Wikipedia:Update/1/Content policy changes during August 2009


 * Biographies of living persons
 * Added subsection, WP:BLP: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. This is particularly important in the case of police booking photos ("mugshots"), which can carry additional connotations beyond the record of an arrest."
 * New section heading, but no new material: WP:BLP


 * Naming conventions
 * Substantial changes throughout from the July 31 version


 * Neutral point of view
 * In the nutshell, changed "Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written ..." to "Articles must be written ..."
 * In the introduction, removed: "Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles."
 * In WP:NPOV, changed "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." to "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that where multiple perspectives on a topic have been published by reliable sources, all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."
 * Made substantial changes to WP:NPOV from the July 31 version
 * In NPOV, changed "While an alternative theoretical formulation may be looked on with derision, it is still published in reasonably respectable scientific journals, and negative responses will usually attack it for failure to explain some aspect of reality, which researchers into the alternative theoretical formulation will attempt to correct. For instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics. However, pseudoscience usually requires rewriting basic, well-tested laws of science for it to work, without any evidence other than anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection (Examples: parapsychology and homeopathy)." to "Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics. To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy."


 * No original research
 * In WP:NOR, changed [Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be] "posted to Files for deletion." to "deleted from the article and a note should be posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research. It is also suggested that the file be posted to Files for deletion."


 * Verifiability
 * In WP:V, moved Jimbo's quote to a footnote
 * In WP:V, removed "Wikipedia itself is self-published." Changed "may not be used as sources" to "should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (Wikipedia citing itself). An exception may be made in articles about Wikipedia."  Added [this would create circular sourcing ] "(Wikipedia citing a source which already cited Wikipedia for the same material)."


 * What Wikipedia is not
 * In WP:NOT, removed at the end: "The above list, like all lists of examples here, is not exhaustive, merely illustrative." Shortened "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context." to "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."
 * In WP:NOT, changed "Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law." to "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused."