| Revision as of 15:31, 13 May 2013 editSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,958 edits →Infobox← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:36, 13 May 2013 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,958 editsm →InfoboxNext edit → |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
Just as those three advantages of infoboxes need to be considered, there are many reasons why infoboxes may disadvantage an article: the extra effort of creating and keeping an infobox updated and synchronised with other data in the article; the aesthetic considerations associated with the article's images or a large infobox swamping a stub-sized article; and other perfectly respectable reasons that vary from one article to another. Nevertheless, I would respectfully suggest that we editors are not able to predict with any accuracy which factors are most important in a generic class of article. A very short chemistry article with a huge infobox looks awful, while consensus has agreed that a large, well-crafted biography such as ] (a featured article) is able to sustain a large infobox. I would therefore ask that Cassianto and SchroCat (both editors I respect) should consider carefully the arguments I make here and try to explain to Andy (another editor I respect) the specific and concrete arguments they are bringing here against the proposed infobox in ''this'' article, and listen to Andy's case with respect - I would equally expect Andy to respect the reasoning of you both even if he does not agree with it and wants to debate point-by-point. Without that dialogue, and a willingness to listen carefully to each other, you won't be seeing where common ground lies and where compromise is possible. We need to be able to do that if we want to avoid the scenario where two distinct sides are polarised and simply edit-war to see who can force their preferred version into an article. That would indeed be a failure of the processes that have created the project we all so passionately believe in. --] (]) 02:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Just as those three advantages of infoboxes need to be considered, there are many reasons why infoboxes may disadvantage an article: the extra effort of creating and keeping an infobox updated and synchronised with other data in the article; the aesthetic considerations associated with the article's images or a large infobox swamping a stub-sized article; and other perfectly respectable reasons that vary from one article to another. Nevertheless, I would respectfully suggest that we editors are not able to predict with any accuracy which factors are most important in a generic class of article. A very short chemistry article with a huge infobox looks awful, while consensus has agreed that a large, well-crafted biography such as ] (a featured article) is able to sustain a large infobox. I would therefore ask that Cassianto and SchroCat (both editors I respect) should consider carefully the arguments I make here and try to explain to Andy (another editor I respect) the specific and concrete arguments they are bringing here against the proposed infobox in ''this'' article, and listen to Andy's case with respect - I would equally expect Andy to respect the reasoning of you both even if he does not agree with it and wants to debate point-by-point. Without that dialogue, and a willingness to listen carefully to each other, you won't be seeing where common ground lies and where compromise is possible. We need to be able to do that if we want to avoid the scenario where two distinct sides are polarised and simply edit-war to see who can force their preferred version into an article. That would indeed be a failure of the processes that have created the project we all so passionately believe in. --] (]) 02:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for your polite comments Rexx, which are much appreciated. You are right about the Bold editing, of course, except that on such a contentious issue, which I certainly think this is, a degree of circumspection around the boldness is preferable to avoid the inevitable decline into argument and rancour. I'll also add that I've seen people being accused of being vandals for ''removing'' infoboxes, which seems a little one-sided, given that it is an equally valid edit to adding one. |
|
:Thanks for your polite comments Rexx, which are much appreciated. You are right about the Bold editing, of course, except that on such a contentious issue, which I certainly think this is, a degree of circumspection around the boldness is preferable to avoid the inevitable decline into argument and rancour. I'll also add that I've seen people being accused of being vandals for ''removing'' infoboxes, which seems a little one-sided, given that it is an equally valid edit to adding one. |
|
|
|
|
:Personally, if I feel a box is unnecessary, I prefer to ask the question on the talk page and be guided by the consensus that follows, rather than try and stamp my own personal preferences onto an article from the off. I find that the process is received much better by other editors if the discussion precedes any action (or lack of it), as well as having the advantage of listening to others, rather the barracking tones that sometimes accompany these discussions. |
|
