Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project/Archive 1

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 15th May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

WIKIPEDIA SILLY-O-METER ALERT

Level 1 - Overwhelming silliness, database lock recommended

ALERT! According to the Silly-o-meter, this page is currently at an overwhelming level of silliness! I recommend immediate action be taken! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the objective is to explain things to certain people with slightly larger letters that they can actually read. I have heard rumors to that effect. :-) Kim Bruning 09:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job to whoever created this. I'll file it away in my brain somewhere just in case I ever encounter a crufanatic. Johnleemk | Talk 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. So will I! Now please define "cruft" - Ta bu shi da yu 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

After this puppy, I sincerely look forward to other insanely obvious guidelines and policies such as Wikipedia:The Pope Is Catholic or Wikipedia:One Plus One Equals Two. karmafist 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is not What Wikipedia is Not

...even though it is fast turning into it. Nor is it a hot dog, Karmafist. -Splash^talk 18:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you should put some things up there that don't have the word "Not" in them, eh? I assumed that this was basically a way to insult policy violator users or Newbies, by putting actual policies into terms so simple, that their little minds could understand it. Hey, if I can't cut the red tape, I might as well tie it in a pretty little bow. karmafist 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Alert

I'm going to try and think where to merge the data for this, I think it's pretty obvious that it makes no sense to have an entire page to mocking peoples' ignorance of Wiki-policy, especially since it just says what Wikipedia is not. Sound familiar anyone? karmafist 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I really was starting to believe that Wikipedia is a hot dog before this page set me straight. Friday (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to put it back up there, if you'd like. It's very hard to discern this fact sometimes, what with all the mustard everywhere...karmafist 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with what? And what will the result look like? I'm opposed on general principles until I know what the result will look like. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT(Since all it says is Wikipedia is "Not"...insert here), and WP:ABOUT (since this page is basically about Wikipedia. karmafist 17:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my second, and more important, question: What will the results look like? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not like to see this merged. That Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia is our most important principle, and one that is forgotten constantly in day-to-day editing. It deserves its own page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Put Future BJAODNs Here

But in the meantime, we might as well have some fun with this. Let's just put anything making fun of this on here, from now on. karmafist 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not your mother
• Wikipedia is not amused
• Wikipedia is not nuclear powered
• Wikipedia is not a suicide cult (from user talk:Herostratus)
• Wikipedia is not orange
• Wikipedia is not a bag of Goldfish™ Baked Snack Crackers
• Wikipedia is not Mickey Rooney
• Wikipedia is not a throw pillow
• Wikipedia is not the ancient VHS bootleg of Deep Throat that you hid shamefully in your closet underneath your sixth-grade science homework, and then forgot about for six whole years until you were packing up to move out
• Wikipedia is not yo momma.
• You do not talk about Wikipedia.
• You DO NOT talk about Wikipedia. --Spoom - Talk 17:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check out Uncyclopedia:Wikipedia#Wikipedia_Isnotisms.

I actually like this project page - it says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and lists in a non-technical way what that implies. Andjam 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Complaint over reversions

So, silly, silly me, thinking this page was kind of funny (see the silliness meter above), I put up two indisputably true statements ("Wikipedia is not a hot dog", and "Wikipedia is not a boxcar" (with a wikilink pointed towards Wikipedia:Vandalism))... it gets reverted instantly. I revert about a half-hour later--reverted instantly. Just to see if anyone actually reads what goes into edits, I put my stuff back in, and also made a couple of useful improvements diff--note the changes near the top of the page--specifically, the removal of an excess line break near the top, and a reword from "those of you who don't" (which sounds excessively snotty--like what a kindergarten teacher would say to her students) to "those who don't". Just to see. User:Merovingian reverted shortly after (though, to his/her credit, this admin did NOT use the standard, automatic cookie-cutter revert), eliminating the fun, happy, hot-dog and boxcar-related edits, along with the (arguably) useful break removal and such.

