Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF jargon

This is an excellent vote, and I will definitely support it if/once it goes online. However, you may want to consider including something about the glossary, how it works......something. While I don't believe these types of words should be in the mainspace, I think they should be look-upable somewhere. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting this discussion Msh. I'm totally against these WMF jargon terms. I've generally (sneakily) removed any WMF jargon entries whenever I see them, unless they've previously been voted as Keep in an RFD/RFV discussion. --Keene 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Can a range of examples be cited, so we can have a more concrete picture? —18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

These are typically WMF nonces and original initialisms, like desysop, CFI, ELE BJAODN, RFA, !vote, etc. See Category:WMF jargon. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting WT:CFI

1. Clearly widespread use,
2. Usage in a well-known work,
3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
4. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

2 and 4 certainly apply to Wikipedia. Keene 20:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree (with both). Wikipedia is not a well-known work (at least not in the same sense as those of Shakespeare and Steinbeck are). Also, Wikipedia is, quite frankly, the antithesis of permanently recorded media, as the viewable article (which is really what counts) is constantly changing. I think we would look rather silly if we start using the 'pedia (or any other WM projects) as cites for words. Also, none of the WM projects could claim independence from each other, as they are clearly part of a continuous community, and so words which are used only on WM projects would not meet CFI. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not well-known or independent. (Uses of terms in WMF sites may be independent, but not when those terms are WMF-specific jargon.)—msh210℠ 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would vote to delete from the mainspace and possibly place them somewhere else, not easily accessible for someone just looking for a def. or a word. I, too, am very against these type of terms being in the mainspace. sewnmouthsecret 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A more generic VOTE

Whatever is decided for WMF should apply to other organisations - otherwise we are being unfair. Though perhaps this should be a seperate vote I would prefer to ask people to select one of the following four instead of having this as a specific to WMF.

Words from large (perhaps 10,000 or 100,000 participants) groups of people which do not meet our mainspace CFI:

1. Should not be included anywhere.
2. Should be included in appendices and not linked to from mainspace.
3. Should be included in appendices and linked to from mainspace (possibly using a template like {{only wikipedia}} for cases when the word doesn't exist).
4. Should be included in the main namespace and marked appropriately.

Any thoughts? Conrad.Irwin 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Re this, see [1] (doubtless merely the most recent of many).—msh210℠ 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we regularly include military jargon, we regularly include 'industry x' jargon...so in one way we are already including 'organization' jargon. Why not just force jargon to meet the CFI rather than make exceptions for certain words based on their origin? Seems like some affirmative action for underprivileged words ;) - [The]DaveRoss 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• This seems silly. Of course we have a special relationship with the WMF; we are part of the WMF. Framing it as a general question ignores the basic reason why WMF jargon has always been considered a special case. -- Visviva 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's have this vote on whether to make WMF a special case first, and then vote on everyone else. Conrad.Irwin 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted assumption?

Thanks for starting this, msh210.

The vote's wording assumes that terms found only on Wikimedia projects don't meet the "independence-of-citations" requirement. I'm not sure that's true, and past discussions have given me the impression that plenty of other editors aren't sure it is, either. (I think it violates independence to have multiple cites from the same speaker/writer/work, or to have multiple cites that are all just quotations of a single ur-cite or all referring to a single ur-source, but neither is true of most WMF jargon.) Also, I don't want WMF cites to count, period comma, possibly barring cites quoted in real media; I don't think they're necessarily durably archived for our purposes, and even if they were, I think it would look really unprofessional to use them. But putting this in terms of independence means that we'd still allow one WMF cite per sense. So personally, I'd prefer something like this:

• Voting on: Should we include jargon from Wikimedia Foundation projects?
  1. Never: We should exclude such jargon.
  2. When attested elsewhere: We should only include jargon that meets the CFI based only on quotations found elsewhere.
  3. When also attested elsewhere: We should only include jargon that meets the CFI using at most one WMF quotation.
  4. When attested: We should freely accept WMF quotations in deciding whether to include such jargon.
  5. Always: We should include any such jargon that's real, but we shouldn't actually include WMF quotations.

(Based on what I've seen, I suspect that Keene would be #1, I'd be #2, msh210'd be #3, and Connel and Visviva would be either #4 or #5, but I could be wrong.)

However, our last attempt at approval voting had a high death rate, so …

—Ruakh_TALK 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd be #2. And yes, votes with more than two options carry the touch of death with them, sadly. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be #2. Keene 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure

If we must do this, it needs to be an up-or-down vote on one proposition; presumably that WMF jargon should be excluded from mainspace (since inclusion is simply the status quo). Otherwise there is a significant likelihood that the vote will be completely indecisive, with neither option gaining the required supermajority. -- Visviva 09:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the vote could simply be one of "do we allow WM terms special exemption from CFI" or not. I think the de facto policy as of now is to not allow WM projects as cites (think of what would happen if someone tried to prove some run of the mill entry by the fact that Wikipedia had an article on it). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that's not our current practice; for example, of the raft of terms that Keene tried to shove through RfD last summer, the only ones with a clear consensus to delete were those that were not really WMF jargon in the first place. -- Visviva 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think that they were kept because some people think that WM jargon terms merit an exception from CFI, not because they think that WM cites meet CFI. Now, I only have the vaguest recollections of the discussions, so if I'm way off, please feel free to correct me. I wonder what would have happened if they would have been rfv'd instead of rfd'd. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If such a term had been brought to RFV, it would have resulted in msh210 starting this vote. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming everyone votes rationally and reasonably, approval voting is more likely to yield a supermajority, because more options have the chance to try to get one. (Remember that in approval voting you vote for every option that you're O.K. with, which means that a compromise position — something that wouldn't even get air-time in an evil up–down vote — can get a supermajority consisting of people on both “sides”. The winning option doesn't need to have a supermajority relative to other options, whatever that would mean; it just needs to have an overall supermajority — as in, a supermajority of voting editors need to be O.K. with it.) —Ruakh_TALK 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Durably archived works about WMF projects

There are durably archived works whose subject is the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects. Some of these include examples of the jargon.

For example, Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, that I stumbled across when searching for citations for a non-jargon word recently.

Does this and/or should this count as an independent work?

What happens when a word that originated as WMF jargon becomes more widely used?

— This unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) at 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

another attempt

How's this? Voting on: Do citations from Wikimedia projects help a term meet the attestation criterion for inclusion?

• No. Citations from, or dependent on, WMF projects, do not count.
• Yes. The requisite number of citations can be found within WMF projects.
• Yes, tagged. The requisite number of citations can be found within WMF projects, but then the sense must be marked "jargon".
• One. A single citation can be from a WMF project; the rest of the citations must be independent of that one citation and not from WMF projects.
• One, tagged. A single citation can be from a WMF project; the rest must be independent of that citations and not from WMF projects. If citations meeting the One independent criterion aren't found, then the sense must be marked "jargon".
• One independent. A single citation can be from a WMF project; the rest of the citations must be independent of WMF projects.

(Terms not so attested can still be included in the Wiktionary:Glossary or elsewhere outside the main namespace.) When voting, choose your favored choice and your second favorite, specifying which is which. Votes that choose only one choice, or otherwise not meeting the rule in the preceding sentence, will not count. Tallying the votes will be done by counting each first choice as a point and each second choice as half a point.—msh210℠ 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I've added two options that (currently) seem to me necessary.—msh210℠ 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

...and the one with the highest number of points wins.—msh210℠ 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between "One" and "One independent"? Where do works independent of the WMF but about WMF projects fit? Thryduulf 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By One I meant that of the requisite number of citations, one can be from WMF; the rest must not be from WMF; and all three must be independent of one another (but not necessarily of WMF: we can have all three dependent on WMF as long as they are otherwise independent). By One independent I meant that of the requisite number of citations, one can be from WMF, but the rest must be independent of WMF.—msh210℠ 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the community's overwhelming enthusiasm for this rewrite, I'm amending the text of the vote.—msh210℠ 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This vote is now far too complex. If this goes live in its present form the results will be unintelligible. This needs to somehow be trimmed down to two or, at most, three options. Perhaps it could go to: 1. WM foundation cites may count towards CFI. 2. WM cites can count towards CFI, but only one, as no WM sites can claim independence from each other. 3. WM cites do not count towards CFI. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Independence

Msh210 and I had a quick blitz of the vote - leaving the situation with no, one, one independant, all but one, yes. I'm not sure that the distinction should be drawn between one and one independant, and that we should simply have a one option that implies independence as interpreted by CFI. Msh210 is fairly ambivalent, so could someone else please be bold in making the decision of whether to combine the two. Conrad.Irwin 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do works hosted/collated by, but not produced by, the WMF fall in this? For example Wikisource has much material that is completely independent of WMF projects in all respects except the hosting. Thryduulf 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource has books that were originally published elsehwere, you mean? Imo those would count as non-WMF cites.—msh210℠ 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we get a copy of a book from a particular library, the cite belongs to the book, not the library. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the current options, because I really don't want quotations directly from WMF sites, but would be very much O.K. with other "citations in the context of WMF projects" — e.g. news articles about Wikipedian culture. However, I definitely understand the desire not to list too many options, nor options too complex, so if this is the set of options that y'all think best, I can accept that. —Ruakh_TALK 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We had options meeting your desires, Ruakh, but (although I don't remember who did this or after discussion with whom or when) some options were deleted for the sake of not having too many similar options. Reinstate if you like, of course, especially if others want what Ruakh does.—msh210℠ 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, vote-splitting shouldn't happen in approval voting; but theoretically, half the things that happen here shouldn't, so I'll trust your judgment. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to do is to completely restructure the vote, perhaps along the following lines

1. How many citations from Wikimedia projects should count towards attestation of a term?
2. How many citations about, but not from, Wikimedia projects should count towards attestation of a term?
3. How many citations that are completely independent (i.e. neither from nor about Wikimedia projects) must a term have before it is considered attested?

For questions 1 and 2 the possible answers are "None", "One", "All-but one" and "All".

For question 3 the possible answers are "None, no citations need to be completely independent", "One", "Two" or "All".

This isn't perfect, but imho it could work better. Thryduulf 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A problem with that system is that the first two questions are intertwined. That is, what one answers to either of them affects what he'll answer to the other. Here's an example: Say there are ten voters, whom I'll call A, B, ..., J, and they want to answer your questions as follows:

	question 1	question 2	question 3
A	0	all	0
B	0	all	0
C	0	one	all but one (a/k/a "two")
D	one	all but one	0
E	one	one (or all but two)	one
F	one	one (or all but two)	one
G	all but one	0 (meaning that all but one can be from WMF itself)	one
H	all but one	one	0
I	all but one	one	0
J	one	one (meaning, as in G, H, and I, "one besides the one from question 1")	one

The winner then is... Well, for question 1, it's "one", for question 2, "one", and for question 3, "0". Slight problem there.—msh210℠ 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)