Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Proposing a new WikiProject Astrobiology

As far as I'm concerned, there is no WikiProject on astrobiology. I would like to create it. As you can see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology), WikiProject Biology has several subprojects under its umbrella, but none of them is astrobology or similar. Astrobiology is such a broad topic, from the search of microbial life on the solar system to the search of extraterrestrial life in the galaxy and beyond that I think it deserves its own WikiProject. Astropedian (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC) User:DocWatson42 User:Aldaron User:Viriditas User:Vsmith User:Kalidasa 777 User:Marskell

Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. Are all of you planning to work on this together? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the invitation, but I decline. Good luck! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to be part of WikiProject Astrobiology Grantus4504 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I am still busy looking for intelligent life on Earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Me too. I've been to many countries on 5 continents, and I refuse to accept that human beings are the highest form of life in the universe. I'm in. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Try to avoid the trap of hierarchical thinking, à la scala naturae. There is no higher or lower here. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I just know that the highest or lowest life form in the world is due to our point of view and if we change it even slightly we can see that possibly we could possibly be nothing in the scale of many galaxies. That's what makes astronomy and nowadays related games especially Space Engine that interesting. So, I am on no higher or lower side. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I do see the scientific validity of your opinion; however, IF I were an ET with higher technology, I would definitely want to stay out of the crosshairs of human mentality and weapons. As I myself am one of those humans, I would definitely consider such an ET to be of higher intelligence and wisdom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Science fiction authors have pursued just about every angle of this problem. In many cases, the idea that such speculative species are of greater intelligence, and let's say even wisdom, does not make them superior, and in many cases presents several flaws that can be exploited. The Borg of Star Trek and the Tet of Oblivion are just two examples. There are hundreds more. Best to be skeptical, and not give in to astonishment. ("What does god need with a starship?") From our position, a more advanced species will likely be perceived as evil, just as an ant perceives a boot stomping on its hive as an enemy. The Vogons destroyed the Earth to make way for a hyperspace route, just as we destroy native habitats every day to make way for roads. I believe it is far more likely that an advanced species will not share our moral compass or ethical concerns. The idea that they would is likely an artifact of 20th century naïveté. Rod Serling famously made this point. Stay vigilant. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that! SF is so, well, restricted is the word, I guess. It's restricted to human imagination, limited to the edges of our minds. Reality lies beyond those edges. We must all stay vigilant, the price we must pay to maintain freedom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't but i think i going on science fiction but these are my own views:

But another thing is that the so called aliens could not have that much great luck like use. Like think about our solar system and thing we are lucky that we don't have some of the exotic and monster stars like red supergiant, O-type and B-type stars, etc like within 100 ly and not talking about all other astronomical objects and then think in alien point of view like if they have a similar earth like planet everything almost same but just a thing that in there constellation that blue or red bright star is within like 50 ly and there is a high chance that those can go supernova before there system proper motion etc save them. Then i think there main objectives would be not human not colonisation but those bright stars even if they are ahead of us in everything. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I do love the subject of astrobiology. The thing is... it's a science. And as a science it would prefer to use the scientific method to study the prospect of life elsewhere than Earth. As project members who are not necessarily scientists, we would probably be okay with imaginative speculation. There's an entire Universe chock full of black holes and other exotic features. That also includes the possibility that life elsewhere might not be "life as we know it", but instead might be other than carbon-based. Nucleic acids may not be the only biomolecules in the universe capable of coding for life processes. The farther away we look, the longer in the past we see. Such a project has the potential to really have its hands full! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

...prefer to use the scientific method to study the prospect of life elsewhere than Earth... That's called science fiction. You may not like it, but that's what it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is fiction with a prospect of becoming non-fiction. For those of us who support the science of astrobiology, we should recognize the need for skepticism to keep the project grounded. Since the idea of life elsewhere than Earth is as yet unsubstantiated, moving forward will also require an article of faith. It will take more than a strange bit of radio signal data to convince a skeptical populace. See also {{Extraterrestrial life}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

To bring this back to a WP:NOTFORUM discussion, the validity of the subject is not at issue when determining whether to OK a new WikiProject. It's basically down to whether there are enough editors willing to participate and whether there is enough coverage in article space to warrant it. The latter part is covered, as far as I can see, when looking at Category:Astrobiology. And it's only a growing field, with governments behind the efforts. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

As I informed you on your user page, I would like to join this. Normally I'm focused on geographical subjects, but this subject area intrigues me. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Good work, I will be happy to join. But i it will be better to link it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, where Astronomy WikiProject is the parent WikiProject Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It should be assumed that WP Astronomy and WP Biology would be parent projects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Task forces can have multiple "parents". The idea of a parent project is strictly informal anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower@WhatamIdoingThat what's my objective with Astronomy Working group, a Working group dedicated to unite all regularly work astronomy related things like not only only Astronomy, Spaceflight, Astrobiology, etc. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Astropedian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, That's a good idea. Hey @StefenTower,I want to know what are the topics, i want to be familiar with them. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Perusal of astrobiology should be helpful here. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing Do we have green light? Astropedian (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Astropedian The approval for a new WikiProject comes from a consensus in the discussion here. As far as I can tell, we have three participants in the new WikiProject, including myself. In my view, that's not quite enough to go with. WikiProjects can peter out, so you probably need around 10 at least to start. Have you asked around on the talk pages of all related WikiProjects? the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - not enough people. Normally new projects start with an energetic phase of article-tagging, then peter out. With a small group you can coordinate things without the need for a project. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I just asked in biology, so I will ask in the rest. Astropedian (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The FAQ near the top of this talk page might be helpful. For example,

Q7: I want to start a WikiProject. Am I required to advertise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and/or have a specific number of editors support it?

A7: No, there are no requirements. However, new WikiProjects, especially new groups that are proposed by new editors, rarely remain active for longer than a few months unless there are at least six or eight active editors involved at the time of creation.

So... perhaps WikiProject Astrobiology's time has come? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be much more optimistic about the group's long-term success if there were six interested editors. I'd suggest that the current three start working together in a userspace group or as a WP:TASKFORCE of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy for now, and work on recruiting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer a userspace group as the rigmarole surrounding creation of a taskforce in an existing project is more than I care to deal with. It would be like another big round of negotiation/discussion and potential rejection. With a user group, you just do it. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Astropedian @StefenTower,Can you guys help in building and improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astronomy working group/Members, made in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a specific request here? Also, I'm not sure why a working group would have a title or topic coverage that matches the project at-large. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, It is, i mean this Working group can be also helpful for your WikiProject. Sorry for the name, But at the time and till now i have not found a better name. Abdullah1099 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how an undefined working group within Astronomy has something to do with eventually creating a WikiProject Astrobiology. You may want to flesh out what the working group is for on its page. I saw in WP Astronomy's project talk that other members don't understand its purpose. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You can WP:MOVE the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astrobiology (or any similar name) if you want. You can also ignore this and round up a few like-minded folks on a User: page of your choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I also prefer to see if more people join the conversation here; I have posted the request in all the related WikiProject talks.

As soon as WhatamIdoing give us green light here, I will start the WikiProject page. Astropedian (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Like I said before, the guideline is for a consensus in this discussion to make a decision, like in any RfC. Nobody is singularly in charge. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah @StefenTower, That's why i ask as I want to know is there any need of a working group. I made because i see a lack of working group at WikiProject Astronomy Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand creating a working group before you know one is needed. I'm a bit befuddled. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Abdullah, all WikiProjects are "working groups". Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together to improve Wikipedia. Therefore we don't need a generic "WikiProject Example/Working group".

What is sometimes wanted is a "WikiProject Example/_____ working group". This is a sub-group of participants that is focused on a specific sub-part of the whole group's goals. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force – a smaller subset of the group, working on a smaller subset of articles.

It might have been useful to create a page for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astrobiology working group. A "working group" for the whole group is not very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the group? Astropedian (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, i read it above. Astropedian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I am noticing some off-topic discussion above. Please think of folks who are watching this page. Please observe WP:NOTFORUM, everyone. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to join. Would it make sense to add 'astrobiology={yes|no}' and 'astrobiology-importance=' options to the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template, rather than adding a separate template? I suspect it's mainly going to be a subset of the astronomy WP articles anyway. Praemonitus (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, That thing i doubt Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Cleaning up or merging dormant projects

This came up today in a discussion with Pine and others about the WMF annual plan.

• How can we clean up and merge dormant projects, while continuing to support Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 article evaluations and categorization?
• When small wikiprojects are merged, what else has to happen to update the functioning of the whole system?

– SJ + 17:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Sj. This has been discussed several times in the last couple of years, so you might want to start in the archives for this page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects is where we're collecting some of the practical information.

Overall, I'd say that the problem areas include:

• The actual process of merging (once you reach the point of clicking buttons) is boring and occasionally fiddly work. Some parts could be semi-automated. Some parts require an admin (e.g., to delete unused 1.0 cats). WP:TASKFORCES can preserve the varying |importance= ratings for 1.0, but mostly I think that blank-and-redirect works out in practice, and based on the experience for WP:MED, I'd particularly recommend that for the talk page even if a task force model is used.
• WikiProjects are groups of people, which means that merging depends upon social factors. If you "forcibly" merge the groups, the individuals might walk away rather than participate. We need participation.
• What individual editors want is not what Wikipedia needs. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile is basically inactive, but an editor recently decided to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Chilean Legislatures. Why? The editor only wants to work on Chilean legislators and legislative institutions, not on everything else about Chile. What Wikipedia needs is an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and a lively Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile, and if you want to write about politicians in Chile, then you pick one or the other, without making yet another tiny doomed sub-speciality group.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! It feels like our version of Dunbar's Number could be "optimal range (min/max) for effective WikiProjects" and strong guidance to keep projects at a scope that they have a set of active users in that range. (and perhaps layout / template / page design norms that make it easy to refactor where people spend their time w/o lots of fiddly work) Individuals might have a weak preference but not strong enough to say "no I want to start a project that will become inactive within a year" – SJ + 19:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing not sure if there is a better section to ask this, but is there a list of "active" or inactive WikiProjects anywhere? Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso The definition is here: WP:INACTIVEWP. Because it says Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more. it is pretty difficult to determine which are truly dead (it is difficult to filter out routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries using software).

To get a rough idea of the scope of the problem, Wikipedia:WikiProject says The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects. Category:Active WikiProjects contains ~654 pages. The last time I checked over 200 of those had not been edited for over a year. And I didn't even bother to try to filter out routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries. That means that WikiProjects are basically vestigial at this point.

The entire system should probably be replaced with something better. I don't know if it worked in the past but its certainly not working now. Polygnotus (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

There are a good number of truly active WikiProjects, but overall, you're in the ballpark. I think WikiProjects basically are the right idea but they need a fresh take. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower I think we need to combine:

• your WikiProject leaderboards
• using WikiProjects as a meta-talkpage, see User:Polygnotus/PAWS/Astronomical
• automatically finding people who edit in the areas covered by a project (e.g. User:Polygnotus/PAWS/cat2users) and automatically showing them relevant stats
• showing stats on the wikiprojects and Special:Impact and Special:Homepage (unanswered questions, edit requests, how many edits did you make, requested articles, articles with maintenance tags etc)

and various other things.

That addresses the flaws of the current system. Polygnotus (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we are close to being on the same page. A WikiProject is basically people contributing toward a topic area. And people rightly might want to know the impact of their contributions toward that topic (perhaps even from before they mindfully joined the project - like what my leaderboard does). Also, it would be nice if we can somewhat standardize the presentation of how editors can help without it seeming like a bland to-do list, where editors can easily see what issues need addressing, what voids need filling, what resources are available, what milestones the project is moving toward, etc. I have even mused about what would happen if we took the spirit of portals and fused them with WikiProjects - so they're not just workspaces but also showcases. Various projects are already doing many of these things, but I often get the nagging feeling we have not come anywhere close to optimizing what we can do. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which worked on this kind of stuff some years ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I was around when that was being worked on, and I mused on why it didn't ultimately succeed in the link I gave above ("a fresh take"). Of course, opinions may vary. the Stefen 𝕋ower 07:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower I think we should move away from "Stefen has added his name to a list of WikiProject participants" and should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen". Getting people to subscribe is a major hurdle that can be avoided.

The problem is that the WMF, for various depressing reasons, won't work on stuff like this.

And since we can't realistically get a substantial subset of the ~40k active editors to install a bunch of JavaScript we do need the WMF to make meaningful changes in this area. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus That would definitely be a major (and useful) mind flip for the Wikipedia, and beyond the WMF apparently not taking an interest in such, there are such things as inertia and development costs/prioritization. I have been lightly proposing a happy medium that can eventually be done without particular higher-up support – making WikiProjects more like action centers around topic areas (kind of like a portal, but for editing collaboration). But certainly, a key issue around this is getting editors to visit these places, that is, to match their editing interests to a topic's editing needs. How we can better implement these connections is our challenge, even with the current state of WikiProjects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. A lot of Wikipedia editors are really not interested in coordinating with other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Belonging in a group is voluntary. I have not intended to indicate any change to that paradigm. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, it would be useful for editors who do edit heavily in particular subject areas to know there is an option for further concentrating their work. I don't want to nag any editors but gently making them aware somehow may be useful. Relying on editors discovering WikiProjects or WikiProjects occasionally inviting editors seems to not quite be a robust-enough model. the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. That is not what [We] should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen means tho.

Showing someone a dashboard of stuff that may be relevant to them is not the same as assuming they want to collaborate with others.

The mantra "A WikiProject is a group of people" is irrelevant here. Polygnotus (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. 1) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by human changes (sort on Status); 2) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects with no activity the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@StefenTower thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the first database report seems to be very generous. WP:WikiProject Religion has solely notices to RfCs, deletion nominations and RMs on the talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not intentionally generous. It's just reporting the status setting. If a status is incorrect, per the guidelines, then they can be changed. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

See also Category:WikiProjects by status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Is every article supposed to be covered by at least one active WikiProject?

I've noticed some, like Talk:Chambered nautilus, which are not. Because WP:WikiProject Cephalopods is inactive, that page isn't categorized. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is not a requirement. However, coverage by WikiProjects ideally directs editors dedicated to and skilled with particular topic areas to the article, and that is good for the article and thus Wikipedia. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We don't have a clear standard for what makes a WikiProject active. What categories are you looking for? The class/WikiProject ones? CMD (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I assume it doesn't have those categories because the project is marked as inactive. Melozone crissalis (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That is my understanding, the current tools are tied to WikiProject tags. Ideally we would want all pages to be on active WikiProjects for article alerts, discussion notifications, etc., but even then it would be helpful for the tools to not be tied to this. I don't think we have a current solution at hand. CMD (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are we suppressing the cats for inactive groups? Is that a sensible choice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That is beyond my current knowledge, although I'm sure I knew once. Ultimately though, a delinkage of the tools and the template in some way would be ideal. CMD (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiProjects are groups of editors interested in collaborating in a certain area. So yes, ideally every article would have an associated group of active, interested editors. But since editors work on whatever articles they want, there's no way to ensure this. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If I run across an "unclaimed article", can I tag it as not having been claimed by any WikiProject (when I don't know which WikiProject should make a claim)? rootsmusic (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There's no tag or category for that purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think "claim" has the right connotations. Articles aren't claimed by editors, and WikiProjects are just groups of editors. I think it would be more fruitful to collaborate with other editors interested in an area in which you're interested and, in the course of that collaboration, find articles that are within the scope of interest. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Activity of WikiProject Biography's talk page

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I previously tagged WikiProject Biography as "semi-active" merely because it's been lacking replied and consisting of just notifications and announcement, but then it got reverted. I addressed the reversion at WP:VPP (archived discussion). Anyways, the WikiProject's talk page is still abysmally filled with reply-less messages. Makes me reluctant to post anything biography-related. I can't help wonder how long this will continue and not expect anything in return (or something like that) whenever I post there? George Ho (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to WP:REVIVE that group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

By announcing the need of recruitment at WP:VPM? Okay... if that works. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The worst-case scenario of posting something on the project's talk page is not getting an answer. Still, as it's the 39th most active project in the past year per human (non-bot) edits, it still seems worth a try. the Stefen 𝕋ower 08:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Posted notice about this discussion at that talk page and other related talk pages. George Ho (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"Biography" is just too broad a term, if you ask me. Issues are always likely to get more response at a more specialized project page. Probably the tag should be restored to warn people. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Shall we continue discussing this at WP:VPIL? That way, we can figure out what else to do with WP:WPBIO. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Library and Information Science

This project seems to have been created unilaterally by Kerrieburn without following any approval process — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:MFD is where these are handled. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries? Or just move to User: space?

Invite the editor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange?

(Also, feel free to watch Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects to find other instances of newly created WikiProject pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I recently joined this project https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Library_and_Information_Science (project page created in January 2024) after meeting members at WIkiCon Australia last month.

WikiProject Library and Information Science (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125310122) was created in April 2024.

