Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tech Repairability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The proposed WikiProject was not created. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Description

A WikiProject to improve access to information regarding repairability. We plan on editing existing pages of various devices to include a section repairability evaluation. Ryan778 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


List of important pages and categories for this proposed group

List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
Unlike existing groups, we'd like to focus specifically on the repairability aspect of technology. The Right to Repair movement is one that's quickly gaining popularity in recent times, and due to its nature of being involved in nearly everything there isn't one specific (existing) WikiProject that this group would fit well into / under.
That being said, I'd like to probe for interest in potentially a) creating this as a Task Force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or b) creating this as a "child project" under it since everything we'd do here is directly related to some form of technology. Child projects to my understanding are still technically "starting a new group", just falling under the umbrella of a parent group.

Additional Note: There has been interest in a few community members of iFixit in contributing to something along these lines on Wikipedia. Because iFixit is so niche compared to Wikipedia, I believe adding general repairability information to articles here (and leaving the more detailed aspects off of Wikipedia) would be in the best interest of both sites.

Support

Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. Ryan778 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. SilmarilElwing (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. Shushugah (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) if it's a Taskforce, I'd participate myself.

Discussion

  • Oppose Adding information regarding the repairability of a device or how to repair it seems unnecesary and a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, I have to agree with Locomotive. Some articles about certain devices might merit mention of repairability (when it goes against industry norms, for example, or if it's particularly well-known for being repairable), but creating a group to specifically add repairability to all device-related articles doesn't seem like a particularly good use of your time. What you might want to suggest is adding a category to the infobox for devices which show repairability scores. But of course the community would have to debate whether that's a good idea -- but that would be the proper place for that info, in my opinion. MrAureliusRTalk! 15:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Locomotive207 and MrAureliusR, thank you both for your feedback- no project is perfect right out of the gate and I think it's imperative to hear all perspectives. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the content written on WP:NOTGUIDE, but I don't think that what we're proposing is guide. We won't be listing any directions on how to repair that individual item. The citations and information we want to include are evaluations of how repairable an individual device is. SilmarilElwing 18:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Clarify goals first. If I understand correctly, your intention is not to add repair instructions, so I don't think there is a problem with WP:NOTGUIDE. However, I think there might be a problem with WP:DUE, which is part of the neutral point of view policy. According to DUE, neutrality is not only about how things are worded, but also about what is covered and in how much detail. The aspects discussed and the level of detail should be roughly proportional to how much they are discussed in secondary sources. For example, in this discussion it was determined that articles about medicines should not necessarily include information about the price - this should always be decided case-by-case. The implications for this proposed project are obvious: if the goal is to add repairability sections to all articles on tech products, then your project would be opposed to Wikipedia policy. If you just want to add this where it is appropriate and in the amount of detail that is appropriate (I think for many articles it might not be an entire section, though that is a guess, you should always look at the secondary sources), then it's fine. More generally, though, it is important to make sure that your project does not become an advocacy group: I think there are many RtR supporters on Wikipedia, which is why it's even more important to try and edit neutrally on this topic. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarify standalone vs. taskforce. If you want to make this a taskforce of an existing project instead of a standalone project, then I believe the right place to propose that is not here but instead at the talk page of the existing wikiproject. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI