Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

5 pillars

Isn't it offensive to have "5 pillars of WK" when the real "5 pillars" are of Islam??? Cosprings (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Please use the "search" in the above archive box, or just click a couple of archive links randomly, to see previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, some believe it is, and some beleive it isn't. Libcub (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope nobody is suggesting that only one topic can have "5 pillars". Lists such as "7 principles", "top 10" and so on are common throughout history. A brief list of "5 pillars" known to Google:

• "Five Pillars of social media optimization" [1]
• "Five Pillars of workplace happiness" [2]
• "Five Pillars of Barack Obama's foreign policy" [3]
• "Five Pillars of an organization" [4]
• "Five Pillars of the Reformation" [5]
• "Five Pillars of reading literacy" [6]
• "Five Pillars of Growth in the Philippines" [7]
• "Five Pillars of Ubuntu" [8]
• "Five Pillars of the spiritual life" [9]
• "Five Pillars of the criminal justice system" [10]
• "Five Pillars of Kettleball weight training" [11]
• "Five Pillars of consumer technology" [12]
• "Five Pillars of a new sustainability" [13]
• "Five Pillars of diversity success" [14]
• "Five Pillars of product strategy" [15]
• "Five Pillars of student integrity" [16]
• "Five Pillars of lead generation" [17]
• More...

Google also lists a wide range of others like this:

• "Ten Commandments of good source control management" [18]
• "Ten Commandments of umpiring cricket" [19]
• "Ten Commandments of computer ethics" [20]
• "Ten Commandments of communication" [21]
• "Ten Commandments of firearm safety" [22]
• More...

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

four corndogs of freedom 68.70.67.226 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple points of view

The recent two edits by SlimVirgin were useful, but I am not sure about the resulting emphasis in the NPOV pillar which now reads "We strive for articles that present multiple points of view"—that could be interpreted as "the more points of view the better" (e.g. Evolution should include sections on creationism and other POVs). The previous (established) NPOV pillar and the new (current) pillar start:

Previous NPOV

New NPOV

We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.

We strive for articles that present multiple points of view accurately and in context. Unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references, and do not add your personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions.

The previous version did not mention WP:DUE either, so I'm just uneasy about the new wording without any feeling about how to improve the material. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WRT "We strive for articles that present multiple points of view accurately and in context," I think the previous version slightly better, because sometimes there really aren't "multiple points of view". Consider an article on, say, basic arithmetic. There really aren't "multiple points of view" on this subject. All reliable sources agree that addition is commutative, that most people benefit from knowing how to add numbers, and that 2 + 2 = 4. This POV is so dominant that Addition ought not mention any others.

I'm not even sure you could have "multiple points of view" even for something as opinionated as food: I happen to prefer Felchlin's dark chocolate to Cadbury's milk chocolate, but the encyclopedic description is that Cadbury's milk chocolate is very sweet, smooth, and mild, rather than "not my favorite". There aren't really any "points of view" that hold Cadbury Dairy Milk to not be sweet, smooth, and mild (and, if you want to get technical, to have a clean snap and slightly dry mouth feel). Whether these characteristics are desirable in a bar of chocolate is pretty much irrelevant, because those opinions would only be an unencyclopedic distraction. In that sense, the goal is to present the facts from as nearly "no POV at all" as humanly possible, rather than from "multiple POVs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think that the 'excessive' level of linking is appropriate, particularly for a page that so many people—and therefore so many people with weak English skills—read. I would object strongly to the sea of blue in an article, but I think it serves a purpose here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with What. Sometimes there are not legitimately more than one point of view. To claim our goal is multiple points of view implies each is valid and should each be given equal weight. We DO weight our articles towards what the sources weigh their view point. WE may have a neutral point of view, but sources dont. Sources on particle physics, evolution, quantum mechanics, any scientific study is going to be weighted against fringe ideas, even fringe ideas that may one day be found true, because new ideas need to be tested and verified to override current thinking. We shouldnt attempt to go out of our way to show we're being "fair" to everyone's viewpoint, sometime's someone's viewpoint is not relevant.Camelbinky (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

“We strive for articles that present multiple points of view accurately and in context.” - What shall we do, if one point of view represents the subject, as it is done in academic sources and encyclopaedias, and the other point of view is supported by old sources and is not admitted by main-stream science? F.i.? shall what shall we write, if one point of view supports that London is the capital of Great Britain, and the other that it is the capital of France? Shall we write, what is supported by sources, or shall we invent a neutral wording to reconcile these two points of view?-- Zara-arush (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's where, hopefully, editors can come to the correct conclusion that older sources are using a discredited hypothesis or out-of-date information. If some one disputes, then hopefully using talk pages it can be shown through sources that, in your example, that only one source out thousands has that information and therefore that one source was misprinted or has multiple other errors making it unreliable. Or, to give an example of a country whose capital moved, then a source could be presented that the capital moved thereby showing that in sentences about the current capital it must be declared as just the one city and not the other. We dont have to use every single source and give equal weight to each one, if the information is out-of-date it no longer becomes reliable for that particular information in the context of what is believed today, though may be relevant and reliable as a source for historical beliefs, points of view, location of capitals in previous years.Camelbinky (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Shall the same principle be applied to the statements, created by former Soviet propaganda with the supporting speculations and falsifications of data and written sources around the statements of mains tream historic science and history of culture or literature? I hope yes, otherwise I have nothing to do in the project, because the mediator offered something like "Par-Lond" in his dicision that caused further and more serious falsifications, -- Zara-arush (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope I understand the question correctly, if this doesnt answer your question please let me know. Soviet propaganda science, separate from their actual scientific accomplishments, would be relevant to the history of scientific topics but not relevant to actual scientific beliefs as facts for today. Exagerated example- if Soviet "science" stated the moon was made of silver, you cant use that as a source to state the moon is made of silver, but you CAN use it as a source to state that during the Cold War Soviet scientists stated the moon was made of silver.Camelbinky (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time, people believed that the Earth was flat. We would not want to use a very old source to say in Earth that the planet is now believed to be flat. however, it is perfectly reasonable to say that people used to believe that the planet was flat.

