Infoboxes for micronation cruft

[bagofworms]

Here's a fascinating discussion initiated by Andy the Grump (T-C-L) on the question of "should micronation trivia be enshrined in the same infoboxes used for real countries". On one side are editors who believe 1. infobox content should be NPOV and guided by what sources consider the defining factors of a group, 2. micronations are distinct from recognized states and other legally disputed regions, and/or 3. micronations should not have infoboxes that resemble "infobox country". On the other side are editors who believe that removing the country infobox from Other World Kingdom (T-H-L) is just a slippery slope to Wikipedia declaring Taiwan is "not a real country".

And of course, we are reminded that no matter the topic and no matter what form it takes, cruft will always be defended zealously by Thryduulf (T-C-L).

[rnu]

But all nations are fictitious!

You haven't satisfactorily explained how the information is misinformation. No one would actually be misled by the claim that Vít Jedlička is the president of Liberland, for example. Micronations are "made up", but so are all nations. Removing the infobox just makes the relevant information harder for our readers to find. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ditto; I couldn't have phrased it better. In the same way that the article on Middle-earth has an infobox that makes a bunch of claims without every one of those claims being prefixed with "Warning: this is a fictitious claim", infoboxes about nations (whether micro- or not) do the same thing. The topic of the article might be fiction per se (but then again, all nations are fictitious like you said), but that doesn't matter; what matters is within the realm of that topic, whether the claims being made are true. This applies to literally every article that is about a human construct. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

[rnu]

I tried reading through entire debate, but at some point I just had to give up. To sum up the arguments for keeping infoboxes for micronations as far as I see them, they are:
1. There are no facts.
2. We have to represent the facts about micronations.
3. Words don't have meaning.
4. Words mean whatever people want them to mean.
5. There is no difference between micronations and other nations.
6. Readers can tell the difference between micronations and other nations.
7. There is no difference between reality and fiction.
8. Readers can tell the difference between reality and fiction
Did I forget anything?

[AndyTheGrump]

The above exhibition of collective fuckwittery finally pushed me over the edge. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia. As to whether this will be permanent, last as long as my previous break (5 years, bar the occasional edit as an IP), or turn out to be just another Wikipedia going-off-in-a-huff temporary 'retirement', only time will tell. On its own, I could probably have dealt with it (I'm fully prepared to admit I can be wrong about things sometimes, and even when I'm not, I know better than to expect to always get my way), but I was running into similar issues far too often, and despite occasional glimpses of evidence to the contrary (possibly wishful thinking), I'm still firmly of the opinion that Wikipedia is incapable of actually addressing its most deep-rooted structural problems - or of even recognising that they exist.

The underlying issue, beyond the particulars, is the recurring one inherent in a project run by randoms writing an 'encyclopaedia' (or whatever they want to call it). The rules are concocted for their collective convenience, rather than for the benefit of readers, and expecting them to look at articles from the perspective of said readers who might prefer not to be led up the garden path is asking too much. Add this to the endless succession of POV-pushers, sockpuppets, confused 'libertarians' and imaginary-country-fantasists that have blighted the topic, and the end result is Wikipedia stating in its own voice that these 'micronations' have all the attributes of real nation states. So the infobox for Danube-swamp 'Liberland' says that Vít Jedlička is president. Which he is, because he says he is, and they have sources telling us that he says he is. And since infoboxes have to contain information, in it goes... Fuckwittery.

[Vigilant]

Wow.

I tried to read that but it's about the most pure autism I've encountered on en.wp.

[bagofworms]

The above exhibition of collective fuckwittery finally pushed me over the edge. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia.

But it seems like the majority of editors agree with you on this one? Or at least agree that micronations shouldn't have the country infobox specifically. I haven't read all the subdiscussion, but of the editors who generally have the biggest "presence" or the highest-weighted arguments at VPP discussions the only one who is against you is Thryduulf. Granted, ephemeral policy nuisances like WhatamIdoing haven't shown up to nitpick irrelevant things no one has brought up, but I'd still guess the end result of all this will be positive.

[AndyTheGrump]

The above exhibition of collective fuckwittery finally pushed me over the edge. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia.

But it seems like the majority of editors agree with you on this one? Or at least agree that micronations shouldn't have the country infobox specifically. I haven't read all the subdiscussion, but of the editors who generally have the biggest "presence" or the highest-weighted arguments at VPP discussions the only one who is against you is Thryduulf. Granted, ephemeral policy nuisances like WhatamIdoing haven't shown up to nitpick irrelevant things no one has brought up, but I'd still guess the end result of all this will be positive.

Frankly, even if I end up winning the argument, the fact that I had to start it in the first place is quite enough evidence of just how hopeless things are. There's just too much inertia, too many Thryduulfs, and too little introspection to make any real difference. For every issue dealt with, there are ten more that haven't been looked at properly for years, and three new ones creeping in unnoticed. Wikipedia is 'always improving', because anyone who thinks otherwise ends up leaving...

[eppur si muove]

The above exhibition of collective fuckwittery finally pushed me over the edge. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia. As to whether this will be permanent, last as long as my previous break (5 years, bar the occasional edit as an IP), or turn out to be just another Wikipedia going-off-in-a-huff temporary 'retirement', only time will tell.

Good luck wiht your plans for wiki-abstinence. Five months dry myself after last year's lapse.

[Kraken]

Since the only people who would typically add stuff to Wikipedia about micronations are their boosters or trivia obsessives, the correct application of NPOV is to propose everything be merged or deleted, leaving only one article. Propose that to the VP, and if established editors shoot you down, that's the time to leave.

I'd say an Administrator couldn't fail to close such a proposal as passed, if they're competent. Shiiiit, when was the last time anyone even read, saw or listened to anything about micronations? It's the fringiest nichest wooiest topic going.

[Alalch Emis]

...

I didn't face major problems when cleaning up the Ambazonia article (see these edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history).

Ambazonia is not a micronation, but the same issues apply.

My conclusion is that more bold editing and less unnecessary talking in central places leads to better results.

Consensus was reached on the talk page, see Talk:Ambazonia#Tagging (T-H-L)

A consensus template was put up on the talk page saying not to put an infobox, and an invisible text notice was added to the article saying: "Do not create a country infobox for this article. See the talk page discussion for details."

So it's possible to move ahead.

[AndyTheGrump]

...

I didn't face major problems when cleaning up the Ambazonia article (see these edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history).

Ambazonia is not a micronation, but the same issues apply.

My conclusion is that more bold editing and less unnecessary talking in central places leads to better results.

Consensus was reached on the talk page, see Talk:Ambazonia#Tagging (T-H-L)

A consensus template was put up on the talk page saying not to put an infobox, and an invisible text notice was added to the article saying: "Do not create a country infobox for this article. See the talk page discussion for details."

So it's possible to move ahead.

Interesting. Of course, this highlights just how loaded the term 'micronation' is. Try to assert actual control of the territory you live in through force and you are a 'separatist', so per WP:NPOV any claims are reported as such. Pick some random spot on a map, fill a website with bullshit, and proclaim that you have founded a 'micronation' there and Wikipedia will parrot it all as if it has some sort of inherent meaning beyond being tabloid-journalist filler.

I very much doubt that your 'more bold editing and less unnecessary talking' tactics would get very far with most 'micronation' articles though. The shills have been protecting the articles for years, and know how to Wikilawyer with the best of them. As I noted in the village pump discussion, even trying to get the word 'unrecognised' into the lede for Liberland met continued resistance. Unsurprising since Wikipedia articles are almost always the first thing a Google search comes up with for these fantasy countries, making the effort worthwhile to those selling 'visas', 'building permits', cryptocurrency etc. The 'nations' are imaginary, but the profits are real.

[Vigilant]

Propose a separate 'micronation infobox'.

There could be a 50% transparent background that said "Make Believe".

[Ron Lybonly]

Wow.

I tried to read that but it's about the most pure autism I've encountered on en.wp.

Some absurd stuff.

God bless Thryduulf (T-C-L) - I don't know what to say other than I respect his earnestness. He'd make a good foreign service officer for one of these places.

[Guido den Broeder]

The above exhibition of collective fuckwittery finally pushed me over the edge. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia. As to whether this will be permanent, last as long as my previous break (5 years, bar the occasional edit as an IP), or turn out to be just another Wikipedia going-off-in-a-huff temporary 'retirement', only time will tell. On its own, I could probably have dealt with it (I'm fully prepared to admit I can be wrong about things sometimes, and even when I'm not, I know better than to expect to always get my way), but I was running into similar issues far too often, and despite occasional glimpses of evidence to the contrary (possibly wishful thinking), I'm still firmly of the opinion that Wikipedia is incapable of actually addressing its most deep-rooted structural problems - or of even recognising that they exist.

The underlying issue, beyond the particulars, is the recurring one inherent in a project run by randoms writing an 'encyclopaedia' (or whatever they want to call it). The rules are concocted for their collective convenience, rather than for the benefit of readers, and expecting them to look at articles from the perspective of said readers who might prefer not to be led up the garden path is asking too much. Add this to the endless succession of POV-pushers, sockpuppets, confused 'libertarians' and imaginary-country-fantasists that have blighted the topic, and the end result is Wikipedia stating in its own voice that these 'micronations' have all the attributes of real nation states. So the infobox for Danube-swamp 'Liberland' says that Vít Jedlička is president. Which he is, because he says he is, and they have sources telling us that he says he is. And since infoboxes have to contain information, in it goes... Fuckwittery.

