When to Talk and When to Act
- How much should the community discuss an edit before making an edit?
- More discussion leads to less change. So talk should be reserved for cases where it's necessary, correct?
- This seems to largely depend on whether the edit is controversial.
- How is controversy defined? Literally anything can be disputed.
- How does this apply to changing policies and guidelines? Surely they have a different set of standards than regular articles. But then those standards require another set of standards for modification... It's turtles all the way down.
Wikipedia Ecosystem
Glossary
Policies and guidelines
Policies and guidelines
Core content policies
- Neutral point of view (NPOV)
- Verifiability
- Challenges: Biased criteria for topics that rely on news media
- No original research
- Isn't this just a clarification of verifiability?
- Challenges: None, really. But a lot of content is marked as citation needed instead of removed. I think unsourced claims should be immediately removed. They don't belong in an encyclopedia at all and should be moved to the discussion if they're worth discussing.
Editing
Controversies, Disputes, etc.
Goals
Addressing Wikipedia's Political Bias
Log
2024-12-17
Wikipedia is now making me solve captchas with every edit. This started a few moments ago.
Interestingly, this is happening only when I edit /Addressing Wikipedia's Political Bias and not when I edit this page. Specifically, I was adding sources to the evidence section.
Is the page flagged? For what?
Explanation generously given here: User talk:JD April#Regarding captchas
As much as I appreciate the concern and help, I'm reminded of this Reddit post that I saw earlier today.
See the Hawthorne effect.