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Library and Information Science to collate additional content that would be useful for those involved with the project. This followed the same procedure used in another WikiProject that I am involved with. I was not aware that there was any kind of approval process required. Kerrieburn (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kerrieburn, traditionally, there hasn't been any kind of process here, with the result that we have about 2,000 "groups of editors" that have just one or two editors, or even zero. What we care about is whether there are people here, editing the English Wikipedia, who want to work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing We definitely have a group of editors working together on this project. Kerrieburn (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Revival of WikiProject Feminism

I noticed that editors @ipiggot and @The Ars Goetia are seeking to WP:REVIVE the project, which was previously considered. Anyone interested in supporting WP:WikiProject Feminism are welcome to join! Mitchsavl (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I wish them lots of luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you mitchsavl for the notice, I will say that I will try my hardest to revive the project but I will be mostly inactive for the next 2-3 weeks Goetia [She/They] (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Revival of WikiProject Bowling

I'm going to attempt WP:REVIVE the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bowling (Zakk😎) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Go for it! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

One question on the wiki project criteria

It says to not start a project on any individual person. However WikiProject Taylor Swift is all abt Taylor Swift and seems to be productive. Why is that allowed to exist? Was it simply grandfathered in before this rule was made? 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 08:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure which criteria you are looking at, but the guidelines are advice aimed at increasing the chance that a WikiProject is successful. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift is not very active, and that's despite the very active work on related articles. CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was grandfathered in. Seeing how these various groups have fared over the years is why the rule was created a few years ago. Eventually, I think most of them will get merged up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Nurses in Red

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nurses in Red has been created. This is apparently a group/event that's been happening for several years. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals should mention the WikiProjects that are more event-focused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Bot request relating to a WikiProject's categories

Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests § Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages. I'm making a note on this page in case someone here has other ideas/can explain things better than I have. I can't find an exact guideline about this situation but I know it's not the way we normally do things. Graham87 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

BRFA filed phuzion (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created.

Firstly, addressing the timing of closing the proposal: while this discussion has been live only for approximately 5 days, the discussion had been widely advertised on wiki and elsewhere and has attracted 396 comments from 113 editors. This precludes the need for an extended discussion that we usually had afforded to other proposals which did not attract such attention, and the breath and depth of discussion.

While there is a number of editors who is interested in have the WikiProject established, with some indicating that the WikiProject would not have the authority to override policies, guidelines, sanctions, or administrative decisions, it did not sway what many of those who are against having the WikiProject.

To many in the discussion, the proposed WikiProject would operate primarily as an advocacy and policy lobbying group rather than an article improvement one. Concerns have been raised that the PolicyScanner and related off-wiki recruitment would risk organised canvassing or vote-stacking in the various PAG-related discussions. In addition, the stated goals concerning neutrality and broadening permissible sources run counter to existing processes. The policy-based opposition was sufficiently clear to establish consensus.

This close does not prevent any editors from proposing specific policy or guideline changes at the relevant venues. This close is for the proposal, as such, issues (canvassing, user conduct, etc) raised here should be dealt with in other venues where appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Here is our application to make WikiProject Intellectual Diversity official.

1. Member pings

Pinging @Larry Sanger, שלומית ליר, Prodos, Pietrus1, Carrite, LuniZunie, Ferdilouw, Lawfare, Pantarch, MetalBreaksAndBends, Wh1pla5h99, Vitorperrut555, T Magierowski, Riposte97, Lionel Cristiano, VidanaliK, Philroc, Flounder ceo, Wikipedian12512, Boutboul, Eulemann, Dtobias, Félix An, Allthemilescombined1, 123957a, Jenhawk777, and Scarpy:

Sometime in the last six weeks or so, you signed up as a member of a proposed "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" (WPID). Now that we have well over ten people interested starting in this group, and having jumped through a few other hoops, I think we're ready to make it official and to "get this party started"!

The WikiProject application instructions specify that "the editors who have agreed to join the group...need to join this discussion and confirm that they will actively participate in the new group, if it is created." Please respond to this by letting the WikiProject Council know you're still on board and that you will actively participate.

2. Other, related WikiProjects

Most WikiProjects are focused on particular subject areas, like countries or academic disciplines. Some however—like this proposed group—are focused more on Wikipedia policy. Over the years, a number of "Wikipedia reform" groups have popped up and disappeared; none seems to be presently operational. As per the application instructions, I am inviting four active WikiProjects that seem to have at least some overlap with this one. While these groups seem to be solid in their own way, none is focused on advancing intellectual diversity in particular. The four are as follows; I include, per instructions, a discussion of why none of the groups is "good enough for our purposes":

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Democracy: This group has the laudable intention of increasing the ease and effectiveness with which democratic functions are carried out on Wikipedia. While we can support that—since more robust, meaningful democracy would doubtless improve intellectual diversity—our task is broader.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia: While this might indeed serve our purposes, it appears to be defunct. It was declared to be defunct by just one person, last year, so we went ahead and included it in our new WikiProject notice; but we have heard from no one about it.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: This is one of the oldest and, in some ways, most distinguished WikiProjects. Again, in some ways, this might seem to be most similar in goal to WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. There is, however, a really significant difference in that WPCSB aims primarily to increase demographic representation (especially that of women and minorities) among article topics, and they seem to be particularly concerned to exclude "far-right extremists on Wikipedia." WPID, by contrast, seeks to influence Wikipedia policy, not articles, and we seek to help Wikipedia better represent a genuinely broad intellectual diversity, regardless of whether, in their home countries, some paint them as "right-wing" or "extremists."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion: This is the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and is one of the very oldest WikiProjects—the group precedes the official WikiProject system. While intellectual diversity arguably skews in an inclusionist direction, it is also arguable that a reformed Wikipedia that is unusually intellectually tolerant might remain deletionist. This is, in any event, a good example of a very early WikiProject focused on advancing a particular policy stance.

None of these groups do the sorts of things we aim to do with WPID. We let them know about our plans with WPID last week, and we have not heard back.

3. Our goals

Our goals are detailed here, but we can summarize as follows. WikiProject Intellectual Diversity aims to make Wikipedia more intellectually diverse—that is, much more meaningfully diverse in the representation of competing ideas and worldviews. To this end, we hope to organize Wikipedians to help ensure fair and open decision-making and governance, broaden the range of permissible sources, reinforce genuine neutrality, rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability, retain editors by creating a more inclusive atmosphere, and engage the public more. We aim to push Wikipedia policy to change in these ways through established on-wiki processes, advancing these principles iteratively, not all at once, but in concrete, achievable, incremental ways. Our PolicyScanner already monitors over 90 policy, guideline, and process pages, giving WPID a useful tool to organize around.

4. Why WPID will be here in five years

We are starting with a strong bench of established Wikipedians, a useful PolicyScanner tool, and a set of goals that are ambitious enough that it is reasonable to think we will not have entirely achieved them in five years. WPID serves an enormous body of current and potential Wikipedians—all those who have been systematically driven away by practices and policies that alienate those whose views are systematically excluded from Wikipedia. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Using a DEI framework to carry water for right-wing propaganda is a bit rich, Larry.

Why not simply say that white hetero upper class males are the true victims here? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there Selbstporträt, I would like to remind you that here on Wikipedia we have a standard of assuming good faith WP:AGF, and that you, on your own user page have written "Being considerate is always worth a try, if only for oneself. Consider that you can always be wrong. The feeling of being right may induce righteousness." Your comment is disrespectful and not constructive. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment - add WikiProject Conservatism to the list of related WikiProjects (scope seems to overlap significantly and not sure what other forms of diversity are being advocated for other than more inclusion of conservative ideas). Not sure why WikiProject Democracy is listed... Superb Owl (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Can one of the proponents of this project go into detail about why Infowars is reliable for whether a school shooting happened at Sandy Hook? ~2026-35747-20 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only views "systematically excluded from Wikipedia" are ones that are demonstrably false. This seems less like "WikiProject Intellectual Diversisty" and more like "WikiProject Intellectual Dishonesty"--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion of WPID

• I'm committed to maintaining the PolicyScanner tool, which I developed myself. There are many other things we might do. One subproject I have in mind is to go through many different policy pages (WP:NPOV could be the first) and discussing how we might change them—all with the aim of proposing changes in the correct venues, of course. But this is just one idea. WPID is a group of people who agree that Wikipedia's policy should be friendlier in various ways to a much more intellectually diverse body of contributors, and as such, there are many things we can do together as a kind of reform club. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  In what way is this not an attempt to give an unearned DEI-type lift to far minority, such as far-right, positions? If not that, can you explain how it is not that? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "unearned DEI-type lift"? Are you saying that DEI "lifts" are earned, and that we must earn them? How would be go about earning them?

  In any event, for those of you who are too young to remember a time before DEI was a thing, and indeed before "political correctness" was a thing, there were various interrelated democratic ideals, allied with but distinct from freedom of speech, including religious tolerance, intellectual tolerance, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and pluralism. "Intellectual diversity" is simply another phrase in the same ballpark. We are not attempting to earn DEI points. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would also like to bring everybody's attention to this polemic on the WPID "hub", the barely-contained seething frustration of which kind of betrays the real spirit of WPID. This text is designed to welcome new/returning editors, particularly those participating in WPID, and is a thinly-veiled manifesto instructing them how to "play the game" to advance their ideological aims. From the "Important tips that WPID must be aware of", we get excerpts like (emphasis mine)

  Wikipedia is a game—not a battleground, but a place in which those who play most expertly by the rules will thrive. Those who violate the rules will be quickly spotted and eliminated by the referees. Thus it is particularly important that you take the rules seriously. If you do not, you will be blocked.

  If you receive a warning from an administrator (or even a veiled threat from a high-ranking editor), take it seriously. Avoid arguing, even if you think you are in the right... You cannot win every fight.

  Avoid building a single-purpose account. Edit a variety of topics; having plenty of edits on a variety of topics may make administrators think twice before blocking you.

  It is quite interesting that this innocent WikiProject would feel the need to produce a 10-point handbook instructing its members on how to "play by the rules," build plausible deniability, and avoid getting blocked. Unless, you know, its members were expressly not here to build an encyclopedia and mwrely trying to conceal that fact for however long it takes them to impose their ideological vision here.

  WPID is transparently a fifth column. It's a barely-concealed attempt at a coup d'etat via canvassing. It's a sabotage operation. Athanelar (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Athanelar So, just to summarize, the whole proposal is essentially an attempt at WP:GAMING. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  And also, just to summarize, people who really do want to build an encyclopedia that reflects the broad world’s intellectual diversity are playing dirty when they follow the rules? And they are being quite unfair and dishonest when they advise their allies to follow the rules, because those in authority will certainly block you if you are a WPID member and break the rules? Thanks for making our points for us. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just Playing by the Rules can sound a lot like Just Asking Questions. Put them together and they often rhyme. One can sound civil and still act like a jerk.

  Summarizing and querying don't mix, BTW. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You aren't making yourself clear. You're vaguely gesturing at a criticism, but I don't see what it is. Be explicit or stand down. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just Asking Questions is well-known. The questions you are "just asking" are of that kind. They misconstrue what is being said, and are used to conceal a position you fail to make explicit. Gaming the system would not apply if you were not aware of what you're doing. We have enough evidence to suppose you know what you're doing, Larry, and are not quite forthright about it.

  What you're doing has very little to do with true diversity. You're just flipping the script, a bit like James Damore did by other means. Here, but also elsewhere.

  And there's no amount of politeness that can cover it.

  Where I come from, theses simply can't be asserted. They need support; the answers they seek to answer can't be begged. This is not the Roman Church, and you're not Martin Luther.

  Hope that helps. Selbstporträt (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That warrant is so handwavy it could be applied to just about any critique and amounts to a moral panic. Eulemann (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which warrant: the band or the concept non-naturalists use instead of justification?Selbstporträt (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The point is that it's very sttange to have to make a point of teaching the members of your project how to avoid getting blocked in the course of carrying out the activities of your project, unless of course you're aware that either your project's aims or the people you're trying to attract might run an increased risk of falling afoul of the rules. I'm not aware of a single other Wikiproject that feels the need to have a "how not to get blocked" guide. Athanelar (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Obviously, that's not a count against us. It's a count against those who would block us. In other words, if we are held to a higher (perhaps unreasonably or impossibly high) standard just because we wish to make Wikipedia more open to a wide variety of ideas, that is a strong criticism of our blockers, and it actually shows more decisively of the need for WPID. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There's a kind of vulgar postmodernism present in the idea that what Wikipedia needs is to expand its conceptual reach rightward and in the direction of woo like alternative medicine. Or are you going to start inviting strident materialist Marxists to join too? Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  People aren't holding you to a higher standard because of what you want to change, people are holding you to a higher standard because of the way you're going at it. You're not being oppressed for having different ideas, and people criticizing this project doesn't make it more right. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You're not being oppressed for having different ideas Then why is Sanger getting personally attacked for his viewpoints? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  One can admonish personal attacks while also seeing that most of the criticism here is not personal and is directed at the proposal itself. Generally, nothing stops Sanger from pursuing his ideas, but there's nothing wrong with seeing a WikiProject as an inappropriate vehicle for this. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this. The WikiProject in its current state leaves much to be desired. I agree with some of its goals (e.g. introducing a wider range of viewpoints) but not others (I don't think weakening source reliability standards is the way to go about accomplishing those goals). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Out of the 28 members in the proposed wikiproject, 2 have been indeffed after having several chances/being warned. No one gets blocked for having a different viewpoint, but because of inserting blatantly false information or persistently violating civility policies. In this thread itself/this wiki project page, you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS against the project as a whole.

  Also, intellectual diversity comes from editors with different backgrounds and perspectives collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Intellectual diversity is not lowering the encyclopedia’s guidelines in order to allow for opinions/information that run afoul from guidelines to be inserted into articles. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Where does the project call for a lowering of the encyclopedia's guidelines? Eulemann (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's logically implied. @Larry Sanger's main grievance appears to be that we deprecated various far-right and nationalist sources like The Heritage Foundation, and I'd assume similar dicey venues FoxNews, NewsMax, Truth Social, Breitbart, old Info Wars... all the ones with notorious issues with false/fabricated reporting and similar?

  If the intention is to get those radical/WP:FRINGE sources back into English Wikipedia, how else do you achieve that without lowering our standards? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm unclear on how anyone can doubt that the "Goals/Broaden the Range of Permissable Sources" section is about lowering of standards, when it starts off criticizing the "tightening of the screws" over the years on what sources are acceptable, and it includes the following take on inclusion of primary sources and the role of bias in what sources are permitted.

  "We are also skeptical of the emphasis on secondary sources over primary sources, and any debate that turns on whether a source's exclusion reflects opinions on bias rather than opinions on quality (whether this is admitted or not)."

  Even if you 100% agree that Wikipedia has "tightened the screws," on what makes a reliable source, the position of this project would clearly be that we need to lower those standards, because they need to be lowered. And while I admit that the phrase "lower standards" carries certain negative implications, it is still the standard way one refers to making a set of rules or guidelines less stringent or exacting. Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have boldly removed the indefinitely blocked users from the list of members. I am not a member of WPID and am willing to undo this edit if anyone objects. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! I also boldly removed the doxxing threat, if that changes anyone’s mind. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose I am sympathetic to the idea that current limitations on sourcing make it hard to write about certain niche topic or viewpoints that are notable but not published in "establishment" sources

  However, being charitable and WP:AGF, I fear that something like this would just be the start of a slippery slope of falling standards for sources. I think any reasonable person would agree that there is a limit to what sources are usable. I think most of us would generally agree that a source like the BBC would generally be reliable with perhaps some asterisks and blindspots, while we shouldn't be giving crackpot emails and websites Physicsts sometimes get linked to about someone proving that the Higgs Boson is actually a Xenon atom and the entirety of modern Physics is a scam by the CIA any credibility.

  That line needs to be in a reasonable place and I fear that a project like this aimed at loosening sourcing standards wouldn't leave that line in a good place.

  PS. Currently only have access to my mobile so my writing standards are likely to suffer Giulio 22:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Again I think Sanger needs to define the intellectual diversity they think is missing. I asked them before if they would be extending invitations to hard-nosed Marxist materialists - a group of editors who combine both assertive resistance to superstition and woo with being far more left-wing than the Wikipedia mainstream, which often demonstrates an americentric bias toward socialist countries and concepts. They did not respond. I think it's important they clarify what is meant by diversity. They claim they don't just mean the Infowars set then clarify they're adding Hindutva to the list of intellectual diversity to promote. At this point Sanger might as well say that Wikipedia should be more open to accepting the intellectual diversity of the Unification Church. This remains a key neutrality problem with all of Sanger's claims: whose neutrality? Whose diversity? Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• FWIW, Draft:Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is still a draft. I reset the content from scratch but put old sources down into the "Further reading" section. Also, I'm wary about how this proposed WikiProject would attract non-US editors here. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This draft is irrelevant (i.e., not part of) the WikiProject. Also, Wikipedia is of course quite open to non-US editors. What are you talking about, George? (FWIW, George has not joined WPID.) Larry Sanger (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This draft is irrelevant (i.e., not part of) the WikiProject.

  Wanting this project to be intellectually diverse is a lot of ask, isn't it? Furthermore, I'm more worried about this WikiProject's goals, especially on WP:LLM guideline. How inclusive have you wanted LLM-dependent editors to be?

  Back to the quote above, which I see you already said in your talk page (link), the draft may be "irrelevant" to the WikiProject, but Wikipedia still doesn't have an article about "intellectual diversity". Furthermore, I dunno whether "intellectual diversity" is defined or exemplified actually by the WikiProject's goals here. I'm hesitant to consider it so, and I'm uncertain whether the following exemplifies "intellectual diversity":

  We do not assert any authority over such pages. Rather, we review and propose changes to them.

  George Ho (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds good! 123957a (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Though I must caution you on attempting to enforce a new idea of "neutrality". As seen here, many people disagree with your idea of neutrality. Wikipedia reflects facts, not falsehoods, and effectively allowing Flat Earthers and neo-Nazis to insert their propaganda into articles is a bad idea. 123957a (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• I intend to participate. Hopefuly this wikiproject can be an avenue to improve the project. The best days of Wikipedia are in its future! Pietrus1 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Hmmm.. sounds good. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• One important note about WikiProjects in general: They cannot override Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly in the sense of trying to enforce a different set of ideals against them. However, as WikiProjects are groups of people, you can organize to work toward adjusting said policies and guidelines. And of course, the entire Wikipedia community has the right to participate in these adjustment discussions. the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think we know that WikiProjects can't "override" policies and guidelines. We are under no illusions on that score, we have not suggested otherwise, and we have said that our intent is to push for more robust intellectual diversity via the usual channels for making changes to Wikipedia policies. We know that, of course, the whole Wikipedia community has a right to participate. Larry Sanger (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Right but I don't think I've quite seen you explain how this is not effectively just an alt-right wikicanvassing group because, reading thoroughly over everything you wrote above and all of the diffs people are providing below, this just looks like an alt-right canvassing group. Snokalok2 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Making intimations about what political direction some group is oriented toward with the effect of trying to smear them with guilt by association does not further a constructive discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Neither does going on long and intense rants about the evils of trans people but I can't think of any other circumstance under which certain names were pinged to join. Snokalok2 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the aim here is to bait me into an argument about a subject from which I'm topic-banned, so that I can have more sanctions imposed, I refuse to take the bait. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the point is that the number of editors who have topic bans and cbans who are listed as members of the putative group is alarming especially combined with the policy scanner. It honestly looks like a canvassing tool. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  And when you combine those details with discussions about this project providing 'how to' instructions on avoiding topic-bans, and the like, it becomes even more alarming. Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  "effectively" and "looks like" Eulemann (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed WikiProject appears to me to be for the purpose of coralling editors who would like to more freeely make usage of fringe and unreliable sources to noticeboard dicussions about the reliablity of such sources. I don't see how this is of any possible benefit to the project. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Before we know it Reddit would be seen as WP:RS. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose as per TarnishPath. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  that's what it looks like to me, too. Oppose. Fixinathing (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• I support WPID! Félix An (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines and Wikipedia:village pump (policy) about this proposal. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @George Ho. I'm in the process of notifying noticeboards which would be affected by any potential coralling. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Question - Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but the main aim of this project seems to be to have a place where editors can discuss "What's the best way to change Policy X to achieve Goal Y?" But isn't this already possible at the relevant policy pages? For example, if you wanted to change WP:NPOV you could start a discussion at WT:NPOV, or discuss with interested editors at their talk pages beforehand. What does this being a WikiProject achieve? The policy scanner is nice, but could easily be a standalone thing. InfernoHues (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You are not misunderstanding, but you are making the erroneous assumption that the goal here is to improve Wikipedia processes through our consensus-based approach; what such a platform would actually allow would be to give a veneer of legitimacy to what is quite clearly meant to be a canvassing operation aiming to actually override our processes and achieve the listed goals anyways. That is exactly why the policy scanner is an integral part of this, and not a standalone thing. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This person does not speak for and has not joined the WPID. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  No one person is in charge of, speaks for, or owns/controls any wikiproject. Certainly no one gets to control membership.

  You did consider that should this even 'pass', your net power over it would be equal to your mathematical value as one (1) of however many Wiki editors happen to edit that day? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can read policy. You don’t need to inform me of it. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just reminding, and to make sure any airy clout bubbles that shouldn't exist are popped. No special animals on this farm. Good luck with it though. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  We do not know that you do read and understand policy, and today's "Also bear in mind that this page is in my user space. You are not permitted to delete it"[1] does indicate that you do misunderstand it. NebY (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  In short, it is a club for people who broadly agree on policy issues that would make WP more intellectually tolerant. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  What's an explicit named real-world example of an intellectual position we don't tolerate? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are so, so many examples. I'll give you my stock one: the Wikipedia Yahweh (last I looked) rejects out of hand the orthodox Christian notion of the origin of our God, who told us his name is Yahweh. This account is not allowed to be developed, nor defended, in the article titled Yahweh. Actual Christians, who worship Yahweh, must go to an article ghetto to discuss the topic. In short, on that topic, Christians are not allowed in the conversation.

  Again, this is just one example. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ones personal life voluntary self-chosen identifications like religion, reminder, or our personal off-wiki beliefs have no validity or impact on-wiki. Never have, never will. Can you explain this in non apologetic/believer terms, and in proper needed "wiki terms"? Do you have an example of quality WP:RS that is being screened from that article? Not to disrepect your beliefs, but like my own similar beliefs, respectfully, no one cares and it's honestly gauche to bring them up (like if I tried to bring up mine, what my training/career is, my achievements in real life and so on).

  What quality content is being kept off there? Link? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Larry Sanger, that doesn't make any sense. No one is "discussing topics" on articles. In fact, we have WP:NOFORUM to cover that kind of thing. So I assume what you mean to say is that God in Christianity should be the primary topic of Yahweh? ie, that Yahweh-as-Christian-God should be the topic of the article located at Yahweh? That isn't a policy issue, it's an editorial decision. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the "Broaden the range of permissible sources" element of the project. The last thing we need are sloppy sources. We need high quality sources. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Based on the multiple public interviews the editor organising this proposed project has given, he seems to strongly disagree with having WP:FOXNEWS and WP:BREITBART considered GUNREL. Additionally there are the other interviews given where he has argued that the bible, vedas and upanishads, etc, should be cited as sources more in religious articles. So, these would suggest that "intellectual diversity" has a specific direction that it seeks to drive guidance on RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I was blissfully unaware of those issues, given my lack of interest in politics. But that makes no difference if they want to weaken WP:RS requirements. I think we need to "strengthen" WP:RS. So they can be right handed, left handed, ambidextrous or whatever, I would still oppose any weakening of WP: RS. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone who thinks that WP:BREITBART should be useable as a reliable source probably shouldn't be editing. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I have never read Breibart. Not even once. So I can not and will not think about it. Am I lucky, or what? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think I might have followed a link once or twice. I wasn't left anymore informed for my troubles. TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Breitbart and similar like Daily Wire are overtly unreliable. They're as unreliable as Belarusan state media. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would add that the name of this project felt deliberately misleading once I'd read further into it. When I first encountered it, I got excited, because I thought it was a group of editors intending to make pages within the Wikipedia namespace easier to read and understand - closer to the Simple English wiki, or even just written with the expectation that total n00bs are the audience - especially the pages on administrative processes like afd. To my mind, that would be a project to encourage more "Intellectual Diversity" in our editors and admin-level users. I don't see how allowing more sources which do not meet carefully curated rules for reliability and inclusion, or removing consensus as a means of decision-making, makes the Wikipedia 'intellectually diverse'. Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 12:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I attempted to explain the flawed logic here. LS' reply above mostly uses the "silencing other views" argument, which is fundamentally incorrect. WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS would be your best read to understand where WPID is rooted. 11WB (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your attempt to be informative, but I think you misunderstood my "I don't see how..." comment, and took it to me I didn't actually understand the (flawed) logic behind LS calling the project by that name. I was actually trying to detail why I think the name choice was both intentionally misleading and willfully obtuse - because LS knows full well that his arguments are a deliberate misrepresentation of the current policies, guidelines, etc. Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Don't think I misunderstood, but thanks for the clarification regardless. 11WB (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Say that there is a non-peer reviewed magazine that asks individuals to explain their culture. From what I can see, one of the goals is to allow this. I don’t think we could call it a reliable source now, but it would be near-perfect for the things it tries to do. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is no requirement for our sources to be peer reviewed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's also why categorizing sources as broadly "reliable" or "unreliable" can easily be misleading. Sources can be reliable or unreliable for certain purposes, and the same source that would be priceless for an article describing a culture's medical practices might be much more problematic if used to provide an assessment of how effective these practices are, for which we'd need to reach out for a higher WP:MEDRS standard. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  it would be near-perfect ← There are multiple levels of misunderstanding here. The source would likely be reliable for what is relayed. But where would the WP:WEIGHT be? Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources. If other sources had ignored these primary accounts, why should Wikipedia pay attention? Elevating such a source endangers WP:NPOV. And who could say such sources were representative anyway? Random Wikipedia editors? (WP:NOR is the problem then). It's concerning to see a root-and branch WikiProject proposal being made on the basis of such little clue. If the proposal is: we should allow random Wikipedia editors to decide which primary sources matter, rather than the outside world of published experts, then the answer is: no way. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Whether it would be reliable would depend on the context. To put that in concrete terms, if you read the magazine article and see that an individual says "I'm a chef from Ruritania, and one of the most important elements of our culture is cheese-making", then it depends on whether you write in the Wikipedia article that "Cheese-making is important in Ruritanian culture" or "One chef said that..." This is because it can be true that one person said this, even if what the one person said is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) We hope to open Wikipedia up to using more sources, permitting responsibly-written sources that represent views of currently-disfavored ideologies, parties, nationalities, religions, and other viewpoints. So one of the stated goals of this proposed WikiProject is violation of Wikipedia policy? I share TarnishedPath's concern above, especially in light of Larry's past track record with WP:FRINGE- and politics-related topics - some of which has been mentioned on the mainspace article on Sanger. For example, In an August 2021 interview with The Sunday Times of London, Sanger objected to Wikipedia's description of alternative medicines, such as homeopathy, as "pseudoscience". He believed such a definition lacked true neutrality. JavaHurricane 06:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Beyond my point of order above, I wonder how a WikiProject like this could be arranged that doesn't violate WP:CANVASS (Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.). I mean, having a group where you establish agreement on particular policy directions is one thing, but then using the group for notification when wanting to push a policy change does have quite the feel of canvassing. the Stefen 𝕋ower 07:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: That's weird, my dog started whistling. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify: The actual meaning of "intellectual diversity" here (the dogwhistle) is injecting conservative viewpoints into Wikipedia and attracting the sorts of people whom some [paint] as "right-wing" or "extremists." If only there was a WikiProject Intellectual Honesty. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there something wrong about wanting conservative viewpoints to be represented in articles in which they disagree with liberals? I would have thought that that is not to be grounds for dismissive abuse ("extremism") but instead for working together with different-minded people in a tolerant fashion. I suppose my saying that marks me out as an extremist though LOL Larry Sanger (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Wanting to represent viewpoints is wrong, facts are what is important. Ideally, we would have a neutral third party source summarize the two opposing views and cite that. Per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources and WP:RS/QUOTE if we need exact quotations from a person we can use the source they published to get that quote. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have any real opposition to creation of a Wikiproject – people should be free to associate however they like on here, as long as it is not disruptive. However, I am concerned that the framing of this project around "intellectual diversity", in the current way that term is deployed, as an effort to organize editors around the inclusion of fringe, unreliable, or highly contentious viewpoints. For example, the Free Press and the University of Austin are organized around a principle of "intellectual diversity", but that seems to mean anti-woke, anti-trans, pro-Israel, anti-mainstream, right-wing contrarian, and has to the contrary developed its own sort of orthodoxy. I found three signatories under ArbCom sanctions for contentious topic editing: two blocked and one topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it's clear that Wikipedia does need more diversity, the Free Press style of "free speech diversity" is really another sort of walled garden, and this project seems to be aiming to build precisely such a set of like-minded "free-speech" warriors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Creating a WikiProject gives you an exception to WP:CANVAS, which I suspect is the whole point here. Tercer (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose. Looking into this more closely, it does look like this proposed WikiProjoct would solely be for undercutting WP:PAG through canvassing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment What is intellectual diversity? It seems a very vague term and I think most people won't understand what it means. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It sounds a bit like learning disabilities, but actually it appears to be campaigning against the 'woke' mainstream media and universities. Secretlondon (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• I will be direct: a project whose raison d'etre is that the existing project to counter systemic bias is too eager to include women and minorities and exclude far-right extremists does not seem like a good idea to me. ~2026-34036-29 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I think you need to come out and say with your chest what kind of content you think is being withheld from Wikipedia that needs addressing by more "intellectual diversity", though I can make a pretty good guess by looking at what two of your members have already been indeffed for recently. At least be honest to the community. Orange sticker (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It may provide some insight looking at the various public interviews the editor has given, where he has discussed Wikipedia's use of sources and policies with regards to those sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• It all seems rather trippy to me, like some psychadelic experience from Easy Rider mixed with the dance macabre from the Seventh Seal. Not my idea of an encyclopedia.Intellectual diversity, woo woo, original thought, everybodys' idea should be considered is the stuff for making original research and I'm all in favour of that - but not for an encyclopedia which is for the altogether other end of the line where you want what has already been through all that and people want to see something fairly definite. NadVolum (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Have come to my conclusion. He has wasted enough of my time and doesn't do anything useful and has been doing it for ages. I hope he gets banned and can finally go and maybe do something useful with his life instead. NadVolum (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed WikiProject page (current revision) suggests that the project aims to undermine established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly the three that the WikiProject page places in scare quotes: the due weight policy, the fringe theories guideline, and the reliable sources guideline.
  Regarding the project's "Broaden the range of permissible sources" goal, I note that whereas the Wikipedia community deprecated the American far-right fake news website InfoWars in 2018 as a generally unreliable source in a decisive request for comment, the WikiProject proposer Larry Sanger appeared on the 31 October 2025 episode of the podcast of Alex Jones (who was then the host of InfoWars) to promote his list of grievances and criticize the Wikipedia community for blacklisting InfoWars and other sources he described as "alt news sources". The proposed WikiProject is essentially a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) campaign in favor of such unreliable and fringe sources, which constitutes unwarranted promotion of fringe views and would reduce Wikipedia's credibility. — Newslinger talk 09:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have concerns that its aims are a bit worse than undermining our policies. Larry states that part of the aims are to rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability. Given that part of the proposed project is the User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner page which includes a link to a recent discussion in which an editor was WP:SNOW WP:CBAN'd, I have concerns that the proposed project's reason for being is corralling editors to WP:VOTESTACK discussions on noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Notably that cbanned editor is also listed as a member of the proposed wikiproject. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed, there seems to be a correlation. Malcontents looking to "stir the pot" as it were are not typically in the best interests of the project. DN (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  In the ANI thread, someone who discovered this WikiProject proposal off-wiki linked to Larry Sanger's earlier draft of the WikiProject page (archived copy), and the history of that page predates Larry Sanger creating the proposed WikiProject page on Wikipedia. The URL of the draft (https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity) indicates that it is hosted on encyclosphere.org, the website of one of Larry Sanger's personal projects.

  Looking through the history of that draft, I see one particular edit on 23 April 2026 (archived copy) in which a clearer description of the project's intent to weaken Wikipedia's policies was replaced with more ambiguous language. Most prominently, Larry Sanger originally stated that he aimed to "Roll back" the neutrality policy to exclude mention of due weight, fringe theories, and reliable sources, which indicates that Larry Sanger aims to use this WikiProject to not only undermine but also eliminate policies and guidelines that he disagrees with. Combined with the repeated improper canvassing documented in the ANI thread, it is clear that the goal of the WikiProject is to enlist a brigade of editors with a limited set of political views to dismantle Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which is an inappropriate use of a WikiProject.

  Larry Sanger's campaign had previously been covered in the academic publication "Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet" (2023), which noted that although "Sanger, who crafted the core NPOV rule, has condemned the interpretations of the guideline that emerged over time", "A qualitative content analysis shows that Wikipedia transformed from a dubious source of information in its early years to an increasingly reliable one over time." — Newslinger talk 16:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  This has to be the final nail in the coffin. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger We should check all of the wikis Sanger started/contributed to in order to see if there was improper canvassing there. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @EaglesFan37: Per WP:OUTING, I'm cautious about linking to off-wiki information until it has already been linked on-wiki, unless the content is either published in a reliable source or was something the editor intended to present to a wide audience (such as the CNN-News18 interview). However, it is more complicated to determine how this policy should apply to self-published content by editors who are themselves notable enough to be covered in a standalone Wikipedia article. In any case, off-wiki evidence of editor misconduct can always be reported to the Arbitration Committee if it is serious enough to warrant a response. — Newslinger talk 16:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger I meant as private evidence, because I have suspicions that some WPID members could have been canvassed from those pedias. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do think that there is systemic bias on Wikipedia that should be combatted, and that our coverage of certain topics, like astrology, for example, focus more on how modern science has debunked it rather than its historical relevancy -- which makes it seem more like RationalWiki article. For my views on this topic, see my essay WP:RATIONAL. However, as others have stated, this goal of this proposed WikiProject is to inject ideological nonsense into Wikipedia, as has been Larry's goal since he left the project. I do not believe he is actually WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia anymore, but rather promote his ideas about how to drive Wikipedia into the ground like all his other projects "improve" Wikipedia. Other notable members of this project, like שלומית ליר (talk · contribs) are here mainly to criticize community consensus for clearly ideological reasons. At least one of the people Larry pinged here, Riposte97 (talk · contribs), is an avowed racist, this user has since been INDEF'd after a unanimous decision (I do have to say, though, the 'editing your comment to slap niggardly in place of uncharitable and act like that's a normal thing to do' thing is a 200 IQ move). One editor, handpicked by Larry, was given a topic ban from all gender-related topics for consistently rambling about trans people, such as comparing MOS:GENDERID to newspeak. It is clear from this what the project's goals actually are: monitoring the treatment of viewpoints that dissent from Western, academic, secular, or mainstream-media consensus and promoting sources from currently-disfavored ideologies, parties, nationalities, religions, and other viewpoints means giving undue weight to Larry's personal opinions about theology, gender, and Zionism. PolicyScanner is little more than a large-scale WP:CANVASing operation.wound theology◈ 09:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, there's certainly more discussions to be had around the interpretation and actual text of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and other issues, but that'll come from editors actually here to build an encyclopedia (eg. look at the rework of RSP), not lobbyists. This also seems like a pretty transparent attempt at setting up a prototype of the 'political parties' idea of his, which would just divide and polarise the community, WP:BATTLEGROUND says Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. On bias, it is obv subjective in nature, one person's "attribute everything" is another's "WP:FALSEBALANCE and post-truth", both seemingly-valid and utterly-irreconcilable perspectives. English Wikipedia reflects the bias of the institutions regarded as producing and verifying knowledge in Western society, which is not a bad place to be if we remember the goal is to document knowledge. That there's trendy scholarship which cares more about making moral statements than understanding, a broken media landscape, and a lack of other reputable epistemological institutions atm which we can tap into aren't problems for us to solve, we don't lead. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  English Wikipedia reflects the bias of the institutions regarded as producing and verifying knowledge in Western society, which is not a bad place to be if we remember the goal is to document knowledge. Academic bias is still bias. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as "objectively unbiased", everything has a bias, if we stopped privileging scholarship, lots of people would consider that to be 'bad bias'. I agreed with the comment above that cited WP:RATIONAL Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I remain on board and intend to actively participate in WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. I see it as an important opportunity for constructive, policy-based work on bias, contested knowledge, and meaningful improvements through the usual on-wiki processes. שלומית ליר (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose the whole idea of this Wikiproject, for two reasons;

1. The whole thing is being framed in an extremely (frankly, dishonestly) generous manner. I encourage everyone unfamiliar with Larry Sanger to read the nine theses on his profile to understand what he's advocating for through this wikiproject. Where this proposal says broaden the range of permissible sources it should be made absolutely clear that what Sanger means by this is completely abolishing our editorial standards, and presenting the information in fringe viewpoints and unreliable sources as equal to those in reliable sources in the aim of maintaining "neutrality." In other words, Sanger wants WP:FALSEBALANCE to be a mandate, not a warning. In his own words from the first time this was brought up and pitched at the Teahouse, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished. The explicit goal here is to redefine "neutral point of view" to mean "uncritically platforming every viewpoint equally with no regard to reliability or due weight."
2. It is wholly inappropriate to use a Wikiproject as a voting bloc/advocacy group like this. The activities of this Wikiproject would be nothing less than transparent WP:CANVASsing. Athanelar (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

   • Strongly Oppose I have replied above to a few specific points being made in this discussion, which give a broader overview of my reasoning. But I'm placing my official position statement here, because I believe Athanelar has very capably summarized the biggest concerns I have with this proposed project. Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposed project appears, from statements made by the proposer both on-and off-Wikipedia, to be motivated by a desire to replace a 'systemic bias' by another bias - one giving entirely undue support to fringe concepts that have no place in an encyclopaedia, and to the political agenda of the US right wing that seems so keen to promote Larry's critique. There is, in my mind, no question that Wikipedia has it's biases (it would be truly astonishing if it didn't) but even applying the purest AGF, this proposed solution has all the hallmarks of the 'There is a problem, something must be done. This is something, therefore this must be done' fallacy. And I see no particular reason to over-apply good faith to proposals coming from this particular source. Furthermore, since I am of the opinion that in as much as en.Wikipedia has any consistent bias (a statement that really needs a 'compared to what' clause), it is a reflection of the biases of its contributors (an entirely unsurprising conclusion, I must admit), a project like this could only succeed by replacing the contributors with others. At root, this seems to be an attempt to replace the existing policies, content, and contributorship of the project with something else - something that would then be 'Wikipedia' in name only, and oriented around the political perspective of a small minority of its intended global English-speaking readership. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - This sounds like the promotion of a populist gish gallop (not to be mistaken with democracy and not reality-based), it has flavors of a wedge strategy (an attempt to corrupt via policy using questionable means), there is already evidence that those not already signed-in are summarily being dismissed (how diverse is that)? Then it is clear that the proposed project is to work against important policies like RS and GEVAL, which make the difference between a credible source of information and an indiscriminate collection of information (which Wikipedia is WP:NOT and which is not what WikiProjects are for). By someone who long has been an outsider and who suddenly visits expecting to have some type of authority over the project's direction... There is a claim of lack of "intellectual diversity", a type of conspiracy theory positing that the encyclopedia doesn't cover topics (because it does not cover them from the perspective of propagandists with a conflict of interest, but relies on independent reliable sources, the only viable approach). ~2026-33889-87 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support(ish) I am unsure what is making it an "official" project achieves, as it will not be a policy, and so could not be used to overturn policy. If (However) the goal is to give it the weight of policy, then I would oppose it. Slatersteven (talk)
• I now support opposed given the canvassing and the "concerns" expressed by support votes that give a strong impression this is about getting unblocks or stacking discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• I would also oppose it if it had the power to overturn admin actions, without going through proper channels. It should only be a talking shop. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Hard Oppose I would be very interested to know which far-right, right-wing, and extremist worldviews you believe the project is treating so unfairly as to warrant a wikiproject like this. Snokalok2 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's not practical. Unlike some editors I think it is true that WP (like any website or any publication) has a bias. It is a bias towards academic and demonstrably respected mainstream positions, and I can also see why that is not perfect. OTOH, perfection is not possible, and we've made a reasonable practical decision about what we are NOT good at with this set-up, which is original research. In effect WP has decided that summarizing the most respected parts of the mainstream (to put it crudely again) is a doable mission, and everything we've been doing in recent years has been in that direction. Without that idea, I think WP would have long ago failed like many Wiki projects do. So while I can see genuine value in the idea of a project which tries to somehow use a broader range of sources, it is a completely different project to this one, and extremely difficult, with a very high probability of failure. It necessarily involves debate about new and original ideas. How do you judge the relative merits of non-orthodox/controversial claims if we can't use their academic/mainstream "status" as a proxy of their right to be reported? It would effectively mean creating a debate forum and research platform. WP is NOT good at those things. So the aim might be good, but WP is NOT the right starting point for such a project. To the extent that it supplies a big bundle of information to the public can of course help people (or AI's like Grok) to attempt such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support I have experienced a power imbalance as an editor here, resulting in a silencing of my voice. I ask that my tban appeal should be heard by an independent nonpartisan group, not the same editors who control the topic space. I hope there is a will to restore an open exchange of ideas to this encyclopedia. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs) was TBAN'd for edit warring and POV-pushing (like advocating WP:POVSPLITs Accusations of usage of human shields by IDF and Usage of human shields by Hamas and this project seems to function, indeed, as a "counter-project to support Western ideas and refute blood libels against Israel". This is the sort of editing that WPID wants to endorse. wound theology◈ 11:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Curious why @Wound theology points out only my TBAN, not anyone else in this discussion who was TBAN'd, was my TBAN more 'fair' than theirs? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Because you claimed your voice was silenced by bias? wound theology◈ 20:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, this is wrong. WPID does not want to "endorse" any particular point of view, precisely because we favor a big tent. By contrast, you seem to oppose any representation of the view you have quoted. What we would favor is the attributed explanation of such views as those you would (do correct me if I am wrong) like to suppress and keep from being so much as stated on Wikipedia. Have I got that right? Perhaps you are saying WPID would want to make the Wikipedia article assert in its own voice the thing you quoted. But why think that? What WPID stands for is the fair representation of competing views, against people who want to silence all those views other than their own. You must admit that there are plenty of people like that on Wikipedia, even if you don't admit to being one yourself. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'll start off by extending greetings. There is unfortunately a major flaw in the logic that is being applied here. Sources on Wikipedia are not deprecated to shut out a particular political viewpoint, rather they are unreliable for various reasons, not limited to: not having writers that are qualified for the topic (see WP:HEALTHLINE), malicious data brokers (in the case of MyLife), hosting plagiarism (Royal Central) and spam (Zoominfo.com). Allowing these sites to be cited would fundamentally ruin Wikipedia's reliability and legitimacy. This isn't a binary left/right issue alone, such a view risks complete naivety to reality. Wikipedia actually does have right-wing sources that are considered reliable by consensus, WP:THETIMES being one such example. 11WB (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal states that “we seek to help Wikipedia better represent a genuinely broad intellectual diversity, regardless of whether, in their home countries, some paint them as `right-wing’ or `extremists’.” This sounds like a potential conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. For example, in the U.S. the right wing, which is heavily represented in the Trump administration, holds many views that are in direct opposition to established science, on climate change, on vaccines, etc. A small example: today’s NY Times reports that in April Secretary of Defense (who prefers to be called Secretary of War) Hegseth removed vaccination requirements from the military, calling them “absurd” and “over-reaching”, and at one military base now almost 160 soldiers are sick with the flu. I don’t think we want to “intellectually diversify” if it means giving sympathetic coverage to anti-vaxx, climate change denial, Holocaust denial, or Great Replacement conspiracy theory opinions. NightHeron (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose the heart of the project is this User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity/PolicyScanner used to route folks to ani threads and policy when members are getting discussed. This is just a canvassing operation dressed up in better clothing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  the dog whistle of intellectual diversity is clearly only for a certain type of culture warrior interested in the thin veneer of intellectualism to win one over on wikipedians. The obsession with policy and the an threads is to allow for options fundamentally incompatible with wiki values in defense of this vague idea of “intellectual diversity “

  There is little redeeming value to this at all. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Many of the members of this group face tbans or blocks, betraying who hears this dogwhistle the clearest. Perhaps a better name for this project is project povwarriors or project battleground User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is worth noting that one of Sanger's policy positions is that Wikipedia should abolish permanent blocks and bans, again in the name of "intellectual diversity" or what have you. I don't think it's surprising therefore that it would attract a "Suicide Squad" of individuals who think this is a possible route to getting their sanctions overturned (see one of the supporting votes above who directly cites their grievance with their ongoing ARBIPA tban as a reason for their support) Athanelar (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Abolishing permanent blocks and bans seems like a good idea. The longest block or ban should only be 30 years (except in cases where Wikipedia is forced by law to have longer ones). It is silly that people can have a longer block than they can spend time in jail. Rolluik (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's absurd to suggest that an unambiguous vandal should be arbitrarily allowed to come back every 6 months/1year/whatever to repeat their behaviour only to get another arbitrarily time-limited block. Some people have no interest in ever being productive editors. Athanelar (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Most unambiguous vandals come back much quicker under another account, which would reset the clock. If an LTA stops doing anything harmful for, say, 5 years, I don't see why they shouldn't be given a second chance. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That provision already exists in the WP:STANDARDOFFER though. Indefinite isn't infinite, and Sanger's complaints that appeals get denied arbitrarily just isn't substantiated. There's no sensible reason why blocks should be arbitrarily time-limited. Someone who does want to return to productive editing can take the standard offer. Someone who doesn't stays blocks. The only thing a time-limited block does is allow people to get unblocked without ever having to explain that they understand how their behaviour was problematic and how they'll avoid it in the future. Athanelar (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The only thing a time-limited block does is allow people to get unblocked without ever having to explain that they understand how their behaviour was problematic and how they'll avoid it in the future. So, in other words, you think admins should only ever issue indefinite blocks? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  No. This sounds like a "you like pancakes, so you hate waffles?" type of question you've just asked. toby ^(t)(rw) 18:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Frankly? In the majority of cases, yes. I think time-limited blocks have a narrow function as a "stopgap block". I.e., if there's ongoing disruption from an editor who's not communicating, then a short block to stop their disruption until a full discussion can be carried out, that sort of thing.

  But yes, I think in terms of sanction blocks, time-limited blocks are kind of pointless. "Time-out' is for toddlers, not grown adults. If someone's not responded to warnings and conversations, then block them until they make a commitment to change. Athanelar (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Of note, every single edit at User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner and the associated User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner output, which the former transcludes to, has been made by Larry himself. The proposed project very much seems like an attempt at legitimising canvassing. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Another thought, there are already legitimate channels for discussing policy on Wikipedia anyways. What does this project do beyond that? canvassing, it does canvassing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Reading over the "goals" page for WPID, I see this very conspicuous statement in a section about making Wikipedia more "inclusive"

  we plan to monitor blocking threats and policy discussions that are used in making such threats, including canvassing and coordination policy. I wonder why this project, specifically, might have a particular named concern for block threats based on canvassing and coordinated editing. Curious. Athanelar (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Not much wondering is required. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Athanelar I decided to take a quick look.

  Out of the 27 members of this proposed WikiProject, 2 have since been indeffed (Wh1pla5h99 and Riposte97), and at least another 2 are currently subjected to topic bans (Allthemilescombined1 and Dtobias). Around half of the other 23 members either do not have enough edits to meet ECR or have very few mainspace edits in the past year (some of whom only have edits related to this WikiProject recently). EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Quite interesting that around half of the other 23 do not have enough edits to meet ECR. TarnishedPath^talk 14:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath

  To be precise, 5 don't meet ECR (Prodos, Ferdilouw, Lawfare, Flounder ceo, Eulemann). Another 4 (שלומית ליר, T Magierowski, 123957a, and Jenhawk777) have very few to zero mainspace edits in 2026, Pantarch has primarily edited one mainspace article in 2026, and Larry Sanger has only edited four mainspace articles after November 2012. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  https://x.com/lsanger/status/2052100348118970850

  https://x.com/lsanger/status/2065545305072795803

  some off wiki posts about it fairly tame tbh User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Does this constitute of wiki canvasing? Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it goes in that direction. If they linked to this discussion it would cross the line. TarnishedPath^talk 14:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The line has been crossed. wound theology◈ 20:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Bluethricecreamman @Slatersteven @TarnishedPath @Wound theology FYI -

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Well, I have to admin that "Intellectual Diversity" is a classic euphemism, something along the lines of "collateral damage", I suppose; it sounds harmless enough but hides a multiplicity of problems. I presume the Reinforce genuine neutrality part is something that is there because the author really doesn't like the fact that many opinions that he holds (climate change denial, anti-vaccine, etc ) are described as fringe, and so therefore we must give more coverage to things that are fringe, even though very few reliable sources can provide evidence that those things are true. Nope, doesn't make any sense to me either ... unless, of course, you Broaden the range of permissible sources. Now this is genius - if reliable sources can't source the things we want to say, we'll just try to change things so that we can use unreliable ones as well - after all, they're only "unreliable" because those nasty left-wing Wikipedians agreed they were (see WP:THESIS3). Mr Sanger still seems unable to get his head around the fact that sources are not deprecated because they're right-wing, they're deprecated because they print lies. The fact that a preponderance of sources that do this tend to be on the right of the political spectrum is not the fault of Wikipedia editors. Anyway, whilst I do agree with a couple of points, this all simply points to being a big canvassing operation, and we all know how badly they always end. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  ^100% this. TarnishedPath^talk 11:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've had a lot of experience recently with editors on political articles who have seemed to put forward that the use of social sciences to discuss the political right is non-neutral because of... well basically because they believe the Grievance studies hoax people were right. To see a group that contains so many confirmed WP:PARTISANS arguing to expand sourcing suggests that, as the tactic of denying academic sources are reliable seems weak, they would rather just fill up our sourcing with actual fringe garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well put. I was unaware of the issues beyond WP:RS but once I saw the background items, I thought the situation would be similar to Jeffrey Skilling and Ivan Boesky asking the SEC to relax the rules on trading info a few years ago so "financial diversity" could be achieved. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose because Larry Sanger. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 12:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This line of reasoning is argumentum ad hominem and should be discarded. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Would "because Larry Sanger approves of doxxing Wikipedia administators[2] who disagree with his views and this proposal includes allowing the source that is doing the doxing" work for you? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  One of the important parts of Wikipedia theory is that a well given argument from a TA should hold more weight than a poorly given argument from a bureaucrat. This isn’t exactly followed, but using such a point as an argument invalidates it _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why? Just because everyone hates Larry Sanger? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Are you aware of why Sanger might be called a far-right extremist? Could those claims not be baseless? msk 16:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Not yet VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then wouldn't it be a good idea to do your own research, and not criticize multiple editprs without understanding the basic context behind the opposition? msk 16:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did a search, the reason because Larry Sanger thinks Wikipedia a far-left and woke biased website. Also the reason is Media and Big Tech Skepticism, and reforming Wikipedia. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's Sanger's side of the story, yes. What about the larger Wikipedia community's side? This discussion is a good place to start. msk 16:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't figured that out yet. Well, I agree. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think you kinda skipped over the trans hatred and Alex Jones style conspiracy theories promotion. Bobbobet (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd like to know why you think I'm a "far-right extremist." 😂 Then we'll know what your standards of "far-right extremism" are. Probably, the average Democrat of the 1980s or 90s would seem like a "far-right extremist" to you... Larry Sanger (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• I will be honest, some of the goals of the project are genuinely appealing, and I'm glad that I can see eye-to-eye with Larry on these (e.g. more accountability for admins, a more inclusive atmosphere for newer editors, more public engagement). I'm also quite happy to see him take the step to propose this as a formal WikiProject, as I was previously worried that we'd have another "backyard project", ironically with little accountability of its own.
  However, I'm still not entirely convinced by some aspects. "Reinforce genuine neutrality" is certainly a charitable goal, but one person's neutrality is another person's POV pushing, and we should be especially careful with this. Combined with PolicyScanner, I am worried that this may be uncomfortably close to canvassing, and I am tempted to oppose the project in its current state, although there are certainly lessons to learn from it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Would that accountability for admins stretch to doxxing them, do you think? Black Kite (talk)

• Comment: Just to be clear, "intellectual diversity" is not to be confused with neurodiversity? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Has anyone conflated the two? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did when I first saw the name without further context. Personally I would've chosen the name "viewpoint diversity" instead. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I wonder if it will encourage gender diversity? Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Putting aside the rest for a moment, since this surprisingly hasn't come up yet: how are the aims of this project substantially different from the existing WikiProject Alternative Views? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  In which case this proposal would result in needless duplication. TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I was not aware of it, but then projects are often a kind of ghetto that only those who belong to it know about. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I worry a little bit about a wikiproject that purports to be supporting intellectual diversity and that contains multiple founding members who have topic bans, page blocks, site bans or community bans in contentious topics. In addition I share the concerns of other editors that this project seems to be seeking greater acceptance of fringe sources. I don't believe this project to be a net positive to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  One could argue (I hold some of these viewpoints, though I don’t wish to argue them now) that the ArbCom, CUs, and categories are not a “net positive to Wikipedia”. They still exist, and they sometimes do good things. I also wish to point out that this still relies on community consensus, which WPID would not be able to override. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would really, really like to see an actual case for how CUs could somehow be "not a net positive to Wikipedia". Too bad you are not in the mood to back up your own claims, unfortunately. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The further we move away from WikiProjects acting like lobbying groups first and venues for organizing article improvement second, the better off everyone will be. We have been going in the right direction for some time now, and this proposal is essentially a screeching U-turn. This project seems to not even bother pretending to be about improving articles, instead focusing exclusively on goals that are either transparently ideologically driven (everyone here knows exactly what broaden the range of permissible sources means), or things that are laughably out of scope for WikiProjects (we will monitor proposals to enable reader ratings and feedback systems, how Wikipedia handles public complaints, [...] seriously?). This misguided attempt to reclaim the limelight by one of the people who have worked the hardest and the longest to damage this project for their personal gain is as pathetic as it is a waste of time. The incredible arrogance of thinking any such kind of personal vision so completely disconnected from the reality of this place has any value is honestly impressive in its own sad way. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• wp:npa and wp:blp apply as much to Sanger as to anyone else, even if the aim is to show them what a wild-west wiki would look like. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't showing a wild west wiki though, it's showing a wiki where we're forced via canvas group to always be a certain level of far-rightSnokalok2 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:PACT applies here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You were faster than me, was actually going to mention it as well. This is the most clear-as-day PACT situation I can find in recent memory honestly. That, or a Trojan Horse, depending on anyone's metaphor of choice. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's honest, it is, because it means we can have the viewpoint that X is the greatest man who ever lived and X is a dirty pedo. Based on equally biased and crap sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, and what are these biased and crap sources on the left that you speak of? Snokalok2 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Social media posts, for one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Who is advocating to use social media posts for anything beyond limited WP:ABOUTSELF? Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No one, yet. But is not weakening our policies on what is an RS not part and parcel of Sanger's ideas? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am confused because I thought you were supporting Sanger's proposal here. If we both agree that using social media posts as RS is a bad thing this line of discussion can close. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I said is I have no issue with the idea of a place to just talk, and that I oppose anything more than that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am genuinely curious if WPID would equally fight for, say, Occupy Democrats to be marked as reliable in the name of providing a wider range of viewpoints. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Deprecated sources don't need to be changed to be marked as reliable if they are used solely for attributed opinions. I think there's a common misconception that deprecated sources cannot be used at all. They can still be used, just not for facts. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, of course WPID would fight for Occupy Democrats to be marked as reliable, as long as similarly one-sided and propagandistic sources are treated similarly. Larry Sanger (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per InfernoHues. As has been stated by others, the proposal seems to have a serious potential to downgrade the list of reliable sources we can use on articles. If this were to go through, people could just cite any random Twitter user for unproven facts about very contentious topics. For example, I have a negative personal opinion of Donald Trump (which falls under WP:AMPOL, a contentious topic), but I would not want to see a Tweet by @RandomJoeSchmoe123 cited in the article about him, even if I agreed with its contents, and I think this is what the proposal would allow. I also agree with Howardcorn33 and am curious: are intellectual diversity and neurodiversity (e.g. autism spectrum disorders) the same thing? How are they the same, or how are they different? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. All the attempts to smear this as "far right" only prove the need for such an effort. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  When I started editing this comment there were only five references to far-right on this page. One of those is Sanger saying here is, however, a really significant difference in that WPCSB aims primarily to increase demographic representation (especially that of women and minorities) among article topics, and they seem to be particularly concerned to exclude "far-right extremists on Wikipedia." WPID, by contrast, seeks to influence Wikipedia policy in which they are complaining that the Wikiproject on Systemic bias is too focused on keeping far-right figures out. Another is a mention of Sanger's appearances on Alex Jones's podcast that points out that Infowars is far-right. A third is a talk quote repetition of Sanger's comment with a question about what their critique of the Systemic Bias wikiproject is. Two editors have suggested that this wikiproject is a possible vehicle for the far-right. So what is meant by "all the attempts?" Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That you immediately believe all the criticism here is political reveals what intellectual diversity is about. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Probably best to not cherry-pick a "smear" to negate other sound arguments like WP:CANVASS made here. the Stefen 𝕋ower 17:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Larry Sanger was the one who brought right-wing people/sources into the conversation. Is he smearing himself? Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I struggle to see WPID as something other than a tool to implement Sanger's bullshit "NPOV" thesis. Sanger also has been on an active crusade against Wikipedia for the past year or so (which was very good for his wallet), and WPID seems like a way to show the (predominantly right-wing) media that "look at me! I still have credibility with the Wikipedia community!" msk 15:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Case in point, User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity is written like a press release for the media. msk 15:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wrong WIPD. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops! Fixed. msk 16:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  aged like wine Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  This seems to be veering into what can be construed as personal attacks on Sanger. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• As any mathematician will tell you, a compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer, is another wrong answer. It's vital that we don't compromise on NPOV in any way at all. It's well known that reality has a left-wing bias. Those who want to diversify away from that are welcome to spend their volunteering time on one of the many alternatives to Wikipedia that the internet has to offer.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  All of which are so highly regarded that Wikipedia has a real struggle to compete with them...Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  According to whom? No one cares about Grokipedia Snokalok2 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I know...Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are not so many of these alternatives anymore, to be honest. A fascinating history though, going from Digital Universe, to Citizendium, then Everipedia, and even encyclosphere.org... It feels like there is a common thread running through all these projects that failed miserably, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. I suppose we might never know. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think you're discounting the network lockin effect. You could say the same thing about friendster, myspace, livejournal, and would then end up also conceding that Facebook "won" because it's the more virtuous of the social networks. Which is clearly false. - Scarpy (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think you're discounting the network lockin effect.

  Or, like I've told family members who grumble "their team" never seems to win certain states, counties, cities or towns in elections: you're not owed anything, even a seat at the table. You get to speak. No one has to listen or care. You're only entitled to have the chance to sell your idea. No one has to buy. Lockin is kinda meaningless, because we've had endless "standards" get kicked in the teeth and knocked over throughout human history by something better. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The common thread is that those four projects were not promoted by Google, while Wikipedia was. 123957a (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose As said by the many people above, I struggle to see how this project is anything more than an attempt by Larry to undermine out policies to replace our NPOV with his own and farther-to-the-right POV, all under the guise of "neutrality". toby ^(t)(rw) 15:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• I support the creation of WikiProject Intellectual Diversity and intend to participate.

Like any WikiProject, it would have no special authority and could not override existing policies or guidelines. It would simply provide a place for editors to discuss ideas and develop proposals through normal community processes.Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner page doesn't suggest that's its purpose at all. TarnishedPath^talk 16:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support I now retract my support upon reading other comments, arguments, and evidence from other users, however I do not fully oppose yet as these issues are real issues and Larry is asking the right question. However, I don't agree with weakening source standards. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support If I had created this project, I might have called it WikiProject Epistemic Humility. People are, understandably, defensive when their cherised platfrom - and maybe by extension themselves - are alleged to not be as intellectually diverse as they could be. But that's not really what this is about, it's about knowning enough to know that even the narrow domain of the Republic of Letters as it pertains to Wikipedians, there is an infinite tapestry of worldviews. Yes, for the myriad ways of looking at things, given some critiera, some worldviews will be clearly lacking, while other worldviews will have obvious advantages. For such worldview criteria, who decides what they are? Who decides who decides what they are? Quo warranto? - Scarpy (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your edit also seems to have deleted a comment by a prior editor. Was that intentional? Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry that was a mistake. I grabbed the most recent version and didn't see a warning about an edit conflict. - Scarpy (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's fine. I'm sure they'll restore it if they feel necessary. I certainly won't revert that back in. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Let a message on their user page. [3] - Scarpy (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. That was definitely the right course of action here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That "infinite tapestry" sounds like it's promising a flying carpet just to deliver a rug pull. I have little confidence in the ability of WPID as currently established to keep advocating for worldviews beyond their own few, which, while certainly distinct, aren't really broader than Wikipedia's current span of views. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  If bias of the current members is a concern, why not just join the project? - Scarpy (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment To anyone opposing this on the grounds of "oh anything could be used as a reliable source soon", this project does not claim, ask for, or in any way have the right to supersede WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It simply remains to be seen what WPID will turn out to be a few months from now, and only then do I think enough time has passed to tell if it should be rejected. I too share some of these concerns, and will reconsider my participation once more time has passed. I do hope it turns out to be neutral and simply to remove Wikipedia's inherent biases. See my earlier retraction of support (the top three replies to this were made before the strikethrough) VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Except the entire project's express purpose is to campaign for PAGs like RS, UNDUE and FRINGE to be scaled back or abolished. Your point is basically that that won't happen immediately if this project is formed, which is true; but that's the end goal. Athanelar (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Again this does not address the policy scanner nor the presence of multiple people with cbans and tbans as a result of disruptive editing in multiple contentious topics. Even if we steelman Sanger's well-known views about WP:FRINGE and suggest there was something actually useful to Wikipedia treating WP:HERITAGEFOUNDATION and WP:INFOWARS as reliable sources, this project, in its proposed form, still seems to be a support group for disruptive editors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Or, its down to its supporters to convince us it will not be misused, not just to some hope it will not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as apparently an attempt facilitate deprecation over time of NPOV and to bootstrap/upflift likely harmful anti-human and anti-humanist ideas endemic in far-right political and ideological ecosystems. They, like anyone, deserver zero "screen time" on Wikipedia articles unless they can pass the same rigor and standards as anyone else. No free meals. Happy to be convinced this is not that, if for same example if we could suitably assured this carries no water for such hateful extremism or to backdoor it into the neutral encyclopedia with unearned "privilege". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are three aims to this group: (1) an aim to counter Wikipedia's assumed left-wing bias; there are already plenty of mechanisms to campaign about this, and Sanger's been doing them for years; if he hasn't achieved his aims via the normal channels by now, we're not obliged to provide him with new ways to carry on flogging this old and rather dead horse; see also point (2) that this is basically setting up a canvas-group; (2) to canvas for increased inclusion of sources we currently regard as unreliable, in the name of balance. Regardless of whether you feel that stirring falsehoods and conspiracies into a subject makes the result more "balanced" this is still, absolutely, canvassing, and we don't do canvassing. It's forbidden. We rely on individuals coming to a subject because they're interested, not because they share an aim and were brought there by a party whip; (3) to liberate Wikipedia from the evil tyranny of admins and make newcomers welcome; there are already copious ways to be nice to newcomers and copious mechanisms to be nasty to admins, we really don't a group using these laudable aims as a cover for sowing general chaos. No, bad group. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I agree with most of this, I wouldn't call mechanisms for admin accountability "being nasty to admins", and there is certainly much work left to be done in terms of onboarding newcomers. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, I still very strongly oppose the methods Larry suggests to provide this accountability (borderline doxxing). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with the doxxing, but let’s remember: if something like that passes community consensus, it is desperately needed. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is impossible for doxxing to get community consensus, as it is listed as an unacceptable behavior by both section three of the Universal Code of Conduct:

  Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects.

  and by section four of the Wikipedia Foundation Terms of Use:

  Soliciting personally identifiable information for the purposes of harassment, exploitation, or violation of privacy, or for any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation;

  SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Unless I’m mistaken, this would be for only ‘Crats, CUs, and ArbCom members, and would simply give them the choice. It’s like declining an Oversighter because they don’t want to give their email, which is perfectly acceptable. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nope. The UCoC and ToU apply to everyone. Every time you publish an edit, it says "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use and agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL licenses." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but it doesn’t disallow one being allowed to make a choice. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It disallows soliciting personal information, and asking them to divulge it (especially with the implication that they would be declined otherwise) absolutely falls under that. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 23:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – If Larry Sanger had spent more time on the now-draft page (Draft:Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), which he recently considered "irrelevant" to this proposed WikiProject, then I wouldn't object to this. Indeed, I've worked on the draft a short while ago, but it's now stub-ish. This proposed WikiProject is probably not defining "intellectual diversity" properly. Neither are its Goals nor its scope. However, WP:OR doesn't apply to discussions like this (and perhaps the WikiProject's talk page). Also, per those above, and I don't think I need to summarize their own arguments, do I? George Ho (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some of the issues represented here are true issues. We do need to engage more readers and convert them to editors when they believe our articles are wrong or not neutral. With the hollowing out of reliable right-wing media, attaining NPOV has become more difficult. There are two fundamental issues with this Wikiproject: (a) the project has the explicit goal of influencing consensus-making processes, in the form of adjusting policies and guidelines to be more friendly towards fringe and far-right viewpoints. It is difficult to reconcile this with WP:CANVASSING. (b) the Wikiproject says it wants to monitor "the accountability of high-authority users (CheckUsers, Bureaucrats, ArbCom, Oversight members, others), and whether those exercising significant power are identifiable". This is a thinly veiled threat to dox folks. I think this project is so ill conceived that it will now become more difficult to implement elements that I hoped we would get implemented around engaging with wider audiences. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  STRONG Oppose per this, was really really hoping for something that could actually help out with the first issue identified here; but point B is an absolute nail in the coffin for me specifically, CheckUsers especially get targeted by many crazy people (and I've dealt with this first hand), essentially doxing them is risking their wellbeing and possibly even their life. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Okay. I’ll start a discussion on the talk page against this. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Reading through the proposed WikiProject's aims I come away with a distinct feeling that it is frankly entirely incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia. From my perspective it seems to be little more than a project to exercise one specific person's longstanding axe to grind with Wikipedia after years of failing to dismantle it from the outside, so now are trying it from the inside. In particular I am especially concerned by how it seems to want to declare itself some form of de facto oversight group on what it deems to be "over aggressive" actions by admins, while suggesting there is some form of dark money behind them. All in all it frankly reads like a lot of right-wing/conservative pressure campaigns online of late from how it largely bases its entire (unevidenced for that matter) view on the premise that Wikipedia has essentially been captured by a political minority and it wishes to see it brought back to the "ownership" of the majority. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• WP:NOTHERE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please elaborate why you think this? (Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just want clarification.) Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  A few people in this discussion have suggested that Sanger is someone who effectively doesn't contribute to the production of article content and, instead, seems to limit themself to grand proclamations such as their prior manifestoes or back-room activities designed to attempt to enact the claims in their manifestos in various ways. It seems, at very least, WP:RGW and far too much personal animus toward a project that they were instrumental in starting but that has changed beyond what they wished. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  What Simonm223 said. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I have been working on WikiProjects since 2006. In my experience, WikiProjects have been humble efforts to improve articles according to existing policies and guidelines. They have not been about challenging policies and guidelines (although sometimes they extend them, correctly or not). I think criticism of Wikipedia is quite all right, though, as I have my own set of criticisms. However, a WikiProject that seeks to revolutionize how Wikipedia operates is not quite humble. And this effort does not have to be here on-site. As this is clearly controversial, would continually roil the community, and would likely not survive MfD, I suggest this effort be homed on a Discord server or equivalent. But even from there, the Wikipedia would rightly reject any canvassing efforts. Be free and challenge how Wikipedia works, but a WikiProject is not the appropriate vehicle. the Stefen 𝕋ower 17:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Now, I'm a 'Strong Oppose' after the CNN interview. I now see this proposal as a conduit for menacing behavior against the interests of Wikipedia and its values. It's WP:CANVASS on steroids. Big nope. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to remind everyone that personal attacks are unacceptable regardless of the intended target. It is certainly possible to discuss this proposed WikiProject without making personal attacks toward Sanger. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Completely agree. We should not be so personal in our discussions of fellow editors, including those who have contributed very little, content-wise, over the past quarter century. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please quote the exact comments you are calling personal attacks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Either provide WP:DIFFS, or cease casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There's no way to prove that a remark is incivil, but here's some comments that stand out: Diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Diffing folks including myself without pings is probs not great, especIally if you are accusing us of breaking PAGS.

  also i stand by my comment larry can take this criticism, if he truly believes in intellectual diversity. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to disengage from this discussion. If anyone has an issue with my behavior here please let me know. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You used the words personal attacks, twice. These mean something clear on Wikipedia, and none of the comments you pointed towards remotely constitute that. Please do not make general comments about user conduct if you can not unambiguously back them up. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 21:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  (these diffs appear to be broken) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. We have a process for developing policies and guidelines, described at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Life cycle. There are ample noticeboards to do this. We do not need a shadow process that would brigade policy noticeboards to push through a particular agenda. Fences&Windows 18:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Here's a little addition in response to many of the criticisms. Let us get quite clear on one thing. It is not appropriate to oppose the approval of WPID just because you oppose the Wikipedia policy goals of WPID. That is, ironically, a good example of the very thing we are complaining about: in order to be truly the "encyclopedia anybody can edit," we must tolerate different visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. In other words, you cannot say, "Our current set of policies is now set in stone and no one may oppose them." Speaking as Wikipedia's co-founder, let me inform you: that's not how wikis work. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You realize no editor is entitled to anything but the opportunity to 'sell' their vision, right? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't I know that? Larry Sanger (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You seemed to conflate the generic concept of a mechanical 'wiki' in your terminology (e.g., a tool intended for anyone to work against) versus this wiki, which, apparently, that's how it works these days... you can push change. Lord knows many of us do. But a theatrical wikiproject moon shot reminding people who you are isn't the effective way. Usernames mean nothing and carry no mojo. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is basically being opposed because what is proposed is not what WikiProjects are for. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is incorrect. There are many precedents. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are no accepted precedents for canvassing operations in the form of WikiProjects. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:WPPAG was relaunched recently by several highly-regarded editors, and that got torpedoed because it was perceived by others as "organising a faction" Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'll be very honest, one of the lessons I learned from WPPAG was that the line between a WikiProject aimed at improving project-side matters and a faction aimed at pushing consensus in their favor is much thinner than one would imagine, especially on issues one is emotionally attached to. If the opportunity presented itself today, I wouldn't do it again, even if the project was well-intentioned. Starting a project with a specific direction in mind, even one seemingly as uncontroversial as simplifying policies and guidelines, isn't a way to go and can quickly fall into WP:RGW territory. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. The whole concept of WikiProjects needs a revamp anyway, they shouldn't be a place to go to themselves, but one that facilitates collaboration at articles. People might also like the social aspect of having small communities, might help w editor retention and onboarding newbies. Idk, needs working out Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Like Wikipedia:Esperanza. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This attempt at an appeal to authority doesn't work when you divorced yourself from Wikipedia early in its life and promptly spent your time complaining about how Wikipedia doesn't live up to your vision. That might not be how your idea of a wiki works, but you are by no means an authority on how Wikipedia works (or should work) in the modern day.

  We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Not the encyclopedia everyone has a right to edit. Athanelar (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can we please stop with the ad hominem? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing of what I said was ad hominem. If he tries to pull the "don't you know who I am?" then it's only fair to shoot that down by saying yes, we know exactly who you are. Athanelar (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps Sanger, like others, should avoid mentioning their bona fides, as if they matter, are relevant, or appropriate to try and ever use for any clout or leverage on-wiki. At minimum it's eye-rolling worthy to see someone say "As x," whether it's "co-founder of the site", "as a scientist," "as an engineer," "as a doctor," as... whatever. No one cares and it grants no one anything. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. It goes both ways. Larry should avoid using his co-founder status as leverage, and other editors should avoid attacking Larry's past behavior instead of directly responding to his arguments. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  As I have been reminded, past behavior is apparently always fair game for prediction of future behavior here. Don't matter if your name is Larry Sanger or Jimmy Wales. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  You can't act like his past behaviour isn't relevant here. He's done nothing but take shots at Wikipedia from the outside for the better part of two decades for not living up to his vision, and so when he now shows up with this disingenuous attempt at weaponising its own systems against it, we're meant to act like his past isn't relevant? Athanelar (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Past behavior actually isn't even relevant here though. This is almost indistinguishable from the periodic complaints we get once every month or so by random drive-by users about how we need to be less biased or include other viewpoints or whatever, the only substantive difference being that this is a formal WikiProject proposal and not someone rambling on village pump. I actually assumed it was a random drive-by user at first.

That being said, I can see why people are doing this, since every time he's been asked to be specific about what specific sources or viewpoints are not being represented, he hasn't mentioned any (the "oh, you know the ones" post comes to mind). So people need to read between the lines to have any idea about what the proposal is actually talking about. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And that's when the past behaviour comes in; it's abundantly clear what is being advocated for here as soon as you say "Oh, it's Larry Sanger." Athanelar (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Describing well-documented past behavior is not an ad hominem. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  But Althanelar and others are using Larry's past behavior as arguments to shut down the proposed WikiProject. That's ad hominem. Ad hominem simply means "to the person". Any argument that argues against someone's behavior instead of the points they are making is ad hominem; ad hominem is not limited to personal attacks. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think if this was a court of law, we would allow this discussion as it pertains to the mens rea (non-criminal equivalent) of the individual(s) pursuing this. The past behavior is germane here. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  But Wikipedia is not a court of law. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  We are also not here to misconstrue the intent of others' remarks, as you have done here. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry. I'm just frustrated because it seems that every discussion involving Larry Sanger inevitably devolves into attacking him based on the idea that "since he left the community and attacked Wikipedia repeatedly, civility doesn't apply to him". That makes no sense. Civility should apply to everyone equally. And if I have misconstrued any of your remarks I apologize. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with being civil, but bringing up relevant past behavior is what I call "fair criticism" that pertains to this subject at hand. The relevant past behavior is previous attempts to right all perceived wrongs because the Wikipedia movement was not complying with his intended design. Even with WP:AGF, patterns exist and we cannot ignore them. WP:STICK and WP:BLUDGEON seem related to this as well. That all said, we have rightfully rejected far tamer efforts to gather people wanting to right wrongs in PAG. Ultimately, this isn't personal - this WikiProject proposal is just not acceptable, no matter who is behind it. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Who did ad hominem first? This wikiproject predicates itself on insulting the entire process on wikipedia for not bending over backwards to larry sangers dictatorial definition of fair and balanced.

  Let him hear our plethora of concerns, if he cant handle this intellectual diversity of thought so be it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and topic ban Larry from proposing it again for six months. This was rejected three months ago at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1288#Intellectual diversity. Larry should not be allowed to propose the same unpopular idea more often than twice a year. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Good lord, why is he so combative? "I can read basic instructions", sucha catty response to someone trying to help him, jeez. wound theology◈ 20:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Charitably, I’m confused as to why simply participating in WP:CSB is ruled out a priori in the proposal. As far as I can see, the proposing editors have only ever posted there…today, to advertise this proposal. If there are perceived issues with how WPCSB identifies and addresses systemic bias, perhaps they should be discussed there first, rather than creating the project-space equivalent of a CFORK? The assertions regarding WPCSB don’t appear to have any evidence, even personal anecdotal evidence, to support them. That hardly seems like a good faith approach. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• @SuperPianoMan9167: If you insist on preventing supposed "attacks" on Larry, then please go to WP:ANI if you can. Then I can bring up Larry's remarks about the civility policy, like this one (link, diff), and how I tried to tell that user otherwise (link, diff). George Ho (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It astonishes me that people think they can violate the fourth pillar of Wikipedia just because "the other guy did it first". There's no problem with politely criticizing past behavior. It's just that people are being jerks about it, and that's not cool. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a solution for which no problem exists, so those who want to push the solution declare there to be A Problem. There may be some kernels of good ideas in here? But there's a saying in the Deep South of the US: just because only some of the brownies someone gives you have dog poop in them doesn't mean you're obligiated to be grateful to the giver for giving you brownies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as a blatant, and recurring attempt from this user, to sabotage Wikipedia in order to promote their viewpoints and recast our policies and proposals to their political ideology. Enough is enough. qcne (talk)
• Oppose: this looks like a canvassing operation, and I lack the extraordinary levels of good faith required to assume it is not going to be used to push some correlated POVs NicheSports (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Comparison of the vague motherhood-and-apple-pie wording of this proposal with the similar but more explicit terms of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses makes clear that the intent is to overthrow the norms of Wikipedia, eliminate our safeguards against fringe and politically biased content and sources, and turn Wikipedia into one of Sanger's failed competitor projects. We are not required to and should not support projects with these goals. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Overthrow the norms of Wikipedia"? No. We are reinforcing the original, positive norms of Wikipedia, which have been greatly weakened in the last ten years especially. You have no grounds on which to oppose what is, essentially, a social club. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  greatly weakened in the last ten years especially.

  Examples please. Also, folks at ANI have discussed whether to topic-ban you. George Ho (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia expressly is not the place for "social clubs". Athanelar (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose in existence far-right extremism is not welcome on Wikipedia. Trans rights are human rights by the way. Skyshiftertalk 21:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is not "far-right extremism," and I would like to call the attention of admins to this as being personal abuse. You are not free to smear me, or the other members of WPID, in this offensive way. After all, this is one of the very worst things you can think of to say about a person. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is. Skyshiftertalk 22:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: The last thing Wikipedia needs is more use of unreliable sources. They're not considered unreliable because we don't like them. It's because they have proven that they can't be trusted. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I recall reading this a while ago and failed to understand the point. Having read some of the comments here and attempting to understand this once again, I still don't see the point of this WP. Put simply: This will not benefit Wikipedia. 11WB (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support and am amazed at the overwhelming, reflexive resort to Ad_hominem rather than engagement with proposed reasons Eulemann (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is a longer history going on here that's being responded to. This isn't a proposal in a vacuum. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no way I can interpret this as anything other than an explicit proposal to establish a canvassing operation, and the FAQ below does nothing to assuage me of that worry. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose while I initally supported this, as blocking can sometimes be arbitrary, some sources that have opted for distribution on platforms, whereas they previously whould have been magazines or websites are disadvantaged, and the COI edit request process can be daunting for the requesters; having read some interviews and especially his twitter feed, I don't think WPID in its current form under his leadership is beneficial to Wikipedia. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 23:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOFASCISTS. Zaathras (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I don't disagree, consider seconding someone else's policy-based argument since WP:NONAZIS is a user essay. wound theology◈ 23:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's an essay, explicitly not a Wikipedia policy. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Never said it was a policy. It represents an opinion on the kind of filth that does not deserve a voice in this project. Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Classifying people as "the kind of filth that does not deserve a voice" seems like the kind of thing fascists do. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ahh, the "be tolerant of my intolerance" fallacy. You people are funny. Zaathras (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Reality has a well-known liberal bias. See also paradox of tolerance. 01:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC) --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

  Also, per Black Kite above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose A Wikiproject is supposed to coordinate editors to improve coverage about a topic. Wikipedia:Local Consensus is not a substitute for Wiki policies. Otherwise Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fascism would be a hub for fascist editors (it is not). Others mentioned this is also an effort to override WP:CANVAS restrictions. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I actually think do think that yes, we actually should be better at affording WP:DUE weight to opinions that the majority of us disagree with; however, when I say that I'm mainly referring to the fact that separating personal bias from one's editing is a difficult thing to do, and that we need to work on it. This proposal on the other hand seems to be more about "fighting" the imagined spectre of a malicious bureaucracy of the Wiki forcing conformity to certain viewpoints. WP:CSD is more in line with what I mean when I say we need to be better at NPOV, not whatever this is. Sure, the stated goals of this WikiProject are acceptable on paper, but it says they will be achieved by attempting to affect policy change, and while the methods for this are left vague, the context clues are more than enough for me to say that this is not what I think the Wiki needs. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The Nos clearly already have it. I'm not sure why this needs formal sanction as an official project. Just do your own thing, Larry. But remember to write some content or do some grunt work to improve the encyclopedia. That's why we're here — not for political organizing. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Significant concerns about the true intent and management of this proposal notwithstanding (the vast majority of which I agree with and do not need to summarize here) I cannot accept the idea of this project. I will keep my reply brief: Consensus != biggest stick. Reframing unreliable sources in favor of any agenda – no matter how much lipstick you put on it – is the sort of stunt I would expect to find elsewhere, and that's exactly where it belongs. ASUKITE 02:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't care about the ideological agenda of sources; I care about their reliability and accuracy. If anything, I'd rather Wikipedia be more exclusive about the types of sources that are allowed in general. When it comes to facts, ideology is not important, they speak for themselves. We already have projects dedicated to neutrality. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Create a task force in CSB project. The problem isn't the entirety of the goal. Within the context of CSB we have room to look at media polarization. The idea that "some conservative media has real reporting" is not compatible with "Wikipedia should treat known sources of conspiracies and propaganda as reliable." There is a limit. Washington Free Beacon was recently upgraded-ish. If there are other right-wing sources that are doing real reporting, I personally do want to know about that. But a project of "we generally, epistemically need to make sure we aren't excluding or being biased in a way that creates unfair polarization" sounds useful to me, which is what CSB is, and I can see that a structural obstacle could arise from insisting that CSB is working fully. Andre🚐 04:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is too much organised political struggle within wikipedia already, recognising political factions like this would be disastrous.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias already exists; do we really need to re-invent this wheel? Daveosaurus (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems to be essentially a fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias with a flatly WP:BATTLEGROUND goal focused on canvassing, notwithstanding the efforts to insist that it isn't. That said, given that the problem is the effort to use Wikipedia as a place to wage culture-war battles, the real solution isn't to argue over the proposal itself but to take the people involved to WP:AN for a WP:CBAN. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Hard oppose per User talk:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity § Test case hypothetical question. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with policies and guidelines that keep our articles from advising parents to orally administer industrial bleach to children (we have those now). The answers in that discussion seem bizarre and evasive. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Putting the goals of the project aside, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not need what is essentially a political party disrupting consensus discussions. I also have concerns related to the goals of the project. I don't like the idea of opening up Wikipedia to fringe sources. The use of admin blocks isn't used too much, but enough to stop disruptive editors. Mikeycdiamond (talk)
• Support Readers are smart, and it is good for them to see a diverse spectrum of ideas. Wikipedia's reputation is enhanced when it includes minority viewpoints. Flounder ceo (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is against WP:DUE Skyshiftertalk 13:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal seems to be at odds with current policies: It rejects "The original Wikipedia neutrality policy" and encourages editors to instead reinforce what it calls "genuine neutrality". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I support this project and intend to participate. lynngol (talk)
• Comment - Probably worth making everyone aware, but here's a Tweet from June 9th where Larry explicitly lays out that WPID's purpose is an organised right-wing campaign group "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back."[4]. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a blatant attempt to use canvassing to make Wikipedia right-wing. We do not need this, and I believe it will be a net negative to Wikipedia if this is allowed to operate. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support I don't see this project having the major negative impact that's been cited by many users above. If Sanger is truly willing to open this up to intellectual diversity and weight is given to voices and activist positions we've seen silenced during this administration for example, I see it as an opportunity. WP:NPOV does seem to be a contentious concern on many topics and sources but I often think this could attributed to personal bias more than some deep dark suppression or conspiracy. However, the best way to combat personal influence or bias is for people to come together and find diverse and common sense solutions. I do see other commentors concerns about the potential to violate WP:Canvassing however, I don't see any viable path that this project could act out such an agenda in its current form and social standing here. Other comments have brought up the issues of acceptable sources being expanded and if there are later calls to change the process I would be concerned as well. However, in the age of the corporate consolidation and widespread sharing of information the number of sources we can call reliable has the potential to grow and bias doesn't necessarily discredit a source. While the New York Times may have pro-Israel bias for example, I tend to think of it as a reliable source and there are many examples. This project in my view is harmless and I tend to support the influx of information and opinions rather than their reduction. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the New York Times is already labeled as reliable, and biased sources are explicitly not disallowed? The reason why, say, Breitbart isn't considered reliable isn't because of its political bias, it's because it regularly publishes falsehoods. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 04:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I can get long-winded and not be clear. You're right about the NYT being a reliable source and that's kind of the point I was making. The NYT can be labeled reliable and still get some things so wrong like what we're witnessing in Palestine. I won't argue the validity of Breitbart, I wouldn't wish that on anybody and that's a heavier bar than I'm willing to carry lol. I'm just making a point of future sources that may be evaluated or reevaluated in the future in general. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 05:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose; pretty much every concern's been said already and I concur, but I'll add one more here: we've seen this false balance scam with Elon Musk, who bought Twitter under a "free speech" pretense and turned it into a hate speech/fake news/CSAM cesspool. We don't need this sort of enshittification on Wikipedia, especially not in a unique political climate where a freely-available, trustworthy comprehensive encyclopedia is unprecedentedly essential to a functioning human society. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Enshittification" has a specific meaning. Please don't dilute it by deciding "cool new word! Let's redefine it to mean 'something that got worse' and ruin it for its original pupsose!". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• This does not sound like "intellectual diversity", after all we already cover the broad range of schools of thought. It sounds like it is either seeking something that is impossible for the project to stay together and exist, methodological chaos, or a whole sale subversion of any methods. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as it's goal is fundamentally incompatible with the project. The purpose of editing is to create an encyclopedia, that can be achieved in any myriad of ways, and anyone who edits to achieve that goal should have a say in how that effort is achieved. Editing solely to change how the work is done, when you are not part of the effort, should not be how this works. How editors volunteer their time should only ever be determined by only the editors doing the work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as ideological welfare and affirmative action. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support In recent years there have been a great number of articles from WP:Reliable sources reporting on issues with Wikipedia's coverage of major topics, which indicates that something clearly needs to be done. A wikiproject focused on ensuring ideological diversity feels like a sensible way of trying to improve Wikipedia as a whole and lessen those issues. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Twitter canvassing / WP:ANI

• Comment This discussion is now linked on Larry's Xitter page. wound theology◈ 20:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I call your attention to my answer to #9 below. Recruitment for a WikiProject is not covered by the policy. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Recruiting for new WikiProject is very different to attempting to WP:VOTESTACK in stealth to discussions about whether the WikiProject should exist. Your argument at #9 does not pass the sniff test. TarnishedPath^talk 00:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia isn't impartial, and its guidelines aren't applied impartially either. Some of Larry Sanger's proposals could help address part of the problem, such as allowing multiple articles on the same subject from different perspectives. Some articles in the soft sciences are a disaster, especially those dealing with politics. The term "far-right" is used excessively, and extremely low-quality articles are often treated as reliable simply because they're published by the "perennial sources". Of course, the bad faith of certain editors is also part of the underlying problem. Incidentally, the CSIS, a source that publishes articles presenting multiple viewpoints on the same subject, is deprecated, while the SPLC—which offers only a left-wing point of view and uses questionable classification methods and invented labels such as "reactionary conservative" (an oxymoron) or "far-right conservative"—is accepted and routinely cited.

Then there are mistakes that no competent researcher could plausibly make in good faith. Here, the article uses a photograph of a well-known neo-Nazi criminal and identifies him as James L. Miller Jr. of III Arms, when the man pictured is actually Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.:

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/behind-walls/

The SPLC's entire "hate and anti-government groups" map is also highly misleading, since it lumps social conservatives and right-wing libertarians together with neo-Nazis. Violent extremism and legal activism are treated as if they were equivalent: they receive the same "hate group" designation and are placed under the same "far-right" label.

On top of that, virtually every newer conservative media company, such as Newsmax, has sources labeling it "far-right." Newsmax regularly airs videos praising Martin Luther King Jr., often right after its newscasts, and it doesn't oppose the Civil Rights Act. I have no idea how that classification was reached.Pantarch (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Newsmax regularly airs videos praising Martin Luther King Jr We really are just putting the bar on the floor now, aren't we? I suppose Newsmax's next great foray into liberalism is going to be suggesting that maybe the Vietnam War isn't actually that great. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this comment? Does this sarcastic remark somehow support labeling Newsmax as "far-right"? Pantarch (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

They're making fun of the idea that Newsmax praising MLK somehow negates their potential classification as far-right. For the record I have no idea if it would be appropriate to classify them as far-right. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

My point is that the unconventional and not universally accepted definition of "far-right" used by part of the Western left includes right-libertarians because they don't support the Civil Rights Act and want to repeal it without beating around the bush. Newsmax isn't right-libertarian, but it has a mainstream conservative editorial line; therefore, even by those bizarre standards, it can't be considered far-right. Moreover, the attempt to eliminate the concept of "right-wing" altogether and divide everything only into "center-right" or "far-right" is completely ridiculous. Pantarch (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources characterize Newsmax as far-right, I don't see a problem characterizing it that way in the article. But you did bring up Newsmax frequently referring to MLK, and a little search revealed this editorial, a sample of which reads: "King would condemn CRT because it perpetuates negative racial stereotypes, albeit in a reversal, that denigrate the white race." That echoes a very common trope in far-right manifestos. So "regularly air[ing] videos praising Martin Luther King Jr" isn't really a solid counterpoint, if their version of MLK can be made to agree with white nationalist talking points. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that Larry Sanger promotes it alongside Breitbart and other far-right sources is the first clue, but there are multiple sources that cover Newsmax:

"We posit that Trump’s position as president, in conjunction with his populist communication style that favored far-right outlets, contributed to the legitimation of such outlets. We first analyze Trump’s tweets during his presidency (January 2017–January 2021) mentioning three far-right outlets (One America News Network, Newsmax, and Breitbart), conceptualizing these messages as authority signals that symbolically lend legitimacy to the media sources."

Source: Presidential Authority and the Legitimation of Far-Right News --The International Journal of Press/Politics (IJPP)

"On the right, the average audience members of Breitbart, Newsmax and Tucker Carlson Network tend to be the most conservative and Republican of all the sources we asked about, followed by people who regularly get news from The Daily Wire and The Joe Rogan Experience. Fox News is also on the right side of the spectrum in terms of audience orientation, but not as far to the right as these other sources – indicating that more Democrats and moderate or liberal Republicans get news from Fox News."

Source: The Political Gap in Americans’ News Sources --Pew Research Center

"Since Election Day, Newsmax has become a growing power in a conservative media sphere that has been scrambled by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory and Mr. Trump’s refusal to concede. Hundreds of thousands of new viewers have tuned into Newsmax programs that embrace the president’s debunked claims of voter fraud and insist that Mr. Trump can keep the White House."

Source: Newsmax, Once a Right-Wing Also-Ran, Is Rising, and Trump Approves --The New York Times

BTW, there is a reason why far-right sources love quoting Martin Luther King Jr. His positions disagree with the positions of many extreme left groups, and the extreme right likes to focus on that, ignoring the fact that MLK also disagrees with their positions. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

No one is trying to stop you from using your bizarre definitions of "far-right" and putting conservatives on the same level as Nazis and fascists. The whole point of discussing competing articles was precisely to let you have that freedom, without forcing your POV on everyone else.

There are more than 40 articles from perennial sources, both journalistic and academic, written by people from a range of political backgrounds, that define Antifa as far-left. So "reliable sources" don't seem to be applied consistently to everyone. Pantarch (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is wholly off topic, and the thread is big enough as is, let's try to stick to the matter at hand. Athanelar (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

How is Larry Sanger openly advocating that Wikipedia accept far-right sources as reliable off topic? It's the whole point of this proposed Wikiproject. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What's off topic is litigating here whether or not Newsmax can be considered far-right. If this specifically were the main point of contention about the Wikiproject, fine, but more than enough points have been raised and evidence brought about the ill intentions of this Wikiproject. We don't now need to use this thread as a hub to perform detailed examinations of the ideological bent of every specific source Larry Sanger endorses. There's more than enough to go on without needing to get into the weeds about whether it's fair to call Newsmax far-right.

There's overwhelming agreement for an indef CBAN of Sanger at the ANI thread anyway, so this source debate is likely to be moot in about 48 hours. Athanelar (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Complain to Pantarch. They are the one who posted the claim that Larry is right in his demand that we treat Newsmax as a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers at anybody specific, my statement was a general one. Pantarch shouldn't bring it up, but nor should we engage with it. All of us should be mindful of keeping this already-bloated topic on track and not coatracking it into a million sub-debates. Athanelar (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to discuss problems if examples can't be given. But generally speaking, on Wikipedia, as I've already written, the concept of "right-wing" is disappearing in favor of "far-right." It's quite problematic that American conservative groups and organizations are all being labeled as "far-right" groups, the same classification used for fascists and Nazis, even though they aren't.

The sources being used have serious problems, and I can easily substantiate that. Pantarch (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to bring "what about" examples constructively. Easier to go discuss them on the NPOV noticeboard, which Larry tried to "shadow docket" with his tracker. Your examples should come from there anyway. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion is best held at the NPOV noticeboard, and I certainly wouldn't mind participating. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Support - I don't see the problem with more inclusive opinions on Wikipedia. This is also a good complementary program to the NPOV standard review: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_baseline_NPOV_standard Guz13 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what "inclusive opinions" mean, and what is the NPOV standard review, and I didn't know Wikipedia has a standard NPOV review? It seems that none of these items, things, or objects relate to Wikipedia or its policies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"NPOV standard review" isn't a thing. The link provided is for Wikipedias which do not yet have an NPOV policy.

The phrase "inclusive opinions" is used to glue together two completely different issues, on real, one bullshit.

The real issue is that as a whole Wikipedia leans toward left-wing politics, as one would expect from the overabundance of well-educated white males. We deal with this by realizing that everyone has a bias and structuring the encyclopedia to minimize that bias and by encouraging minorities to edit the encyclopedia.

The bullshit issue is the claim by the far-right that we must be "fair and balanced" by relaxing our sourcing standards to allow in material that is antivax, anti-LGBTQ, antiabortion, pro-fundamentalist-christian, anti-immigration, etc. Larry Sanger is a poster child for this view, insisting that Breitbart News is just as reliable as The New York Times. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Right now, the ANI thread has moved to Wikipedia:Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger. (Never mind that hopeless MFD discussion on the page for now.) —George Ho (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions for WPID critics

Extended FAQ by Larry

Do not edit or insert responses to this inline. This document is written as a defense by the initial proposer of the WikiProject, and we deserve an uninterrupted space where we can make our case. Please place any further responses either above, where the issues were initially raised, or below the entire FAQ. Larry Sanger (talk)

1. Isn't WPID just a canvassing operation? Doesn't the PolicyScanner exist to route members to discussions so they can vote-stack?

No, there is no good reason to accuse WPID of canvassing. We are not telling people how to vote. A useful collection of pointers to discussions relevant to WPID's goals is not canvassing, obviously, nor should it ever be considered to be. This is proven by the fact that those opposed to our goals may make use of the very same information.

Wikipedians have every right to organize in favor of various competing policy stances—and we have done so for decades. See: the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and WikiProject Democracy; see also WikiProject Feminism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism, among others.

It is also worth noting that there have been several Wikipedia reform projects in the past, and while they are no longer active, they were WikiProjects in good standing: WikiProject Wikipedia Reform (c. 2008), which sought to create "a comprehensive, well-organized incubator of ideas for general reform that is conducive to the type of focused effort needed to make headway in addressing complex, systemic problems on Wikipedia"; WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party (2013), which aimed to "reform the ArbCom system by selecting candidates who will run collectively based on a common candidate statement," arguing that "ArbCom has become Wikipedia's politburo and this has to be changed"; and WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia (2016), a project "to advocate for content and governance reforms that will facilitate higher-quality content and fairer, more efficient governance structures."

2. Isn't "intellectual diversity" a dog whistle for injecting right-wing or far-right viewpoints into Wikipedia?

No, it is not, and the accusation is both offensive and historically illiterate.

There have been various interrelated democratic ideals, allied with but distinct from freedom of speech, including religious tolerance, intellectual tolerance, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and pluralism. "Intellectual diversity" is simply another phrase in the same ballpark. All of these ideals were associated with the liberal tradition; that they have come under attack from certain quarters since 2013 or so is no good reason to either (a) dispose of the ideals or even (b) to disassociate them from liberalism. In fact, however, pluralism—which in a more up-to-date phrase can be called "intellectual diversity"—was always part of a classical consensus supported by both reasonable liberals and reasonable conservatives in both the U.S. and in Europe.

If you think Wikipedia should support pluralism—and not impose views on politics, religion, philosophy, and other ideas—then you are supporting the stance we take.

We may add that support from WPID does not come from American conservatives alone. It also comes from Hindus, who find their positions on national issues poorly represented. Another distinct group would be traditional or so-called "confessional" Christians, who are sometimes liberals or progressives, like many Catholics.

But we definitely do not restrict our membership to the union of a bunch of interest groups. We are one interest group: those who care about intellectual diversity on Wikipedia.

3. Several WPID members have been blocked, topic-banned, or community-banned. Doesn't that tell us something about what this project really attracts?

Two members were indefinitely blocked soon after joining. All the others are editors in good standing. You may draw your own conclusions.

4. Doesn't "broaden the range of permissible sources" really mean rehabilitating deprecated sources like Breitbart, InfoWars, and the Daily Caller?

Not really. It means rehabilitating not necessarily those, a lot more than just those, and on a broader range of topics than those. When we say "intellectual diversity," we mean it. One thing this means is that Wikipedia should be including conservative sources that are comparable in "seriousness"—in the view of serious conservatives, of course—to progressive sources that are greenlit. It is not appropriate to silence one entire ideology by arbitrarily blocking all their sources; this is neither fair nor honest. Of course, if a source is known to have political leanings, the name of the source, and perhaps even the fact that it does have that leaning (if relevant), should be added. This way, readers can make up their minds for themselves. WPID maintains that being fully supported in making up your mind for yourself on issues of controversy is an absolutely good thing.

But there are many other kinds of sources that should be permitted. There are many national sources that are blocked. While some such sources are merely mouthpieces of one party (or government) or another, that can be said now of many greenlit Western sources as well. Obviously, when a source makes a certain claim that is contradicted or not supported by other sources, it becomes important that that situation be clearly explained in Wikipedia articles. The situation in India is an excellent example of this pattern, but the most significant dividing issue on the ground is religion (Hinduism vs. Islam), not political ideology. Hindu (so-called "Hindutva") sources are generally blocked on Wikipedia on grounds that they are allegedly unserious, caught in lies, and deeply biased—which are accusations that have been leveled at most of the leading Western sources. But simply rejecting all use of such sources, whatever their problems, means that one cannot learn the Hindu views on local and national issues. This has become such a serious problem that an Indian court has threatened to strip Wikipedia of its "safe harbour" protection in the country.

I could repeat similar issues with regard to confessional Christian sources, traditional Hindu religious views, and Israeli national sources. I'm sure these are not the only examples we might find.

One did not use to have to explain such things to Wikipedians. It is only in the last ten or fifteen years that many sources began to be aggressively and entirely blocked (however they are labeled on WP:RSPS). The WPID has been established in part to open Wikipedia back up to a broad assortment of sources. This way, we can all be better informed about what people—in all their diversity—really do believe.

5. Wouldn't WPID's goals lead to WP:FALSEBALANCE, i.e., giving fringe and mainstream positions equal weight?

The concern about false balance is legitimate in principle: An article on the shape of the earth should not give equal time to flat-earthers. We do not dispute that. What we dispute is the aggressive expansion of the concept to silence views held by large and serious constituencies—in politics, religion, national affairs, and other areas where honest people genuinely disagree.

Wikipedia's original way of handling ideas that are dismissed (whether rightly or not) as "pseudoscience" was not to present such ideas as factual, of course. It was to report the fact that such ideas were regarded as pseudoscientific by some group—sometimes the view can be attributed to "virtually the entire field," and sometimes it can be made more specific. Readers were trusted to draw their own conclusions.

What changed, beginning around 2005 and accelerating after 2010, was that "undue weight" and "false balance" came to be used not merely to keep Flat Earth claims out of astronomy articles (just for example), but to justify entirely omitting views held by millions of people on genuinely contested questions.

I take the classical liberal position (articulated in J.S. Mill's On Liberty) that good ideas will emerge stronger and better understood for having been measured against bad ideas. This was Wikipedia's position for many years. WPID seeks to recover that earlier, healthier understanding—not to draw some false epistemic parity between all ideas, but to insist that editorial judgment be applied honestly rather than as a weapon against disfavored viewpoints.

6. How is this different from WikiProject Alternative Views, which already exists?

We actually did not know about this project until making this application. One can see three big differences almost immediately, however. (1) "Alternative views" names a broad kind of topic, broadly associated with esoteric philosophy and other "weird" topics such as alternative medicine, the paranormal, and things often labeled by people beyond Wikipedia as "fringe" or "pseudoscience." Therefore, the members of the group are expressing an interest in those topics. By contrast, the members of WPID are addressing themselves to policy pages, not articles. (2) "Intellectual diversity" names a much broader concept than ideas called "alternative." A good example is traditional Christian views on Bible history; these are very far from being "alternative" in any sense at all. But they are currently out of fashion in academia, except at some religious colleges and seminaries, which is why some Wikipedians want such ideas to be dismissed out of hand without a hearing here. The same type of considerations, I am told, apply to traditional Hindu religious views, when they come into contact with Indian political issues (which, apparently, is not infrequently). (3) There is active interest in WPID, while WPAV is "believed to be inactive."

7. WikiProjects are for organizing article improvement, not lobbying for policy changes. Isn't WPID out of scope?

We thought so too, when we first looked into this. But it is not so. Look at the precedents under question (1) above.

8. You've been publicly campaigning against Wikipedia in the media for years and haven't made a mainspace edit since 2002. Are you actually here to build an encyclopedia?

One of the reasons that we waited for over a month and gathered over 20 members is that we can present ourselves as an active group. The fact that I left Wikipedia for so long, and have mostly been working on talk pages since last year, does not mean that the same can be said about other members of WPID.

Speaking for myself, however, I submit the fact that I have been working diligently since January 2025 on improving Wikipedia. This resulted in the book-length WP:NINETHESES, based on 25 years of reflection about Wikipedia, knowledge, reference works, and the philosophical issues raised by the internet. The issue before you, though, is not about me but whether you want to make WikiProject Intellectual Diversity an official WikiProject.

9. You've promoted WPID on X/Twitter to your 90,000 followers. Isn't that off-wiki canvassing?

My distinct impression was that Wikipedians were encouraged to recruit for new WikiProjects; when researching the application process and WP:CANVASS, I could find nothing forbidding recruitment via social media. I am willing to be corrected if someone can prove the contrary to me.

10. Can WPID guarantee it won't be used to overturn admin actions or interfere with blocking and sanctions?

Of course. WPID is an ordinary WikiProject with no special authority. We cannot overturn admin actions, reverse blocks, or interfere with sanctions. Obviously, we lack any mechanism to do so. The PolicyScanner, for example, monitors policy discussions for informational purposes; it does not and cannot instruct anyone to take any action. And if we engage in policy debates, as seems inevitable, WPID can certainly pledge not to speak on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole. Indeed, we will not even speak on behalf of our own members. We're basically a club.

11. Many of your members don't meet the extended confirmed requirement. Doesn't that undermine the project's credibility?

Not at all. It actually supports the very need for the project: There are people who have made accounts (often, years ago) and stopped using them due to disgust at how the website is run. We want to give it another try.

In any event, we have at least ten members who have at least 1,000 edits and have had accounts for at least one year.

I hope this helps our critics to understand what we are up to (and what we are not up to!), and why the WikiProject Council should approve our application. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Larry Sanger: Recruiting editors via social media is considered meatpuppetry and is not allowed: actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not do that, SuperPianoMan9167. I was recruiting for a WikiProject, something that Council guidelines instruct applicants to do! Larry Sanger (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Except that you have to do that on-wiki: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Recruiting editors SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that might be stretching the guideline a bit more than is reasonable. Recruiting editors normally happens on wiki, but if someone wanted to set up a WikiProject for (e.g.,) Wikipedia:1lib1ref or a WP:GLAM group or other editing events that routinely recruit off wiki, I doubt that the community would object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That's correct, and it is precisely the reasoning I went through. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

you linked to the discussion, which is consensus-based Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a difference between simply recruiting people to a WikiProject and directly linking people to the discussion that will approve or reject it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The guidelines say you do it on Wikipedia. Honestly, as an example: if we ever find out a gaggle of editors are coordinating on Discord or email and we had receipts, I'd hope that every one of those editors would face strident and uncomfortable consequences. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:EEML for instance. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely has neutrality issues and could afford to change its approach on some things. I've been working for a few years to make that happen, both in policy discussions and through direct editing. And wiktionary:this ain't it, chief. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

If this project dropped the framing of treating wikipedia as a battleground, dropped usage of policy scanner to intervene for disruptive user incidence response, and dropped this idea of gaming (that handbook around trying to avoid admin attention rubs a lot of folks the wrong way), this isn’t entirely unsalvageable. As is the framing of the project is far too adversarial User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry, many of the projects you cite as examples are not in favor of various competing policy stances as you claim they are:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism states clearly: This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian. You don't have to identify as a feminist to join this WikiProject.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism describes itself as a WikiProject dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles related to skepticism (British English spelling: scepticism), also known as scientific skepticism, rational skepticism, or skeptical inquiry.

There's a use-mention distinction here: a WikiProject about feminism isn't the same as a WikiProject for feminists. Regarding your other examples, you might find that the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians isn't a WikiProject at all, but a project on Meta-Wiki, another website which has very different guidelines. Meanwhile, the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians... redirects to a redlink. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 23:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Making a Wikiproject to push an agenda is not a valid use of wikiprojects. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 20:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MfD for User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner where a deletion discussion is occurring. TarnishedPath^talk 01:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

CNN-News18 podcast interview

The WikiProject proposer Larry Sanger made a recent appearance on CNN-News18's Plain Speak podcast to promote this WikiProject. (You can view the transcript on a desktop web browser.)

On the podcast, Larry Sanger accused Wikipedia of having an "anti-Hindu bias" (2:52) and claimed that part of the reason was that "Muslims have engaged in any number of terrorist acts and when the conservatives pushed back hard on that, then naturally, the left takes the other side" (5:59). For context, see Larry Sanger's comments about Hinduism and Islam, and his defense of OpIndia, a far-right anti-Muslim website that was blacklisted in 2020 for doxing a Wikipedia editor, which Larry Sanger described as one of the "Important religious sources" for Hindu religious doctrines (alongside its sister publication Swarajya).

When asked about how "Indians and Hindus who feel there is this bias" could "fight it actively", Larry Sanger responded: "I think they should join Wikipedia and join the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. Right now, it's linked only on my page, but hopefully sometime in the next few weeks it will become an official Wikipedia WikiProject, as it's called. That's just a group of like-minded people. So, that would help." (33:22).

After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than there are in, say, England. Just due to sheer numbers, you can field a lot of good writers on Wikipedia, and if you quite simply learn how to play the game..." (33:54). The podcast host continued, "Then you can possibly reach the other side in the game", and moved on to another topic. — Newslinger talk 12:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC); rephrased for accuracy 12:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the nail in the CANVAS coffin, surely. This is Sanger explicitly saying he'd like to recruit an army of tendentious Indian editors for POV-pushing purposes.

I'd advise you to crosspost this to the ANI thread. Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Seconding @Athanelar. This is as blatant as it gets for WP:CANVASS. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Please see WP:ANI#CNN-News18 podcast interview. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Split this off into its own page?

This and the ANI discussion are taking up loads of space. I propose that we split this (and also the ANI discussion, but that can be sorted out there) into its own page. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 20:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No too many subpages and mfds and all that. Just no. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You've got a good idea here, but Wikipedia has made it clear over the past decade that it has zero interest in any form of intellectual diversity. Jtrainor (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Any form? Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• I oppose splitting this thread into a subpage. We're not giving Larry what he has wanted all along. What this thread needs is closure, which IMO is long overdue, despite incoming comments here. —George Ho (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You do realize how damning of an indictment that is, right? Saying that about someone else (“you have no interest in intellectual diversity”) in another context might well be deemed a bannable offense! Larry Sanger (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternative: Close this thread?

Clearly, this is becoming one of Larry's failing proposals, and incoming flux of opposition is no surprise. Someone else uninvolved or more should close this. (Indeed, I don't mind collaborative closure.) —George Ho (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As I see, the closure was already requested at WP:CR (revision). —George Ho (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have failed, so close. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Is re-requesting closure at WP:AN really okay especially for you? I dunno any other ordinary closer willing to do this, frankly. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho, I have no issue with anyone re-requesting closure at at WP:AN. However, I can tell you what will likely happen if it is, someone will close the request with the statement that it has already had a closure requested at WP:AN. TarnishedPath^talk 21:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I just don't want this thread to continue any longer. However, I'm worried that others at WP:closure requests would overlook or ignore the request and then allow the discussion to continue. George Ho (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deprecated website affecting thousands of articles

The Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance has given us a backlog of links that need to be replaced or removed. This affects literally over half a million citations spread across a few hundred thousand articles, so basically every WikiProject could help.

If any WikiProjects would like a list of all articles that they've tagged and that contain one of these WP:ATODAY links, please see the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service. You'll need to copy the code for the bot and change the name of the WikiProject to yours (must be an exact match against the database). Post here if you run into problems with getting the list for your WikiProject; post at Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance if you have general questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think WikiProject Video games might benefit from this. If I recall correctly we've had discussions off wiki about this and there were at least some efforts to address this, but at the same time it couldn't hurt. Normally I'd just do it myself, but given the amount of VG articles this may affect I'd rather try and gain consensus to see whether other editors think this is necessary before doing anything. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, made Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security/Deprecated archival service. I modified the instructions at the top of the page to clarify a bit.

I copied in both pieces of code but seem to have only received the list of "Articles with links inside citation templates", not "Outside of citation templates". I can't tell if I messed something up, or if "Outside of citation templates" had zero items so it didn't show up. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Because there are two "separate" reports on the same page, it needs to have {{Database report end}} in between them. I've fixed it and re-generated the reports for you. You have 220 in the first list and only 42 in the second. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Nice, thank you! Also glad to be learning about the database report template, very neat. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with it, too. The "end" template is literally the only 'trick' I know about it, and I just learned that recently myself. It looks like a very powerful and flexible tool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Mislabeled advice pages

It looks like there are about 150 non-redirect WikiProject advice pages that have "guideline" in the title. This occasionally results in confusion of these essays with the real WP:Guidelines. It would be a good idea to get these renamed at some point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

might start doing this at every page that's the subject of wikidrama, something might get done Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Adjustment of WP1.0 summary table

I'm working on reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security, and I noticed that the assessment summary table (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Computer security) is a bit confusing because the table combines together articles, pages, and meta-categories. I'd like to propose the following small adjustments:

• Change "Quality" column heading to "Quality/Type"
• Add simple centered sub-heading rows for "Articles", "Pages", and "Status"
• Move Featured Media to "Pages" section, just above "Files".

Sample modified table

Compare to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Politics.

Politics articles by quality and importance
Quality/Type	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
Articles
FA	2	24	101	218		1	9	355
FL	3	8	31	123			6	171
A		1	3	6			1	11
GA	8	79	195	931			90	1,303
B	77	523	1,203	3,846	1		1,523	7,173
C	65	823	2,580	11,809	1		5,786	21,064
Start	22	633	2,715	34,760	5		26,778	64,913
Stub	2	86	462	37,423	3		38,040	76,016
List	9	103	396	3,780	27		2,195	6,510
Pages
Category					77,264			77,264
Disambig					668			668
FM					191			191
File					5,165			5,165
Portal					449			449
Project					151			151
Redirect	4	24	183	3,627	5,196			9,034
Template					9,356			9,356
NA				1	14			15
Other			1	56	871			928
Status
Assessed Total	192	2,304	7,870	96,580	99,362	1	74,428	280,737
Unassessed Total				55	2		1,621	1,678
Grand Total	192	2,304	7,870	96,635	99,364	1	76,049	282,415
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 889,586			Ω = 5.20

Since this change would affect many WikiProjects, it'd be helpful to hear input from multiple WikiProject maintainers before I propose this to the developers at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Updated to incorporate suggestions. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Revised. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I wish I did not have to say this, but it will be tough going. The topic is both dynamic and complicated and if there are plenty of users who know it, I have not seen them. To avoid abstract comments please see Unix security for updates and the talk page. Unix is a very important issue. A user called Marcus did some cleanup 2 years ago, but I had to do more last month to remove banalities and out of date items. Now it hardly says anything, but most of the incorrect items have been removed. I do not have time to rewrite the page. As a test please try to get that page fixed to see who is active and knowledgeable, then go from there. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams...: I invite you to write this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer security. It's helpful to add ideas and suggestions on that talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I had taken a look at that project back then and it seemed dead. So I did my fixes and moved on. I fix things as I have time, but generally do not get involved in projects, given that the computer related ones do not seem to be that active. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

1. In tables that have featured media, the FM appear between featured lists and 'A' class, but media are not articles. I suggest that FM be moved down into the 'Pages' section.
2. I don't see why the new sub-headings should be in italics. Nurg (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nurg: Good points, incorporated. I reworked the example based on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Politics to show a more complete example, removed the italics, and moved FM above File. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Could consider changing "Assessed" to "Total assessed" and "Total" to "Grand total". Also, would be clearer if there were tooltips or similar for 'FA', 'FL', 'GA', 'FM', and the two 'NA'. Don't know if you would want to include these in this proposal or leave for a separate proposal. Nurg (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nurg: Sounds good to me! I can't seem to wedge in "Total" before "Assessed" or "Unassessed" without changing the upstream templates, so I put in "Assessed Total" and "Unassessed Total" for the example. I like the idea of adding tooltips, but not sure how to mock that up here. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I can imagine people not liking this idea but can there be a total for quality content which is FA+FL+A+GA as they have all passed some kind of actual review. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Experimental tool for prioritizing articles to work on

I'd be curious for WikiProject maintainers and others to try this prototype, Projo, and share what you think. The goal is to help editors find high-impact articles that need a lot of work. Put in a list of articles, such as a long list of stubs or a link to a PetScan query, and let it process. Then you can filter your list to only articles with a high view count, a low quality score (using LiftWing), and one or more cleanup tags. Examples:

• From WikiProject Computer Security, view high-importance start and stub articles ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
• Based on Category:Politics stubs: view stubs ranked by pageviews, filtered by needing cleanup.
• Based on Special:LonelyPages: view orphans sorted by pageviews.

Thanks to @Audiodude for making this based on an idea I had for creating fun article lists for Event:Wiki Loves Pride/2026/Suggested articles: using PetScan to get a list of articles from a category (including subcategories, filtered by the presence of a manually-pasted list of cleanup tags), then copy-pasting the list into the Microtask Generator to add quality scores and page view counts, then exporting to a spreadsheet so I could filter out articles with high quality scores or low page views. (Could make sense for this kind of concept to go into Microtask Generator or somewhere else instead of staying a separate tool, just trying out the idea.) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That is a good start. But it is highly dependent on the placement on talk page. COBIT and undeletion do not fit in security and Risk analysis (business) is way off. So must fix the talk pages first. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to start with a perfect list to get value from a ranking tool. For example, it's fine that the WikiProject Computer Security list has some items that may not be very relevant to computer security, because a person looking for articles to edit can simply skip items that are not of interest to them, or go adjust the talk page banners. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Articles for improvement both focus on creating such lists. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but what do we really know about the data quality of those pages? I have no idea, and the time needed to go through all of them would be very long. And how consistent are they? The dreaded Unix Security article is marked high importance for security and low importance for software security, which is of course inconsistent. A good next project would be a simple program that signals the inconsistent items so they can be fixed. Have good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The project "importance" metrics are mostly useless. Vital articles requires people actually engage with the nominations. If you wanted to, you could unilaterally change the importance of the Unix Security article, and it is likely no one would even notice. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But there are only 50,000 vitals. How many are for computers and how many for security? Once again something in my head keeps saying: this needs a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A couple days ago I navigated the vital articles table of contents to find the list of vital computer security articles - 40 articles. I linked to that list from the WikiProject Computer security homepage. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but you did that manually. I prefer work done by computers. That is why we need a database. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You can query the article database based on categories - for example, this is the intersection of Category:All Computer security articles and Category:All Wikipedia vital articles: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=48078451 Dreamyshade (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, to return to the topic: here's that list of vital articles in the computer security category, processed with Projo. This filtered list is interesting to me because it gives me six articles to review, and among them I see two especially good candidates for improvement: Patch (computing) and Electronic lock, which both have minimal citations. It's a much faster and easier way to find a juicy project than skimming all 71 articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

First, that is a very interesting tool. How many users know about it. Why had I never heard of it? Secondly, we do have an ontological problem. The vital article Type conversion has almost nothing to do with security, a word that appears only once in the text. So it is vital, but not for security, and it is rated low importance for security. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you prefer work done by computers, I had done some work a while ago on Vital articles looking at generating an index based on the page statistics. The dataset is a bit out of date now, but you can see it here. Accessing the API is extremely time consuming and I'm looking for a more efficient way to get the stats on 50K+ articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks but I am done on this topic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yesterday, all my dreams... I just fixed the banner at Talk:Unix security to remove a redundant tag that was making the banners more confusing than necessary. The article is marked as low-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and marked as high-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security. The Projo tool is designed to not rely on manual assessments of importance or quality, instead applying the automated metrics of pageviews and LiftWing quality scores. They aren't perfect either, but they're fast and easy to work with for finding high-impact opportunities to improve reader-facing articles, without making editors engage in the meta-work of adjusting manual assessments. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was good. But we need a program that shows those inconsistencies. We need more simple automation all over the place. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage Ah, those projects have different goals! They answer different questions for editors:

• Vital articles: What are the most important articles in a subject area?
• Articles for improvement: What's one interesting article that needs a lot of work, from any subject area?
• Projo: Out of all of the articles in a list I've provided, which articles are frequently visited and need a lot of work?

Dreamyshade (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And individual WikiProject ratings: Which of the many articles supported by this particular group of Wikipedia editors subjectively believe is the most important (e.g., for readers to have access to, for editors to improve)? Some (e.g., MILHIST and WPBIO) reject the importance/priority ratings on principle. In that case, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses a combination of page views and internal links to rank the articles for offline inclusion. However, groups with smaller or niche interest areas find it important to tell the 1.0 team that a low-traffic article is more important for inclusion than it might look from global metrics alone. One doesn't want, e.g., the article about the president of a tiny country to be excluded just because only people in that small country are interested in reading it. Each group's importance rating (should they choose to participate) forms a third factor in the calculation, giving a small boost to some articles that might otherwise just miss the cutoff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

In the last 20 minutes I concluded that as Geosage said, the talk page ratings are almost random, and useless. The article may change over time but the ratings may be from 7 years before. But Now that I have heard about the Projo tool, l should ask you: Is there a page with the list of tools available from WMF? Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer is no, if you mean "a" page. There are instead multiple lists scattered around, all in various states of (in)completeness and outdatedness. You might start with wikitech:Category:Toolforge tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, fantastic... or what? The least they could do is build a page with descriptions, would take 2 days. But thanks anyway. I am done on this issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Creating the existing lists has already taken far more than two days. Maintaining it would also require magically know every time someone creates a new tool. Things available "from" a WMF site are not necessarily created by the WMF staff, so even a strictly enforced rule requiring WMF devs to document theirs would not be sufficient to get a complete list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Dreamy, from a practical perspective you need living, knowledgeable and energetic people to help you. Try user:Guy Harris who is all three. He knows system level computing pretty well. I will say no more. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Question 4 links to a 404

The link at the end of questoon 4 on the FAQ leads to a 404 page. Does anyone have a replacement link? User:ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Audiodude might know how to get a list. Alternatively, we could probably write something like Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes except just to count the number of tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)