Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23
March 25 >

March 24

[edit]

Template:Kialo arguments tree

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template for linking to a user-generated site, so never going to be usable as its content is inherently non-RS Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Linkspam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a spamming tool for a user generated site including arguments from a relatively small number of participants not following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a "spamming tool"; it's for an overview of arguments structured into a relational diagram format is very useful to these articles and more useful than most of the other external links in that section. It provides an overview of arguments in their relational structure of the public debate about the subject. The deletion rationale is refuted by WP:ELMAYBE Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources which clearly shows sites that are not reliable sources can still be useful/due in the EL. These are the largest structured argument maps on that subject and just name-calling things is not an reason for deletion. A template allows managing how these links show up from one place. In regards to the deletion rationale from Objective3000, that sites linked there "follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines" is not required anywhere and nearly no external link there do so. These argument maps can often be useful resources.
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prototypeperspective, I see you are a participant in Kialo discussions (your name came up on the first link I followed). Beyond that, do you have any connection with Kialo? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. I'm a user of the site which I already have stated earlier. I don't even like many aspects of the site and would have hoped a live open source alternative to it would exist. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does presenting arguments structured into a relational diagram format make the arguments any more valid? It clearly doesn't. Not unless participants can be shown to have subject-matter expertise. This is nothing more than linkspam for an oddly-structured forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have an authority-based view of information communication which is fine. I was never saying it makes them more valid (a strawman claim). It makes them more useful by seeing them in a structured way where one can see which things a claim addresses and which arguments address it. Rather than people saying all sorts of absurd or clearly false things without scrutiny, it allows people to put things under scrutiny in a long-duration overseeable comprehensive interactive diagram. Again, these argument maps are often useful resources and having a template for them seems reasonable. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is Wikipedia that has the 'authority-based view of information communication'. As core policy. Which is why we don't link random debates on random forums, regardless of how they are structured. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not having an issue with it and already made that clear. It's indeed an important principle to Wikipedia. It does refer to article contents however and these are just useful resources in the external links. It's not random debates, these particular ones are of high-quality and very relevant to the article subject. They're mostly just putting arguments extracted from reliable sources onto one map rather than having them dispersed all across very many unoverseeable unstructured unscrutinizable isolated lengthy linear texts. I maintain that such are often very useful resources and the external links already existing in articles kind of confirm this. Like with other links, editors are free to remove links to argument maps that have issues; the ones I added are useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, given the crap you have attempted to POV-fork into Wikipedia in the past [1], I don't think that you are in much of a position to tell anyone what is or isn't 'useful'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like it is a way to structure uncorroborated arguments in an attempt to provide them with the imprimatur of authority-based information. Not trying to negate the claim as an interesting idea of structuring arguments. It just doesn’t fit the encyclopedic view of presenting information. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why these are for the external links sections only and perfectly fits the encyclopedic view of presenting information.
Quote from the site founder that seems relevant in regards to encyclopedic The public debates are basically supposed to become a site where people can go and inform themselves. If a debate has over 2,000 unique arguments, it's going to be hard to find an argument that's not in there already. You can go there, similar to Wikipedia, and read. I'm not saying it's encyclopedic despite that one could also view it as a kind of repository/lexicon of associated arguments in society. It may be / seems to be misunderstood what these external links are supposed to be for so if one could make it clearer with the text next to it, one could just edit the template and contextualize it better. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'site founder' thinks his own commercial project is a good idea? How utterly astonishing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public debate sites are also effective at MISinforming people. Something we try to avoid. I looked at the Covid-19 lab leak theory article you placed a link on. It is mostly trivial arguments rarely with any citation. A couple were cited to the Wikipedia article on which you put the link, making this Citogenesis. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Covid-19 lab leak theory link is also blatant self-promotion: take a look at the 'activity' column on the right of the page: chock-full of Prototyperspective's own posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the quote which was a minor note next to it. The most common source of the claims there is this article as well as the MEDRS reviews; sometimes the source is not directly on the claim but in claims beneath it. I don't think there is any source citing the Wikipedia article there and if there is a link to it, then only as an informative addition, not as a source. And I'm not hiding the fact that I extracted lots of arguments from sources to for once integrate them all on one page which afaik is the only and largest public argument map for this subject. As stated earlier, only high-quality argument maps should be linked and these should not miss major or common arguments. Each of these is scrutinizable and editable so if you spot an issue solve it directly since this is an open collaborative project like Wikipedia is (which is not considered a reliable source there). Also this discussion is about the template, not about the lab-leak theory. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I'm beginning to wonder whether your attempt to hide linkspam behind a template might not be better discussed at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've never heard of Kialo, and I do not find its recent addition to COVID-19 lab leak theory to add value to our readers. In fact, it provides a list of pro arguments and a list of con arguments in approximately equal numbers, creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I am concerned that it may be doing something similar to other articles it is added to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the above concerns about it being user-generated content and providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this even a question? It's a pointer into something completely unusable (although it's being used) on Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just briefly since you seem to be asking something: this is an external link, the policies cited before are about Wikipedia contents, not about contents of external links. Having a page there that does follow a fundamentally different approach to Wikipedia seems particularly useful as in being complementary to it (similar to how SEP often is); and it's not there for users to get informed about the subject but is/was there merely as a useful resource to find out what arguments people have on a controversial subject and with this template was contextualized like so.
    False balance is a big problem – when talking about the policy, that refers to WP contents though and concerning the general problem, I don't think one can say something has false balance by counting the "number of arguments": instead one would have to look at the impact rating of these arguments and the overall debate question veracity rating for example (in mere texts it for example isn't always clear what the main arguments are and which are just minor notes alongside like the quote I put above which wasn't my actual argument).
    At an article about "Adam and Eve", linking an argument map about whether that story is real obviously would have many arguments for it to be real underneath where relevant people can find arguments addressing these specific arguments they may hold without them ever getting scrutinized/addressed and it would be useful precisely because of the many included arguments not because the number of arguments from any side is limited according to some editor's view of what appropriate balance would be (which btw apparently sometimes doesn't even match the reporting of reliable sources like The New York Times). People (sociologists or whoever) may wonder why anybody would ever believe something absurd like that and they can find according arguments there, all of which should be scrutinized and rated appropriately – low-quality argument trees certainly need to get removed from the EL. It's not "being used" though, just linked to with I think proper context in the EL section there. I didn't mean to "hide linkspam" with this template, just to make it more manageable by enabling changing how these links are contextualized and displayed from one template and so on. EL afaik are not exclusively for things usable on WP, but also e.g. relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    This doesn't mean I'm saying that the points made are not relevant and aren't reasonable arguments pro deletion even though I disagree. No problem if you consider it problematic and this is (most likely) my last comment here. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, begrudgingly. It's a useful site and much better organised than a typical forum, but it ultimately still is a forum. The impact/veracity rating is simply a poll of users, so if the template's purpose is as a "useful resource to find out what arguments people have on a controversial subject" as you said Prototyperspective, then it would be more reflective to use an authoritative researcher's overview on the topic as ELs. I really like the idea of complementing Wikipedia with something like Kialo and I don't think it should be dismissed as bad faith link spam. As Conservapedia likes to boast, Wikipedia is not complemented by any sort of debate website.[1]. Debate pages on Wikipedia is not in its scope so that would be the purpose of a template like this. However, I'm critical of Kialo because the actual logical scrutiny isn't how they rank arguments, the user polling is, and there's no systematic analysis of the logic on the site. The only true way to understand what points are valid is through reading everything. In short, it doesn't come to any conclusions and isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of the wider discussion (even with good sources, there can be a lot of synthesis), so it's not a great source to include for any reason on Wikipedia. A comprehensive, open debate there wouldn't remove poor arguments (only unclear or unsourced ones) but would leave it there with a con. So even if we pick discussions that we decide are good, it's probably because the admins are arbitrarily removing things they personally don't think are strong. I feel like those discussions would be antithetical to the actual point of the site and, again, more authoritative individuals would serve as better moderators. People don't come to Wikipedia for an indiscriminate tree of every argument of every facet of one topic that a group of users could brainstorm, even though I believe that is useful and fun to be a part of. I think this kind of template has potential, but not with Kialo as it exists today. – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 16:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia". Conservapedia. Wikipedia does not have a policy where members of the public are free to set up debate pages and engage in vigorous debate where the debate pages are lightly moderated
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Unblock-spamun

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Unblock-spamun with Template:Unblock-un.
For whatever reason, this template looks and feels the exact same as the latter. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • But they're not exact same; unblock-spamun requires a reason, while unblock-un doesn't. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - they are different templates with different uses: one is for users who are only blocked for violations of the username policy (softblocks) who only need to change their username to be unblocked, the other is specifically for users blocked for spam (hardblocks) who need to explain their behaviour and request a new username in their appeal. It may be that the functionality of both could be merged into a common template with switches depending on each particular usage, but that makes things complicated for users, and as far as I can tell it would not have any upside for editors nor for admins patrolling the requests, so in a nutshell it would make appeals harder for no reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Bad idea. PepperBeast (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PacerRef

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer used. (Converted its last transclusion to use Template:Cite Pacer instead.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_24&oldid=1217037289"