User:Valjean/Negative content in drafts and articles

Misunderstandings related to negative content in drafts and articles create problems. They occur because people fail to understand how negative content relates to some of our policies and guidelines, especially NPOV, Preserve, General notability guideline (GNG), BLP's Public figures, and Attack pages. "Negative" does not always equal "attack" around here.

Some editors fail to recognize the difference between different namespaces, such as "article" space, "draft" space, and personal "user" space. They are also uncivil and fail to AGF when they act as busybodies by harassing other editors, especially experienced ones. Don't stick your nose in their draft articles where you don't belong. Everyone has their own process for creating articles, and we should encourage such endeavors.

Policies and guidelines that are frequently misunderstood in relation to negative content

• Preserve is a policy, not a guideline. Follow it. While it applies to all content, wording, and sourcing, it also applies to fixing problems in drafts and articles, so avoid deleting them in AfD and MfD proceedings. We want editors to create more content, so help them. Figure out how to apply the "wiki way": "The wiki way is about radical collaboration while preserving everyone's contribution. The idea is to add and refine, rather than delete another's input. Subtract only when a greater synthesis is made that simplifies the conversation." — Mark Janssen

• AfD and MfD proceedings: Saving articles and drafts is much better than deleting them. Successfully deleting lots of articles is nothing to take pride in. Every deletion should be considered a sad and distasteful duty. Don't take it lightly.

Perform due diligence before nominating. If you are not willing to personally get some of your own skin in the game, don't do it. In an AfD or MfD, you should only base your deletion argument on GNG (below), not other PAG. (Even serious BLP violations can be deleted to save the article.) If the article or draft passes GNG, then most other PAG mentioned are likely irrelevant. Those concerns should be applied later to fixing problems and improving the article. AfDs and MfDs are often disruptive, but sometimes necessary, processes, and should not be taken lightly. They waste a lot of time and often create more heat than light.

Read the article or draft, including its sources. If you see serious problems that cannot be fixed (after discussion with the creator), only then should it be nominated. Otherwise, try to fix the problems (in the article, not a draft). Most editors see something they like or dislike and !vote accordingly. That is risky as it uses cherry picking to (possibly) unfairly judge the article or draft. Talk to the editor before nominating.

Try every possible process and trick to save a possible new article. A large portion of AfDs and MfDs are bogus, disruptive, and often in bad faith because they are just wikilawyered versions of "I don't like it". Boomerang should apply to nominators, especially when the result is a "SNOW keep". The nominator should know that they risk being banned from creating AfDs and MfDs. That knowledge should prevent a lot of bogus nominations.

• General notability guideline (GNG): At any MfD or AfD, start by asking only one question: "Does this pass GNG?"

Here's my comment at an AfD:

Keep (and possibly rename). At the time of nomination, this article easily passed GNG, so the nomination violates policy right there. We are supposed to fix, not delete, content that may not be perfect, and that includes new articles. Bogus MfD and AfD nominations should boomerang resoundingly enough that they stop being such a common practice. Ask only one question "Does this pass GNG?" If it does, do not nominate it. Even if it has very serious problems that cannot be remedied easily (by adding sourcing or simply deleting serious BLP violations), other options than deletion are available, such as sending it back to userspace or draftspace. These bogus nominations are a serious deterrent and discouragement to the efforts of good faith editors who work hard to create our articles. They are a personal affront to them, so don't do it.

• BLP's "Public figures" allows properly-sourced negative content about public figures, even if unproven, provably false, libelous, or about unproven criminal allegations (See: WP:BLPCRIME). This all applies to negative content that is covered in several, not just one, RS. It is not about WP:Trivia, which we, of course, do not allow at all.

We have a very different way of dealing with individuals who are not public figures.

• Attack pages refers to negative content that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" per the same rules as BLP, which allows properly-sourced negative content. "Do not create pages which serve no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening their subjects, or biographical articles which are unsourced and entirely negative in tone." The policy page even has this section: "Articles containing criticism of individual people" and links to Category:Criticism of individuals.

When in doubt, ask yourself if certain negative topics and issues can even have any positive side. (Can a career criminal's article be considered proper if it presents a false balance between the few positive things that person has done in their life and the overwhelmingly negative things they have done?) If the side primarily covered by most RS is the negative side, then the article should be mostly negative. That's how NPOV works.

We have biographical articles about people that have legitimate negative spinout articles about their crimes, devoted only to those crimes. We do this because, in some cases, the full coverage of that topic creates a due weight problem in the main biography. We happen to have lots of those articles about Trump, and they are entirely negative, as they should be.

• Criteria for speedy deletion, especially G10, refers to negative pages that are both unsourced and "serve no other purpose": #G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. What is deemed an "attack" may be open to some interpretation. At Wikipedia, properly sourced negative content, especially about public figures, is allowable content and not considered an "attack" in the normal sense. (See: Wikipedia:Attack page above.)

If the page has a "purpose" to document a notable, but negative, topic, using RS, then it is not an "attack page".

• NPOV: Content that is in harmony with reliable sources (RS) is "neutral" by our definitions, even if entirely negative. That "neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the normal sense. It refers primarily to editorial neutrality, not content or source neutrality. Negative content can be "neutral" when based on reliable sources.

• Different spaces are not the same: "User" space is personal and controlled, with few exceptions, by the editor, who takes full responsibility and credit for the content. "Draft" space is different. Anyone can edit a draft and even move someone else's draft into "article" space and take credit for it. Never steal another editor's article from their "user" space. (BLP still applies to all of Wikipedia. See above.)

Discussions about balance, due weight, and other issues in a draft may not be welcome and be premature. It's a f##king draft! Just wait until it becomes an article. The issues you see now will likely be fixed by then. If you have a good relationship with the editor, you can just discuss it with them. Imperfections of this type are not a reason to AfD or MfD an article or draft.

• Do not harass editors who are using their user space for article creation. That is a legitimate activity. Do not judge their imperfect drafts by the standards of a finished article. Don't keep "looking over their shoulder" and poking them. That's rude and uncivil. If you do find "unsourced" negative content about a BLP in a draft, contact the editor and discuss it with them. Give them a chance to fix it. If it's serious, delete that content and talk to them. AGF, because the source may be located elsewhere in the draft.

There is no justifiable reason to nominate a draft at MfD or AfD just because of that. Just get the issue fixed discretely. Treat editors who are working in good faith fairly. Do not discourage them.

If you worked in an office and constantly hung around another worker's desk, poked through the papers on their desk, spied on them, gossiped about their work, and constantly criticized them, what would happen to you? You would get fired for being a busybody and an a##hole. Don't harass other editors!

See also

• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content (essay)
• The "wiki way" to document and preserve the "sum of all human knowledge" (essay)
• WikiPurpose (essay)