:Personally, if I feel a box is unnecessary, I prefer to ask the question on the talk page and be guided by the consensus that follows, rather than try and stamp my own personal preferences onto an article from the off. I find that the process is received much better by other editors if the discussion precedes any action (or lack of it), as well as having the advantage of listening to others, rather the barracking tones that sometimes accompany these discussions. |
|
|
|
|
:I appreciate your points about needing to find a balance between the desire to provide the data for engines such as Google, against other editor concerns, and as such I drew up the following ] which will address the data issues you raised. I'll put to one side the POV issues in the "Notable works" list (ie, who decided on these, as opposed to his other works) in the interest of coming to a clean consensus over this. All the best - ] (]) 15:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
:I appreciate your points about needing to find a balance between the desire to provide the data for engines such as Google, against other editor concerns, and as such I drew up the following ] which will address the data issues you raised. I'll put to one side the POV issues in the "Notable works" list (ie, who decided on these, as opposed to his other works) in the interest of coming to a clean consensus over this. All the best - ] (]) 15:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC) |
It is not in the best interests of the project to require consensus before editing an article. Our encyclopedia has grown because we allow anyone to edit and bold editing is the commonest way of establishing consensus, so I would always counsel against bringing forward arguments that relied on an appeal that a consensus has to be sought before editing. The value of infoboxes in any article includes that they do provide the "lazy" overview - they are a condensation of the key points of the lead in just the same way that the lead is a condensation of the key points of the whole article. I would urge everyone not to dismiss lightly the argument that we should not be prejudging how our readers consume articles. If a visitor to our site only wants a brief, "dumbed-down" overview, who are we to deny them that facility? We must always remember we are writing Misplaced Pages for all of our readers (including re-users), not for our editors. Of course the teacher in me wants the reader to read the whole article, but I must recognise that it is not my place to insist on that.
Infoboxes not only supply a very short summary, though. They provide a means of marking up some of the data in standardised format (this is called a microformat) so that the resulting HTML can be read by automated tools and aggregated for easy re-use by third parties. Additionally, for at least the last five years, Google has been using our infoboxes as one of the primary means of improving the natural language capabilities of its page reading tools. For example Google will correctly identify a birth date in the lead perhaps about 70% of the time; if it reads a "birth date" parameter in an infobox then it accurately identifies the correct birth date more like 95% of the time. There's a Google tech talk that describes how they can use common structures like {{infobox person}} (which is used on a massive number of articles) for artificial intelligence research at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOHbihYbhE for anyone who has the time to watch it. Now I agree that not every editor will put value on writing articles so that they are more usable by Goggle and other third parties, but I submit that it has great value. Our mission is to create a world where every single human being has free access to the total sum of human knowledge. We won't do that on our own, and we are going to have to accept that the Googles of this world and the other re-users are some of the most valuable partners we have in getting closer to our goal.
Just as those three advantages of infoboxes need to be considered, there are many reasons why infoboxes may disadvantage an article: the extra effort of creating and keeping an infobox updated and synchronised with other data in the article; the aesthetic considerations associated with the article's images or a large infobox swamping a stub-sized article; and other perfectly respectable reasons that vary from one article to another. Nevertheless, I would respectfully suggest that we editors are not able to predict with any accuracy which factors are most important in a generic class of article. A very short chemistry article with a huge infobox looks awful, while consensus has agreed that a large, well-crafted biography such as Charles Darwin (a featured article) is able to sustain a large infobox. I would therefore ask that Cassianto and SchroCat (both editors I respect) should consider carefully the arguments I make here and try to explain to Andy (another editor I respect) the specific and concrete arguments they are bringing here against the proposed infobox in this article, and listen to Andy's case with respect - I would equally expect Andy to respect the reasoning of you both even if he does not agree with it and wants to debate point-by-point. Without that dialogue, and a willingness to listen carefully to each other, you won't be seeing where common ground lies and where compromise is possible. We need to be able to do that if we want to avoid the scenario where two distinct sides are polarised and simply edit-war to see who can force their preferred version into an article. That would indeed be a failure of the processes that have created the project we all so passionately believe in. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
