Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May - July 2007) Topic: "Unencyclopedic" (2003) Topic: Trivia (July 2007 - ongoing; partially archived)

Not a bureaucracy?

This statement just seems ridiculous to me. We have a codified system of formal guidelines and a clear authoritarian heirachy, as well as formal dispute resolution processes. We even have bureaucrats! Can someone please explain the reasoning behind this assertion? --Aseld ^talk 15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. That a process exists does not imply that it has to be followed in all cases. Policy is there for when common sense doesn't provide an adequate resolution; for cases where it does, there is no process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aseld makes a good point. This article is full of such nonsense - see above where we discuss the matter of statistics. My impression is that this article is just a series of exhortations or appeals to motherhood and apple pie which do not conform to the reality of this place (which is mostly ruled by I do/don't like it). I shall place a disputed tag upon the article to reflect its status. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. One or two editors questioning one or two portions of a policy which has been in place for years does not make it "disputed". Also, just because there is a lot of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT on Wikipedia doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to overcome it. Please raise a specific concern if you have one. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I note that Colonel Warden was the user who took it upon himself to decide that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary was no longer policy and changed it to guideline status.[1]. It may be that his actions can be considered to be disruptive for the purposes of making a point.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the point that you suppose I am making? The fact of the matter is that editors such as User:Aseld and User:Hrafn dispute this policy and I agree that they have good points. I placed the disputed tag since we have discussion here and this seems quite proper. Please see WP:Editing policy where a long-standing policy is likewise being discussed, challenged and has a disputed tag. Also see Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation where Notability is under review. I have suggested to Arbcom that they take charge of policy so that we know where we stand but, for now, policy pages are a free-for-all and this one is no exception. Please see its edit history for numerous examples of amendments by myself and others. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And see Pixelface's ongoing Arbcom for making contentious edits on policy pages. You know better than this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like another bureaucratic process - I shall take a look. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked and it seems that you're confusing Arbcom with RFC - not the same thing. We have so much bureaucracy that no-one can keep track of it any more. I saw an estimate that 25% of Wikipedia is composed of this stuff and it grows daily. It's Parkinson's Law in action. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the estimate of 25% was calculated, but it seems inflated to me. As of 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC), the combined total of non-redirect pages in the Wikipedia, MediaWiki, and Help namespaces (i.e. those which could qualify as being part of Wikipedia's "bureaucracy") and their talk pages is 391,016. This accounts for approximately 3.2% of all pages on Wikipedia. Source: Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Many mainspace articles are just stubs while policy pages and their discussion pages are bloated by endless discussion and creep and so the measure may be based upon size. One reason for the policy bloat is that editors can ramble on and on without any reference to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOR. And we do love our own opinions .... Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but keep in mind also that very few of the 391,000 pages noted above are policy and guideline pages. The absolute majority are deletion debate pages filled with discussions about content and WikiProject subpages. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually even though that may be true the majority of your so called deletion debate pages are quoting the policy and guidelines and trying to show the world their e-peens... kinda like this one §hawnpoo 01:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My ongoing Arbcom? Huh? I repeatedly removed a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy, WP:NOT#PLOT. That may be contentious among the handful of editors who want it to be policy — but something needs consensus to be policy in order to be policy, not just a few people who wish it was policy. --Pixelface (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to make amendments and have disagreements over particular sections and phrases. It's another entirely to claim that the whole policy is in dispute (also, Aseld's comment at the start of this thread asks a question about one section of this policy, it doesn't "dispute" the policy). So far you've been arguing against the existence of policies and processes in general, rather than against anything specifically related to this policy. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the tag to better reference this specific section and discussion which has also been centralised. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that tag makes more sense. Still, I'm wondering if there is anything in the section that you actually do disagree with besides the description "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" (as Peregrine Fisher points about below, what's really meant is that Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of things in this policy are "should nots" or "do nots", but it looks like this policy page has taken the route of "is nots" to be more powerful. If you say "Don't do that", some people will do it just because you told them not to. It looks like this page began as a list of things encyclopedia articles are not. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Aseld, for a project of its size and scope (see Special:Statistics), I'd say that Wikipedia has suprisingly few formal policies and guidelines. After all: we have nearly 3 million articles about topics from every corner of the globe, throughout history, as well as c. 5,000–150,000 active users (depending on how we define "active), a total of nearly 9 million registered accounts, and who knows how many unregistered/IP accounts. While we do have codified formal dispute resolution processes, the absolute majority of disputes are resolved informally on talk pages.
With regard to the existence of bureaucrats ... well, there are just 30 of them, whose sphere of responsibility involves various technical functions in support of the encyclopedia project but that are not directly related to content. The fact that they are called "bureaucrats" has no special significance.
Finally, and most importantly, all of the processes, guidelines, and policies that exist are (or, technically, should be) in place for the sole purpose of facilitating development of the encylopedia's content. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really a "shouldn't be" page, instead of a "not" page. It actually lists things that we are, ironically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If we weren't, then there'd be no reason to have the list! :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Excessive cheeriness is extremely annoying, no? ;)

Prescriptive policies are explicitly forbidden by this very policy. It's so Monty Python: "6. There is no rule 6." Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the policy is descriptive. It describes the consensus that Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy. While the consensus is prescriptive, the summary of that consensus contained in this policy is descriptive. However, if that is the problem, I think nothing would be lost by removing those few words:

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law.

Thoughts? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it Derrida or one of the French deconstructionists who went spastic over the notion of a door sign that reads "This is not an exit"? The only reason to say it is because it is not true, but one wishes by implied threat of authority to make it true. Certain policies are prescriptive. As few as possible, one hopes, because vehicles with steering wheels can be commandeered, whereas vehicles without steering may perhaps go in the right direction.Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The phrase are descriptive, not prescriptive is a good one. The paradox arises because it is a meta-rule - a rule for making the rules. Such rules cannot sensibly apply to themselves - see Russell's Paradox. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT identifies key issues that are not the purpose or nature of the encyclopedia. I interpret this to mean that such activities should be avoided if possible and minimised where they are needed. In some cases, such as original research, it might be possible for there to be none at all, although grey areas clearly can and do exist. In the case of bureaucracy, it is clearly impossible to have none at all. Hospitals, businesses and theatre companies have to deal with bureaucracy and so do we. The point is, we should seek to make the function as efficient and non-intrusive as is possible whilst also being compatible with fulfilling our core mission. I don't think it is helpful to state that WP:NOT is at fault because a modicum of bureaucracy necessarily exists. Let's focus on ways to improve what's there. Ben MacDui 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, all. While I now understand the reasoning behind it, I still maintain that the statement "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" is false (though I'm not looking to attack WP policy here, so I'm not going to argue it further). --Aseld ^talk 11:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Wikipedia isn't a beureacracy; it has a bueracracy, but int he spirit of ignore all rules and be bold this can be bypassed to help imrpove it.---Patton^t/c 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats is a title; their function is to handle the high-level paper shuffling that requires a specialized set of buttons. They are not, however, cock-blocking 'fill it out in triplicate so we can lose your requests' busywork for its own sake types, constructing arcane rules for effecting policy requirements or this and that behind closed doors. They could as easily be called facilitators, given what they do, but any title is going to be questioned by someone, and 'middle management monkeys' might make folks never want the job, so whatever. It's not a bureaucracy at all. We have what, 8, 10, core rules? There are more at the DMV for how to stand in line. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Even Jimbo emphasizes that all his edits get scrutinized just like everyone else's - he does not think there is any bureaucracy. I think you may be confusing hierarchy with bureaucracy. Any ten year old can point out improvements, and there is no protocol for proposing them. As pointed out "bureacrat" is a technical title which just means you can change who is an admin and stuff like that, which normally never concerns anyone. You will note that there is a lengthy process involved in becoming an admin, and the bureaucrat is not specifically involved in the decision, they just implement the result. Apteva (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Patton123, above, says it right: Wikipedia has bureaucracy, but isn't a bureaucracy. But it's not just that our procedures can be bypassed in certain cases; in general, one should flat out forget that we even have procedures. You see something, anything, on Wikipedia that could be improved? Improve it. Don't ask for permission, don't double-check if there's a "right" way to do it. If someone actually disagrees with what you're doing, then you'll need to engage in a conversation with them (see WP:BRD), and hopefully you'll come to an understanding.

The reason we have any bureaucracy at all is because thousands of people all with their finger in the same pie (ick, mental image) will inevitably bump heads and get all pissed off about it. So we have a number of methods for keeping from pissing each other off all the time. We prefer order to chaos, but only accept formal procedures to the extent that they serve our need: to collaboratively write an encyclopedia. We don't honor procedure for its own sake.

Another critical reason for having WP:BURO as one of our "rules" is because there are a number of people who, when involved in a disagreement, try to abuse Wikipedia's procedures in order to get their way. This is not accepted. Unreasonable people are generally disinvited from the project.--Father Goose (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Due process v. bureaucracy

Our current bureaucratic institutions (ArbCom, RfA, RfC, etc.) exist theoretically to provide due process for Wikipedia's editing community (whether they actually do or not is a debate for a different time), and thus don't fall under this rule. We as a community have a responsibility to provide level playing fields for editors in disputes both community and editorial in nature. That responsibility fundamentally outweighs our adherence to an overly-broad principle based on American (if not Western) political biases that automatically assume malice in the term "bureaucracy". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. The thrust of the policy WP:BURO (aka WP:NOTLAW), is that Wikipedia is not governed by the rule of law. We have a variety of officials - editor, admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, steward, legal counsel, etc. These various position have assorted powers; for example, any editor may change the title of an article. The essential point is that any of these powers may be used at the discretion of the office-holder. There are sundry guidelines for this but they do not have the force of law because, per WP:IAR, it is the end or outcome which matters, not the legal details of the process. Our governance is thus like modern China, say, in which it is personal power and discretion which matters most. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I see this part of WP:NOT as a statement of goal, not an absolute principle. Its irony, kind of like WP:IAR, is meant to remind us to be careful when expanding or following our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Doesn't work, though, does it. The plan seems to be: write down in a policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, let it develop into one, and then when anyone complains that it has become one, just point them to the policy which "proves" that they're wrong. Then sit back and let the bureaucracy just keep on growing (but God forbid let us never have due process in any area where it might directly benefit the encylopedia), and see the well-meaning editors growing ever fewer in number.--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think we have any guidelines that are particularly bad. But in aggregate, Wikipedia might be too complicated now. Unfortunately, I think the blame can be put on verifiability, which requires people to use very specific kinds of sources every time they add a statement, let alone using a particular citation template. As onerous as it is, I see the alternative of adding unverifiable information as more troublesome. Randomran (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The basic idea of this principle is to judge someone's actions based on how they improve the encyclopedia, not by whether they followed the correct process. It's actually based on WP:IAR, which most people who oppose this would probably defend to their high teeth. Yes, Wikipedia is a contradiction in so many ways. Rather than rail against that, we should embrace it. I ain't gonna stop the rain by complainin'. Doesn't make me any less free. Hiding T 17:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In some areas, we don't care about strict rule-following. When we have a discussion which is supposed to be open for 7 days, but it's clear after 3 days what the result is, the "bureaucracy" answer is to keep going for 4 mare days; we will speedy close the discussion.

However, there are places where we require following the bureaucracy - places where bots deal with issues. We require, for example, that reports on WP:AIV use a specific template - just writing "I believe that {{ult|Example}} is a vandalism-only account" isn't good enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And such bureaucracy makes AIV a lot less useful. There are plenty of times I've spotted obvious vandals, but the hoops one has to jump through to submit a "compliant" report at AIV makes it not worth my time.--Father Goose (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Father Goose, to be honest. And I think you'll find that writing "I believe that {{ult|Example}} is a vandalism-only account" at AIV is good enough. Unless you are suggesting that no human being ever looks at AIV, which I think I would find rather worrying. I'm also rather worried that there are pages anywhere that require anything on Wikipedia. That suggests there are places which need to be better brought back into line with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:AGF. Hiding T 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What does happen is:

1. An admin sees a report at AIV.
2. The admin reads the report. If it seems to be a report of vandalism or spam, he/she checks the user's edits, and confirms that the user had been warned.
3. The admin either blocks the account/IP, or makes a comment on AIV on why he/she isn't.
4. If the admin blocked the account, a bot removes the report.

The reason you need to use the specific template is because the bot recognizes reports using it. This specific template was chosen based on the links it includes; there are a few others which the bots recognize. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the bot not be programmed to interpret a paragraph containing any reference to a user or IP (outside the signature) as a report against that user? I don't have a big problem with using the template (I have more of a problem with admins who insist on having the documentation mislead people into thinking that warnings are always necessary); but on the other hand the reprogramming shouldn't be a problem either.--Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we enter the realm of Artificial Intelligence. How would one recognize a user name? And if you enter a paragraph, it may be "X is vandalizing despite several warnings from Y", or "Despite several warnings from Y, X is vandalizing", or "User:X is constantly vandalizing User:Y", or "X is vandalizing Runcorn" (There actually is a user by this name), or "Several IP addresses are replacing the content of User talk:Od Mishehu with threats", or several other similar issues. A human admin can find the relevant information; a bot can't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily actually. You program the bots to look for code (they look at the code, not what is on-screen after all) for [[User:XXX]] or [[UserXXX|XXX]] where XXX is any character. It can check to make certain the user exists, ie they have at least 1 contribution. You can then also make an exception for code that looks like a signature by checking if it is at the end of a section followed by a date stamp.じんない 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And what happens now if people phrase reports like that? Are they thrown out, or handled manually? In either case I don't see that as an argument against enabling the bot to recognize some non-standard but unambiguous reports (such as those beginning with - or consisting only of - a linked username or IP).--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact I don't mean to get into the details of this particular situation here, but the general point is: once we have a process in place that seems to work well from the point of view of the people managing the process, those people are resistant to changes which would improve the process from the point of view of those using it. (Indeed, for the first group, users being put off from using the process is a plus point, since it means less work.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>What will usually happen is that the user before this report will be blocked, and the bot will also remove the problematic report believing it to be a comment about the previous report. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a worry then, isn't it? These reports maybe aren't even getting noticed, which could lead to undue frustrations, couldn't they? Hiding T 22:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I quote the Harvard Independent: "After eliminating other candidates, the form that fits best [wikipedia] is that of bureaucracy."[2] So this entire discussion seems moot, lets yank this not section. Ikip (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made by an outsider, with no reference to their reasons for "eliminating other candidates" other than anarchy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Point of order. If you remove it because the Harvard Independent say it is so, then you would make the Harvard Independent the final arbitrator, and Wikipedia would be a dictatorship rather than a bureaucracy. Removing the section makes it less likely that we are a bureaucracy. Like I said, Wikipedia is a contradiction in so many ways. Rather than rail against that, we should embrace it. I ain't gonna stop the rain by complainin'. Doesn't make me any less free. Hiding T 12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's a cottage industry of pundits making declarations about Wikipedia, who almost always get it wrong. I happen to think that Wikipedia is best described as an adhocracy with islands of bureaucracy. It has no central governing force, though there is an organizing principle (build an encyclopedia). I know that on a daily basis I work as an independent agent on Wikipedia, beholden to no one except my sense of what improves the encyclopedia. Sometimes I come into conflict with other editors about what constitutes an improvement; even then, there's no bureaucracy, although some individuals do have a very autocratic manner. On rare occasion I have to deal with some of Wikipedia's actual bureaucratic domains, such as deletion review, but for the most part, my time on Wikipedia is spent doing shit that needs doing, and not consulting with anyone beforehand. Nobody tells me what to do; I keep mindful of community conventions, and work at whatever grabs my attention. That isn't a bureaucracy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that it has elements of a lot of different power structures. Yes, there is a bureaucracy in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia itself is not a bureaucracy. People are free to do what they want, they're allowed to make bold actions, and they're allowed to ignore rules. Just that, on occasion, we have to reign in total anarchy with some common sense principles, which unfortunately requires a group of sysops with privileges that others don't have. If Wikipedia were entirely a bureaucracy, we would destroy WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, and might even limit editing privileges to established users. Everything would have to be hashed out on the discussion page beforehand, no matter how minor, or uncontroversially helpful. Nobody wants that. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • To answer is wikipedia not Not a bureaucracy?, Yes it is, Read just this one page. DoctorHver (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• The heart of this question is whether the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages should reflect the de facto reality of how Wikipedia is run, or try to embody the spirit of how we want it to be run. To this point, if we want the guidelines to reflect reality, Wikipedia is, indeed, a bureaucracy. We can have a whole seperate debate as to whether we want to give up on the concept of it being not-a-bureaucracy altogether. I would say at this point the power structure is too entrenched to change it and the guideline should not give people false impressions of what Wikipedia is and is not. To say we are not a bureaucracy is to say they shouldn't expect it to operate like one, should not expect there to be a command hierarchy that you must obey (IE Ops, Arbcom, admins), should not expect things to be done in a procedure-bound way and should expect that those guidelines are treated as absolute as an exception, not a rule. 69.76.40.74 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We often are able to bypass process, that is why we are not a bureaucracy. We can ignore our rules if they prevent us from our goal. We can be bold and just do things if we use common sense. We have various levels of ability in our editors(some can block some can not), but the authority lies with consensus, not ability. So I think the section makes sense. Some people don't get it, but that does not make it untrue. Chillum 12:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Primetime television schedules

It is my understanding that WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says that Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, means that primetime television schedules should not be included on Wikipedia articles for television networks. As a result, several people and I have for over a year been removing all of these from the articles for Australian television networks. However, they continue to be used on American network articles. Can this clause either be removed from the policy page to reflect actual practice, or can it be enforced on the American network articles? The patchwork application of it is causing confusion. - Mark 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know there was a recent discussion of this somewhere, but I can't find it (it might have been an AFD). However, the end conclusion was the general schedule for the major over-the-air networks by year provided historical context for comparison and contrast to understand ratings and viewership numbers (for example, the viewship war between The Cosby Show and the Simpsons when they were both on Thursday nights), but any other level of detail was unnecessary. On a per-network basis, these aren't needed, but when put side by side there's value to them (see 1985–86 United States network television schedule for example). --MASEM (t) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion NOTDIR and TV schedules. These lists of TV schedules are non-encyclopedic stuff that is far removed from the context, commentary, analysis or criticism that an encyclopedic article would be expected to contain. Basicially they fail WP:NOT#DIR. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They do not "fail" WP:NOT#DIR. And please stop stating your opinion as if it were fact. Does the article Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club, which you created Gavin, have any "context, commentary, analysis or criticism"? No. So please stop saying that encyclopedia articles are expected to contain such things. --Pixelface (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark, if you actually took the time to read WP:NOT#DIR, television schedules do not violate that policy. You and several people absolutely should not be removing the Australian television schedule articles. You're the one creating the patchwork, and you're the one in the wrong. Actual practice, at AFD, is that television schedules have historical value. As I explained in December, there's no consensus to delete lists of yearly network TV schedules. What's your problem with them? --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If these schedules fail WP:N, then they are sure to fail WP:NOT#DIR as well, and should be deleted accordingly. We just can't list all the television schedules from every network for every day: not even online TV guides do that. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

These schedules are not "per day"; they are the general schedules per year by weekday; that is, the general schedules for the Sunday lineup of all the over-the-air broadcast stations are given, but not any specific Sunday. This resolution of schedules is notable (it allows understanding of television viewership numbers) and appropriate per WP's goals as long as they're sourced. Any finer resolution (programming on a specific day) is too much. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "general", do you mean "unverifiable" or that they are a synthesis? How can it be notable if it is a generalisation? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can go to an edition of TV Guide published shortly after the start of the season (in September) and pull that information there; it's neither unverifiable (TV Guide is an RS in this application) nor synthesis (the information and correlations exist by a third party). Again, we're not talking that on October 1, CBS was running episode #100 of a certain show, the general schedules would state that on Sundays during the 200X season, CBS ran episodes of this television show at this slot. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• When you say that this involves pulling that information out of a TV guide, what you mean is a form of synetheis, whereby a "general" schedule is created by inference. However this is a "general" summary of what might be shown on a particular network, and as you know, these things change. I don't see how these schedules even pass WP:V let alone WP:NOT if they are made up in the way you describe. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is allowable synthesis, as per WP:SYN: Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Furthermore, at least in the States, there are articles that summarize the fall schedules when they are announced (see this one for instance, and articles that announce scheduling changes such as this. This may not go back that far, but the information is certainly verifiable and not synthesis as warned against in WP:OR. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"A complete exposition of all possible details" clause

I find the following NOT is rather dubious and disturbing:

NOT: A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

What else encyclopedia is if not the potentially complete summary of all knowledge. I have a hypothesis what the author wanted to say: a single article cannot go down to microscopic detail. But per wikipedia:summary style we can go in all possible details provided valid references are supplied.

Further: the phrasing is poor: "a complete exposition" is rarely possible, and the statement boils down to a a truism

Still further, even if rephrased in less categorical way: who is the judge that, say, N details is OK and N+1 details is a no-no? We have basic rules for content: notability, verifiability, NOR, NPOV. Nowhere these demand any restriction on detail. Twri (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

May be I am missing something. Please, whoever was involved, point me to the place when the addition of this item was discussed: I could not find it myself quickly (lazy :-). Twri (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know when it was inserted, but it seems to derive from a "finding of principle" made by ArbCom in 2004: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404#Principles. There's no indication that this part of NOT has actually been tested by consensus, though I am inclined to agree with it in a limited context. It's the kind of language that can easily be abused, though... has someone been quoting it at you recently?--Father Goose (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That admin vote was 5 for, 2 against, and 3 abstaining, and was over 4 years ago. That may have been relevant for that particular case, but I do not think that is still binding on the community. It was, in my opinion, a very poor wording there and should be removed here as instruction creep. . DGG (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like common sense to me. You can have an article about Trains, but you don't have to have an article or list which details every single train that every ran on tracks (as well as those that sometimes off them). --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet -- playing devil's advocate for a second -- if we can manage to keep minute details from crowding out more basic details (through the use of summary style), and all such details are verifiable, I'm not sure we have a solid justification for removing or disallowing them, aside from the "who cares" rationale. As Wikipedia matures and broadens, the "we don't do subjects in detail" stance deserves to be rethought.--Father Goose (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the downside that extremely detailed articles will get taken over by specialist editors, writing for a specialist audience. Fletcher (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I've seen something like that in the form of Monty Hall problem -- specialist editors there have, I hate to say it, really wrecked its accessibility to the lay reader in the interest of precision. But then, it's not the level of detail that's to be blamed, which I still think is fine in that article; it's the failure to offer both simplified and detailed explanations that weakens the article. Simply banning detail isn't the solution, nor is elbowing out the specialists; nonetheless, a more forceful insistence on accessibility to a lay audience is needed in such cases.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the placement of this wording, but it makes some sense. There is no fixed rule prescribing N level of detail while proscribing N+1, as indeed N cannot be quantized. Instead you have to consider each individual article and look at what has worked well for similar articles. Even with summary style, too much detail will make the topic harder to navigate, inefficient to read, and after some point only a few editors, or perhaps only one, will be competent to edit the articles. Fletcher (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia... incorporates elements from general and specialized encyclopedias" from WP:5P. I don't feel we can justify the deletion of content on the basis that it is too specialized (or more broadly speaking, too detailed). There are challenges associated with greater levels of detail, but they are not insurmountable. It is unfortunate when we respond to those challenges by deleting the detail instead of restructuring, rewriting, or balancing it.

Hmm, I've just gotten a mental image of this problem as being the Wikipedia equivalent of the Shannon–Hartley theorem. But instead of trying to remove the noise (bad writing/organization), we tend to discard the signal and the noise simultaneously. And then we start thinking that all signals of a certain faintness are themselves noise. This analogy won't bear too much scrutiny, but, heh.--Father Goose (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There actually is prescription against highly detailed articles, that being that WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Of course, what is indiscriminate varies from field to field. Editors of movies have determined that while a cast list is important, not every cast member is needed, or even crew member. Topics on books rarely discuss chapters and the like. Video game editors have opted to avoid discussing specific game levels or weapons. It's a detail that can't be spelled out at the top level but can be spelled by the WikiProjects or other guidelines, with WP:NOT helping to identify when not to go into specific directions. Of course, there are always exceptions to be played out case-by-case. As long as we apply this approach common-sensibly, there shouldn't be any major problems. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But have the aforementioned "editors of movies" made a correct determination that such information should be expunged from Wikipedia? IMDB is in many ways a better site for movie info, in part because they have more complete cast, crew, and other technical information. I don't see a shred of common sense in calling a complete listing of cast and crew "indiscriminate". Yet we've somehow convinced ourselves that such information shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Now, one could say, "well, we're not IMDB"; the point is that we could be better than IMDB. But not as long as the "we don't do detail" mindset is in force.

When we place arbitrary limits on our content for arbitrary reasons, we worsen Wikipedia. When we try to gussy up such arbitrariness by saying This Is How It Is Done, we further worsen Wikipedia. I'm not saying Wikipedia should be a disorganized and unreadable dump of information; what I'm saying is that we ought to be welcoming greater and greater amounts of organized, verifiable, and readable information.

Unfortunately, all too often, we don't welcome such information. Increasingly, our reflexive reaction toward it is deletion, not reorganization. Most of the low-hanging fruit has been harvested; we have to ask ourselves at some point, are we going to allow higher-hanging fruit to be added to our collection, or will we simply call Wikipedia "complete", and insist that all grapes above a certain height are sour?--Father Goose (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate", properly used, is a very low bar. It does not mean "relatively unimportant" It means, not making any distinction between the important and the not important at all--such as putting in an article for all published books, or including a description of every 10th frame of a movie. If we make some rational distinction about what we do and do not include, we are being discriminating, not indiscriminate. The rule has a purpose: there are times when people try to include content about every building on a university campus, or everyone on a high school football team. DGG (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first example is an unfortunate one: I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to include sourced and worthwhile information about every building on at least a few university campuses. The second example isn't as bad: it's not too likely that every single member of a high school team would have independent secondary coverage (and thus per WP:N we couldn't have an article about each of them), although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some teams out there where each member had enough coverage to be able to write something about each of them in a "team season" article.

My point here is that it's easy to say, well, of course Wikipedia doesn't include every detail or that it's not an "indiscriminate collection of information". As you well know, problems arise when we include open-ended statements along those lines in our policies: what you and I know to be "proper use" gives way to wikilawyering, and in the end, stuff gets deleted that don't need deletin'.--Father Goose (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Twri, it was added January 9, 2008 by Randomran, who's been pushing for that same line about details and "weight" in WP:N, based on a four-year old Arbcom ruling. It can be removed.

In the future, if you want to find when a certain word or phrase was added to a page, you can use WikiBlame. For example, I found that edit by searching article "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", Search for "A complete exposition of all possible details", Versions to check "500", clicking Reset for the current date, Order "latest first", Search method "interpolated". The only issue with "interpolated" is occasionally a vandalism removal or addition will show up. Usually WikiBlame outputs when an addition is found, but this time it said a deletion was found. Then I searched from January 10, 2009 (since January 9 was the most recent day the line appeared (noted with "OO")), 100 versions, latest first, linear. Linear goes through every single version (as many versions as you've set it to check). It's much slower, but as thorough as it gets. XXX means it does not appear in that version. OOO means it does appear in that version. Oldest XXX before an OOO was January 7, so open that version, at the top you'll see "Newer revision → (diff)", click on diff, and you'll see who added something. --Pixelface (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is humor appropriate?

I performed following edit. Wikipedia discussions sometimes go to kick and ban ways. Is humor appropriate? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Humor is fine. But keep it on topic, non-disruptive, and please don't do it on our project pages which are supposed to represent policy. Talk pages are better, please remember though that this is a project to build an encyclopedia. Make sure the humor is productive, not disruptive. Chillum 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Still the problem exists. Otherwise we would not have to publish this policy. It is interesting how many policies other encyclopedia like Britannica have in their disposal. In my eyes humor is a constructive way and this allegory shows some point, which is notable about Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a nudge case. May I re-add the allegory to battlefield policy section? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does it help to explain what Wikipedia should and shouldn't be? That is the topic of WP:NOT.--Father Goose (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant to the page. Also if you were an editor at Britannica I am sure you would find that they have a lot of internal policies regarding content. Chillum 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree we need to explain that Wikipedia is not a battlefield to editors. Well, I guess the point of proposed allegory is Wikipedia is not Web 2.0 ultimate shooter game, despite the fact it technically incorporates all the needed features. The point is explained with help of humor. Maybe the wording should be more clear. Thank you for your opinion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If this page WP:NOT was not the embodiment of one of the five pillars of WP, there may be room for humorous advice, but this page needs to be as plain and straight forward as possible as one of the core WP policies. You're free to make a WP-space humor page (there's even a template tag for that) but I strongly recommend avoid that humor specifically on this page. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then WP:NOTSTUPID is what applies here.--Father Goose (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an oligarchy?

In the little time I've been registered, and the time I've been editing without registering, I've noticed that the higher-ups on Wikipedia, including, but not limited to, the administrators, give a great deal of de facto superiority to people who have established reputations, almost to the point of Wikipedia being an oligarchy. I'm not saying that the reputable people are officially given greater power; I'm just saying that, maybe, some administrators do it simply because there is no rule against it. It's like in the United States, firing someone from your job for being a Republican; it's legal because it's not illegal.

If Wikipedia is not supposed to be an oligarchy, can someone please edit this article to include that? Thank you.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would we not want to put our trust more in people who have demonstrated that they are an asset to the encyclopedia? In fact, this is exactly what we do via the requests for adminship process. Wikipedia may be an oligarchy by virtue of being a meritocracy; people with better ideas tend to get their ideas implemented more often. And experienced editors tend to be better editors; they know what works and what doesn't, both in interacting with the community and in making edits to the encyclopedia itself.--Father Goose (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is probably an oligarchy. You're more likely to thrive if you dedicate more time to the project. You're also more likely to thrive if your ideas are popular, within the mainstream of what other established Wikipedians think is helpful. But like Father Goose said, that's the nature of a meritocracy. Randomran (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Introduction to XXXX" articles

My attempt to add a sentence about these, which are allowed per WP:MTAA, but seemingly disallowed by WP:CFORK, has been reverted. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Content_forking#.22Introduction_to_XXXX.22_articles. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR

Hi! Does WP:NOTDIR includes tour dates? I think yes, it's say: "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." But I want a confirmation --Smanu (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example where it is or where it could be used? I'm thinking it's ok when talking about a significantly notable tour, but not for a generic band tour as part of an article on the band. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And that line should be removed from WP:NOT#DIR. --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's The Fame Ball Tour by Lady Gaga ^^ --Smanu (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

WP:NOTOPINION says "content hosted in Wikipedia is not...

Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

The implication is that opinion pieces on subjects other than current affairs or politics is okey-dokey. Any objection to changing this to:

Opinion pieces, especially those on current affairs or politics. Although some topics, particularly those touching on current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Editors wishing to comment on current affairs may wish to participate in Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, which allows commentaries on its articles.

TJRC (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly made a change which reflects this, since it seems to be common sense that in an NPOV encyclopedia no opinion pieces are appropriate. That those opinion pieces are often WP:OR or WP:SYN makes them doubly inappropriate (the alternative is plagiarism, which is also... problematic). I changed it because I was discussing something on another page where it became clear that we don't explicitly ban reviews (in this case of software) which I think it's pretty obvious are an example of an opinion piece. SDY (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the change. I'm not sure that we need a blanket policy against the use of op-eds. I also don't want us justifying that policy on the basis that opinion pieces are "original research" or "original research by synthesis"--those are restrictions on editors, not sources. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am totally confused since I'm not talking about editors or sources, the section is about what Wikipedia is not (i.e. content). Are you saying it's OK for me to use Wikipedia to write software reviews? They are opinion pieces that are not about current events or politics. We have a blanket policy against Wikipedia articles being op-eds, the change would simply make that clearer instead of using language that is overly specific. SDY (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Self reverted. I misread the change. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I did almost exactly the same thing recently because of a goofy redirect, it's no problem. SDY (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing idiotic about recognizing ones mistakes. Chillum 14:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, SDY. I tend to be a little less WP:BOLD in the Wikipedia policy namespace. I added one clarifying edit. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a series of book or other reviews

Perhaps one thing should be added to this list - Wikipedia is not a series of book, film, television, music or arts reviews. I have seen talk pages on television or radio programmes which are cleary meant to be expression of the readers personal opinion of that programme, rather than a neutral description of facts about the programme. A similar problem exists with the articles on pop songs and pop groups. This is clearly inconsistent with NPOV, and makes one inclined to wonder whether we should include a section here that states that Wikipedia is not meant to list personal opinions or critiques of, for example, the latest film, but is meant to be an encyclopaedia listing objective facts about the topic of the article. Ergo, I consider that we should have a new sub-heading to the effect of "Wikipedia is not a series of book, television, film, music or other reviews". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If its on the talk pages and that's all it is, then those fail WP:TALK and can be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue you are refering to may be related to the sourcing of articles (WP:N), rather than a content (WP:NOT). If the source of the review is not reliable, e.g. it is just an expression of the readers personal opinion, then it is unlikely to be reliable. If an article is comprised soley of unreliable sources, then it fails WP:N. If this is not what you meant, have a look at the discussions starting at Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide for futher discussion of the issue of where article content is not encyclopedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is good to read, to see where a similar idea was proposed and failed. But I don't understand the rest of your comment. --Pixelface (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably falls under WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Plenty of other sites on the web to submit your review for you. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly will contain book and other media reviews as part of articles--there is no actual distinction from a good review (which doe much mroe than give personal opinion) and an decent article on a book or whatever. The problem is merely in giving the eds. own opinion in the article, which is already covered by WP:OR quite adequately. Finding sourced opinion in a review published in RS is the way to do it. DGG (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added. What people say on talk pages is already covered by the policy WP:NOTFORUM and the guideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. People are allowed to give their opinions on talk pages, but editors should be using the talkpage for ways to improve the article. If you see a talkpage turning "forum-y", you can add {{talkheader}} to the top of a talkpage (although I notice that template is currently up for deletion) or notify an admin. Many articles about books, films, television programs, albums, etc will cite reviews — so I don't see any benefit to this proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Genealogical entries

What is the problem with genealogical entries? I understand that a normal encyclopedia would want to use a fairly strict definition of "notable", but Wikipedia is larger than the normal encyclopedia. Any person who's been dead for more than say 200 years is probably going to have several hundred descendants and will be notable to them. What makes this person less notable than some small town with 50 residents? We allow an entry for any ghost town, why not for a "ghost" person? I recall that Jimmy Wales said I'd like to see a biography on Wikipedia for every person who every lived or words to that effect (yes, I know, I'm looking for a link to this quote). Even if he didn't say it, I'm all for allowing a biography for every person who has been dead for more than some threshold; whether that threshold is 50 or 200 years is a separate question. Sanpitch (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is interested in Catscratch enough to enumerate the episodes. Others are interested in the hubcap capital of the world. Isn't Wikipedia just a collection of pages about things that enough people are interested in? I'm interested in genealogy; I'd like to keep the page I made about Abraham Busset. It isn't the most well-written page, but at least I have a few sources and I know that it will be of interest to some small number of people. I don't know for sure if that is 20 or 200 people in the next year. Talk to me folks! What if I edit the parent page to allow genealogical biographies for people who have been dead for more than 50 years? Should there be other restrictions? Sanpitch (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We cannot, in practice, have an article on everyone in the world, even everyone verifiable in the world. That would increase our article count by a factor of a hundred, if not a thousand. On the same principle, we cannot have articles on everyone verifiable in the last dozen generations, unless they've done something notable. (We probably should have fewer articles on younger sons of British nobility and the First Families of Virginia; in general, however, they have held public office, even if the offices were nepotistic sinecures. Deletions may be in order.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We might guess that there are between 100 million and a billion [books, pamphlets, etc...] on topics for which Wikipedia articles might be made; but I do not see anyone at Wikipedia worrying about running out of space for articles. Moore's Law (or rather Kryder's Law) indicates that in ten years we can have disks with 1000 times the capacity of current drives but for the same cost. The number of Wikipedia contributors seems to be growing at a similar exponential pace. That said, I don't think allowing well-sourced biographical articles on any person dead for more than 50 or 100 years would dramatically increase the article count of articles: The genealogy wiki Wikitree[3] has 50,000, while genealogy.wikia.com[4] has 28,000. I guess allowing genealogical articles would increase Wikipedia's article count by a maximum of a percent a year. And why not? The new Wikipedia contributors need something to write about, why not an ancestor who would be of interest to a distant living relative? Wikipedia is fundamentally different than any other encyclopedia; we already have articles on the topics of a normal encyclopedia as well as many esoteric topics as I mentioned above. The fundamental question remains, why not allow articles on any person who has been dead for more than 50 years? I'm not proposing that we relax Wikipedia's guidelines for well-sourced articles, rather I believe that well-written genealogical entries should be allowed. Sanpitch (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the Wikipedia:Village Pump is the right place for a discussion of this type. I'll make an entry there if I don't see any more traffic here. Sanpitch (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortcuts to WP:NOT

In response to IRP, I am providing a reason why I reverted the addition of the new shortcut to WP:NOT earlier today. To be honest, if I had not thought IRP was in earnest, I would have assumed that the shortcut WP:! was a joke, or a pretentious fad, such as O(+>. If someone can explain why this shortcut would be useful, maybe I can understand why it might be a good idea, otherwise I am opposed to random stuff being plastered onto Wikipedia policies. I am also of the view that the shortcut page should be deleted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I added WP:! to the shortcut box because the purpose of the {{shortcut}} template is to list all of the shortcuts to a page (excluding mainspace pages). The user who created the page stated the reason for doing so using the edit summary. -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the function of that template is to list shortcuts. I doubt that its purpose is to exhaustively list shortcuts to policy pages. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Its purpose is definitely not to list all shortcuts: some pages have a dozen or more shortcuts, many of which are only minimally useful. More than three shortcuts in a shortcut box starts getting messy. WP:! in particular is likely to be a head-scratcher to non-programmers, so I'd rather not promote its use.--Father Goose (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No doubt it is a reference to !#Computers, and not an emoticon. I don't have a problem leaving the redirect, but I can understand the point of removing the visible anchor. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)About a year or more ago, we audited the visible spreadsheets to this page; we didn't remove the actual redirect pages, just culled down the number that appear in the shortcut box as to make sure only those versions are encouraged. WP:! is fine as a redirect but it's too high-level (only programmers will get it) to be a commonly-listed shortcut. Shortcut boxes don't have to list all the shortcuts that a page may have, only the ones that should be encouraged. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:! is the shortest way here, so I don't understand why it would be a problem to have it listed as a shortcut. By the way, I also added WT:! to this talk page. Should I remove it? -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem to have WP:! or WT:! redirecting here; what we don't need to have is to explicitly list them because for the average WP editor, the connection between "!" and "not" is not obvious, and we don't want WP:! to become overly common. Great if you and others know it, but for simplicity, WP:NOT is easier to remember for most. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone say who or explain why an exclamation mark was chosen as a shortcut? Or is this an idea that was made up one day? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In many computer programming languages, the ! is the unary logical NOT operator; also sometimes used with the equals sign (!=) to be the "not equals" comparison operator. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would personally be in favor of removing the WP:! shortcut. The exclamation point means "not" pretty much only to programmers. While I recognize that a computer-based encyclopedia has a large number of programmer editors, the best-known use of the exclamation point is, well, exclamation: to provide emphasis or an indicium of importance. We shouldn't use it in a way that's contrary to the most common usage. That being said, I don't feel all that strongly about this, and won't be particularly upset if it remains; but it seems like a bit of ugliness to me. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The symbol ! means "not" not to just programmers, but anyone involved in certain formal logics. Chillum 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The only time I have used the "!" symbol other than to express exclaimation is when I have written an instruction for a Unix computer program. That was 10-years ago, and that program was probably 10-years out of date then. My understanding is that most programmers, and those using formal logics, now write such instructions in natural language form, rather than reverting to machine code. I don't think we want to revert to using machine code that has almost died out. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed WP:NOTDIR change

Father Goose has proposed a significant change to the policy in this area. I have temporarily reverted it for discussion. His proposed new text for the first point under this reads as follows:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Any list on Wikipedia should augment our coverage of encyclopedic topic. Lists should have a unifying theme and all entries in a list should have a close relation to that theme. (See Stand alone lists - Appropriate topics and Lists - List content for clarification.) Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. Lists of quotations belong on our sister project Wikiquote. Lists of miscellaneous information should be reorganized as prose.

The present text reads:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)

This seems to represent a very significant change to wikipedia policy regarding lists, so I would like to throw it open for community discussion.

My personal opinion is that this makes the range of potentially acceptable lists to large. By only requiring that they have a 'unifying theme', we open the door to people making lists of things connected by trivial things. For example, this seems to endorse the existence of things like 'things that or red' or 'things that make people happy' or 'puppy colorations'. I further disagree with removing lists of aphorisms from the list of explicitly mentioned unacceptable exampled. I don't think that Wikipedia should become a collection of famous sayings. Nor should Wikipedia generally included lists of perons, except where "their entries are famous" as described in the current text. Locke9k (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need stronger wording on lists, not weaker wording. Chillum 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is WP:NOT, the phrasing needs to be in the negative, first and foremost. It's fine to identify what is appropriate after excluding specific types of lists. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is a veiled attempt to provide an exemption for WP:NOT#PLOT for lists of characters or episodes, then this change does not have my support. Every list should provide some evidence of notability for its subject matter, as lists without are at best listcruft or at worst just collections of random stuff, neither of which provide any encyclopedic coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Background info: Locke9k didn't mention why Father Goose made these changes. This issue is a spillover from an on-going AfD debate on List of Common Misconceptions. It's already been discussed at length there. --Armchair info guy (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't really feel that was relevant and so I didn't think to mention it. From my perspective that debate centered around the specifics of that article while this must be a larger discussion about which policy is better for Wikipedia. There was not really extended debate on that page of the specific policy change that Father Goose made on this page. For my own part, I was avoiding a larger policy debate there as I didn't feel it was the place. Locke9k (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the larger discussion should take place here. But folks like Gavin Collins needed the background info. And of course, as Goose has stated over there, the two discussions are related. --Armchair info guy (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree the background is useful. But I am wary of the risk of inadvertently giving undue weight to the effect of this policy on this one article because there is presently a debate over it. I just want to make sure that we more broadly consider how the proposed change would affect Wikipedia as a whole.Locke9k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The specific instance that brought this up shouldn't really matter. If the change were a good one but for bad reasons it'd still be good. In this case, though, the change would definitely be bad overall. The current wording is more faithful to the longstanding consensus that indiscriminate lists are not good ideas.DreamGuy (talk)

Though I am glad to now look at what prompted it... looks like another example of mob voting to try to overrule/ignore/misrepresent very clear policies, so I guess it's not surprising one of them would try to change a policy that proves them wrong instead of learning the right way to do things. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a fairly common theme here DreamGuy. Chillum 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so it is to be expected that it will have a demotic quality. If you prefer a more exclusive approach then you should try a project such as Scholarpedia which deliberately minimises the contribution of the hoi polloi. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Locke9k (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you prefer a less encyclopedic approach you should try a project such as Urban Dictionary which deliberately minimizes any pretense to caring if the edits are good or not. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Father Goose's rewording as it better reflects the reality of what the majority of editors and readers want Wikipedia to be. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is built by volunteers with wide range of interests and so long as the information is verifiable, that should be good enough. The vocal minority who don't like lists can work on articles they are interested in without diminishing the coverage of items that are relevant for their fellow editors and readers. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It was right to revert that change as it was a major shift in interpretation. Changing this page in such a radical way should only be done after a consensus has been reached and there hasn't even been significant discussion of this. If anything, additional wording should be added to strengthen or augment the current wording, but removing it completely would be a fundamental reinterpretation of the way Wikipedia works and that shouldn't be done by a single bold editor. ThemFromSpace 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like FG's wording. The original paragraph was not particularly clear, and the example potentially misleading. "Famous" is not a criterion for inclusion of anything in WP, our bar is much, much lower. Policy , xspecially a policy as widely used as this, should be stated as simply as possible; I do not consider it a significant change in the way WP works--I think the net effect is simply to add clarity. What would be the drastic change? What would be permitted that is not now permitted? (aside from possibly this one article) DGG (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article in dispute right now (List of_common_misconceptions) would be given a "free pass" by the section as rewritten. That was not my intent. Those arguing for its retention would still have to establish a) that it augments our coverage of an encyclopedic topic; and b) that it has a "unifying theme" and that its entries had a close relation to that theme. I doubt anyone could justify frivolous lists ("things that make people happy") under these criteria.

My intent was to turn this jumbled (and, in some spots, outright wrong) portion of policy into a clear expression of the principles we have, to date, adopted toward lists. I won't claim to have done a perfect job, but it was clear to me that the section was in bad need of attention, so I got to work on it. If anyone wants to help me continue its improvement, I would appreciate it very much. (One thing I see I overlooked was the need for lists to be narrow enough in scope to be finite and maintainable. Not that the original wording managed to explain any of this.)

Now I'll get to the specifics of what I felt was wrong with the old wording.

• "No quotations, aphorisms, or persons" - quotations is already handled by the mention of Wikiquote. "No aphorisms" is not clearly true; for instance, List of Latin phrases has been pretty resoundingly "kept" in two prior AfDs; while some would argue "people ignoring rules during AfDs is not the basis for policy", the fact that a rule is so resoundingly ignored suggests it has no consensus and therefore no claim to being policy in the first place. Finally, we have thousands of lists of persons, both real and fictional. It is much, much better to specify general principles that lists must follow (content and organization) than to randomly name a few examples that aren't even good examples.
• DGG noted the problem with "fame" as a criterion. I'm not sure what point is trying to be made with the whole "Nixon's Enemies List" sentence.
• "reference tables and tabular information for quick reference" - redundantly redundant, and what does that explain anyway?

Anyway, I hope we can fix this thing up once everyone gets past the distrust of my motives and evaluates the changes on their own merits.--Father Goose (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)