Misplaced Pages

:Lists in Misplaced Pages: 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 23:48, 5 January 2006 editJguk (talk | contribs)15,849 edits interpretation of policy← Previous edit Revision as of 23:50, 5 January 2006 edit undoLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits Please stop mass deletion of content created by other editors w/o even discussion! If you are not interested in participating in this proposal, there are many other places to edit.Next edit →
Line 5: Line 5:
|}] |}]
{{shortcut|]}} {{shortcut|]}}
'''Lists in Misplaced Pages''' was developed in response to concerns that such lists are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Misplaced Pages content policies of ], ], ] or ]. However, these policies apply to lists in exactly the same way as they apply to any other article. '''Lists in Misplaced Pages''' was developed in response to concerns that such lists are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Misplaced Pages content policies of ], ], ] or ].


The usefulness of lists in Misplaced Pages is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject. For example, when researching ], the ] and ] are excellent resources from which to begin exploring the subject.
⚫ This page has been drafted to provide some general best practices as it pertains to the creation and maintenance of lists in the article namespace. It is an interpretation of policy.


⚫ On the other hand, lists, when applied to controversial subjects or to living people, could be misused to assert a specific point of view. This guideline has been drafted to provide some general best practices as it pertains to the creation and maintenance of lists in the article namespace.
==Neutral point of view==


⚫ ==Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations==
] mandates that articles should adopt a neutral point of view.

⚫ ===Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations===
Avoid creating lists based on characterization of people or organizations, in particular when these characterizations are based on value judgements. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgements even if these can pass the test of verifiability. Avoid creating lists based on characterization of people or organizations, in particular when these characterizations are based on value judgements. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgements even if these can pass the test of verifiability.


===Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV=== ==Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV==
Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous Brits" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted Brits", or simpler "List of Brits", as these will be listed only if they pass the ] test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists". Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous Brits" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted Brits", or simpler "List of Brits", as these will be listed only if they pass the ] test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".


=== Always include list membership criteria === == Always include list membership criteria ==
⚫ To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion needs to comply with ]. Be also aware of ] when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.
Clear list membership criteria help eliminate the risk of the list taking a non-neutral point of view over who or what it includes and excludes. They are also important when considering compliance with ] (see below).

⚫ Lists should ''always'' include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Misplaced Pages have beeen created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, ''explicit is better than implicit.''


=== Set clear, neutral criteria === === Set clear, neutral criteria ===
Line 27: Line 27:
''Identitarian'' lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on ], ], and ] some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their ]. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious. ''Identitarian'' lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on ], ], and ] some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their ]. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.


==Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion ==
===Other NPOV issues===

The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view. When dealing with lists, this can become a challenge. If you include leader XYZ in ] on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. ] applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed. The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view. When dealing with lists, this can become a challenge. If you include leader XYZ in ] on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. ] applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.


For purposes of list inclusion, the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed; the failure of a content article to support list inclusion criteria should be treated as ''prima facie'' evidence against its inclusion in the list. Transient or widely disputed characterizations on a content article should be treated with suspicion by list editors. List editors should also consider whether a characterization within a content article, even if long-standing, is presented as consensus opinion or as the position of a specific named external source; in the latter case, the citation to an external source is only as good as the external source is.
==Verifiability==

] mandates that information on Misplaced Pages should be supported by a reputable source. Typically lists contain lots of information - namely that every entry in the list meets the list inclusion criteria. For each entry, this information needs to be referenced with a reputable source.

===List inclusion criteria===

A reputable source should always be provided to support the assertion that a list entry meets the list inclusion criteria. Sometimes this will be on the list page too, sometimes, if there is a Misplaced Pages article for the item on the list, this will be provided in that article. Care needs to be taken as to the reputation of any potential source, particularly in controversial areas. Namely, is a given source reputable as being unbiased and factual with respect to the matter in question.

