Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App/Banner, this has no place in mainspace, only in project and userspace. This is not article content, this is not here to improve the article content, and it has nothing to do with the article. Wikipedia articles are not the place to promote this type of material. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Restrict from article space Promotion, even if not of a third party, is still promotion. Also, WP:NOMEDICAL. This discussion was not closed, though I see a weak consensus towards banning it from the article space. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Train2104: Not yet. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a backdoor attempt to delete it from article space. It was not a RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should rightly already be removed from the article space. Consensus against or no consensus for something of that nature means it doesn't get implemented. It wasn't originally listed in the RfC section; it has been moved twice. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Beetstra. User:Beetstra acknowledged there is a place for it "in project and userspace". We don't delete a banner that is still useful to the project. There are millions of people in developing countries that only have access to the Internet for a short period of time. This banner is a solution for millions of people who can use it when they are offline. The banner is article content at your fingertips for people who need it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The link is to offline content of the article and has everything to do with the article. This is just as appropriate as the sidebar links allowing the article to be printed or downloaded as a pdf. Can the nominator explain how the link to media on Commons improves the article content? Of course not – writing an encyclopedia is not just about improving content; it's also about disseminating that content. The purpose of making content available offline is to further our vision to give every single human being free access to the sum of all knowledge. "Every single human being" necessarily includes those not fortunate enough to have permanent internet access, and there is a clear need to give offline access to our medical articles to people in developing countries in particular. This sort of link to offline copies of our medical articles is perfectly appropriate to place in medical articles next to the similar link to Commons. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link is to a program that has offline Wikipedia content, and that content includes the articles in question. That is something completely different, and it fails the 'directness' (see WP:ELNO) criteria. Moreover, it does not tell more about the article subject (and likely less, since it has an offline copy of the article that may since have been updated), and when a person is accessing the online article, they do not need access to the program to see the offline version. Moreover, the link is useful for a small subset of readers (those who need access to the articles when they do not have an internet connection - most people who NEED the article content do have an internet connection on their mobile phone). However, this is not the place to promote that program, and I am afraid it is WP:SPAM by nature to put it in the article space. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the link is to a small program that makes available the 1.2 GB of compressed medical articles. The point is that compressed information is cheaper and quicker for the end-user to download. Of course it's direct - just as direct as the html we stream that needs a browser to make it available to us. To hundreds of thousands of people who have intermittent internet access, it tells much, much more about the article's subject than nothing, which is exactly what they have without the app. It's easy for you, with your always-on internet connection to make statements like "when a person is accessing the online article, they do not need access to the program to see the offline version", but you clearly don't realise that not everybody is that fortunate, and unfortunately we can't make the assumption that "a person" can be "accessing the online article". I find it offensive that you can dismiss millions of people who could benefit from access to our medical content as "a small subset of readers". You should be ashamed of thinking that way. --RexxS (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Millions of people who could benefit".. ^{[citation needed]}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia article titled Internet access. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your citaton: https://mic.com/articles/125674/4-2-billion-people-in-the-world-still-don-t-have-internet-here-s-why-that-matters - is FOUR BILLION enough for you? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briljant, 4.2 million people who cannot read Wikipedia nor download the app. Can you now answer the question? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billion, not million — and there are plenty of people according to that article that have intermittent access — which means they can download the app, but can't access the internet whenever they want or need it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you truly want to improve access, you should make all of Wikipedia accessible to them through an app. Then we can have the interface with a link to the app. This is not article content, this is spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra — While no-one is denying that having access to everything on Wikipedia would be ideal — there are some major technical limitations to this. The app currently sits on between 150mb–1,2gb (depending on language). To try and include all of Wikipedia is not possible on pretty much any phone, because phones rarely have the 120+gb that are needed, and users will be very unlikely to want to download all of this. The compressed variant sits at over 40gb, which is still excessive. This app is the result of a compromise — just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's spam... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: Mind me, I don't say that the program is spam, or that the content linked to is spam. However, the only reason this is linked from mainspace is to promote the program so that people who may need it will download it. Its purpose is not to help people understanding the subject, the purpose is not to tell more about the subject - all that is in the program is also on Wikipedia (and likely a part of it is newer on Wikipedia, than what is in the program). If something is linked for promotional reasons, then the way it is linked is spam. I say in my opening statement already that this does not have place in mainspace, and seen the earlier discussions I have seen regarding this (including the post that made me MfD it - by user:Godsy on the external links noticeboard - the related MfD by User:KATMAKROFAN, the Village pump discussion opened by User:xaosflux), I think that I am not the only person with concerns that this is not according to our inclusion standards. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing access and allowing people to read an article even when they can't access the internet absolutely aids in understanding — and being able to read an article again at a later time is akin to including a "print" link on every page (which we already do). Many of our sister projects serve our WP:PURPOSE less than this app, and yet we link them.

Beetstra — What you just did is textbook WP:CANVASSING, which you are very well aware is not allowed. Increasing access is a core WP:PURPOSE, and that you ignore this is also disruptive. I have half a mind to report you to AN/I for this. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not disputing that there are people who can benefit from this piece of software, but Wikipedia (mainspace) is not a place to spam that. Wikipedia is NOT a place for advertising. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling the people who would benefit a "a small subset of readers" as if they are of no importance. Well, you're completely wrong about that: the people who stand to benefit most from access to an offline app containing our medical content are often the most disadvantaged. You have no concept of what spam is - this is an unobtrusive link, placed next to the "advert" (in your terms) for Commons. Stop slinging mud in the hope some might stick and address the issue: is the benefit this app could bring to the disadvantaged worth bending your precious bureaucratic guideline for? I say it is. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per RexxS--Moxy (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restrict from article namespace unless consensus is gained for it in the appropriate manner ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."; emphasis and link added by me). The sidebar template does not comply with the template section, and may also conflict with the what to link section, of the external links guideline. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Godsy, your vote is not applicable to this discussion. The voting is for keeping or deleting the sidebar. Please update your vote or strike your comments. Since you are not opposed to keeping it in project space then I assume your vote is keep. Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: A deletion discussion may end with any of a number of distinct outcomes, including but not limited to those described at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the sidebar you personally don't like? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTPART--Moxy (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar is not a policy, guideline, or process page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link was to back up your point....next time I will be more clear so noone looks like a fool.--Moxy (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact is that some of our medical articles just by their very nature, take a long time to work through. That is a good justification for keeping the application for millions of people to access content offline. CV9933 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per RexxS as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — One can not just try to delete things one doesn't like. I find this whole debacle ridiculous and screaming of intentional disruption. RexxS summarizes the issue very well. Consensus for inclusion is not achieved at MfD. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is no different than the sidebar we have for commons. A sidebar was requested in a previous discussion. Now that it has been created there are efforts to delete it. Those of us who live in the developed world generally have 24 hour solid access to the Internet. Most take this for granted as simply the way things are. This however is not even close to reality in the developing world were internet goes on and off (in many areas you are lucky if the internet becomes functional for an hour a day). Wikipedia is not just for the developed world, we are for all people in all areas. Remember our goal is "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." This app helps achieve this. It has currently been downloaded more than 100K times with about 80% of downloads from the developing world. We know the online website struggles to reach people in the developing world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc james: this is different for thesidebarfor Commons in that Commons generally more info on the same subject. This is plain spam for a program that has a lot of information from a notoriously unreliable source including the same or older information on the subject of the page. It does not add anything to the understanding, unlike commons where e.g. More images are available pertaining to the same subject. WP:NOT#PROMOTION. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC) (resign for ping Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The question is not if it provides utility for all — we include loads of features that provide no utility: for examples images for the blind. Rather it is about whether it helps achieve the goal of Wikipedia to spread knowledge. Could you Dirk Beetstra discuss whether it aids in this pursuit? Also feel free to provide justification for which point or points 1–5 of WP:PROMOTION applies. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, it's no different at all from the sidebar to Commons, because the app also has information on the subject and related subjects. Not everything in mainspace has to add to the understanding - see the left-hand sidebar for numerous examples. Your use of the word "spam" is deliberately misleading, as the sidebar has none of the properties of spam. Your assertion that Wikipedia is "a notoriously unreliable source" is a sad indictment of your lack of knowledge about the medical articles available on the app, all of which are sourced to a much higher standard than you seem to comprehend, and being offline are not subject to vandalism. The fact is that our medical articles are by-and-large remarkably stable, so you need have no fears about "older information", either. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the first to cal this inappropriate, and when the banner at the top failed, you all think that this is fine. It is spam, nothing else. It promotes a piece of software, it does not add anything to the article content that is not already there or linked. And it is not the first time we are in this type of discussion (and for these banners this is just the third, the first I comment in). This is not improving the article. Maybe it is time for a proper RfC on this type of subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had a proper RfC — it told us that we need consensus to add a banner to an article.... Also it doesn't need to improve the article for you — just for someone. And so far we have clear evidence that it has improved access for a large number of people. If actually being able to read an article isn't an improvement I don't know what is. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the consensus to add a banner to an article?

