Wikipedia talk:Prime objective

User:InedibleHulk made a couple changes (diff) adding a couple fixit templates and writing at the bottom in all-caps: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS." I understand that InedibleHulk is new (only 800 or so edits) and doesn't appear to understand the difference between a guideline/essay/policy page and articles: the fixit templates he used are only for use on articles, not meta pages. So while trying not to bite the newbies, Im commenting here that InedibleHulk may justify his edits in some way. Rather it seems his edits here serve only to make a POINT. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a noob, but I was unaware of that difference between articles and essays. Tags have been removed. See Also has been restored. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns
1. Jimmy Wales says nothing about this being "the prime objective". Here is the full quote: "7) Getting people involved - by Anonymous Coward What methods have you found that work best for getting people not only involved in contributing, but also keeping them contributing to the Wiki?

Jimmy Wales: Love. It isn't very popular in technical circles to say a lot of mushy stuff about love, but frankly it's a very very important part of what holds our project together.

I have always viewed the mission of Wikipedia to be much bigger than just creating a killer website. We're doing that of course, and having a lot of fun doing it, but a big part of what motivates us is our larger mission to affect the world in a positive way.

It is my intention to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet in their own language. It is my intention that free textbooks from our wikibooks project will be used to revolutionize education in developing countries by radically cutting the cost of content.

Those kinds of big picture ideals make people very passionate about what we're doing. And it makes it possible for people to set aside a lot of personal differences and disputes of the kind that I talked about above, and just compromise to keep getting the work done.

I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think.

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

2. Even if this IS Wikipedia's objective, this essay does not at all make clear how it applies to "cases where we feel we should try to find a fine balance between sensitive issues".

3. The essay ends by contradicting changing its first definition of the "prime objective", now saying it is "to provide a free and global resource of some substantial degree of quality."

Please explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you raise a good point, even though quoting the entire interview was unnecessary. IH wrote: - Feel free to suggest an alternate wording. If there is some validity to the issue you raise, it may require some development. IH wrote:  - Its not a contradiction, in fact its almost an echo of Jimbo's statement. I don't see how you can justify calling it a "contradiction."
 * You are right in that Jimbo never used the terms "prime" or "objective." His "imagine a world.." quote has been one of the most memorable and cited statements on the matter of Wikipedia's purpose. Hence I thought it would be nice to create a page that dealt specifically with this aspect of Wikipedia's purpose, such that we can reference it and point to it in the context of various notable debates. The name is something I chose, based in part on the influence of Star Trek - the concept of a "prime directive." It may not in fact be the best title for this page, but I think it works. Feel free to suggest any alternatives. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I could suggest an alternate wording, I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion. I have no idea what this is trying to say. Again, PLEASE EXPLAIN. You are correct that "contradicts" was a poor choice of words. I had half a mind to replace it. However "some substantial degree of quality" does not echo anything in your original definition, even paraphrase. You admit to defining a term you invented with a quote that makes no reference to it, but insist an essay by this title should nonetheless exist to point to in notable debates. PLEASE EXPLAIN how this can lend anything to any debate. What do you suggest your interpretation of this quote means? What is a "fine balance between sensitive issues"? Which cases would we feel we must find it in? It is not up to me to suggest alternative titles and wording to a concept you invented, and are defending. If it makes sense, the onus is on you to explain how. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't regard this as an essay. It deals with a core principle, as stated by our founder, on the matter of our purpose. Hence it will be more of a guideline. IH wrote, - The page will serve as a place where we can discuss Wikipedia's continuing mission. Perhaps you are not familiar with many topical debates yet, but we use pages like this to point to as a reference when making our case one way or another on some topic. For example NPOV. Or CIVIL, a page which I created.
 * IH said, - Do you often nominate new guideline pages for deletion, or are you just making a POINT? IH said,  - See above. IH said  - Thank you for acknowledging that. IH said  - Its not my original definition, its Jimbo's. And when Jimbo says "sum of all knowledge" he is implying some degree of quality.  IH wrote:  - The quote is the essential part of this guideline, and the rest can be changed. Im not going to write up a list of debates or articles at which I think it can apply to - I think its disingenuous of you to ask. IH wrote,  - The onus is also upon you to be helpful, to suggest ways by which this guideline could be improved. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it disingenuous of me to ask what purpose this could serve? "To point to as a reference when making our case one way or another on some topic" is extremely vague. NPOV and CIVIL clearly state their purpose and contain specific advice for editors. That's all I ask here. This is the first new guideline I've nominated. My point is it doesn't seem to serve a purpose, and if it is used in arguments, it will very likely just confuse whichever matter to which it is supposed to be relevant. It is NOT Wales' definition. It is a sentence he wrote, which you have used to define a term you admit you made up. You could have just as well chosen any other sentence. If the rest can be changed, to what is the quote essential? I'm not asking for for a list. One example of a potential use would suffice for now. I have no problem with being helpful, but I first must have some idea of what this page is or what you would like it to become. If you ran across me standing in an empty field and I asked you for suggestions, (without indicating if I'm building a house, or digging a hole, or catching insects, or piling wood) would you help? Or would you ask for clarification? That's all I'm doing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This can start as an essay. It may eventually grow into a guideline. I would suggest it be renamed also (in star trek, it is the prime directive you may be thinking of). I think primary goal would be a better name. But it should remain rather short - that's something I like about it.--KarlB (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an inspiring remark, but I think it is questionable whether that quote really represents Wikipedia's primary goal (not that I am presenting myself as an expert on that topic – I am certainly no such expert). For example, to give everyone free access to the knowledge, it would seem necessary to give everyone free access to the network on which the knowledge database resides, and free access to the devices needed for connecting to the network. Is that within the scope of Wikipedia's efforts? Also, if the goal is to collect all human knowledge, why would we prohibit original research? –BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sum of human knowledge is also prohibited from being hosted on Wikipedia by WP:N and WP:V. Why would a "prime objective" be directly opposed to "core content policies"? I fear this essay has the potential to utterly decimate Wikipedia. OK, maybe not. But still, it can confuse humans! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

move
Now that the MfD is closed, any thoughts on a move to "Primary goal"? Prime objective seems a bit military in style. --KarlB (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose any title with any word synonymous with "primary" or "goal", unless the definition of the subject of this essay is changed. As I said above, suggesting Wikipedia's primary/main/foremost/ultimate goal/mission/objective/plan is giving ALL knowledge is directly opposed to its most fundamental existing rules (V, N and OR). Its continued existence (as is) serves only to confuse Wikipedians, as far as I can tell. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the more accurate "Sentence Typed by Jimmy Wales (2004)"? We may need the date disambig if other essays on other sentences start popping up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Title clash
The title is "objective", but the opening line calls it "directive". One or the other should be fixed. --Dweller (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wales used the term "Prime Directive" when referring to his statement (and did not use the word "objective"), and the essay is about what he said. So "directive" is the more appropriate choice. However, other titles may be better. (Please see previous discussions of the title issue.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)