Anyone else notice that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia now features a "watchdogs" section?



TakuyaMurata added it on July 29 and it's been in ever since. The template is as seen here included on a LOT of very high profile articles, including Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Foundation.

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to a template of all of these wacky things like WR and WW on all these articles. That's what this template doing. I'm sort of stunned that no one has even tried to remove them yet--of course, NPOV is equally applicable to Templates, and since NPOV is non-negotiable, removal of them isn't a valid trick anymore now that the cat is out of the bag. I'm frankly surprised by this having stayed in there as long as it has without even a single attempt to violate NPOV by removing that section.

Must not be on many watchlists. Templates are weird that way (which is why templates on BLPs really need protection). I think you might kill it with this attention, Root. It'll at least have the label changed. "Watchdogs" has very positive connotations, and I doubt most editors would accept anything more positive than "critics."

My highlighting it was quite deliberate. I think the addition of those three articles there is perfectly in line with NPOV, since the otherwise over pro and complimentary nature of that template needs to be balanced out and thats a fine way to do it.

As an aside, no one can see "negative" material doesn't belong there, since Essjay controversy and Seigenthaler incident are up there. Theres no reason to say that WR for example shouldn't be on there, comparatively.

Glad to see KnightLago reads here anonymously.

There goes NPOV out the window...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

QuackGuru. Interesting. Didn't expect to see him.

Looking at the contribution history, Discombobulator is obviously a reader here too. Perhaps the WR-centric sock for an otherwise upstanding editor that doesn't want to get the WR rap. Very interesting experiment, Rootology.

The template has been semiprotected, which I think is correct for template on BLPs. There were no sockpuppets in sight, but I still think it's correct notwithstanding the summary.

A concern I have is that one of these sites (not Wikipedia Review) has a practice of taking material that Wikipedia deletes for BLP or similar reasons and republishing it. I do not know whether I am alone here in questioning whether this should be an issue, not regarding whether the site should have an article or even whether links to it should be permitted, but in whether there should be a template that will presumably appear on an increasing number of articles featuring a link to that site.

It'd be a lot of work not to have that sock known. Maybe not publically known, but sprung on you at the most inconvienent time instead.

Quack has just suggested adding ED to the template...

*facepalm*

To Brad: the republishing aspect is questionable (wikitruth, right?) but since the material was all GFDL, excluding on that basis may be troublesome. I don't know.

Bwhahahaha, Irisdescent has semi'd it. I learned about this thread by reading AN.

Me too. I left a post on the template page with a link to the wiktionary definition of "watchdog".

And no, I don't care that the debate is not any longer about using "watchdog" or "critic", it just annoys me that people will change words that they don't like it even when they are accurate