expect that normal authors don't know the manual of style, and so a copyeditor would handle putting the page into compliance, after which the discussion could move on to more interesting points. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The MOS thing has gotten me to the point where I don't want do FAs anymore. Time was when I could slip articles past FAC based on whether they were any good or not. But after a mammoth FA last year (bird) I lost the will to do them anymore. If there were legions of copyeditors out there willing to do all the pedantic bullshit then it wouldn't be a problem, but there aren't. And my time would be better spent dragging a subpar start class article up to B class than fixing ndashes and making sure that numbers and the following words have the right kind of fucking space between them in the reference section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how different editors have different recollections of events; here is a perfect example of how a meme takes hold if readers don't carefully check their facts. SS, you approached me on my talk page a year ago, asking for help because you had encountered concerns at peer review that bird was undercited. First, let's not confuse issues that come up regarding Wiki's best work: WP:V is policy, unrelated to WP:MOS, a guideline. Two different things. And peer review is not FAC. Second, your request made a lasting impression. I have never put as much effort into cleaning up MoS and citation issues on an article at someone's request to help them prepare for FAC as I did for bird. I worked on that article for a good 24 hours; it was one of the biggest cleanup chores I have ever done on Wiki.[1] To this day, I figure in the top eight contributors to that article, even though I only worked on it for one day. That sort of work was routine for me (and many editors who are happy to roll up our sleeves and help address MoS, citation, and copyedit issues at or before FAC) until I assumed other FAC duties, which diminished the time I can spend helping others. Most of the editors who requested my assistance thanked me for my efforts, leading Giano to joke about my box of chocolates. (Did you? When you nommed the article, you did mention that I had "picked over" the citations.) Third, when you came to FAC a few months later, the concerns raised about that article, by numerous editors, were almost entirely copyedit concerns, with at least four editors raising concerns about the prose and performing copyedits. So, the two issues with that article at FAC were referencing and the quality of the prose, yet in spite of the thankless time another editor put in to MoS and citation cleanup on the article, you now ungraciously claim that "the MOS thing has gotten me to the point where I don't want do FAs anymore". This is classic. Every time I hear a complaint about MoS at FAC, when I look into the facts, I find something exactly like this: editors whose articles ran into fundamental WP:V policy referencing concerns or had basic copyedit issues, but blame "MoS". To this day, I have never known an article to fail at FAC over MoS issues, and there is always an editor willing to run through and clean up any issues once copyediting and citation are dealt with. Yes, MoS is too big and needs to be tamed and consolidated, but never have I seen a valid complaint about MoS and FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that I mixed the two up. I found the process stressful and I guess I misplaced the annoyance. And I certainly apologise if I came across as ungracious or didn't consider your efforts, and the efforts of the other editors worthy of thanks. I was very grateful for all the help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, SS, and I'm sorry for making you the example. I'm just concerned because I see this meme often. FA is rightfully demanding, but the increased demands lately have been in the policy areas of sourcing and images (where almost every article is checked), and there has been increased scrutiny of prose (because there are more copyeditors participating there now), so it would be incorrect and unfortunate for the idea to take hold that MoS is what makes FA demanding. It really isn't the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and further I expressly avoid discussing MOS issues in most situations due to the aforementioned "MOS-warriors". I think the MOS as a whole has suffered from instruction creep as people try to "fix" various content disputes by getting one side or the other written into guideline, and a good bit could probably be trimmed back.

Regarding the GA/FA complaints, and seemingly some of the reverts Robert A West experienced, it seems some of these people think they're too "busy" biting people pointing out the MOS non-compliance to actually fix the issues they see. Perhaps that attitude needs adjustment, although I have no idea how to do so. Anomie⚔ 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, my personal experience has been editors who do fix things, just sometimes a bit gruffly. And I did make a few edits without being logged on, so I may just have looked like a clueless anon. And, to be fair, there are lots of biters out there: one recently tagged a stub as unsourced 90 seconds after it was created, causing an edit conflict when I tried to save my citebook reference. I bit back and we made nice. LOL. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

←Response from Tony1: I'm apparently one of those "MoS warriors"; I'm also an FAC dinosaur, having reviewed there for three years, especially WRT standards of prose. Just like the English language itself—"big and baggy", Clive James called it—style on WP will always be a matter of dynamic tension between centrifugal and centripetal forces; this is not something that should upset us. Nor should the shifting of the balance towards the centripetal (standardisation, cohesiveness) over the past two years, with MoS main and its jungle of subsidiary pages the focal point. Nowhere is this more evident than in the FAC room, where compliance with the style guides is explicitly required.

Why has there been such a shift? There may be three reasons:

1. MoS main and its most important subsidiary pages (particularly MOSNUM), are now significantly better written and organised than the sloppy mess they were in two years ago.
2. The culture on the talk pages—of those who specialise in the maintenance and improvement of these style guides—has become more competitive and dynamic, and includes more people with notable expertise in English-language style and formatting.
3. The featured-content processes—especially FAC and FLC—are far more competitive than a year or two ago (let alone four years ago, what a joke), and the standards have increased to a level that, in many cases, WP can be proud of. In many cases, our featured content sets the standard on the Internet for summary-style, non-OR information. Reviewing is more detailed and systematic WRT to the criteria, which have evolved to be more detailed and stricter. These changes have seen the relationship between the style guides and featured-content processes become intricate and mutually reinforcing.

I'm interested to hear the views that are expressed here; this type of dialogue is important for the project as a whole. I'm sorry that there are negative feelings about the modern FAC process, but competitive processes are usually accompanied by a certain degree of angst. I encourage the users here to form strategic collaborative allliances with others who have a range of the necessary skills and knowledge to produce fine FA nominations: we look forward to reading them.

Concerning the cries that no one reads the style guides; well, that's like me and equipment instruction manuals—hate 'em and often try to do without. The style guides nevertheless play pivotal roles in educating and guiding our diverse community towards what is mostly regarded as the optimal product for our readers out there. People may have quibbles with this bit or that bit (I do ... no one agrees with it all, in its entirety), but as a whole, they're the beacon that knits WP together, along with its policy. Over time, and that's what we do have in this evolving project, these forces for cohesion will touch everything. Might I say that my own style improved significantly after properly digesting MoS main and MOSNUM.

If I were to criticise the style-guide infrastructure, it would be to say that there's a lack of overall coordination and auditing of the myriad of small, subsidiary specialist pages that have grown like topsy. We already have a WikiProject in place WP:MOSCO, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes more active in the task of vetting, trimming, rationalising and coordinating the style guides. Tony (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony has recently begun producing monthly summaries of MoS changes for those who want to keep track without following those pages. They can be found in the Signpost, with old editions listed at {{FCDW}}. And, although standards at WP:FAC have increased over time, the differences are mainly in image review and review of reliable sources. These are policy concerns, and they are now more systematically reviewed then they were in the past. With respect to MoS, the process has not become more strict; it's a simple matter of asking someone to run through and make MoS adjustments once prose is up to standard and the policy issues of referencing and image compliance are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My short take: MOSes only matter for FACs and GANs, so ignore them (i.e. use your common sense) when that's not your area of wiki interest. I may have read the main MOS once as a newbie out of interest, but the fine details only stuck in my brain when I unknowingly violated them in a FAC and had to read them up (I still learn new stuff that way). I'll use that MOS knowledge in my own reviews then, but I'll probably never become a true MOS-warrior because that's neither my area of expertise nor interest. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And even with that easy going attitude, when I read through your last FAC, I found only two trival MoS adjustments needed ... must not be so hard to learn or to find collaborators to help you bring articles to FA status :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka, I agree with that – it's very true. Gary King (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since you want to hear the views of the community, let's air the views of the community on the entire MOS process. I'm not going to comment about the guideline pages themselves, but WT:MOS's atmosphere has become a cesspool of invective vitriol that pushes away contributors from participating in debates. My first edits in Wikipedia were to the Manual of Style, but I stopped following it when users began being told that they won't be taken seriously if they don't use en dashes on talk pages. When users' arguments are derided solely on formatting issues, it is a clear indicator, at least to me, of a gangrenous consensus-gathering process. When I think of MOS, this is the first thing that comes to mind, as it is the most salient example of the chronic incivility that permeates these talk pages. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops. I actually feel guilty about starting the dash discussion there (and not following up). I think when someone asks "How should I write this?", one is justified in saying exactly how it should be written; one cannot know if an error could be because the inquirer focused on another element of the phrase, or because of overall ignorance (that is, until the inquirer explains afterwards). Demanding general en-dash usage in talk-page messages is not something I'd do, given how even good users of the language are often in a hurry or simply feel like being informal; on the other hand, asking for en-dash usage in articles does no harm, as long as it's not too pressing—MoS remains a guideline. (It should be noted, however, that sloppy writing, even in talk pages, makes a certain impression when a newcomer to WT:MoS discusses style; you know how people are about first impressions.)
  • Personally, I think the problem is that the talk page serves a dual role: that of answering people's questions, and that of discussing changes to the page. Separating these roles in some way would provide a friendlier environment for otherwise uninvolved editors to ask questions, without running the risk of getting caught in a dispute or simply becoming the unsuspecting target of an experienced regular who's had a bad day on the page. (Don't forget that the regulars take many things about style for granted that most other users do not.) If we also consider that WP:MOS acts as both a central page for the Manual (with many summaries of supplementary pages) and a style page of its own (with parts unique to that page), we can see why the situation is so complicated.
  • I have hopes that MOSCO can at least partially resolve the problem if used correctly. More specifically, I am thinking of two examples of successful organisation which could provide ideas. One is WikiProject Good articles, where the good-article system is discussed (while Wikipedia talk:Good articles serves only as a venue for discussion of the GAs' directory). The other is the WikiProject Council, which is a forum where general co-ordination between WikiProjects is discussed and advise can be sought. All we need is a good recipe. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • We need to invigorate MOSCO. The organization of the MoS pages is a mess, there are warriors at every page making progress difficult, and there needs to be some centralization of goals towards taming the beast that MoS is becoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with this diagnosis. There is a great deal to be said for detailed Style guidelines, and although I sympathise with Carl regarding the copyeditor/writer distinction unfortunately this is not that encyclopedia. What worries me is the mess and inconsistency within MOS and its general instability. As someone who still doesn't know the difference between an 'n dash' and an 'm dash' (and who doesn't much care either way), how can I support the invigoration of MOSCO other than offering you my good wishes? Ben MacDui 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The main problem seems to be, for every guideline or policy, we try to just cover the normal circumstances and perhaps some of the infrequent issues, except for the MoS, where we seem to be trying to cover every possible circumstance. Wikipedia style guidelines and Wikipedia naming conventions have 171 pages in them together. Wikipedia behavioral guidelines, Wikipedia content guidelines, Wikipedia editing guidelines, Wikipedia notability guidelines, and Wikipedia official policy together have only 132 pages. I think the MoS could stand quite a bit of trimming and merging to be more inline with how the rest of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines are written. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The only issue I have is when the MOS (apparently) requires things that make the wikicode annoyingly verbose, such as NY 373. --NE2 08:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why using two commas (,,) for hard spaces would be so handy. But people seem not to want extra wiki-code. Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 0001

The size of WP:MOS is a problem that annoys editors. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Holes_in_GA_.2F_FA_review_process_for_.22academic.22_or_.22technical.22_subjects was about a different problem but one contributor pointed out that reviewers tend to be "rule experts" rather than topic experts. That leads to proliferation of rules, nit-picking interpretations of the rules and often differences in interpretation from one reviewer to the next.

Finding solutions is of course harder than complaining. A few suggestions to discuss:

• Automate as much as possible. That has a few advantages:
  • It depersonalises comments on MOS issues.
  • It reduces the workload of editors and reviewers.
  • In cases where a program can only raise a query rather than make a change, it gradually informs editors of the rules.
• Trim MOS ruthlessly, using a "Zero-based budgeting" approach where every rule has to be justified only on its own merits, with minimal reference to precedents and no appeals to the authority of external MOSs, etc. The dominant criterion should be "How does this help readers to understand the content?" The danger here is that the exercise will be dominated by existing "rule experts" who have an interest in keeping MOS large and complex. I can suggest a ruthless way to deal with that:
  • If 10 or more editors complain about a rule, suspend it until a vote has been held.
  • The quorum for a completed vote should be too high for "rule experts" to dominate the voting - e.g. 10x the number of FA reviewers. Only registered editors should be eligible to vote, and only once per issue. I'm assuming that it's easy enough to ensure no-one votes more than once on an issue, otherwise Wikipedia elections would be a farce.
  • When an item is placed on the "votes for removal" list, place banners on pages whenever they are accessed by registered editors, as is done for e.g. Wikipedia elections. The banners should link to the list of open issues.
  • If a MOS item gets less that e.g. two-thirds of the votes, scrap it.
• Make reversion of edits on MOS grounds a disciplinary offence. Early in my Wikipedia career someone reverted on the grounds of his interpretation of MOS an edit in which I'd corrected some significant scientific errors in a high-profile article. After a protest that was ignored I walked away from the article. -- Philcha (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have much more faith in the MoS than I have with Wikibureaucracy. What you're proposing sounds like an absolute train wreck. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a train wreck, though I like the idea of reverting edits solely on MoS grounds being a no-no, so long as the edit has other content (i.e. just changing "1960s" to "1960's", which is against the MoS, could obviously be reverted.) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who reverts productive edits based on trivial MoS infractions contained therein is being a nuisance anyway - we don't need additional rules to deal with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reality of WP:MOS is that grammar and pedantic fanaticism have a long and established history. WP:MOS helps in that it keeps the arguments over "correct grammar" at WP:MOS instead of spilling over into mainspace. I believe that about 90% of MOS is useless instruction creep, but it's simply not worth fighting because the people who take matters of style seriously take it very seriously, and in the end consistency of style is a good thing. Answering WP:CREEP with bureaucracy is not a helpful solution, though, and I think the current system works reasonably well. SDY (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SDY. I'm pleased you agree that "about 90% of MOS is useless instruction creep". But I'm less happy to accept that as a fait accompli because it establishes a ratchet effect by which the MOS can only become larger, more complex and more of a deterrent to editors - and possibly contribute to the shortage of reviewers, as becoming a reviewer requires learning of all this stuff. IMO we need mechanisms to roll back some of MOS's complexity and nit-pickling and to and prevent further WP:CREEP.

While "consistency of style is a good thing" sounds indisputable, editors will write in different prose styles that affect most readers more directly than minutiae like what kind of dashes we use. -- Philcha (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"

...editors will write in different prose styles that affect most readers more directly than minutiae like what kind of dashes we use."

Let the people say "Amen!" My main objection to WP:MOS is that it seems that it's primarily used as an excuse to deny FA or GA status. I've previously recommended downgrading the majority of it to an WP:ESSAY since consistency of style should be enough to justify it without the imprimatur of officialdom and the "holier than thou" attitude it engenders. For the most part, though, I don't get particularly attached to the way I've phrased things, and if someone wants to get all hot and bothered about "fixing" it, that's fine by me. SDY (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to WP:MOS is that it seems that it's primarily used as an excuse to deny FA or GA status. Please present one example where this has happened at FAC (hint: there isn't one, I can't speak for GAN, but I doubt it there either), and please don't spread false memes on the Village pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As Robert A.West pointed out, there are lots of biters out there (25 August 2008). Even if MOS is reduced to a WP:ESSAY, they'll use it as a pretext, especially against those who are not familiar with the distinction between rules, guides and essays. I'd prefer to give them less to bite with.

OTOH I think a few parts of MOS are very valuable, e.g. about 80% of WP:LEAD. Such items should remain as guides for editors, copyeditors and reviewers because they improve the service we provid eot readers. -- Philcha (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As an anecdote - until today, I believed that the MoS said that editors are free to choose whether to use "straight quotes" or “curly quotes” as long as an article is consistent - it certainly would be in line with what it says about other more important things like spelling variations. As it turns out, someone just mentioned in passing today that it demands straight quotes. Who decided this? --Random832 (contribs) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody very sensible. Straight quotes make it much easier to edit article in non-Unicode editors. It takes three seconds of search-and-replace to fix and is never going to cause GAs to fail, editors to be issued permanent blocks, or the sky to fall down. Where's the problem? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prescriptive policies are fundamentally opposed to one of the core values of wikipedia: WP:IAR. Changing the quotes does not make the article more encyclopedic. It does not make the article more neutral. It does not aid in civility and the "biteyness" of the enforcers of MOS means it may actually harm civility. (Being free is obviously unaffected.) Rules should only exist when there must be a rule to meet one of the five pillars or they are a logical extension of the five pillars. WP:MOS is vaguely related to encyclopedism and has its place, but it should only be restrictive when absolutely necessary. SDY (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What it does do is make the typography more consistent and the article easier to edit. People who dislike the MoS because they dislike style prescription seem to think that the invisible hand will solve all of WP's readability problems. I don't follow the MoS because I have some ulterior motive; I follow it because I hope that others will, and that by doing so it will mean that if I randomly look up duck-billed platypus or tax evasion or vertical take-off and landing I won't have to spend the first ten minutes figuring out the idiosyncracies of the last editor's typography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is some common sense value in WP:MOS so that articles are intelligible, but 90% of the current guidelines are "write numbers this way" and "use bold here" and similar rules which dictate which of several equally reasonable formats could be used. Curly quotes vs. straight quotes does not change whether the article is intelligible to an average user. Where the reference is in relation to punctuation does not make the article uncited. Issues such as date formats, where 08/01/08 can mean at least two different days, have a reasonable argument for a rule to enforce consistency. If there is no reasonable or likely barrier to comprehension, a style guideline is pure WP:CREEP. Editors will remove truly OuTrAgEoUs style as a matter of course without having to look up a guideline. SDY (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style exists for several different reasons. Clarity is one (and remember that we have an international readership, so things are not as simple as one might imagine). Formal and professional writing style, as befitting to an encyclopaedia, is another. Consistency is yet one more reason; as one work, Wikipedia should be cohesive, and allow its readers to read the articles without having to adapt to a very different writing style in each case—in scientific articles, consistency becomes even more important. Accessibility is also a reason (curly quotation marks adversely affect searching for a word or phrase). I accept that MoS might need some rationalisation in its structure, and perhaps some trimming in places, but it should also become clear that this is an encyclopaedia, and by definition covers very diverse subjects; it is only natural that it should have a big style manual to cover all these scientific fields and their often widely differing conventions.

And, in any case, as you mention, outrageous style will be removed anyway. It's in the details that one will most likely need guidance. And in this case there should be a place to offer it. Waltham, The Duke of 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarise the pros and cons of the current system, as I see it:

• Pros: improves consistency and readability of rendered text; creates a more professional appearance for WP. Better user experience.
• Cons: Difficult to implement - both time consuming for content-producing editors, and likely to cause ill feeling between editors with different perspectives on the MOS. Also may clutter wikicode. Worse editor experience.

Some people like to think that one day, Wikipedia will be comparable to leading encyclopaedias such as the Britannica. Featured articles are considered to be articles that are of that standard, which are "as good or better" than published encyclopaedias, if I recall their description in the assessment guide correctly.

If a featured article is a "publication standard" article, then much as it pains me, it would be eroding the FA standard to mark non-copyedited text with the golden star. And a consistent style is to be found in all semi-professional publications - each publication chooses its style and sticks to it. It makes them look smarter, and also avoids inconsistencies within articles. Say that an editor wants to add the detail that so and so happened in the 1960s to a long article. A consistent style across WP means they don't first have to scan the whole of the rest of the article to work out whether to type 1960's or 1960s - they know that 1960s will always be correct.

The difference between WP and real publications is that we don't have a paid team of editors to do the grunt work. However, in many fields - such as preparing a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal - the same is true, and even the leading professor who should be lecturing and researching has to worry about whether his numbers are separated by en-dashes or hyphens if he doesn't want his manuscript returned.

Having an FA star is for many the only motivation to fix small but annoying errors - such as nbsp-ing numbers and units and making sure references actually work - which would otherwise simply never get done.

So I think, actually, much as I hate the effort of complying with it, that the MOS has a purpose. I won't debate the size of it here (but has anyone ever picked up the Chicago MOS? That's a workout for your biceps!) but given the premise that the MOS makes for a better reader experience - surely that's what all us editors are trying to provide, in one way or another.

And I think that requiring a "loose" adhesion to the MOS for GA, and a strict following for FA, editors receive the prod that they need to do the work that no-one wants to do. I often do wonder whether some reviewers spend more time pointing out each individual flaunting of the MOS than it would take just to fix them, but I guess that's a matter for individuals.

The FA and GA mark aren't just recognitions for content, but for article quality. Some editors like to collect "FA" stars like trophies, but a wise man warned me early on that this was a way to become embittered against WP. If an editor is expert enough to add useful content, then in an ideal world that's what they'd spend their time doing, and let others without such in-depth knowledge worry about style. However I suspect that most editors like the occasional pat on the back in the form of an article reaching a milestone, and if we didn't require FA articles to be of publishable standard, then I'm pretty sure WP would have much less articles of that standard.

So to sum up, I'd say - if the MOS bothers you, then ignore it, and let other people pick up the pieces. If you're adding useful content, that's gold dust to Wikipedia, is warmly received by readers, and is very unlikely to be simply removed for flaunting guidelines. However, ignoring the MOS completely will rub some people the wrong way. Further, the only reward you'll get will be the contentment that readers worldwide find your contribution useful and helpful. If that's not enough for you, and you want to earn a little gold star, then you'll have to "play the game" and jump through the stylish hoops!

As for the value of GA and FA, I'll leave you with this illustration of the traffic to an article I brought up to GA standard (on the 19th), and ask - was the effort really worth it?

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess, I've found the FA process very frustrating to. I think you need a whole host of {{sofixit}} in your back pocket. I know people are trying to help, but do they not seem to realise it is very frustrating to be told to remove one word for better flow. That's stuff people should just fix, if you ask me. Hiding T 10:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly I'm just interested in deprecating the MOS because it consists of rules that do not make a better encyclopedia, just a prettier one. GA and FA should focus on substance, with style a distant eleventh as a concern rather than the primary objective. SDY (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The insistence on MOS is one of many factors resulting in the promotion of articles to GA and FA which would not be publishable because they are badly written, badly sourced, and misrepresent the available scholarship. (The lack of FA reviewers who know anything about a particular field is much more serious; but the use of MOS to say something about an article on a field of which one knows nothing is a significant distraction.)

This, however, is a fixable problem: the mention of MOS at WP:WIAFA dates back to before MOS grew to its present length and mind-numbing opinionated detail; simply removing the mention of style guidelines from point 2, while leaving the express requirements of that point, would suffice. (Nominators would have to remind reviewers it is gone, but they could do so.) This would require the consensus of a large number of editors; but there are more than enough here to accomplish it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. SDY (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I will too. I proposed it solo some months ago. It's someone else's turn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a group proposal, "We, the undersigned ..."? -- Philcha (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think some sort of reduction of MoS is in order: where do I sign? Deamon138 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot begin to describe how wrong this is. A diamond in the rough is also known as a "bit of ore". Equating the MoS with its worst bits is ridiculous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MoS has an implied severability clause: if there are "worst bits" of the guideline, we should entertain why they are bad and, if appropriate, either improve them or remove them. SDY (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 0001a

Pmanderson has been spreading this story about the application of MoS at FAC for a very long time, but not once, although he's been asked many times, has he produced a single FAC that has failed because of MoS issues. It is also my opinion that the trainwreck that is the MoS will not be cleaned up until/unless something is done about Pmanderson's participation on those pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, it's Sandy who does the most revert warring at MOS, mostly withour regard for discussion. But the personal attack is noted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's more of an example of a chilling effect rather than actual failures when it comes to FA, the only real rigorous user of the criteria. MoS could arguably be called arbitrary and capricious: it has rules because someone wanted a rule to win an argument or to satisfy some personal demon, not because the rule was a good idea. The discussion with VeblenBot (probably archived by now) above may result in some actual control over the process since there will be less guidelines slipping in "under the radar." SDY (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. Sandy can make this claim only because xe counts the most obvious case I've seen, an article on which the nominator was harassed over year links (he liked them, a reviewer didn't) until he gave up and abandoned the nomination, as "not failed because of MOS." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of MoS may well be "arbitrary and capricious", but MoS guidelines are not arbitrarily and capriciously applied at FAC or FAR (I can't speak for GAN, but my sense there is they aren't even aware). What makes MoS "arbitrary and capricious" are a couple of MoS warriors who impede any progress. Now, the real origin of this false meme about FAC (as I pointed out in the example above) is that editors would probably much rather claim their article failed FAC because of some "arbitrary and capricious" MoS rule, rather than saying that mutliple reviewers said their prose was sub-standard, a copyedit was needed, or sourcing, image and neutrality policies weren't met. No FAC or FAR has ever failed, to my knowledge, on MoS concerns. Period. There are too many editors who will simply and quickly run through and fix those items themselves if policy and prose issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you have a conflict of interest here. They are randomly applied, if only because it is chance whether the reviewers who care about MOS choose to review a particular article. They are applied inconsistently, because reviewers who do care about MOS remember different bits of it and interpret them differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's your definition of "arbitrary and capricious", you could say the same thing about any element of review. You've singled out MoS because it's your hobby horse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, only about some. Neutrality and verifiability are applied to almost all FA's, because they are single concepts, most reviewers think about them, and most reviewers agree about them, so they are neither random nor inconsistent. Source quality is a random criterion, because only some reviewers are qualified to address it, but it is applied consistently when it is applied at all. Other arbitrary and capricious elements should also be fixed (but are not part of this discussion - that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); you have yourself fixed one by establishing quick closure, which has eliminated the random amount of time articles were at FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in getting a copy of the list of "editors who will simply and quickly run through and fix those items themselves if policy and prose issues are resolved". When I see editors/reviewers make comments that tell nominators to move a period, I've never understood why they don't just move the damn period. A list of editors who will actually move that period would be beneficial. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The reviewers who do that (write out instructions on the FAC) do it apparently in the hope that frequent FA nominators will learn and not repeat the same issues on subsequent FACs. At FAR, I personally will fix MoS issues on any FAR that has overcome everything else (prose, sourcing, etc.) and there are several others active at FAR who simply fix things (Maralia, Ceoil, DrKiernan come to mind, but there are many others). On the other hand, if no one is fixing the more substantive issues, I just leave a long list on the FAR, and save my time for working on an article that has a chance. At FAC, do please have a look at User talk:Epbr123 and his talk page archives. I believe Karanacs, Moni3, Maralia, Awadewit and others fix MoS issues as they encounter them. When I do my first read-through on each new FAC, I check for WP:ACCESSIBILITY, as I consider it shocking that no one at FAC reviews for this and considers our readers who use screen readers; I fix those issues on sight. And when I do my final read-through on an article, I fix anything trivial I see, and leave an edit summary to remind the nominators what else needs fixing. Then I promote in the next batch, if everything else is in order. I don't hold up a FAC for trivial MoS issues, although I do give nominators time to fix them all so they can have the best possible diff stored in articlehistory on promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For a sample of just how trivial, quick, easy and not even worthy of breaking a sweat this work is, someone notified me they had finished citing John Millington Synge so it could avoid FAR, so I did the MoS cleanup in a matter of minutes.[2] Look how hard that was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 0002

To give this discussion a slight freshening and look at what consensus may and or may not exist:

• 1. Many editors have expressed concerns that the MoS has problems with instruction creep.
• 2. Polish and professionalism such as compliance with a MoS (not necessarily the existing one) is an expectation for FA.
• 3. FA should not be failed for trivial* reasons.

(*I'm using a definition of trivial that includes compliance with pure style requirements that do not change the readability of an article, but I don't think there is a consensus for that definition, I'm only assuming that there is a consensus for not failing FA on issues which are not considered important).

Any disagreements with these statements? SDY (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, strong disagreement. You would be the first complain if at the cinema or in watching television if there were even minor editing glitches. Ironically, good prose and formatting is that which the reader doesn't "notice", because it reads effortlessly—consistent in usage, style and formatting, no bumps, good punctuation (and yes, en dashes, not squidgy little hyphens in year ranges). It gives the mark of authority to a fine article. And in the process of cleaning up these aspects, matters of content normally come out of the woodwork, even to complete non-experts. Tony (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another section heading to draw attention to a negative incorrect meme. No FAC or FAR has ever been failed on MoS concerns alone: should not be failed is spin about a non-existent issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy that I'm being treated like an idiot or a troll for actually discussing this, which I find offensive and inappropriate. I really don't care that much, but I think I'm beginning to understand why WP:MOS is so broken. SDY (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your misgivings are being treated with great seriously, even though many people here don't agree with them. Please assume good faith. Tony (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. SDY, when you start a new section with the statement that FAs shouldn't be failed on trivial issues, the implication to new readers could be that this has happened. Therefore, I clarify; not treating you like "an idiot or a troll". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I will respond on talk pages and withdraw from this conversation, as it has become pointless. SDY (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

←So many things to respond to, but I'll keep it short and just respond to the questions in the first post:

• Maybe I'm the exception for never having paid much attention to the MOS.
  • No, I don't think so; most Wikipedians learn the minimum and learn mostly by seeing what other people do.
• The claim of the regulars on the page is that it is widely read and agreed to.
  • There are around 500 archive pages of style guideline talk pages, 100K to 450K each. I don't think they were written by elves. Have a look; you can find a lot of stuff just by doing a search in the headings and subheadings on the main archive page at WT:MOS. It's good stuff. I can't speak for my predecessors, but since I've been paying attention, I can tell you why so many people have been coming to style guidelines talk pages to make their case: because people generally take the time to follow people's arguments, look things up, and give assistance.
• Maybe the consensus is stronger than I suspect.
  • Per WP:SILENCE, whatever is decided by the people who show up to debate is the consensus. WT:MOS isn't a members-only club; come ask a question, or object to a guideline, and you'll see.
• But, if I am right, perhaps we need to encourage more Wikipedians to pay more attention to it.
  • I do that a lot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Do remember Warnock's Dilemma, though. Anomie⚔ 12:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No one ever pretended that writing English prose was easy

It's just the opposite: a hard slog, especially in English, which is big and baggy and needs to be corralled by a set of locally determined guidelines attuned to the context, mode and readership of the publication. All serious publications set out these codes, usually in a manual (all publishing houses), and at least in a dedicated location in writing (academic journals, for example—see their "advice to authors" sections on their websites). That these guides are often not perfectly written is legendary; the Chicago MOS, the pre-eminent guide for US English, fails to take its own advice in numerous places. WP should be proud that it now has a MoS that, while not perfect, is pretty good for the purpose. Unlike most publishing houses, we aim to improve the skills of our writers with such instruments, not just to maintain standards and cohesion. FAC has the same dual purpose, as a solid investment in the skills of our editors. MoS and FAC come together to do this in Criterion 2. Let me say that my own writing improved considerably after reading WP's MoS a number of times, and that as an FAC reviewing has had the same effect—to tighten up my technical ability at writing and editing. I'm fairly sure that editors at large who take both seriously will derive such benefits too. That is partly the intention.

It's easy to moan about "trivia", and yes, sometimes it must seem pernickety to get all of the style details right. But as I implied in the comment above about cinematic editing, the devil is in the detail, and is essential to delivering a smooth reading experience to the people out there we serve. Heaven knows, expressing a lot of information for everyday readers is challenging enough without presenting them with inconsistent and what I and many others would judge to be suboptimal stylistic details. We owe it to them and to WP to get the prose and formatting consistent and good. Without MoS, that would be just about impossible.

As for the relationship between content and style—there's no hard-and-fast distinction, in my view. And our nominators are our content experts, not our reviewers, by and large, although non-experts in a topic can and often do sniff out shortcomings in content. Publishers usually don't employ content experts in-house (akin to our reviewers), but send submissions out to experts (akin to our nominators in the first place). Tony (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But does anybody aside from the handful of regulars think it a pretty good process? User:David Gerard long ago wrote an essay on the way Wikipedian processes fail. It includes the hallmarks of broken process; several of them have been exhibited in this discussion:

• Susceptible to being used as a bludgeon [to POV-push or] to intimidate other editors out of arguing Brackets added; MOS is only POV on English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Prescriptive when it could be phrased as a guideline
  • This actually reduces its effectiveness.
• Fails to assume good faith; excludes non-regulars
  • Regulars assume bad faith or stupidity of non-regulars (other Wikipedians or anons), and other regulars consider this acceptable behaviour.
  • Outsiders frequently complain of exclusionary process or ill treatment by regulars in the process; regulars are dismissive of these concerns.
• Process actions that are taken as personal attacks
  • If regulars keep having to say "don't take it personally" over and over and over, there's something deeply defective in the process that will be damaging to the encyclopedia project, even if you have a ready list of reasons why you absolutely have to do whatever the thing is people are taking personally.
• Works through a committee or inadvertent committee structure
  • Even ad-hoc committees can only work if they scale with editors and articles.
  • Forms an in-group susceptible to the above problems.
  • Has named offices, especially Director; Directors direct committees. Not yet, although FA does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Any process with regular voting or straw-polls is susceptible to this.

"If a process is potentially good, but smart and well-intentioned people keep screwing it up, then it's a bad process."

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

– Lyndon B. Johnson

[edit] Break 0003

Some observations:

1. A lot of contributors to this debate feel strongly that MOS is too large and complex.
2. "There are around 500 archive pages of style guidelines, 100K to 450K each" (near end of #Break 0002). That does not say anything about the current size of MOS, but it shows that: MOS is big (100 KB = approx 50 pages of print; some are 450KB); it changes quite frequently.
   • Sorry, I have corrected this to "style guideline talk pages". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. To put this in perspective, MOS is bigger than most academic journal articles that we use as sources - so far I've seen only 2 that are in this size range; most are under 10 pages.
4. There's concern about inconsistent application of MOS. I'm not surprised, since MOS is so big and changes fairly fast.
5. (Personal observation) It's too difficult to find stuff in MOS - the navigation / indexing / whatever is atrocious.
6. "whatever is decided by the people who show up to debate is the consensus. WT:MOS isn't a members-only club; come ask a question, or object to a guideline, and you'll see." (near end of #Break 0002) I think the reasoning here is fallacious for a number of reasons:
   1. "whatever is decided by the people who show up to debate is the consensus" did the UK Labour Party a lot of harm in the 1980s, as a result of which it remained out of office from 1979 to 1997. Left-wing extremists took control and created policies which were totally out of touch with public opinion. One of their tactics to gain control, as reported in the press at the time, was for militants to tie up meetings with minutiae until moderates got bored and went home.
   2. On matters that are binding on everyone, decently-run organisations have rules about quorums for important votes, partly to avoid the problem I've just described.
   3. I had not heard of WT:MOS until this discussion. There's no automatic notification of discussions, and new members of Wikipedia don't get told about it or advised to watch the page. These are perfect conditions for take-over of MOS by a group of zealots, which is what some contributors to this discussion seem to think has happened. I wouldn't go so far as "zealots", but these conditions are also ideal for instruction creep, frequently known in the real-world as bureacratic strangulation.
   4. Do we want thousands of editors involved in WT:MOS discussions? Discussions would never finish, editors' productivity would slump and Wikipedia would have buy more hardware just to store the extra terabytes.
7. Personally I think some sort of MOS is needed - for example I commented above that most of WP:LEAD is valuable.
8. However the current MOS contains items I consider arbitrary and of dubious value. One is WP:LEAD's "maximum of 4 paragraphs", which produces artificial difficulties in writing leads for subjects that have an unusually large number of aspects. Another is the Chicago MOS' insistence that refs should follow punctuation, which forces editors to distort sentence structures and / or use unncessary punctuation just to get the ref close to the clause it supports. I won't bore you by adding more.
9. There have been a few complaints above about MOS being used as a weapon by "biters". I've been a victim of this and admit I'd like to de-fang such people.
10. Excessive focus on MOS has led to articles being promoted despite having significant content weaknesses such as gaps in coverage. I'm planning to rewrite one of these shortly.

I'm sure I've missed out a lot of important points from the preceding discussion, and apologise to the contributors. -- Philcha (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Point 5 above "(Personal observation) It's too difficult to find stuff in MOS - the navigation / indexing / whatever is atrocious" is something I would think almost everyone can agree about, and really should be and can be fixed. The attempt to cram the contents into a side-column just doesn't work. Some form of full-page Table of Contents or Index, however un-wiki in style, is needed. Like, I'm sure, most users, at least 50% of my attempts to look something up in the MoS end in a baffled retreat. If the thing was more accessible, debates on issues there woiuld not be restricted to a small priesthood who know where things are. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to refs and punctuation, the only requirement in the MOS is that each article adopt a consistent practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had reviewers tell me to put refs after punctuation per Chicago MOS. In fact these cases were finger-slips, but the reviewers said "per Chicago MOS", not "for consistency". The Chicago MOS should be de-sanctified. -- Philcha (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't realise it had a talk page? This discussion appears largely to be a waste of time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (not at work)'s last remark looks like a complete non sequitur:

• "didn't realise it had a talk page" is a problem that should be discussed.
• Do we actually want everyone arguing MOS points at WT:MOS?
• Such discussions would be open to abuse by the "entryist" tactics I described above.

In the real world the standard solution is the election of accountable representatives. -- Philcha (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, errr, does argue MoS points at WT:MOS. A while back, I noticed that there had been a change to the guidelines to where to place an article's introductory image. So I went and found the talk thread in question, saw that it had been prematurely concluded, and argued my case to have the bits I wanted reinstated. What I didn't do was see that the MoS had been changed and then head off to the village pump to request that it be sanctioned. I fail to see how the solution to "the MoS may be gamed by people who play personal politics" is "have elections to see who controls to MoS". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What % of "Everyone"?

Your reasoning would imply that ArbCom elections should be abolished. Elections are not a perfect solution, but they're the best way of controlling rule-makers that anyone's thought of - going back to 5th century BC Athens. -- Philcha (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? ArbCom are a final solution for the few issues that the community cannot work out. The Wikipedia form of governance is group discussion and consensus in almost all cases. There would be practically no support for moving current community control of the MoS to some elected body, and for good reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"for good reason"? -- Philcha (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(<-)If ref after punctuation is something that concerns you, you can use Harvard-style Author/Date citation, at least in a new article. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Any chances that en-wiki will ever have a stable MOS? With MOS pages being blocked for edit warring [3], the whole topic becomes pointless. Follow MOS? Which MOS? NVO (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not unless it is radically simplified.

As long as MOS can be used by two or three editors to install their pet notion of language reform in some obscure corner, and then inflict in on FAs and GAs, the appeal of being a Secret Master of Wikipedia will ensure that such controversial ideas are imposed there. Since these are rarely, if ever, the actual consensus of Wikipedians, there will be strife over all of them, every time one of these pedants tries to ride his favorite hobby-horse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 0004

I think the key to this discussion is respect. We all have different roles to play. Some of us write well, some of us read well and some of us write correctly. We need the clarity and organization of a real writer, the accuracy and central sources brought by a real researcher and the careful eye of a real copyeditor. We need all these skills and (let's face it) the don't usually come together in the same person. I, for one, am a better writer and researcher than a copyeditor. I'm indebted to those who have helped me with mdash or ndash or whatever it is. I would hope they forgive me my failings because they appreciate my strengths. I forgive the occasional gruff sideswipe from an MOS martinet because I appreciate their skills and knowledge.---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of comments made as satire by Stephen Colbert (character)

Ok. This issue started on the Media Matters for America talk page (here), was sent to the BLP noticeboards and the Reliable source noticeboards. Since the discussion doesn't strictly relate to the television show the Colbert Report as a reliable source regarding the events that transpire on it, I'm moving the discussion here.

As I see it, the issue is this: Media Matters for America posted a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show regarding the Phony soldiers controversy in 2007. the colbert report later made the issue a subject on "the word". To acknowledge this, editors wanted to add a sentence like this:

"Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."

Those who wished to add the sentence felt that the satire/criticism was topical and noteworthy. Those who wished to remove the section felt that the text confused Colbert the actor with Colbert the character and constituted original research regarding the interpretation of satire. their basic concerns (in my estimation) are these:

• Satire is a difficult art to understand and interpret and few interpretations of satire are unambiguous. the inclusion of this reference puts the onus on the editor to determine the target and meaning of criticism.
• Polticial criticism, when quoted on wikipedia, gets its authority from the speaker (as we commonly note the speaker and list the criticism as opinion). The fact that Stephen Colbert plays a role on television and the fact that his speech is written by a team of writers should give us pause when interpreting the speech of Colbert's character as criticism.
• Wikipedia is not a venue for irony. We don't insert satire into ostensibly factual articles and leave the determination of the nature of speech to the reader.
• Inclusion of satire as commentary would somehow place us on a slippery slope leading to the diminution of legitimate commentary.

Those who wish to add the sentence have some other concerns and responses (Again, my estimation, some are my concerns).

• Satire may be presented as satire without interpretation as to the motivation, target or intended audience.
• The notion that all commentary derives force and weight from the authority and authenticity of the speaker is false. It is especially counterfactual to demand that satire (a form of speech almost always delivered tongue in cheek) derive its significance from the authentic belief of the speaker.
• Satire is a legitimate form of political commentary and, when topical, belongs in the discourse of an event.
• Careful and judicious quotation of satire in articles (especially where the use is substantiated by third party sources) does not lead to a slippery slope or present the reader with an ironic view of a situation.

The exact issue is partially moot as a third party source has been found and inserted into the article. However I hope to invite some uninvolved editors to review the basic idea and answer a few questions:

1. Is it ever appropriate to include topical references made as satirical commentary using only primary sources? (i.e. just the episode as a source)
2. Does the issue of an actor playing a character (rather than a commentator providing a view) change the issue at all? Is George Carlin's criticism of the FCC for the Seven dirty words more suitable for inclusion because Carlin wasn't obviously playing a character?
3. How much of the weight of political commentary stems from the authentic belief of the commentator in the view she presents? In other words, if James Carville actually liked Dennis Kucinich but pretended to like Clinton because it was good television, does that weaken his remarks?
4. Where does the line get drawn on interpretation of material?

I'm including the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion here as an archive so that commentators can see past arguments (and to get it off RS/N). Please respond below the archived sections. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from Reliable Sources