Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF jargon

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

WMF jargon[edit]

Voting on: Do citations from Wikimedia Foundation projects help a term meet the attestation criterion for inclusion?

  • Yes. Citations exclusively from WMF projects are enough to meet CFI.
  • All but one. There must be at least one citation independent of the WMF projects, though the remaining cites can come from within the projects.
  • One. A single citation can be from a WMF project; the remaining must be independent of the WMF projects.
  • No. Citations in the context of WMF projects do not count.
Notes
In all options, terms that should not be included in the main namespace may still be included elsewhere (such as Wiktionary:Glossary or the Appendix namespace).
In all options, terms in the main namespace should still be tagged {{wjargon}} (as other definitions from specific fields are marked).
In all options, "in the context of WMF projects" and "dependent on the WMF projects" are meant to be synonymous and to include citations from non-WMF material which derive from or are about WMF.

When voting, choose your favored choice and your second favorite, specifying which is which; they must be distinct. Votes that choose only one choice, or otherwise not meeting the rule in the preceding sentence, will not count. Tallying the votes will be done by counting each first choice as a point and each second choice as half a point; the option with the most points will be considered the community's choice. In case of a tie, there will be deemed to be no result.

Note, the following is not part of the definition of the vote: there seems to be serious confusion about what is being voted on, whether the vote is on the validity of citations from within WMF projects for WMF jargon, or in general. I have been adding citations for ordinary words extracted from WP; which seems to be completely outside the vote in progress, which is clearly titled "WMF jargon". See User talk:Robert Ullmann#Citations and Citations:ethernet (which we do not yet have: ethernet). If this vote is not about WMF jargon as it clearly states, that must be made clear and the vote started again. Robert Ullmann 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the scope has been clear from the start: "Do citations from Wikimedia Foundation projects help a term meet the attestation criterion for inclusion?" The phrase "WMF jargon" doesn't occur anywhere in the proposed text, only in the title, since that was the discussion that led to this solution. It would make no sense whatsoever to me to have different standards of attestation for this one category of words ("WMF jargon") as opposed to the rest of the dictionary. The question is whether we, as a WMF project, should use WMF projects for attestation, and to what degree—and that answers the "WMF jargon" issue, since that was what was in dispute. Dmcdevit·t 01:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree: the title of the vote announces, clearly and unequivocally that it is about "WMF jargon". Application to something else is entirely out-of-scope. Yes, it may have been badly named, but there it is. If it is to be about acceptability of WMF quotes for other terms, it must be renamed, properly defined, and restarted. (Do keep in mind that the citations I have been adding have nothing to do with this either way, since no-one is contending that they meet strict CFI; but they did cause the issure to be raised: there is more misunderstanding of the definition of this vote than there is dispute of (either) issue being raised.) Robert Ullmann 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Robert. The first sentence of the vote is "Voting on: Do citations from Wikimedia Foundation projects help a term meet the attestation criterion for inclusion?", which on the face of it would apply to "all words in every language" (given our stated goal), however given the immediately preceding title "WMF jargon" I have been reading the word "term" to mean "WMF jargon term". Given that this is apparently not the intended meaning I am not certain that this vote has legitimacy. While you might think it "would make no sense" that different words be held to different standards, neither you nor I can say for certain that this is a view shared by all Wiktionorians. Indeed given the provisions in the CFI about such things as place names needing attributive use, but this not being required of all proper nouns, I think it is probably safe to say that your view of equality among words does not enjoy unanimous support. Thryduulf 02:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would love for this vote to be invalid, I'm not persuaded by the reasoning here. Consider:
  • Common practice up to this point has been to consider Wikimedia citations invalid ("not durably archived") except for WMF jargon.
  • Changing that, to allow Wikimedia cites for non-jargon terms, would almost certainly require an additional vote.
  • The second note specifically states that affected terms would still be tagged {{wjargon}}.
So regardless of whether this vote is explicitly restricted to WMF jargon or not, it will only actually affect the standards for WMF jargon terms (specifically, excluding them from mainspace, for no reason other than to soothe our inflated sense of self-importance). -- Visviva 03:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we want the vote to be about WMF jargon only, we have to specify what that means. The intent of the wording of this vote was that words that cannot be attested independently of WMF are, by definition, WMF jargon, and so should be tagged wjargon. This obviously and unfortunately was unclear, though. Perhaps votes placed should be canceled and the vote re-started, as Robert demands above?—msh210℠ 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the meaning of a "No" vote. I don't think that Wikimedia projects should count in general, but what would be tagged as wjargon if we couldn't cite WMF talk pages (and is there even a need for wjargon citations)? If we had to cite other sources then it wouldn't be wjargon anymore. Would it? Saying that Wikipedia couldn't be cited in general would just about kill wjargon, which I see as a necessary special case which explains the language we use in exactly the place where one would expect to find it. If the scope were broader, my vote would be something like "No, except for wjargon" except that if you need to prove wjargon with citations then the term's simply not worth keeping in the first place. DAVilla 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment immediately above, the way I understand this vote (which I authored) is that "No" implies that wjargon words are excluded.—msh210℠ 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote ends: 7 June 2008 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 8 May 2008 23:59 UTC

Votes[edit]

→ Just so people know, as of this comment, "no" has 11.5 votes, "one" has 7.5 votes, "yes" has 4 votes, and "all but one" has 2.5 votes. (At least, I think so. Y'all are quite welcome to check my reckoning. Note that I ignored The Rabid Deletionist's vote, per the instructions above; but I think it's fair to assume that he'll eventually change his second vote and leave his first vote be, such that "one" will have 8.5 votes. Also, note that, per above discussion, it's debatable whether this vote covers all words, or only WMF jargon.) —RuakhTALK 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I see it:
    Yes, if independence from the other citations can be established, particularly if the citation can be attributed to a single reputable author whose full name is known. On the other hand, several citations from WMF would require isolated authors, for instance from different projects whose topics differ substantially. This isn't much different from the way we treat Usenet citations. Also, as with Usenet citations, if only these are available then it suggests that the term is internet slang. I remember a slang term that was even more specific than that, only used on Usenet itself, that was deleted, so there's a measure of subjectivity in judging the value of citations.
    Yes, if the author cannot be established because it is a collaborative article but one that has been permalinked as reviewed, in which case it is treated as an edited work.
    Otherwise, no. Pragmatically, this is a no vote most often. Unless no other sources are available, such citations would not be very useful, again much like Usenet. In fact it's even a less significant source than Usenet because encyclopedias by their nature are not the kinds of sources whose content ever strays far from the norm. But I wouldn't want to vote against outright because there may be special cases where such a quotation may be useful, for instance technical jargon that rarely gets past a spell checker but easily leaks its way into a wiki article. So I would say one would be entirely appropriate under the special conditions above (known author or peer edited), and possibly more depending on the circumstances. DAVilla 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No; one. I am in favor of better access by new users to the jargon that we use here at Wiktionary by a one-click connection to the Glossary in the navigation pane. We may need to make sure that all of the terms and abbreviations used in Wiktionary space are actually in the glossary. I think we should be eating our own dog food, not exempting ourselves from inconvenient rules. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that you have to give two votes here: a top choice, which gets one point, and a second choice, which gets half a point. Otherwise, your entire vote is discounted. —RuakhTALK 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Update: This vote has now been superseded by Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI. There is no longer a specific restriction on WMF citations (though normal rules of independence and durable archival still apply). —RuakhTALK 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF_jargon&oldid=75279415"