Category talk:Living people

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Progress report[edit]

I figure if multiple people are working on this, tracking the subcategories of Category:People is a good idea.

Other categories that have a bunch of people:

What's the point[edit]

Is this category really necessary? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Articles about living people (sticky).--ZooGuard (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
We're big enough to be important. We had Kent Hovind rattle a sabre at us already, it's a very good idea to get onto this. Technically under Sec 230 the RMF itself can't be sued, but even fighting that off would be a major cash drain at this point, and it really does help if the community visibly care - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, so it's basically for technical, maintenance-related and legal reasons as opposed to informing the reader or organizing pages according to topic. Would it be a bad idea to make this a hidden category? Also, how about a less boring phrase than "living people"? "People who are currently believed to be alive" for example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Making it a hidden category would keep the category from doing its job -- warning/reminding editors to dot their I's and cross their T's in terms of backing up any claims they make about the subject. And maybe this is one place where a snarky term would also be less helpful. AgingHippie (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This category makes as little sense as the Dead guys category we made some years ago. What we need to ask is whether or not the category is intrinsically important to what our mission covers. I'd argue that whether or not somebody is alive or dead is not particularly important or useful to the Wiki. Ergo, the floccinaucinihilipilification of such categories should be quite apparent. Noisemobile (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
floccinaucinihilipilification - Rare. the estimation of something as valueless (encountered mainly as an example of one of the longest words in the English language). for the less pretentious among us. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Eh, it's basically abusing the fact that Latin doesn't use spaces in compound nouns and English typically does. Getting long words that way isn't particularly impressive. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Because if they're alive they can sue us for libel. It's to tell editors not to make up lies and to make sure that anything negative about these people in the articles is referenced from a reliable source. As it happens, I'm done with this wiki for tonight. But I will add more pages to this category soon and so will other users. It's here to stay whether you like it or not. Spud (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"It's here to stay whether you like it or not." Ooooh, I've never been beaten down but such great reasoning! Let me ask you this: shouldn't it be a given that we not make up lies and ensure that people in articles are referenced from a reliable source? If not, why not? While we may have an SPOV, that has certainly never extended to things like lies. Noisemobile (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It should be a given but it isn't. The aim of this category is to make it one. Spud (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding and defending against lawsuits is arguably on-mission, since doing otherwise endangers the mission. Furthermore intentionally libeling someone is not very rational. Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Companies become encrusted with bureaucracy when they grow past a certain size, when it is no longer possible for "everybody to know everyone else" (more or less.) In my experience, the change occurs somewhere between four hundred and six hundred people. The kind of person who can thrive and contribute in the context of a smallish mob may not find life so easy in a larger organization with policies and procedures up one side and down the other, and vice versa. I do not know if research has been done on how this applies to online concerns.
I suspect that RW has grown to the point where "kids, do the bloody obvious"Wikipedia is no longer sufficient, and more formal measures are needed. You don't have to like it (I don't) but maintaining this category may be one way to keep too many tits from getting caught in a wringer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One step further?[edit]

Do we want, a la Wikipedia, a template that will go on the talk page of any article in the category with some sort of RW Miranda Warning about how to write about living subjects? AgingHippie (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I lean towards no. My reasoning being that those templates are the first thing you see on a page, and we actually do tend to, in general, keep policy information out of articles. Until evidence suggests the need to do otherwise, gentle reminders from experienced editors should work, right? I mean we're just starting down this journey, and going all-out might be too much. Ikanreed (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps create a template to use when expressing concern about possibly libelous content?--TiaC (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I support a template for talkpages with potentially libelous content in general. (I had a somewhat similar idea here, though this one would be before somebody gets to the "I'mma sue you" stage.) However, we do have Template:Sources needed, which basically covers any possible libel issues. (If they're cited, then it's difficult to call it libel.) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a bit of text saying "this article is about a living person. Please do not add anything libellous" (or whatever) when anyone edits a living person article? BicyclewheelModerator 21:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The Big Wiki has this. BicyclewheelModerator 21:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think most people are familiar with that. Do we want it? Ikanreed (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If we keep getting legal threats, we might have to have it whether we want it or not. Blimey, "this place is just like Conservapedia" used to be a complint here; now it's turning into Wikipedia (only without 32768 wrestling articles). BicyclewheelModerator 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I do miss the days when, on wikipedia, "random article" would give you something interesting to read. Rationalwiki still has that quality, at least. Ikanreed (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
StumbleUpon (when it was good) used to have a feature where you could stumble through interesting WP articles. It was awesome. BicyclewheelModerator 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I love reading about obscure villages in faraway countries! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That actually didn't bother me. And actually, the "Always a band or a crickter" principle seems to have dried up. Maybe I was just unlucky. There's a lot more variety when I try now. Ikanreed (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed living people template[edit]

I made a template for talkpages of living people; see it here. Thoughts? Should we use it on talkpages, like WP uses with parameter "living=yes"? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

*cough* Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not just add a parameter to the rated template? - π 06:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's easier to have a separate template, but IDC. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 07:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I like your template and think it should be on all relevant talk pages. Spud (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Trick for dealing with category overlap[edit]

You can make DPL spit out a list of those pages in a category that are not in Living people. For example:

<dpl>
category=Conspiracy theorists
notcategory=Living people
</dpl>

Just save or preview it on some page, substituting the appropriate category.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Handy. Ikanreed (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Living people is done[edit]

A few things left to do:

  • People not in any of the categories we've looked at
  • Consider putting a "living person" template on living people article talkpages, as I supported above

Apologies for flooding recent changes. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

*cough* Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)