Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia

A major pillar of Wikipedia is that users are here to "build an encyclopedia". Not being here for that purpose has been a basis for removal of users and pages by administrators ^[1][2][3][4] and the community^[5], as well as being cited by Arbcom ^[6], and as a reason for removal in many discussions ^[7][8].

In a number of cases, users ultimately felt not here to build an encyclopedia had immense leeway granted, and the project did not necessarily benefit from their presence prior to their eventual blocking, or Arbcom or community ban.

Purpose of Wikipedia

Main pages: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Five pillars

"Building an encyclopedia" means that a user is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes that may improve these.

Because Wikipedia is a collaborative community, users whose personal agendas and actions appear to grossly conflict with Wikipedia's own agendas have in some cases found their editing access was removed until they decide whether they are truly here to "build an encyclopedia" or not.

The expression is a long-standing rule for distinguishing between constructive and non-constructive users and pages. It has been written at various times into the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, Tip of the Day, and older versions of blocking policy.

"Building an encyclopedia"

Being here to build an encyclopedia

Building an encyclopedia tends to imply:

• Genuine interest and improvement - A genuine interest in improving the encyclopedic content (articles and media). This often involves a wide range of interests, and substantive edits/article writing or other significant activities (e.g., coding, patrolling, or wikignoming). It may also include significant constructive improvements to the processes that are involved in improving content, or mitigating and reducing problems that make a negative contribution to Wikipedia.
• Respect for core editing standards - Behaving in accordance with core agreed policies when editing, including policies on content, and policies on behavior.
• A focus on encyclopedia building - Non-encyclopedia-related contributions kept to a limited level, in comparison to positive and directly constructive contributions to the encyclopedia or its editorial processes.
• Self-correction and heeding lessons - When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them; the user appears to take editing seriously and improve their editorial ability and their quality of input.

Not being here to build an encyclopedia

Indications that a user may not be here to build an encyclopedia include:

• Narrow self interest and/or promotion - Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA).
• Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site - A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, MySpace type pages, etc) (see WP:NOT#MYSPACE).
• General pattern of disruptive behavior - A long term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of other intentions.
• Treating as a battleground not an encyclopedia - Excessive soapboxing, importing or exporting of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess, may find the fight becomes their focus, not encyclopedia writing.
• Dishonest and gaming behaviors - Gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty. Wikipedia broadly works on a basis of trust, and such activities undermine that trust and suggest other motives such as "lulz" (amusement at destructiveness) or a complete lack of interest in good editing conduct practices.
• Little or no interest in working collaboratively - Excessive lack of interest in working constructively and in mutual manner with the community even if views of other users differ, excessive lack of interest in heeding others legitimate concerns, or interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict, rather than constructive approaches.
• Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention - Major conflicts of attitude, related to wikipedia-related activity. A user may have extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole. Editors must be able to relax collegially together and there is a level of non-collegial speech at which this may not be reasonable to expect.
• Inconsistent long-term agenda - Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (ie engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia", as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"..... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").
• Having a long term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods. This may include repeated chances and warnings, all of which were flouted upon return, or promises to change that proven insincere, were gamed, or otherwise the word or spirit was not actually kept.

What "not being here to build an encyclopedia" is not

Some users may be interested in building an encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, but with different areas of focus or approach to some other users goals or emphases. Differences that arise where both users are in good faith hoping to improve the project, should not be mistaken for "not being here to build an encyclopedia".

• Focusing on niche topic areas. A user may have an interest in a topic that other users find trivial. Diversity in interests helps us function as a comprehensive encyclopedia.
• Focusing on particular processes. A user may have an interest in creating stubs, tagging articles for cleanup, or nominating articles for deletion. These are essential activities, even though they may not directly improve the encyclopedia to the extent other work does. Some articles do not belong in wikipedia, others should be impvoved, and new articles are often appropriately created in an unfinished state.
• Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines A user may believe a guideline is too narrow or poorly approaches an issue, and take actions internally consenstent with that viewpoint, such as advocating particular positions in discussions. Provided the user does so in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Wikipedia.

Review behavior as a whole

Main page: Wikipedia:Gaming the system

A number of disruptive users may at times post constructive edits, in order to avoid being blocked, or may attempt to give tendentious editing the surface appearance of positive edits. In addition, a constructive user may at times make the occasional error.

Being "here to build an encyclopedia" is about a user's overall purpose and behavior in editing Wikipedia. In considering whether or not a user is here to build an encyclopedia, the users overall pattern of editing and behavior should be reviewed as a whole.

Other content

Because Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, the community tolerates a reasonable degree of non-encyclopedic content. Examples include certain humor pages, userboxes, and a wide range of user page designs.

However pages that stray too far outside this are frequently deleted under community processes. This is especially the case if it appears to the community that their primary author is not mainly here to write an encyclopedia. Examples include social network pages and promotional material in user-space, negative pages about other users, "laundry lists" of complaints, cliques and self-selecting or "restricted membership" user-created bodies felt by the wider community not to serve the encyclopedia, and non-project material likely to prove overly disruptive or divisive.

Examples

A selection of examples:

• "A community ban... means that you (personally, as opposed to a block) don't belong here. We don't get along with you, you don't get along with us... If you want to build an encyclopedia, you can/could have through actually changing your behavior" Keegan, April 2009

• "I am blocking you for 1 week. Your edits consist of only adding links to articles, after you were warned. There's no sign that you are here to help build an encyclopedia." Kingboyk, March 2006

• "When people contradict/offend/insult/threaten/vandalize you, it's crucial for you to follow WP:ETIQUETTE and avoid escalating conflicts. If the person in question has violated the rules of Wikipedia, calmly inform an admin... We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to win fights." Fullobeans, March 2008

• "While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network... Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia." Johnny Au, January 2009

• "Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. Keeping score... only serves to further distance the collaborative spirit, not strengthen it." Avraham, August 2007

• "Wikipedia isn't a place to play games. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and creating pages like that is disruptive." Hersfold, May 2008

• "Cla68 has been a dick about this for quite some time, knew *precisely* how much of a dick he was being, and thoroughly deserved the block, and probably a longer one. He's not here to write an encyclopedia." David Gerard, October 2007

See also

Purpose of Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Five pillars

Editorial actions on Wikipedia:

• WIkipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Gaming the system
• Wikipedia:Edit war

Page content:

• Wikipedia:User page