Wikipedia and the West Virginia Turnpike

[BridgesToIdealism]

Perhaps someone here who has an established Wikipedia account can figure this out and make people realize that the West Virginia Turnpike and I-77 in West Virginia are not the same thing and need to be discussed separately. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interstate_77_in_West_Virginia#Revert_merge

People are insistent on merging the two articles into one, despite the fact that the history of the Turnpike concerning Memorial Tunnel, Bond Troubles, Tolls, etc does not apply to I-77 north of Charleston, and therefore is confusing to have the two histories merged together. Also note the list of examples I found of similar situations elsewhere with different principles being applied.

[hotdogPi]

Oppose. The turnpike article would contain no new information. The turnpike article would be a subset of the I-77 article.

Scott5114, seicer, and NE2 are very experienced Wikipedia editors, even more than I am.

[1995hoo]

Seems to me the way to do it is to have the Turnpike discussed in a clearly-delineated section of the larger I-77 article, should there be a need to distinguish.

[Scott5114]

Starting this thread is in violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy.

Oh, wait, I mean:
It appears that you have been canvassing–leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

[Scott5114]

Then you need to post that at WT:USRD, rather than here. rschen7754, Imzadi1979, and NE2 have accounts here, but ultimately what matters is the consensus of wiki users, so getting the agreement of a group of forum users isn't going to cut the mustard.

Furthermore, assuming 2601:187:... is you, you should seriously consider making an account (or signing in if you already have one). IP users are kind of impossible to track thanks to dynamic IP addresses (is this the same IP editor as before or a different one?), so it's close to impossible to build the sort of credibility needed to make a convincing argument on Wikipedia without having a username.

[rschen7754]

AARoads has no control over Wikipedia, just like Wikipedia has no control over AARoads.

There are some editors who participate in both venues, but decisions about Wikipedia have to be made on Wikipedia.

[BridgesToIdealism]

Since this thread seems to be drawing ire on WP, I went to remove it (since I assume that authors can delete their own threads). But I can't find where the delete button is.

[webny99]

Since this thread seems to be drawing ire on WP, I went to remove it (since I assume that authors can delete their own threads). But I can't find where the delete button is.

You can't delete the OP of a thread, not even if everyone deletes their replies. The mods would have to either delete it or bin it.

As for Wikipedia, I got turned off of editing when my edit to the Super Bowl 49 page got overturned. But I decided there's no sense getting worked up about it: I'm never going to be a well-known/well-respected Wikipedia editor, so I'll just live and let live.

[ran4sh]

Wikipedia may be celebrating its 20th anniversary today, but I'm done with editing that site after I got banned due to various disputes with other editors.

[Scott5114]

As for Wikipedia, I got turned off of editing when my edit to the Super Bowl 49 page got overturned. .

If getting one edit reverted is enough to turn you off, you were never meant to edit in a collaborative environment anyway. Hell, my first article got deleted and was later recreated by someone else. It's part of the process.

Wikipedia is good practice for working on something with others who are passionate about the outcome of the final project. On Wikipedia, at least you're given the ability to have a meaningful say and can leave and do something else when things aren't going your way, which is more than could be said for some workplaces, for instance.

I'm done with editing that site after I got banned

I would hope so.

[hbelkins]

Since this thread seems to be drawing ire on WP, I went to remove it (since I assume that authors can delete their own threads). But I can't find where the delete button is.

Got a link to that particular Wiki thread? I'd like to see them complaining about being discussed elsewhere. 

Starting this thread is in violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy.

Oh, wait, I mean:
It appears that you have been canvassing–leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Are you being a bit sarcastic, or does Wikipedia actually have a policy about discussing it elsewhere?

Kinda like a forum where they try to kick you off because of something you post on your own social media site. Wonder what that forum might be?

[hotdogPi]

Since this thread seems to be drawing ire on WP, I went to remove it (since I assume that authors can delete their own threads). But I can't find where the delete button is.

Got a link to that particular Wiki thread? I'd like to see them complaining about being discussed elsewhere. 

It's the link in the OP, but it's just one person (Imzadi1979 on Wikipedia, bulldog1979 on this forum) mentioning it.

Starting this thread is in violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy.

Oh, wait, I mean:
It appears that you have been canvassing–leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Are you being a bit sarcastic, or does Wikipedia actually have a policy about discussing it elsewhere?

Kinda like a forum where they try to kick you off because of something you post on your own social media site. Wonder what that forum might be?

Click the link that's in this block of quoted text. It links to the policy about canvassing.

[webny99]

As for Wikipedia, I got turned off of editing when my edit to the Super Bowl 49 page got overturned. .

If getting one edit reverted is enough to turn you off, you were never meant to edit in a collaborative environment anyway. Hell, my first article got deleted and was later recreated by someone else. It's part of the process.

It wasn't the only thing I've had overturned, but from my limited knowledge of how these things work, it was certainly the most perplexing. (Not that it really matters, but here is the article I footnoted following a brief accompanying sentence.)

As for me not being a good fit for collaborative editing, that's totally fair enough. I respect the process and recognize it's not something I was cut out for even if I did have the time and energy.

[Scott5114]

Are you being a bit sarcastic, or does Wikipedia actually have a policy about discussing it elsewhere?

Off-wiki discussions are going to happen if they're going to happen, but exhortations for people to participate in a discussion with an eye toward getting the discussion to go your way are considered impolite at best and cause for sanction at worst. The reason being is that the Wikipedia editor corps is very large, so if someone goes around cherry-picking people to notify, it can skew the discussion in favor of the canvasser's viewpoint. Later on their opponents find out a decision was made without them being made aware and they get mad about it, and so you have to have the discussion all over again, with everyone involved this time, anyway.

Likewise, people trying to gin up brigades offsite ("everyone go to Wikipedia and tell them not to delete the article on my friend Bungo's rock band!") causes a problem, since most of the people commenting are doing so without knowing or caring what the relevant policies are, so it becomes a chore to sift through the comments and ascertain who actually knows what the hell is going on and whose opinion is irrelevant. (Wikipedia discussions are not done by tallying votes, but rather through who makes the clearest argument–your goal is essentially to turn the tide of the discussion to where the ensuing comments are more or less "Support, per Scott5114" or whatever, because there's nothing else left to be said.)

Wikipedia also likes having the discussions centralized on-wiki because that makes it easier to refer to in the future. If a decision is made on something like AARoads or Facebook, there is no guarantee (in Wikipedia's eyes, that is) that the discussion won't be deleted or made hidden later on. That means the record of why a decision was made is lost and cannot be consulted later on, possibly by an editor who was never part of the original discussion. (You can still go back and read the arguments from 2006 or so over how the road articles are to be titled. Rather than rehash a discussion, a new user seeking to rock the boat on such a thing is likely to just be referred to the previous discussion, with the implication that the pages upon pages of text they find has probably covered every conceivable issue, edge-case, or viewpoint, to the point that they are unlikely to come up with a novel consideration that has been overlooked.)

The polite thing to do is to leave a message along the lines of "There is a discussion taking place. Here's a link." on relevant talk pages that people who have an interest are likely to be monitoring, and them let them make their decision based on what they find at the link.

[Roadgeekteen]

The two roads are basically the same, it would be like having an article for I-276 (PA).

[rschen7754]

Are you being a bit sarcastic, or does Wikipedia actually have a policy about discussing it elsewhere?

Off-wiki discussions are going to happen if they're going to happen, but exhortations for people to participate in a discussion with an eye toward getting the discussion to go your way are considered impolite at best and cause for sanction at worst. The reason being is that the Wikipedia editor corps is very large, so if someone goes around cherry-picking people to notify, it can skew the discussion in favor of the canvasser's viewpoint. Later on their opponents find out a decision was made without them being made aware and they get mad about it, and so you have to have the discussion all over again, with everyone involved this time, anyway.

Likewise, people trying to gin up brigades offsite ("everyone go to Wikipedia and tell them not to delete the article on my friend Bungo's rock band!") causes a problem, since most of the people commenting are doing so without knowing or caring what the relevant policies are, so it becomes a chore to sift through the comments and ascertain who actually knows what the hell is going on and whose opinion is irrelevant. (Wikipedia discussions are not done by tallying votes, but rather through who makes the clearest argument–your goal is essentially to turn the tide of the discussion to where the ensuing comments are more or less "Support, per Scott5114" or whatever, because there's nothing else left to be said.)

Wikipedia also likes having the discussions centralized on-wiki because that makes it easier to refer to in the future. If a decision is made on something like AARoads or Facebook, there is no guarantee (in Wikipedia's eyes, that is) that the discussion won't be deleted or made hidden later on. That means the record of why a decision was made is lost and cannot be consulted later on, possibly by an editor who was never part of the original discussion. (You can still go back and read the arguments from 2006 or so over how the road articles are to be titled. Rather than rehash a discussion, a new user seeking to rock the boat on such a thing is likely to just be referred to the previous discussion, with the implication that the pages upon pages of text they find has probably covered every conceivable issue, edge-case, or viewpoint, to the point that they are unlikely to come up with a novel consideration that has been overlooked.)

