No. It is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users. For comparison, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:IAR were first written down on Wikipedia in 2001, and WP:NOR and WP:V were written in 2003.
Even though it has nothing to do with the Five Pillars of Islam, won't Muslim people be offended anyway?
Muslim editors commenting here have confirmed that there is nothing offensive in this. The Arabic Wikipedia uses exactly the same words to title their version of this essay. The words "five pillars" are not inherently sacred; the same words might be used by Muslims in everyday speech, such as to describe architectural elements in a building.
Does this page list every single important principle?
No. It does not discuss the importance of using common sense, not charging money to readers, cooperating with Wikipedias in other languages, the desirability of making pages accessible to people with disabilities or limited internet access, or any number of other principles that the community has identified as important over the years.
They don't illustrate the content of each pillar, which is a missed opportunity. (It also took me some time to realise what the icons actually represent, it's not that clear).
The use of color is problematic: green is normally attributed to something good, red to something to be avoided. To put them in chromatic order (blue/green-yellow-red) makes things even more misleading. The first impression might be that of a list 'from good to bad' (that was actually my first impression).
As a solution to these two problems I propose to use icons that illustrate each pillar in black and white. You can see how it would look in Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/icons proposal. The icons used are from The Noun Project, where there are thousands of icons in the same style to choose from (I also changed a bit the code to make the layout look nicer). Would anyone object? Greetings! Sgomag (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal but people are sure to object for a variety of reasons. For example, some editors are used to the fact that Wikipedia:Five pillars#Green identifies the green pillar. Also, the current icons, while being meaningless, support the pillars theme of the page. The icons in the proposal are fine, but they do not add anything to the page—a fancy W is no more helpful than a blue pillar. Finally, since the page is short, having five completely unrelated icons is somewhat jarring. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a change. The first icon doesn't really show the subject, it just says it is about Wikipedia. Perhaps a finger over a book showing a person looking something up would be better. I'm not sure a handshake shows civility, we want civility even when people disagree. Perhaps it was to show consensus? I haven't the foggiest what the icon for pillar 5 is in aid of. What we want to express is that the rules may be broken if that is best for the encyclopaedia content. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments and sorry for the late reply. I've taken your objections into consideration and changed the proposal. You can see it in Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/icons proposal. I hope you'll find it an improvement.
You are right the "green pillar" has to be green so I've kept the colors but tamed them a bit in order to avoid the problem with the color code (e.g. red=prohibition). Also, the way the color is applied –as a circle– helps uniformize the icons and avoid the 'jarring' effect.
I've changed or simplified the icons. The first icon is now a depiction of an online enciclopedia. The third pillar has become a jigzaw piece to represent content as it's a theme in the logo of Wikipedia (an alternative could be the logo of Creative Commons but in my opinion that'd be duller). The fourth icon speaks for itself and the last icon is a lightbulb to represent innovation. They can always be changed later for better ones, of course. (The actual icons in the page are supposed to represent pillars but many people mistake them with werid academic caps. A better option to reinforce the "pillar theme" would be the classical ionic capitel with its recognizable volutes, but I'd still find it a missed opportunity).
I've tweaked the layout to make each principle stand out and make it look more structured. This "icon-title-text" layout is what many professional webpages use.
Keep in mind that newcomers are the principal target of this page and for them it is a lot of new information. Both the icons and the new layout present it in a clearer and more attractive way, which always helps. I hope you consider this a move in the right direction. Atón (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC) (PD: I'm Sgomag but I've recently changed my name to Atón).
The proposal is good but it may not be worth doing. Having five different icons in such a short page makes it too similar to the fluffy, content-free websites that many Wikipedians don't like. You can try it and see what happens because there may not be much feedback until that happens. The subheadings are helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, let's see what happens. By the way, as a finishing touch I've removed the links from the subheadings and integrated them in the body of text. That way the pillars won't get confused with the one policy they link, and it looks neater to me. Atón (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay I'm a stick in the mud but I've got over most of the jarring feeling and I think the new icons are fine. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
New icons not viewable through mobile and app view. Anyone looking it to this.--Moxy (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I've never used a mobile with Wikipedia, but on sites I run I mark some pictures so they don't show up on mobiles to reduce clutter. I can't see any markup like that in the source here though. I just tried it with a mobile and got just the first icon on one browser and none with the other. It is an old an and crappy mobile I use though on the basis of if I can show things reasonably on that it'll be okay on later things :) Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Atón: I just checked this page for a first time in a while, and the new layout looks great! I'd say it's a much needed update :)—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This page, the five pillars of Wikipedia, might look like someone has copied the 5 pillars of Islam. I wonder why.Uchoseitutakeit (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Uchoseitutakeit (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
See the third question in the frequently asked questions at the top of this page. And then the fourth question. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Not just the icons were changed--the links have been fiddled with
I just discovered the change in format. How can we call them pillars now? We should call them The Five Tenets of Wikipedia.
Problem: The shortcuts WP:5P1, etc., now redirect to the main pillar page! And the blue-links are confusing--how does one find the page that corresponds to the particular pillar/tenet?
My proposed remedy: Link the bolded title of each pillar/tenet to its respective policy page:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to WP:NOT, which, imo, should be renamed "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Defining only by negatives is problematic.
Three little blue links intervene between the title and the actual link, which helpfully is in in bold font, but comes in the middle of the line.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view to WP:NPOV
At least the first blue link is to the right page, but it's confusingly called "document and explain major points of view."
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute to WP:C
This is one of the most straightforward ones, but still--why not have the link from the bolded title instead of a bit of internal text?
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility to WP:CIV
Huh? The first link goes to Policies and guidelines. The link to the explanatory page is buried in a long phrase in the second sentence.
If we're gonna fiddle with something, let's tune our strings. Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's "anyone can edit", not "anyone can demand that someone else edit for them". If you think the wording ought to be changed, then change it and see if your version sticks. (That doesn't go for your proposal to rename Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which would be hugely controversial and break something in the order of 100,000 incoming links). ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I prefer to discuss it first.
How is "My proposed remedy" a demand?
It's not the wording but the placement of the links.
I don't have the technical expertise to make the WP:5P1, WP:5P2, etc. shortcuts go to the policy pages instead of the main pillar/tenet page. YoPienso (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If we say someone is a pillar of society people don't ask if they are Ionian, Doric or Corinthian. As to the links I prefer something more informal rather than pushing new users into a formal policy point of view about the enterprise. Dmcq (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The version of WP:5P just before the switch to the new format was 02:49, 5 February 2017. I think it was as described above. I also support the informal approach in WP:5P and suggest that any significant reworking should be drafted in WT:Five pillars/icons proposal (I would have used "sandbox", but the existing draft page may as well be re-used). I'm not a fan of tricked-up icons, particularly when they have no purpose other than decoration. However, the previous pillar icons were a bit obscure—it took me a moment to work out what they were when I first saw them. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. AFAIK the redirects have always gone to the individual sections on this page and are still functioning fine. I like the new format. It's a lot cleaner and more professional...and I don't think anyone will be confused if there's not a literal picture of a pillar next to every pillar. Secondly, I like that the pillars have been emboldened and de-linked. The pillars are supposed to be overriding ideals. They're not summaries of singular policies. They're just supposed to be idealogical principles that speak for themselves, from which our policies are derived. For example, the third pillar. Wikipedia is free. Free to edit, free to use, free to share. That's the ideal. You're not supposed to read that and immediately proceed to WP:C, a repulsively daunting and technical overview of international copyright laws and how they factor into Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors never need trudge through that page at all! These pillars are expanded upon below, and in much further detail by a multitude of different policies and guidelines, but at the end of the day, it's the simple ideas that speak for themselves! Swarm♠ 01:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to each of you for your helpful input. I'm going to blue-link the titles, but not all with be the same as the ones I proposed above. Here's a summary:
Per Swarm, the current page is fine. I think the link for #1 has been argued over in the past and consensus (when it was a link) was for WP:NOT for reasons that are not relevant here since there are no links. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I was adding the links while you were writing. I left the link to WP:NOT just as it was. The only link I removed was the one to civility, which became redundant when I linked the subtitle it. This makes the page more user-friendly, at least to me, and I imagine to many others the first time they come across this page. YoPienso (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The new design has been stood without objectionall year. You raised your concerns, with which nobody has agreed. You're more than welcome to continue to try to make your case, but I'd strongly warn you against escalating the situation by ignoring everyone else and implementing changes that aren't supported by consensus. Swarm♠ 06:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
All year being 4 months, on a page with surprisingly little traffic. But, as I wrote on my edit summary, I should have waited.
Like Johnuniq, at first sight I found the changes jarring. But after considering everyone's comments and just sitting on it a bit, I see they're an improvement. The only thing I don't think is an improvement is the missing blue links. Input here led me to change 3 of the 5 pages I had selected and put up for your perusal. I think my edit created appropriate, typical, and useful blue links. I'd like to hear from several editors what their specific objections are to the blue links--not just that you don't like them. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
(←) Huh? The new design was implemented in early February, after being proposed on the talk page without objection. Not sure where you're getting this "4 months" figure. That aside, I did provide a very specific and well-reasoned argument to your proposal. You completely ignored what I said and labeled my opposition to be "I don't like it", and thus suggested that my input was invalid and that other editors needed to chime in. That's not how dispute resolution works, YoPienso. If you're going to engage in a constructive conversation, you need to actually address the very reasonable points I made rather than dismissing them without consideration. What's more, the onus is on you to overturn the existing consensus. You can't just ignore it. Swarm♠ 06:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.