Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

Archives
Archive 1: May 2005 – May 2006 Archive 2: ongoing

Wikipedia is free content

This section talks about text only, but increasingly images and perhaps later video will be important, and these are bound by the same princinples. Perhaps we should mention them at some point. Stephen B Streater 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

14:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Danfarrell

Was that a note in support? Stephen B Streater 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not support that. Images should remain seperate. We have many useful fair use images on important topics and we should not deprecate the contribution they make to the project. 65.60.96.34 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think images should be exempt from the "Free Content" rule; however, I think Jimbo would consider non-free photos a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation principles. Librarylefty 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Incompatible with the GFDL

What is not incompatible with GNU Free Documentation License?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal.akeel (talk • contribs)

While I am not entirely sure what you're asking, there are a number of licenses that are less demanding than the GFDL, such as the Creative Commons Attribution license, and we tend to treat such licenses more or less the same way as we treat material licensed under the GFDL. Public domain material, obviously, is not licensed at all, and we treat it accordingly. I hope that this answers your question. Jkelly 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The first "pillar" says: "All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy". However, if you click on the "accuracy" link, it takes you to a page which says (as the very first senstence) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Now, to me and surely to most people, "accuracy" would imply that you are striving to include what IS true, but the linked page suggests that what you actually want to include is what other sources SAY is true, regardless of whether it is or not. Indeed, if the policies of Neutral Point Of View and No Original Research are properly applied, then you cannot possibly strive for accuracy. In short, the statement that Wikipedia articles must "strive for accuracy" is itself inaccurate. --Multivitamin 12:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is a threshhold beyond truth. You cannot know whether a thing is true unless there is some way to check that it is true; for the purposes of a Wikipedia article other editors and readers must be able to check that it is true by finding it in a library or on the Internet. The wording here may warrant changing though. —Centrx→talk • 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is unattainable

As a former publisher of a major publication in the state of Tennessee, USA, I must comment that neutrality or lack of bias is not only unrealistic, but dishonest. Everyone has influences that change their perspective on events, whether religious, philosophical, experiential or educational.

A glaring example from history is the U.S. Civil War. Even the name reveals bias. In the South, it is called "The War Between the States". Some even call it "The War of Northern aggression" or "The War for Southern Independence". But the victor writes the history books, therefore, it is called the "Civil War", the Southern Confederacy is depicted as evil Black slave owners and abusers and Abraham Lincoln is depicted as an honest caring man who out of compassion for black men "set the slaves free". The facts are very different -- but that is my bias.

William Cole, email removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiggish (talk • contribs)

That is true - whether unconsciously or consciously, we do have personal biases and preferences that ultimately influence what we write, our way of thinking, and our way of expressing our thoughts. Yet, in Wikipedia, we strive to accommodate as many people as possible, and work to present a fair abd balanced view of issues to everyone. The end result may not be perfect, but we can still work towards it. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 06:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "Civil War" is a bit more newtral than "The War of Northern aggression" and what not, but anyway. You are right to some extent, there are scertain systemic biases evident. However we don't claim to be newtral in every way. Just that we should always strive to be so. Anyway you are free to chime in at Naming the American Civil War wich seem to adress some of your points. --Sherool (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if a NPOV is unattainable, then the text on the pillar suggests that multiple points of view be expressed. E.g. the Holocaust. In order to fully explain the event, a point of view must be expressed on the side of the Nazi's and on the side of the Jews involved. Seeing both sides of the story and understanding two conflicting POV's helps one to understand the whole situation from a relatively non-POV. --Kevin ^(TALK) 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

icons

I just noticed that the icons are supposed to be pillars. I had always thought they looked like elongated square academic caps with two tassels hanging from the sides. Jecowa 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well. They're supposed to look like the top of some pillars (Not Doric nor Ionic, funnily enough). But yes, you're right. :) As long as Wikipedians understand the five pillars, the pictures aren't really relevant. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it funny that they aren't doric or ionic columns? Jecowa 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because Corinthians are inherently hilarious?! :) -Quiddity 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was funny because many pillars are usually Hellenistic in some ways. I like the Ironic Columns that Williams College has at their art museum (see my picture at the article). :) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Five pillars title

Wikipedia Five Pillars supporting non-appropriate religions

I find this very offensive being a muslim and all. Can you change the name of this thanks.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.136.194 (talk • contribs)

I also find it offensive, Is it making fun of Islam (if not, what is the reason for it being used?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.229.58 (talk • contribs) .

Please see below. —Quiddity 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A new discussion page should be created, as this might be a problem and suggest wikipedia is supporting a Muslim faith rather than being "neutral" as it claims to be. Move towards renaming page Five Directives68.123.226.197 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this is similar to the Five Pillars of Islam, and it just seems like it could easily be changed to a more "neutral" stance, as stated in the archives as the "Five Directives of Wikipedia". If it can easily be changed, It should be changed. All the fuss would be over just like that. Drivec 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• 5 Pillars.. refers to babylonian & pentagram type stuff.

Sixth Pillar?

Forgive my whimsical curiosity. If the 5 pillars of wikipedia are a sort of loosely laid homage to Islaam, is there a sixth unofficial and highly controversial sixth pillar of sorts which wikipedians are divided over following? Sorry for posting a stupid question on the discussion place of an important topic, but....well, answer anyone?--Mr Bucket 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "they" deleted the discussion on it. Jecowa 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe our title has anything to do with Islam, just a naming coincidence. Pillars of is a common metaphor for describing some thing's fundamentals. -Quiddity 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the notion that "pillars" does not hold directly to Islam. Without knowing, is it a literal translation from Arabic? I'd guess not - more importantly, "pillars" is a term used everywhere. The European Union famously has '3 Pillars' to it's structure. If anything, Wiki should be 4 pillars, not five - the fifth should just be a addendum. But five sounds better! Gwilym84 00:25 25 January 2007

Moved from Talk:Main Page

I have a few questions and problems with the Wikipedia: Five Pillars article. It's fine to have a centralized moral code, but it clearly models the 5 pillars of Islam. Is that the right image for an encyclopedia that stresses nuetrality? Besides, pillar #5 just sums up the first 4, it isn't really origional. In addition, shouldn't the page be LOCKED? If I were a vandal, that'd be the first page I'd go for. Please, I'd like some support and feedback on this issue. Seldon1 04:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really a reason to lock it. Looking through the history, that page gets vandalized once every few weeks or so. Page protection should only be used when absolutely necessary and that just isn't the case for that page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what if it models the five pillars of Islam? Would it be better if we had the Ten Commandments of Wikipedia? DoomsDay349 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See, then we'd need to come up with five more, when only five suffices. We could also go for the Four Noble Truths of Wikipedia if we could decide on one to cut, but none of them seems redundant. —Cuiviénen 04:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, locking one of the most visible pages kind of goes against the "You can edit this RIGHT NOW!" thing we strive to keep. Besides, the anti-vandal crew (me included) probably has that page on their watchlist, and revert any vandalism that appears before any problems arise. PullToOpen^Talk 04:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you so sure it isn't modeled after The Five Precepts of Buddhism, hm? -/- Warren 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's called "Five Pillars". Anyway I think it's fine, it doesn't really affect anything. --WikiSlasher 05:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pillars hold things up, it's a metaphor not unique or original to Islam. I don't think I need prove prior art on the concept of "five". --Monotonehell 12:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever says its just a "coicidence" is wrong. Proof and point? Look on the disabiguation page. Obviously it was modeled after the muslim faith guys, just change it to be neutral. 65.11.99.81 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on now! Pillars are constantly used for metaphorically representing major concepts, as in the Three pillars of the European Union. I'm sure that nobody meant harm in the close parallel to Islam's Five Pillars. --Kevin ^(TALK) 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not really applicable, its not "5 pillars of European Union" its "3". No relation to Muslim faith, where "5 Pillars" in and of itself its readily suggesting the Five Pillars of Islam, too much of a similarity!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.7.187 (talk)

Previous discussion notes

Interestingly, most of the previous responses from people identifying as Muslim, were positive (see Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/Archive2#Disrespectful of Islam). But more recently, there seem to be more complaints coming (see #Wikipedia Five Pillars supporting non-appropriate religions and #Sixth Pillar?).

As I wrote above, I don't think our page name is intended to be comparable to the five pillars of Islam, it is just a numerical/naming coincidence – "the pillars of" is a common architectural metaphor for describing something's fundamentals/foundations/principles/rules (see google). Possibly a note pointing this out could/should be added to the top of this talk page? Might help prevent a few future repetitions of this discussion. —Quiddity 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, putting a note explicitly pointing out (and denying) the connection would spark even more discussion. Let's just leave it be. Andrew Levine 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

True. How about linking the word 'pillars' in the page? (i'll boldly do so, feel free to revert if it's problematic) —Quiddity 10:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I redirected that pillar link so that the page would go to Column, since that's what we're really trying to get at. Pillar leads to a disambiguation page. (I'll boldly do this, so feel free to revert, yeah, just see what the last guy said.) --Kevin ^(TALK) 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Making it "5 pillars" instead of any other number is implying it is dirived from the muslim faith. 65.11.99.81 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, but I have always thought that the "5 pillars" was an intentional reference to the 5 pillars of Islam. I would feel the same way if the number was changed. Similarly, if it were titled the "8 commandments" (or, even more parallel, the "10 commandments") of Wikipedia I would link it to the Bible. Just a comment. CMummert · talk 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Commandments and 5 pillars are analogous - saying one of them is broader is untrue. Naming it "Wikipedia 5 Commandments" would be just as blatant as its current name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.30.49 (talk)

Let's make it the "The 5 Axioms of Wikipedia". I am a Scientologist (we have "Axioms") but we would not be offended, IMO. If not, then I guess we could make it "The 5 Lugnuts of Wikipedia" as it keeps the wheel on. --Justanother 09:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Helpful

That was the most helpful page that Arnoutf pointed me to! Concise yet comprehensive! StevenAR 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous note

About this:

Note

This page describes Wikipedia's fundamental principles. These principles predate the creation of this page. It is sometimes said that all or most policy is based upon this page, but most policy also predates the creation of this page.

Am I the only one that sees that as superfluous, self-serving clutter? --Justanother 09:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a clue, I guess. There are at least 3 levels of wikipedia understanding. --Kim Bruning 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (Oh gawd, do I sound like a zen teacher already? :-/ )

Suggestion

This page should prominently feature a link to WP:BLP, since it trumps allother rules and guidelines. Artw 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Who told you that? --Kim Bruning 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth, with the apparent endorsement of Jimbo Wales himself. Artw 07:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple :-P . Though yes, you should be careful about biographies of living persons, since They Can Get Mad At Us and Do Bad Things. So don't make living people mad at us ;-) --Kim Bruning 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Everyone knows that en.wikipedia runs by Consensus, but that fact isn't mentioned on this page. Aaaaand I've just been talking to some outsiders who were very confused about that. So I've added an extra sentence, please feel free to tidy things a little. --Kim Bruning 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I helped really, by adding a quibblable US/UK spelling (summarizsed), but 'fundament' is (more commonly?) something you land on post-banana-peel, so I took that out ;) --Quiddity 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"foundation" maybe? --Kim Bruning 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think running by establishing consusus is more of a means to an end. I don't think it is a central enough goal or tenet of the project to be mentioned in the five pillars. Johntex\^talk 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The 5 pillars page was created by means of consensus, in fact. Is that sufficient for now? --Kim Bruning 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that consensus should be mentioned in the five pillars. Without the fully application of the consensus, we can all go home. Wikipedia cannot live without consensus, and it's that that made it what it is now. The consensus rule allow every one of us to "fight" for a better wikipedia. Try to ask yourself these questions:

• Can we have made a encyclopedia with over one hundreds millions contributions from three milions and half users without the consensus mechanism or will have we stopped earlier?
• Can we reach neutral point of view without consensus?
• Can we enjoy editing wikipedia without the consensus rule?

In my opinion, consensus is the "creator" of four of the five pillars.

1. A collaborative encyclopedia, Nupedia has proved it, cannot work without consensus. I think that everyone can agree that an encyclopedia written with the wiki style cannot be effectively "ruled" by anything except consensus.
2. A neutral point of view cannot be, in my humble opinion, obtained by anything except consensus.
3. This is the only pillar which, in my opinion doesn't strictly depends on consensus.
4. Consensus is behind even the "Wikiquette". If our community, because everything is a community, on the net and in the life, wouldn't be ruled by consensus, we wouldn't be so polite and friendly. If the "power to choose" isn't ours, we cannot be relaxed and good faith assuming, probably.
5. And even the last five pillar, the no firm rules, be bold and so on, rely on consensus. Because consensus is the first and binding rule, the only one we cannot forget. If we forget it, we are lost.

I think that we should add one more pillar, and also make it the first one. Consensus, in my opinion, is the first pillar.

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk) on 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

These are all means the ends which are listed here in the five pillars. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, if you want to make consensus a central pillar, you might want to make a slightly different arrangement altogether. What would you be thinking of? See if you can sketch it here :-) --Kim Bruning 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not a pillar at all, and the pillars here do not derive from consensus. All consensus is directed toward satisfying Wikipedia's fundamental principles as a free, neutral encyclopedia. Furthermore, consensus cannot over-ride, for example, foundation principles like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and freeness (or for the matter the legal situation of existing content under the GFDL). Consensus cannot make Wikipedia into an advertisement service or a telephone directory. Consensus is opposite to the chaos of having no code of conduct. In that consensus can change, consensus is also opposite to having firm rules. Consensus is subordinate to and in every situation contingent upon satisfying Wikipedia's fundamental principles. If there is a principle here that can be changed by consensus, then it is not actually a fundamental principle. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

m:Foundation issues are a consensus across all wikimedia communities, so they are indeed very hard to change. Though if you see the page history, you'll see that they do in fact change with consensus over time. --Kim Bruning 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic points are identical since the creation of that page. There are extrapolations and ramifications added and revised, but fundamental principles (or "pillars") there are identical. We can say here that "encyclopedia", "neutral", "free", "sane conduct", "not firm rules" are the pillars, and these have been true since the start, while the other text on this page is description and extrapolation (or, a fitting of the principles to the particular policy pages we have now). Once you change "encyclopedia" to "phonebook", Wikipedia is no longer "Wikipedia". Pillars are unchanging and unchangeable. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are several approaches to summarizing the wikipedia guidelines. See WP:SR and WP:TRI. --Kim Bruning 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those even pretend to list fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. WP:SR is a summary of all major policies and guidelines. WP:TRI simply assumes the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and ignores "Wikipedia is free" because it is not one of "three basic guiding principles for editors" (except insofar as it intersects the other obvious one, "Wikipedia is not a venue for illegal activities"). —Centrx→talk • 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet this approach to summarizing was first used on WP:TRI, and this page is merely an evolutionary improvement to that. There are many ways to reduce the number of rules people need to learn. That's not to say this page isn't really cool, but there may yet be cooler ways to meet the objective of reducing the number of pages one needs to read. --Kim Bruning 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia:Consensus is at the foundation of Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All these approaches (including 5P) were arrived at by the wiki-process, (foundation issue #3). Consensus is the key component of the wiki-process. --Kim Bruning 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

These are simply different pages about the same thing. The principles they refer to were not arrived at by the wiki-process, but are inherent in the concept of a wiki encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

subsection 1

---

copied from User talk:Centrx

Even the foundation issues are founded on the principle of consensus. Several were in fact designed on the basis of consensus on meatballwiki or wikiwikiweb, or based on consensus and concessions across 3 encyclopedia communities, etc . Consensus is ubiquitous and fundamental to wikis, and several other internet processes in general, and is very hard to escape. --Kim Bruning 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is based on fundamental principles. The exact ramifications of various policies were reached by consensus, but those policies and that consensus is already done under the basic premise of some general notion of a free encyclopedia. Once it is decided that 'Wikipedia is free encyclopedia', that cannot be changed without making it no longer 'Wikipedia'. There might be some consensus to do something different, but that becomes 'Wiktionary', etc. If theoretical pillars are changed, Wikipedia becomes something entirely different from what it has been since the beginning, and it is destroyed. If Wikipedia were no longer 'encyclopedia' or 'neutral' or 'free', it would mean that Wikipedia is gone and there would anyway quickly be a fork. If there were some change in 'free', it would mean that every article would need to be restarted from the beginning. If there were some change in 'sane conduct', no encyclopedia or any other project could ever work. If Wikipedia suddenly had 'firm rules', it would contradict "consensus". —Centrx→talk • 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

subsection 2

The fundamental issues are based on consensus because they were arrived at by consensus. Because the consensus is carried by so many people, there is inertia and it is unlikely to change much. But the foundation issues do change slowly! For instance: Anthere now has the last word, rather than Jimbo; There is now an arbitration committee; some people think fair use is ok in a free encyclopedia; etc. As to the 5 pillars: those were arrived at by consensus. (Recovered the timeline for you, with a lot of help!) --Kim Bruning 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Recovered the timeline at Wikipedia talk:Simplified Ruleset#Historic information --Kim Bruning 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They were not arrived at by the sort of consensus described at Wikipedia:Consensus, and they are not changeable by the sort of consensus at Wikipedia:Consensus.

5P is one of the things I'm most proud about on wikipedia, and the changes that were recently made to wp:consensus actually reflect some of the process that was used here. You're saying there's more to it, and wp:consensus doesn't cover the process entirely? Alright, what kinds of changes can we make so that we describe consensus more accurately? --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on articles, or revert rules, or inclusion criteria is wholly different from consensus about fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia:Consensus were changed to reflect this different, it would be misleading to conflate the two here and to refer to these pillars as being a result of the same sort of consensus as for article content. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 or more forms of consensus? I don't know whether I agree, but I'm willing to listen. I suspect that it would not fit in the width of this margin, however. ;-) Could you make a section on Wikipedia talk:Consensus and elaborate on that? --Kim Bruning 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear. Consensus on an individual article does not override policies and guidelines. Neutral point of view is "absolute and non-negotiable". In order to change these pillars, there would need to be a total destruction of what Wikipedia is, making it something it is not. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I told Slimvirgin that that wording was going to be misread, but she's stubborn that way, and I didn't want to push the point. :-P The intent there is that you can't simply decide to ignore global consensus one fine day. You can certainly renegotiate details of NPOV on the NPOV page, or on meta, or what have you.

Destroying wikipedia by ignoring the five pillars you say? Ah, nope, there's at least 3 other formulations that are more or less valid. I'm personally using one of the other formulations right now. --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• The pillars are the ultimate global consensus and renegotiating "details" of NPOV is entirely different from eliminating NPOV, which would be the case if these pillars were "renegotiated". This is not a misreading.
• WP:IAR specifically includes "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". That is, any ignoring of rules requires that the purpose of Wikipedia as encyclopedia must be the reason for ignoring them. IAR does not simply say "Disregard all rules" and it does not mean that Wikipedia can be turned into a porn site under IAR. All actions must not conflict with these pillars. —Centrx→talk • 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the theoretical issues, it is misleading to say that "Neutral point of view" is arrived at or changeable in the same way that Wikipedia:Reliable sources is, or even in the same way that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page is.

You mean the concept versus the page? That's a very good point. Wikipedia:Consensus does not yet fully describe how consensus based processes come about, nor does it describe the optimal way to record descriptions of those processes. Perhaps you could come help out with that? Note that consensus and wiki-editing are probably more fundamental than NPOV, since we have several wikis which do not require NPOV but operate just fine. Of course, once you try to use your wiki to make an encyclopedia, NPOV suddenly becomes very important. But you can't deny that you're still working on a wiki. --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia. Neutrality is fundamental. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Before it was wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it was a blank mediawiki install on an as yet unnamed server. ;-) After that, Sanger and Wales and etc. started adding pages and developing ideas that would one day become a standalone encyclopedia.

Also the following conversation at wiki:WikiPedia:

"My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia?" -- JimboWales

"Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki." -- WardCunningham"

--Kim Bruning 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Someone decided to have an encyclopedia. Once created, it cannot be changed into something different without destroying what it is. It cannot be changed by "consensus", which is vague enough already. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that policy is not clearer. I try to improve policy clarity a little bit every day. Both Wikipedia:Consensus and this page have been part of that effort. While working on the consensus page, I noticed a small oversight on this one, pointed out to me by someone on svwiki, in fact.

And of course wikipedia is now what it is. But I'm confused. Why deny the existence of the process which was used to create it? --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not the process used to invent Wikipedia. The invention of Wikipedia as wiki encyclopedia is a decision made prior to and outside of any rules of Wikipedia. There was discussion in Nupedia about inventing Wikipedia. Wikipedia was ultimately a re-invention of Nupedia. It contradicted the principles of Nupedia and Wikipedia was part of the destruction of Nupedia. If the principles of Wikipedia were contradicted by some "consensus", it would be the destruction of Wikipedia, even if something were to remain even under the same name. Ultimately, too, the "process" used to create Wikipedia is meaningless without someone to host the servers, install the software, and support it intellectually. That is, the process used to create Wikipedia was not consensus; the process was: Someone wanted to have a wiki encyclopedia and spent time and money to make it happen. Furthermore, others thought it was a good idea too and participated, because it was a wiki encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The way this was described above is to mention consensus decision-making on this page, not to superinclude all the pillars under it, and the two ideas of consensus are different.

I realize the difference. I'm curious what kind of summary we'd come up with if that was tried. --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The creation of the encyclopedia as encyclopedia pre-exists policy here. It has a place in some history, but not as theoretical all-inclusive foundation of Wikipedia. Consensus is based on these pillars. —Centrx→talk • 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia was not originally intended to be the actual encyclopedia itself, as you should know (to an extent, wikipedia was intended as the draft version of nupedia). --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See above. I see no conflict here. —Centrx→talk • 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Has Anthere or the Arbitration Committee changed any of these pillars? The one example you give, of freeness, is actually being further enforced by recent Foundation decision, and the GFDL is regardless not open to any changes by consensus.

These are items in the m:foundation issues, which our guidelines *must* comply with. The foundation issues also serve as an example in that they're the least mutable guidelines we have.

As for the GFDL, there is no reason to believe that the upcoming FSF process for updating the GFDL will not be open for input. Even so, you could design a process-set where "GFDL" is not mentioned, and yet might still be valid wrt foundation issues. (The trivial but ugly example would be to include the body text of the GFDL into the policy-set in toto) --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Any updated version of the GFDL must "be similar in spirit to the present version", it may only "differ in detail to address new problems or concerns". A new license cannot be used on Wikipedia without throwing out all existing pages. —Centrx→talk • 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what dual-licensing is for, which is something that was introduced several years after wikipedia was started. (I strongly suspect at the behest of Lawrence Lessig, he has admitted as much. He has since changed tack somewhat, and is cooperating with Eben Moglen more.)

Dual-licensing died after Ram-Bot stopped spamming people about it. Regardless, even with dual-licensing, or even if Wikipedia had used some free license other than the GFDL, it is free and the least constrictive license can always be chosen. For anything dual-licensed to be "GFDL" and "all rights reserved", a user can choose to use it under "GFDL". —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The timeline you give is a timeline of the creation of this particular page; it is not a timeline of the principles of Wikipedia, which stem entirely from "free encyclopedia" and exist from the start. —Centrx→talk • 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. This page is a simplification of policy. The principles on which it is based are older. Those principles also revolve around consensus, however. That's one of the reasons why it was so simple and easy to use a consensus process to summarize them.

If you'd like to try a different tack... if you view WP:NOT, you will see that wikipedia is not a dictatorship, democracy, or anarchy. So how was our system arrived at? It didn't happen by magic. --Kim Bruning 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These principles do not "revolve" around consensus. They arise directly from the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, which is unchanging. Consensus does not change Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into something else. The system was arrived at by like-minded people working towards a common goal. Once it is decided that Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", participants are attracted to and adhere to that goal. If it had been decided that Wikipedia be a "peer-reviewed methodical top-down encyclopedia", i.e. Nupedia, it would be a different beast to which few are attracted and, once changed, it is no longer Nupedia but Wikipedia. All consensus is in reference to these basic principles here. Consensus does not create or alter them. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this one step at a time. How did we come to the point of having wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? (I've already been adding quotes and links from history, so possibly you have enough clues already ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is already created. If the same sort of decision-making were to take place that created the encyclopedia, it would create a new entity. It would not be Wikipedia. It would not be created through Wikipedia:Consensus. —Centrx→talk • 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus decision making was already present fairly early on on wikipedia, and definately helped form many early guidelines. It might be handy to also talk with User:Jdforrester on that topic, since he was involved in a lot of early guideline formation. --Kim Bruning 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree with Centrx. It is about agreement and what we "signed on for". The Pillars form the basic agreement of what we are doing, what we are creating, and where we are going. Every editor here should be familiar with them, and should edit in accordance with them. They stand above "consensus" if by "consensus" we mean the normal (to wikipedia) non-representative sampling of those few editors that have a particular page in their watch list, notice the change, and are interested enough to comment. IMO, the Pillars do not so much represent a distillation of policy and procedure as they do the gold standard that all policy and procedure must align to. Sorry if this comes across as "undemocratic" but "wikipedia is not a democracy". --Justanother 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, not to put to fine a point on it, but WP:5P is just a page me and some of my friends made up. Though it's great to hear people are taking it to heart. :-) For the actual sign-up brochure, see m:Foundation issues. I hope you do agree with that page. --Kim Bruning 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the contents of the page is agreed by nearly everyone who edits here. Don't confuse "My friends and I wrote most of the text of this page" with "My friends and I defined the pillars of Wikipedia", which is what he agrees to. If it were merely something you "made up" and it were in conflict with the principles of Wikipedia, it would never have been accepted or allowed to stay. If "your friends" had not written it, someone else would have in reference to those same principles. If there did not exist such a page, the principles would still be there inherent in what is a wiki encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to formulate get a life in a more polite manner. :-/

The "pillars" page is just one of several ways to simplify policy.

The 5 pillars page is very nice, and I'm not going to deny it's important, but importantly, it's not our m:foundation issues. I am slightly scared to hear people confusing the two! --Kim Bruning 20:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the "get a life" bit. Is that your standard answer to editors that disagree with you? --Justanother 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Procedural Revert

• Wikipedia:Consensus says make a change first, and then discuss.
• Bold revert discuss says to not accept a revert "back to consensus version"

The irony here is even thicker, since you're removing the statement in 5P that says you're allowed to use consensus to change the page in the first place ;-). --Kim Bruning 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You made a new change. The old version is the consensus version. A brief discussion in which no one agreed to the change you actually made does not create a new consensus. You were bold by making that new change, and then it was reverted, so now you must discuss it not revert to your new version repeatedly. —Centrx→talk • 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The old version has been here since the creation of this page in 2005. That your new change, which had no discussion supporting what you actually implemented, was not reverted for 9 days does not suddenly make it the "consensus" version. Follow your own guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoist by my own petard several times in a row, eh?

This is frustrating. I know consensus belongs in that spot. I can't believe this wasn't spotted in 2005 (actually, no, wait, I can. If there's an entire (sub)community approved guideline that can only be found in deletion history in one spot, anything can happen...but I digress). At any rate, I wanted to just add the clarification, and now it seems I'm being told that the page I was involved in in the first place is now considered handed down from the heavens. --Kim Bruning 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) "consensus version" was a bad joke, since the version I reverted to actually mentioned consensus :-P

I've reverted the lead to the short version, but attempted to incorporate consensus into the 4th pillar. Alternative ideas seem more fruitful than back-and-forthing.

Feel free to revert my addition, but I do believe Centrx is right, in that the short version is the one that has consensus (it's the original), even if it doesn't mention it! I'm not sure where you (Kim) are seeing Bold revert discuss say "to not accept a revert "back to consensus version""?(unless you're attempting wordplay on consensus being the subject and object of our discussion, and hence confusing us all greatly!) You were bold, Centrx reverted, and now we're discussing, as far as i can see..? :) --Quiddity 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough as far as process goes ;-).

Consensus is not an alternative for WP:BOLD of course. WP:BOLD is only one (very small) element of consensus. (In fact, it's the first box under "start" in the flowchart... I didn't think of labeling the boxes with links to guidelines... an interesting idea). I haven't drawn a guideline creation flowchart yet. When I do, it'll probably be based on the process of creating WP:5P, in fact (since I was involved, I know how this process worked and why).

The overall reason I put consensus in the top is because it's a clarification of how (this page and) all policy was created. It is implicit in all wikipedia guidelines. It wasn't handed down from on high on clay tablets!

The immediate reason is because people on svwikis don't quite have this entire consensus thing down pat quite yet, and pointed the problem out to me. Forgetting to mention how consensus is related to the 5 pillars is indeed a pretty odd oversight! --Kim Bruning 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is how the pages are created, yes, but not fundamental principles or these pillars. —Centrx→talk • 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So how did those principles emerge then? Magic? Dictated by god? I'm sure some of the old wikipedians would love to hear that one ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember, the Pillars that can be written are not the true Pillars. A joke but what you so unflatteringly cast as my n00b worship of something you and your friends thought up during a commercial actually goes a bit deeper, I think. No, I cannot speak with first-hand experience of the beginning of wikipedia but I can speak with first-hand experience of the harmful, hateful, and biased piece of crap that this project can turn into if the basic principles it is built on are not enforced (yes, the "E-word"). So call them Pillars or call them Lugnuts (my earlier suggestion) but if they are not held inviolable and not as something that a few can change under the misnomer of "consensus, then the wheels are falling off this project. --Justanother 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)