Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 3

Suggestion
We should rewrite this section to say wikipedia entries are not just collections of internal links except in the following cases...

Now which are the cases? Disambiguation pages are one case, categories another. What else? Charles Stewart 02:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV trouble
"Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room (mind you, neither is Everything2, or at least it tries not to be..." This is a non-NPOV attack on E2. What's the best way to fix it? Twinxor 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, generally, NPOV applies to articles; it's less strictly applied when it comes to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. That said, if you don't think that particular phrase speaks well of us, you're welcome to be bold and change it.  It's best to discuss changes on policy pages first, but this one seems fairly minor, and I don't think there will be much of a problem.  Best wishes, Meelar (talk)]] 22:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide
I recently saw someone writing this on Talk:Georgia, yet I don't think this has ever been brought up before. Anything to say about this?? 66.245.26.130 14:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did the cookbook requirement come from?
I noticed that the prohibition on recipies on Wikipedia was fairly recent, and seems to have been the cause for several deletions lately. Was that added as a result of the consensus of some discussion? I'm not really sure where these policies come from; I notice that it wasn't on the talk page for this article, and there wasn't a reference in the edit history to where a discussion had been held. Thanks. -- Creidieki 02:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any discussion of this, as of a week later. I have no evidence that this policy was discussed before being enacted.  Would anyone object to me removing the policy from the page?  -- Creidieki 05:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (took the liberty of mild reformat of your second comment to reflect normal standard) I think the reason is it wasn't dicussed what that previous discussion had concluded that recipes were ok for the time being, but that the formation of the Cookbook project at Wikibooks, specifically for recipes.  Of course, there are numerous food items that are of encyclopedic value, and recipes should be included, just in the context of discussing the item's social and culinary history, and not as a guide for making the item.  I think the consensus is that the vast majority of recipes have no place in any encyclopedia and should be transwikied to Wikibooks, while articles on food products should have recipes formatted like an encyclopedia, and not a cookbook. I believe a number of recipes have been transwikied in the past few months as the Wikicookbook has been growing -- do you have a specific recipe in mind?  We should probably take a liberal view of what food items deserve an article; if it has anything more than a sentence or two to say about its important in an aspect of history or culture, an article is appropriate (this part is my opinion, not consensus as I understand it). Tuf-Kat 05:56, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * The recipe policy was discussed at great length, mostly on the mailing list, earlier this year and late 2003. It was decided that actual recipes are to go in the Wikibooks Cookbook. There can certainly be articles about dishes on Wikipedia, and they should definitely discuss ingredients and methods of preparation, but recipes per se were decided do not belong on Wikipedia, and most were transwikied en masse some time ago. Articles about dishes which have corresponding recipes in the Wikibooks Cookbook should definitely have links in the articles to the recipe. See paella for an example of an extensive article about a dish that doesn't explicitly include a recipe, but links to some. Nohat 05:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was no such agreement. NEither on the mailing lists. Nor on wikipedia itself. I invite you to read the discussion here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_recipes/Delete and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARecipes_proposal SweetLittleFluffyThing

I am appalled at this radical decision as it limits the usability of Wikipedia because of a sister project that is known mostly for its vanity. Looking over wikicookbook I can see it is most definitely not representative of traditional recipes but a repository for every tom, dick and harry to promulgate their own culinary agendas. It is nothing like an encyclopedic cookbook. A baguette is a baguette is a baguette the recipe is almost immutable and a selection process would not be needed to decide on which recipe is representative of it because there is little deviation in baking. As to cooking, I am undecided as that is a whole other realm but standard baking recipes should be included in wikipedia not wikicookbook which seems a vanity project. Recipes help people like me a pastry chef define in our own language of kitchen chemistry the object we are talking about. Without these simple guidelines it is difficult to draw a line between an egg custard, a brulee or a flan without needlessly complicating entries. I think we should rediscuss this, or I might likely leave this project that I have just arrived at. --Rakista 15:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree there has never been consensus on this issue, I have thus removed the not a cookbook rule. - SimonP 16:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mere vehicles for testing anarchism
Is the following appropriate for "What Wikipedia entries are not"?
 * 7. Mere vehicles for testing anarchism. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. But of course none of this is to deny that a great deal of our success has been due precisely to our openness.

It would sound better to me if it was adjusted to an item in the "What entries is not" section. I'll wait for comments before applying the change, since the item has a distinguished history ... Charles Stewart 03:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

 * 1) 6 for "Wikipedia entries are not" is Wikipedia entries are not "propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views&#8212;and good luck."

I agree that Wikipedia entries should be neutral and all of this. My question is about the *process* of things. Let's take a contentious article like the Israelis and Palestinians. Or perhaps I'll call them Houyhnhnms and Yahoos. When I come to the page, I see it is written by a Yahoo, with POV language "The wretched evil Houyhnhnms persecute and kill Yahoos for no reasons, and have the degenerate habit of breaking their eggs on the big end of the egg". I am a Houyhnhnm, and I feel this is unfair so I rewrite it, perhaps taking out the adjectives wretched, evil and degenerate, and then add some negative factual information about the Yahoos. The Yahoo then comes on the page and we go back and forth.

In an ideal world, the Houyhnhnm and Yahoo will balance each other out. Perhaps even a Brobdingnagium comes around, who could care less about Houyhnhnhms and Yahoos and which end of an egg to break open, and serves as sort of a neutral peace maker.

In some ways you could say numerically, the Houyhnhnm and Yahoo are a 1 and a -1. NPOV is 0. Houyhnhnm knows eveything good about Houyhnhnms and everything bad about Yahoos. Yahoo knows everything bad about Houyhnhnms and everything good about Yahoos. When they both add their comments to the page, and strip away POV language, baseless assertions and so forth, the article becomes more balanced. The -1 added to the 1 equals 0 - NPOV.

However, if the Houyhnhnm starts out as a 0, and the Yahoo continues as a -1, then that back and forth will become a -0.5. The page will become unbalanced because the Yahoo is being 100% pro-Yahoo and anti-Houyhnhnm, and the Yahoo is being 50/50 on things. The page becomes unbalanced, overpraising Yahoos, demonizing Houyhnhnms.

I hope people see the point I'm trying to make. The article should be 0 - NPOV. But the more biased the other side is, the more biased your side has to be just to get the article to the middle, to NPOV.

I think rule #6 is kind of vague and I'm not sure exactly what it means. Or more the question is - how does one be NPOV when others are not committed to NPOV? Ruy Lopez 23:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that highly controversial topics, such as the one listed above, should have almost-mandatory "Case for" and "Case against" sections. This will allow those who are NPOV on both sides to present their arguements fully (within reason) and still, IMO, maintain article neutrality. Oberiko 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To achieve NPOV we need to be patient in explaning newcomers why NPOV is a good and important principle, we need to be vigilant about POV additions and quick to reedit or revert them, we need to use existing "policing" tools such as protecting a page, banning repeat offenders, even blocking the most biased and disruptive advocates. In regards to the "case for/against" structure, it is contrary to the NPOV principle. Our goal is to present a neutral view, not a combination of supporting and opposing views. Paranoid 11:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd think the for/against combination would, in and of itself, bring neutrality to an article. Ordinarily I'd agree with you though, as I think a properly written article wouldn't have need of such a device.  The problem is that alot of people can't help putting heavy bias into articles, and then it becomes a ceaseless shouting match or possibly even a revert war (which in turn leads to things like page protection, which I think we should avoid unless absolutely needed).  It's an imperfect solution to be sure, but we have many imperfect contributers. Oberiko 14:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you in that I think for/against segmentation is much worse than edit wars, reverts and page protection. One of the reasons is that it's a permanent problem of the article, while the latter problems are transitional. Note also that Wikipedia is supposed to be (mostly) about verifiable facts, not unfounded claims by two opposing parties. Paranoid 15:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. On further reflection, the for/against would probably just intensify the situation in any case, and seemingly make us compromise to allow NPOV material to seep in.  I withdraw my suggestion on this issue. Oberiko 16:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External links to propaganda
Wikicities dosen't have as strict of a policy as Wikipedia. Would it be OK if people put external links on Wikipedia articles for propoganda articles on Wikicities. If it is, mention it as an exception to the WWIN policy. --SuperDude 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial
I would like to make it policy that wikipedia is not a memorial service for people unless their death in and of itself was proveably significant (ie. caused new laws to be created etc.). This, of course, does not apply to people who merited a wikipedia article in life. Oberiko 21:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please upload only files that pertain to encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted.
Oh no, the barnstar! Ashiibaka tlk 02:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a spoilerroom, or wikipedia is not cliff notes
I have been doing a lot of thinking about wikipedia and fancruft, what is encylopedic and what isn't. I feel that we need to have the policy "wikipedia is not cliff notes", in the same way as "wikipedia is not a dictionary". Obvious its ok to use a definition or plot summary within an article, but when an article is only that and looks like it can only be that, then it should be vfd. This instantly solves to me the fancruft problem, and helps ensure the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. Thoughts?