If a link to promote the existence of an app is not spam, I don't know what is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper RfC? Where? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a link to promote the existence of an app is not spam, I don't know what is. - we've already established that you don't know what spam is. No need to repeat yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, is this template promoting the an external program? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra — Do not the commons/wikivoyage/wiktionary links promote external sites? Spam, spamdexing, WP:SPAM seem to all contradict you. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: No, they do not promote external sites, they (should) lead to more information for the subject of the page, as do the wikilinks to other pages in the page. This leads to an external program that has (possibly older version of) the same page in it, and which links to (possibly older versions of) other pages downloaded from Wikipedia. It does not lead to more information. And the only reason the template is there is to promote the program, its intention is not to give more information about the subject at hand that is not included or cannot be included. This is, in letter, the same as linking to a Wikipedia mirror, see WP:ELNO #12. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't feel strongly one way or the other with regards this link, although my instincts lean more towards removing it from articles and still "advertise" it on wikiproject pages. My comment is related to some of the sentiments that are being expressed about why this app is necessary. I feel there is a belief among some members of WPMED that it is their task to change the world and improve quality of life of populations. This is not the role of Wikipedia, the task is first and foremost to produce an encyclopedia. I would politely suggest that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a platform for these ends. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the purpose of producing the encyclopedia. It has no value if it isn't read. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but the reason we're building an encyclopedia is at least partly to improve quality of life. And part of building an encyclopedia is making is accessible. Sizeofint (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How readers access is only a minor concern next to the continuing and primary task of generating content and keeping it contemporary and accurate. I feel it is important to remind ourselves as editors that if/how readers choose to use the information within the encyclopedia is entirely out of our hands and not our responsibility. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find plenty of people who disagree profoundly with that statement. For example the WMF strongly promotes using Wikipedia with care and have produced pages such as Wikipedia:Research help in order to educate about how one can use Wikipedia. Also access is not a secondary issue, you have the same thing with Wikipedia Zero, which tries to broaden access. That we as a community should not care about access is frankly bizarre — and I know most editors agree that without readers there is no point in writing an encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dissemination of information is one of our main Wikipedia:Purposes...basic stuff..wow.--Moxy (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps the box can be rephrased to 'Read this article offline' or similar. This puts the focus on the article rather than the app. Sizeofint (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but restrict to the bottom of pages, around the EL section. Never allow at the tops of pages. It's really not that different than the "commonscat" template. This is a good alternative to the overbearing Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner, which should indeed be kept completely out of mainspace (and maybe should be deleted now that we have the sidebar). The program underlying the sidebar really is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or completely restrict from mainspace with extreme prejudice per WP:EL (and no, there should be no allowance for "trying this out on a particular article"). This template is advertising an off-Wikipedia application (and only that application) on a specific set of articles. What we need is for this kind of box to be available to mobile users, mobile users alone, and to be integrated with the current mobile applications. I've noticed that WP:MED seems to think it owns these articles (this is not the first time they've tried something not-only-out-of-the-box but also not in-keeping with general Wikipedia practices)--it does not. --Izno (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]