User:Qp10qp/Sandbox5

'''This is a subpage of user:Qp10qp. It is not an encyclopedia page.'''

Key issues and policies.

Statement of Principles
{From: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles.)

{|style="background-color:transparent" 1. Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty. 2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.

For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community. 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|

'''"We need to treat each other with deep respect and kindness, and when I see that not happening, I fear for the example we set for newbies." - Jimbo Wales''' (11 Dec 2006) source.

Foundation issues
(At Foundation issues)

The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate. People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project. These issues include:


 * 1) NPOV as the guiding editorial principle
 * 2) Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering#The "wiki process" as the final authority on content
 * 3) Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL (working on changes via GFDL 2.0)
 * 4) Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter (although some authority has been delegated to others; see Arbitration Committee and Board of Trustees)

The presence of these foundation issues is, on the one hand, one of the strengths of the existing community, and on the other, one of the factors that has led to charges of cabalism.

Simplified ruleset
(From WP:SR)

There is no strict set of rules, instead there is a set of guidelines which you can choose to follow.

Editing

 * 1) Neutral point of view. Write from a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental principle, which allows us to make a fair representation of the  world around us. Even if material is verifiable, it is still important to put it into a balanced and representative form so that it conveys a fair impression of the views of the many significant viewpoints on a subject.
 * 2) Verifiability. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.
 * 3) No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position.

Safe behaviours
The intent of these guidelines is to provide a safe set of rules of thumb. Follow these behaviours, and you'll likely not get into trouble, and will also do fairly well at requests for adminship, over time.

Encourage others, including those who disagree with you, likewise to Be bold!
 * 1) Be bold! in updating pages.  Go ahead, it's a wiki!
 * 1) Be civil to other users at all times.
 * 2) Ignore all rules. If the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.
 * 3) When in doubt, take it to the talk page. We have all the time in the world. Mutual respect is the guiding behavioural principle of Wikipedia and, although everyone knows that their writing may be edited mercilessly, it is easier to accept changes if the reasons for them are understood. If you discuss changes on the article's talk (or discussion) page  before you make them, you should reach consensus faster and happier.
 * 4) Decent edit summaries and clear and transparent explanations are universally appreciated. Other editors need to understand your process, and it also helps you yourself to understand what you did after a long leave of absence from an article. Please state what you changed and why. If the explanation is too long, elucidate on the discussion page.  It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that anyone may edit articles without registering, so there are a lot of changes to watch; edit summaries simplify this.
 * 5) Assume good faith; in other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion is a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Even if you're convinced that they're Evil reptilian kitten eaters from another planet, still pretend they're acting in good faith. Ninety percent of the time, you'll find that they actually are acting in good faith (and wouldn't you have looked stupid if you'd accused them of being evil)
 * 6) Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30") . If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.
 * 7) Be gracious: Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do. Try to accommodate other people's quirks the best you can, and try to be as polite, solid and straightforward as possible yourself.
 * 8) Signing. Sign on talk pages (using ~ which gets replaced by your username and timestamp when you hit submit), but don't sign on mainspace articles.
 * 9) Use the Show preview button; it prevents cluttering up the page-history.
 * 10) Foundation issues: There are only 5 actual rules on Wikipedia: neutral point of view, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit, and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters. If you disagree strongly with them, you may want to consider whether Wikipedia is the right place for you at all. While anything can theoretically be changed on a wiki, the community up to this point has been built on these principles and is highly unlikely to move away from them in the future. A lot of thought has been put into them and they've worked for us so far; do give them a fair shake before attempting to radically change them or leaving the project.

Be bold…
From WP:BOLD. If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial. Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.

Reverting
From Editing policy:

''Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.''

Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly. This only leads to edit wars. Use the talk page instead. Reverting isn't always collaborative editing, but often a cheap shortcut. Be careful if a revert touches off a revert war. If a revert war begins, then collaboration is not working, and editing the article boldly by reverting is not collaboration. Instead it attempts to force one editor's will on the other editors, which will never work. Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point (See: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

Explain reverts
From Help: Revert:

Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face — "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of e.g. "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page.

Alternative to reverting: move to talk
If a user makes an addition which you consider POV or generally bad, rather than revert them and hope not to be reverted again, a more productive option is to move their content to the article's talk page where it can be discussed. While the content is still removed from the article, it is a less harsh move because the content is still viewable outside of history, and is more easily referenced in discussion.

Admin-only "rollback" link
On a user contributions page, an admin has additional "rollback" links for contributions marked top (the last edit made by anybody to that article). The diff page showing the difference between an old and the current version of a page also has this link. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not made by the user being reverted. The feature is especially useful in the case of a known vandal, whose edits don't need to be checked before being reverted. An automatic edit summary Reverted edits by X to last version by Y is added. This feature cannot be used when the last two edits were by the same user, and one wants to revert to the previous version only.

Administrator feature
Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

A "blind revert" refers to the use of the rollback button without checking the edit. Blind reverts should not be used unless you are sure that the edit is vandalism (a vandalbot attack, for example).

One revert recommendation
From WP:3RR:

It is strongly recommended that you revert any particular change no more than once.

Wikipedia content criteria
From About:

Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.

The Perfect Article
From WP:TPA

A perfect Wikipedia article...


 * starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.
 * is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
 * is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.
 * branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject.
 * acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
 * is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
 * is of an appropriate length; it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "subarticles", related articles, or sister projects.
 * reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles.
 * is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
 * is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.
 * is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.
 * is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.
 * follows standard writing conventions of modern English, including correct grammar, punctuation and spelling.
 * includes informative, relevant images—including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. Each image should have an explanatory caption.

For more information, see our editing policy.

Consensus
From: WP:CON]:

Consensus vs. other policies
It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.

"You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it." mailing list

Important questions about a process
From Wikipedia talk:Practical process


 * 1) Does it follow logically from the guiding principles of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation?
 * 2) Can it be easily and succinctly summed up in one or two sentences such that every element in the process follows logically from this summary?
 * 3) Will it make sense to someone who is not familiar with wikiculture?
 * 4) Is it flexible enough to handle unusual and special circumstances?
 * 5) Is it transparent enough that following process does not create unnecessary strain on editors involved in the process?
 * 6) Does it show good common sense in general on the part of the Wikipedia/media community?

Telling each other off/larding remarks with patronising advice
Wikilinking to guideline pages is rather tiring - numerous editors do it, and there's no point. It's like people are assuming I know nothing, which is rather derogatory. Rather than quote chapter and verse, how about common sense? LuciferMorgan 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's something intrinsically patronising about lacing or larding one's contribution to arguments with references to various policies, particularly those which remind us how to behave. Also, I dislike the Wikipedia abbreviations, such as IAR and AGF, which aren't instantly recognisable, to me, at least. Many times I have to look up what wikinyms mean, when the writer could simply have explained their point in plain English.

Referring to other pages
I like this point, adapted from something Marskell said:

Each review, each talk page discussion, each new item anywhere on Wiki, must be treated as a tabula rasa. It's the hardest part of assuming good faith, because personalities bring grudges and affection with them, but it's absolutely essential. The only thing relevant in deciding how to respond [to a comment on a page] is what has actually been said regarding the subject at hand on the specific page. Unless you're dealing with a vandal, there is never cause to refer to unrelated pages and discussions.

Politeness
It would be a nicer world if more people would preface their suggestions with something like, "This is a useful and complete article, a fine contribution to Wikipedia, and I appreciate the work that went into it. My only concern is..." But you know how it is, both here and in the real world; not everyone takes in the big picture. Willow 09:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic prose
What is encyclopedic prose?

With Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), I had to do five or more copyedits through GA and FA. The material was complex and dense, and reviewers repeatedly criticised the text and demanded more copyedits. I ended up with a successful text, I think, which takes the reader cleanly through intricate events and their analysis. The process taught me what my ultimate target has to be here: supremely clear prose. I've taught myself formatting, referencing, FA process, etc. And I think I've developed a reasonable instinct for article structure. Now I have to find a way of writing with an Orwellian momentum and simplicity; and there's no way of avoiding several deep copyedits in order to get to the simplest formulation—you'll rarely hit it straight away. You must keep standing back and re-reading like a stranger to the subject, or a child, or a non-English speaker, but without dumbing down. "As simple as possible", as Einstein said, "but no simpler". qp10qp 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Essays, etc.
Many things to many people

Links

 * WP:EQ Wikipedia:Etiquette.
 * WP:5P Wikipedia:Five Pillars
 * WP:LOP Wikipedia:List of Policies.
 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle