text:
Talk:Naoko Takeuchi

Fact Dispute
In this page, her birthday is listed as March 15, 1967, and yet the Japanese page, her birthday is March 15, 1966. Which one is correct?

 * One Japanese website lists it as 1966, not 1967. In her manga and the artbooks her year of birth is not officially listed. On the official website when her profile was listed, she did not list the year of birth. The Japanese websites I've seen though, list 1966, not 1967. She did say she was 30 by the time of the end of Sailor Moon and wanted her 20's back in Princess Naoko Takeuchi Back-to-Work Punch!! Sailormoon ended 1997, but this would have been after her birthday, making the date a bit ambiguous. I'll do some more searching since only 3 people have worked on her wiki page. Either way I doubt she'd correct the 1967 because it makes her appear younger. ^.~ But, yeah I'll try to verify.

 * Hitsuji Kinno 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Here are the conflicting sources in question: http://zatugaku.jp/b-04.htm, http://www.tcp.com/doi/mangaka/takeuchi-naoko.html The thing is that both owners are Japanese. So to get it to work out one would have to retract. Most English-speaking pages got the date from Hitoshi Doi, but there are no official sources for this.

 * The only official source that we have is this (from Punch!!):

 * Narration:     Then, since I was out of material, Sailor Moon ended in February 1997.

 * Comment:       Whenever I see the last kiss scene of the anime, tears pour.

 * Naoko:         All right! Give me lots of vacation!

 * Comment:       Really, my body and spirit were worn out, and I was in a daze.

 * Narration:     I thought I'd be able to rest for about a year...

 * Chief editor:  I'll give you five months.

 * Narration:     I only received five months. Here, at thirty, if I got five months vacation, I'd think it was great. *clip*

 * So the question stands still what year it is exactly, but this is the cloest we have. Unless someone who writes fluent Japanese wants to e-mail both parties to name their sources, I don't know if we'll get an official date. Hitoshi Doi's page is older.

 * Hitsuji Kinno 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Stuff like "her blood type is A" and the fact that she's right-handed doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia article, I suspect--it makes the article sound like this is a fan page, which it's not--it's an encyclopedia article. See What Wikipedia is not. :-) Sorry Bob, I'm not really trying to pick on you.  :-) --Larry_Sanger

 * I moved it to a "trivia" section. Perhaps not Encyclopedia Brittanica material, but fine for Wikipedia. I personally feel it makes entries more interesting, but it should be placed in the proper category (and I really have no idea who this person is, apart from what is in the article). —Frecklefoot 17:08, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Confusing terminology
I have no idea what (Bishoujo Senshi Sera Muun) Takeuchi-sama (beginning of second paragraph) is supposed to mean. Is this an alternate spelling or representation of her name? Also, I have no idea what the paragraph regarding "Inner Senshi" and "Outer Senshi" is supposed to be referring to. I suppose Anime fans might understand it, but non-fans probably won't. Is there someone who is familiar with this stuff explain it in layman's terms? If it's not important, just delete it. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:08, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote the first sentence of the second paragraph because it was confusing to me, too (and I am a fan!) and the third paragraph was ridiculous for a biographical article on the artist. A discussion of terminology specific to a particular work of an artist belongs in an article discussing that work, not in the biographical brief of the artist.
 * Iceberg3k 12:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I took out the snide remark that was added to the Punch part and added link information for the sources. I also rearranged the manga material (yet again) in the order that it was published. Toki Meka has to be listed twice as it was published and then resumed at a later date with a different plot.

I'll add more information about her, since I have the resources that no one else seems to. I'll try to fix a few of the other things in the article. It's not fair to take information from pages without credit.

--Hitsuji Kinno 1:48 March 31, 2005

General Clean-up
Someone marked the page for clean up. So I fixed the only problem with the page-- I deleted that. Also, in terms of "the Clean up Project" This page does not qualify for combining into another section. This is because there are tons of works under this particular author, and I guarentee it is ten times more detailed than the majority of the mangaka pages (I just fixed Watase Yuu's page which was 10 times more pathetic.) This page is not too short to stand on its own either. So I can't see how it qualifies. Try it again... and I'll delete it again, until you explain yourself.

--Hitsuji Kinno 02:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Toki*Meca
Here's a clean-up for you.. It's Toki*Meka for the first one, and then Toki*Meca for the second one. The title has not, or will it ever be Toki*Mecha.

People might ask *why?* Well, very simply it's a long series of puns, that I'm not sure that should be listed here, which is why I'm starting a section to the series about it.

Puns: 1. Meka (as in the kanji for the word) reads Meka. It's an actual Japanese kanjied word. 2. Mecha (As in Mechanical) 3. Tokimeki, as in heartbeat, also the name of the kinds of robots in the series. 4. The character's anme is Meca. 5. The small version of her is called Meka (in hiragana, I believe)

By spelling it Meca, it monopoloizes on ALL of those delicious puns, also the front of the manga cover reads as such.

I'll keep changing it back if someone changes it again. Meca no Meka is not incorrect. Both are right, but for different reasons. Hitsuji Kinno 03:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Headshot
I added a headshot with the appropiate tag of fairuse photo promo on it from my own website. I also added the ending date for Toki*Meca because I have the issue which says it ended in May 2006. Hitsuji Kinno 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Influences backed by interviews?
Anyone objection to listing influences, such as Leiji Matsumoto whom she said she traced in HS as long as it has backing from sources, or is this clutter? --Hitsuji Kinno 14:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds great. --Masamage 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits Made
Right, so I added in references, Reference section, See also section, and reworked the works to "List of works" to be consistent with the other mangaka pages I looked through. This page just need a bit of tweaking, and I think we can request an upgrade for evaluation... Information that used to be here 5 years ago on her is missing now. >.<;; Makes my life so much harder. The interview she had with another mangaka is not there anymore and more than half seem to have bit the dust hard. The other thing it needs is the awards she has won and basic reception to her work. Things that reflect who she is outside of the fandom and more as a professional. However, this info is thin and the majority relates to SM... --Hitsuji Kinno 05:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Upgrade the grade?
Is this enough to upgrade the grade from start to B? Or Does it need something more. I'll request an evaluation if someone else doesn't. --Hitsuji Kinno 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely looks B-worthy to me. In fact, it was originally assessed by Squilibob as a B, then downgraded by Denelson to Start. Ordinarily I wouldn't rank articles I'm involved with, but 1) it was already ranked this way by an outsider, 2) that was altered by an insider, and 3) it's improved since then anyway. I'll change it back now; if anyone disagrees feel free to say so. --Masamage 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image issues
Every time I add an image and do all the appropriate things the image gets taken out and then someone complains they want a head shot. --;; What gives? I put up the correct tag and then it gets taken down... *sighs* Anyone want to discuss this, I have the image here: http://sensei.takeuchi-naoko.com/naoko.jpg. What license do I use to not make people squeal that's not allowed? Because it seems that people object no matter what, then I remove the need picture tag then someone takes away the picture and puts back the tag at the top. --;; BTW, I think there should be a mangaka info box... for birth, etc. --Hitsuji Kinno 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since she is a living person, the only license that's allowed is a free one (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, public domain). See WP:FU, in particular Counterexample #8. The usual place for discussing problems with an image is not the talk page of the article but the talk page of the image itself (Image talk:Naokotn.jpg). —Angr 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was not done, it was removed without notification. --Hitsuji Kinno 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot
Why the hell is the bot adding this: (cur) (last) 02:55, November 19, 2006 Thijs!bot (Talk | contribs) m (robot Adding: th:นาโอโกะ ทาเคอุจิ) to categories? It's not that language's page.. and what the hell is a bot doing on English space. --;; reversions. I'm reverting back to Malkiann. Unless someone uses the talk b=page, I'm reverting. --Hitsuji Kinno 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Aren't those ordinary inter-wiki links? --Masamage 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the link takes you to that language's page on Naoko. - Saturn  Yoshi  THE VOICES 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards
About the "2nd Nakayoshi Comic Prize for Newcomers" for “Yume ja Nai no ne”: Does anybody have a _trustworthy_ source for that? I'd rather suspect, this is a translation error or something like that.. I only found the "2nd New-Mangaka-Award" for "Love Call" (2nd doesn't mean second place but the second time this prize was awarded) See here (I translated it with Google-Translate): Nakayoshi New Mangaka Prize in Japanese Wikipedia -- Merkur-kun 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Issues AGAIN
I marked the page to notify me of changes and someone deleted it regardless and didn't answer my challenge. Does anyone know how to context the constant deleting without reply? I contended that there were no replacement images for what I gave and if they wanted to context it they needed to give me an image to work with, however, whomever insists on it doesn't answer to the talk page at all, and just deletes it blindly. --Hitsuji Kinno 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask for outside help from the crew in charge of understanding copyright laws, I guess. Copyright issues should be a good place to start. --Masamage 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that Wikipedia is deleting ALL images of living persons regardless of the rights. *cough* Bright. Even if the copyright holders release it, they are deleting them blindly without thinking... I quote from the page you gave me.

