Misplaced Pages:Lists in Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 5 January 2006 (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.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:50, 5 January 2006 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) (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.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Misplaced Pages

:Lists in Misplaced Pages - Misplaced Pages