User:ElenOfTroy/Editing Wikipedia: Literary Contradictions

Moved from User talk:Newyorkbrad

Editing Wikipedia: Literary Contradictions
Wikidoxes, Wikimorons, Wikinundrums & Such You know the real world meanings of the words “paradox,” “oxymoron” and “conundrum,” so we should expect that similar occurrences, within the realm of Wikimedia’s intellectual property, likewise have no solutions. While Wikipedia is not the real world, contradictions exist. Sometimes, they just cannot be resolved.

As an oxymoron, for example, “Do you feel numb?” pales to white by comparison to Wikipedia’s “best of all time" topic: WP:WINARS, both as a template and as an article.  If the content of the article is to be believed, then why are WP articles considered reliable enough to be cited, even as tertiary sources?  If not, why do so many WP articles self-source or cite self-published works?  And what is self-sourcing?

One definition identifies the potential for an editor to create any number of articles on Wikipedia, like this series on literary contradictions, solely for the purpose of providing citations for other articles created by the same user. While all articles are, of course, subject to editorial modification by all other editors, the fact is, the publisher is the same in both cases. (It is one of the many unique policies distinguishing the World of Wikipedia from the “real world.”)

The sections below encourage users to list their own WP discoveries (aka The Mysteries of Editing Literary Content in Wikiworld”). Feel free to add categories (e.g. Wikinigmas, &c.) Do not worry if you enter something, which purist literary editors may find to be inexact… they will improve upon them for us. That, after all, is the beauty of Wikipedia.

References, Internal

 * WP:IS
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:OR
 * WP:USEPRIMARY
 * WP:USESPS
 * WP:V

Wikidoxes
[See Wikidoxes.]

Wikimorons
[See Wikimorons.]
 * WP:WINARS

Wikinundrums
[See Wikinundrums.]
 * Words are obviously necessary to create content for articles appearing in Wikipedia, but sources used to define them (i.e.dictionaries) are only considered as tertiary sources. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, does that not mean Wikipedia articles are only as reliable as a tertiary source?
 * It is curious that dictionaries, thesauri, and other authors’ reference materials are not considered reliable secondary sources. Their objective contributions apply primarily to single words, and not complete sentences; therefore, it is very unlikely they would be used to support content as a result of thought.



Wikiwillies
[Wikimedia®-relevant quotations from William Shakespeare. (An homage to long-time user-editor .)]

ElenOfTroy (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:ElenOfTroy...As per notices on your userpage, I have nominated all these misuses of Wikipedia space for speedy deletion.--MONGO 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)