My point (such as it is) is this. Why do you admins feel compelled to do this? Matt Yeager 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the good change you made. While I was at it, I also removed the blink. I appreciate ... I think ... what Brian's trying to do, but blinking text is an abomination before God and man, and must be destroyed in whatever incarnation it takes.

Oh, as for why we admins feel compelled to ruin your day, it's because we're evil, but we're creatively evil. Kicking puppies and eating babies gets old after a while, so rvting silliness is just one way to break up the monotony while still being nasty all the time ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

We can practically agree (well, except for User:Brian0918) that this is humor. However, is this a policy or guideline? Sometimes I see {{policy}}, other times {{guideline}} appears. Which one is more correct? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you look at WP:RFA, you'll realize why it isn't humor. I'm not alone in this opinion, but even if I was, I would still be right :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-24 22:52
  • That didn't answer my question! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't attempting to :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 02:09
• I'd say {{policy}}, just because nothing here isn't already covered by WP:NOT, which is official policy. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that's an answer. :) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are already many official policies. As someone who has actually skimmed them *all*, I strongly suggest this be stripped of its dubious "official" status. 1. It's silly. 2. It's redundant. 3. I don't believe it's been voted on. Keep the text, but remove its category and {Policy} template.Stevage 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, well, your summaries of other policies left a considerable amount to be desired, so let's not dwell on that. If you are implying that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, please just say so. -Splash^talk 23:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's not get personal, please. Thanks! Stevage 10:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This restates official policy, so it is official policy. Plenty of policy is already redundant; a little more redundancy doesn't hurt to pound in the point. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-6 23:40
    • I think {{policy}} is inappropriate for any page that has not been voted upon. And such a vote would be silly on this page, I believe. Otherwise, should we mark each and every reiteration of policy as policy? Keeping the number of pages marked as official policy to a minimum helps to ensure that we don't end up with a labyrinthine ruleset, and is a laudable goal, I believe. I don't see any particular reason to mark this page in this way. Lupin|talk|popups 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NPOV has never been voted on. Wikipedia:Civility has never been voted on. And, just to make the point, per the project page, Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a democracy, thus a vote is inappropriate. [[Sam Korn]] 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well that's not really my main point here. (Although see [1] - my feeling about voting expressed above is erroneous as there is more than one accepted route to official policy, but being a humorous summary of other policies is not one of them). The point is that marking summaries-of-policy as policy a bad idea, because creates the potential for confusion. Marking only canonical policy pages as policy, so that each policy has a single, unambiguous source, is a much better idea and keeps the number of policy pages down, which is also good. Lupin|talk|popups 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By this logic, we could each make 10 restatements of any other policy and use the official {policy} template on all of them. I'm going to be bold, remove the 'official policy' trappings and point users to WP:NOT for the 'official policy'. Stevage 10:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It was quickly removed apparently. The fact that the {{policy}} template is usually restored by Brian0918 (talk · contribs) indicates something's up. I think we need consensus to determine what this actually is. In the meantime, I will be bold and note that the use of {{policy}} is disputed. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• "...While it restates official Wikipedia policy, it does so for the purposes of making absolutely clear what Wikipedia is..." That message makes the nature of this page very clear, I see no reason for the policy or guideline template to be included as well.—jiy (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the "policy" thing. You can't just dub pages policy without a broad consensus on it. Sorry. Matt Yeager 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not define "consensus" as "more people agree". Wikipedia is not a democracy because the people who use it are always changing, so it is pointless to try and say that something is true because a lot of people currently say it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-13 01:34
  • Matt: According to you, there is no wide consensus for wikipedia being an encyclopedia? Interesting. Kim Bruning 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • According to me, there is wide consensus for every one of the principles in this page being upheld. There is not widespread consensus for labelling this page as official policy, because we already have official policy pages for this purpose. Such labelling is at best redundant, and potentially confusing. A restatement of official policy is not itself policy, and nor should it be. Lupin|talk|popups 02:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Interesting remark, but no. Any restatement of official policy is by definition also official policy. This is so because the policy pages are based on the way we (think we should) behave, and not the other way around. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • For those who accept this line of reasoning ("any restatement of official policy is by definition official policy"), please explain why I should not restate official policies on my user page, and use the {policy} template there. (Besides the fact it would violate WP:POINT :)). It is better for us to have fewer policies than more, as that reduces the reading load on new users and reduces the potential for contradictory policies. Why on earth would we want to content fork our policies? Stevage 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with Stevage's comment. Also, if you believe that any restatement of policy deserves to be called official then you wind up with the problem of having to decide whether or not something is actually a restatement or a subtle distortion (intentional or not). It seems far better to circumvent this entire issue and clearly distinguish what is canonical policy and what is not, and the tool of choice for making such a distinction should be the {{policy}} tag in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of Radiant's third sentence above to whether or not restatements of policy should be tagged as official policy or not. Lupin|talk|popups 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Humour v. Policy

we can tune down the humour, but a page like this is absolutely necessary, and I was unpleasantly surprised there was no Wikipedia:Encyclopedicity, recently. Instead of restating what "WP is NOT", this page should make clear what we mean by "Encyclopedicity". The day that stating that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is considered "Wikipedia humour", I know it is time for me to go looking for new horizons :( dab (ᛏ) 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

quoth Matt Yeager, reverting me, "yes, it IS humor (see "Wikipedia is not usually written...")"

well, how about changing that then? I want to be able to link here when I'm serious about pointing out What Wikipedia Is. So if you want to be funny, why not create a really outrageous Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, stupid or something? This page's title "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not in the least "Wiki humour", so if you can't stand having the "is not usually written in allcaps" bit on a serious page, let's clear that then. Otherwise, I may be forced to fork my own unamusing Wikipedia:Encyclopedicity. What will people think if we point them here when they're being unreasonable? Oh well, they just showed us an insider WP joke? Ha ha, "WP's an encyclopedia", that's a good one, is that a residue of the 2001 founding-fathers' optimism? I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia is trying to be an Encyclopedia, no joke intended. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure my opinion will make much difference here, but in my view the smiley at the top detracts from the page. This page IS official policy, recast. Its presented in a manner that is humorous and perhaps a small disclaimer at the bottom explaining why it's an alternate presentation is useful, but the smiley at the top detracts from the message. There are some that need this level of SHOUTING to get the point and the smiley gives them an out. So would statements like WP is not a boxcar. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Let's comapre it with Assume bad faith. In ABF, there is irony, there is statements that are downright false, and some statements that deep down are true but point that truth in a remarkably wicked way. Here, we have.. the same official policies in BIG LETTERS. Where is the joke? I didn't laugh here, but I found this page extremely valiant! ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

yep, the smiley is definitely in place at "assume bad faith", even if it spoils some of the fun, I would move it to the bottom. I don't want no stinking smiley adorning the statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Surely there must be a better term than "humour" here. Exasperation? Maybe we could say, "if you think you are capable of reading coherent paragraphs of mixed-case text, may we direct you to the full policy documents?"? This page is intended for the benefit of people who Just Don't Get It, and who complain when they are asked to spend more than two minute's worth of policy documents. The disclaimer should read, "if you are not actually one of those people, feel free to be treated like an adult at such and such another page." dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, why am I reverted without discussion, when the comments above actually support my edits? Also, if you re-insert the humour category, what is the rationale of reverting my more accurate definition of "encyclopedia" and additional categorization? Lubaf is free to disagree with me, but I would ask him to do that on talk rather than in edit summaries. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, this discussion has reached a point where I must announce that the discussion is more "policy v. humor" rather than the "policy v. guideline" of when this discussion came about (technically, a question by me started this, so...). We can, therefore, all agree that it is not a guideline. As for me, I'm only reading the "policy v. humor" aspect of the discussion (neutral/abstain). And to think this discussion has been under the "policy or guideline" headline all this time... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm adding another heading. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy can't just be arbitrarily decided by a bunch of people. If you want to modify it a bit and send it up for a vote... do so. But in the meantime, this page is NOT policy, and it's not right to claim that it is (even IF everything in it is just "restated policy"). Matt Yeager 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In defense of being marked both policy and humor

Why do I think this page should be marked as both humor and policy?

• Policy because there's (or at least there should be) nothing here that isn't already official policy, and because this is a mission statement.

Please point to the actual policy statement that says that anything that is a restatement of policy is also policy. Please point me to an endorsement by the Wikimedia Foundation that this is the official mission statement. Lastly, please point out a reference that says that any mission statement should be marked with the policy template? Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Humor to prevent this from being used to bite the newbies, and because, let's be honest, this page consists of a statement of the blatently obvious written in bright, bold colors designed to bring maximum contrast.

Agree with humour. Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The two are not contradictory. It is official policy, stated in a humorous manner. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not official policy. Read the other items in the official policies category. This would be an embarrassment in the category and undermine the *actual* official policies. Stevage 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

please note that I added the categories "Wikipedia basic information" and "Wikipedia proportion and emphasis", saying it restates policy; I did not add it to "WP policy" for this very reason. I'm fine with this being a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The point is, I want to be able to show this to misbehaving editors. It would be pointless to do this if the first thing on the page was a big smiley saying "we're just kidding you". dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It would undermine the actual official policies? Excellent. Then we can fall back on mere guidelines. (such as consensus, and don't disrupt) :-) Kim Bruning 09:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

everybody seems to be forgetting that the page may be edited to fit its scope better. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" certainly qualifies as policy. Maybe not even policy but an axiom. (Category:Wikipedia axioms, anyone?); there is no reason why policy should not be spelled out in allcaps for once. The "humour" thing can be adapted. "Wikipedia is not a Hot Dog" is gone (that triggered the "humour" categorization in the first place). I would like this page to be about what Wikipedia is, but right now, it emphasizes on WP:NOTs again after the first statement. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Anything that restates official policy, by definition is official policy. That said, what's the friggin' big deal? The only thing that's wildly inappropriate here is the "proposed" tag, because that sounds as if we're proposing that Wikipedia should become an encyclopedia. DUH. Radiant_>|< 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text change

In my opinion, this page looks too much like What Wikipedia is not. Hence, here's my suggestion for new text for the yellow parts. ≈ Ekevu (♥ • ★) 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• WIKIPEDIA ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF
• WIKIPEDIA NEEDS GOOD SOURCES
• WIKIPEDIA NEEDS OBJECTIVITY
• CONTENT YOU WRITE IN WIKIPEDIA ISN'T YOURS

You want to fix the whole issue with telling people not to eat beans out of their noses? Sounds good to me. Hey, this is a wiki, try it on, see how it looks! Kim Bruning 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

sounds good. I don't care about getting this page to "official policy status" too much, I'm happy to say we are restating policy, go read it up, but that we are serious and no-nonsense about it. I don't think it is disputed here that WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia. all I wanted was get rid about the "humour" boilerplate. Let's keep this page so we can shove it in people's faces (if they're misbehaving of course), but if we're going to put it through the policy making machine, it will just end up looking like any other policy page.

• CONTENT YOU WRITE IN WIKIPEDIA STAYS YOURS, BUT WILL BE MESSED WITH

dab (ᛏ) 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please avoid dumbing down this page by referring to "big stuff" and such. Wikipedia is not a ten-year old. Radiant_>|< 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Important stuff", as written by Grue does suit it better. But that's besides the point: isn't dumbing down the basic stuff the current objective of the page anyway? Otherwise, it wouldn't be in big letters. ≈ Ekevu (♥ • ★) 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ekevu, please don't revert my changes because I hadn't discussed them on the talk page, when there's several other people that have been making changes that haven't been discussed either. There is a difference between making simple statements ("Wikipedia is not a blog") and making dumb statements ("Wikipedia has good stuff that isn't yours") - the main difference is that people will take the former more seriously than the latter. Radiant_>|< 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OOh, I have some trouble with both radiants version (beans? ;-) ) and some slight issues with Ekevus version ("notability" has never been defined well) , but like, welcome to the wiki world guys. Edit the page 'till you both like it. :-) Kim Bruning 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words

Everything this page says is said better there. Clearer, more explicit, better argued, less ugly. Any objections to replacing this whole page with a redirect? Stevage 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would revert such a measure. This is supposed to be something of a joke (a Ha Ha Only Serious, if you know what that means), so of course it's ugly. As for explicit, what's more explicit than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia"? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus, there is a merger in the works on that page. With the Five pillars. Which this is an alternative to. I also oppose this and suggest keeping this page in existence. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is a Good Thing as it is. Let's not tinker with it for no reason, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• This page used to be funny and to the point. As a result of some recent edits to a rather child-like tone, it is now neither. So yes, I'd agree to a merge. Or a revert. Radiant_>|< 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If "Wikipedia was an encyclopaedia" was explicit and actually answered anyone's questions about what Wikipedia is, this page, Wikipedia in 8 words, and WP:NOT wouldn't exist. Stevage 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ass-backwards. Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words should be moved here. —Cryptic (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

Oh look! As a guideline, perhaps wikipedia could be an encyclopedia. But that is certainly not policy. Feel free to treat it as a sandpit, or perhaps as a flower garden ;-)

(Who? me? desillusioned and sarcastic? Whatever gave you that idea? ;-) )

Kim Bruning 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a flower garden. Not bad for a metaphor; the top is very pretty but the bottom is really just dirt or manure, and there's thorns all over the place. I can't really do much with the sandpit metaphor unless there's quicksand involved. Radiant_>|< 10:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about metaphor? ;-) Perhaps we could get consensus that wikipedia is a, um um, elephant? You just know that this encyclopedia thing is never gonna fly as policy. What was jimbo thinking? :-P Kim Bruning 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully on-board with the elephant proposal. I'm also fully on-board with some of the other suggestions a few sections up from here. But I'm glad we do all agree that WP:ISNOT an encyclopedia. I shall be mentioning that in a few AfDs later today. -Splash^talk 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is one of the core tenets of the project, and like NPOV, is one thing Jimbo has said is not negotiable. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for omitting to enclose my attempt at cigar obtainment within <irony></irony> tags. -Splash^talk 01:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an Elephant because it has four pillars and a trunk. Also, it has a long memory, is slow-moving, is visible from a long distance, makes a lot of noise, tramples smaller creatures, and people want to kill it for the ivory. Radiant_>|< 15:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Presentation of this page

The large fonts and lack of details on each point stated in this page is not helpful and seems to communicate a tone of anger and frustration which in my opinion is unencyclopedic. I suggest that we change this to a more dignified format.--CltFn 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Which would give us what, WP:NOT? Joking aside I see your point... but now it's tagged as humor (or an attempt at it). Restating the basics of WP:NOT in a non-frustrated/sarcastic/whatever way would be useful though... I wonder how many new users (who would actually benefit from this page) ever see it though... it seems like it's mostly wikipedia veterans here. --W.marsh 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling it humor is a nice spin , but still when I first look at this page , I get the idea that someone is mad and frustrated at the editors and is yelling at them with a megaphone. But that is just me.--CltFn 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• You do have a point, but the reason is that some people apparently need being yelled at with a megaphone. For instance, we get policy proposals to censor Wikipedia on a regular basis. Radiant_>|< 12:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• that's the idea. This is the page you show people when they are in need of being shouted at. I.e. after about five tries of clenching your teeth and not biting. It says "WP is an encyclopedia" right on the Main page, anyone willing to read policy, or (gasp) encyclopedia does not need to be shown this page. Therefore, this page IS NOT INTENDED AS HUMOUR :oP It is intended for shouting at people who deserve it. If you do not deserve being shouted at, you will not be offended by this page, since you know what it is saying, anyway. If we need a smiley at the top of the page, make it a rollseyes one. Warning: All these warning boxes are slowly taking over. Why does every page need to be headed by boxes saying "This page", "This user", "This article", to the point of drowning out the page's actual content? I can see the need for some of these, but "This page uses Unicode", or "This page may be too complicated and advanced for you", and "This page is humour"?? Please. dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So here's my proposal for a new template to be added to all articles that are as yet "naked" of any warning

This Wikipedia article is so far devoid of any content warnings
Be aware that the content immediately below is the actual text of the article, and may or may not be fit for your consumption. Please review the text for its suitability, and choose an adequate warning message to replace this one.

dab (ᛏ) 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If that ever gets created (at {{Nocontentwarning}}?), it will be speedily BJAODNed ASAP. This is Just Too Strange™ to even be serious. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not always fair?

I've struck this. While it's true that nothing is always fair, saying WP isn't always fair DOES NOT help promote NPOV. NPOV is a kind of fairness, and the kind of fairness that IS ESSENTIAL to Wikipedia. Xoloz 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Additionally if a user is unfairly treated by another user or admin, the "victim" should not simply be referred to a page stating "hey, WP is unfair, tough luck dude". Radiant_>|< 15:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

depends on what you mean by "fair". If NPOV is fairness, "WP is fair" is certainly policy. If "fair" means, all Wikipedians are treated fairly at all times, "WP is fair" is certainly not policy. If fair as in "pretty" is intended, it depends on what css you are using :) dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is this a reaction to people who say stuff along the lines of "It's not fair that the article on my garage band/webcomic/self etc. was deleted!" or "It's not fair that I was blocked for blatently trolling!" Because stuff like that is fair. It just might not seem fair to biased parties. I think Wikipedia should strive for fairness... but that's that's an endlessly complicated topic. At any rate, not being fair isn't a policy... I hope... --W.marsh 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, EVERYTHING is NPOV

Even the whether or not something is policy boxes are NPOV. ;-) Kim Bruning 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for your time"

To me, this quote looks hideous in black. I think it's easily readable in blue, and it looks much better and more integrated. Comments? TheJabberwock 06:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mayhaps a better solution would be to put something below it, so that it's not just sitting there. Maybe something like the old "This page is intended as humor" box? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just bold-ized the text, and now believe that it is rather legible. It might be improved by darkening a bit... any lighter would be very difficult for us color-blind people to read. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks Matt. TheJabberwock 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, any excuse to be bold. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to change the definition

Here's how Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines an encyclopedia:

a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically.

I have never seen a single dictionary anywhere include "the most relevant" before knowledge in any of their definitions. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education" or "well-rounded education". Thus, I'm removing those three words right now.--Primetime 06:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition was taken from Encyclopedia, which has a line:

Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.

and another:

To address those needs, an encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject, given the overall length of the particular work.

I think that an encyclopedia is "well-rounded" precisely because it includes only the most relevant knowledge. Also, the point of this page is to point out what Wikipedia is not, so a more restrictive definition is useful in this case. How about: An encyclopedia is a written compendium of information, aiming to convey the relevant accumulated knowledge about every subject.? TheJabberwock 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Historically, how focused an encyclopedia is has been a function of how much space it has. The roundedness is always retained, so it represents the whole world and not just a part of it. For example, the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana, an 119-volume work almost as large as Wikipedia, has integrated dictionaries of English, German, Spanish, Esperanto, Portuguese, and Italian words. It also has maps of small towns, making it effectively a guide book, as well. Another example would be anything from Larousse, which also contain embedded dictionaries. The Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste at 162 volumes only halfway completed is certainly larger than Wikipedia. I cited M-W's Third above--the second-largest English-language dictionary. Here's how Encyclopedia Britannica defines an encyclopedia:

Today most people think of an encyclopaedia as a multivolume compendium of all available knowledge, complete with maps and a detailed index, as well as numerous adjuncts such as bibliographies, illustrations, lists of abbreviations and foreign expressions, gazetteers, and so on.

Later in the intro, it says the following:

In this article the word encyclopaedia has been taken to include not only the great general encyclopaedias of the past and the present but all types of works that claim to provide in an orderly arrangement the essence of “all that is known” on a subject or a group of subjects. This includes dictionaries of philosophy and of American history as well as volumes such as The World Almanac and Book of Facts, which is really a kind of encyclopaedia of current information.

Further, here's how the most complete and respected English dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, defines an encyclopedia (most quotes and etymology omitted, except where needed):

1. The circle of learning; a general course of instruction.
1708 Motteux Rabelais v. xx, In you are lodg’d a Cornucopia, an Encyclopedia, an unmeasurable Profundity of Knowledge.
2. A literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge, usually arranged in alphabetical order.
1841 Myers Cath. Th. iii. ii. 4 The Bible is..by no means indeed an Encyclopædia.
The word in this sense appears first as the title of certain works published in the 17th cent. esp. that of Alstedius (see quot. 1819).
b. Sometimes applied spec. to the French work ‘Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers’ (1751­-1765), by Diderot, D’Alembert, and other eminent scholars and men of science.
3. An elaborate and exhaustive repertory of information on all the branches of some particular art or department of knowledge; esp. one arranged in alphabetical order.
hence
en"cyclo'pædiac a.
[see -ac], = ENCYCLOPÆDIC; . . .

I have heard people often misinterpret the word encyclopedia on Wikipedia to meaning that an encyclopedia is not a "how-to guide" (I understand that this is a policy, WP:NOT.) However, every student encyclopedia I know of (e.g., World Book, Compton's) gives instructions on how to do things, like write letters and act in formal situations (see the "etiquette" article in World Book). I'd like to close with a quote from Jimbo Wales:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.^[2]--Jimbo Wales

--Primetime 21:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write such a complete response, and that Jimbo quote certainly illuminates your position. I take issue with Britannica's definition, which includes the phrase "all knowledge." This seems misleading to me, since writing down all knowledge is an impossible goal - kind of like building a computer that would be able to predict the behavior of every atom in the universe. Better, I think, is the OED's phrase: "extensive information on all branches of knowledge." Then the question becomes: how much is "extensive," and how finely should each topic branch out? The answer to the latter part is obviously not "to infinity," since we don't allow (for example) biographies of non-notable subjects.

But besides for this, your definitions seem correct. The question is, what is the right definition for this page? The current definition ("An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge, aiming to convey knowledge on all subjects.") contrasts with the next line (WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION). How about this definition: An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey the relevant accumulated information on all branches of knowledge.? TheJabberwock 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it's impossible to include all that is known on any topic in a single work. Thus, I also take issue with EB's definition as not reflecting what encyclopedias have typically been (although it might represent a pure version of the concept). I also agree that Wikipedia's information should be organized (i.e., not presented in a random matter). So, perhaps we could just mirror the definitions in the OED and M-W's Third by writing, "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey extensive information on all branches of knowledge". That way, it wouldn't be as broad as it is now and wouldn't necessarily conflict with the next line.--Primetime 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we take out the extensive? "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey accumulated information on all branches of knowledge"? TheJabberwock 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the CAPS

I really like the conciseness of this article, but the caps are just too much. I couldn't bear sending a vandal candidate here because it would seem like I'm screaming at them, when I just want to introduce them to the true Wikipedia. It didn't feel good to send them to the five pillars either (which I did), because the five pillars include too much detail and fancy terms for a clear and quick summary. I don't mind the larger font (in fact, I like it) but the caps render this article useless for me - In important articles with titles as serious as this one I definitely favor clarity and usability over humor. Wintran 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Screaming at vandals does noone any good. I'd suggest selective Capitalisation of Keywords. :) -Quiddity 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you be WP:BOLD and try normal caps out. If there turns out to be controversy, we can discuss it here. TheJabberwʘck 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Quiddity 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some further changes, feel free to check it out. Wintran 12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This leaves only one slight problem. NOW What page do we refer clueless ID10Ts to when we want to shout at them? <ducks> ;-) Kim Bruning 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"NOW What page do we refer clueless ID10Ts to ..."

[3] used to be standard ;-) -Quiddity 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition

How about "Wikipedia is not free advertising space"? This is a problem I've seen several times. --Icarus 08:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly added. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)