⚫ For example, an editor may want to add ] to ] based on one source that claims that Bush ursuped power in the US by illegal means. The existence of such source may be verifiable, but this in not necessarily a reputable source - it may not be a general held view. (Note also that NPOV does not allow us to present a minority point of view as if it is a consensus point of view.) As a practical matter, it is clear that there is no general worldwide consensus that Bush is a dictator, although some sources claim he is, and he should not be on that list.

⚫ To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion needs to be such that it can be verified whether entries meet that. Otherwise it will be impossible to comply with ]. Be also aware of ] when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

⚫ Lists should ''always'' include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Misplaced Pages have beeen created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, ''explicit is better than implicit.''


⚫ For example, an editor may want to add ] to ] based on one source that claims that Bush ursuped power in the US by illegal means. The existence of such source may be verifiable, but this in not necessarily NPOV, as NPOV does not allow us to present a minority point of view (which this one obviously is) as if this was a consensus point of view. ] does not stand alone. It has three other friends in ], ] and ]. All four work hand in hand and have to be respected. These three policies are already binding upon content article editors: as a practical matter, a characterization of ] as a dictator would not last more than a minute on the Misplaced Pages article on Bush, and therefore does not represent content article editorial consensus.
==Other matters==


=== Think of the reader === == Think of the reader ==
When creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? Is there a category in Misplaced Pages already for the same subject? Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it. When creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? Is there a category in Misplaced Pages already for the same subject? Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it.


Revision as of 23:50, 5 January 2006

This page is a discussion page about how Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines or processes should be applied in a particular scenario. The discussion may still be ongoing on the talk page. References or links to this page should not describe it as a "policy" or "guideline". It has been proposed for adoption as a guideline, but has not reached formal voting.
Shortcut
  • ]

Lists in Misplaced Pages was developed in response to concerns that such lists are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Misplaced Pages content policies of No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability or What Misplaced Pages is not.

The usefulness of lists in Misplaced Pages is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject. For example, when researching Typesetting, the List of type designers and List of typefaces are excellent resources from which to begin exploring the subject.

On the other hand, lists, when applied to controversial subjects or to living people, could be misused to assert a specific point of view. This guideline has been drafted to provide some general best practices as it pertains to the creation and maintenance of lists in the article namespace.

Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations

Avoid creating lists based on characterization of people or organizations, in particular when these characterizations are based on value judgements. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgements even if these can pass the test of verifiability.

Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV

Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous Brits" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted Brits", or simpler "List of Brits", as these will be listed only if they pass the Misplaced Pages:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".

Always include list membership criteria

To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion needs to comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Be also aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted.

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Misplaced Pages have beeen created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.

Set clear, neutral criteria

Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may attempt to include it in the list despite that it does not meet the list criteria; and conversely supporters may attempt to remove that it despite meeting the list criteria.

Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists, List of born-again Christian laypeople, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.

Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion

The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view. When dealing with lists, this can become a challenge. If you include leader XYZ in List of dictators on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

For purposes of list inclusion, the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed; the failure of a content article to support list inclusion criteria should be treated as prima facie evidence against its inclusion in the list. Transient or widely disputed characterizations on a content article should be treated with suspicion by list editors. List editors should also consider whether a characterization within a content article, even if long-standing, is presented as consensus opinion or as the position of a specific named external source; in the latter case, the citation to an external source is only as good as the external source is.

For example, an editor may want to add George W. Bush to List of dictators based on one source that claims that Bush ursuped power in the US by illegal means. The existence of such source may be verifiable, but this in not necessarily NPOV, as NPOV does not allow us to present a minority point of view (which this one obviously is) as if this was a consensus point of view. WP:V does not stand alone. It has three other friends in WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. All four work hand in hand and have to be respected. These three policies are already binding upon content article editors: as a practical matter, a characterization of George W. Bush as a dictator would not last more than a minute on the Misplaced Pages article on Bush, and therefore does not represent content article editorial consensus.

Think of the reader

When creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? Is there a category in Misplaced Pages already for the same subject? Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it.

See also

Category: