维基百科:给页面标记问题

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳转至: 导航搜索

"Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some Wikipedia editors object to the practice of tagging instead of fixing, but there is value in pointing out an article's problems. Tagging allows editors to specialize, teaches editors and warns readers about subpar or problematic content. It is better if people solve the problems they encounter themselves, but not everyone may be able to. Editors are sometimes obliged to justify inclusion of tags, such as in the case of Template:POV.

Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement.

Constructive tagging[编辑]

快捷方式
WP:DRIVEBY
WP:DRIVEBYTAG

Adding tags for non-obvious problems—without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems—is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags, such as {{npov}} or {{dead end}}, you should explain yourself on the talk page or in an edit summary. It can help to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged.

By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws is helpful. Aristotle once stated: "When people are friends, they have no need of justice, but when they are just, they need friendship in addition." It is often best to only point out the greatest flaw in an article, and along with this possibly mention something you like about the content.

There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that an editor must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page.

移除标记[编辑]

快捷方式
WP:DETAG

Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. Except in very obvious cases (such as removing {{Uncategorized}} from an article that has been categorized), it is wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal and to identify your action in an appropriately detailed edit summary. It is often the case that even after the initial problem causing the tag is fixed, the tag is accidentally left in place. Sometimes problems are solved by inexperienced editors, who incorrectly believe that they must wait for an authority figure to remove the official-looking template. Perhaps the person leaving the tag simply made a bad judgment call, or accidentally linked to the wrong template.

Be wary of removing tags related to sourcing issues, particularly specific ones like {{Citation needed}}. Under the Verifiability policy (see WP:CHALLENGE), any challenged statement should not be restored (in this case, detagged) without a citation to a reliable source. Redundant tagging or overtagging can, however, be a problem. See #Over-tagging below.

If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed by any editor without a conflict of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.

Adding tags for non-obvious problems without discussion on the talk page which explains where the problems are is arguably not helpful. It can be viewed as disruptive and is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. The allegation that "drive-by tagging" is not acceptable is not based on Wikipedia policies; there is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that an editor must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation.

标记出现争议[编辑]

有时条目是否应当挂上模板可能会产生争议。个别编辑挂模板是在阐释观点扰乱,或者他很偏执。亦有部分编者不解决页面的实质问题就擅自摘掉标签,通常该类型的编者有鉴于以下原因:

  • 认为标签很打脸,中伤其本人。
  • 爱面子,认为标签非常丢脸。
  • 不想让其他编者对所编辑的页面有所关注。
  • 只是单纯不喜欢有标签的存在。

实际上,如标记时出现争议,请按解决程序,前往讨论页与其他编者冷静讨论,切忌发生编辑战。

Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

过度标记[编辑]

快捷方式
WP:OVERTAG
WP:OVERTAGGING

挂标签只是请他人解决你无从下手的问题,该动作本身不会改善条目。过多模糊标签无助于改善维基百科,只会徒增混乱、打击编者。无可否认,滥挂标签是存有扰乱或破坏之嫌。这是一個过度标签的实例

下文是常见的过度标记问题:

过多标签 
挂一两个标签指出最大问题即可,条目再差也不应超过三个标签,再挂多只会被集体无视。
例子:某条目疑似直接复制自外站。这种条目一般有这类问题:侵犯著作权嫌疑、无来源、格式杂乱、无链接、无分类。此时只需标记最大的问题,即疑似侵犯著作权,像没有链接等小节,应待大问题解决后标记。
冗余标签 
若A标签包括B标签的问题,条目已挂A时就不应再挂B。挂{{无来源}}后无需再挂{{无脚注}},断言也不应同时标记{{来源请求}}和{{可疑}}。冗余模板会分散读者注意力,还算為闡釋觀點而擾亂維基百科
模糊标签 
老编辑尚都困扰于泛用标签,新编辑就更是无从下手。挂标签应先选专用标签,只能挂泛用标签时,则在讨论页留言解释,或在标签后加<!-- 隐藏注释 -->详述问题。
不少标签都可用于混乱、文笔拙劣的条目,但编辑应贴具体的标签。很多东西都应该{{清理}},但具体是{{要分段}}、内容{{自相矛盾}}、语调如{{評論}},还是{{赘言}}呢?编辑应在Category:清理模板中选择最精确的标签。
错误标签 
不要贴和问题不对号的标签,没合适标签时,要么亲自动手修改,要么在讨论页指出问题。
例子:某条目有27条内文引用,都出自同一来源,你想指出这一问题。{{无来源}}不适用于该条目,因为条目并非“有0条来源”!虽然挂{{改善来源}}说的过去,但{{单一来源}}才是最佳答案。现有A、B两个标签,A标签和问题有交集,B标签和问题完全对应,请挂那个完全对应的B,不要两个全挂。
无用标签 
请不要只因理论上可以就挂模板,就算条目有扩充改善余地,也不一定要挂标签。请用你的智慧判断所有事实和状况,挂标签真能推动条目改善,不能就别挂。
例子:某公司条目险过关注度标准,它没有或只有一篇条目链入。条目{{孤立}}的确是事实,但在挂模板就有用吗,它有办法不孤立么?挂模板是请人解决问题,但请人解决无解问题很不合适。

参见[编辑]