When to Talk and When to Act
[edit]- 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
[edit]Glossary
Policies and guidelines
[edit]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.
Controversies, Disputes, etc.
[edit]Addressing Wikipedia's Political Bias
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.