Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Archives

• Archive 1
• Unencyclopedic (formerly at wikipedia:encyclopedic)

Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia

How do you think about what I wrote as rule 6 under "What Wikipedia is not"? --> "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia focusing only on one specific culture or country. Therefore Wikipedia is neither an American, European, Asian or African encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia written in the English language. Wikipedia does not focus on American English. Therefore the British English can be used everywhere and should not be limited for articles relevant to the British culture; the same applies to other popular kinds of English, too." - Optim 21:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure I read something about British vs. American spelling somewhere else; Manual of Style, maybe? Anyway, it's covered elsewhere. Also, this might be misleading, causing people to think that it's OK to mix-and-match British and American spelling. Having both in one article is a pet peeve of mine. Meelar 21:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No it's not good to mix American and British spelling in the same article. I will update the wording to reflect that. Thanks for your comments! Optim 21:35, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I reverted an edit on the Glasgow Underground when someone had changed "anticlockwise" to "counterclockwise"... as far as I know that's not Glaswegian! -- Arwel 00:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, is it also a rule that: "American English can be used everywhere and can be used even for articles relevant to the British culture"?. Bevo 21:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point! Personally I would replace the Americanisms with British English if the article is about British culture. However I wouldn't say that people who introduce Americanisms in British culture-related articles do something wrong. But there is already some policy on this. Maybe we should update the wording of the "new rule" to make it more clear? Feel free to change the wording if you like. But this is just a detail. The "rule" is just a reminder that Wikipedia is international. Optim 21:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That rascal Noah Webster seems to be the one behind this mess! "Divided we are, if this be our common language" -Yoda... Have we heard from the Aussies yet? Bevo 22:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This has been fought over dozens of times since I've been here; the main Manual of Style generally represents the current armed truce :-) though not in maximal detail. Use of dialect most closely connected to the subject seems to keep the peace better than the alternatives; it's an interesting game to see how well one can write in a dialect other than one's own - I can remember some of the differences, but usually a native Brit will catch my oversights. Without an article being explicitly marked as to its original dialect, it is basically impossible to tell which dialect it was created in, and sometimes difficult for nonexperts to distinguish typos from dialectical usages, so it doesn't work to insist that the dialect of the first draft be preserved forever. I suppose someone should do an updated and dedicated MoS entry so that all this is clearer, and people don't get paranoid that WP is being secretly twisted into Americopedia, Britopedia, etc. (I'm doing my part! bought a book solely for the purpose of adding more Royal Navy material) Stan 22:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the international focus on "what wikipedia is not", but I don't think it should mention spelling, which is already excruciatingly documented in the Manual of Style. FWIW, the current compromise is that the form of English used by the primary (usually original) author of the article should be adhered to: that is, you should not change British to American English or vice-versa, with the exception that articles on a specific culture should use that culture's spelling. That is, United States House of Representatives should be written in US English, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be written in UK English. We also have a bias against anything other than US and UK English, as they are the two primary internationally-recognized dialects, and have a further bias against particular colloquialisms intelligible only within one region of the world. In any case, I think that level of detail belongs in the manual of style, where it currently is. --Delirium 23:28, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed accordingly, though feel free to argue if you disagree with my changes. Another reason for taking it out: the en: Wikipedia is English-centric, and biased towards that viewpoint, and does not allow all opinions on word-usage equal weight. For example, we use English place-names, not local place-names. --Delirium 23:32, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

The current wording "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia. While the English-language Wikipedia is, of course, written in the English language, it is to be international in its focus and content." seems OK to me and I agree with this version. I agree that the spelling issue is better to be discussed in the Manual of Style page. Regarding the place names, we are biased in support of English language but not English culture (culture of people of Anglo-Saxonian origin, such as many or most of the USA/UK/Canada/Australia/New-Zealand/etc residents. So, we try to write the people's names and place names in such a way it will be easy for English-speaking people read and understand our articles (so instead of writing Georgios Papandreou which is the Greek spelling, we choose George Papandreou, and instead of the Greek Kostas Karamanlis we write the more English-like Costas Caramanlis since, as far as I know, K seems foreign to English speakers), no matter whether these people live in USA, UK, Greece, Egypt or India. At least, this is how I perceive it. Optim 23:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Err, I've always written Karamanlis with a K and I'm a native UK English speaker, and I've got nothing against Georgios, either... -- Arwel 00:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have asked this question on the IRC channel and other people told me that K is not good because English speakers think it sounds foreign. So I thought that the general English population disliked K and non-anglicised names. ***personally*** I would prefer to have Kostas Karamanlis and Georgios Papandreou and Kostas Simitis instead of Costas Caramanlis and George Papandreou and Costas Simitis. However, I had the idea that the general opinion and consencus was to use anglicised names. If there are English speakers who have no problem with K and non-anglisised names, maybe we should discuss this somewhere and see whether we should update this policy. Personally I would vote to keep names as they are used in their native country. Optim 01:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The usage of K and C is about evenly split--that is, the C can't really count as anglicized, FWIW. Aside from that, I would support the rule in its current wording. Meelar 01:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the entire statement is a complete waste. What are you trying to accomplish with it? If it's spelling, then that's been already taken care of by the MoS. Let people write about whatever subject they're interested in and have a good knowledge of. Don't tell them they can't just edit articles related to their culture - they know their culture best and should do so. Are you afraid that wikipedia will turn into a "national encyclopedia"? How so? --Jiang 06:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just to emphasise and protect the international nature of the project and prevent americanisation due to the American majority of contributors. I would also suggest that small cultures need more protection (for example, we can delete a stupid stub on American or European culture because somebody else will certainly come to write a good article sometime, but we may prefer to accept a stupid stub on Mongolian or Tibetan culture because the probability of someone writing again an article on that topic is much lower). This rule also protects the American culture because, if (for example) Chinese people become the majority in the future, they will be unable to monopolise the content and focus of Wikipedia. So this rule protects all and is good for everyone. I am afraid that cultures with lots of contributors may tend to monopolise Wikipedia and oppress or discriminate against small cultures. The rule seeks to prevent that. The spelling is part of the cultural protection. For example, we shouldn't consider American English as "international English" since British English is the spelling used in most schools all over the world and Americanisms are popular only because of Holywood, the Internet, etc. British English seems also more "academic" to me. Anyway, the rule as it is now is only about the culture in general and does not refer to spelling. Optim 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia: Is this meant to support removal of articles typically found in national encyclopedias, e.g. the many Rambot entries on US towns? If it's just a spelling question, we should formulate it differently. -- User:Docu

No. We should not remove information. The rule simply states that a stub on an American town has the same importance as a stub on an Mongolian or Indonesian town. An American acress has the same importance as a Greek acrress. And it is ok to have an article on an Albanian bank if we are to have articles on American or German banks, etc. Optim 06:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it should rather read Wikipedia is not one nation's national encyclopedia, as national encyclopedia's are more likely to include that level of detail. -- User:Docu

No problem. You can change it in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Optim 06:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FYI the current rule (edited by another user) is: "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia. While the English-language Wikipedia is, of course, written in the English language, it is to be international in its focus and content." and I agree with this version since the spelling issue is better to be addressed on the MoS page. Optim 06:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

American English is popular with our handful :-) of American readers; the use of British English everywhere would cause more snickering and giggling than anything else. But I've never seen any evidence of "oppression" or "discrimination" against "small cultures", on the contrary, there are lots of people creating articles on small towns in Mozambique and the like. Was there some incident that brought this on? The concern seems really unmotivated, especially considering that my fingers are right now sore from typing in hundreds of Greek names... I remember whole pages describing the evils of X-centric encyclopedizing, but can't seem to find them now. Stan 06:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stan, the presence of "fair use" images in Wikipedia is an example of americanopaedisation. I have heard that in UK there is some problem with that. Optim 07:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Heh, that's a complicated issue, as you can tell from mailing list discussion. One could even argue that the whole "fair use" concept is a byproduct of American litigiousness, and that it's really a non-issue elsewhere in the world. Note that the concerns are coming from amateurs, not legal professionals. Stan 15:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it's to protect against Americanization, then be specific. I think this is more of an issue of what wikipedia is rather than what it is not. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. To say that it is not a "national encyclopedia" will lead people to draw the conclusion that they are being restricted from writing on country-specific articles or subjects that are not internationally known, though famous locally. --Jiang 07:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to change the wording of the rule or suggest a new wording. I am thinking of the addition of "Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia" after the "Wikipedia is not a national encyclopaedia" Do you think it will be sufficient? Optim 07:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This whole hoo-ha seems like nothing more than an attempt to start an anti-American spelling revert war. RickK 21:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From RickK's talk page: I just feel the need for some reason to protect the non-American cultures. For example, Fair Use images were/are allowed in Wikipedia, but this (fair use) is primarily an American concept, if I am not mistaken (IANAL). English Wikipedia means a Wikipedia version written in English, not following the American law in particular. I wouldn't have a problem to see Fair Use images in an American Wikipedia (and I would contribute there). The English Wikipedia community has so many Americans that it seems to forget the existence of British, Australian, and other speakers of English, including the non-native ones. So many times I just feel the need to protect the international spirit of our project :) Optim 23:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:American twenty dollar bill show your anti-American agenda. RickK 04:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

from that talk page: No. Next time I may make discussions against Russia. Will you call me Anti-Russian? I am not Anti-anything. I just promote tolerance, equality, internationalism, justice and cooperation. Optim 04:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) and By discussing this page move I think I can help the Latin American countries and Canada to protect their culture and identity. I think that a Peruvian feels American, so they wouldn't like to let USA monopolise the American adjective. Actually I don't care so much about this issue, but I am afraid it is not NPOV to use the American adjective in this way, at least in article titles. However, if everybody thinks it's ok then I don't have strong desire to continue the discussion. Optim 04:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) and I am not anti-American, really. I do not consider it an insult when someone prefers to use Istanbul instead of Constantinople. It belongs to Turkey now, so they can call it as they like, but some Greeks still consider Istanbul as insulting. For this reason somebody could call me Anti-Greek, but I am not. I just want to correct some things. I have got the feeling that the United States citizen thinks the whole American continent belongs to him/her... I Hope I am wrong Optim 04:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and: An anti-American is a person who discriminates against USA. I don't do that. I am willing to support USA whenever somebody discriminates against it. If I discriminate against something, then I discriminate against discrimination. Optim 04:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since when have we had a "national encyclopedia"? The fact that it's all encompanssing is already implied. I think the statement says close to nothing useful. --Jiang 07:45, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see that "national encyclopedia" clause removed. It is not even written in the spirit of a "is not ..." entry. The explanatory text is all "Wikipedia is ..." this or that, and so having it in the "is not..." section waters down the intent of the entire section. Bevo 08:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Number article exceptions

Current practice is that articles about numbers can include both loosely defined lists (everything in which that number has some significance) and dictionary definitions. This practice is currently being voted on at Talk:List of numbers/Deletion#Vote on inclusion, and right now there's a majority in support of it, so I have changed this policy to reflect current practice. I don't like it, but the only alternative is to get rid of this stuff rather than be in violation of policy.—Eloquence 19:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as an exception at all. Rather, I see it as an example of "Every good encyclopedia article has a dictionary definition at its head." The number articles start as dictionary definitions with bulleted lists and gradually grow to add commentary and insight into each number, to draw correlations between its mathematical and extramathematical properties. Given time, each article on the integers from 1 to 1001 will become an invaluable reference not only to number theorists and math aficionados, but to anyone who has to choose a number for a specific purpose. Anton Mravcek 16:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Informational not instructional

The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as policy, so this is my proposed addition to What Wikipedia is not:

Under what Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional. Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia. They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks instructional material.

I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.

--Nohat 22:57, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes articles on procedural knowledge as per Wikipedia:How-to. Not sure if this helps you decide if you should include an IKEA how-to. -- User:

I think that it is necessary to include articles about how to do things, how things were done, how others do things and so on. I can't think of any reason why it should not be in Wikipedia but loads of reasons why it should be. BL 02:47, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with How To articles per se. The problem is they are usually POV or original research. Anthony DiPierro 02:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether or not this issue is resolved. I am interested in starting a Wiki at work and I am having trouble collecting the necessary information. This information seems like a silly thing not to have on one of the wiki*.org websites. If it exists, it would be nice to at least link it (prominently) from the "Wiki software" entry in wikipedia. I am considering appending what I have learned to that article and letting someone else sort it out. I want the information to be available, but I don't have enough time to figure this out. --rs2 16:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See meta:MediaWiki User's Guide and Wikibooks. --mav 05:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

moved from meta page

1. Wikipedia is not place to form a consensus of opinion, but instead a place to form consensus of fact. Often these facts are about people holding opinions. See Wikipedia:NPOV.

I actually agree with the spirit of this, but dislike the wording. Can we find a way to make it clear that concensus of opinion amongst editors is good, but that facts, references and verifiability should be the result of such concensus? I'm well aware of how they arn't always, but I'm of the opinion that true concensus involves embrace of the truth ;) Sam Spade 02:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I mainly wanted to express this here so I could point to it from the mailing list. This point is apropos of a few issue which have arisen there lately. I didn't think "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" quite covered it. On the other hand, I can't think of a better concise way to express it. If someone's got a stroke of genius, maybe we could form a good concensus? :) --Spikey 17:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What What Wikipedia is not is not

This is a page about what types of things should or should not be included in Wikipedia (mostly what should not be in it, but exceptions to what should not be in it are also acceptable). It's not a page to discuss anything which can be phrased in a sentence beginning with "Wikipedia is not..." In other words, this isn't the place to write about personal attacks or ownership of articles or how to spell things. Not every wikipedia policy needs to be on this page. anthony [beware: this is a work in progess and will change without prior notice]

• I disagree. This is a page about the properties of Wikipedia and its articles- particularly, properties which people commonly (and erroneously) believe that Wikipedia or its articles have, but in fact they do not. Fennec 14:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is Not is the page you use to tell newbies: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." and related corrections. :) Fennec 14:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Anyway, the page is called "What Wikipedia is not", not "What Wikipedia is". If you want to put stuff that Wikipedia is, put it on a different page, say, What Wikipedia is or Wikipedia:Wikipedia. ugen64 20:36, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see how any of the comments above disagree with me. -anthony
      • When this particular page was first posted on Wikipedia (19 Feb 2002), it stated "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Here is a list of Things That Encyclopedia Articles Are Not." With that in mind, a reference to and explanation of "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles" is appropriate. Kingturtle 03:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't see how the content of the original page is relevant. The page has clearly changed since then. Also, you'll notice that all the other descriptions are "Wikipedia is not [noun]", not "Wikipedia is not [verb]". "owned by a particular user" is not a thing. - anthony
          • Wikipedia is not a lot of things. Not all of those need to be listed here. Angela. 05:38, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
            • I must say I found the "terrorism" thing rather funny. Has this really ever come up? -- VV 06:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Products and Product catalogs

Recently pages like List of Sony products and individual products of IBM and Sony like Sony Ericsson P900 have been listed on Vfd with the assumption that Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Which of the 20 points of this page suggest that Wikipedia should not contain products-related info ? Will creating articles out of products/lists make wikipedia less of an encyclopedia ? Jay 18:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I would say that Wikipedia is not paper and a good article on these products is not inherently wrong - Tεxτurε 19:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I've just added some info to the P900 page, I don't think [i]all[/i] products deserve a page but for advanced products such as leading edge smartphones it makes sense to me. In a few years people will be wanting to track the development of these devices like it happened for the early home computers etc. Just my 2 cents. Thomas Horsten 19:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a community or a social club

Failing to comprehend this leads inevitably to destroying the encyclopedia to please the community. Sadly this is the end result of the mailing list and IRC channel system and also of the concept of a "banned user" (whatever that is, since they always come back).

A recent user (whose name should not be pronounced any more, but who is not a banned user) recently gave as one of the reason for leaving the fact decisions were increasingly taken over irc discussions. The media of decision change, but the clique or cabal does not - although predictably the most determined advocates of cliques and social control fail to see they are in fact participating in such a system of social control.

However, it remains that the medium of discussion is not the same as the medium of presentation - the real power is not with those who contribute, not even who contribute the most or best, but with those who spend the most time influencing so-called authority, and trying to gain "infrastructure owners' trust" thereby.

The wrong idea of using another medium to make decisions, that not all users are empowered to use equally, and the wrong idea of "punishing" those who do not accept the power structure, both arise out of the idea of "community".

Neither concept makes for good editorial decisions, for example, often good articles are deleted out of process because of who wrote them, not because of what they say, and articles are "reverted" to being wrong, when they have been corrected. But both are absolutely necessary if there is to be a "community", and absolutely wrong if there is to be an "encyclopedia". The time has come to choose between the two.

The mailing list and other advocates of so-called "community" make rulership and ownership choices that are contrary to the spirit of the GNU FDL (if not the letter--mostly the fault of MediaWiki software which matches its terms imperfectly--should MediaWiki actually be ditched? no doubt "the community" which includes its developers will argue it must not).

Furthermore, they don't even recognize community bias, or make any attempt to find a representative sample of themselves to actually represent the "users" - who are, amazingly, totally shut out in the unique Wikipedia concept of a "user community consisting only of those who speak up on specific pages by name."

The idea of "virtual community" is stupid, and probably evil - it is epistemic community masquerading as real community with sad and predictable social consequences: people unable to tell a political dispute from a bodily threat, people unable to conceive of political methods of dispute resolution that are not themselves based on invasion and war. Plus the more pathetic consequences of people thinking they are making friends by typing, when they are really only making conspiracies and alliances to do things that do not matter all that much.

Darwikinism and a battlefield of ideas are more rational ways to run an encyclopedia, and can reward competence and a history of good edits, not whining, lying, and relationships with the bosses: "The community", like any community, rewards all the wrong things - its social capital is built on pleasing and helping *friends*, NOT actually serving users.

The mailing list/IRC channel system favours those incompetent people who speak up there, over competents who do not, in an encyclopedic sense. It should be ditched, immediately. Wikipedia needs editors, or at least, Wikipedia needs trolls to keep attacking groupthink, i.e. "community", more directly.

The community on Wikipedia is considerably less prominent than on any of our competitors: h2g2, Everything2, Encarta, Brittanica. Why are you attacking us, and not them? Martin 22:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is based on a conglomeration of knowledge from hopefully educated sources. In order for these sources to add to the greater body of work in a constructive fashion, they must communicate and compromise on ideas. How is that not a community? Plus, your wording comes across more as a rant than as a sudgestion. Why do you think we need attacked? That is not a basis for compromise, it is a basis for emotional recklessness. --Chaz 20:18, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the basic premise. Wikipedia is a community and, in my opinion, a remarkably effective one. We may be working on a different definition of the term, though. May I refer you to Social Software and the Politics of Groups by Clay Shirky and to Wikipedia:replies for some background? Rossami 22:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan repository

I'm very tempted to add another entry to this: Wikipedia is not a fan repository. There are so many fanatic people adding, deleting away what are more NPOV portions and adding their own gashing, over-the-top comments on players, especially of sports. I've a hard time keeping people from bashing other players. I'd love to have a line on top of sports personalities which says this. Mandel 15:32, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

(13)... Mere collections of internal links

There are more pages on wikipedia that are collections of internal links and internal links to articles that might someday exist than I know about. In fact, every time I find a new set of such pages, I'm amazed at both how many links on the page there are and how many sister pages that page has that I also didn't know about....

I don't see how this entry can even be considered as slightly true with the status quo. Not only that, but we've added a whole system to wiki just to handle collections of internal links. It's called Categories or something like that.

Now, I'm not objecting to collections of internal links. In fact, I might even have said once I liked them. I do however, think that either wiki is hypocritical, or this entry needs updating. --ssd 02:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

We should rewrite this swection to say wikipedia entries are not just collections of internal links except in the following cases...

Now which are the cases? Disambiguation pages are one case, categories another. What else? ---- Charles Stewart 02:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is in a section on what Wikipedia articles are not. Disambig pages and categories are not articles. It is less clear whether or not lists are. anthony 警告 03:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV trouble

"Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be..."
This is a non-NPOV attack on E2. What's the best way to fix it? Twinxor 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, generally, NPOV applies to articles; it's less strictly applied when it comes to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. That said, if you don't think that particular phrase speaks well of us, you're welcome to be bold and change it. It's best to discuss changes on policy pages first, but this one seems fairly minor, and I don't think there will be much of a problem. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images of Saddam Hussein

As Images of Saddam Hussein was kept, we can't possibly say that we have a consensus that mere collections of photographs are not acceptable. So I noted a de-facto exception to this rule. anthony (see warning) 22:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There wasn't actually a decision to keep, it just languished on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old for a long time without anyone deciding what action to take. Apparently the debate is now resumed at Talk:Images of Saddam Hussein. --Michael Snow 21:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide

I recently saw someone writing this on Talk:Georgia, yet I don't think this has ever been brought up before. Anything to say about this?? 66.245.26.130 14:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did the cookbook requirement come from?

I noticed that the prohibition on recipies on Wikipedia was fairly recent, and seems to have been the cause for several deletions lately. Was that added as a result of the consensus of some discussion? I'm not really sure where these policies come from; I notice that it wasn't on the talk page for this article, and there wasn't a reference in the edit history to where a discussion had been held. Thanks. -- Creidieki 02:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion of this, as of a week later. I have no evidence that this policy was discussed before being enacted. Would anyone object to me removing the policy from the page? -- Creidieki 05:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(took the liberty of mild reformat of your second comment to reflect normal standard) I think the reason is it wasn't dicussed what that previous discussion had concluded that recipes were ok for the time being, but that the formation of the Cookbook project at Wikibooks, specifically for recipes. Of course, there are numerous food items that are of encyclopedic value, and recipes should be included, just in the context of discussing the item's social and culinary history, and not as a guide for making the item. I think the consensus is that the vast majority of recipes have no place in any encyclopedia and should be transwikied to Wikibooks, while articles on food products should have recipes formatted like an encyclopedia, and not a cookbook. I believe a number of recipes have been transwikied in the past few months as the Wikicookbook has been growing -- do you have a specific recipe in mind? We should probably take a liberal view of what food items deserve an article; if it has anything more than a sentence or two to say about its important in an aspect of history or culture, an article is appropriate (this part is my opinion, not consensus as I understand it). Tuf-Kat 05:56, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

The recipe policy was discussed at great length, mostly on the mailing list, earlier this year and late 2003. It was decided that actual recipes are to go in the Wikibooks Cookbook. There can certainly be articles about dishes on Wikipedia, and they should definitely discuss ingredients and methods of preparation, but recipes per se were decided do not belong on Wikipedia, and most were transwikied en masse some time ago. Articles about dishes which have corresponding recipes in the Wikibooks Cookbook should definitely have links in the articles to the recipe. See paella for an example of an extensive article about a dish that doesn't explicitly include a recipe, but links to some. Nohat 05:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mere vehicles for testing anarchism

Is the following appropriate for "What Wikipedia entries are not"?

7. Mere vehicles for testing anarchism. 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. But of course none of this is to deny that a great deal of our success has been due precisely to our openness.

It would sound better to me if it was adjusted to an item in the "What entries is not" section. I'll wait for comments before applying the change, since the item has a distinguished history ... ---- Charles Stewart 03:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

1. 6 for "Wikipedia entries are not" is Wikipedia entries are not "propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views—and good luck."

I agree that Wikipedia entries should be neutral and all of this. My question is about the *process* of things. Let's take a contentious article like the Israelis and Palestinians. Or perhaps I'll call them Houyhnhnms and Yahoos. When I come to the page, I see it is written by a Yahoo, with POV language "The wretched evil Houyhnhnms persecute and kill Yahoos for no reasons, and have the degenerate habit of breaking their eggs on the big end of the egg". I am a Houyhnhnm, and I feel this is unfair so I rewrite it, perhaps taking out the adjectives wretched, evil and degenerate, and then add some negative factual information about the Yahoos. The Yahoo then comes on the page and we go back and forth.

In an ideal world, the Houyhnhnm and Yahoo will balance each other out. Perhaps even a Brobdingnagium comes around, who could care less about Houyhnhnhms and Yahoos and which end of an egg to break open, and serves as sort of a neutral peace maker.

In some ways you could say numerically, the Houyhnhnm and Yahoo are a 1 and a -1. NPOV is 0. Houyhnhnm knows eveything good about Houyhnhnms and everything bad about Yahoos. Yahoo knows everything bad about Houyhnhnms and everything good about Yahoos. When they both add their comments to the page, and strip away POV language, baseless assertions and so forth, the article becomes more balanced. The -1 added to the 1 equals 0 - NPOV.

However, if the Houyhnhnm starts out as a 0, and the Yahoo continues as a -1, then that back and forth will become a -0.5. The page will become unbalanced because the Yahoo is being 100% pro-Yahoo and anti-Houyhnhnm, and the Yahoo is being 50/50 on things. The page becomes unbalanced, overpraising Yahoos, demonizing Houyhnhnms.

I hope people see the point I'm trying to make. The article should be 0 - NPOV. But the more biased the other side is, the more biased your side has to be just to get the article to the middle, to NPOV.

I think rule #6 is kind of vague and I'm not sure exactly what it means. Or more the question is - how does one be NPOV when others are not committed to NPOV? Ruy Lopez 23:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that highly controversial topics, such as the one listed above, should have almost-mandatory "Case for" and "Case against" sections. This will allow those who are NPOV on both sides to present their arguements fully (within reason) and still, IMO, maintain article neutrality. Oberiko 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To achieve NPOV we need to be patient in explaning newcomers why NPOV is a good and important principle, we need to be vigilant about POV additions and quick to reedit or revert them, we need to use existing "policing" tools such as protecting a page, banning repeat offenders, even blocking the most biased and disruptive advocates. In regards to the "case for/against" structure, it is contrary to the NPOV principle. Our goal is to present a neutral view, not a combination of supporting and opposing views. Paranoid 11:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd think the for/against combination would, in and of itself, bring neutrality to an article. Ordinarily I'd agree with you though, as I think a properly written article wouldn't have need of such a device. The problem is that alot of people can't help putting heavy bias into articles, and then it becomes a ceaseless shouting match or possibly even a revert war (which in turn leads to things like page protection, which I think we should avoid unless absolutely needed). It's an imperfect solution to be sure, but we have many imperfect contributers. Oberiko 14:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with you in that I think for/against segmentation is much worse than edit wars, reverts and page protection. One of the reasons is that it's a permanent problem of the article, while the latter problems are transitional. Note also that Wikipedia is supposed to be (mostly) about verifiable facts, not unfounded claims by two opposing parties. Paranoid 15:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right. On further reflection, the for/against would probably just intensify the situation in any case, and seemingly make us compromise to allow NPOV material to seep in. I withdraw my suggestion on this issue. Oberiko 16:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial

I would like to make it policy that wikipedia is not a memorial service for people unless their death in and of itself was proveably significant (ie. caused new laws to be created etc.). This, of course, does not apply to people who merited a wikipedia article in life. Oberiko 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please upload only files that pertain to encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted.

Oh no, the barnstar! Ashiibaka tlk 02:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a spoilerroom, or wikipedia is not cliff notes

I have been doing a lot of thinking about wikipedia and fancruft, what is encylopedic and what isn't. I feel that we need to have the policy "wikipedia is not cliff notes", in the same way as "wikipedia is not a dictionary". Obvious its ok to use a definition or plot summary within an article, but when an article is only that and looks like it can only be that, then it should be vfd. This instantly solves to me the fancruft problem, and helps ensure the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. Thoughts?

I think this rule needs to be revisited. There is a huge amount of material that aspires to be like Cliff Notes; some of which I have added myself. This point is out of date and has been superseded by unofficial practise. :ChrisG 12:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• What are Cliff notes? Is this a US thing? In light of ChrisG's comments and the fact I'm not even sure what it means, I'm removing it now. Dan100 18:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

  See CliffsNotes, and yes, it's a US thing (the name, at least, not the concept). I agree that specific examples are only good if everyone can reasonably be expected to know them. Britannica yes, CliffsNotes no. Make it more general. 82.92.119.11 18:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain again: my proposed rule is this: In the same way "dictdef" articles are deleted now if they contain solely a dictionary definition and seem like they will contain no more then that, articles which simply summarize the plot or plot elements of anything (such as an article about the workings of a tie fighter) would be deleted too. Obviously its ok to use plot summaries, just as it is ok to use definitions, yet an article consisting soley of that and appearing to be not likely more, should be vfd. This is the best way to solve the fancruft problem.

Grammar

"Consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not...A genealogical or biographical dictionary or phonebook."

I fixed some of the others for consistency but I'm not sure how this one can be reworded. I suspect what happened is that this wasn't included in the original text, and someone thought the beginning of the sentence was "Wikipedia is not...". anthony 警告 03:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Propose: Wikipedia is not a knowledge base

Propose:

Wikipedia is not a knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Articles may contain no falsehoods yet be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. This page itemizes some specific kinds of articles that are true yet not not encyclopedic. The fact that certain kinds of information are excluded does not imply that every other kind of information is automatically included.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the particular wording, but something along these lines might be appropriate. I could have sworn I've written something along these lines on one of the policy pages. I'll try to find it. anthony 警告 02:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, here's what I was thinking of. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further. See What Wikipedia is not for more info." Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Not very helpful. Also, we probably need to qualify "knowledge base", since Wikipedia is a knowledge base, it's just a particular type of knowledge base. Maybe something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" would be better? anthony 警告 02:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page itemizes some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not encyclopedic. It is by no means an all-inclusive list. The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia.

How 'bout that? anthony 警告 03:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Better. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. my suggestion for wording would be (changes highlighted) "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is verifiable and interesting doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. It is by no means an all-inclusive list. The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia.

This should go into the first section ("Wikipedia is not"), and it should point to the list of examples in the next section, as it summarises much of them, but does not overlap too much with the other items in the first section. BTW what are cliff notes? Not evident for non-native speakers. Kosebamse 13:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure "verifiable and interesting" are criteria for what goes into a general knowledge base. I'm also not sure we should be introducing a term like "verifiable", which has a specific meaning in Wikipediaspeak, without some type of introduction. Verifiability is an important separation between what should be included and what shouldn't, and it is included in #1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 25 (factuality is too, I suppose, but that an encyclopedia or a knowledge base shouldn't make stuff up goes without saying, that it should be a secondary or tertiary and not a primary source is much more subtle though equally correct). I don't think it's right to say that verifiability isn't sufficient without first saying that verifiability is necessary. As for what is "interesting", that shouldn't even be a factor in the first place, so I really don't understand why we'd mention it.

I guess my opinion is that the above version, while technically correct, is somewhat misleading. I assume those parts you hilighted to show your changes would be in plain text in the included version. anthony 警告 14:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point about "verifiable and interesting" is that these are two major criteria that always come up in deletion discussions, and it should be made clear that these criteria are necessary but not sufficient for inclusion of an article. Maybe there should be a link to some in-depth discussion about verifiability (I am sure there are many, but don't know where). And regarding "interesting" (that word even has a page in the wikipedia namespace, IIRC), we should make clear that it's not good enough that this or that fact interests you or you friend, otherwise we would make it harder to defend Wikipedia against irrelevant trivia of all sorts. There's a fine line to be drawn, one man's trivial junk is another man's future encyclopedia, so the link to past deletion discussions should be included here. I don't insist on a particular wording, of course. Kosebamse 06:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases "verifiable and interesting" is sufficient for inclusion of an article. That's why people bring it up in deletion discussions. One could concoct some border cases where this isn't true, but that's not the focus of this page. Also, I think you should consider what you're suggesting. It seems you're trying to add a rule to a Wikipedia page which you admit does not have consensus support, as evidenced by the fact that people don't agree on it in deletion discussions. That's not the purpose of meta pages. The purpose of meta pages is to reflect things that already have consensus support. anthony 警告 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The crucial point in many of these discussions is often, how interesting? Many VfD discussions revolve exactly around this question. IMO, if you tell people "it's enough that somebody considers this interesting", you are in danger of corrupting some foundational ideas of an encyclopedia (selection, verification, evaluation). An encyclopedia is only as valuable as its editors are critical.

I don't deny that I consider many a page nothing more than trivial junk, but I am far from introducing a new rule without making sure that there is sufficient consensus. (That's why we are discussing these things here, and without unnecessary accusations, please.) I do think however that the "What Wikipedia is not" page should tell the reader in what way Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information". And as I mentioned before, I don't insist on any particular wording. If you think that your version is precise enough, fine with me, let's leave it to community consensus to decide about this. Kosebamse 13:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are there any objections to including the text into the page? I would suggest Anthony's version with those changes of mine that were not disputed, so the text would read:

"Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. It is by no means an all-inclusive list. The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia."

Kosebamse 07:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• And just why is such a paragraph needed? There seems to be a culture of "if I don't know about it, then it can't be notable" round here. If you read the other entries, you'll note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and as such has more room. Wikipedia was started under the "all the world's knowledge under one roof" spirit and this entry certainly goes right against that. Dan100 08:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

• • Are you advocating that Wikipedia should be a general knowledge base? Or are you simply saying that it is appropriate for it to have a much wider scope than traditional print encyclopedias and to include many topics that would not be included in traditional encyclopedias? Do you oppose something specific in the language of the paragraph? Or are you objecting to it on the basis of the motivation you infer for its addition? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia can have a wider scope because m:Wiki is not paper. We don't have the cost or practicality issues that constrained paper encyclopedia editors. But my more immeadiate concern is that I can't quite see why this paragraph is needed. The page states goes on to state what wikipedia articles aren't, so why do we need a paragraph saying that? Just "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" would suffice. Dan100 17:04, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • That particular wording would be fine with me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Shortened the paragraph as per proposal. Dan100 18:35, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • • Dan, as you may have noticed there has been quite a bit of discussion about the wording, however the particular piece of discussion that you referred to when changing the project page was less than twelve hours old and was conducted between two users only. That seems too hasty for a relevant change to such a page. This project page is really really important, as it is often quoted to justify various policy-related decisions, so special care is needed with it. I am reinstating the former version pro tempore, not because I think it should be final, but because that amount of discussion seems insufficient..(You may have seen that I have heavily contributed to this project page and that some of my changes were without explicit discussion, so you might argue that I am not the right person to do this; however, when you look into the diffs you will see that my changes consisted largely of rewriting/rearranging/refactoring what was already there and needed no discussion. The only major change that I made was exactly this paragraph that we are talking about, and I inserted that only after it had been discussed for several days.) Kosebamse 21:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• OK, but what do you find objectionable about the revised version? It had the same meaning, just removed what appears to be redundant text. I also note that there was no consesus on the text I change. At least someone agreed with my revision, and that person happened to be the original proposer. However I won't rv pending further discussion, and agree I was too hasty to implement the revision (especially considering the downtime today). Dan100 21:18, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Let me be more specific: the first sentence I removed is redundant as it just describes what's on the page. The second sentence, "It is by no means...", is a catch-all that gives anyone free-reign to declare that any article they don't like the look of "isn't a wikipedia" article. It needs, at least, to be more specific, and I contend that it shouldn't be there at all. Dan100 08:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a better name for this section would be: Wikipedia is not a pile of facts. I think that the point that we should be getting at is that we should be providing information that is useful to people who are consulting an encyclopaedia: it should be the kind of information that wikipedia users might be after, and it should be provided in a way that the interested user is likely to find it. The general point is controversial, I think, though, isn't it? The people who are arguing that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and should be treated as a different sort of enterprise are arguing exactly that if information is interesting for somebody then it doesn't hurt to make it available. I think that actually providing examples of what this policy excludes is necessary, and until we do and have a consensus on it, then it should not be policy. I propose deleting the item. ---- Charles Stewart 09:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be controversial in the various forms and wording it has had during this discussion. The whole point is that "Wikipedia is not paper" means "Wikipedia's scope is relatively unlimited by space and extends far beyond that of a traditional encyclopedia," not "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain what I think about the sentences in the paragraph under discussion.

• Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That should definitely stay, because it neatly summarises the long list that follows. That list has grown over time and lists too many things to stick them into the first, summary, section.
• Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And that should stay as well, because it explains the basic pronciple some more.
• This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. And this tells the reader what the other list is for; should stay IMHO.
• It is by no means an all-inclusive list. The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia That is not essential and could be left out.

And in response to Dpbsmith, I don't know your attitude in these matters, but every inclusionist always argues that "Wiki is not paper". While that can hardly be denied, the implied consequence "...and therefore I can stick into it whatever I like" is what angers us deletionists, or as I would put it, encyclopedists, because that implication is rarely ever enunciated. And if we don't make it clear that this is an encyclopedia and we Wikipedians reserve the right to decide what befits an encyclopedia, every bored kid with a computer will continue to drop their random nonsense here. That already happens, Wikipedia is currently being stuffed with worthless junk of every description. We should not surrender the chance to put a clear-cut definition of what Wikipedia is not on right here where every reader can see it. Kosebamse 11:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • 1. I really have had no problem with any of the variations in phrasing that have been suggested. When I said, of Dan100's shortened version, that "that particular wording would be fine with me," I was speaking for myself and did not mean to imply that others would agree.
    2. The reason why I think it is important to state this explicitly is that a) there are those, such as nsk2@wikinerds.org , who advocate that Wikipedia should become a general knowledge base; b) I truly believe that Wikipedian community consensus rejects this extreme view; c) since people sometimes assert that an article should be in Wikipedia simply because it is true and verifiable, it is useful to have on record that this is not the community consensus.
    3. My original proposal was intended to encompass a very wide range of Wikipedia opinion, including both those styling themselves "inclusionists" as well as "deletionists". The language as of a couple of days ago had the explicit support, and was worded with the active participation of, at least one self-identified member of each faction. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with all that you say, and would be happy with the version that we had before Dan's edits, but if people feel that it is too long, a shorter version would be just as fine. Following my arguments above, the shorter version should be IMHO: Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. Can we all agree on that version? Kosebamse 14:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'd be perfectly happy with that, Kosebamse. Perhaps we could change that for now, while considering the new version? Dan100 22:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Sure. let's do that. Kosebamse 07:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss the rewritten version

Please review my proposal of a revised version. Note that I have not much changed the content, but rearranged it in a more logical fashion, rewritten a few sentences, added a few explanations, and raised an item from the second list to the rank of a "What Wikipedia is not" topic. The proposed version is at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Rewrite December 2004, and I would suggest to discuss it here, not on a talk page of its own. Thanks. Kosebamse 14:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm trusting your word that you restrained yourself to reshuffling existing ideas. Given that, I like the new structure. Much clearer. (You seem to have made an error of list syntax in the "General knowledge base" section.) --Smack 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Smack, I haven't had a chance to give it the fine-toothed-comb treatment and compare it with the existing article and I'm taking your word there are no substantive changes. I like the arrangement (I particularly like the way you've organized a number of topics as subtopics under "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base."). Nice job. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oh hell, you got me confused and I've copied it to the Project page from Discussion page! Not a big deal I hope. Anyway, looks good to me, if we incorporated the change we have agreed above. But I'd suggest putting it on the Village Pump too to make sure as many people as possible have a chance to have their say before changing the 'official' version. Dan100 22:32, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Methinks there should be a chance for some more refinement, say until after christmas or new year, and then mention it on the pump, get some more discussion and hopefully move it to project page then. How about that? Kosebamse 07:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I've been through and made a raft of minor changes. I don't think I've changed the meaning of anything anywhere (at least it was my intention not to). Rather, I've adjusted the language, hopefully simplyfying it where needed, and also removing all the 'But's at the starts of sentences. Use this to see all the changes I've made. There are too many for me to list with the individual reasoning for each one here, but please do ask me here if there are any specific changes you object to. Dan100 17:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well done, Dan, looks much better now. And by the way, I think we should not update the note at the top of the draft; there will be changes done (and possibly reverted) on the original page until (if ever) the rewrite goes live, and there is no need to incorporate those changes until then. Merry Christmas (or whatever you are celebrating), Kosebamse 11:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll put a notice on the pump and ask people for comments and/or improvement. Suggest to wait for another week or so and then move the rewritten version to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not if there are no objections. Kosebamse 11:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Good job! I've read through the draft and have compared it carefully with the existing article. I lile the changes in organization, and slight rewordings. As far as I can tell, they have virtually identical substantive content, and the new version represents no change in policy (and for this proposal I would suggest that we keep it that way). One change I would like: make "Wikipedia articles are not … Propaganda or advocacy", be the first entry in the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" section. Again good job! Paul August ☎ 15:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

It's very nice, very clean looking. I like that, "The Wikipedia is not a theater of war". -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Go ahead. JesseW 19:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As there seem to be no serious objections, I'll move the rewritten version to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not shortly. I have updated the draft to reflect the current status. Note that the version of the "censorship" item is that which is currently on the live page, so if there are any unresolved disagreements, please correct that/discuss below. Best regards and happy editing, Kosebamse 12:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikipedia articles are not collections of facts

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing pages that consist of sequences of facts tacked on sequentially and incrementally by sequences of contributors. Not only are such would-be articles stylistically inconsistent and devoid of structure, they also risk duplication of information and seeming contradictions. (I addressed the seriousness of this issue in a recent essay.) I'd like to see this mentioned here. --Smack 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need to revise Wikipedia policy for that. I think it is better to just say "This article needs clean-up", which we already have a policy for. I see "What Wikipedia is not" as a way of having a policy to handle problem editors. Items on this list have been brought up in arbitration disputes and used to resolve edit wars. I don't think poorly written articles are the cause of edit wars. Samboy 20:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notability etc

By the way, how many of you have seen Wikipedia:Importance and the closely related Wikipedia:informative? I really like those pages and together, their definition of what should be considered encyclopeadic. I'd like to see it go from Proposed to Offical policy. Maybe it could be linked to in some way from this page. Dan100 22:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikipedia is not a strategy guide

Articles on video game topics are not inherently unencyclopedic, but many are crossing the line into "how to" articles, some mere collections of statistics about the monster in question -- not merely uninteresting to anyone except a fan, but incomprehensible to anyone except a fan. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary

Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary, but entries about notable individuals are acceptable. To me the latter is the primary meaning of "biographical dictionary", and Wikipedia encompasses a vast biographical dictionary. It would be clearer to say something like, "Wikipedia is not a repository for biographies of non-notable people. Biographical entries are only appropriate for individuals who have made achievements which are of interest to a range of people beyound their personal associates."

Censorship

Please don't rewrite the policy without indulging in discussion. You know that this is being discussed elsewhere. Trying to rewrite policy to back your POV is not constructive to that debate at all.Dr Zen 00:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statement you removed (added on 24 December by SPUI with minor edits by me and 61.255.27.5) wasn't policy, it was a statement of fact, as follows:

• Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated). Articles should not contain needless usage of profanity or explicit images, but if the use of the word or image adds to the article, most editors believe it should be kept (see Talk:Clitoris for debate relating to an image). Guidelines for internal communications are at Wikipedia:Civility; the intent and meaning of the message is much more important than the words used.

If you don't believe the above is factual, could you please indicate which parts of it you believe to be either interpretation or contrafactual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was being bold by adding it, after a short discussion on IRC; it was only later that I realized stuff to be added was discussed first on the talk page. --SPUI 01:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think it should be included at all. It's not necessary. You've stuck it in purely as advocacy. Please don't. You have to accept that your idea of what is acceptable in an encyclopaedia is not necessarily shared by all. There has been very little de facto censorship (except, as we've discussed, that we decide each day what articles will and will not include and that in itself is a form of censorship). The very nature of a wiki is that they are not censored in the way this suggests they might be, so, please, don't try to make your view policy by the back door. The truth of the matter is that the encyclopaedia can be censored for the sake of minors if there is a consensus to do so. (The goatse picture has, so far as I know, been censored by consensus. I note this view (my emphasis): "My opinion is that a link to the site (and its mirrors) will suffice. I don't see any gain in having WP host images that may well lead to boycotts from certain users, censorship from sensitive groups (eg. an inclusion on various schools' internet filters) and will almost certainly undermine people's trust in the site. Why should these images be on the site? --Fangz 03:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)") That there is unlikely to be a consensus to do so in most cases doesn't change its being possible. On that basis, I oppose this addition.

SPUI, I'm a big fan of being bold but I'm also a fan of not trying to get your own way by a subterfuge. This gets put in and then anyone who suggests that we should have inclusive solutions for images is likely to have it shoved in their faces.Dr Zen 01:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the inclusion of images was almost an afterthought; the reason I thought to add it was several people complaining about my use of the word 'fuck' in edit summaries (not for personal attacks, but for example "fuck, I was wrong, adding the correct data"), one specifically stating that I should 'keep Wikipedia G-rated'. Maybe it should just not mention images at all. --SPUI 02:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of the above should be included. We should not be censoring on the basis of protecting the children (or anyone else) from harmful material. WRT the goatse picture, potential harmfulness is not necessary to reach consensus on not including it -- it is presumably copyrighted, after all. Tuf-Kat 02:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

It seems almost churlish to point out that this was not the reason it was not included. Tuf-Kat, what does "we should not be..." mean? We should be doing anything we choose to do (within the limits set by Jimbo Wales). This is a wiki, not a nation in need of laws. The community sets the bounds. If it wanted to censor articles on this basis (and it absolutely does not, I agree) then who are you to suggest it cannot?Dr Zen 02:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DrZen, I did not insert that piece. Please be careful before you accuse people of engaging in advocacy. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is not censored so as to be "suitable for minors" (whatever that might be taken to mean). This isn't every likely to change. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Some of the following edited to remove personal attacks)

You do seem in fact to be advocating a Wikipedia that is not censored in this particular way. You are defending the inclusion, no? You want a Wikipedia that is not by your lights censored, no? But if you were not involved in writing the paragraph in the first place, I misstated and I apologise. I am sorry though that I seem to have made the assumption that you were involved in the IRC discussion that prompted its inclusion. If this is wrong, you are welcome to refactor my comments so that it is clear that I meant SPUI and others involved, and not you. Wikipedia is censored though. It includes material by consensus, and it excludes it by consensus. An article on the "Frost War" flaming incident was removed because the community believed it was "useless". (I was personally rather upset because that was an article I had read and enjoyed before becoming an editor here and I had felt that it spoke a great deal for a project that it could include discussion of minor but interesting -- if only to me! -- phenomena.) That is censorship. Goatse has been censored. George W. Bush has often been censored. It is censored many times a day. We don't need to strive too hard, Tony, to think of lots of other articles where certain inclusions would be very rapidly censored. Such is the wiki way. If the consensus was that there should not be an article on the clitoris, Tony, absurd as it sounds, there would not be one. You do understand that, don't you? Just as there is no article on the Frost War, there could in potentia be no article on the clitoris. You are seeking to hamper the working of a wiki by laying down a ground rule. There's no need. Trust the wiki instead of increasing the instructions.

Now, I don't mind SPUI's language, but I know that some are offended by rough talk. I try to abide by the injunction on profanity and would advise SPUI to try to do the same. I don't think it's a bad idea to suggest that editors don't overindulge in foul language because children might read it. Some believe it is corrupting for youngsters to read foul language and there's nothing much lost in asking that one not upset those people. Does that mean that articles should be censored? No. Does it mean that we should strive to maintain an inclusive atmosphere? Yes, it does.Dr Zen 02:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay. You say: You do seem in fact to be advocating a Wikipedia that is not censored in this particular way. No, I'm stating that as a matter of fact it is not censored in a manner to make it suitable for reading by children. It never has been. It's extremely unlikely that it ever will be.

You say: I am sorry though that I seem to have made the assumption that you were involved in the IRC discussion that prompted its inclusion.

I have not used IRC for about four years. Moreover I have no idea who this SPUI chap is.

In your reference to censorship, which I don't deny happens, you seem to have ignored that fact that what SPUI actually wrote (slightly refactored by me to relegate some US-only terminology, was this:

"Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated)."

This is a factual statement. It is not advocacy. It is not a claim that wikipedia is not censored. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored as its members see fit. It is not NOT censored. I don't see how much plainer I can be. You cannot say it is NOT censored because it CAN BE, if the community desires it. It is your POV that it should not be, period.

You say "Wikipedia is censored in whichever way the community chooses." I do not dispute this, and it does not contradict the statement that you have removed. It entirely contradicts it. Wikipedia is censored in the way stated IF the community desires it.

You falsely accuse me of reverting. Do not do that. Even if you edit disputed text, it is still a revert, Tony. Don't let's play that game.

You say "It is not a "matter of fact" that it is not censored." I agree. Again this does not contradict the section that you have removed. You what? You've just said it is a matter of fact that it is not censored and that what you have put is a statement of that matter of fact. Now you are agreeing that it is not a matter of fact that it is not censored. I'm beginning to feel you are at best taking the piss, and at worst simply trolling me because I disagree with you.

It is not a factual statement. Wikipedia is not NOT censored. It is censored IF its community wishes it to be. It has often been censored and it will continue to be censored. It has been censored on the basis you say it should not be and I have given an example of this. Now, please, this is ridiculous.

Wikipedia can be and has been censored for the protection of minors IF the community desires it. It is perfectly acceptable for an editor to argue that it should be censored. If the community does not agree, that is perfectly okay, but you cannot a priori delimit the range of views that are permissible. There is enough of that here, Tony. Don't add to it. in italicsDr Zen 04:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taking your points in turn:

1. Wikipedia is censored as its members see fit Absolutely. And that censorship does not extend to G-Rating the site.

2. Wikipedia is censored in the way stated IF the community desires it. Wikipedia is not G-rated. This is a statement of fact.

3. Even if you edit disputed text, it is still a revert, Tony. Don't let's play that game. Do not again falsely accuse me of reverting. Do not again falsely accuse me of playing games.

First version: Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated). Articles should not contain needless usage of profanity or explicit images, but if the use of the word or image adds to the article, most editors believe it should be kept (see Talk:Clitoris for debate relating to an image). Guidelines for internal communications are at Wikipedia:Civility; the intent and meaning of the message is much more important than the words used.

Second version: Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated). Firstly, anyone can edit an article and the results are displayed instantaneously, so we cannot guarantee that a child will see or read nothing objectionable. Secondly, Wikipedia has no organized system for the removal of material that might be thought likely to harm minors.

4. You've just said it is a matter of fact that it is not censored. No I have not.

5. It has been censored on the basis you say it should not be and I have given an example of this. I have not stated how it should and should not be censored. I have stated correctly that it is not censored for the protection of minors.

6. If the community does not agree, that is perfectly okay, but you cannot a priori delimit the range of views that are permissible. I have not done so. I have simply stated, correctly, that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. The fact that it could be or even that editors have decided to do so with specific parts of it in the past does not alter the fact that, as a whole, it is not.

I shall now submit a third version of the clause making it clear that this refers to the whole of the site. Blankfaze has reverted. I'll stick with what we have for now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deplore your rewriting the policy to something that is entirely antiwiki but I am fed up with fighting bigots and POV pushers for today. Wikipedia is neither censored nor not censored as a matter of policy. That is (or was, until you rewrote the policy) a statement of fact. I'm off to emplace the goatse picture. Cheers now. Dr Zen 06:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, I could get downhearted at your accusations, but I don't. I have not rewritten any policy at all. Have fun with Mr Goatse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably doesn't mean much, but I support the current version. --SPUI 06:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Is 'What Wiki is not' even the right place for this? I think this topic deserves it's own policy page. Further, it just seems slightly out of step with what the rest of the page is about. I can't quite explain what I mean by that, I'll just have to hope you understand :) Dan100 19:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

For what its worth, I think much of the dispute above between Dr Zen and Tony Sidaway may revolve around different possible interpretations of and ambiguities in the meaning of "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors". In particular it seems to me that possible interpretations include:

1. Wikipedia is not censored (at all) for the protection of minors.

   This is clearly not true, since of course, some self-censorship, both individually and collectively does take place (I can be certain of this since I engage in such self-censorship myself ;-) Dr Zen may be assuming this meaning.

2. Wikipedia is not currently being nor has it been censored in such a way, that insures or can insure the absense of content which some might consider unsuitable for the protection of minors.

   This is, of course, true. Tony Sidaway may be assuming this meaning.

3. Wikipedia is not as a matter of existing general policy censored for the express purpose of the protection of minors.

   This, as far as I can tell, is true. Tony Sidaway may also be assuming this meaning.

4. Wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of minors.

   This is a value judgement, which I assume some agree with and some do not, and which may, or may not, represent the consensus view. This is another possible source of differing interpretations and thus misunderstanding.

So perhaps this statement, now the title of the section, could be better worded.

The current text of that section (considerably different than the text as first presented above), seems to me to be more of a statement of existing policy and practices than an attempt to make new policy or to make value judgments concerning existing practices — that is to say, it is "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" or "proscriptive". It is more in the nature of a disclaimer or warning, and as such it now seems more consistent with interpretations 2 and 3 above, and could be reworded to make this clearer. Or not. We could simply let the meaning of the title be determined by the text that follows it.

Paul August ☎ 19:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that very scholarly analysis. This is an unusual document, part prescription and part description. My intention in drafting this clause was to provide a reference point so that newcomers would know that there really is no organised mechanism charged with deciding what should and should not go in on the basis of whether it might be suitable for children. I emphasized the instantaneousness of changes and the lack of scrutiny--this is a valid point because, although a lot of us do Recent Changes duty, this is a voluntary task and does not constitute a viable content censorship mechanism in the absence of a policy to remove material for the protection of minors.

My personal opinion is that, while it may be possible to combine encyclopedic intent with a policy of avoidance of material likely to harm minors, it is not necessarily desirable to do so, and in any case I have not yet seen any proposals for targeted censorship that would not violate NPOV. Then again, NPOV need not be regarded as sacrosanct, it just happens that it has been set as a primary goal for this project since the beginning. I don't regard inclusion of controversial images as necessary, but with the exception of the borderline child pornography image at lolicon (caution advised), which I personally think should probably be removed from Wikipedia if only to avoid the risk of prosecution, I have not seen anything that I consider to be particularly controversial. Even images of the primary sexual organs have proven to enjoy a very wide consensus where they have been used in an appropriate article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also have a bit of a problem with:

Wikipedia's current policy is to include objectionable content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted.

"Wikipedia's current policy is to include objectionable content"? I don't think we have such a policy, but if so I guess I'd better get busy ;-) Of course, I don't think this is what is trying to be said here. Overlooking that problem, a not unreasonable rewording of this text would be: "Wikipedia's policy is to follow Wikipedia's policy and the law". Unless, that is, it is Wikipedia's policy to follow the law, in which case it could be shortened even further to read: "Wikipedia's policy is to follow Wikipedia's policy". In short, I think this text, as presently written, should go. Paul August ☎ 00:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

The version that I wrote (a few days ago) is out of date. Then the content disclaimer said:

In its ambitious mission of documenting all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles on a vast array of topics. A relatively small fraction of these topics are frequently censored by educational, governmental, corporate, parental and other filtering schemes.

• Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered profane, vulgar or offensive by some readers. See Wikipedia:profanity for more information.
• Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy.

• Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics. Some subjects that are discussed have criminal applications in some jurisdictions. Others contain information on dangerous or otherwise risky activities (see Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer).

• Wikipedia contains spoilers.
• Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
• It should be noted that as Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia.
• There may be medical, legal or other information that is normally also the subject of professional opinions; Wikipedia is not a substitute for seeking the help of a professional. Please note: Wikipedia does not give legal advice or medical advice.

Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not.

Since then it seems that some people have rewritten the policy. I'll have a look at it and see if what I said previously still applies. Feel free to amend accordingly meanwhile, because if policy has changed meanwhile clearly my summary is no longer correct. Please excuse my genuine brainfart. At the moment (last edit 04:44 on 8 Jan 2004) it still does seem to say pretty much the same thing.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is anarchy is action

I copied this from the page:

Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but our openness goes no further than is necessary for creating an encyclopedia. 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. If you want to do so, you can use the Wikipedia fork Anarchopedia. See also meta:Power structure

This is like saying a natural disaster is not chaos. Wikipedia is very much anarchy in action. In fact I couldn't think of many better examples of "order without authority". Christiaan 14:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But there is authority: the Arbitration Commitee, the Wikimedia Foundation and as court of last resort, Jimbo, the Benevolent Dictator. There are also various sorts of emergent self-governance (for which the label "anarchism" is debatable). I think the point of the section you removed is that Wikipedia is not a place to simply do whatever one likes regardless of the community--that there are policies and guidelines for behavior, however tenuous, malleable, and inconsistently applied they might be. older≠wiser 15:02, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia, is or is not, to some extent anarchic, is not the issue. The point of that section is that anarchy is not, in any way part of its purpose. Paul August ☎ 15:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

That should not have been removed without discussion. In fact on a policy page like "what Wikipedia is not" any substantive edit should be discussed and gain consensus before it is performed.

I happen to think it should stay, for several reasons. First of all, this statement in various forms has been part of this policy page for well over a year. Second, Wikipedia is not an anarchy at all. There are many kinds of both implicit and explicit authority. Wikipedia is not a command-and-control organization, and Jimbo does not micromanage. In fact he does whatever is the polar opposite of micromanage. That does not mean that Wikipedia is an anarchy. I like older's phrase "emergent self-governance," but at this point I would say self-governance has long since "emerged" and is now merely "evolving."

But in any case, the point of the paragraph is not an assertion about the nature of Wikipedia's governance, it is an assertion about Wikipedia's purpose. The key sentence is "Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In fact that paragraph dates back to November 2002 [1]. Which does not make it sacrosanct, but as it has survived unchallenged for so long, one should have good reasons (such as consensus after discussion) to remove it. I don't believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy. I would rather say that there are many interwoven power structures and levels of hierarchy, some self-governed and some not so self-governed, most of which are not obvious to the casual visitor. If I had to pick one I would call it a meritocracy. Kosebamse 18:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)