Wikipedia will never be more than a random collection of personal views and hoaxes. Liberland, for instance, is not a micronation, it's a money scam. But the WMF doesn't allow you to say that.

[AndyTheGrump]

The above exhibition of collective fuckwittery finally pushed me over the edge. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia. As to whether this will be permanent, last as long as my previous break (5 years, bar the occasional edit as an IP), or turn out to be just another Wikipedia going-off-in-a-huff temporary 'retirement', only time will tell. On its own, I could probably have dealt with it (I'm fully prepared to admit I can be wrong about things sometimes, and even when I'm not, I know better than to expect to always get my way), but I was running into similar issues far too often, and despite occasional glimpses of evidence to the contrary (possibly wishful thinking), I'm still firmly of the opinion that Wikipedia is incapable of actually addressing its most deep-rooted structural problems - or of even recognising that they exist.

The underlying issue, beyond the particulars, is the recurring one inherent in a project run by randoms writing an 'encyclopaedia' (or whatever they want to call it). The rules are concocted for their collective convenience, rather than for the benefit of readers, and expecting them to look at articles from the perspective of said readers who might prefer not to be led up the garden path is asking too much. Add this to the endless succession of POV-pushers, sockpuppets, confused 'libertarians' and imaginary-country-fantasists that have blighted the topic, and the end result is Wikipedia stating in its own voice that these 'micronations' have all the attributes of real nation states. So the infobox for Danube-swamp 'Liberland' says that Vít Jedlička is president. Which he is, because he says he is, and they have sources telling us that he says he is. And since infoboxes have to contain information, in it goes... Fuckwittery.

Wikipedia will never be more than a random collection of personal views and hoaxes. Liberland, for instance, is not a micronation, it's a money scam. But the WMF doesn't allow you to say that.

Given the vague definitions of the word 'micronation' that seem to be in circulation, why not both? 'Micronation' as a term doesn't really mean anything much anyway: basically, they exist as soon as someone imagines that they do, and no amount of pointing out their lack of resemblance to actual nations makes any difference apparently.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Given the vague definitions of the word 'micronation' that seem to be in circulation, why not both? 'Micronation' as a term doesn't really mean anything much anyway: basically, they exist as soon as someone imagines that they do...

Imagination?

[rnu]

Given the vague definitions of the word 'micronation' that seem to be in circulation, why not both? 'Micronation' as a term doesn't really mean anything much anyway: basically, they exist as soon as someone imagines that they do...

Imagination?

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Just social constructs
And no facts, too
Imagine all the people in micronations
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo

[Wikiguy.DC]

This has kinda gotten lost with all the BYU/AML stuff going on, but Thryduulf (T-C-L) has taken the absurd position that describing a mircronation as "unrecognized" is a violation of WP:NPOV

[AndyTheGrump]

This has kinda gotten lost with all the BYU/AML stuff going on, but Thryduulf (T-C-L) has taken the absurd position that describing a mircronation as "unrecognized" is a violation of WP:NPOV

Taking absurd positions on Wikipedia is Thryduulf's hobby.

[rnu]

This has kinda gotten lost with all the BYU/AML stuff going on, but Thryduulf (T-C-L) has taken the absurd position that describing a mircronation as "unrecognized" is a violation of WP:NPOV

Probably worried that when people are done with micronations they'll come after microbrains.

[Hemiauchenia]

Micronation seems to me somewhat of a misnomer, given that microstate (T-H-L) refers to legitimate sovereign states. "Fantasy country/nation/state" would be a better name, following the terminology used to describe the passports issued by these entities.

[AndyTheGrump]

Micronation seems to me somewhat of a misnomer, given that microstate (T-H-L) refers to legitimate sovereign states. "Fantasy country/nation/state" would be a better name, following the terminology used to describe the passports issued by these entities.

Yup. A thoroughly misleading word. And it is noticeable how many people insist on using it, while refusing to explain to readers what it actually means. And then Wikipedia frames the article around the word, describing a 'Republic of Whatever', as if it is something substantive. An accurate description for even the most 'real' of such things is "a name given to a tract of land by a bunch of people peddling questionable claims".

This is at least partly down to the absurd literalism Wikipedia adopts when discussing notability. The logic goes 'Liberland is real because it is notable. It is notable because reliable sources have written about it'. Except that said sources (beyond lazy tabloid journalists looking for filler on a slow news day) actually frame it entirely differently: describing claims as claims, 'presidents' as self-appointed etc. This literalism plays straight into the hands of the purveyors of 'passports', cryptocurrencies and the rest: more so given Google's tendency to mine Wikipedia for short descriptions. The last thing the Liberlanders want is an accurate description of their fantasy swamp-nation at the top of a Google search.