The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 08:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Wikipedia

[edit]

The original research. No independent sources. Zorro CX 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either all must be deleted, or none, and it seems insane that Wikipedia should not document itself. Chris Smowton 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, WP:SELF prevails. Wikipedia should only report what others write about it – exactly the same as in normal articles. This is the encyclopedia, no Village Pump. -- Zorro CX 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean a different guideline? SELF is just a manual of style guideline relating to avoiding writing with the assumption that the text is being viewed on Wikipedia, or indeed anywhere on the internet. The article actually follows it fairly well, in that the text would make sense in any context.
AFAIK there is no especial guideline covering self-documentation in this sense, since the issue only ever arises in non-namespace pages relating to Wikipedia itself. Therefore we should stick by a combination of the core principles (eg. write from an NPOV and so forth) and the exercise of a healthy dose of common sense -- WP:WEB and WP:ORG are designed to stop trivial websites and organisations respectively from using Wikipedia as cheap advertising space, which is clearly not what's happening heere, and WP:V and RS are intended to prevent conjecture and opinion from being presented as fact, which again isn't happening, though certainly a link to the Bureaucrat's ban log would be handy as a source for the relevant comment. Chris Smowton 01:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant exactly this guideline. If I, for instance, create my user's page at Wikipedia, is this a source for an encyclopedic article? Obviously, it is not. And the same goes for language versions of the Wikipedia. There can be a lot of useful information in other namespaces. But these are auxiliary. The main namespace is something very different. It is the encyclopedia.
Well no, of course not, but I can't see why we would need your user page (or anybody else's) as a source here. The article makes a few assertions:
1) Czech Wikipedia exists. Of this we're quite sure, a source isn't needed.
I agree, the only problem is whether its existence is notable. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) Czech WP had N users as of Y. Source: stats.wikimedia.org. Whilst this might count as self-citing, it's the only reasonable source for such information, so employ common sense and ignore the rule for this special case.
I may agree, but this source cannot be verified. Only facts (not truth) which are verifiable can be inserted into the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3) Czech WP commonly features arguments about topic X. Somewhat woolly and hard to source per se, but again since it's a harmless observation about the internal culture, don't worry about it unless it is disputed by another CZWP user.
Andy what about this another CZWP user? Can he or she insert his or her original research into the article? -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4) Czech WP banned a Bureaucrat in July. The only logical source is the cz block log. Whilst it counts technically as self-reference, again this is the only reasonable source and verifies it as unquestionably factual. It's also used elsewhere in Wikipedia; for example the article on Jimbo Wales links to diffs to show some of his edits.
This fact is of defamation nature and shall be removed on sight. Our privacy policy does not allow to publish slanders. Jimbo Wales repeatedly removed some slanders about him[1], [2] and untrue claims[3]. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I think you should pay more attention to the spirit of the rules and less to dogma. 83.67.4.159 09:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I fully agree. The spirit is: No original research. Whether there are some third party reviews, the Wikipedia can inform about them. Not let Wikipedians write about themselves. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get an NPOV, when there is only one POV so far? You need sources, you have not them. Reason? Non-notability of the subject, this is clear. Compare this situation with the Wikipedia. A lot of independent sources = a lot of good material to write about.
How do you know that the Czech Wikipedia is not trivial? About a dozen of articles in Czech (most mixed the Wikipedia in general) and only one in English. Should the English encyclopedia have an article about every in Czech context notable website, like Neviditelný pes, Britské listy, Živě, or Root?
"a link to the Bureaucrat's ban log would be handy as a source for the relevant comment." This is anti-Bureaucrat POV. What about the Bureaucrat POV? -- Zorro CX 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Gawd. Okay here you go, here are some Czech sources:

Can you read Czech? You said you do not, because otherwise you wouldn't cite them. Anyway, what about WP:V? How can others verify what is written there when there is no English? -- Zorro CX 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But OK, let's go through:

ad 1. An interview with non-notable Petr Kadlec and, obviously, a Wikipedian. This constitues a bias. Would you mind an interview with myself as a source for the Wikipedia article? -- Zorro CX 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 2. The article is almost only about the Wikipedia itself. The Czech Wikipedia is mentioned only in just two statements: "Jenže pak jsem se dostal na stránky české wikipedie, kde je mj. k dnešnímu dni přes 18 300 článků ..." (= statistics) and "Místo pro setkávání našich wikipedistů se nazývá Pod lípou neboli Česká hospoda." (= There is a Village Pump.) Nothing else at all. The base for the encyclopedic article? I am sorry, but my demands are higher.

ad 3. Again about the Wikipedia as a such (I never propose to delete the article about the Wikipedia). "Česká verze Wikipedie (přístupná též z adresy www.wikipedia.cz ) má na začátku roku 2006 článků přes 22 tisíc." (= statistics) "Na české Wikipedii můžete vyzkoušet, jaké to je, stát se wikipedistou a podílet se na psaní encyklopedie. Můžete se také podívat na články nominované na nejlepší články české Wikipedie . A pokud by vás zajímalo, co že editory motivuje k jejich mravenčí práci při kontrole vkládaných informací, můžete se podívat do Kabinetu kuriozit , kde se dočtete (vesměs promptně odstraněné) perličky anonymních „wikipedistů.“" (= P. R., verbis expressis: "On the Czech Wikipedia you can try how to become a Wikipedian and to participate on writing the encyclopedia. You can look at the nominated featured articles of the Czech Wikipedia. And if you wonder by what motives the editors to their ant-like work with checking inserted information, you can look at the Cabinet of Rarities where the pearls of anonymous "Wikipedians" (mostly promptly deleted) are preserved.") And nothing else. I still wait for your sources. -- Zorro CX 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have to say this is the most bizarrely obstinate work-to-rule afd I've ever been in. Okay: 1) I doubt that you would be invited to get an interview / profile about whatever you do on Radio Prague. The interview I referenced is about Wikipedia, not an individual Wikipedian; and its conducted by professional journalists in the employ of a major Czech broadcaster. The journalist conducting the interview even asks some difficult questions about Wikipedia 2) and 3) These articles prove that Czech Wikipedia exists and are notable for the Czech audience when talking about the broader discussion of Wikipedia. And finally, are you still denying that Czech Wikipedia falls under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation? Are you saying that the Wikimedia Foundation's operations in CZ fails WP:ORG? Bwithh 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your doubts were baseless, that's what I can say. Concerning the English interview, most of its content is about the Wikipedia. But the Wikipedia has already had the article, so does Wikimedia Foundation and no one doubts it. I only doubt notability and verifialibity of the subject which is so far described in one and only English article. It presents one POV, what about the others? There's a lot of subjects which are relevant to Czech audience, but not to English speaking people. -- Zorro CX 08:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the article to my best knowledge.
Short background: Czech Wiki suffered from a long conflict that escalated into wheel wars, edit wars, flame wars, numerous blocks, using sockpuppets, exposing personal details ["is that you VZ?", inserted by Zorro CX], labeling people as Hitlers, fascists or communists, questioning their motives and intelligence or associating them with former secret police. The attacks were made on Czech Wikipedia as well as on external website. Several people left or gave up admin positions. The situation was mostly solved by an arbitrage in May 2006. IMO this conflict was so long and so heavy that it is worth to be mentioned in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind the WP:CIV. I am not the one who insert nonsense.
I removed your breach of privacy as Jimbo Wales did.[4]. Mr Voženílek is one of the Czech Wikipedians. You should not write about yourself – mind WP:AUTO.
Your unsourced doubtless claims were notified by the appropriate template.
This article is no battle ground for another dirty war. Either Czech Wikipedia deserves its own article with no original research and no people writing about themselves, or not. In my view the article Czech Wikipedia would be appropriate only in the case if both conditions would be fullfilled. -- Zorro CX 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More