Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Removing "Vandalism" and "Protologisms" sections of CFI

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removing "Vandalism" and "Protologisms" sections of CFI

[edit]
  • Voting on: removing the subsections "Vandalism" and "Protologisms" from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Exclusions:
    Vandalism

    From time to time, various parties will insert material into Wiktionary which clearly has nothing to do with Wiktionary's purpose or practices. Such activity is considered vandalism and will be undone at the first opportunity. If the vandalism consists of an edit to an existing page, that edit will be reverted. If the vandalism consists of a new article, that article will be removed. This is done at the discretion of the administrators and does not require discussion, even if the vandalism consists of a new article for a term which would otherwise meet these criteria but has not yet been entered legitimately.

    Protologisms

    The designation protologism is for terms defined in the hopes that they will be used, but which are not actually in wide use. These are listed on Appendix:List of protologisms, and should not be given their own separate entries.

    see discussion for exclusion of the words in lists - Protologisms, Wikisaurus, concordances etc, from application of the CFI to each individual listed word.
  • Rationale: as discussed in the straw poll, these aren't criteria for inclusion, and thus shouldn't appear on the page; exclusions of such entries are very well handled by the normal attestation criteria.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23.59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing "Vandalism" section — Support

[edit]
  1. Support Liliana • 04:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Dan Polansky 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC) To quote myself from the poll: This does not regulate the inclusion of a term or a sense of a term. Vandalism, which includes replacing the content of a page with "eerwerjhewkrkew" and other sorts of edits, gets removed or reverted without reference to CFI. --Dan Polansky 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support EncycloPetey 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC) (but the text in some form should be transferred to Wiktionary:Vandalism)[reply]
  6. Support --Daniel 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC) And I agree with EncycloPetey about Wiktionary:Vandalism. --Daniel 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this to your liking? -- Liliana • 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. But I think it could be even better. I edited it by copying my own words from Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2011/March#CFI and vandalism. --Daniel 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Belongs elsewhere. DAVilla 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Voted to keep in the straw poll, but changed my mind. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. The only part of this that isn't already implied by the rest of WT:CFI is the statement that no discussion is required in order to delete vandalism. Since we don't, in any case, have any policy requiring discussion before a page is deleted, this statement is unnecessary (and perhaps somewhat misleading, insofar as it implies that there is such a policy). —RuakhTALK 15:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC) (per Ruakh)[reply]
  12. Support —Internoob 03:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support —Michael Z. 2012-03-11 21:07 z
  14. Support -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Vandalism" section — Oppose

[edit]

Removing "Vandalism" section — Abstain

[edit]

Removing "Protologisms" section — Support

[edit]
  1. Support Liliana • 04:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Dan Polansky 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC) To quote myself from the poll: Protologisms get excluded as unattested, so the attestation section already handles this. The other way around, if something is attested, then it is not a protologism. --Dan Polansky 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Daniel 07:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I'm not really opposed to having WT:CFI re-emphasize that Wiktionary is for words that are actually used — though IMHO such emphasis is better suited to Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not — but the current text leaves a great deal to be desired, and we're better off without it. —RuakhTALK 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC) (per Ruakh)[reply]
  7. Support —Internoob 03:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support  If protologisms must be mentioned, then mention them in the appropriate place. But vestigial non-guideline sections are just clutter. —Michael Z. 2012-03-11 21:10 z
  9. Support -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Protologisms" section — Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I think it's handy to have a bit about protologisms here, which (unlike vandalism) can be mistaken for meeting CFI by uncareful readers.[reply]
    Protologisms are recently coined unattested terms. If a careless reader fails to read at the top of CFI that attestation is required, why should he read down below about protologisms? Or are we supposed to introduce repetitive redundancy into CFI so that careless readers have several occasions to take note of a statement?

    Furthermore, the text of the section is wrong: we do not require terms to be in wide use, merely attested and idiomatic. In its literal reading, the section on protologisms would override the top of CFI with a new requirement that a term has to be in "wide use" to be included. --Dan Polansky 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that EncycloPetey has answered most of your argument already, and more effectively than I would have, but in answer to the "wide use", perhaps those words ought to be changed (although I can't see how it would make any difference in a real-life situation). I still don't see a reason to delete a functional part of CFI. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not. Neither you nor EncycloPetey have explained why WT:ATTEST is not sufficient. On "wide use", EncycloPetey has not even acknowledged the problem. The "protologisms" section is not fuctional; it contradicts WT:ATTEST (via "wide use" phrasing), an, to the extent to which it does not contradict WT:ATTEST, it is redundant to it. In sum, it is broken and needless, as I have pointed out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you didn't know, we have Wiktionary:Protologisms. -- Liliana • 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is to me about AGF and salvaging editors. Vandals will never be dedicated contributors; protologism-adders may. Better to be exceedingly clear about it so that they understand. If you have a problem with the wording, that can be a separate vote, which I would probably support. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Below, EncycloPetey has admitted that protologisms being added to Wiktionary continues to be a problem. Thus, being "exceedingly clear" (by introducing a redundant section that contradicts WT:ATTEST?) does not prevent addition of protologisms. Neither you nor EncycloPetey have explained why a link to WT:ATTEST posted on the talk page of a person who adds protologisms does not suffice. I don't know where you got the idea that the section on protologisms salvages editors (any evidence?), and that it does so in a way that WT:ATTEST cannot do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose EncycloPetey 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC) This continues to be enough of a problem that expressly pointing it out on one of our two primary policy pages seems justified, and removing it does not. --EncycloPetey 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If adding protologisms continues to be a problem now that the section is there, that only proves that the section does not do what its supporters claim: prevent careless users who don't read CFI at all from adding protologisms. --Dan Polansky 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making a serious assumption error about the purpose in having a policy. Policy never prevents stupidity; it serves as an official explanation or justification to point a miscreant to after the fact. --EncycloPetey 05:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the purpose of "protologisms" section were mainly to be referred to after someone enters a protologism, "attestation" section suffices for the purpose: a person who enters a protologism can be referred to WT:ATTEST. And the section on "protologisms" is wrong by its use of "wide use" as a criterion for inclusion, as I have pointed out above in a response to Metaknowledge. --Dan Polansky 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per EncycloPetey. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Protologisms" section — Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain Ƿidsiþ 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Whatevs.[reply]
  2. Abstain. I don't see any compelling reason to strike this language other than the simultaneous removal of a link to that hideous section. DAVilla 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you do see at least one compelling reason to strike this language, right?: "other than the simultaneous removal of a link ...". By "hideous section" I assume that you mean Appendix:List of protologisms, right? Do you see a compelling reason to keep the section? (I say the section is broken and needless AKA redundant to WT:ATTEST.) And if there is no compelling reason to keep the section, should not the section be removed so that the newcomers have as short text to read as possible? ("Perfection is attained, not when no more can be added, but when no more can be removed. --Exupéry."). --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I was leaning towards keep though because it seems relevant. This isn't a vote to eliminate or revise the list of protologisms, which I think should link to citations pages with at least one solid reference for each. DAVilla 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
  • Removing "Vandalism" section: 14-0-0 (100%)
  • Removing "Protologisms" section: 9-3-2 (75%)

Both passed. --Daniel 11:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Removing_%22Vandalism%22_and_%22Protologisms%22_sections_of_CFI&oldid=16511329"