The polite thing to do is to leave a message along the lines of "There is a discussion taking place. Here's a link." on relevant talk pages that people who have an interest are likely to be monitoring, and them let them make their decision based on what they find at the link.

Just imagine if the subject of the discussion was something relating to recent American politics.

[Scott5114]

Just imagine if the subject of the discussion was something relating to recent American politics.

I hope the Foundation pays for a considerable amount of alcohol to be autoshipped to each member of the Arbitration Committee.

[hbelkins]

Since this thread seems to be drawing ire on WP, I went to remove it (since I assume that authors can delete their own threads). But I can't find where the delete button is.

Got a link to that particular Wiki thread? I'd like to see them complaining about being discussed elsewhere. 

It's the link in the OP, but it's just one person (Imzadi1979 on Wikipedia, bulldog1979 on this forum) mentioning it.

Gotcha. For some reason, I thought that link was to the Turnpike entry itself, not the discussion about changing it.

Starting this thread is in violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy.

Oh, wait, I mean:
It appears that you have been canvassing–leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Are you being a bit sarcastic, or does Wikipedia actually have a policy about discussing it elsewhere?

Kinda like a forum where they try to kick you off because of something you post on your own social media site. Wonder what that forum might be?

Click the link that's in this block of quoted text. It links to the policy about canvassing.

That's what I was astonished to read. Wikipedia actually has a policy against discussing things elsewhere? I can understand regulating discussion and discouraging (or prohibiting) lobbying for a change on the site itself, but trying to control discussion elsewhere just strikes me as being heavy-handed and wrong.

A couple of years ago, I posted on Facebook my desire to know the real identity of a troll on this forum. I got threatened with a ban from here because of something I posted elsewhere before more intelligent voices prevailed, and a policy was enacted that specifically prohibits any type of sanction on AA Roads for thoughts expressed elsewhere.

[rschen7754]

Since this thread seems to be drawing ire on WP, I went to remove it (since I assume that authors can delete their own threads). But I can't find where the delete button is.

Got a link to that particular Wiki thread? I'd like to see them complaining about being discussed elsewhere. 

It's the link in the OP, but it's just one person (Imzadi1979 on Wikipedia, bulldog1979 on this forum) mentioning it.

Gotcha. For some reason, I thought that link was to the Turnpike entry itself, not the discussion about changing it.

Starting this thread is in violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy.

Oh, wait, I mean:
It appears that you have been canvassing–leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

Are you being a bit sarcastic, or does Wikipedia actually have a policy about discussing it elsewhere?

Kinda like a forum where they try to kick you off because of something you post on your own social media site. Wonder what that forum might be?

Click the link that's in this block of quoted text. It links to the policy about canvassing.

That's what I was astonished to read. Wikipedia actually has a policy against discussing things elsewhere? I can understand regulating discussion and discouraging (or prohibiting) lobbying for a change on the site itself, but trying to control discussion elsewhere just strikes me as being heavy-handed and wrong.

A couple of years ago, I posted on Facebook my desire to know the real identity of a troll on this forum. I got threatened with a ban from here because of something I posted elsewhere before more intelligent voices prevailed, and a policy was enacted that specifically prohibits any type of sanction on AA Roads for thoughts expressed elsewhere.

<i>Discussing</i> is fine, but <i>advocating</i> that people go onto Wikipedia and vote a certain way is not.

Off-wiki canvassing can result in a ban but is difficult to prove in practice. Off-wiki harassment such as doxxing or unwanted real-life encounters also results in a ban but unfortunately often does not stop the harassment. (I am not familiar with the specific situation you refer to).

[hbelkins]

First rule of fight club Wikipedia: Don't talk about fight club Wikipedia. 

[Scott5114]

I mean, I wrote you four paragraphs explaining why they have that policy. Don't know what else I could say.

[seicer]

Just imagine if the subject of the discussion was something relating to recent American politics.

I hope the Foundation pays for a considerable amount of alcohol to be autoshipped to each member of the Arbitration Committee.

As someone who was an administrator and also on the Arbitration Committee, please send alcohol.

[WillWeaverRVA]

{{subst:afd}}