Wikipedia:List of Wikipedian contradictions and paradoxes

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Shortcuts

The following is a list of paradoxes and contradictions found on Wikipedia. If you ever manage to find any more paradoxes or contradictions, feel free to add them to this list. Also, please remember that this is only a joke page and not to be taken seriously by any means.

Content	Reasons	Current status
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored	According to WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia is not censored. Nonetheless, WP:Deletion policy prohibits users from viewing deleted (i. e., censored) articles unless they have administrator privileges.	Still in use.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules	If one ignores the rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, then one would be following the rule, thus not ignoring the rule. Yet if one follows the rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules then one would no longer be ignoring all rules. Also, WP:3RR is a bright-line rule which users are not permitted to ignore.	Still used; currently a policy. Was actually discussed at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 6#My head might explode... and Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 17#Funny.
List of every Wikipedia list that does not contain itself	List of every Wikipedia list that does not contain itself was a Wikipedian list that does not contain itself. However if one adds the List of every Wikipedia list that does not contain itself to a List of every Wikipedia list that does not contain itself then it's no longer a list that does not contain itself.	Redirected to Russell's paradox & then deleted at WP:RFD
Increasing a user's vandalism counter by one unit	Since the edit is considered vandalism, this is the 6th time the user page was vandalized. Yet if the user reverts the edit, then the vandalism counter will say that user's user page got vandalized 5 times when in fact it has been vandalized 6 times. So if he or she corrected it back to 6 times, then it means that the vandal was making a good edit and therefore it should not be deemed vandalism.	In this case, the user (Husond) reverted the vandalism, warned the user, then changed it back
Category:Category needed	If one adds Category:Category needed to an article, it technically no longer needs the category because it now has one. Yet if one removes the category, then the article now does need a category, so Category:Category needed will have to be added back.	Still used. Was actually discussed at Category talk:Category needed#Contradiction!
Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia	Hypothetically, a media personality could vandalise w:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia to mention that he vandalised w:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. By doing so, if a user were to revert that edit, then the page would be factually incorrect in that the media personality had vandalised Wikipedia. However, if the user then corrects the page by adding the vandalism back, then it means the vandalism was actually a good edit thus should not be considered as vandalism or part of w:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. This paradox is similar in concept to the paradox mentioned above on vandalizing a user's vandalism counter by one unit.	Hasn't happened yet, but always possible (especially as Wikipedia becomes more popular)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view	Wikipedia:Neutral point of view represents views that are biased towards a neutral point of view, thus Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a point of view and a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Yet if Wikipedia:Neutral point of view was to be deleted due to a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, then it could be recreated because Wikipedia:Neutral point of view was deleted and a point of view is now allowed.	Still used; currently a policy. Was actually discussed at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 37#NPOV.

See also