Wikipedia Policy - Copyrights and Fair Use of Images of Celebrities

The following language is from the locked policy page on Wikipedia copyrights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement

 * ''Celebrity photographs
 * This is based on the image guidelines at IMDB, so it especially applies to celebrity photographs, but also can apply to other pictures. Legitimate photographs generally come from three different places with permission.:The studios, producers, magazine publisher, or media outlet that originally shot the photograph.
 * Agencies that represent the photographers who shot the photos or the photographer themself (the latter especially for amateur photographs)
 * Submissions from the celebrity himself or herself or a legal representative of the celebrity.

This written copyright policy on Wikipedia clearly indicates usage of said photographs does not violate copyright, is legitimate, and is permissble on Wikipedia. The above statement does not mandate the above entities license said images under a GFDL, and it's inherent from the outset that the above entities do not generally license their work under GFDL in nearly all cases, rather Fair Use. They are in these businesses, and as businesses, generally distribute work for either paid or promotional purposes only under Fair Use.

However, the admins now enforcing Fair Use images are deleting nearly any image of a living person, regardless of whether it comes from a source such as that indicated above, as long as the image is of a living person, claiming the image could be at some point be replaced by a GFDL or CC image. It does not matter whether such a GFDL image in fact exists, how difficult it might be to obtain, or whether the celebrity provided a Fair Use image themselves. Following the rationale now being enforced, it would seem impossible for a living celebrity to ever have an image on Wikipedia, as their celebrity alone would make them available for the potential creation of a GFDL image in essentially any case. I have recently had 32 images deleted, nearly all of which fell into these categories. The above policy has no meaning whatsover to the enforcing admins, who see the primary goal as a "totally free" encyclopedia. Some also view deleting otherwise permissible fair use images as advancing the goal of encouraging persons to find or create or take GFDL images. A variety of other claims, including that of "freedom to the downstream user", are also advanced. Most celebrities want exactly the opposite, as they do not want their images used for endorsement or other purposes without permission, which a GFDL license allows in perpetuity.

A number of users who have had legitimate Fair Use images deleted and replaced by amateur photographs have begun to raise the issue of United States state laws, some of which do not allow distribution of images of celebrities without the expressed consent of said celebrity, including amateur images. Those arguments have so far been ignored, and it would follow that Wikipedia would in fact be exposed to more, not less, potential liability than it would by distributing Fair Use images released by the copyright holder or celebrity for just such a purpose, for which liability is essentially zero. Not to mention that the professional images are often of a far higher quality than the amateur images now being substitutued, and advance the goal of a quality encyclopedia better.

Another aspect of this issue is that Fair Use images of deceased persons are used at will under the premise that no Fair Use image can possibly be created. This would seem to fly in the face of the entire "totally free" argument from the outset, and there are thousands of other fair use images that remain on Wikipedia regardless, such as for album, CD and DVD covers, which have and will likely remain untouched. I also believe it's possible, in fact likely, that licensing rights of images of deceased celebrities would transfer to the estate, and that Wikipedia is under no more, or less, potential liabilty than for the living, marking the distinction of dead vs. living as a potential red herring.

The enforcing admins and supporting users in this area have been described by some as "jihadists" in their deletion of all fair use images of living persons including celebrities. My experience would indicate that is an appropriate view, as 32 of 35 disputed images were removed, including numerous images gained from celebrities themselves for use on Wikipedia, despite lengthy fair use rationales. Every image I've loaded was immediately examined and challeged in some respect, beginning immediately after I posted critical comments on the enforcement of Fair Use at the Chowbok Rfc page, the largest hub of several similar Rfc pages which have had the net effect of zero on the above policy's interpretation and enforcement by the admins in question.

All of this has led to many angry Wikipedians, some of whom have left in complete disgust. I myself have stopped loading images of any kind to the project, including many original images I had considered licensing as Creative Commons, because of how these fair use images of celebrities are being treated at present. I am now advising celebrities I know and contact of how said policy is being enforced, and also advising them not to license images under GFDL without being fully aware of the potential downstream use of said images, over which they will have no control whatsoever.

I post this as a commentary, and invite others, epecially admins who view the above policy implementation as heavy handed or incorrect, to comment. Thank you. Tvccs 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So apparently while you're alive it doesn't matter, but once you're dead you can commemorate the event by requesting the picture you've always wanted up on the website to be posted. *shakes head* Something is going down up there. No worries once the dust settles I still have the image to upload. --Hitsuji Kinno 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)\

UGGH
It got delated Again! Lego3400: The Sage of Time 17:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It apparently is happening on all celebrity pages where even they, the celebrities themselves have stated that they are releasing it for the use on wikipedia. There is something going on upstairs with pictures... and I don't particularly like it. Especially when there was no warning or talk page talk back on it (I marked it). I demanded an alternate too. So whoever is doing it is someone upstairs... messing and angering celebrities. *cough* --Hitsuji Kinno 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring image Issues, formatting to proper format
I started a wikipedia project page for it, however despite having references from Punch it will take a lot to write. I want to cut out the trivia section and incorporate that into the main section... So you are invited to help. (delete anything from the trivia hat can't be made prose and doesn't follow relevance.) --Hitsuji Kinno 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That'd be available at WikiProject_Sailor_Moon/Naoko_Takeuchi, right? -Malkinann 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Issues
Masamage... Now that your an admin maybe you could help us fix the issues with the images? *offers bribe* Lego3400: The Sage of Time 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't. We can only include a non-copyrighted image. --Masamage ♫ 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't we ask someone on the Japanese Wikipedia to see if they can contact Takeuchi and ask her to licence a headshot of herself under the GFDL? The permission can then be logged over at OTRS. --  Denelson83  15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a magazine shot of her too... would a screen cap shot be acceptable, or is that also subject to deletion?--Hitsuji Kinno 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents transferred
I transfered the contents. There are only 2 references missing. Maybe if we fill them we can ask for an evaluation? Or look into upping this page to the next level. --Hitsuji Kinno 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing reference
Jay Novak (I think that was him) http://www.genvid.com/News/Otakon-2007-PGSM-Panel-Videos.html (last video) said Takeuchi-sensei had a large hand and that she did concept sketches. I can hunt those down since I'm having trouble finding the interview. (i.e. ask him for his source) Is that an acceptable source? --Hitsuji Kinno 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wrong... however, I did ask another person to find him. And sehe will dig up the reference. *sighs* What I do for this page...--Hitsuji Kinno 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah.... Picture
The Watase Yuu article got actual permission to post a picture. O.o;; WOAHHH... Why are they so lucky? I need to ask how they managed that. We still need the last two references... *sighs* Then I'm confident we can get this article to GA.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * A second thought... If we ask Black Moon for permission to post one of their pictures, the one with the San Diego Comic Con interview, do you think that will work? Or how about a self portrait?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Have a look at User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image for some ideas on this - or if Lunar Archivist got a photo of Takeuchi at some point, we could maybe ask him? -Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference...
I have a reference, but the website is extinct now... Specifically the lines: "NT - Your plans are very ambitious. I wish I could follow your example! Maybe I could come work for you. I can color. Do I need a contract?

KA - It would be nice to make a series with you. We need to get together again soon and catch up some more." Indicating that Naoko Takeuchi was interested in animation. Should I post it up on my website even though it's not mine? the archiver doesn't work on the page in question.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Translations Question
I'm translating an old interview, however, I have issues. First is that the interview on the original website was taken down. This is because the interviewers all graduated from said college. I know we can't use the Wayback machine because that's violation of copyright by Wikipedia rules. Is including parts of the translated interview grounds for breaking that? I'm currently working on them, and it has stuff like the Hanshin Earthquake, and large sections behind the motivation of why she included a Solar Eclipse into SuperS, which at the time of the interview, just came out. I haven't finished them yet, but I wanted to know what to do about it...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, COPY says that it is currently acceptable to use the Wayback machine. :) -Malkinann (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh good! Then I can finish translating the massive 6 pages of Japanese text and reference it for this page using the wayback machine. ^_^--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding minor note about Kyoritsu University
Keio and Kyoritsu University ironically merged. http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:hSh7CfvAYz0J:www.keio.ac.jp/english/press_release/070326e.pdf+kyoritsu+Pharmacy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a (The buildings for Kyoritsu University still exist there though. I have it on faith they won't disappear within two weeks.) I say "ironically," considering that Keio is a Homophone for K.O. Where Mamoru went to College. Since the website has changed to Keio only, I think I should mention it. I'm also adding a minor note about her working at Shiba Daijingu. I happen to have a valid image for her university. =P My Dad took it. If not that one, I have a few myself. I also have an image of where she worked, but that's another matter.

The other thing is that the intro to the article reads a little weird. Mentioning the United States several times in a way that doesn't sit well. She's been to Turkey and Italy twice before too, but this article doesn't go out of the way to mention them, do they? I'm not sure about an easy resolution to this.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sm Musicals
Oh if this is notable, Naoko-sensei turned up for the first Sailor Moon Musical during the rehearsal and commented that "Sailor Moon should be like a delicious work". She also turned up for Ooyama Anza's graduation from the musicals at the last day performance of Eien Densetsu kaiteiban to hand over flowers. -- Hana ichi  15:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd need solid participation, such as contribution, etc or influence to be able to include this into this article.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, what if the Gaiden Video does show around 10 mins of her sitting around, commenting and making changes to the first musical? There are about a couple of things she does in the first musical and such, I'd probably have to watch the video again.-- Hana ichi  06:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference clean up
I'm going to randomly advocate removing my site from this page. Takeuchi-naoko.com. I didn't add the link. =P So I'm fine with it being removed. The thing it's referencing doesn't need to be there. Alex Glover should also be removed except to reference his translations, which are under copyright law and not spreading or breaking copyright law.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That all sounds fine to me, fansite rules being what they are. --Masamage ♫ 06:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture proposal
We should solve the picture problem, here are our options currently:
 * 1) We ask Black Moon if we can use one of their pictures from 1998. This would be legal.
 * 2) We ask a Christian group who has a black and white picture of Naoko Takeuchi from 2004... http://www.catholiccharities-md.org/pdf/Blessings%202004_SUMMER.pdf <-- PDF, page 3. Not a good head shot, but up-to-date as we're going to get. They might, however, have a color version too... it is the age of digital cameras. She has aged well.
 * 3) We ask the Christian group for a liaison or contact information so that Naoko Takeuchi releases a picture herself. (They are still running, etc... So it's worth a shot to see if they could help out.) <-- If we do this we could ask her questions too. ^.~ http://www.catholiccharities-md.org <-- their website.
 * 4) We take the slim chance that Naoko Takeuchi will show up for a con in 2009 because Mitsuishi Kotono-san and Han Keiko said they'd like to bring her which in that case, Me or Lilly-peacecraft (from DA) will be there to take *plenty* of pictures and then I can release it to wikipedia.

Which one does the project prefer?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think my preference is influenced by which ones are the highest-quality pictures, so it's hard to say. The one in the PDF file isn't too great. Where are the Black Moon ones? They'd have to release them under GDFL, of course. --Masamage ♫ 00:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * That's why we would have to ask. They are here: http://www.theblackmoon.com/Naoko/take.html From 1998, so it was a while ago. The other options of course is calling the church to see if they still have a contact and asking her directly. (I have enough Japanese for at least that much) and taking a risk and waiting to see if she shows up for a convention in 2009. In which case I'd be there, breaking bank...Of course there are place holder GDFL too where we could ask Black Moon and then switch over in 2009 if she shows up for the convention.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * They may not have to be under GFDL, check this out. Also see WP:COPYREQ. -Malkinann (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please vote, so I can take action 1, 2, 3, or 4?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Why not just leave a message over at the Japanese Wikipedia asking someone over there to directly contact Takeuchi and ask her for a GFDL portrait of herself? --  Denelson83  08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because she's hard to contact... this will have better/direct results. Also it's a bit of a cultural work around too.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so she's a recluse, eh? --  Denelson83  02:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't say that, but we did try Wikipedia Japan. I general, culturally Japanese don't publicize themselves widely like that.. it's probably easier and more productive to use one of the other routes for now... Besides which Takeuchi-sensei is usually busy with other things. Like managing properties... we wouldn't be at the top of her list of things to do.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More references...
I'll add these back as I think of a place to include them. I'll store them for now.

--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BLACK MOON – Naoko Takeuchi, creator of Sailor Moon – A 1998 interview with Takeuchi
 * http://www.kicie.net/realm/naoko.htm – An Interview in English from an Italian Magazine.
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20021006084159/www.a.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~ayano/naoko/abst.html Basic information archived. The original interview was asking about her involvement in the astronomy team at her high School.

Pronounciation.
Might want to add that her name is pronounced "Now-koh" & not "Nay-ow-kow." Takeuchi also only has 3 syllables, but many Americans might have trouble pronouncing the "eu" sound properly; it's like "ew" but...bouncier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think makeshift pronunciation spellings are rather discouraged on Wikipedia, but there's an IPA template somewhere on here for just such a thing. I'll go see if I can find it. --Julian Grybowski (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta-ke-u-chi that's four. And I will echo what was said above me. There are wikipedia rules to follow. And it's *not* Nay-o-kow. It's Nah-oh-koh. I took Japanese... it's also Tah-keh-oo-chee. But as was said, wikipedia has a pronunciation guide which is linked to all of the Japanese names.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Eternal Links
I took them out, again. Please don't reinclude them. It's kind of weird to constantly have to take off my own website. =P. http://www.takeuchi-naoko.com is *my* website. Keep it off of this page.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Takeuchi-sensei's second baby
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-12-24/sailor-moon-takeuchi-hunter-x-hunter-togashi-have-2nd-baby

Cite the manga volume please... if you add. I'm giving it a few days to make sure it's not a hoax or some such. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * New baby confirmed: http://moonratio.sailormoon.cc/?p=368 If it is a girl or a boy isn't confirmed.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if it's a boy or a girl is not yet confirmed. Stop changing it until it is confirmed 100%.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Automotive engineer?
The lede describes her as an automotive engineer, a fact which is never mentioned elsewhere in the article, and which I can't find another source for. I know she likes her cars, but is she actually a qualified engineer? Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, it has been reverted. —Farix (t | c) 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Naoko Takeuchi


text:
Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Approval mechanism

This is not a Wikipedia policy and does not reflect current Wikipedia practice. It is a proposed set of policies for discussion. This page was refactored and moved to article validation. As of 2009, current proposals for approval mechanisms can be found at Flagged revisions.

Wikipedia approval mechanism, defined
"Wikipedia approval mechanism" means any sort of mechanism whereby Wikipedia articles are individually marked and displayed, somehow, as "approved".

Purpose
The purpose of an approval mechanism is, essentially, quality assurance. By presenting particular articles as approved, we (Wikipedians) would be representing those articles as reliable sources of information.

Proposed basic requirements
Among the basic requirements of an approval mechanism would have to fulfill in order to be adequate are:
 * The approval must be done by experts about the material approved. A trust model?
 * There must be clear and reasonably stringent standards that the experts are expected to apply.
 * The mechanism itself must be genuinely easy for the experts to use or follow. Nupedia's experience seems to show that a convoluted approval procedure, while it might be rigorous, is too slow to be of practical use.
 * The approval mechanism must not impede the progress of Wikipedia in any way. It must not change the Wikipedia process; it should be an "add-on".
 * Must not be a bear to program, and it shouldn't require extra software or rely on browser-specific stuff like Java (or Javascript) that some users won't have. A common browser platform standard must be specified for them, preferably low level but not so low level that the machines don't have CDs.
 * Must provide some way of verifying the expert's credentials—and optionally a way to verify that he or she approved the article, not an imposter.

Some results we might want from an approval system are that it:
 * makes it possible to broaden or narrow the selection of approvers (E.g., one person might only wish authors who have phd's, another would allow for anyone who has made an effort to approve any articles.),
 * allows for extracting topic-oriented sets (e.g., in order to produce an "Encyclopedia of Music") (The idea is that article approval could contain more information than just the binary "high-quality" bit, e.g. topic area, level of detail, and so forth. Such "approved metadata" would allow easy extraction of user-defined subsets of the full approved article set.), and
 * provides a framework for allowing multiple sets of "approvals", allow not just one set of approvers or one approval rating but different sets to allow for different standards. (I.e. as with consumer products, different safety approvals, scuba diving certifications, etc.)

Advantages
The advantages of an approval mechanism of the sort described are clear and numerous:
 * We will encourage the creation of really good content.
 * Large, reputable websites and the web in general are more likely to use and|or link to our content if it has been approved by experts. And, especially, if the current version of an article has a persistent URL that they can link to. At present only a past version of an article actually has such a URL!
 * The addition of an approval mechanism will be attractive to academics who might not participate without it—particularly the academics who might want to be reviewers. All that matters is a mass of GNU FDL text on important topics that is good enough for serious scholars to find worth correcting. EofT
 * What does "All that matters is a mass of GNU FDL text on important topics that is good enough for serious scholars to find worth correcting." mean? Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * It makes it easier to collect the best articles on Wikipedia and create completed "snapshots" of them that could be printed and distributed, for example. This issue is central to Pushing to 1.0.

Generally, Wikipedia will become comparable to nearly any encyclopedia, once enough articles are approved. It need not be perfect, just better than Britannica and Encarta and ODP and other CD or Web resources.

Disadvantages
I am not sure there are any significant disadvantages of an approval mechanism, but idly, I think there might be one. I think that it's possible that Wikipedia might become more of an "exclusive club" than it is, if people start comparing nascent articles contributed by new contributors to the finished projects. I might not want to contribute two sentences about widgets if I think ten neat paragraphs, with references, is what is expected. Again, I don't know if this is really apt to be a problem.

Another general argument against is that this really doesn't seem necessary. An approval mechanism has been suggested since Day One of Wikipedia, and evidence aside that Wikipedia is working just fine, will probably continue to be suggested 'til kingdom come.

 * An expert-centered approval mechanism might be considered a hierarchic methodology, in contrast with the bazaar-type open-source projects like wikipedia, that are known to achieve good results (e.g. Linux) through aggressive peer-review, and openness ("With enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow"). It can be argued that the very reason Linux has become so reliable is the radical acceptance, and for some degree, respect, for amateurs' and enthusiasts' work of all sorts.

 * Experts have controversies among themselves: for example, many subjects in medicine and psychology are highly debated. By giving a professor the free hand in deciding whether an article is "approved" or "non-approved" there is a risk of compromising the NPOV standards by experts' over-emphasizing their specific opinions and area of research.

 * Finding an expert who corresponds to a certain article can sometimes be troublesome:
 * Can a Ph.D on applied Mathematics "approve" articles on pure mathematics?, or more strictly, should one be accepted as a approver only if he/she have made research on the specific subject he/she is approving? Who will decide whether a person is qualified for approval?
 * Some obscure or day-to-day topics don't have any immediate "expert" attached to them. Who will approve articles on hobbies, games, local cultures etc.?

Is it needed?
These are arguments presented for why an additional approval mechanism is unnecessary for wikipedia:

 * Wikipedia already has an approval mechanism; although anyone can edit any page and experts and amateurs of all levels can be bold and contribute to articles, communal scrutiny is an approval mechanism, though not as centrally-controlled as peer review.

 * Imperfect as it currently stands, Wikipedia already fosters a more sophisticated critical approach to all sources of information than simple reliance on "peer-reviewed" authority. Low-quality articles can be easily recognized by a reader with some or no experience in reading wikipedia, and by applying some basic critical thinking:
 * The style may sound biased, emotional, poorly written, or just unintelligible.
 * Blanket statements, no citing, speculative assertions: any critical person will be careful in giving too much credit for such article.
 * The history of an article shows much of the effort and review that has been brought into writing it, who and how qualified are the writers (Users seem to put some biographical information about themselves on their pages.)
 * a sophisticated reader soon learns that the Talk page is often enlightening as to the processes that have resulted in the current entry text.

 * Cross-checking with other sources is an extremely important principle for good information gathering on the internet! No source should be taken as 100% reliable.

 * Some "authoritative" and "approved" encyclopedias don't seem to stand for their own claims of credability. See, for example, Columbia Encyclopedia's article about Turing test, compared with Wikipedia's Turing test. "Human-like conversation" is not the same as "human-like thought". See also Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica which have been corrected in Wikipedia.

 * The very idea of an article being "approved" is debatable, especially on controversial topics, and can be seen as an unreachable ideal by some.

Proposals
Below, we can develop some specific proposals for approval mechanisms.

Sanger's proposal

 * When I say the approval mechanism must be really easy for people to use, I mean it. I mean it should be extremely easy to use. So what's the easiest-to-use mechanism that we can devise that nevertheless meets the criteria?

 * The following: on every page on the wiki, create a simple popup approval form that anyone may use. ("If you are a genuine expert on this subject, you can approve this article .") On this form, the would-be article approver [whom I'll call a "reviewer"] indicates name, affiliation, relevant degrees, web page (that we can use to check bona fides), and a text statement to the effect of what qualifications the person has to approve of an article. The person fills this out (with the information saved into their preferences) and hits the "approve" button.

 * When two different reviewers have approved an article, if they are not already official reviewers, the approval goes into moderation.

 * The approval goes into a moderation queue for the "approved articles" part of Wikipedia. From there, moderators can check over recently-approved articles. They can check that the reviewers actually are qualified (according to some pre-set criteria of qualification) and that they are who they say they are. (Perhaps moderator-viewable e-mail addresses will be used to check that a reviewer isn't impersonating someone.) A moderator can then "approve the approver".

 * The role of the moderators is not to approve the article, but to make sure that the system isn't being abused by underqualified reviewers. A certain reviewer might be marked as not in need of moderation; if two such reviewers were to approve of an article, the approval would not need to be moderated.

 * New addition I think it might be a very good idea to list, on an approved article, who the reviewers are who have approved the article.

 * --Larry Sanger

I think it would be a very good idea to list, on any article, the names of ANY reviewers to have reviewed the article. Seeing who disapproved it is, perhaps, more important than seeing who approved it, since Wikipedia generally has high quality articles anyway. Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Bryce's proposal

 * From my experience with the Wikipedia_NEWS, it seems that there's a lot that can be done with the wiki software as it exists. The revision control system and its tracking of IP addresses is ok as a simple screen against vandalism. The editing system seems fairly natural and is worth using for managing this; certainly we can expect anyone wishing to be a reviewer ought to have a fair degree of competence with it already.

 * Second, take note at how people have been making use of the user pages. People write information about themselves, the articles they've created, and even whole essays about opinions or ideas.

 * What I'd propose is that we encourage people who wish to be reviewers to set up a subpage under their userpage called '/Approved?'. Any page that they added to this page is considered to be acceptable by them. (It is recommended they list the particular revision # they're approving too, but it's up to them whether to include the number or not.) The reviewer is encouraged to provide as much background and contact information about themselves on their main page (or on a subpage such as /Credentials?) as they wish. It is *completely* an opt-in system, and does not impact wikipedia as a whole, nor any of its articles.

 * Okay, so far it probably sounds pretty useless because it *seems* like it gives zero _control_ over the editors. But if we've learned nothing else from our use of Wiki here, it's that sometimes there is significant power in anarchy. Consider that whoever is going to be putting together the set of approved articles (let's call her the Publisher) is going to be selecting the editors based on some criteria (only those with phds, or whatever). The publisher has (and should have) the control over which reviewers they accept, and can grab their /Approved? lists at the time they wish to publish. Using the contact info provided by the reviewer, they can do as much verification as they wish; those who provide insufficient contact info to do so can be ignored (or asked politely on their userpage.) But the publisher does *not* have the power to control whether or not you or I are *able* to approve articles. Maybe for the "PhD? Reviewers Only" encyclopedia I'd get ruled out, but perhaps someone else decides to do a "master's degree or better" one, and I would fit fine there. Or maybe someone asks only that reviewers provide a telephone number they can call to verify the approved list.

 * Consider a further twist on this scheme: In addition to /Approved?, people could set up other specific kinds of approval. For instance, some could create /Factchecked? pages where they've only verified any factual statements in the article against some other source; or a /Proofed? page that just lists pages that have been through the spellchecker and grammar proofer; or a /Nonplagiarised page that lists articles that the reviewer can vouch for as being original content and not merely copied from another encyclopedia. The reason I mention this approach is that I imagine there will be reviewers who specialize in checking certain aspects of articles, but not everything (a Russian professor of mathematics might vouch for everything except spelling and grammar, if he felt uncomfortable with his grasp of the English language). Other reviewers can fill in the gaps (the aformentioned professor could ask another to review those articles for spelling and grammar, and they could list them on their own area.

 * I think this system is very in keeping with wiki philosophy. It is anti-elitist, in the sense that no one can be told, "No, you're not good enough to review articles," yet still allows the publisher to discriminate what to accept based on the reviewer's credentials. It leverages existing wiki functionality and Wikipedia traditions rather than requiring new code and new skills. And it lends itself to programmatic extraction of content. It also puts a check/balance situation between publisher and reviewer: If the publisher is selecting reviewers to include unfairly, someone else can always set up a fairer approach. There is also a check against reviewer bias, because once discovered, ALL of their reviewed articles would be dropped by perhaps all publishers, which gives a strong incentive to the reviewer to demonstrate the quality of their reviewing process and policies.

 * -- BryceHarrington

We would need some standards for this to work. If the subpages are named differently and/or have different structures it will be too difficult to use.

Each publisher would have to check the credentials themselves. Leaving results of checks on user's pages/subpages is not acceptable; anyone can edit it; developers can edit the history. Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Magnus Manske's proposal

 * I'll try to approach the whole approval mechanism from a more practical perspective, based on some things that I use in the Wikipedia PHP script. So, to set up an approval mechanism, we need

 * Namespaces to separate different stages of articles,
 * User rights management to prevent trolls from editing approved articles.
 * From the Sanger proposal, the user hierarchy would have to be

 * 1) Sysops, just a handful to ensure things are running smoothly. They can do everything, grant and reject user rights, move and delete articles etc.,
 * 2) Moderators who can move approved articles to the "stable" namespace,
 * 3) Reviewers who can approve articles in the standard namespace (the one we're using right now),
 * 4) Users who do the actual work. ;)
 * Stages 1-3 should have all rights of the "lowerlevels", and should be able to "rise" other users to their level. For the namespaces, I was thinking of the following:

 * The blank namespace, of course, which is the one all current wikipedia articles are in; the normal wikipedia
 * An approval namespace. When an article from "blank" gets approved by the first reviewer, a copy goes to the "approval" namespace.
 * A moderated namespace. Within the "approval" namespace, no one can edit articles, but reviewers can either hit a "reject" or "approve" button. "Reject" deletes the article from the "approval" namespace, "approve" moves it to the "moderated" namespace.
 * A stable namespace. Same as for "approval", but only moderators can "reject" or "approve" an article in "moderated" namespace. If approved, it is moved to the "stable" namespace. End of story.
 * This system has several advantages:

 * By having reviewers and moderators not chosen for a single category (e.g., biology), but by someone on a "higher level" trusting the individual not to make strange decisions, we can avoid problems such as having to choose a category for each article and each person prior to approval, checking reviewers for special references etc.
 * Reviewers and moderators can have special pages that show just the articles currently in "their" namespace, making it easy to look for topics they are qualified to approve/reject
 * Easy handling. No pop-up forms, just two buttons, "approve" and "reject", throughout all levels.
 * No version confusion. The initial approval automatically locks that article in the "approval" namespace, and all decisions later on are on this version alone.
 * No bother of the normal wikipedia. "Approval" and "moderated" can be blanked out in every-day work, "stable" can be blanked out as an option.
 * Easy to code. Basically, I have all parts needed ready, a demo version could be up next week.

Ehrenberg addition
This would be added on to any of the above approval proceses. After an article is approved, it would go into the database of approved articles. People would be able to access this from the web. After reading an article, the reader would be able to click on a link to disapprove of the article. After 5 (more, less?) people have disapproved of an article, the article goes through a reapproval process, in which only one expert must approve it, and then the necessary applicable administrators. -- Suggested addition: there should be a separate domain, perhaps frozenwikipedia.org, which includes only approved articles. This could be used as a "reliable" reference when factual accuracy was very important.

This could be used as a "reliable" reference when factual accuracy was very important.

No, it couldn't. If factual accuracy is very important, you must check several sources, which means that it wouldn't make much difference whether you used the "approved" version or not. Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

DWheeler's Proposal: Automated Heuristics
It might also be possible to use some automated heuristics to identify "good" articles. This could be especially useful if the Wikipedia is being extracted to some static storage (e.g., a CD-ROM or PDA memory stick). Some users might want this view as well. The heuristics may throw away some of the latest "good" changes, as long as they also throw away most of the likely "bad" changes.

Here are a few possible automated heuristics:
 * Ignore all anonymous changes; if someone isn't willing to have their name included, then it may not be a good change. This can be "fixed" simply by a some non-anonymous person editing the article (even trivially).
 * Ignore changes from users who have only submitted a few changes (e.g., less than 50). If a user has submitted a number of changes, and is still accepted (not banned), then the odds are higher that the user's changes are worthwhile.
 * Ignore pages unless at least some number of other non-anonymous readers have read the article and/or viewed its diffs (e.g., at least 2 other readers). The notion here is that, if someone else read it, then at least some minimal level of peer review has occurred.  The reader may not be able to identify subtle falsehoods, but at least "Tom Brokaw is cool" might get noticed.  This approach can be foiled (e.g., by creating "bogus readers"), but many trolls won't bother to do that.

These heuristics can be combined with the expert rating systems discussed elsewhere here. An advantage of these automated approaches is that they can be applied immediately.

Other automated heuristics can be developed by developing "trust metrics" for people. Instead of trying to rank every article (or as a supplement to doing so), rank the people. After all, someone who does good work on one article is more likely to do good work on another article. You could use a scheme like Advogato's, where people identify how much they respect (trust) someone else. You then flow down the graph to find out how much each person should be trusted. For more information, see Advogato's trust metric information. Even if the Advogato metric isn't perfect, it does show how a few individuals could list other people they trust, and over time use that to derive global information. The Advogato code is available - it's GPLed.

Another related issue might be automated heuristics that try to identify likely trouble spots (new articles or likely troublesome diffs). A trivial approach might be to have a not-publicly-known list of words that, if they're present in the new article or diffs, suggest that the change is probably a bad one. Examples include swear words, and words that indicate POV (e.g., "Jew" may suggest anti-semitism). The change might be fine, but such a flag would at least alert someone else to especially take a look there.

A more sophisticated approach to automatically identify trouble spots might be to use learning techniques to identify what's probably garbage, using typical text filtering and anti-spam techniques such as naive Bayesian filtering (see Paul Graham's "A Plan for Spam"). To do this, the Wikipedia would need to store deleted articles and have a way to mark changes that were removed for cause (e.g., were egregiously POV) - presumably this would be a sysop privilege. Then the Wikipedia could train on "known bad" and "known good" (perhaps assuming that all Wikipedia articles before some date, or meeting some criteria listed above, are "good"). Then it could look for bad changes (either in the future, or simply examining the entire Wikipedia offline).

 * A trivial approach might be to have a not-publicly-known list of words that, if they're present in the new article or diffs, suggest that the change is probably a bad one.

 * Why does it have to be not-publicly-known? Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

 * I assume the idea is that if the list was known, it would be quicker for vandals to think of alternative nasty things to say. But really we would want to be watching all the changes anyway, so that by watching bad edits that got past the filter one could update the list.  But really I think this naughtiness flagging is over complicated and not very useful.  More helpful might be a way to detect subtle errors: change in dates, heights, etc. that casual proofreaders would be less likely to pick up.  Rather than simply flagging the edit, maybe highlighting the specific change in the normal version of the article to warn all readers:  "Colombus discovered Antarctica ? in 1492.". Reviewers would then be able to right click on the change and flag it as OK or bad, for example. Luke 05:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PeterK's Proposal: Scoring
This idea has some of the same principles as the Automated Heuristic suggested above. I agree that an automated method for determining "good" articles for offline readers is absolutely crucial. I have a different idea on how to go about it. I think the principles of easy editing and how wikipedia works now is what makes it great. I think we need to take those principles along with some search engine ideas to give a confidence level for documents. So people extracting the data for offline purposes can decide the confidence level they want and only extract articles that meet that confidence level.

I think the exact equation for the final scoring needs to be discussed. I don't think I could come up with a final version by myself, but I'll give an example of what would give good point and bad points.

Final Score: a: first thing we need it a quality/scoring value for editors. Anonymous editors would be given a value of 1 and a logged in user may get 1 point added to their value for each article he/she edits, up to a value of 100. b: 0.25 points for each time a user reads the article c: 0.25 point for each day the article has existed in wikipedia d: each time the article is edited it gets 1+(a/10)*2 points, anonymous user would give it 1.2 and a fully qualified user would give it 20 points. e: next if an anonymous user makes a large change then you get a -20 point deduction. Even though this is harsh, if it goes untouched for 80 days it will gain all those points back. It will gain the points back faster if a lot of people have read the article.

This is the best I can think of right now, if I come up with a better scoring system I'll make some changes. Anyone feel free to test score a couple of articles to see how this algorithm holds up. We can even get a way of turning the score to a percentage, so that people can extract 90% qualified articles.

next if an anonymous user makes a large change then you get a -20 point deduction.

This one is very dangerous. What is the threshold for a "large" change? If we set it too high, this won't work very well (it will presumedly react to blanking a page, but I think this is most often used as a substitute for the "nominate for deletion" link that should be there). If we set it too low, and several edits are made by anonymous users to a not-very-popular article, then it could give a low (negative?) score, even though the article is of a high quality. Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Anyone feel free to test score a couple of articles to see how this algorithm holds up.

How? We don't know the scores for the editors. The only way to test this algorithm properly is to download some articles and the entire contributions lists of all the contributors! Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Legion of Trolls proposal
Trolls are not here to approve, and usually reject views of experts who must be certified by someone trolls grumble about. So one would expect them to be disgruntled by definition about such a mechanism. However, paradoxically, almost all trolls think they apply clear and reasonably stringent standards. The problem is that each troll has his own standards, unlike those of others!

That said, there is much to agree on: the mechanism itself must be genuinely easy to use, nothing slow and rigorous is of any value, the progress of Wikipedia and its proven process should not be impeded, and the results of the approval can be ignored. Where trolls would disagree is that verifying the expert's credentials are of any value. Any such mechanism can be exploited, as trolls know full well, often being experts at forging new identities and the deliberate disruption of any credentialing mechanism.

One might ignore this, and the trolls, but, it remains that what goes on at Wikipedia is largely a process not of approval but of impulse and then disapproval. As with morality and diplomacy, we move from systems of informal to formal disapproval. Today, even our reality game shows demonstrate the broad utility of this approach, with disapproval voting of uninteresting or unwanted or undesired candidates a well-understood paradigm.

So, imagine an entirely different way to achieve the "desirements", one that is a natural extension of Wikipedia's present process of attempt (stubs, slanted first passes, public domain documents, broad rewrites of external texts) and disapproval (reverts, neutralizing, link adds, rewrites, NPOV dispute and deletions). Rather than something new (trolls hate what is new) and unproven that will simply repeat all the mistakes of academia. Imagine a mechanism that

 * Begins with all approved, and makes it possible to broaden or narrow the selection of approvers (e.g., one person might only wish authors who have phd's, another would allow for anyone who has made an effort to approve any articles) for each reader, or supported class of reader, simply by disapproving editors.
 * Allows for extracting topic-oriented sets (e.g., in order to produce an "Encyclopedia of Music") relying on metadata that is specific to each such supported class of reader, not part of the Wikipedia as a whole
 * Exploits ongoing feedback ("I don't care about this." or "I don't understand this.") to adjust the list of articles of interest. Each user can begin from some class (like Simple-English-only readers), and adjust if they like.
 * Potentially, exploits more feedback on authors ("I can't believe this." or "I find this irrelevant.") to adjust also the list of disapproved authors/editors.
 * Credits each troll who has driven off a disapproved author or editor. OK, that's a joke, but what do you expect, I'm a troll neh neh neh...

By embracing and extending and formalizing the disapproval, boredom and disdain that all naturally feel as a part of misanthropy, we can arrive at a pure and effective knowledge resource. One that rarely tells us what we don't care about. And, potentially, one that can let us avoid those who we find untruthful.

Propose and veto
Include articles that have been proposed by at least one person, and vetoed by none.

Where two versions of an article are so approved, pick the later one. Where no versions of an article are so approved, have no article.

That's it.

This is too easily abused. It adds too much load to the server for the dismal results it will produce. Brianjd 10:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Andrew A's proposal
See Referees. This proposal is consistent with much of the above.

Main features:

 * No impact on the existing way of doing things other than appearance of extra links on some article pages, saying that this article has been reviewed and linking to details.

 * All articles remain in the main namespace. The only new namespace is a special one used to keep track of who has reviewed what.

 * All reviews relate to a specific version. As any update to the article creates a new version, this initially has no reviewed status at all (with some possible exceptions where there is no need to maintain independence between contributor and reviewer and the software might therefore flag the approval by default). The concepts of freezing articles or promoting them in a configuration management system are not needed.

 * All reviews are simply check boxes or radio buttons. Discussion remains on existing talk pages.

 * QA on the main Wikipedia is supplied by three levels of reviewer:
 * A basic level which we initially give to anyone who asks for it,
 * A specialist level at which the reviewer claims expertise on the subject of the article,
 * A referee level at which the reviewer claims to be a quotable authority on the subject of the article.

 * At the referee level only, the reviewer is expected to be independent of the article author(s). At other levels, reviewers are encouraged to edit and refactor as necessary, but not to review articles which are primarily their own work.

 * At all levels, collegiate responsibility is the system, identical to the existing Wikipedia. There is no attempt to formally identify areas of expertise. Other members at this level are expected to comment if a particular reviewer is performing badly, and particularly if they are venturing outside their areas of expertise at the higher levels.

 * At all levels, all reviewers are expected to approve only articles that they consider of high quality.

 * All three levels allow for dissent from the approval of others.

 * The same software (with extensions) can support
 * Wikipedia 1.0,
 * A G-rated Wikipedia,
 * Specialist encyclopedias.

 * Readers of Wikipedia must be offered user-friendly ways of restricting what they see to their desired level of review and (hopefully) reliability. These might include
 * User options,
 * URL aliases (e.g. www.family.en.wikipedia.org, www.refereed.en.wikipedia.org).

Establishing Release Edition
The "Wikipedia Release Edition" would be a (hopefully large) subset of "Wikipedia Working Edition".

Users could browse the release edition or the working edition. When browsing, a header would note whether or not the latest version in the working edition was the same as the release edition.

At the bottom of every page of Wikipedia there would be two buttons: "Approve" and "Disapprove".

Any logged in user can vote once. Article versions would be scored based on number of votes for approval minus votes for disapproval. The article version with the highest score (so long as it is greater than 1) would be the released article.

A user who clicks "edit this page" would be presented with the newest version, and a note if this is not the Release Edition version. (showing differences)

Any save is automatically a vote in favor of that version and a removal of approval votes for every previous versions by that user.

Recent changes would note if a new version becomes the release version.

Advantages

 * Doesn't rely on "expert model",
 * Uses consensus approach, the article with the most favorable votes, and more favorable than unfavorable votes, is released;
 * If votes go awry, edit wars begin, sensible users can vote to "disapprove" bringing score negative;
 * Release edition can happen quickly, no approval queue waiting for votes, only one voter beside author is required (assuming the article garners no disapprovals).

Disadvantages

 * An older version with lots of votes in favor may be difficult to dislodge without active observation.
 * Editing may be more complicated with different versions for release and working edition.
 * Votes can be manipulated by a user with multiple log-ins.

Establishing Quality Assurance
The release edition depends on votes. It also may lead to the perception that there is a fork, or create confusion about multiple wikipedias. A more "wiki" way of doing things would be to have only one release version, but allow anyone to rate any version. This system exploits version control to give users the ability to know who has "certified" a version.

So if I know that revision 01.22.2005.10:33 of an article has been certified by User:Authority, User:Hobbyist and User:Professional, I may trust it more than an article certified by User:Vandal or User:Random.

Users who want to influence what other people read will need to establish credibility. Real world information helps here, as well as within-Wikipedia credibility. Given the potential number of Users who might certifiy an article, and the likelihood I have never heard of most of them, users should be allowed to join certification "clubs" (or rather "clubs" should be allowed to include members, through a process like Requests_for_adminship). There might be a group who certifies articles on biology, and another group that certifies articles on astronomy, and so on. There could be multiple clubs who certify articles (biology and astronomy might both certify an article on exobiology. There might be more than one astronomy club, if there are differences, and good articles would be certified by both, and controversial articles by only one. Clubs could team, so if Club:Biology and Club:Astronomy trusted each other, they would be part of a Team (say Team:Science) (and of course there might be multiple teams certifying the same article, or different versions, which would ultimately need to be hashed out in a wiki way or would stand). If club members went off the reservation so to speak, and certified rubbish, they could be kicked out of the club, and they would no longer be able to speak for the club (there certifications would no longer hold the club imprimatur). (similarly clubs could be kicked out of teams).

The important thing is that no one is requiring that only credentialed individuals be permitted to certify an article, but that if they do, users can of their own free will give that more credance than an uncredentialed person certifying the article.

Does this make wikipedia more complicated? Yes of course it does.

Does this make wikipedia more reliable? Yes, as you would now know who thought what was accurate.

Additions to MediaWiki required by this

 * A way of tracking who certified each version,
 * A way of tracking who was in what club (and what club was in what team).
 * A certification history of articles.
 * At the top of the page it would notify me if there was a more recent uncertified version of the article, or the most recent version of the article certified by Team:X or Club:Y.
 * A certification or approval tab.
 * The ability to view only articles approved by Team:X, Club:Y, or User:Z. (This could be done like categories, but there is probably a better mechanism)
 * The ability to see Recent Approvals.

dml 17:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dml

Giles Robertson's proposal
There doesn't need to be a central approval mechanism; approval is all about trust, and centrally dictating who can be trusted raises too many issues. That being said, an approval mechanism that relies on everybody voting is open to abuse, and doesn't carry the weight of approval by authority.

Instead, a decentralised proposal [which is similar to Andrew A's proposal], would be for authorities to create pages that list why they are an authority, and then list the pages and versions that they have approved. This could be done without any change to the existing codebase, but a system that marked some pages as "authority conferrers", and that marked on each page which authorities had approved it, would improve the usability.

Authority conferring pages could confer authority on to other authority-conferring pages; the aim is to build a 'web of trust' somewhat similar to that which provides the assurement in PGP keys that people are who they say they are. That said, it is important to prevent authority-conferring pages from fabrication; it may be necessary to lock these pages to certain users.

How do we establish that an authority-conferring page has authority? If we link it to another page, and that page displays text or graphic (with the Wikipedia logo) confirming that the external page trusts the authoritiy-conferring page, then we know, if the external page is free from interference, that the authority-conferrer is trusted. How strong that is as an approval, depends on what the external page(s) for the authority-conferrer are.

This also allows a selective extraction of approved pages: Pick an authority-conferrer, and extract every page that is approved by that authority, and, at your option, other pages at lower levels (e.g. page approved by authority trusted by authority you've just chosen).

The major disadvantage is that this introduces yet more metadata, in the form of the authority-conferrers. It also does not stop the creation of spurious authority-conferrers; though they won't be trusted or have much external approval, they may mislead. Any save is automatically a vote in favor of that version and a disapproval of every previous versions.

Recent changes would note if a new version becomes the release version.

Giles Robertson

m.e's proposal
I have a proposal at User talk:M.e/Production Wikipedia for creating 'production quality' pages. Highlight is the idea of collecting 'issues' and 'endorsements' against a 'frozen' version of a page. Hopefully we can then converge on a revised version that just fixes the issues. m.e. 12:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Szopen's proposal
Pending edits. Maybe not directly about approval mechanisms, but similar. Edits would be delayed for a fixed amount of time, and if none would object to them, they would be authomatically approved.

ChrisG proposal
main article: User:ChrisG/Approval_mechanism

This is a suggested approval mechanism to meet the need to make Wikipeda a more reliable source and to support Wikipedia 1.0. It is a twist on the namespace workflow mechanism suggested by Magnus Manske here. It is a process firmly based on wiki principles. It is flexible because decisions about quality are based on human judgment that each article meets the minimum standards for approval for Wikipedia 1.0. If it is agreed that standards should be raised then humans can amend their judgment appropriately during approval debates for more modern versions.

Aims

The design aims to:
 * Have no effect on the wiki process for creating and developing articles.
 * No fork within Wikipedia
 * Identify specific versions of articles as being stable and hence give the reader the comfort that the flagged version has been reviewed as meeting certain minimum standards.
 * Identify specific versions of articles as suitable for Wikipedia 1.0.
 * The process needs to be scaleable. It needs to be able to approve a large percentage of Wikipedia within 3-6 months.
 * Mark versions of each article appropriately depending on the outcome of any approval process for that version. This gives a guide to quality of particular versions in the history.
 * Be simple to understand.
 * Be easy to manage.
 * Be democratic.
 * Avoid requiring any exclusive, 'expert' clubs.
 * Be relatively simple to code.
 * Difficult to game.
 * Evolutionary approach rather than fundamental change in Wikipedia process.
 * Be acceptable to the majority of Wikipedians.

Overview of the process

The process makes use of namespaces to create a workflow process. A copy of the recommended version of an article is moved through the system, with an attached discussion page and votes. The process is best illustrated visually:

Maureen's proposal 1
The following was proposed by User:Maurreen on Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards 06:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC), but seems appropriate to mention here. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

 Here's an outline of a possible plan, submitted for your suggestions. One advantage is that the computer part of it is simple. Maurreen 06:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) An article could be "approved" with at least 10 votes and no more than 10 percent of the votes objecting. Only registered users could vote. Users with multiple accounts should only vote once. Voting for each article would be open at least a week.
 * 2) To allow appropriate time for review and possibly improvement, no more than three articles would be considered at a time. Others nominated would be compiled on a "pending" list.
 * 3) Nominations would be accepted only from registered users who agree to maintain the article. So, in a sense, we would be voting on the nominators also. The commitment to maintain the article would allow the article to still be edited, but give us some assurance that the article wouldn't deteriorate.
 * 4) "Approved" articles would be compiled on a list, along with the names of the maintainers.
 * 5) Possibly the nominations or list could refer or be limited to a specific version of the article. That is, the article at such-and-so date and time.
 * 6) "Approved" articles could have some indicator of that status on the article itself.
 * 7) Guidelines or standards for what is worthy could be determined before voting ever starts on articles.
 * 8) Nominations would be encouraged from featured articles and peer-reviewed articles. Initially, general topics (such as Electronics) would be preferred to more-specific ones (such as Ohm's Law). That could work toward the "approved" material having a broad and even general base.
 * 9) Nominations of contentious articles would be discouraged, at least initally.

Maurreen's proposal 2: "Reviewed articles"
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Maurreen 14:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advantages:
 * Simple and quick. This could be implemented and useful within an hour of its adoption.
 * Takes best-of-both-worlds approach to wiki nature and any standing of experts.

Outline:
 * 1) Any registered user could review any article.
 * 2) There would be a category and list of reviewed articles.
 * 3) The list would indicate which version of an article was reviewed by each reviewer.
 * 4) Reviews on the list would be no more than a paragraph long.

Options:
 * 1) Detailed reviews could be written and linked to from the list.
 * 2) Reviewers who chose to could list themselves and a paragraph about any relevant qualifications or limitations on a list of reviewers.
 * 3) Reviewers should at least indicate if they have worked on the article.
 * 4) We could have a list of articles for which a review is desired, or use the current peer review page.
 * 5) We could choose a set of suggested levels or other indicators (such as “acceptable,” “weak,” “comprehensive,” etc.).
 * Maurreen 21:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interim measure

Maybe it would be helpful to think of my proposal for article reviews as an interim measure. It isn't intended to be perfect by any means.

It is intended to give readers some measure of the quality of any given article or article version.

It is something that could very easily be produced and used while something better is discussed, decided and developed. It does not preclude any other system. It can include, or not include, a minimum standard for Wikipedia articles, which would need to be developed.

It could be one of any number of tools that work toward an eventual paper or "release" version. Maurreen 09:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editorial board(s)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Maurreen 14:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * My thought on this is that there is an immediate problem with 'Any registered user could review any article'. There's no problem with having anyone review an article - however to improve the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia, I think that we (unfortunately) need a link to the 'outside world' where people have real names and qualifications, rather than 'karma' built up under a nom-de-plume.  For articles' credibility to be increased, someone's, or some people's, reputation needs to be on the line. My thoughts are that a properly constituted editorial board needs to approve (and possibly modify) articles.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, there could (and in my view should) be multiple competing boards aiming to set their seal upon particular article versions.  For example, one such board could be a set of academics in a particular subject whose names are known, who have a publishing record in peer-reviewed journals, and have an academic reputation.  This does not preclude a self selected group of people setting up their own board under noms-de-plume and producing a Wikireputation based set of approvals.  Users would have the choice of using either or both or neither board's seals of approval (article tags) as a filter into Wikipedia. WLD 21:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ChrisG's template and process
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Maurreen 14:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thinking some more about Maurreen's proposal it occurred to me that with the combination of templates and categories we could set up a voting system to approve articles. Consider this template (I used subst to create the text, e.g. ):

 The version of this article listed below this message is a current candidate for Wikipedia 0.1. Standards for Wikipedia 0.1 are at Wikipedia 0.1 Standard.

Voting should last for a minimum of a week, and approval requires 80% support. If opposing votes outweigh supportive votes at any stage this candidature should be removed. Full rules are listed at Wikipedia 0.1 procedure. Please vote below either for or against approval. A negative vote only counts if it provides a supporting explanation for why the article version fails to meet the standard. Category:Wikipedia 0.1 candidate 29 July 2024

If you look to the bottom of the screen this template categorises the article as a candidate for Wikipedia 0.1 and also by the current day, month and year (uses variables so need to update). This means anybody wishing to vote on articles need only check the appropriate category for articles. They could click the links to the talk page of the articles they are interested in. The talk page of the article would give the link to the specific version and the votes so far; after checking the article the person could vote as they see fit.

As time passes, the articles listed as candidates will dwindle as they are approved or rejected. The fact the candidates are categorised by date would mean we know when to close the vote of any articles that have been sitting in candidate status for too long.

Rejected articles would have the candidate category removed. Successful articles would be given a Wikipedia 0.1 category instead, again identified by the date of the version approved. In addition the specific version of the article should be listed somewhere as approved on that date, i.e Approved 0.1/1 Dec 2004.

I realize we don't have a consensus on how to approve articles, largely I think because some people are talking about approving top quality articles and others are talking about minimum standards for the CD/DVD editions; but this is a method which we could apply now without changes to the software, which would scale and would thus be suitable for either purpose.
 * ChrisG 01:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hawstom's proposal
If we want a mechanism that works right now to improve our credibility a little bit without sacrificing the principles we are all comfortable with, it must be simple and open. I propose that we simply start with the existing technical hierarchy of anon/user/admin/bureaucrat/developer to create a system that can assign a level of confidence to every version of every article, then display by default the most recent version with a disclaimer and links if the confidence level is low.

Principles
An article is only as trustworthy as the last hand that touched it. Wiki works because of immediate gratification.

Viewing
We continue to show to the public the latest version. If the confidence level for that article version is lower than our established standard, we show a disclaimer along with link to any more trusted article versions available. We put in user preferences a selection for the level of credibility to show by default(Developer/Bureaucrat/Admin/User/Anonymous), and we enable anon users, via a cookie or session id, to say, "Show only article versions with credibility level 2 or higher."

Editing
For users with high permissions, we put a check box or radio button on the editing page so that they may save with artificially low trust interim work with remaining unresolved credibility problems.

How it's simple
Nobody has to take the time to review articles. The approval occurs naturally as a by-product of the way we already work.

Since an article is only as trustworthy as the last hand that touched it and wiki works because of immediate gratification, only natural and open methods such as this can work at the Wikipedia.

How it improves our credibility
Places editorial responsibility on our trusted users. While it is true we have expressly disclaimed any editorial authority for our trusted users, the implicit attitude of the community has been to give them that authority. This proposal simply recognizes the de facto arrangement. In the future, new levels of editorial authority may be created.

Endorsement idea
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Maurreen 14:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We might be able to develop a system by which anyone could endorse a particular version of an article; presumably groups could form whose endorsement would carry some weight. The mechanism would be one "reader" approval equals point one(0.1) an "editor" would rank one point (1) an "editing librarian" would rank one to ten (1 - 10) an admin would rank 10 to eleven (10 - 11), a group could be assigned a similarly weighted scoring rank, i.e. an opinion offered editorially by "The Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons" might rank one way or the other compared to a select group of its Alumni. Deriving from this an articles approval-rating would be a function of its veracity as regards the opinion of the majority of its' readers. an entry in wikipedia would have (available for review) an articles position relevant to all other articles. (Idea from anon, Maurreen moved from project page.)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Dub, King of Scotland

Dub mac Maíl Coluim (Modern Gaelic: Dubh mac Mhaoil Chaluim, ), Dub mac Maíl Coluim is the Mediaeval Gaelic form. The modern form, Dubh, has the sense of "dark" or "black", especially in reference to hair colour. Sometimes anglicised as Duff MacMalcolm, this form was used in older histories, but is not commonly used today called Dén, "the Vehement" Duan Albanach, and "the Black" a direct translation of his name to modern English is Black Malcolmson (c. 928–967) was king of Alba. He was son of Malcolm I and succeeded to the throne when Indulf was killed in 962.

While later chroniclers such as John of Fordun supplied a great deal of information on Dub's life and reign, and Hector Boece in his The history and chronicles of Scotland tell tales of witchcraft and treason, almost all of them are rejected by modern historians. There are very few sources for the reign of Dub, of which the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba and a single entry in the Annals of Ulster are the closest to contemporary.

The Chronicle records that during Dub's reign bishop Fothach, most likely bishop of St Andrews or of Dunkeld, died. The remaining report is of a battle between Dub and Cuilén, son of king Ildulb. Dub won the battle, fought "upon the ridge of Crup", in which Dunchad (Duncan), abbot of Dunkeld, sometimes supposed to be an ancestor of Crínán of Dunkeld, and Dubdon, the mormaer of Atholl, died.

The various accounts differ on what happened afterwards. The Chronicle claims that Dub was driven out of the kingdom. The Latin material interpolated in Andrew of Wyntoun's Orygynale Cronykl states that he was murdered at Forres, and links this to an eclipse of the sun which can be dated to 20 July 966. The Annals of Ulster report only: "Dub mac Maíl Coluim, king of Alba, was killed by the Scots themselves"; the usual way of reporting a death in internal strife, and place the death in 967. It has been suggested that Sueno's Stone, near Forres, may be a monument to Dub, erected by his brother Kenneth II (Cináed mac Maíl Coluim). It is presumed that Dub was killed or driven out by Cuilén, who became king after Dub's death, or by his supporters.

It is related that his body was hidden under the bridge of Kinloss, and the sun did not shine till it was found and buried. An eclipse on 10 July 967 may have originated or confirmed this story.

Dub left at least one son, Kenneth III (Cináed mac Dub). Although his descendants did not compete successfully for the kingship of Alba after Kenneth was killed in 1005, Dub is likely an ancestor of the MacDuib (MacDuff) family who held the mormaerdom, and later earldom of Fife, until 1371.

title: Dub, King of Scotland