Appropriate content and plump waterfowl
 | This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum. |
Slapped wholesale from w:DrinkOrDie/Talk. May be edited with goal of inclusion in w:Wikipedia FAQ (or not!)
Three questions (bear in mind, they are just questions for you to think about):
- Is this properly an encyclopedia article or a news article? Should we think that a developing news article is essentially the same as an encyclopedia article?
- Does this whole issue really deserve treatment in Wikipedia?
- What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
The questions might be more neutrally phrased as:
- Is this written an encyclopedia article or a news article? What are the differences between developing news article and an encyclopedia article?
- What is appropriate content in Wikipedia?
- What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
Some responses to those questions:
What are the differences between developing news article and an encyclopedia article?
It certainly should be written as an encyclopedia article. Developing articles in response to news has happened in the past, and will certainly continue to happen, unless deliberate efforts are made to stop that. Thus considerations of how to go from news->encyclopedia are important.
On one end would be the simple submittal of news articles straight from the wire into Wikipedia, perhaps wikifying the stories, with the expectation that over time the collaborative editing process would make them into encyclopedia-style entries.
On the other end would be a formal approval process of entries, with rigid style guides for appropriate subject matter, content and format, most likely taking earlier printed-matter encyclopedias as a guide.
The current norm is in between the two, largely through self-regulation plus a bit of peer pressure, mainly through bold editing, but sometimes through the Talk pages. People are expected to at a minimum start off entries with reasonable Wikipedia-style names. "Feds raid software piracy ring" would be an unreasonable entry; "2001 acts of software copyright enforcement" would be better but still bad (especially without more specific entries to link to). Entries which refer to specific entities are preferred.
What is appropriate content?
On one end would be any potentially verifiable data, enforced only by the collaborative editing process, with the expectation that any non-potentially-verifiable data would disappear over time. All decisions on appropriateness would be made on a case-by-case basis.
On the other end would be a formal approval process of entries, with rigid style guides for appropriate subject matter, content and format, most likely taking earlier printed-matter encyclopedias as a guide.
Again, the current norm is between the two, through the same mechanisms as above. Decisions on appropriate content are most often made on an ad hoc basis, following the non-content specific goal of neutral authority; the explicit policies on content (instead of style, etc.) mainly consider illegal content.
In this case, an entry on an organization which is the subject of multimillion-dollar criminal investigation is certainly appropriate. Over time the entry will be edited to emphasize what the informed consensus considers important and accurate, and deemphasize what the consensus considers unimportant, unclear, and inaccurate.
What is the purpose of the "quotations" section?
This section is not perfectly handled right now, but serves as "meat" for further work. Simply adding such meat should be discouraged (noone wants to eat raw meat, unless it's sliced thinly and very expensive), but not forbidden, because not everyone has the time or skill to be a Michelin chef, but if they just bagged a plump waterfowl, they should be encouraged to bring it into the kitchen.