In some cases, the True™ answer is not known. One archaeologist might look at a tiny artifact and say, "Here is evidence that these people ate rice regularly". Another might look at the same tiny artifact and say, "Here is evidence that these people bought and sold rice from distant lands". The Wikipedia editor cannot know which expert is right, or if both are right, or if neither is right. When this is the case, we usually describe both experts' views: "In the 1950s, experts thought that these people ate rice. More recently, experts have written that these people bought and sold rice." You can handle political differences the same way: "Soviet scholars said that these people ate rice. Turkish scholars have written that these people bought and sold rice." This solution tells the reader that different experts have said different things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So, shall we write then that British historians consider that Shakespear is an English writer, but French ones consider him French writer, meanwhile the German scholars consider Shakespear a classic of German literature? And what shall we write in the preface to Shakespear article?-- Zara-arush (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And dont forget that Klingons consider Shakespeare to be a Klingon writer... I forget which Star Trek movie that's from, but anyways... The consensus of sources and scholars is that Shakespeare was English, and that his works were written in English, that's what we go by (I assume, I havent read the article itself), though I'm hoping there is discussion further in the article regarding controversies of the nation of origin of the playwright. The majority of scholars acknowledge Shakespeare is of English origin, because he is or perhaps because history is written by the victors and the British Empire (and it's cultural descendant the USA) have been preeminant in world history since the defeat of France in the mid-1700s during the French and Indian Wars (American terminology), and conclusively so since 1815. Either way it isn't Wikipedia's job to question WHY scholars hold the views they do.Camelbinky (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But the French don't say that Shakespeare was French, and the Germans revere him because his works translate into German beautifully (magnificently, even), but they never say that he was German.

If—and only if—there were serious claims that Shakespeare were French or German, then we would certainly report that doubt. In fact, we do report questions about his identity, as you can see at Shakespeare authorship question, because there is a bona fide scholarly debate about which works were actually written by which person. There are dozens of claims made, but I don't believe that there's a single French or German person anywhere in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I did not want to specify the particular cases, where similar discussions are going on. I just want to explain, why I think that some more explanations will better be added in the rules. But if it may be of your interest, I will explain. This rule is the principal for all language divisions, and I guess the more concretization is needed first to avaid marginal statements in the prefaces, and second to stop continues conflicts, when the parties manupulate with the principal of correct data and the principal of neutrality and offer wrong wordings for the sake of reaching consensus, -- Zara-arush (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page "FAQ"

I noticed that the talk page FAQ currently contains:

• Q: Is this page a policy or guideline?
• A: No. It is a non-binding description of fundamental principles, written by User:Neutrality in 2005. Officially, it is a Wikipedia essay that summarizes some of the actual policies and guidelines, rather than being a policy or guideline itself. For comparison, WP:NPOV was begun in 2001, and WP:NOR and WP:V were written in 2003.

To start with I certainly agree that that may match Camelbinky's and other's beliefs.

However:

• it's not marked as an essay, so it's not, as stated, officially an essay
• very many people (notably Jimmy Wales) believe that it is policy, and it's listed in some places as a policy, so the 'no' seems to be dubious (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it's not clear either way, a 'no' is too strong).
• it wasn't written by Neutrality, it was started by Neutrality, a large number of people have edited it since, and this is true of WP:NOR and WP:V also.

So overall, I see that this part of the FAQ has some accuracy problems.

What do others think? -Rememberway (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLICY currently describes it as 'a summary of the most pertinent principles'. No it's not a policy. Dmcq (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say it's not a policy though, and there's a box on the right titled 'Wikipedia policy' which has it immediately underneath, which says it is. And it is mentioned from the WP:POLICY page, which in and of itself seems to imply that it is.

But as I say, I'm not saying it is, but saying that it definitely isn't in the FAQ seems incorrect. It's actually quite arguable either way. -Rememberway (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think one might just as well ask if WP:List of policies is a policy guideline or essay. It also summarizes policies. Actually that page is in category Wikipedia policy but is not a policy so it is even wronger (is that a word?). Dmcq (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You certainly could. but the FAQ doesn't mention that page at all. Meanwhile, do you have a link that specifically says that WP:5P is definitely not a policy, because there are actually places that say that it is? -Rememberway (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus on this talk page has consistently said it is not a policy, there's two discussions in the latest archive Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars/Archive_7 and more in previous archives. It is a summary rather than a policy in itself. If something is agreed to be a policy it is marked as a policy. This has not been submitted as a policy and wouldn't pass if it were. Dmcq (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have read archive 7, but the consensus doesn't seem to be there. -Rememberway (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything else to support this? -Rememberway (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLICY also links to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (essay, and at least three times), Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales (info page), Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays (essay), Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays (essay), Wikipedia:Content (info page), Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance (essay), Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep (essay), plus multiple lists, categories, templates, and at least one regular article.

Being linked to in a policy does not make the linked-to page a policy; it only means that linking the page seemed more useful than incorporating it into the policy itself. For example, such a link might provide descriptions, examples, or detailed how-to information that didn't seem to fit properly into a formal policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So independently of the policy/not policy issue, these two points:

• it's not marked as an essay, so it's not, as stated, officially an essay
• it wasn't written by Neutrality, it was started by Neutrality, a large number of people have edited it since, and this is true of WP:NOR and WP:V also.

These are not currently being contended by anyone, so are these consensus points that I can amend on the FAQ. I would like to at least remove the word 'officially' and change it to 'started by' as these seem unsupportable. -Rememberway (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. There are other pages about which WP:POLICY says 'These pages are not policies or guidelines, although they may contain valuable advice or information'. This page is categorized as an essay but not marked as one so there's no need to say 'officially' about that. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both points. In fact I'd drop all reference to essays and just say that "It summarizes..." The question about "won't Muslims be offended..." seems a bit wide of the mark as well - to answer "No.", when we know from this talk page that sometimes some are, seems rather misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we know that about some Muslims being offended? Any complaints I've see seem to have been from people saying things like Muslims will be offended rather than any actual offended Muslim. Since they use practically the same thing on the Arabic Wikipedia complete with pictures of pillars I would guess they aren't overly offended. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do think the answer in the FAQ is a bit long and unnecessary though and could do with a thorough trimming if somebody would like to propose something better. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just drop the initial "No." and the last sentence (which seems to be saying "if you express the view that this might be offensive to Muslims, that makes you a bigot and a troll").--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(Having looked at the past discussion, though, you seem to be right - the doubts are always expressed by people identifying as non-Muslims, and all those identifying as Muslim say it's not offensive.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Depressing, but true. Complaints consistently appear from non-Muslim people, on behalf of a group that they apparently believe are extremely easy to offend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I think they're just wondering in good faith whether we might have inadvertently done something offensive to a certain group. I don't see anything to suggest they think that group is any more "easy to offend" than any other similar group.--Kotniski (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's a policy or guideline or not, depends on how you define 'policy' and 'guideline', but since they have no completely airtight definitions, that discussion can never end. One thing it 100% definitely is though, is 'basic information about the Wikipedia'; since it's in that category. -Rememberway (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the structure and content haven't changed dramatically since its first day, I think it fair and appropriate to honor User:Neutrality as the person who originally wrote it, not merely the person who "started" it.

Categorization isn't the be-all and end-all of a page's status. This page has been listed in the essays cat before; we can add the cat again if it seems helpful to you. It is supported by WP:WikiProject Essays rather than WP:WikiProject Policies and guidelines, which is another clue about its status.

I think it's really important for editors not to get too hung up on the official status. This is an essay, but that doesn't mean that you can just ignore its excellent advice. The WP:Difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is subtle. It's not a matter of "must comply with policies, should comply with guidelines, may safely ignore essays". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As that essay says: "The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia is obscure. There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay". Various theories have been put forward as to what these differences are, but they're all wrong."

So I'm sorry, but I don't think you can correctly say that it's an essay and expect everyone to believe you. That's the point. There's no way to agree on this. You can say it's a Wikipedian essay, I can say it's a policy, Jimbo says hardcore solid policy, others can say guideline. It's probably a bit of all three types. I'm personally comfortable with it being a quantum state of all three, but most people seem to want a Newtonian approach. And there is absolutely no consensus, or it would actually be tagged with one label on the main page. And that's probably what the FAQ should say, but ironically there's probably actually not even consensus for it to say that- everyone says that they and only they know the One True Answer; in the same sense that the Blind men and an elephant each know absolutely what they have. -Rememberway (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a photon or a quark or a graviton. In the perennial discussions regarding "is WP:5P a policy?" the ONLY ones who claim that there is no consensus are the minority who claim it IS a policy. And the reason it continues to not be labeled a policy is because they are in fact in the minority and hold up and claim "no consensus" when other labels are attempted to be put it. Here is the history of this page in a nutshell (read the archives from day one and go through every single edit history as I have and you'll see)- This is an essay written by one individual AS A WELCOMING PAGE TO NEWBIES, that was its intention, that was its use, unfortunately newbies being welcomed with templates that pointed them to this came to see this as some sort of official status page and it continued to accrue such status, newbies in Wikipedia or any convert to a religion tend to be the most fervent and conservative. In every discussion on any noticeboard or attempt to use the 5P to force policy or guidelines into static "conformity" with the 5P have been shot down as illegitimate arguments. The 5P have no weight whatsoever. It has been established that policy flows from consensus and the 5P flow from policy. NOT the other way around, the 5P do not dictate what policy says, consensus on policies force what the 5P say since all the 5P does is summarize them. This is a nice page that SUMMARIZES what most Wikipedians can agree on the most. I would love it if the lead to the 5P page said this "We in Wikipedia dont agree on much very often, but basically these five things are what 99% of us agree on 99% of the time. For example we cant even agree on what to label this page, which is why we dont label it as anything".Camelbinky (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I still just think that the label you'd want to use for this depends what leg of the elephant you've got. -Rememberway (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that we are "blind" (as a metaphor for ignorance I suppose) and that the 5P is too big for an individual to understand. I respectfuly disagree that that is the case. A comprehensive study of the 5P by reading through the entire archives of this talk page and going through by detail the entire edit history of the 5P page to learn the history of what the page looked like, what edits were successful which were challenged and the discussions that led to disputed changes succeeding or not, is an important endevour. One I have done, and one I did because many before me mentioned they had done so. I personally think it's a bad argument to say that the 5P is like an elephant and it's just too big for us to describe, it insults the intelligence of Wikipedians. I think we're collectively smart enough to come to a consensus, though there may be some who disagree and will use "no consensus" argument as a form of fillibuster. And perhaps it is their right to fillibuster, the majority is not always "right".Camelbinky (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I missed the policy that says every page must be labeled. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The blindness is that of thinking that each entire page in Wikipedia space must be in one and only one category- that the categories are actually mutually exclusive. But they're not. In order for that to be true the definitions of the categories would have to be carefully designed and maintained to be specifically and completely mutually exclusive, but they just haven't been defined like that, they have significant overlaps. -Rememberway (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For those who aren't following it, I've just made some edits to the /FAQ page to address some of the (hopefully uncontroversial) concerns that have been expressed here.--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my position, Rmemberway- I never said that this page needed to be in a category. My position for the past several years has always been simply "Do not label it a policy or any wording that can be interpreted as it being of any official weight in Wikipedia". That is all. As for policies, guidelines, and essays there is only a slight difference between policies and guidelines but when it comes to the difference between policies and essays I would say there is a HUGE difference. I'm fine with not declaring this page to be any type of category, that suits me just fine.Camelbinky (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that sounds a bit better, but I feel I have to point out that if you try to hold an elephant by the tail, it doesn't seem to be very big, but nevertheless an elephant, and this page, should be handled with respect as, like that elephant, it very definitely does actually have a great deal of weight! -Rememberway (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And it does seem to have policy-like aspects, as it can be reasonably considered to be the policy that states what our overall working principles are. Or you can think of it as guidelines of how this place works, or as an essay, or even just as basic summary information that new people must read. These and other viewpoints don't seem to be right or wrong; anyone can reasonably agree with them or consider any of them unimportant. But if it really wasn't an 'official' page we would delete it. -Rememberway (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict widespread consensus so why would we delete it? Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It represents the widespread consensus that these are the principles of the Wikipedia, that's true. -Rememberway (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not the widespread consensus that the 5P ARE the principles of Wikipedia. Consensus is that they are a summary of the principles. The 5P themselves are NOT the principles themselves. I disagree that this page has ANY policy-like aspects. Policies are the codification of consensuses that have been reached on how to handle things in Wikipedia and should be followed until consensus in discussions show the policy to be outdated and policy is then updated to the new consensus. The 5P is simply a summary. I also disagree on your choice of wording that "basic summary that new people must read" new people MUST do nothing of the sort, this is not required reading and someone can edit for years just fine without ever reading this page. This is not our constitution, and our policies do not need to conform to it, it is the other way around. The 5P must always conform to the policies. If you go to a policy page or a noticeboard and use the 5P as justification for why the policy should say what it says or not be changed or it should be applied in a certain way you will definitely be told that the 5P is irrelevant to the discussion. The 5P does not have any weight when it comes to how Wikipedia is run. It is a summary of things that do have weight. It is like a piece of paper that describes what an elephant looks like, the elephant (policies) have weight the paper (5P) does not.Camelbinky (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no consensus that this page is Wikipedia's principles; there is no consensus that Wikipedia's principles are best organized into five points; there is no consensus that this page describes all of Wikipedia's principles; there is no consensus that absolutely every single thing mentioned on this page at any given point in time is reflects Wikipedia's principles. IMO this is a very good description of Wikipedia's principles, but it's possible that someone will write an even better description tomorrow.

Additionally, while it is prominently listed in some welcome templates (which I assume is what Rememberway means by "new people must read"), others like {{welcomeshort}} don't link it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So if the page is an essay, why don't we label it as one and categorize it as one?--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

With no opinion one way or the other on categorizing it, I dont think those who would disagree would ever agree that consensus is against them. All it would take is one stubborn editor claiming "no consensus" to hold up the categorizing of it. Categorization as an essay doesnt seem that important, even though it would cut down on the misconception of this as policy, or official, or as a constitution.Camelbinky (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd favor catting it, because it would give people one more way to find the page. I think that previous arguments against adding the large {{essay}} template are valid: it's ugly and it is likely to make brand-new editors think the information on the page is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

People finding this page by trawling through the catalogue of essays? I'd say pull the other one except I know really strange things happen when you take a probability to the power of a few million. Anyway I don't think this page is an essay. Dmcq (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary to dump it in the main cat; I could see one or more of these being reasonably appropriate:

• Category:Wikipedia guidance essays
• Category:Essays about what Wikipedia is
• Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice
• Category:Wikipedia essays about editing
• Category:Wikipedia essays on building the encyclopedia

There may even be other suitable cats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an essay either. Essays are attempting to advance an argument of some kind, and are opinion centred and don't read like this. -Rememberway (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Some essays do, and others don't. Persuasion and opinions are not the sole subjects of essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be a Wikipedia essay as this is usually understood, nor does it have much to do with that types of essays, it's not a list of essays for example. -Rememberway (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is maintained by the wikiproject essays. And this talk page is indeed categorized as an essay talk page. It is an essay.Camelbinky (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So maybe it's the talk-page categorization that's wrong. The page itself is not categorized or marked as an essay. And I don't remember asking the permission of WikiProject Essays whenever I've "maintained" the page in the past. So I don't think we can say there's consensus that it's definitely an essay. Or that it's a member of any other class of page. (But if such consensus is being sought, then I've no objection to its coming to be properly classified as an essay - it might help combat the common misconception that this is the fundamental page from which all policies originate.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought we settled this perennial argument when someone ran to Jimbo and Jimbo said it was "solid hardcore policy". Gigs (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

He's just one person.--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, Jimbo did not say whether 5P is "solid hardcore policy" or instead summarizes "solid hardcore policy".

Policies are normally identified through the community's WP:PROPOSAL process, not through declarations by god-kings (as the reluctant god-king himself would tell you). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the actual exchange with Jimbo, it's in here, "What is your personal view as both a regular editor and/or as the Founder (or grand-poomba or whatever) of Wikipedia about the WP:5P and their status?" "Solid hardcore policy." He then goes on to agree with Sphilbrick that the pillars document what always was the policy. They weren't a new proposal, they didn't propose anything that wasn't already the current practice. They are policy in the truest sense, they document our best practices. The minority is the few people here who keep trying to call this "just an essay", which is silly. Gigs (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There are more than a dozen of pages that do the same thing. Would you call WP:TRIFECTA a "solid hardcore policy"? It documents what always was the policy, proposes nothing new, and describes nothing more than the long-standing practice. It is "policy in the truest sense" and does nothing more than "document our best practices". But I don't see anyone trying to call Trifecta a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do call Trifecta that. I think that in terms of what they say, absolutely they're both policy, and really 5P is a fork of Trifecta, so they're even substantially the same policy document, and I don't find any material difference between them. But 5P is the particular version of text that has achieved acceptance and is mostly linked to. -Rememberway (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is now going beyond 'silly' and we're far into the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point territory. The decision seems to be against this as being considered simply an essay, but WhatamIdoing in particular is persistently edit warring a 'FAQ' (and I use the term loosely) so as to state as 'fact' his minority view that it 'really' is simply an essay, even though it's been decided that isn't. -Rememberway (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen it is not "just" What, or even What "in particular" it seems Kotniski, What, and I (all three of us have worked on policy and the 5P in particular for a long time, years even). What Jimbo thinks is irrelevant, and I am the person "who went running to Jimbo", and I wouldnt say I went "running" I asked a simple question and I often ask Jimbo questions and I have NEVER used his answer as a weapon in a discussion and I think it's wrong to use his opinion as such. It is the opinion of a wise person who knows ALOT about Wikipedia. If he believes the the 5P page itself is hardcore policy then he's welcome to make that case as to WHY. But it isn't his decision to make, it is the consensus of Wikipedians. And that is NOT the consensus of Wikipedians. We've been through this perennial question and you don't get to just keep making the same darn argument over and over hoping eventually you get your opinions caught at a time when they arent looking and you can change the page. The opportunity to classify this as something "policy-like" (ie- something you can use in a discussion as a reason for policy or a decisions to be decided in a certain way) has passed by,it failed too many times and you dont get to keep trying. That was the point of the FAQ page in the first place! To end perennial discussions, specifically about policy or not and the Islamic discussion etc.Camelbinky (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

By my count you're in the minority of 2 on this. Me, Kotniski, Gigs, Dmcq, and it looks like johnuniq doesn't agree with you either. So far as I can tell, to put it bluntly, you're just edit warring this on the talk page, because you couldn't edit war it through on the main page, you failed there as well. If this really was an essay it would be labelled that way on the main page. It isn't. -Rememberway (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

By my count, you need to be more careful about how you're counting your alleged supporters. Kotniski says it's closer to an essay than a policy. Johnuniq believes it's a candidate for WP:NOTAG, which is not the same as saying it's a {{policy}}. And Dmcq directly told you, "No it's not a policy.". So I could "a minority of two" in the policy camp. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The project page says that it is "fundamental principles", the FAQ shows that it is listed at WP:Principles, could it be "fundamental principles"?  Anyway, my real concern is that it is not an essay and should not be confused with being an essay.  It is not a "top-impact essay".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What problem are people trying to solve with all this discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that generally speaking those that want to tag this as policy do so for the reason of giving the 5P "more than policy" status, to give it the equivelance of a Wikipedia Constitution. Generally those individuals are along the conservative point of view, in Wikipedia I classify conservatives as those that see policies as "laws or rules" to be strictly enforced, dont like IAR, interpret policy literally with little leeway, and do not like to see innovation or rewritting of policy, liberals being those that see policy as "this is what should in a perfect case scenario", like IAR, interpret policy broadly, and like to see innovation and frequent changing of policy. This in no way has anything to do with large-C Conservative Party, Republican Party, or social or fiscal conservatives in politics. Sorry if this seems "battlegroundish" but in a way what we decide here through consensus and compromise has ripples and effects throughout all policies on the basic path Wikipedia follows. If a conservative viewpoint of the 5P becomes established it has consequences for Wikipedia's ability to be dynamic and constantly changing according to the whims of future consensus. A conservative strict constructionist interpretation encoded into the 5P will spread to all policies and policies will be static and strictly enforced leaving little room for future innovation and improvements due to consensus, we'll be stuck with policies as they are because "that's the way the policy is written" with changes being shot down for no reason but "it works the way it is" (when it doesnt really work).Camelbinky (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd add to this that Wikipedians probably have the same (in)ability to tolerate ambiguity as the general population. Our actual policy system is this: The real policy is the amorphous, constantly sifting actual practice of the community. The written policies (*and guidelines and essays and information pages) are merely what the community wrote down as guideposts to help editors (particularly inexperienced people) figure out what the real policy is. If the written policy conflicts with actual practice, then it's the written policy that gets thrown out.

