Misplaced Pages

:Content forks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:58, 18 February 2014 editSlakr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators33,695 edits →{{anchor|POV forks}}Point of view (POV) forks: try changing this to be more AGF-friendly. People seem to be throwing around "POV fork" and feeling the need to defend against it as if it's some inherent scarlet letter, even if it's done on accident← Previous edit Revision as of 09:45, 18 February 2014 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits Undid revision 596001287 by Slakr (talk) Nah. Take it to the talk page. This is a guideline, and extensive changes should not be made without discussion.Next edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular ]. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does ''not'' view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be ], or nominated for ]. In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular ]. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does ''not'' view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be ], or nominated for ].


Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Misplaced Pages's policy that requires a ]: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ] over it.
Keep in mind that a POV fork isn't necessarily made with malicious intent; a POV fork can occur quite unintentionally or even accidentally. A well-intentioned editor may simply believe that content in a parent article ] or that greater coverage could be added. However, other editors might disagree, and by removing content from a parent article, the well-intentioned editor might not notice that they could be offsetting the overall balance of the parent article and may even be ] by creating a child with as much perceived weight as the parent. As such, claiming someone's split to be "POV forking—" itself a judgement involving the participating editors' point-of-view evaluation—should not be perceived as an assumption of bad faith but rather as someone raising a concern that the overall effect of making separate articles could, in fact, be causing a greater point-of-view disparity than when they were only one article.


The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that ] is impossible in an existing article about ], but the consensus of editors has rejected it as ], that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that ] is impossible in an existing article about ], but the consensus of editors has rejected it as ], that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.

Revision as of 09:45, 18 February 2014

Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage.

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

Unacceptable types of forking

Redundant content forks

Shortcut

Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Misplaced Pages contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. Misplaced Pages's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.

Point of view (POV) forks

Shortcuts

In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Misplaced Pages does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Misplaced Pages's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it.

The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.

The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).

Acceptable types of forking

There are things that occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking.

Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork – only that it is not necessarily a content fork.

Project-level forking

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks

There is a difference between article forking within Misplaced Pages and the legitimate practice of project-level forking. The latter occurs when someone wishes to create their own wiki, according to their own standards and practices, but they want to use Misplaced Pages's content as a starting place. As long as the new project adheres to their legal obligations under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL in exchange for use of this content, as set out at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy, this is perfectly acceptable. Project-level forks are not bound in any way by Misplaced Pages's community policies or customs, like the five pillars. Project-level forking is discussed in more detail at Misplaced Pages:Forking FAQ.

Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Summary style Shortcut

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Misplaced Pages:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Misplaced Pages procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Misplaced Pages:Summary style explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article.

However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article ], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout ]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Misplaced Pages's content policies.

Articles whose subject is a POV

Shortcut

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.

Related articles

Shortcuts See also: Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork. Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences. In such cases, one of the articles will be prefixed by the text "Introduction to ...", for example General relativity and Introduction to general relativity.

Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.

Temporary subpages

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Subpages

One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy which people can then edit to show others proposed rephrasing or other changes. This can be helpful for controversial subjects or controversial changes; editors can show others exactly what their vision for a proposed change is – without the controversy of having that new proposed version automatically replace the existing version.

However, just as "spinout" articles have sometimes been mistaken for POV forks, temporary subpages have been mistaken for POV forks. Care should be taken on both sides to minimize such mistakes. New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace; however, accidents happen and those who think they have found a POV fork, in turn, should check to see whether the article title indicates a temporary subpage and whether the talk page of the main article indicates that this is a place to work on consensus rather than to dodge it.

Tags

See also

Categories: