Editing Project:Village pump (proposals) (section)

== Moratorium on recent events ==

I'm not sure whether this should be proposed here or in policy.
I wonder whether it would be helpful if we had a policy similar to one of these: '''Option 1: No article should be written about an event until the event is at least two weeks old''', or perhaps better '''Option 2: Articles about recent events must remain in draft-space, and will not be reviewed, until the event is at least two weeks old'''. My reasoning is:
:(1) We are an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. We don't gain anything by being bang-up-to-date, but we lose by being biased, inaccurate, and ephemeral. The long-term meaning of an event is almost never clear in the first few weeks.
:(2) We cannot get an overview of what sources think until there has been time for enough good sources to do some thinking.
:(3) And we waste valuable AfC-effort, and time at AfD, trying to assess whether something is going to be notable, when if we just waited a week or two, we'd know.
My feeling is that people rush into writing articles about events, motivated either by a desire to get there first, or because they are overwhelmed with the importance of the event in the middle of which they've found themselves. Neither is a great starting point for a balanced, future-proof article. If we had to wait a couple of weeks, then by the time we started typing, we'd have better sources, our initial emotions would have settled, and we'd write an article that looks like someone thought about it. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 10:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
*On principle, I agree that this would be a useful approach that best serves the encyclopedic purpose of this project. Pragmatically, I expect a lot of opposition and doubt that this has a chance of gaining community consensus. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
*We definitely need to tone down the recent events articles, though I'm uncertain about how it should be handled. There ''do'' exist times where recent events should be written about as fast as possible. Events like the [[Pulse shooting|Pulse Nightclub Shooting]] and the [[Capitol insurrection]] are impactful events that ''should not'' be held in draft-space for two weeks. Conversely, [[11 July 2022 shelling of Kharkiv|this]] and [[Desna barracks airstrike|this]] are really just violations of [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. I think a better option would just be to raise the notability guideline for recent events to, maybe 20 pieces of coverage in reliable sources? We need some indication that a recent event will amount to more than just breaking news. —<b>[[User:VersaceSpace|<span style="color: black">VersaceSpace</span>]]</b> [[User talk:VersaceSpace|🌃]] 16:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
*We definitely need to be better on how we rush to create articles on breaking events. There are some that should be created as soon as they have happened such as major earthquakes, commercial air crashes, and the like - we can write these articles based on primarily factual coverage and that we know these generally have long-term enduring coverage. But there's articles that should be held off until we either know they are truly significant events, or more importantly we can write impartially and neutrally about the event.  --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
**I disagree with VersaceSpace and Masem that Wikipedia must document certain types of events immediately. That's the job of the news media. But short of the absolute moratorium proposed, the list of exceptions that editors would argue for would be so lengthy as to make the proposal useless. And what about immediate updates to existing articles to document new events? The OP's points #1 and #2 apply to those as well, but I doubt if there would be any community support to delay updates to articles to insure enduring significance or established perspective.  [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
* This would never likely pass since there's no practical way to enforce it. Let's say we ban coverage of recent events? What happens if I write an article about a major Hurricane anyways? Are you going to AFD it? Okay, well that's an entire week of discussion at minimum. If it gets relisted, it might be two weeks. Then suddenly by the end of that the hurricane happened two weeks ago, so all of the points in favor of deletion just became moot. You would need to propose a new CSD criteria (which many admins would probably be reluctant to support given how many issues there would be with actually utilizing it). Misusing draftspace as suggested by the proposal just seems like a more complicated way to get around that (and would likely just lead to a lot of move wars). {{eC}} &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[User:MJL/P|☖]]</sup></span> 17:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
* No. Far more reasonable to delete after the fact if it turns out to be non-notable, rather than rules to prevent creation. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
* Wikipedia is by default a newspaper of record, with so many responsible newspapers having withdrawn behind paywalls, and what's left being so full of sensationalism and advertisements. I look to a reasonable Wikipedia article as the free online alternative. [[User:Dhtwiki|Dhtwiki]] ([[User talk:Dhtwiki|talk]]) 08:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
:: I'm afraid while I have some sympathy, I disagree with this one fundamentally. Yes, there ought to be a free newspaper project, but this isn't it. The two big differences between a newspaper and us are (1) that newspapers check their facts, while we don't. (2) Newspapers are dated, and obviously valid only on the date of issue; our articles don't carry a date, and present themselves as The Truth. These are both quite subtle features that we as editors understand, but our readers do not. I really do think that if we're going to try to emulate a newspaper then we, like a newspaper, should display prominently the date on which an article was last updated, and probably even draw more attention to who did the updating, or at the very least, the source that was last used to update. Because we don't do this, there is a risk that we will launder a two-day-old opinion from a biased newspaper as though it were up-to-date consensus truth, where a reader who is genuinely looking at a two-day-old copy of the Daily Telegraph knows that they're reading out-of-date material with a right-wing bias. Sorry, I'm being a bit ferocious. But practically, I suppose we could start dating recent events; it's all there in the edit history, it's just that readers don't usually know about histories. Maybe draw more attention to the edit history of recent event articles?? I'm just thinking out loud...  [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 22:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia checks the newspapers who are doing the checking, and with a late-breaking story of importance any errors are apt to be quickly contested. I don't think bias enters into getting facts straight on, say, whether a celebrity is dead, near death, broke, arrested, whatever, or how many lives an accident has claimed, which are the sorts of things I had in mind. [[User:Dhtwiki|Dhtwiki]] ([[User talk:Dhtwiki|talk]]) 05:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)  
:::: I'd disagree that we check the newspapers. We summarise them. We don't do any fact-checking at all, which means we are, functionally, no more than gossips: We repeat what we hear. I don't have a problem with that; I have a problem with us misrepresenting what we are. We shouldn't take something that the Guardian presents as current-events news and re-present it as an encyclopaedic statement of history; Wikipedia is a different context to the front page of a newspaper, and context is important to the believability of a story. We are lending undue weight. The arrest of a celebrity is an excellent example: a newspaper reports it because it happened, but doesn't say it's an important part of the person's life. When it goes in a Wikipedia article, we make a tacit statement that it's a notable feature of that person's life story. We're adding weight to the significance of the arrest before we know it's significant, and that goes beyond our sources. I totally agree that my proposition was the wrong way to solve the problem, but the problem still exists: we must stop kidding ourselves about the accuracy of our current events, and we need to find some way to indicate to our readers which articles have the mature view of history, and which are written with the raw emotion of something that happened yesterday. Writing in the style of an encyclopaedia doesn't make the content more reliable. I do think that better use of tags and templates is the right way forwards, not my daft 2-week moratorium. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 09:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
::[[WP:NOT#NEWS]] WP is not a newspaper, and those using it as one are using WP mistakenly.  We can document current events that have a clear path to notability, or where the news are updates to existing articles, but we should not be rushing to create news article just because it is information being widely reported. We are looking for endurance of information, not a temporary burst of coverage. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
* No. This is one of the weirdest suggestions ever put forward. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should have waited two weeks before having an article about the [[September 11 attacks]] or the [[Robb Elementary School shooting]]? People have come to expect that there will be Wikipedia articles about major events as soon as possible.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 08:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
* It is an unfortunate reality that someone will create an article about every breaking news event, [[WP:RECENT]] notwithstanding. That horse has bolted. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 08:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
*This would be a rule that wouldn't bring a net positive to the project. Most of those we do ultimately delete as ephemeral do little damage in the meantime. The negative ones getting the "press" are far outweighed by the huge number of recent articles that we do cover, and cover well. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 13:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
*A more productive approach might be to place a big “ugly looking” tag on articles about recent events - something that could be removed after review and (probable) rewriting/summarization in a few months. This, of course, requires volunteers who are willing to DO that review and summarization. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC

* Another issue with the proposal is that many events don't involve a separate article.  For example, I noticed that [[Anne Heche]] was the top read article and wondered what was up.  It turned out that she'd just had a spectacular accident and so people are naturally rushing to read her article.  If we had a moratorium on such breaking news then people might stop coming to Wikipedia for such information and so would look for another source instead.  Why would this be good?
: [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] should note that the [[Anne Heche]] article already has a {{tl|current person}} template and templates like this are commonly used to tag breaking news.
: [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 07:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Yes, these tags are a very good thing, and perhaps the entire proposal is unnecessary were they used more often. I only see them on pre-existing articles where the subject has just been plunged into current events because something specific happened. It'd be nice to see them used in a cautionary way on brand-new events. Is there a big ugly tag for brand new articles, basically saying ''''"This article refers to a very recent event, and may not yet reflect the considered view of history"''', as per {{u|Blueboar}}? Could its use be encouraged, if it exists? Maybe new page patrollers and AfC reviewers could add it when appropriate? [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 22:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

* Nope, I can't see how a hard rule about this would always benefit our readers.  A recent example, on July 25th the [[President of India]] changed after their election.  How would it be better for readers going to that article to see it say that the president is Ram Nath Kovind until today? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:: Okay, would need limitation. I suppose the cases I'm thinking of are traffic accidents, building fires, natural disasters, etc., but the heart of the matter is the reporting of fact. I don't mind instant reporting of facts that are beyond doubt, and which fall into categories whose notability is beyond doubt; I am dubious about trivia and initial rumours and opinions that spread after a scary event. As a counter-example, I'd offer "had covid". We now have a phenomenal number of articles about famous people stating that they had covid, complete with sourcing. Who cares? Much of the world's population has had covid by now. It was hot news at the time, but in retrospect it's about as significant as saying they had chicken pox. It will probably be decades before all this lot has been weeded out. But I've talked myself into a hole, because a 2-week limit wouldn't have stopped the rash of "had covid" additions... I accept this proposition isn't going anywhere, and was the wrong approach; I'm more keen on clear tags. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 22:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 
* '''Tentative oppose'''. I can see the proposer's reasoning, insofar as we are an encyclopaedia and not [[Wikinews]]. However, I have always thought that one of Wikipedia's strengths is that it must be the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia, and this policy would make it fall short of this strength. [[User:YTKJ|YTKJ]] ([[User talk:YTKJ|talk]]) 19:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
:: I see the strength in this argument. My concern is that by trying to be the most up-to-date, we also run the risk of being the least reliable; on very recent events, there is often a big trade-off between stable accuracy, and rapid response. Perhaps again this could be dealt with by a template; something to remind our readers that Wikipedia's reliability on very recent events is lower than on things that have been kicking around for longer. We, as editors, know that WP is not a reliable source. They, as readers, frequently treat it as such. We owe them honesty about our reliability. But yes, I do see your point... [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 22:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
*Just no. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 05:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
* So how about better tagging of breaking-news articles so that it's clear they're merely summaries of yesterday's newspapers and not yet a mature historical view? Is there an appropriate template for a new article that is still on shaky foundations? [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 09:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*:Yes, the breaking news template, which is already in use. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 13:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
*:Pinging @[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]], who has a lot of experience with this type of article.   [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 23:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
* Strong no/oppose here. We should absolutely be creating new articles appropriately. (Thanks for the ping immediately above.) ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 23:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

:I see the good intentions behind the proposal, but '''oppose''' for three reasons: 1) there are too many exceptions to manage for cases where instant updates make sense; 2) this is a problem that typically resolves itself after a few weeks using existing procedures; 3) Applying [[Template:Current]] seems an adequate and proportionate warning during those initial few weeks. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 13:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)