This is deeply disturbing to some people. Especially if they were erroneously told that 5P is the fundamental document that preceded all others, etc., then applying WP:NOTAG here, or worse, saying that really, 5P is not some magical solid ground in a shifting sea, but rather just one (IMO very good) summary or navbox for the real policy, is apparently intolerable to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm still perplexed: Has anyone tried to label this as policy recently? I know what Jimbo said, and of course he is correct in the sense that anyone disregarding 5P is incompatible with Wikipedia (remember that it includes IAR for corner cases where rules need to be disregarded). Jimbo's statement is correct because 5P is a valid summary of existing principles, not because 5P has some special status (the principles have the status, not this page). I think Camelbinky is reading far too much into whatever discussions have occurred: 5P has too much emphasis on IAR, so it's hard to believe that people who support 5P are mainly those that do not like IAR. If a policy needs to be improved due to something not working, the procedure would be to first get consensus that there is a problem, then discuss what changes are needed (at WP:VPR?). If someone says "you can't do that because it's incompatible with 5P", what they should mean is that (in their opinion), the principles listed here are desirable (and given that one of them is IAR, they certainly don't mean that some change cannot occur because 5P is written a certain way). Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But John the 5P do state (or did at one point) state that "there are no strict rules in Wikipedia, except these 5 principles" which of course then leads to discussions regarding changing the wording of the 5P, certain policies, or applying policies in a certain way, where people (my conservatives) will state that the new wording or application conflicts with the 5P and you cant conflict with the 5P because those are the unchangeable, they are strict rules (ie-laws). And it happens quite a bit at noticeboards and talk pages of policies. Those that want to classify this as a policy (or higher) tend to be those that also degrade and denigrate IAR and dont see the legitimacy of it. IAR is constantly under attack, from weakening it, to downgrading its status, to saying it can never truly be applied, so much so that at one point Jimbo himself had to step in and reinstate its policy status and wording with the edit comment "IAR is and always has been policy". Creating the impression that the 5P page is at the same status as actual policy sets a bad example. Do you really want in a discussion at the RS/N or OR/N or village pumps "5P says x", instead of "WP:V says we do this in this case because it falls under y exception"; if the 5P are put on this pedestal (or pillar if you will haha) above policy then in that case the vague 5P wording will eventually be given more weight than a specific policy or guideline exception. Perhaps my doom day predictions are the worst possible scenarios, but they are still possibilities and quite real, and in Wikipedia we should always err on wording that stops the worst possible problems. The worst scenarios of no tagging of this page or tagging as an essay is heads over shoulders better than the worst scenario of tagging as policy; therefore go for the lessor of the two evils.Camelbinky (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Carved in stone

Overall, most of the net changes of the last few days either seem minor or are a clear improvement ("use and modify" being an example of the latter). However, I'm concerned about the loss of "carved in stone". I think it important to indicate that consensus can and does change—that not only are you allowed to 'break' the rules on occasion, but that the rules aren't "carved in stone", that is, they are not permanent and unchanging monuments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. We should return the wording.Camelbinky (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a crucial point. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I was the one who took it out. Oops! That was definitely an accident. Thanks for being more prudent than I and taking it to the talk page before reverting. I put in something that I think covers it, but if either of you (or FT2, or anyone else) thinks 'carved in stone' is better, please don't hesitate to revert and write it the way you see fit. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, endorse reinstating it too. It's a widely used wording in describing policies and guidelines, see many of the searched items here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding IAR/"No fixed rules" - it's probably the single most misunderstood "rule" we have. It covers a range of meaning:

1. The spirit of rules trumps their wording;
2. Policies exist to document norms and best practices we agree upon;
3. Wordings vary as we experiment with them (consequence of #2);
4. Rules are not carved in stone (common wording used in a wide range of places)
5. Rare exceptions to rules may be needed to improve the project
6. Corollary - just because rules can be ignored, is not a license for anarchy. They are also the result of widespread consensus and should be followed by default in most cases.
7. If a rule makes you unhappy in editing, ignore it (judiciously - this was the original IAR wording)

The most important aspects to convey are probably #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6 (the other two follow from them). The term "firm rules" is both vague and inaccurate. In fact most rules are firm - try breaching most policies and you'll find this. What they are not, is "rigidly fixed". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please forgive any confusion I may have caused as I switch usernames in the middle of the conversation. (See User:Anentiresleeve for an explanation.)

As I remember it, the original version of IAR had a slightly but significantly different meaning than the one we have now (speaking of policies not being carved in stone :)). The original purpose of the page was, in my estimation, to address concerns that new users to the then-fledgling Wikipedia may find its infant system of rules complicated and hard to follow. The founders did not want the rules to discourage new people from trying out the site and contributing to it, so they made a page encouraging people to get started editing and not worry too much about memorizing the rules before they do so.

As Wikipedia's attitude toward new users has grown more suspicious, and the social/political aspects evolved, the meaning of IAR shifted accordingly. Nowadays, the purpose of IAR, in my estimation, is to give explicit support to users to use editorial discretion and best judgment in cases where the letter of a rule prohibits her from doing something clearly necessary to improve article content. This has some very useful benefits, as it encourages users to think of themselves as making an individual creative contribution to Wikipedia, as editors who are in control of - and responsible for - their own best judgment about what to do and say. It also gives them something in policy that they can use to counter rigid applications of policies where users object to policy-contravening edits just because they violate policy and for no better reason.

Now, based on what you've said, I worry that you disagree with my interpretation, and that you may think that people should follow the rules and not maintain the conviction that they have license to use independent editorial judgment in cases where they sincerely believe, in their reasoned opinion, that acting outside a policy will improve the encyclopedia due to specific circumstances. That's what I take the "no firm rules" bit to mean. What do you think about that? --causa sui (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've summed up a lot of it very well. But a lot of it overlaps. Your description of "the original version" is what I've listed as #7, and your description of "editorial discretion" is close to the points I listed as #1 and #5.

Of the others, #2 is a simple description of how policies ("rules") work and their role - see WP:POLICY ("Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are pages that serve to document the good practices that are accepted"); #3 is self evident and again describes how policies/rules work (again see WP:POLICY), #4 is "not set in stone" - as seen above this has very strong consensus but also it's a natural corollary of the fact that policies can change and be edited; and #6 is the corollary - just because rules can be ignored and changed, doesn't mean we ignore them - they have very strong consensus and should not be lightly ignored, but only after careful thought and when it helps the project. Together these explain what we mean nowadays by this pillar - the pillar doesn't just cover the idea that rules can be ignored, but that rules change and reflect developing practice. That wider meaning probably got acquired on the way - the original IAR page didn't refer to that at all. But it's now a pivotal part of what we mean when we say "rules aren't fixed".

In other words, I think the original point (before the "5 pillars") was strictly about ignoring rules if they got in the way or made users uncertain about editing, but it's taken on covering the entire "rules can vary and be waived" thing since then, so now it includes both ignoring rules for comfort/improvement, but also non-rigidity of rules/spirit over wording/rules change over time, etc, as well. Ie, "how rules work". Thoughts on that? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree on the dual purpose of IAR (or multi-purpose). It is documented in many places that common courtesy is to not throw out, ignore, delete, discard, revert, undo, etc someone's contribution on technical aspects of formatting according to "the rules", and IAR is very much about that. New users and even established users have trouble keeping up on what exactly is the correct format for a hyphen, which infobox (or geobox) to use and numerous other more arcane aspects. We accept those less than "perfect" contributions that "ignore the rules". IAR's other fundamental aspect is codification that we can change the rules, it allows us to have discussions at the village pumps and OR/N, RS/N and elsewhere to decide "that policy needs an exception for this type of case" and we ignore the rule and may then codify it as a guideline if the exception is likely to become more common. IAR allows us to be dynamic and react quickly to changing circumstances on the spot rather than have to go to a policy talk page and discuss about putting into the policy an exception to deal with one case because RS/N doesnt have the "right" or "authority" to contradict strict wording in WP:V in a particular rare case.Camelbinky (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're in basic agreement about the substantive issues. I suppose the only other concern that someone might raise is that while IAR has all these multiple purposes and meanings that are equally significant and valid, why are we ensuring that we've captured them all individually on WP:5 and not on WP:IAR? One might argue that the simplicity of the wording on WP:IAR is what allows it to have pluralistic meaning, since each of the points you raised above could alternatively be read out of the same text. On the other hand, if we are too careful to enunciate all the meanings, someone might take that to be an exclusive list.

I'm not sure that I think this objection is right, but did think of it and it seems plausible and interesting. I'm sure that you'll come up with something satisfactory, but maybe you could keep that in mind while you do. Regards, --causa sui (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I just had a blinding flash of the obvious. You don't think that the fifth pillar is just a summary or restatement WP:IAR: you're taking the fifth pillar to have its own meaning, inclusive of IAR but not exclusive to it. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case, since the other pillars aren't merely restatement or summaries of an individual policy. I think that the other points you're making are also (in addition to IAR) true, correct, and important, and should be expressed explicitly in the fifth pillar. --causa sui (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You've put it much better than I did, with that last comment. Yes. More comfortable reinstating on that basis? I'd be happy to add a historical footnote to explain this point, if you think it's useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) Well, I don't think footnotes are necessary. We should put it in or not. As for reinstating content, I think I lost track of what exactly we're talking about reinstating. :-) The "rules are not carved in stone" wording is back in there, albeit not exactly the way you wrote it... what do you want to add at this point? You could make a bold edit and we can go from there if you like. --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to state that we have no RULES at ALL. I'd like to see the wording changed on the 5th pillar to eliminate the use (I believe at least 5 times) of the word rule(s) as if we have rules and that it is the word we use. We specifically do not call them rules and try all we can to not give that impression precisely because we dont want people having an idea about rules that we have to contradict with "ignore all rules" and "they are not carved in stone", because the word "rules" has a connotation (in Western culture at least) as being unbreakable or as laws.Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How would it help the encyclopedia to avoid the concept that certain rules apply here? The issue is much more subtle than "there are no rules", and a fair bit of wisdom is required to understand IAR. The point of 5P is that it is a useful summary for new editors, and IAR already has too much prominence whereby a new editor might imagine, for example, that if (in their view) it were really important to report some news flash with claims about a living person, then they had better use IAR to make sure the claims are recorded. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion IAR can never have too much prominence and in fact should have more prominence than the 5P. Yes, mistakes will be made, newbies will make mistakes. There are plenty of users who spend their time looking for such mistakes and correcting them. Rules in Monopoly, or Canasta or poker are the RULES of how to play, you CANT "ignore" the rules of blackjack or poker in a casino for instance. Our "rules" are NOT rules, policies and guidelines are "written codifications of how we have decided to handle such situations in the PAST, in the future the circumstances may vary, but these are good precedents to follow if they apply". Rules would imply that our policies are "how things MUST be done". And by those definitions I just put forth it is clear that policies are not rules. Your definition of rules may differ, and by your definition they may be rules. But clearly our policies are not the definition of "rules" that I just put forth. If you think that policies and guidelines are not the definition I put for them and are in fact the definition I put forth for "rules" then we have a bigger disagreement.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of not a bureaucracy is that there is no need to be concerned about the details you are mentioning. It is helpful to give new editors the guidance that following Wikipedia's conventions ("rules") is likely to give good results, while ignoring them or invoking IAR are very likely to give bad results. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I couldnt disagree more with that analysis of basically "We have IAR but let's tell the newbies not to ever use it". IAR exists and IS policy and there is no reason ever to tell anyone, newbie or not, that invoking it is something someone should be ashamed of. By the very wording of IAR you cant use IAR if it would result in bad results, so it is by definition of IAR impossible to use IAR to give bad results. Our policies only document past consensus results, they are descriptive not proscriptive. Any noticeboard, talk page discussion, etc if a consensus is to ignore a rule, then that consensus rules the day, not the policy. Consensus runs Wikipedia. What is decided in consensus is then used to change policy/guideline wording as consensuses are seen to be contrary to the existing policy. We dont conform our consensus to that of the policy.Camelbinky (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. All of the policies with legal implications are at least partially proscriptive, and some of "our" policies are actually dictats handed down from the WMF. There are even policies that cannot be ignored in practice, because we have automatic, universal enforcement. (For example, just try to ignore the policy of "no adding URLs to blacklisted websites". You won't get very far.)

We do have rules, but your definition is not the only one in the dictionary. We have "rules" that make Wikipedia orderly, and we have many rules of thumb. Wikipedia is not a rule-free place. If it were a rule-free place, there would be no point in telling people to ignore all rules. One does not generally bother telling people to ignore things that do not exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think something talking about 'policies' would be a good introduction for schoolchildren. It sounds more like elderly people and insurance. Fine for small print but I'd like to retain 5P as a good intro. Rules is good enough and it would just seem silly to have IAR and not have it refer to anything. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Essay wikiproject

Sick of having this discussion every month or two! Per policy if a wikiproject feels something should be labelled as part of their wikiproject then the banner is NOT to be removed regardless of whether other people by consensus feel it shouldnt be part of that wikiproject. It is up to the wikiproject. So until THEY come to the conclusion they dont want to watch this page the banner must stay per policy regardless of whether the page itself IS an essay or not.Camelbinky (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't like having the discussion? Best not to bring it up, then. :-) causa sui (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No choice but to bring it up because someone removed the essay wikiproject banner with the edit summary "not an essay". So yea, it had to be brought up. Perhaps you didnt notice that and you spoke without doing your due diligence thereby speaking without knowing what you were commenting on.Camelbinky (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to your concern for the Wikiproject, I've restored the banner.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, you didn't: you restored a made-up generic banner rather than their actual banner, with the custom rating that they assigned to it. But I'll fix it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Unscintillating probably has never read the relevant guideline and so didn't know that he can't tell that group of editors that they're not allowed to be interested in whatever pages they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware now that this is not an essay?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I am aware that a minority of editors believe that it is not an essay. I'm also aware that it has never been the subject of a WP:PROPOSAL to the community, and that your claims of it being a policy are steadfastly opposed by many editors, including the person most responsible for its creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I had already restored the banner by reverting Unscintillating's removal of it I would like to point out that Unscintillating's subsequent comment that he/she "restored" it out of "concern" was not only insincere and an outright lie, but in bad-faith as well since the true banner was there and he/she changed it to a made-up banner as WhatamIdoing pointed out and corrected. I find such bad-faith editing to be disruptive and cuts into Unscintillating's credibility for further discussing this issue.Camelbinky (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that anyone cares this much about it either way. --causa sui (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Boggles MY mind that someone who is so opposed to such discussions even has this page watchlisted or cares enough to waste their time with caustic unhelpful comments that can find one at the WP:WQA and eventually topic banned from contributing to such talk pages if they continue to be a disruption with nothing to say that actually helps and is simply a jerky jackass comment. If this is personal against ME speak up now.Camelbinky (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take a small step backwards. The essay marker is not a terribly important thing even in hothouse Wikipedia terms and you started talking about 'insincere' 'outright lie' 'bad faith' and now you're talking about WQA and topic baning for someone who finds such a reaction over the top. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Unscintillating said an outright lie and intentionally hid what he did. I had replaced the banner, then he/she replaced it with an incorrect banner and stated here that he/she had put the original banner back on their own out of good faith. Therefore there was a subterfuge and subsequent lie.Camelbinky (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is just your interpretation when not assuming good faith. I really do not appreciate this sort of talk over a missing line saying it is a top priority essay rather than just a normal one. Dmcq (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What interpretation? Those are the facts of what happened. The banner had been replaced a day before Unscintilating claimed to have restored it. When he "restored it" it already existed, and he came to the talk page and claimed to have restored it out of respect, but in fact he never restored it and as WhatAmIdoing pointed out, it was not a correct template at all. You can appreciate whatever you want, I dont have to answer to you and do not see what the point of dragging this on is about. What and I handled it. Anyone who didnt think this was important enough to even discuss does not have to discuss this or come here defending someone who outright lied about what they did. It is a fact. You can not appreciate me calling out someone who lied, but the facts are there.Camelbinky (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I know of no policy as in 'Per policy if a wikiproject feels something should be labelled as part of their wikiproject then the banner is NOT to be removed regardless of whether other people by consensus feel it shouldnt be part of that wikiproject'. Secondly do you know they are not a member of such a project. Thirdly he did not remove the banner and may actually have restored it after removing it in his edit, in fact it is quite possible he may not have noticed the removal as he did a few edits at the same time. Fourthly I haven't seen evidence of his doing disruptive or annoying edits so jumping to a conclusion that anything deliberate to annoy you was being done was very premature. Fifthly there are other people here besides you or them so even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia. There is WP:WQA or their talk page available if you feel they were acting in an uncivil manner toward you. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is this an then I'm not talking about this anymore- you obviously havent looked at the history to see what edits were made by whom and when because you completely got things wrong and secondly you obviously havent been following this discussion very well or at all since What already stated the relevant policy about untagging and tagging wikiproject banners and I'm surprised you didnt know that policy as it is widely known and I didnt realize one would need to mention the specific but What did just in case Unsci didnt know it. Apparently you didnt either. And so with that explanation I leave this topic.Camelbinky (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Naturally Dmcq is unable to name an official policy that says no editor may demand that another group of editors quit watching an article—because it's an official guideline that says exactly that in this context, not a policy. It's plainly stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I read that guideline before and it seemed to have little application. I think the bit you're referring to is "If you place a banner for an outside WikiProject, and a member of that project removes it, do not replace the banner. A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." As a bit of advice this is okay but as something to get het up over it is fairly vacuous. You don't have to declare membership of a project to participate. The only way I can see this working is if there is a discussion on the project talk page and there is an agreement about a certain page there. I spotted no such discussion on the project page or archives about essays. For all anyone can say Unscintillating may be a non declare member of the project and then we're acting against the project by replacing the tag. So a guideline to be used sensibly and not something to start name calling over, and there is actually a policy about name calling. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that the actual facts don't work out that way: Unscintillating isn't a member of that project (and not the sort to game the system by "joining"), and I am one of its more active participants.

The right of a WikiProject to track whatever pages they want has been discussed repeatedly, and someone always trots out the idea of a "fake" member as a flaw in the system. But the fact is that we haven't seen this happen in any dispute, and even if it did happen, the rest of the group could trivially overrule the "new member". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So a sensible guideline as well as one to be used sensibly. But not something to incense people so they might end up at WP:WQA. Also changing assessments is something anyone is entitled to do though I think it could easily have been by mistake. I doubt the essay project as a group would stick its neck out to make a definite stand on whether WP:5P should be considered an essay! they are of course though entitled to monitor it via the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Unscintillating is probably just unhappy that I removed 5P from Template:Policy list the other day (you know, since it isn't actually one of our official written policies, according to a clear majority of editors). Also, he probably worried that someone might incorrectly interpret the list of WikiProject categories on this talk page as meaning more than "this page is watched by this group of editors". (The presence of the cats is necessary for several of their automated processes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

follow-up to the outbreak of personal attacks

I apologize for the behavior of the editor that attacked me for saying "not an essay" above, I've never before had any interaction with him/her, so truly, the words "not an essay" were the source.  This issue went to ANI, BTW, if you want to see the editor's defense.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is attacking who now and policy is quite clear this is a talk page for discussion of the topic, not for personal attacks! What a blatant attack!Camelbinky (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

follow-up on "not an essay"

What I'd like to know is if there are other editors here that agree that the categories on this page incorrectly mark the five pillars as an essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject categories mark a page as being of interest to a particular group of people. They do not say anything at all about the subject of the page. And to alleviate your concerns on a more practical level, you might take a look at the page view stats. Only a handful of people look at this talk page on any given day, especially if nobody's posting any new comments here. Forty times as many read WP:5P each day. This means that 97% of 5P's readers never even have an opportunity to see what categories are on its talk page. The talk page cats are only important to a handful of bots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it is as high as one in forty! Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Policy editnotice

The FAQ at the top of this talk page says this is not a policy, but the WP:5 editnotice is {{policy-guideline-editnotice|type=policy}} which specifically refers to it as a policy. Should the editnotice be changed, removed, or left as it is? →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 02:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The older version last year looked fine to me so I don't see why it was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1st, 2nd or 3rd person?

The article reads badly as the pillars are written in different persons and moods.

Pillar 1 is 3rd person indicative: "It incorporates"

Pillar 2 is 1st person indicative with some 3rd person subjunctive: "We strive", "All articles must"

Pillar 3 is 2nd person imperative: "Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize your sources"

Pillar 4 is 2nd person imperative: "Respect and be polite"

Pillar 5 is 3rd person indicative and 2nd person imperative: "Rules are not", "Be bold"

There are some others in there as well. To my ear, that makes is sound messy and unclear. A common person and mood should be adopted throughout. The choice probably depends on the function of the article: is it a description of Wikipedia, a description of us as Wikipedia users, a set of rules or a set of instructions?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

217.156.180.66 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem worth solving. The current wording is succinct and understandable, and there is a reason why "It" is used in one place, while "We" is used elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer, when the page talks about "it", the text refers to an inanimate object called the English Wikipedia. When it talks about "us", the text refer to the people who work on that inanimate object as a collective group. When it talks to "you", it is addressing the reader directly, as an individual.

This is no more messy or unclear than the similar combinations that people use in everyday speech: "The car is broken. We are walking to school. You need to call the repair shop." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the two posts above. Where a pillar describes what Wikipedia is it should use third person; where a pillar describes what the reader as a user should do it should use the second person; and so on. It's critical that the pillars be in clear, accessible, inviting language so that new users can begin to learn what Wikipedia is about. Lagrange613 01:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts all. If others don't think it's a problem then clearly it isn't! Just to make my original point clear, I wasn't worried that any individual sentence didn't make sense. It was rather the inconsistency. Similar lists of rules/guidelines/principles such as The US Bill of Rights, the 10 Principles of Fair Trade, or the 10 Commandments each adopt a consistent style. The inconsistency acceptable in everyday speech somehow strikes me as inappropriate and ill-considered for a central statement of principles. But you're right: as long as it's understandable and doesn't jar with others as it does with me, then it should be left as is. 217.156.180.66 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's easy to see where you're coming from - thank you for the thoughtful contribution. In this case, I agree that the language is appropriate as-is. Maybe this is part of the problem. Whereas in the 10 Commandments, for example, the subject-object relationship is obvious (God and subjects) and the purpose is the same (authority issuing commands to subordinates), the 5 Pillars don't have that kind of uniformity. One pillar describes the nature of Wikipedia and what kind of content we want to include in it; another discusses standards of interpersonal conduct between editors; another limits strict applications of rules. With that in mind, I don't think it would make sense to try to enforce this sort of standard. Still, it's good that you are thinking about this, and that you got other people thinking about it too. Thanks! P.S. Have you thought about registering an account? :-) causa sui (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing my "White House" gaffe. Petersontinam (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Need wording tweak for pillar 2

Pillar 2 includes:

Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

The wording "That means citing..." needs improvement, but the fixes that occur to me introduce subtle changes in emphasis:

1. That means it is necessary to cite verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.
2. That means verifiable, authoritative sources should be cited, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

This is not a big deal, but since we are fiddling with the text someone might have an idea. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

IAR

A recent edit (diff) inserted (using bold) "If a rule stops you improving or updating the encyclopaedia, ignore it." into the fifth pillar. Like apple pie, of course I love this text, but it is unhelpful for new users here, and it will only cause them grief.

This page is a very useful summary for new users and it is unfair to provide them with a loaded weapon that will get them blocked if they rely on it. If a new user wants to add text that conflicts with WP:DUE or WP:BLP, or wants to add contentious material using sources that fail WP:RS, it is dangerous to tell them to ignore the rules because everyone thinks they are improving the encyclopedia.

A new user will not know the rules, so they don't need to be told to ignore them—the question only arises if an established editor comes along and tells the new user that their edits conflict with some rule. How the new user responds is vital to their continuing participation: if they dig in and ignore good advice, they are very likely to depart either from frustration or from being blocked (I have seen several new editors get indef blocks within a week of proclaiming that IAR supports their edits). The fifth pillar tells a new user all they need to know without the misleading emphasis that paints the completely unrealistic picture that anyone can do whatever they like providing they think it is improving or updating the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR is what gets noobs blocked, not WP:IAR. --Surturz (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, tis true - hey, isn't the process suppose to be discuss BEFORE reverting a second time, Johnuniq? :p Wikilawyering is a far bigger problem due to how many people are predisposed to, on the WR thread hyper-literality on Wikipedia Emperor made a damn good point, and Jimbo himself has actually said a bunch of stuff on the subject pretty recently after that thread I get the feeling he secretly reads Wikipedia Review but doesn't admit to it, hehe. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose quoting IAR here. We should be directing users to policies, not quoting them. This page is descriptive of the policies. I think it is inappropriate to stick things in bold in here and I don't think quoting that here is helpful. Having extra words plus the policy give it undue weight and this statement of principles should be descriptive not prescriptive. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose quoting. The pillar already talks about the most important part of WP:IAR, that the spirit of a rule is more important than its exact meaning. I don't think it's necessary to add something here if it is already explained and will potentially confuse newbies. Just my two cents, Magister Scienta^talk 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)