 | This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
Lists in Wikipedia discusses how the Wikipedia policies of Verifiability and Neutral point of view apply to lists, and in particular how they affect which entries should appear on a list. This page is not itself policy.
The first point to note is that lists in the main article namespace are articles. All policies that apply to articles apply equally to lists.
Our Verifiability policy says that all information should be referenced to a reputable source. Applying this to lists means:
- List inclusion criteria should be set in a way that it will be possible to reference entries to a reputable source
To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion need to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Use criteria that are widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that are not widely accepted.
Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.
- For each list entry a reputable source should be cited supporting the assertion that the list entry meets the list inclusion criteria
This is an immediate consequence of Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability.
- List inclusion criteria
Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterisations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain non-neutral point of view. Opponents of a subject may attempt to include it in the list despite that it does not meet the list criteria; and conversely supporters may attempt to remove that it despite meeting the list criteria.
Avoid creating lists based on characterisation of people or organisations, in particular when these characterisations are based on value judgements. For example, a "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be a "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or a "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgements even if these can pass the test of verifiability.
Identitarian lists are another example where POV may often be incorporated. For example, on List of Jewish jurists, List of born-again Christian laypeople, and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers some editors add names to these lists out of a kind of self-affirmation. To put it frankly, editors who are themselves, Jewish, born-again, or LGBT (or otherwise wish to affirm the value of those qualities), feel comforted by adding names of famous and respected people to their List of people like me. In these types of examples, membership in the adjectival category is both contextual and often not obvious.
- Don't use the name of a list to assert a certain POV
Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous Brits" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be "List of noted Brits", or simpler "List of Brits", as these will be listed only if they pass the Wikipedia:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Readers expect all articles to be encyclopaedic, so when creating new lists, think of the reader: Does the list add value? Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? Is there a category in Wikipedia already for the same subject? Lists should enhance the encyclopedic value of content rather than diminish it.
The principle of Neutral Point of View, declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view. When dealing with lists, this can become a challenge. If you include leader XYZ in List of dictators on the basis of a mention of XYZ being a dictator by one source, be sure to confirm that this is a widely held opinion, otherwise you will be in disregard of NPOV. Wikipedia:Reliable sources applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.
For purposes of list inclusion, one key determinant of relevancy is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed; the failure of a content article to support list inclusion criteria should be treated as prima facie evidence against its inclusion in the list. Transient or widely disputed characterisations on a content article should be treated with suspicion by list editors. List editors should also consider whether a characterisation within a content article, even if long-standing, is presented as consensus opinion or as the position of a specific named external source; in the latter case, the citation to an external source is only as good as the external source is.
For example, an editor may want to add George W. Bush to List of dictators based on one source that claims that Bush ursuped power in the US by illegal means. The existence of such source may be verifiable, but this in not necessarily NPOV, as NPOV does not allow us to present a minority point of view (which this one obviously is) as if this was a consensus point of view. WP:V does not stand alone. As a practical matter, a characterisation of George W. Bush as a dictator would not last more than a minute on the Wikipedia article on Bush, and therefore does not represent content article editorial consensus.
- Wikipedia:Categorization of people
- Wikipedia:Lists
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:No original research
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources
- Wikipedia:Libel
- Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy
- Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession.
This policy proposal seems okay, but it certainly does not apply to all lists. Three days ago List of anti-heroes was deleted. I think that deleting that list was wrong although it did not meet the criteria of NPOV and verifiability.
My point is that lists concerning fiction need special treatment as they can never achieve 100 per cent verified or NPOV status. Furthermore, they need the users' (not the editors') active participation: It is they who have to decide if a particular list is "correct" or helpful.
Of course patent nonsense or misinformation has to be reverted; including P. G. Wodehouse novels in a list of hardboiled fiction is obviously wrong. A special template (to be created) might alert users to the fact that the compilation in front of them is a tentative list which will always be contentious.
For more details, please see: