Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Archives

• Archive 1
• Unencyclopedic (formerly at wikipedia:encyclopedic)
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 (September 2004 to July 2005)
• Archive 4 (Aug 2005 to tbd)

Wikipedia is not on a deadline

I added this section because it comes up from time to time; I didn't seriously think anyone thought Wikipedia was on a deadline; but it was reverted. I'm putting this here for discussion so the dissenting voices can name a date. Demi ^T/_C 14:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think everyone already knows this, why does it need to be on the page? As someone said, that's needless "instruction creep". When I reverted, I wasn't disputing whether it was true, but rather whether it should be enumerated. Wikipedia isn't a pizza, but we're not going to say that because it's obvious. Superm401 | Talk 17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• People do argue from a sense of urgency, however, from time to time. I can't quite tell what your point is: that we shouldn't include this section because while you agree with it, it's obvious? Or we shouldn't include it because you don't agree with it? Demi ^T/_C 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with it, but it's too obvious to include. Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not on a deadline. But remember what wikiwiki means. And remember that the first impressions we give to new users matter, so don't suppose that saying "we're not on a deadline" is carte-blanche to allow rotten articles to fester. -Splash^talk 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Right, I wasn't thinking that at all. Demi ^T/_C 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of "not paper"

Earlier on this page, someone points out that part of the "Wikipedia is not paper" section is confusing. And it is. I've tried to clarify by pointing out that Wikipedia content is always encyclopedic, but not necessarily exactly what would appear in Britannica or World Book. Right now, the explanation of this section really only has to do with article length and depth, not with subject matter. The second paragraph deals with subject matter is opaque. I tried to make it less so by adding:

Another way of stating this precept is that Wikipedia is not (only) a general encyclopedia; it can also be a set of specialized encyclopedias.

Demi ^T/_C 20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with the language. Wikipedia is foremost a general encyclopedia, but it is also a specialist encyclopedia in so far as it doesn't conflict. This is usually possible because wiki is not paper, but it should be considered when we decide how to seperate up articles, how we write intros, etc. Kat and I have discussed this a number of times.. I'll come back and propose some more language after my flight, and perhaps after talking to her some more about it. --Gmaxwell 21:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Who says that it is foremost a general encyclopedia? Trollderella 03:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "encyclopedia" is a real problem for wikipedia. It plays into the hands of deletionists who want to restrict the scope of the project, but wikipedia has burst all bounds of previous encyclopedias and that is a thoroughly good thing. It should encompass reference books on every subject about which reference books can be written in prose, and is increasingly doing so. Please don't try to cramp it again now. You will only be wasting your time in any case. CalJW 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't even begin to describe how strongly I disagree with that sentiment. Have you studied any of the other wiki-efforts and why they have failed? Have you done any academic readings on why Wikipedia is one of the very few successes? Again and again, the researchers attribute our survival to our community commitment to one goal - the creation of an encyclopedia. Yes, we are in some important ways different from prior encyclopedias but we still retain the self-image that we are creating an encyclopedia and deliberately choose to limit ourselves to that. History has repeatedly shown that when groups drift away from their unifying vision, the project inevitably fails. I strongly urge you to read (or perhaps re-read) Wikipedia:replies and to look up Social Software and the Politics of Groups by Clay Shirky, first published March 9, 2003 on the "Networks, Economics, and Culture" mailing list [1]. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "encyclopedia" is a real problem for Wikipedia because there are those who really do not want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia... but try to obfuscate the issue by trying, like Humpty-Dumpty, to redefine the word to mean "that which I want Wikipedia to be." As evidence, I present this exchange from a current AfD: Dpbsmith (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. --a Wikipedian

Does this mean that you think Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information so long as the information is verifiable and not a copyright violation? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what an encyclopedia is, yes. --that same Wikipedian.

Personally, I'd kind of like to see that section axed all together and replaced with "Wikipedia is to be an extensive general encyclopedia but nothing else." The Literate Engineer 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource wants to delete all source and data

I've added a parenthetical note to Wikipedia articles are not collections of source material because Wikisource is currently contemplating deleting all mathematical and astronomical tables (including expansions of transcendental numbers, tables of logarithms, ephemerides, and so forth) and all source code. See Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes for the discussion of this. Uncle G 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to modify WP:NOT an image gallery

Since this discussion will take some time to resolve, and is rather long, I've moved it to a subpage: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries . --- Charles Stewart 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

reference to the Five pillars

Yesterday, Zondor added a sentence about the Five pillars in the introductory paragraph of this page. Aquillion just reverted the edit with the comment that "five pillars, while old, is essentially an essay, not a policy page. It's not approprate to cite it authoritatively in a policy page's first paragraph.

I'd like to discuss that decision some more. I understand Aquillion's point that the Five Pillars page does not have an official "policy" tag on it but I think the page does accurately reflect Wikipedia's vision, sustaining values and guiding philosophy. I think it does illuminate the core topic of "What Wikipedia is not" by directing the reader to very well written discussion of what Wikipedia is. For new users who discover WP:NOT first, it's a way to tell that that we are not overwhelmingly negative - that we do have a positive approach. I'm inclined to ask to put the reference back in. Other thoughts? Rossami (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have so much objection to it under "See also". I think it's important, though, to avoid giving the impression that WP:5P, itself, is the definitive statement of our philosophy, because it isn't, and there's a definite risk (given its phrasing) of that happening if it's linked to from the top of a major policy page. New users on its talk have already asked why "such an important policy page" isn't protected; it's important that they understand that WP:5P is currently just an attempt to describe Wikipedia's philosophy, albeit a good one. --Aquillion 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you believe you have a better summary of wikipedia policy, could you please write it down or link to it? Kim Bruning 02:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Most policy pages aren't protected. Why would Wikipedia:Five pillars need to be protected? At a quick glance it doesn't seem to be particularly subject to vandalism, and edits have been conservative and helpful. Casual vandals mostly hit mainspace pages. (It does surprise me a bit is that it hasn't attracted the disruptive attention of people who (I'm trying to avoid WP:BEANS here) have a strong point of view about a certain belief system that is sometimes associated with a similar number of columnar objects. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Structured Lists to help organize articles?

I'm concerned about that final third of a sentence in Section 1.5.2, "and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I have two concerns about it:

1. It does not give any guidance regarding what counts as assisting with the organization of articles.
2. It does not clearly specify whether the exception applies to any and every structured list that assists with the organization of articles, or only, as the section title would indicate, to structured lists of internal links.

I think it would be useful to discuss both those issues, although I admit that I'm motivated by having seen people use this clause as justification for several lists that I believe should not be a part of the Wikipedia. The Literate Engineer 21:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a public forum

I added the WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a public forum or a message board. Seems like a no-brainer, right? Zocky 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Many things that happen around here, it seems like a no-brainer that they shouldn't. We can only wonder if that means many people around here have no brains. On the topical note, seems like this was already covered in part of "what the Wikipedia community is not". The Literate Engineer 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, no brainer, yet has become the most common activity on Wikipedia. I don't think it was adequately covered in the Community section. At least, the evidence says otherwise. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 01:46

You're right, it's not in the community section, and actually, I should've been thinking "Not a soapbox" instead of the community section. Actually, what if under "Not a propaganda machine", in 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, we change the wording from

"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."

to

"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. The project and talk pages, likewise, are reserved for discussing changes to articles and the encyclopedia, not expressing opinions about the material covered"?

Actually, I'm not sure that's any better... But point is, does this need it's own section (1.x), or will a subsection (1.x.y) work for it?The Literate Engineer 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's so rampant on Wikipedia means it needs its own section, or nobody will ever notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 02:14

Honestly, my experience is that even with things explicitly in here, nobody seems to care. Anyway, what's anyone else think? I don't think 3 people's inconclusive discussion is enough to justify adding a section to a policy page. On which note, I think Zocky should've proposed it here before inserting it. The Literate Engineer 16:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it makes things clearer, then it should stay. After all, we do see quite a lot of people going round 'posting' in wrong 'forums' when they are merely adding sections to the Help desk when they should be adding to the Reference desk. It is also quite rampant on some talk pages. However, really, this is just a minor annoyance. But I don't think it's truly clear at the moment. x42bn6 Talk 04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree Sometimes you make huge mistakes about what you know, or something is wrong with the source data, only by discussions such as a public forum would such mistakes be uncovered, and corrected. I believe you would stiffle the very essence of the correcting the data feature of Wikipedia of you make this a policy. --Masssiveego 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• comment I'm sure it's more important to question the humanity of fellow persons - as in "We can only wonder if that means many people around here have no brains." Certainly makes a stronger point when you put it that way - I would agree with almost anything if not agreeing meant that my brain would be vaporized by a tautology. Benjamin Gatti 22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Propose addendum to Wikipedia is not a Democracy

I proposed that the following list of clear exceptions be added to the section asserting that wikipedia is not a democracy so that newcomers are not intentionally mislead into the false allusion that in fact voting isn't how everything meaningful is decided.

Notable exceptions include

• The Selection of Arbitrators
• The Decisions of Arbitration
• The Selection of Administrators
• The Demonstration of Consensus
• The Deletion of Articles
• The Establishment of Policy

On second thought - someone decided to maintain the allusion - patently dreadful really. Benjamin Gatti 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You proposed nothing: your only prior edit to this page in weeks had nothing to do with that. What you did was make an unproposed & undiscussed (and thus invalid) edit to a page that lists policies. Now you've proposed it. The Literate Engineer 05:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny I had just read that the technical details of a proposal were not grounds for invalidation - but others would know better surely. Benjamin Gatti 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Any edit to a page that's already policy, as this one is, has to have affirmative consent backing that change before it's made. The Literate Engineer 06:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Zen of non-democratic policy is a Shangri-la. There is already overwhelming and demonstrated consensus for elections in the choice of Admins, ArbCom, RfD, etc ... Is it here suggested that truth ought to be vetted through the filter of popularity? What is - is. It is policy to use elections to decide almost everything - it is apparently also policy to state that such is not the case. Truth should start at home. Benjamin Gatti 06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So now it's not a democracy, instead of not a bureaucracy you take exception to. It still is not a democray. I sometimes wish AfD was democratic, since as it now stands a minority can prevent a consensus from being reached. The system is consensus-forming. The ideal would be for discussion to continue until everyone agrees on a position, but we are too dispersed and too busy to achieve that, so we settle for a 'rough' consensus. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It should have said Democracy all along - I conflated the terms in midnight error. The point is that we certainly use elections and strawpolls, even retrospective polling (position summaries) to justify actions (rather than say an appeal to principles such as respect of diversity or factual accuracy) This constant appeal to populism IMO prevents the quality of the pedia from being competative. If a majority want the moon to be made of cheese, they could quite easily prevail over the few voices who have actually been there. Rather than striving for the common denominator, we should establish precendents in which better research trumps original research, better cites trump lesser authorities, and a plurality of authorities trumps a single source - in other words, we should tally by content rather than pieholes. Benjamin Gatti 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you want something that Wikipedia is not (sorry about that, I couldn't resist). Open editing is fundamental to the idea of Wikipedia, and I don't think you're going to be able to change that. For myself, I'm concentrating on pushing for better referencing of articles by example and by nudging other editors. And elections and other decisions are by consensus, not by majority vote, and however frustrating that is to me on certain issues, I really would like to see it succeed. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Benjamin, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia process before making comments such as these. Of the six processes you mentioned, only two can be considered democratic, and at least one of those has a mitigating factor. A third often looks democratic to newcomers but really isn't. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which three I refer to. Radiant_>|< 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I Believe there are all every bit as much a Democracy as is for example the United States of America, and other classic examples (which need I remind one is itself a rather messy and undemocratic affair). Benjamin Gatti 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A crude view says, that some of these are generally decided by voting, but it's still dubious if that makes them a democracy. The agreement to abide by a vote is not your right or anyone's right, as such. The test of that is, if it changed tomorrow, you would probably have no recourse to change it back. FT2 (Talk) 10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Crystal ball

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.

I don't like this, because without clarification it could be misread as saying that the test of what is encyclopedic now is whether the event will be encyclopedic when it occurs.

I'd like to see this wording tuned to emphasis that what must be encyclopedic is not the future event, but the present preparations.

Event number 1. A modern-day Miller predicts the end of the world on June 8th. By the end of May, hundreds of thousands of followers have given away their belongings and assembled on Mt. Tamalpais awaiting the rapture. At the appointed time, the sun rises as usual on a beautiful California day. Miller declares that his calculations were off and the correct date is two years away, and he and his followers depart.

Event number 2. A modern-day Miller predicts the end of the world on June 8th in his blog. Almost nobody listens, but on June 6th he and half-a-dozen friends bring sleeping bags, sandwiches, and a cooler of beer to Mt. Tam. On June 8th they ascend to heaven and the world ends.

As of June 6th, event number 1 would merit an article and event number 2 would not not. After June 8th, event number 1 still merits an article. (In the case of event number 2 the issue would be moot).

The question is not "is the end of the world notable?"

The question is not "is the sun rising notable?"

The question is "is the gathering of hundreds of thousands of believers notable."

The question is never the presumed notability of the future event itself. The question is always the notability of what is actually happening now. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. The Literate Engineer 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a nomic

As a sidenote to Wikipedia is not a democracy, how about "Wikipedia is not a nomic?" Morwen - Talk 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

But can you convince anyone of that? Benjamin Gatti 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone thinks wikipedia is a game, I'm going home. No, wait, I'm already home. Morwen - Talk 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I am a bit late on this I feel it prudent to point out that Jimbo may disagree with the assertion that Wikipedia is not a nomic. ;) --Robert Harrison^{talk contrib} 05:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide

Recommend adding this under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Please discuss if you feel this addition is inappropriate. I have seen many articles that suffer from describing the strategies and tactics of video games in an overly precise way that is irrelevant to most readers. Argyrios 09:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is redundant with "walk throughs" and "instruction manuals". Kappa 09:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Walkthroughs are different from game guides; a walkthrough is a description of how to advance through the levels of a single player game. Instruction manuels are also different; that would be instruction on how to operate the game (like what keys do what). I think "wikipedia is not a game guide" needs to be explicitly mentioned, especially given articles like Defense of the Ancients. I mean that shit is just preposterous, but the articles seem to be vigorously defended by a vocal minority of DOTA players who don't understand that they are writing an encyclopedia article, and shouldn't be writing a game guide. Argyrios 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link repository

I'd like to raise again the point I raised here: Wikipedia is not a link repository. Right now the guidelines say "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" but they disclaim this with "there is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article." I've seen people use this to justify putting a bunch of links to fan discussion boards into an article. The guidelines need to take a firmer stand against this, so that articles don't end up with wars over which fan sites are "good enough" or "large enough" to be linked from an article. - Brian Kendig 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:External links. Uncle G 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, thanks - I'll add a link from the article to that. - Brian Kendig 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I find WP:NOT and WP:EL somewhat contradict; For instance, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", #3. advertising where it says:

"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)."

This compared with Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to, #3. "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."

The wording cited above in WP:NOT was added in Sept. 2002 by DW and refers to Finishing school, Aug. 2002 version.

I don't think this wording in "WP is not a soapbox" is so useful anymore. People could use it to justify all sorts of commercial links and advertising for products and services. I suggest revising or eliminating this sentence from WP:NOT and ensuring WP:EL and WP:NOT better support eachother, as one way of having the guidelines take a firmer stance. —Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Then, please, where in Wiki (which, as I understand it, is supposed to be making the global Information available to the Global (on-line) population) is ? Surely there is somewhere, and what would allow Wiki entries to be transferred to. --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors section title

As two different editors have tried to shorten this heading to Wikipedia is not censored, I figured I would open a discussion here to see if in fact there is a consensus to make that change. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The section deals with more than just censorship for the protection of minors, so it seems that the shorter section title would be more accurate. Kaldari 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add some language to make the point clearer, such as:

Wikipedia is also not censored to reflect the official doctrine or dogma of any nation, state, religion, corporation, or other body or school of thought. In particular, Wikipedia takes no position on disputes over territorial sovereignty (such as the status of Taiwan or Kashmir); nor does Wikipedia exclude or censor information that governments (either of the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted, or elsewhere) may consider seditious or objectionable. This policy has resulted in at least one nation—the People's Republic of China—denying Wikipedia access to its citizens.

Many of these political issues are far thornier than the issue of censoring obscenity.--EngineerScotty 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue at hand is whether or not to shorten the section title. Let's figure that out first before we move into editing the section itself. Kaldari 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Methinks that the content should drive the title, not the other way round. However, even if the content continues only to relate to the issue of "obscene" or sexually explicit content, I feel the phrase "for the protection of minors" overqualifies and over-constrains the issue. Many opponents of free speech (while claiming "protection of minors" as a goal), have the larger aim of eliminating access to sexually explicit speech for everyone--protecting the kiddies is a red herring, used to get the foot in the door. If the section is to relate only to sexually explicit content, a better title would be "Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content". Other forms of content that some find offensive (violence, various isms, material considered seditious by governments, heresy/blasphemy, love/hate of Microsoft, etc.) can then be dealt with in other sections. --EngineerScotty 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

>Methinks that the content should drive the title, not the other way round.

Exactly! That's why the title needs to be changed. Kaldari 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As an example of why the section title needs to be changed, the section in question has recently been cited in a debate about whether or not an image of a woman with bare arms reading the Qur'an should be censored from Wikipedia. Certain fundamentalist muslims believe the image is obscene. "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" clearly addresses this situation, but the section title is not helpful, as the debate has nothing to do with children. If anyone wants to debate the contents of the section, please start a new discussion page section. This section is for discussing the title only. We don't need to have a week long debate about the entire section just to decide whether or not to change the title! Kaldari 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for changing it to simply "Wikipedia is not censored". Then we can discuss making it a bit more explicit that we're not just talking about content which might be offensive to fundamentalist Christians in the US; the "protection of minors" bit adds, I think, a rather U.S. slant to the debate. --EngineerScotty 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In many areas of the world the primary purpose of censorship is not to protect children, but to impose a certain moral, religious, or political viewpoint. The section content already addresses that fact to a degree. We just need to change the section title to match. Kaldari 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, Wikipedia is censored in the sense that we exercise editorial discretion and judgment all the time. Entries which violate NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V are censored out and appropriately so. Opening up the title too broadly invites further misunderstandings (or perhaps willful ignorance) by the people who don't understand that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts". Rossami (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Kaldari. The section already deals with censorship for reasons other than the "protection" of minors; only the title needs to be changed. The section specifically deals with censorship of what is deemed morally offensive, though -- we do not need to explicitly extend the policy to deal with political issues such as Taiwan or Kashmir independence.

Strongly disagree with Rossami. Censorship is not the same thing as editorial discretion. Censorship is the suppression of information for the purpose of stifling particular views (or, rarely, particular authors -- e.g. the censorship of Jewish authors in Nazi Germany). The goal of censorship is to make some view or information inaccessible, usually as a way of exerting power over the speaker or audience. We don't seek to stifle views here; we seek to represent them neutrally. --FOo 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about our goal but the definition you're using for "censor" is not exactly the definition used by Webster (for example). Their definition reads "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". As writers of an encyclopedia, we do consider unverified assertions or violations of the NPOV policy to be objectionable and we do suppress or delete those edits. I know that I'm splitting hairs but we're in this discussion because new users are misapplying the title of the paragraph and ignoring the content. We should spend at least a little thought to make sure that whatever new title we pick is not misapplied in the opposite direction. Rossami (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can make clear that "censorship" doesn't include "editing" in the section itself -- and, indeed, I think we already do, with the specific reference to NPOV. Moreover, when the section is taken in the light of the whole rest of the page (e.g. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) it's clear that we intend to edit selectively without suppressing views.

By the way, it isn't that we find NPOV violations objectionable -- at least, I don't; I think they're perfectly fine for people to print wherever they like with their own resources. They just don't belong here because we have a policy against them. Censorship aims at suppressing ideas in general, not just in one particular forum; I've never heard of anyone saying, "Pictures of naked people are OK anywhere else, but they should be specifically against the rules on Wikipedia" -- rather, people who object to such pictures wish to eradicate them anywhere, or at least throughout the public sphere.

Oh, and FYI -- Webster's is a generic and refers to no specific dictionary. Wikipedia's own discussion of censorship points out that it "most formally involves suppression of ideas". That's what we're trying to get at here: Wikipedia does not accept the silencing of particular ideas or expressions, although we do require that they be presented neutrally rather than endorsed. --FOo 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing the section title to Wikipedia is not censored is potentially confusing and arguably contradictory, considering that it comes after a long list of things (including ideas) that are not acceptable on Wikipedia and will be removed (personal research, editorial opinion, advertising, vanity pages, etc.). Whether or not this editorial process constitutes "censorship" is a semantic debate; claiming that it is not censorship is simply one point of view. Entitling the section "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" (or, better yet, "Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material") means something specific; claiming that "Wikipedia is not censored" is ambigious, and arguably uses the word censorship not as a means of clarification but instead as a power word. --User:Kevin Myers

Personal research, editorial opinion, advertising, and vanity are not "ideas" in the sense being referred to. They're styles of writing or approaches to a subject. For instance, a person could write editorial opinion about why nuclear power is great ... or they could do research into the history of nuclear power advocacy and write an article about it. These both would cover the same ideas but one is out-of-bounds here whilst the other is. Censorship would entail suppressing discussion of the benefits of nuclear power; Wikipedia policy merely requires that it be addressed as cited research rather than as opinion.

I honestly don't think there's a confusion here. As I said above, when taken in the context of the rest of the page, "Wikipedia is not censored" is a clear and bold statement ... and it is more accurate than saying "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors," since Wikipedia is also not censored for the protection of adults, liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, feminists, Communists, racists, nationalists, fluffy bunnies, or Pastafarians. --FOo 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the change to Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors - it's a better description of the policy, and any possible confusion can be avoided through careful wording. --Singkong2005 04:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• IMO "Wikipedia is not censored" is too broad -- it covers the political and other topics mentioned near the start of this thread, which should probably be dealt with in anotehr section; and it could be interpretd to mandate inclusion of PoV, OR, or other content already agaisnt our policy. Such a meaning would not be intended, but let's not invite misunderstandings, whether willful or accidental. I would favor "Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content" or "Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material" or some similar wording. DES ^(talk) 07:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored may be too broad, but in the same respect Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is not broad enough, as --FOo has clearly pointed out. Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content is, IMO, even more specific than the current title because "protecting minors" is not limited to sexually explicit material. Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material is not bad though, but its a bit wordy. When it comes down to it, I prefer the simple Wikipedia is not censored - its clear, bold, to the point, and anyone not trying to be facetious understands that "censorship" doesn't include "editing." --Naha|^(talk) 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Censored For the Protection of Minors seems best. Wikipedia is in some cases censored. We monitor content to make sure it doesn't violate copyright, it fits in with a an encyclopedia, and is well written. What we don't do is go through it and make sure everything is okay for a 8 year old kid to read. You probably won't want go give the kids unlimited access to Wikipedia, and when a parent gets pissed after little johnny is caught looking at a page on anatomy, I want to be able to point him to this article in the FAQ. Saying it may contain "sexually explicit content" makes us sound like a porn site, instead of what we are: an encyclopedia, with some articles on sexuality.Brokenfrog 07:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll supoort keeping Not Censored For the Protection of Minors per the reasoning of Brokenfrog -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't what's being discussed, but I have always had a different issue with the wording. As presently worded, I, at least, find it ambiguous. It can be read with either of two meanings. The intended meaning is that "Censorship for the protection of minors is a practice which Wikipedia does not engage in." The unintended meaning is "Censoring Wikipedia would injure minors, so, in order to protect minors, Wikipedia is not censored."

The latter meaning is so unlikely that there isn't much possibility of misunderstanding, but it still creates some jarring cognitive dissonance in my mind.

I'd like to see cleaner, less ambiguous wording, even if it meant abandoning the "Wikipedia is not..." formulation. E.g.

"Wikipedia does not attempt to prohibit "adult" content or information that might be considered inappropriate for minors.

Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent example of how the title of this section has been used to disregard or deny what the section actually says (taken from a recent template deletion debate):

• Delete and salt the earth in it's foul wake — Next the template will be used on religion articles for links to sites critical of the religion, or sites displaying bare skin of more than just the face (for the misogynist group of religions), or sites critical of governments, or sites containing swear words. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  You mean Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Once put that way it seems clear the argument you provide is irrelevant to the current discussion. No one has suggested the template should be kept/removed to protect/corrupt minors. Mikkerpikker 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  

Clearly the current section title is problematic. As much as I hate polls, it doesn't look like the current discussion is leading anywhere. Perhaps by guaging more people's opinions, we can figure out which section title will be acceptable to the most people. Kaldari 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, "censorship" is the deliberate removal of material which is seen as inappropriate for use by others. I.e. most editorial decisions. Wikipedia may not be censored for the protection of minors, but it certainly is censored. Pretending that (for example) autofellatio images were not censored (against the wishes of ultra-anti-censorship editors) is self-delusion. Keep the "minors" in the section title, relax, and spend your time building a useful encyclopedia instead. --Audiovideo 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to-do guide

Many articles are written in style where the reader is addressed directly, as if the material in question was copied from a how-to-do-guide, instruction manual or something like that. This is quite usual style in many articles, and I understand that instructions can be encyclopedic just as any other material. It's the style I'm worried about. Do we really need large parts of articles written like the (invented) examples below?

-If the patient doesn't breath, do this or that.

-After welding the parts together, let them cool before .. blah blah blah

-You can find the connector by opening the ....

-First run a disk manager; if the ..

etc. etc.

I haven't find a good way to address this situation. Maybe a new template that could be used to mark articles that need a style change? There are lots of articles written in this style, and if it is deemed inappropriate, something should be done. Well, is this kind of style desired or undesired? Santtus 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I actually stumbled upon a line where it actually reads: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Ok, fine, policy is known. Should we set up a project to correct those pages where this kind of style is used? Santtus 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If the articles are in fact how-to guides, and cannot be rewritten to not be how-to guides, they should be nominated for deletion. And I would say the sample lines you quoted above are from how-to guides. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of these could be rewritten to not be how-to guides. For example:

-Typically, if a patient is not breathing, the proper course of action a person would take would be to ...

Whether or not a how-to article can be rewritten should be taken into account before nominating it for deletion. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought most how-to guides were m:transwiki'd to Wikibooks. Transwiki is an action which can be taken by any editor and does not generally require deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Every time I've seen discussion regarding an article being too "how toish," - comments to the author(s) of the article generally direct them to move that content to a Wikibook /shrug --Naha|^(talk) 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the content seems bad when there is no place to move it to. Perhaps we need to clearly establish that wikibooks can be short, and that this is where such material belongs. No reason to delete helpful stuff!Brokenfrog 07:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of Republicans

Could I propose this section. We have recent evidence that information which is unhelpful to right-wing interests is in fact being excluded, and maybe a policy against it would be helpful. Benjamin Gatti 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude ... how about some, like, references, so we can know what in the name of little fuzzy kittens you're talking about. --FOo 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - meant to be right back.

1. The Right-wing wants to reintroduce nuclear power plants.
2. To do that they need to convince people that both reactors and storage are safe.
3. The [[NRC] stated in 1985 that the probability of a core-melt over 20 years for 100 reactors was ~45%.
4. One editor has just argued before the Arbcom that this information should be excluded because of his personal assurance that it has been superceded by another unpublicised study.

"In a population of 100 reactors operating over a period of 20 years, the crude cumulative probability of such an accident would be 45%," said the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This statement is sourced seven ways to Sunday, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] originates from Congressman and Chairman Ed Markey and the NRC at an NRC Authorization Hearing April 17, 1985, [7] I introduced the item on the talk page about a month ago. [8] , and yet consensus continues to exclude it as here [9]- on the basis of original research, original conclusions, and unverifiable information.

[:#This fact is from a 1975 study (WASH-1400) that has been replaced by the 1991 NUREG-1150, to which I have requested data from Sandia National Laboratories. In addition, the probability of containment building failure (1 in 100) was not considered in WASH-1400. Finally, NUREG-1150 found that source terms were better estimated at 1/20th the assumptions used for WASH-1400. All-in-all, WASH-1400 was a first-cut attempt, and Ben's factoid is very outdated. When Sandia NL responds (last message from them was January 4th), I will add to NUREG-1150 and, as appropriate, other articles. Simesa 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)

If you follow the NUREG link, you can find a power point presentation to a youth group cited as its source.(NUREG-1150 -> [[10]])(Diff=[11]).

Benjamin Gatti 07:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it's obviously not directly relevant to this page, so please take discussion of it back to the talk page in question. Nonetheless, any claim which purports to deal with "nuclear plants" without addressing specific designs of plants is guaranteed to be wrong, since there have been many designs of plants with varying safety. --FOo 09:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. I've seen no evidence at all of the bias suggested by Benjamin Gatti and it's not an appropriate discussion for this talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an anarchy section title

Actually, Wikipedia is an anarchy if you go by the definition that anarchists use. We certainly have eshewed hierarchy and centralized authority in favor of voluntary association, cooperation, and self-governance. Perhaps we should clarify this section title by changing it to Wikipedia is not an unstructured anarchy. Just a thought. Kaldari 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it is misleading to claim that Wikipedia is not an anarchy. The original (and factually correct) form of that title was "Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy." That is, while Wikipedia may in many ways be an anarchy, it is not a space to deliberately test the limits (or benefits) of anarchy. The section contents, though, still support the original proposition: "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."

As in the section above regarding censorship, the section title here has been amended to say something different from the section itself. The section here discusses Wikipedia not being an experiment in anarchy, but the title was erroneously amended to say something different. It should be restored to its previous accuracy. I'm restoring it to its original form. --FOo 07:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Moot Court?

Somebody added the section "Wikipedia is not a moot court" to the article. Has this been discussed here? Or should it be reverted? --EngineerScotty 05:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was discussed anywhere, I'm not aware of it. Looking at the content, I'm not sure that it's needed either. I don't feel strongly enough to revert it myself but without some discussion and justification, I have to wonder if it is instruction creep. Rossami (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. Neutrality can come back, explain why he wants the section, and make sure there's consensus. Everyone should be able to weigh in on policy changes. That's how we do things here. As for now, I think this is (or at least can be) sufficiently covered in Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Superm401 | Talk 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality that Wikipedia's policies do not exist for the sake of punishment but instead are to help the community work toward true consensus and collaboration. I hope people aren't arguing wikipedia policies are a moot court...? zen master T 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they're arguing that this statement does not belong on WP:NOT. It probably belongs on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy or similar. -Splash^talk 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where (or if) Wikipedia is not a moot court belongs. I reverted Neutrality's last edit because he made a major change without any discussion. Changes to the content of this policy require consensus, and need to be proposed on the talk page, not added without notice to the policy page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• While what Neutrality says is undoubtedly correct, it is pretty much redundant with the paragraph "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". I've added a small remark there. Combating rules lawyerism is always a good thing. Radiant_>|< 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Radiant's version succinctly expresses the idea in the right section. Thus, I'd like to keep it but I still want to allow some time to see whether we have consensus. Policy changes can't be made on a whim. Superm401 | Talk 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid you're mistaken on that account. Policy pages can be (and regularly are) modified by anyone who cares. If we didn't want that, we'd protect the lot of them. This is neither a major change, nor was it done on a whim. The question you should ask is whether the line I've added is correct and/or a good idea (and you seem to agree to both) - not whether it's been properly discussed first. That's because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a bureucracy, but we do believe in consensus, as the section itself says. There's nothing wrong with waiting a few days to give others a say. Superm401 | Talk 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need every shortcut listed?

I suspect 3 shortcuts is plenty. If there is a good reason for having them, perhaps someone else can restore them. However, they're making the policy template look very bloated and ugly. Stevage 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, we don't need all of them. I'd suggest doing a Whatlinkshere to find out which ones are actually in use. Radiant_>|< 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary

There has always been a summary at the top, but a while ago I just turned that summary into a box. Therefore it's probably not a good idea to delete the summary altogether. Anyway, I'm changing the wording from the rather mysterious "Therefore there are some things that Wikipedia is not" to "Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not". That's really the essence of this policy after all, isn't it? Stevage 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're editorializing again with your one-sentence summaries. I don't see the justifucation in this text for summarizing this in terms of "kind of a community but maybe not". If you are going to insist one editorial, personal opinion based one sentence summaries, please discuss them and get them right before adding them to offical policy pages. Or, alternatively, just leave people to read the title, since it summarizes far more effecitively than any other sentence what the page is about. -Splash^talk 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While I have my reservations about the "policy in a nutshell" experiment, Ashibaka corrected me earlier by pointing out that this sentence has been at the top of this page for a very long time. When I looked, I found versions of it all the way back to 2003. In this case, the summary pre-dates the experiment. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on censorship section title

Some editors, myself included, have criticized the current title of the section on censorship. Although the section addresses a broad range of censorship issues, the section title only mentions one type of censorship, specifically censorship "for the protection of minors". Other section titles have been proposed, but no consensus has been reached on how the title should be changed, if at all. In order to guage people's opinions on the matter, I would like to conduct a poll of what section titles people think are acceptable. Because several options are possible, I would like to implement this poll under approval voting methodology, i.e. vote for as many options as you approve of, but do not vote against any options. That should make guaging opinion quick and easy and keep the poll from devolving into a huge debate. Here are the current options (feel free to add more if they are serious proposals):

This seems to have stabilized with the greatest approval for "Wikipedia is not censored" followed closely by the status quo. Any objections to closing the poll and adopting the approved title? --FOo 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A strong objection. There is clearly no consensus to change; there's no consensus for anything in fact. Besides, this poll hasn't particularly been advertized, as far as I know. -- SCZenz 09:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz, there is no consensus here. 42 votes, 29% for 'as is', 31% for 'not censored', and 40% for something else. That's more than two-thirds against just 'not censored'. We don't decide by plurality votes, we decide by consensus. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave the section title as it is: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors

1. Clawed 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4. —Andux 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Dalbury^(Talk) 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Radiant_>|< 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Ouuplas 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
8. AGGoH 09:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Rossami (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Brokenfrog 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Nfitz 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
12. SCZenz 09:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Change to simply Wikipedia is not censored

1. Kaldari 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Mushroom 00:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4. —Andux 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Don't be garrulous unless necessary. [[Sam Korn]] 00:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Radiant_>|< 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
7. FOo 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Karmafist 03:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Superm401 | Talk 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Ouuplas 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Naha|^(talk) 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
12. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Kappa 10:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material

1. Kaldari 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Clawed 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Mushroom 00:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4. —Andux 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Superm401 | Talk 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Naha|^(talk) 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
7. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
8. AGGoH 09:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Kappa 10:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
10. EngineerScotty 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content

1. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Note: Wikipedia does censor copyvios and many other things.
2. Rossami (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) though if grates that it's not in the "Wikipedia is not..." pattern
3. Brokenfrog 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia is not guaranteed workplace-safe or child-safe

1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Oooh, I like it. Unambiguous and begins with "Wikipedia is not"
3. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Brokenfrog 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Has this been advertised anywhere, e.g. WP:RS or WP:RFC? Radiant_>|< 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

changelogs

There is discussion in Talk:Movable Type over whether the changelog in article Movable Type is appropriate. It seems pretty obvious to me that it is not, but there is disagreement. Is it possible to pursue consensus that changelogs in general are not appropriate, and add a bullet point to the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" list of examples? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 09:06Z

Well, it seems to me fairly obvious that a summary of the history of a popular program should appear in the article on that program; the list of versions which appears at Movable Type does not seem excessive right now. What would be the point of removing it? If we simply hack out everything which someone thinks is "an indiscriminate collection of information", we are in danger of producing articles on programs which amount to little more than

Program X is a product of Company C. It does this whizzy thing and that whizzy thing and is used by quite a few people. For actual information, see the company website at http://www.example.com/

which IMNSHO is less than helpful, not to mention verging on speediable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Every other software article seems to get along fine without a changelog. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 05:40Z

Also, perhaps a more generic statement would be "Wikipedia is not Freshmeat." Freshmeat is where things like abbreviated changelogs, new version announcements, etc. go. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 05:41Z

Wikipedia is not MySpace

How does Wikipedia is not MySpace differ from Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider? And, why put it under What the Wikipedia community is not instead of What Wikipedia is not? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it addresses things that go on primarily in the Wikipedia and User namespace. Whereas free host or webspace provider are generally more about why we don't let you put your fanfiction in the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read it. I disagree with your interpretation. It says categorically, "You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." It goes on to say that "Wikipedians have their own personal pages" (clearly referring to User namespace), then explains what constitutes abuse of this space. At the bottom of the page is "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well." It's clear that blogs (which Myspace is) are out. If your point is that Wikipedia is not a community for the sake of being a community, we should be able to phrase that better. Superm401 | Talk 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing was Jimbo's idea. Phil Sandifer 08:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Was Jimbo just making an observation, or was he specifying what wording he wanted in the policy? It would help the rest of us to fully understand what Jimbo wants if there is a source you can link. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"The phrasing was Jimbo's idea." What's your point? Superm401 | Talk 11:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to including this section. Wikipedia clearly is not MySpace, and I think it's important enough for people to understand this to include it here, even if it is technically "redundant" with other sections. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The case against inclusion is that the page is already quite long. Whenever we expand a policy page, we reduce the number of readers by some small fraction. At some point, policy pages become so large and cumbersome that they become irrelevant. One way to prevent that from happening is to challenge the cost-benefit of each addition. See some of the discussion pages around m:instruction creep for more. I'm still undecided on whether this particular paragraph adds enough new clarity to balance out the added length. It's a small addition but, as you say, it seems to be mostly redundant with sections already here. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's an important distinction between this and other sections. This section deals with communal fluff - other sections deal with individual fluff. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than adding another section, we should edit the relevant existing section. This needn't involve making it longer; rather, it could be trimmed to concentrate on the main points. I'd like to see a quotable section that clearly tells new editors in particular that the difference is that User pages are provided primarily for the purpose of constructing an encyclopedia, wereas blogs, myspace pages and the like are provided for the purpose of social networking. I fear that the latter function has assumed a disproportionate role owing to the fast expansion of the use of userboxes and personal categories. While a certain amount of community building is good, I suspect that what we're building here is not so much a community of Wikikpedians but a set of factions within Wikipedia whose influence is contrary to the interests of the overall community and of encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I support that idea. Superm401 | Talk 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As do I. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to integrate this info into #Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Tell me what you think. Superm401 - Talk 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Now, if we can just get users to pay attention. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy

It is a sad commentary on the state of the Wikipedia community that you feel this is needed. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think putting this in the policy will deter anyone from being disruptive. Adding this to the policy probably isn't instruction creep, but seems analogous to it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really a bit more geared towards admins - we are, by and large, a sympathetic bunch, and it is occasionally necessary to remind ourselves that our sympathies shouldn't get in the way of making sure the project runs smoothly. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I came up with this line last summer; it was inspired by another either wise or snotty line (depending upon your point of view), "voting is not therapy". Here's the brief discussion from the archive. WP:CIVIL trumps "not therapy", but both of them are trumped by "it's the encyclopedia, stupid", in my formulation. As far as actions are concerned, it is more geared toward admins -- but it's also an indicator of what we will and won't put up with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's yours? I thought it was David's. Dude, now I want to vote for you twice for arbcom! Phil Sandifer 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not being an admin, I can't completely symphathize. However, I don't think any admins genuinely act as if Wikipedia were therapy, so I'd rather keep this section out right now. Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the point is that Wikipedia is not your therapist, and we are not require to oblige your personal dysfunctions, especially when they disrupt the process of writing an encyclopedia. I suspect this is largely responsive to all the recent talk about Asperger's syndrome and people who seem to expect us to give "special consideration" to anybody who slaps an "I'm an Aspie" tag on their user page. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We have a winner. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the default anonymity of editors, all we can address is on-line behavior. That seems to be covered in Wikipedia:Etiquette. Wikipedia is not therapy, while catchy, sounds like a put down. If this needs to be addressed, it should be done in Wikipedia:Etiquette. We should avoid insulting editors who do have a medical problem, but still require everyone to be civil. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a valid point, but I really don't think it will influence those who genuinely do need therapy. I think it's more likely that it will be used to justify incivility. I.E. someone will call another user a moron and slap down Wikipedia is not therapy on their talk. I'm wary of justifying this, even by accident. Superm401 | Talk 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a usage guide

I've made a small change to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, changing "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used" to "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." I also added emphasis to "it may be important [...] to describe just how a word is used".

It seems to me that, since WP is descriptive, not proscriptive (as usage guides tend to be), it is legitimate (and helpful) "to describe just how a word is used" (especially when that word has multiple senses that cannot be adequately addressed in a disambiguation page) as long as we do not state or imply that one particular usage is the "correct" or "real" usage or definition in all contexts. This came to my attention over at Talk:Myth and Talk:Mythology, but also applies (in addition to the examples of nation & freedom given) to notions such as theory.

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the first part of the change. Your second paragraph, however, gives me pause. Perhaps you're thinking of a specific case but your wording above is very open-ended. In general, I would say that it is not particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia to describe "how a word is used". Encyclopedia articles should be about the "thing" (whether that this is an object, a social concept, etc.). Discussion about the "word" - including alternate definitions, usage, etc. - is better moved over to Wiktionary. There are exceptions - for example, a brief definition in order to introduce the concept and to eliminate ambiguity - but detailed discussion are better covered by linking to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are or should be used". I agree with Rossami that your added sentence is problematic. It seems to me to reverse the previous meaning. Pending development of a consensus otherwise, I will revert to the previous wording. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are or should be used" proposal from Dalbury, which covers the issue of not assigning "correct" or "real" labels to particular definitions. My concern is when you have one word indicating different things, it is reasonable to describe how the word is used to describe those different things.

For example, the current theory article could be seen as violating the "not a usage guide" rule. This article gives a number of different senses of theory: "an unsubstantiated guess or hunch"; "a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together"; "an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models"; "bodies of knowledge about mathematics, [consisting] of axioms, definitions, theorems and computational techniques, all related in some way by tradition or practice"; "a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms"; etc, etc, etc. According to the current policy, "disambiguation pages [...] are used to clarify differing meanings of a word"; by this standard, Theory should be a disambiguation page linking to Theory (scientific), Theory (popular sense), Theory (mathematics), etc.

However, since Theory gives encyclopedic treatment to each of these senses (i.e., to how they are used by different people in different contexts), this article is more than a disambiguation page (where each item has at most a brief description) or even a summary page (with summarized discussion of a number of related topics and links to main articles).

In other words, how do we word policy to allow for such articles, when

1. there are multiple senses of a word,
2. these senses are related closely enough that they should share an article for purposes of comparison & contrast,
3. there is enough material for encyclopedic treatment of each sense, and
4. the benefit of creating separate articles for each sense does not outweigh the benefits of #2,

so that such articles do not run afoul of #Wikipedia is not a dictionary? JHCC (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is already covered by "However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom." If we keep this but still change "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used." to "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used" all the concerns should be addressed. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose that I'm just trying to clarify that "Usage guide" refers primarily to grammatical usage and writing style (see Style guide) and that #Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not preclude encyclopedic treatment of multiple definitions "as the main subject of an encyclopedia article" and not just "in the context of an encyclopedia article". JHCC (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that definitions, even multiple ones, should be the main subject. Can you give an example of such an article? Superm401 - Talk 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. The Theory article (cited above) begins with the sentence "Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies." It then goes on to describe these various meanings within the various fields, contrasting also with the popular dismissive usage of "theory = something not proven", as in "that's just a theory, it's not real." In this case, the skeleton of the article is the series of definitions of "theory", but the article is much more than just a series of definitions. Another article that has the potential to be such an example (if it weren't locked in edit wars) is Myth; encyclopedic treatment of the sometimes overlapping, sometimes mutually exclusive senses of "myth = something false" (popular sense), "myth = story that a culture or religion uses to convey meaning" (academic sense, which also does not imply either truth or falsity), and "myth = story that conveys meaning" (religious sense, but specifically implies truth) could result in a more extensive article that is also more than just a list of definitions. JHCC (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

I don't know if this(Filmsite.org) would fall under an advertising label and shouldn't be here. If so, how would I lable these things or go about getting them fixed in the future? Thanks Chris M. 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There's the {{advertisement}} tag. If you really don't think something belongs though because it's advertising, you can take it to WP:AFD (articles for deletion) where such pages can be deleted. In this case, you might see WP:WEB for specific website guidelines. Hopefully I'm understanding your question correctly. --W.marsh 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Alkivar

This guy is looks like using their userpage as personal promotion and personal Homepage. Is just curious that he used their own photo to illustrate Wikipedia Disc jockey article, and added himself in APOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW. Wikimedia is not personal host, right? --Rick Browser 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, his user page is a bit excessive, but there's still an emphasis on Wikipedia (as shown by the contribs list at the end) and he only has two pages (one is a list of images uploaded). You'll also notice that he doesn't include his resumé, but only abstracts and links. As for the DJ article, that's all right, because pictures are truly needed. It would have been better if he had removed the logo, but it's not really effective advertising. Finally, he seems to deserve a place in the aPC article (which appears notable enough) . Superm401 - Talk 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an MMORPG

(A suggestion)

Wikipedia is not a massive multiplayer game. If you feel you're not interested or capable of writing real encyclopedic material, don't use this service. Just voting on WP:AFD, writing comments on talk pages, chatting with other members or having a vanity personal page doesn't make you an encyclopedist. Go read some books, learn something useful, then come back to contribute something real. --84.228.107.148 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I am quite uncomfortable with editors whose overwhelming contribution outside of user space is voting in AfD, there are many roles to be played in developing Wikipedia, and editors can contribute in many ways besides writing articles. You have the germ of a principal. It needs to be refined. - Dalbury^(Talk) 11:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• The more general term is "Wikipedia is not a nomic". The term "nomic" is not as well known as MMORPG but it's a more precise description of the phenomenon you are describing. See the short discussion above. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's use a really general term: Wikipedia is not a game. Stevage 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia is not a Memorial actually mean?

Does Wikipedia is not a Memorial mean that we should never list non-notable casualties of battles, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters? If so, it should state that. If not, it should state that as well. Right now it is quite ambiguous as to what constitutes a "memorial", and different editors interpret it differently, leading to things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York. Kaldari 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Different editors often interpret policy differently. Wikipedia is not particularly consistent. If you want consistency, you want a command-and-control encyclopedia. The policy seems clear enough to me: dying, even tragically, does not fulfill the criteria for inclusion of WP:BIO. Dying is an accomplishment which most people usually achieve eventually.

If you have specific suggestions for improving the wording of the section on memorials, propose them here and, if consensus is reached, edit the policy page accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a policy requirement that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." The current issue relates to lists of victims of an otherwise newsworthy and verifiable act of violence. Often the main article(s) about the event would be intolerably long if lists of names of the victims, let alone any biographical information about them, were included in the main article(s). It doesn't necessarily follow that an article that is little more than a list of the victim's names is unencyclopedic, let alone a "memorial." I think it serves a useful encyclopedic purpose to have such lists, preferably with nonintrusive verifiable facts about the victims (e.g, age, gender, nationality, maybe occupation...)--FRS 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that a nonintrusive list is necessary for an encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia-worthy event happened, and there were deaths. I think WHO died is necessary. Although info beyond a name should be used only sparingly. Chris M. 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear what encyclopedic purpose is served by a list of names of the people who died in a tragedy. And how big of a tragedy does it have to be? Should we have a list of everyone who died in the tsunamis of December, 2004? Should we have a list of everybody who died in the Lockerbie disaster? Of everybody who died in Hurricane Katrina? And all of the other air crashes and train wrecks and mine disasters and floods and earthquakes ad infinitum? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Kent State shootings? Do you feel like this article is in violation of policy for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I don't think a reasonable person would consider that a "memorial". I consider it an important and valid part of the article. Clearly there is some threshold at which listing casualties or victims of an event is acceptable. I'm just trying to figure out where that threshold lies. Kaldari 03:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That number of names can be included in the narrative flow of the article. An article such as Pan Am Flight 103 names some of the crew and passengers as part of vignettes, but the vast majority are not named. It's when you start having a flat list that I think it stops being encyclopedic. If you haven't got anything meaningful to say about a victim in the body of the article, leave them out. Listing names just to list names doesn't make sense to me. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We have lists of names all over the place. Even lists of almost completely non-notable people. How about Karlovy Vary Award Winners 2005. I can name a dozen more articles just like that if you want. Wikipedia is full of them. People come to Wikipedia to find out all sorts of random information. Like "Who won best supporting actress in 1978?", "Who died in the Kent State shooting?", and even "Did so-and-so die in the World Trade Center attack?". How do I know people are looking for this information? Because they keep linking to the casualty lists in the memorial wiki from the article bodies. The only reason I brought this up in the first place is because I'm tired of removing inappropriate links to the memorial wiki. I'm happy with whatever the consensus is regarding memorials, but I'd really like to know What constitutes a memorial?. Kaldari 06:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My position is that most lists belong in an almanac, not an encyclopedia. Lists in an encyclopedia should generally include only items that are deserving of their own articles. If you include names in a list simply because they died in a specific event, you're memorializing them. In United Airlines Flight 93 the crew and passengers who placed phone calls from the plane during the hijacking or are known or believed to have participated in the attempt to take back the plane are discussed in the article. But what is the point of simply listing everyone else? That's the part that becomes merely a memorial. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I would like to hear what encyclopedic purpose is served by a list of names who died in a tragedy," my view is that a record of the names along with basic demographic info about the victims (and perpetrators, where it's a man made incident) is a useful tool for future researchers. As long as the content of the article is NPOV, I fail to understand what makes a "list" a "memorial." To my mind, separating the list from the main article on the subject is simply a way to keep the main article from being unacceptably long. --FRS 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• My objection to these lists of victims is that there are generally better (ie. more authoritative) online sources for this information elsewhere, and we do our readers more of a service by linking to these sources than providing this information of doubtful encyclopedic value. Indeed some of these lists are potential copyvios of these authoritative sources. In cases where this is no authoritative list of casualties, and where we still have confidence in the accuracy of our claims, then I would be inclined to keep the material. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a list of names is copyrightable, as a general rule, and while I certainly agree that links to external sources should be provided, I'm concerned that such external links can go dead or be moved at any moment.--FRS 19:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)