User:Starblind/Wikiphilosophy

Wikipilosophy: What I'm About
This is a general statement of principles and beliefs by Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd . It's in FAQ-style format mostly for convenience's sake, because a long text essay would be a chore to read. If you're wondering about something but don't see it here, feel free to ask on my talk page, although I can't promise it'll necessarily be put in this document too.

What's the best thing about Wikipedia right now?
We're seeing a renewed focus on verifiability and using reliable sources.

Immediatism or Eventualism?
I consider myself a moderate immediatist. Wikipedia has been around for years now and has the attention of media and the world: we can no longer rely on the attiude that we can just toss up a bunch of crappy articles and hope somebody fixes them, someday, somehow.

Deletionism or Inclusionism?
Both deletionist and inclusionist pholosophies have failed. (See my essay on the topic for details.) Articles should be considered on their own merits, verifiability in particular. Bottom line: Factionalism and warring at AfD and elsewhere doesn't help the encyclopedia and makes it more difficult for all of us to get things done.

Unverifiable? Not-notable? Obscure?  What's the difference?
These are related concepts which are often discussed together.
 * Unverifiable topics are those which cannot be verified with reliable sources. An article on someone's pet cat or dog would usually be considered unverifiable.  Unverifiable topics should not have wikipedia articles, although it's possible that another wiki might accept them.
 * Not-notable topics are those which fall outside the scope of a reasonable encyclopedia. The term is sometimes used to mean unverifiable, but not everything not-notable is unverifiable.  For example, things like traffic jams, bake sales, thunderstorms, and petty crime might make it into the local newspaper (and thus be verifiable) but wouldn't generally be considered notable enough for an enecylopedia article.
 * Obscure topics fall outside people's typical area of knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're unverifiable or don't belong in an encylopedia. My favourite example of this is Axehandle hound, an article about a lumberjack folklore creature which I rescued from deletion.  I urge those writing about obscure topics (or thinking of doing so) not to give up: it's possible to find sources for some of the most amazing things if you look hard enough.  It took me several hours and a trip to the library before I found anything on Axehandle hound, but sticking to it paid off, and the article was kept.