Jump to content

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TOertel (talk | contribs)
0 edits
mNo edit summary
 
m →See also: update to accurate link wording
Line 1: Line 1:
{{policy2 | [[WP:NOT]]<br>[[WP:WIN]]<br>[[WP:WWIN]]}}
Wikipedia is an '''encyclopedia.''' Here is a list of '''Things That Encyclopedia Articles Are Not:'''
{{policy in a nutshell | Wikipedia is first and foremost an online [[encyclopedia]] and, ''as a means to that end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community | an online community]] of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not.}}
''Note: While this page is intended to record policies that are firmly established, it continues to evolve. If you wish to quote it in a discussion, please be sure to check the latest version.''
{{policylist}}


== What Wikipedia is not ==


=== Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia ===


[[m:Wiki is not paper | Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]]. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.
# Discussion forums, or Everything2 or H2G2 nodes. Please try to stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles). Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be--but because it tolerates that, that's what it has become). But you can chat with folks on their own pages, and you can resolve article problems on the relevant <nowiki>/Talk</nowiki> pages.


There is a kind of ''feasible limit'' for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our [[dialup]] readers and readability considerations for everybody (see [[Wikipedia:Article size]]). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.
# Dictionary definitions of common English words that, in the sense in question, name no subject that any respectable encyclopedist would ever think of making the topic of an encyclopedia article. [[Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. (But an article can and should always ''begin with'' a [[fallacies of definition|good]] [[definition]] or a clear description of the topic, as in the case of biographies.)


This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable.
# Lists of such definitions. (But an article can certainly consist of a pointer to other pages, where a word is too general to have any one topic associated with it; see [[freedom]] and [[Columbus]] for examples.)


=== Wikipedia is not a dictionary ===
# A usage guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how idioms, etc., are used. (But, of course, it's often very, very important ''in the context of an encyclopedia article'' to say just how a word is used. E.g., the article on [[freedom]] will, if doesn't already, have a long discussion about this.)


[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary | Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
# By a simple extension of the latter, a hacker/computer usage guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a [[hacker]]; we're writing an encyclopedia. (But see [[jargon file]]; also, articles, even extremely in-depth articles, on hacker culture are very welcome, ''and'' insofar as guides to some particularly essential piece of hacker slang is necessary to understand those articles, of course articles on that slang would be great to have.)


# '''Dictionary definitions.''' Because Wikipedia is not a [[dictionary]], please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually ''begin with'' a [[fallacies of definition | good]] [[definition]]; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual [[List of numbers | numbers]].
# Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. (But an article can of course ''report objectively'' on what advocates ''say,'' as long as this is done from the [[neutral point of view]]. Go to Usenet if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views--and good luck.)
# '''Lists of such definitions.''' There are, however, [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation | disambiguation pages]] consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes [[List_of_glossaries | glossary pages]] for various specialized fields.
# A '''usage guide''' or '''slang and idiom guide.''' Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a [[Cockney]] chimney-sweep. However, it may be important ''in the context of an encyclopedia article'' to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in [[nation]] or [[freedom]]. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.


For a wiki that ''is'' a dictionary, visit our sister project [[wikt:Main Page | Wiktionary]].
# Personal essays, that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. We're reporting on what is in the canon of human knowledge; unless you're unusual, your idiosyncratic opinions aren't part of this canon. (But you can put your essays in [[Wikipedia commentary]].)


=== Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought ===
# Mere lists of quotations and aphorisms. (But some such lists might be very nice to have to supplement encyclopedia articles, sure.)


Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
# Mere collections of external links. (But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article.)


# '''Primary (original) research''' such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. ''See'' [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources | citing]] book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability | verifiable]] and is not merely the editor's [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view | opinion]].
# ''Mere'' collections of internal links. (But of course, there's nothing wrong with pointer pages when a word is too general for any one topic to be associated with it; and of course, it's very important to make collections of relevant internal links, as this conveys useful information and helps navigation.)
# '''Original inventions.''' If you invent the word ''[[frindle]]'' or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day | Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day]]!
# '''Critical reviews.''' Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art ''is'' welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction | Writing guide: check your fiction]].
# '''Personal essays''' or '''Blogs''' that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at [[meta: | Meta]]. There is a Wikipedia [[Fork (software) | fork]] at [[Wikinfo]] that encourages personal opinions in articles.
# '''Opinions on [[current affairs]]''' is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb [[soapbox]]es" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for [[current affairs]] in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
# '''Discussion forums'''. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant [[Wikipedia:Talk page | talk pages]], but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage [[wikireason:wikireason:related projects | projects]] that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.


For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see [[Everything2]].


=== Wikipedia is not a soapbox ===


Wikipedia is not a [[soapbox]] or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
We should continue to add to this list as we discover interesting new ways of not writing encyclopedia articles. :-)


# '''[[Propaganda]] or [[advocacy]]''' of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively ''about'' such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view | neutral point of view]]. You might wish to go to [[Usenet]] or start a [[blog]] if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use [[Wikinfo]] which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
# '''Self-promotion.''' You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]], [[Wikipedia:Vanity]], and [[Wikipedia:Notability]].
# '''Advertising.''' Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view | objective and unbiased style]]. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see [[finishing school]] for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also [[WP:CORP]] for a proposal on corporate notability.

=== Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files ===

Wikipedia is neither a [[Mirror (computing)|mirror]] nor a [[repository]] of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the [[GNU FDL]]. <ref>Note that the English Wikipedia incorporates many images and some text which are considered "fair use" into its GFDLed articles. (Other language Wikipedias often ''do not''.) See also [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]].</ref> Wikipedia articles are not:

# Mere '''collections of external links''' or '''Internet directories.''' There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[m:When should I link externally]] for some guidelines.
# Mere '''collections of internal links,''' except for [[wikipedia:disambiguation | disambiguation]] pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for [[wikipedia:list | structured lists]] to assist with the organisation of articles.
# Mere '''collections of [[public domain]] or other source material''' such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into [[Wikisource]]. There's nothing wrong with using [[public domain resources]] such as [[1911 Encyclopædia Britannica]] to add content to an article. See also [[Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources]].
# '''Collections of photographs or media files''' with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to '''[[Wikimedia Commons]]'''. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to [[Wikipedia:Images with missing articles]] or [[Wikipedia:Public domain image resources]].
<!--

=== Wikipedia is not a song lyrics database ===

Copyrighted song lyrics are not allowed to be printed in whole in any Wikipedia article. Song lyrics that are in [[public domain]] are allowed, but you have to provide additional information about the song, not only the songwriter, performer, album name and year of recording, but also the background, history or ([[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view | unbiased]]) analysis of the [[music]] and content of the song.

-->

=== Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site ===

You may not host your own [[website]], [[blog]], or [[wiki]] at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

# '''User pages.''' [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians | Wikipedians]] have their own [[Wikipedia:User page | user pages]], but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or [[blog]], please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages ''should not'' be [[social networking]], but rather providing a foundation for effective [[collaboration]].
# '''[[File storage]] areas.''' Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the [[Wikimedia Commons]], where they can be linked from Wikipedia.

If you are interested in using the [[wiki]] technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many [[List_of_wiki_farms | sites that provide wiki hosting]] (free or for money). You can also [http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/ install [[wiki]] software on your server]. See the ''[[Wikibooks:Wiki Science | Wiki Science]]'' wikibook for information on doing this.

=== Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ===

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

# '''Lists of [[FAQ | Frequently Asked Questions]].''' Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
# '''Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics''' such as quotations, [[aphorism]]s, 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.
# '''Travel guides.''' An article on [[Paris]] should mention landmarks such as the [[Eiffel Tower]] and the [[Louvre]], but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a ''café au lait'' on the [[Champs-Élysées]]. Such details are, however, very welcome at [[Wikitravel]], but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
# '''Memorials.''' Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
# '''News reports.''' Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project [[Wikinews]] does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many ''encyclopedia articles'' on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See [[current events]] for examples.
# '''Genealogical entries,''' or '''phonebook entries.''' Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in [[Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered]]). See [[m:Wikipeople]] for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. '''Wikipedia is not the [[white pages]]'''.
# '''[[Directory | Directories]], directory entries, TV/Radio Guide''' or a '''resource for conducting business.''' For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. '''Wikipedia is not the [[yellow pages]]'''.
# '''Instruction manuals''' - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ([[Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer | legal]], [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer | medical]], or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as [[Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia]]. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at [http://wikihow.com Wikihow] or our sister project [[Wikibooks]].
# '''Internet guides''' - Wikipedia articles should not exist '''only''' to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an ''encyclopedic manner'', offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See [[current events]] for examples.
# '''Textbooks and annotated texts''' - these belong on our sister project, [[Wikibooks]].

=== Wikipedia is not a [[crystal ball]] ===

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. In particular:

# Individual '''scheduled or expected future events''' should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include [[United States presidential election, 2008|2008 U.S. presidential election]], and [[2012 Summer Olympics]]. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.
# Similarly, individual items from a '''predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names,''' preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. [[Lists of tropical cyclone names]] is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about '''words formed on a predictable numeric system''' (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by [[IUPAC]], prior to isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic.
# Articles that present '''extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"''' are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles ''about'' notable ''artistic works, essays, or credible research'' that embody predictions. An article on ''[[Star Trek]]'' is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

For a wiki that does allow discussion of "future history", visit [[wikicities:c:future:Main Page | Wikicities Future]].

It ''is'' appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is ''not'' appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.

=== Wikipedia is not censored ===

[[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive]]. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific [[social norms|social]] or [[religion|religious]] norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a [[shock site]]) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about [[pornography]]) and provided they do not violate any of our existing [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines|policies]] (especially [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]), nor the law of the [[U.S. state]] of [[Florida]], where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

See also: [[Wikipedia:Profanity]], [[Censorship]].

== What the Wikipedia community is not ==

=== Wikipedia is not a battleground ===

Every user is expected to interact with others [[Wikipedia:Civility | civilly]], calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks | insult]], harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.

When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution | dispute resolution]]. There are always users willing to [[WP:RFM | mediate]] and [[WP:RFAr | arbitrate]] disputes between others.

Also, do not create or modify articles [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point | just to prove a point]]. Do not use Wikipedia to make [[Wikipedia:No legal threats | legal]] or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems <ref>If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate [[meta:Mailing_list | mailing list]], contact the [http://wikimediafoundation.org Wikimedia Foundation], or in cases of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights | copyright]] violations notify us at [[Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation]].
</ref>. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a [[Wikipedia:Banning policy | ban]].

=== Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy ===

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated [[free speech]]. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of [[anarchism | anarchistic]] communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. See also [[meta:Power structure]].

For an encyclopedia that is indeed an experiment in anarchy, visit [http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page Anarchopedia].

=== Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy ===

Wikipedia is [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018735.html not an experiment in democracy] or any other [[political system]]. Its primary method of finding [[wikipedia:Consensus | consensus]] is discussion, not [[m:don't vote on everything | voting]]. In difficult cases, [[Wikipedia:Straw polls | straw polls]] may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. For an experiment in [[democracy]], visit [[wikicities:c:democracy:Main Page | WikiDemocracy]].

=== Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making ===

Wikipedia is not a [[moot court]], and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and
[[m:Instruction creep|instruction creep]] should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|not the letter]], of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through [[Wikipedia:Consensus | consensual]] discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

== When you wonder what to do ==

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading '''''in an encyclopedia'''''. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]] is not official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and hasn't been considered encyclopedic in the past.

When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:
* Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
* Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
* Nominating the page for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | deletion]] if it meets grounds for such action under the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy | Deletion policy]] page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted you have to regularly follow discussions there.
* Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the [[Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not | Talk]] page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

== What your user page is not ==
:''Main article: [[WP:USER]]''

Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a [[blog]]. More importantly, your user page is '''not yours'''. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see [[Wikipedia:User page |User page help]].

== Notes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

== Similar official policies on other sister projects ==

* [[Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks]]
* [[Wikinews:Wikinews:What Wikinews is not]]
* [[Wikisource:Wikisource:What is Wikisource?]]
* [[Wiktionary:Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not]]
* [[Wikiquote:Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not]]
== See also ==
{{Spoken Wikipedia | What Wikipedia is not.ogg | April 21, 2005}}

* What Wikipedia is:
** [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]]
** [[Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great]]
** [[Wikipedia:About]]
** [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers]]
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (outtakes)]]
* [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]
* [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]]
* [[Wikipedia:Google test]]
* [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:What the GFDL is not]]
* [[Wikipedia:Importance]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject no ads]], in regards to Wikipedia not being a propaganda machine

[[Category:Wikipedia proportion and emphasis | What Wikipedia is not]]

<!-- interwiki -->

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:ويكيبيديا ليست]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Какво не е Уикипедия]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Allò que la Viquipèdia no és]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Co Wikipedie není]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Hvad Wikipedia ikke er]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist]]
[[et:Vikipeedia:Mida Vikipeedia ei ole]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια:Τι δεν είναι η Βικιπαίδεια]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Lo que Wikipedia no es]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Zer ez den wikipedia]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:ویکی‌پدیا چه چیزی نیست]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Ce que Wikipédia n'est pas]]
[[ko:위키백과:위키백과에 대한 오해]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Što ne spada u Wikipediju]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:מה ויקיפדיה איננה]]
[[csb:Wiki:Czim Wikipedijô nie je]]
[[lv:Wikipedia:Kas Vikipēdija nav]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:Wat Wikipedia net ass]]
[[li:Wikipedia:Wat is Wikipedia neet]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Mi nem való a Wikipédiába?]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Wikipedia bukanlah]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Wat Wikipedia niet is]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:ウィキペディアは何でないか]]
[[ka:დახმარება:რა არ არის ვიკიპედია]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Hva Wikipedia ikke er]]
[[nds:Wikipedia:Wat Wikipedia is un wat se nich is]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Czym Wikipedia nie jest]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:O que a Wikipédia não é]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Ce nu este Wikipedia]]
[[ru:Википедия:Чем не является Википедия]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Čo Wikipédia nie je]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Kaj Wikipedija ni]]
[[sr:Википедија:Шта Википедија није]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Mikä Wikipedia ei ole]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Vad Wikipedia inte är]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:อะไรที่ไม่ใช่วิกิพีเดีย]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Những gì không phải là Wikipedia]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Vikipedi ne değildir]]
[[uk:Вікіпедія:Чим не є Вікіпедія]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:不适合维基百科的文章]]

Revision as of 04:34, 8 July 2006

Note: While this page is intended to record policies that are firmly established, it continues to evolve. If you wish to quote it in a discussion, please be sure to check the latest version.

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dialup readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.

This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
  2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
  3. A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
  2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
  3. Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.
  4. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
  5. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs 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 so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
  6. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.

For a wiki-like site that will publish your original thoughts, see Everything2.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
  2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. [1] Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines.
  2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.
  3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources.
  4. Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site

You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

  1. User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
  2. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.

If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as 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.
  3. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
  4. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
  5. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
  6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. Wikipedia is not the white pages.
  7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.
  8. Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
  9. Internet guides - Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
  10. Textbooks and annotated texts - these belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. In particular:

  1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.
  2. Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, prior to isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic.
  3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

For a wiki that does allow discussion of "future history", visit Wikicities Future.

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.

Wikipedia is not censored

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

See also: Wikipedia:Profanity, Censorship.

What the Wikipedia community is not

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.

When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems [2]. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. See also meta:Power structure.

For an encyclopedia that is indeed an experiment in anarchy, visit Anarchopedia.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. For an experiment in democracy, visit WikiDemocracy.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

When you wonder what to do

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents is not official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and hasn't been considered encyclopedic in the past.

When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:

  • Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
  • Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
  • Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted you have to regularly follow discussions there.
  • Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the Talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

What your user page is not

Main article: WP:USER

Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. For the full details, see User page help.

Notes

  1. ^ Note that the English Wikipedia incorporates many images and some text which are considered "fair use" into its GFDLed articles. (Other language Wikipedias often do not.) See also Wikipedia:Copyrights.
  2. ^ If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations notify us at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.

Similar official policies on other sister projects

See also

Listen to this page
(2 parts, 18 minutes)
  2. Part 2
Spoken Wikipedia icon
These audio files were created from a revision of this page dated
Error: no date provided
, and do not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help · More spoken articles)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=62677163"