Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets



Wikipedia is not written to settle bar bets. Wikipedia is not your Snopes, PolitiFact or FactCheck.org. Wikipedia policy requires neutrality and verifiability, and prohibits original research. This means that Wikipedia cannot judge the winner in each and every arbitrary dispute or obscure trivia question. If you've got a bet over a question that no reliable source has ever taken seriously, Wikipedia is not going to research it for you, and publish the answer in an article.

This means:


 * The tone of articles should not be made less ambiguous than is justified by level of consensus of high-quality sources, even for readers who just want a simple answer
 * Obscure and trivial facts should not be added to articles for the sake of curiosity of a reader, or because they are settling a bet, or judging a trivia contest
 * Superlatives like firsts, longest, largest and similar Guinness Book categories cannot be awarded by Wikipedia
 * Credit for discoveries and inventions cannot be awarded by Wikipedia because that would violate he no original research policy. A reliable source has to clearly say credit for an innovation goes to an individual or to a country.

As simple as possible, but no simpler
Articles give space and weight to facts that are most widely accepted and established. While fringe ideas are given little, if any, space, significant dissent from mainstream views is given attention proportionate with what reliable sources give it. When reputable authorities and experts are divided, Wikipedia will struggle to accurately portray that division, but not oversimplify it.

A Wikipedia article cannot resolve questions that established experts have not themselves fully resolved. The ambiguities and contradictions of real life cannot be artificially made simple and tidy by Wikipedia. Articles can strive to give simple explanations for complicated concepts, but they cannot do away with complexity itself, nor make a roundabout series of events into a straightforward narrative. This does not mean Wikipedia should present facts as if they were opinions, only that Wikipedia does not add weight to the judgement of reliable sources.

Records or firsts are declared by sources, not Wikipedia
An encyclopedia article is not the place to find the definitive answer to the question of whether the motorcycle is a German, French, or American invention. Wikipedia can verify that for a long time, most mainstream authorities have agreed it was the Daimler Reitwagen, but the muddy and complicated picture made by reputable dissenters who bring up earlier steam motorcycles cannot be neatly cleaned up by Wikipedia editors. The International Astronomical Union's mission may include announcing, once and for all, that Pluto is not a planet, but Wikipedia's mission is only to describe the IAU's statements, and the significance and influence the IAU represents, but not to give or withhold a Wikipedia seal of approval. An encyclopedia of unlimited size can give a plot summary and production details of the Friends episode that featured the practice of going commando, but Wikipedia cannot change from opinion to fact the assertion that Friends is almost solely responsible for popularizing the slang term for not wearing underwear, even if that means you never get to find out who really won trivia night.

As with any reference work, an encyclopedia is often used to find a quick answer to a simple question. But Wikipedia only gives pat, unqualified answers when there happens to be overwhelming, unqualified consensus among reliable, expert sources. Definitive answers are not an editorial goal and no editor is under pressure to suppress ambiguity. Changing an article, or requesting that it be changed, to give answers straightforward enough to settle your bar bet is contrary to Wikipedia's core principles.

Examples
Not trying to restart this debate, but I just noticed Wikipedia does in fact consider a hot dog a sandwich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog 6 March 2019 The idea that Wikipedia is an arbiter of disputed opinions is has been gaining steam for years.
 * Hot dog is written as if everyone calls it a sandwich, making no mention of any ambiguity colloquial differences. The few editorial discussions are mostly expressions of editors' local idiom, with little effort to actually describe the debate itself. Instead, once editors agree with each other, they write an article that delivers only Wikipedia's verdict.