 * I think this rule needs to be revisited. There is a huge amount of material that aspires to be like Cliff Notes; some of which I have added myself. This point is out of date and has been superseded by unofficial practise. :ChrisG 12:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What are Cliff notes? Is this a US thing? In light of ChrisG's comments and the fact I'm not even sure what it means, I'm removing it now. Dan100 18:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * See CliffsNotes, and yes, it's a US thing (the name, at least, not the concept). I agree that specific examples are only good if everyone can reasonably be expected to know them. Britannica yes, CliffsNotes no. Make it more general. 82.92.119.11 18:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * CliffsNotes are not a "US thing" and are published and used world-wide. The FIRST and FOREMOST entry in "What Wikipedia is not" should be that "Wikipedia is not necessarily acurate and unbiased", and the user should be warned to check with more accepted sources before using information found in Wikipedia.  Far too many of my students cite items from the Wiki that are clearly incorrect.  This statement should be item one, on page one, not buried somewhere.

Let me explain again: my proposed rule is this: In the same way "dictdef" articles are deleted now if they contain solely a dictionary definition and seem like they will contain no more then that, articles which simply summarize the plot or plot elements of anything (such as an article about the workings of a tie fighter) would be deleted too. Obviously its ok to use plot summaries, just as it is ok to use definitions, yet an article consisting solely of that and appearing to be not likely more, should be vfd. This is the best way to solve the fancruft problem.
 * Hmmm, if that's true, then many of the program articles for South Park and Doctor Who will be removed. Are you sure that's what you want to do? --JB Adder | Talk 04:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see there being a "fancruft" problem unless these articles are somehow doing damage to the system. Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 12:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 23skidoo, the fancruft problem is the problem of non-encylopedic articles. Where would you draw the line of an article being non enclyopedia and encyclopedic? I think the guideline that the article is (and probably will ever be) nothing more then a plot summary is a good one at drawing this line, in a similar way to the dictdef guideline.

Propose: Wikipedia is not a knowledge base
Propose:


 * Wikipedia is not a knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Articles may contain no falsehoods yet be unsuitable for an encyclopedia. This page itemizes some specific kinds of articles that are true yet not not encyclopedic. The fact that certain kinds of information are excluded does not imply that every other kind of information is automatically included.
 * [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Better. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. my suggestion for wording would be (changes highlighted) "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is verifiable and interesting doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic.  It is by no means an all-inclusive list.  The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia.
 * This should go into the first section ("Wikipedia is not"), and it should point to the list of examples in the next section, as it summarises much of them, but does not overlap too much with the other items in the first section. BTW what are cliff notes? Not evident for non-native speakers. Kosebamse 13:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The point about "verifiable and interesting" is that these are two major criteria that always come up in deletion discussions, and it should be made clear that these criteria are necessary but not sufficient for inclusion of an article. Maybe there should be a link to some in-depth discussion about verifiability (I am sure there are many, but don't know where). And regarding "interesting" (that word even has a page in the wikipedia namespace, IIRC), we should make clear that it's not good enough that this or that fact interests you or you friend, otherwise we would make it harder to defend Wikipedia against irrelevant trivia of all sorts. There's a fine line to be drawn, one man's trivial junk is another man's future encyclopedia, so the link to past deletion discussions should be included here. I don't insist on a particular wording, of course. Kosebamse 06:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The crucial point in many of these discussions is often, how interesting? Many VfD discussions revolve exactly around this question. IMO, if you tell people "it's enough that somebody considers this interesting", you are in danger of corrupting some foundational ideas of an encyclopedia (selection, verification, evaluation). An encyclopedia is only as valuable as its editors are critical.
 * I don't deny that I consider many a page nothing more than trivial junk, but I am far from introducing a new rule without making sure that there is sufficient consensus. (That's why we are discussing these things here, and without unnecessary accusations, please.) I do think however that  the "What Wikipedia is not" page should tell the reader in what way Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information". And as I mentioned before, I don't insist on any particular wording. If you think that your version is precise enough, fine with me, let's leave it to community consensus to decide about this. Kosebamse 13:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to including the text into the page? I would suggest Anthony's version with those changes of mine that were not disputed, so the text would read:
 * "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic.  It is by no means an all-inclusive list.  The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia."
 * Kosebamse 07:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And just why is such a paragraph needed? There seems to be a culture of "if I don't know about it, then it can't be notable" round here. If you read the other entries, you'll note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and as such has more room. Wikipedia was started under the "all the world's knowledge under one roof" spirit and this entry certainly goes right against that. Dan100 08:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you advocating that Wikipedia should be a general knowledge base? Or are you simply saying that it is appropriate for it to have a much wider scope than traditional print encyclopedias and to include many topics that would not be included in traditional encyclopedias? Do you oppose something specific in the language of the paragraph? Or are you objecting to it on the basis of the motivation you infer for its addition? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can have a wider scope because Wiki is not paper. We don't have the cost or practicality issues that constrained paper encyclopedia editors. But my more immeadiate concern is that I can't quite see why this paragraph is needed. The page states goes on to state what wikipedia articles aren't, so why do we need a paragraph saying that? Just "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" would suffice. Dan100 17:04, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * That particular wording would be fine with me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Shortened the paragraph as per proposal. Dan100 18:35, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Dan, as you may have noticed there has been quite a bit of discussion about the wording, however the particular piece of discussion that you referred to when changing the project page was less than twelve hours old and was conducted between two users only. That seems too hasty for a relevant change to such a page. This project page is really really important, as it is often quoted to justify various policy-related decisions, so special care is needed with it. I am reinstating the former version pro tempore, not because I think it should be final, but because that amount of discussion seems insufficient..(You may have seen that I have heavily contributed to this project page and that some of my changes were without explicit discussion, so you might argue that I am not the right person to do this; however, when you look into the diffs you will see that my changes consisted largely of rewriting/rearranging/refactoring what was already there and needed no discussion. The only major change that I made was exactly this paragraph that we are talking about, and I inserted that only after it had been discussed for several days.) Kosebamse 21:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, but what do you find objectionable about the revised version? It had the same meaning, just removed what appears to be redundant text. I also note that there was no consesus on the text I change. At least someone agreed with my revision, and that person happened to be the original proposer. However I won't rv pending further discussion, and agree I was too hasty to implement the revision (especially considering the downtime today). Dan100 21:18, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me be more specific: the first sentence I removed is redundant as it just describes what's on the page. The second sentence, "It is by no means...", is a catch-all that gives anyone free-reign to declare that any article they don't like the look of "isn't a wikipedia" article. It needs, at least, to be more specific, and I contend that it shouldn't be there at all. Dan100 08:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a better name for this section would be: Wikipedia is not a pile of facts. I think that the point that we should be getting at is that we should be providing information that is useful to people who are consulting an encyclopaedia: it should be the kind of information that wikipedia users might be after, and it should be provided in a way that the interested user is likely to find it. The general point is controversial, I think, though, isn't it? The people who are arguing that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and should be treated as a different sort of enterprise are arguing exactly that if information is interesting for somebody then it doesn't hurt to make it available. I think that actually providing examples of what this policy excludes is necessary, and until we do and have a consensus on it, then it should not be policy. I propose deleting the item. Charles Stewart 09:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be controversial in the various forms and wording it has had during this discussion. The whole point is that "Wikipedia is not paper" means "Wikipedia's scope is relatively unlimited by space and extends far beyond that of a traditional encyclopedia," not "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain what I think about the sentences in the paragraph under discussion. And in response to Dpbsmith, I don't know your attitude in these matters, but every inclusionist always argues that "Wiki is not paper". While that can hardly be denied, the implied consequence "...and therefore I can stick into it whatever I like" is what angers us deletionists, or as I would put it, encyclopedists, because that implication is rarely ever enunciated. And if we don't make it clear that this is an encyclopedia and we Wikipedians reserve the right to decide what befits an encyclopedia, every bored kid with a computer will continue to drop their random nonsense here. That already happens, Wikipedia is currently being stuffed with worthless junk of every description. We should not surrender the chance to put a clear-cut definition of what Wikipedia is not on right here where every reader can see it. Kosebamse 11:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That should definitely stay, because it neatly summarises the long list that follows. That list has grown over time and lists too many things to stick them into the first, summary, section.
 * Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And that should stay as well, because it explains the basic pronciple some more.
 * This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. And this tells the reader what the other list is for; should stay IMHO.
 * It is by no means an all-inclusive list. The fact that certain categories of information are not included in this list does not imply that they should be included in Wikipedia That is not essential and could be left out.
 * I really have had no problem with any of the variations in phrasing that have been suggested. When I said, of Dan100's shortened version, that "that particular wording would be fine with me," I was speaking for myself and did not mean to imply that others would agree.
 * The reason why I think it is important to state this explicitly is that a) there are those, such as nsk2@wikinerds.org, who advocate that Wikipedia should become a general knowledge base; b) I truly believe that Wikipedian community consensus rejects this extreme view; c) since people sometimes assert that an article should be in Wikipedia simply because it is true and verifiable, it is useful to have on record that this is not the community consensus.
 * My original proposal was intended to encompass a very wide range of Wikipedia opinion, including both those styling themselves "inclusionists" as well as "deletionists". The language as of a couple of days ago had the explicit support, and was worded with the active participation of, at least one self-identified member of each faction. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that you say, and would be happy with the version that we had before Dan's edits, but if people feel that it is too long, a shorter version would be just as fine. Following my arguments above, the shorter version should be IMHO: Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base; that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This page lists some specific types of articles and facts which, while they may be 100% true, are not considered encyclopedic. Can we all agree on that version? Kosebamse 14:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be perfectly happy with that, Kosebamse. Perhaps we could change that for now, while considering the new version? Dan100 22:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. let's do that. Kosebamse 07:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss the rewritten version
Please review my proposal of a revised version. Note that I have not much changed the content, but rearranged it in a more logical fashion, rewritten a few sentences, added a few explanations, and raised an item from the second list to the rank of a "What Wikipedia is not" topic. The proposed version is at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Rewrite December 2004, and I would suggest to discuss it here, not on a talk page of its own. Thanks. Kosebamse 14:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm trusting your word that you restrained yourself to reshuffling existing ideas. Given that, I like the new structure.  Much clearer.  (You seem to have made an error of list syntax in the "General knowledge base" section.)  --Smack 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Like Smack, I haven't had a chance to give it the fine-toothed-comb treatment and compare it with the existing article and I'm taking your word there are no substantive changes. I like the arrangement (I particularly like the way you've organized a number of topics as subtopics under "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base."). Nice job. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh hell, you got me confused and I've copied it to the Project page from Discussion page! Not a big deal I hope. Anyway, looks good to me, if we incorporated the change we have agreed above. But I'd suggest putting it on the Village Pump too to make sure as many people as possible have a chance to have their say before changing the 'official' version. Dan100 22:32, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Methinks there should be a chance for some more refinement, say until after christmas or new year, and then mention it on the pump, get some more discussion and hopefully move it to project page then. How about that? Kosebamse 07:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been through and made a raft of minor changes. I don't think I've changed the meaning of anything anywhere (at least it was my intention not to). Rather, I've adjusted the language, hopefully simplyfying it where needed, and also removing all the 'But's at the starts of sentences. Use this to see all the changes I've made. There are too many for me to list with the individual reasoning for each one here, but please do ask me here if there are any specific changes you object to. Dan100 17:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well done, Dan, looks much better now. And by the way, I think we should not update the note at the top of the draft; there will be changes done (and possibly reverted) on the original page until (if ever) the rewrite goes live, and there is no need to incorporate those changes until then. Merry Christmas (or whatever you are celebrating), Kosebamse 11:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll put a notice on the pump and ask people for comments and/or improvement. Suggest to wait for another week or so and then move the rewritten version to What Wikipedia is not if there are no objections. Kosebamse 11:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Good job! I've read through the draft and have compared it carefully with the existing article. I lile the changes in organization, and slight rewordings. As far as I can tell, they have virtually identical substantive content, and the new version represents no change in policy (and for this proposal I would suggest that we keep it that way).  One change I would like: make "Wikipedia articles are not … Propaganda or advocacy", be the first entry in the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" section. Again good job! Paul August  &#9742; 15:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

It's very nice, very clean looking. I like that, "The Wikipedia is not a theater of war". -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Go ahead. JesseW 19:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As there seem to be no serious objections, I'll move the rewritten version to What Wikipedia is not shortly. I have updated the draft to reflect the current status. Note that the version of the "censorship" item is that which is currently on the live page, so if there are any unresolved disagreements, please correct that/discuss below. Best regards and happy editing, Kosebamse 12:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikipedia articles are not collections of facts
I'm getting a bit tired of seeing pages that consist of sequences of facts tacked on sequentially and incrementally by sequences of contributors. Not only are such would-be articles stylistically inconsistent and devoid of structure, they also risk duplication of information and seeming contradictions. (I addressed the seriousness of this issue in a recent essay.) I'd like to see this mentioned here. --Smack 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to revise Wikipedia policy for that. I think it is better to just say "This article needs clean-up", which we already have a policy for.  I see "What Wikipedia is not" as a way of having a policy to handle problem editors.  Items on this list have been brought up in arbitration disputes and used to resolve edit wars.  I don't think poorly written articles are the cause of edit wars. Samboy 20:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notability etc
By the way, how many of you have seen Importance and the closely related informative? I really like those pages and together, their definition of what should be considered encyclopeadic. I'd like to see it go from Proposed to Offical policy. Maybe it could be linked to in some way from this page. Dan100 22:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikipedia is not a strategy guide
Articles on video game topics are not inherently unencyclopedic, but many are crossing the line into "how to" articles, some mere collections of statistics about the monster in question -- not merely uninteresting to anyone except a fan, but incomprehensible to anyone except a fan. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary
Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary, but entries about notable individuals are acceptable. To me the latter is the primary meaning of "biographical dictionary", and Wikipedia encompasses a vast biographical dictionary. It would be clearer to say something like, "Wikipedia is not a repository for biographies of non-notable people. Biographical entries are only appropriate for individuals who have achievements which are of interest to a range of people beyond their personal associates." Whoops, I forgot to sign this the last time I was here. Wincoote 07:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Filtering rather than censorship
What about categorisation of pages as (put very crudely) adult, then allowing filtering? That is not censorship, though it would facilitate it and encourage wider participation.

If I didn't want to let my kids read about non-creationist theories, I could

a) Ban them from using the wikipedia at all b) Ban them from using a class of pages in the wikipedia c) Allow them to use a set of categories of pages d) Allow them to see specific pages I have chosen and checked myself

a) and d) are available now, but b) and c), NPOV black and white listing, would be better than a), no? Also, many people wouldn't have the time, energy or inclination to do d), though some do use filtered ISPs.

I raise this here as I couldn't see anything about it in the text below (which should be summarised, preferably by the participants, who I've listed below). Mr. Jones 13:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Previous discussion
Participants
 * Dr Zen
 * SPUI
 * Tony Sidaway
 * Tuf-Kat
 * Dan100
 * Paul August
 * jpgordon
 * JDG

Please don't rewrite the policy without indulging in discussion. You know that this is being discussed elsewhere. Trying to rewrite policy to back your POV is not constructive to that debate at all.Dr Zen 00:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statement you removed (added on 24 December by SPUI with minor edits by me and 61.255.27.5) wasn't policy, it was a statement of fact, as follows:


 * Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated). Articles should not contain needless usage of profanity or explicit images, but if the use of the word or image adds to the article, most editors believe it should be kept (see Talk:Clitoris for debate relating to an image). Guidelines for internal communications are at Civility; the intent and meaning of the message is much more important than the words used.

If you don't believe the above is factual, could you please indicate which parts of it you believe to be either interpretation or contrafactual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was being bold by adding it, after a short discussion on IRC; it was only later that I realized stuff to be added was discussed first on the talk page. --SPUI 01:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think it should be included at all. It's not necessary. You've stuck it in purely as advocacy. Please don't. You have to accept that your idea of what is acceptable in an encyclopaedia is not necessarily shared by all. There has been very little de facto censorship (except, as we've discussed, that we decide each day what articles will and will not include and that in itself is a form of censorship). The very nature of a wiki is that they are not censored in the way this suggests they might be, so, please, don't try to make your view policy by the back door. The truth of the matter is that the encyclopaedia can be censored for the sake of minors if there is a consensus to do so. (The goatse picture has, so far as I know, been censored by consensus. I note this view (my emphasis): "My opinion is that a link to the site (and its mirrors) will suffice. I don't see any gain in having WP host images that may well lead to boycotts from certain users, censorship from sensitive groups (eg. an inclusion on various schools' internet filters) and will almost certainly undermine people's trust in the site. Why should these images be on the site? --Fangz 03:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)") That there is unlikely to be a consensus to do so in most cases doesn't change its being possible. On that basis, I oppose this addition.

SPUI, I'm a big fan of being bold but I'm also a fan of not trying to get your own way by a subterfuge. This gets put in and then anyone who suggests that we should have inclusive solutions for images is likely to have it shoved in their faces.Dr Zen 01:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the inclusion of images was almost an afterthought; the reason I thought to add it was several people complaining about my use of the word 'fuck' in edit summaries (not for personal attacks, but for example "fuck, I was wrong, adding the correct data"), one specifically stating that I should 'keep Wikipedia G-rated'. Maybe it should just not mention images at all. --SPUI 02:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of the above should be included. We should not be censoring on the basis of protecting the children (or anyone else) from harmful material. WRT the goatse picture, potential harmfulness is not necessary to reach consensus on not including it -- it is presumably copyrighted, after all. Tuf-Kat 02:17, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems almost churlish to point out that this was not the reason it was not included. Tuf-Kat, what does "we should not be..." mean? We should be doing anything we choose to do (within the limits set by Jimbo Wales). This is a wiki, not a nation in need of laws. The community sets the bounds. If it wanted to censor articles on this basis (and it absolutely does not, I agree) then who are you to suggest it cannot?Dr Zen 02:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DrZen, I did not insert that piece. Please be careful before you accuse people of engaging in advocacy. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia is not censored so as to be "suitable for minors" (whatever that might be taken to mean). This isn't every likely to change. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Some of the following edited to remove personal attacks)


 * You do seem in fact to be advocating a Wikipedia that is not censored in this particular way. You are defending the inclusion, no? You want a Wikipedia that is not by your lights censored, no? But if you were not involved in writing the paragraph in the first place, I misstated and I apologise. I am sorry though that I seem to have made the assumption that you were involved in the IRC discussion that prompted its inclusion. If this is wrong, you are welcome to refactor my comments so that it is clear that I meant SPUI and others involved, and not you.  Wikipedia is censored though. It includes material by consensus, and it excludes it by consensus. An article on the "Frost War" flaming incident was removed because the community believed it was "useless". (I was personally rather upset because that was an article I had read and enjoyed before becoming an editor here and I had felt that it spoke a great deal for a project that it could include discussion of minor but interesting -- if only to me! -- phenomena.) That is censorship. Goatse has been censored. George W. Bush has often been censored. It is censored many times a day. We don't need to strive too hard, Tony, to think of lots of other articles where certain inclusions would be very rapidly censored. Such is the wiki way. If the consensus was that there should not be an article on the clitoris, Tony, absurd as it sounds, there would not be one. You do understand that, don't you? Just as there is no article on the Frost War, there could in potentia be no article on the clitoris. You are seeking to hamper the working of a wiki by laying down a ground rule. There's no need. Trust the wiki instead of increasing the instructions.
 * Now, I don't mind SPUI's language, but I know that some are offended by rough talk. I try to abide by the injunction on profanity and would advise SPUI to try to do the same. I don't think it's a bad idea to suggest that editors don't overindulge in foul language because children might read it. Some believe it is corrupting for youngsters to read foul language and there's nothing much lost in asking that one not upset those people. Does that mean that articles should be censored? No. Does it mean that we should strive to maintain an inclusive atmosphere? Yes, it does.Dr Zen 02:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay. You say: ''You do seem in fact to be advocating a Wikipedia that is not censored in this particular way. '' No, I'm stating that as a matter of fact it is not censored in a manner to make it suitable for reading by children. It never has been. It's extremely unlikely that it ever will be.

You say: I am sorry though that I seem to have made the assumption that you were involved in the IRC discussion that prompted its inclusion.

I have not used IRC for about four years. Moreover I have no idea who this SPUI chap is.

In your reference to censorship, which I don't deny happens, you seem to have ignored that fact that what SPUI actually wrote (slightly refactored by me to relegate some US-only terminology, was this:

"Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated)."

This is a factual statement. It is not advocacy. It is not a claim that wikipedia is not censored. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is censored as its members see fit. It is not NOT censored. I don't see how much plainer I can be. You cannot say it is NOT censored because it CAN BE, if the community desires it. It is your POV that it should not be, period.


 * You say "Wikipedia is censored in whichever way the community chooses." I do not dispute this, and it does not contradict the statement that you have removed.  It entirely contradicts it. Wikipedia is censored in the way stated IF the community desires it.


 * You falsely accuse me of reverting. Do not do that. Even if you edit disputed text, it is still a revert, Tony. Don't let's play that game.

''You say "It is not a "matter of fact" that it is not censored." I agree. Again this does not contradict the section that you have removed.'' You what? You've just said it is a matter of fact that it is not censored and that what you have put is a statement of that matter of fact. Now you are agreeing that it is not a matter of fact that it is not censored. I'm beginning to feel you are at best taking the piss, and at worst simply trolling me because I disagree with you.


 * It is not a factual statement. Wikipedia is not NOT censored. It is censored IF its community wishes it to be. It has often been censored and it will continue to be censored. It has been censored on the basis you say it should not be and I have given an example of this. Now, please, this is ridiculous.''


 * Wikipedia can be and has been censored for the protection of minors IF the community desires it. It is perfectly acceptable for an editor to argue that it should be censored. If the community does not agree, that is perfectly okay, but you cannot a priori delimit the range of views that are permissible. There is enough of that here, Tony. Don't add to it. in italics''Dr Zen 04:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taking your points in turn:

1. Wikipedia is censored as its members see fit Absolutely. And that censorship does not extend to G-Rating the site.

2. Wikipedia is censored in the way stated IF the community desires it. Wikipedia is not G-rated. This is a statement of fact.

3. ''Even if you edit disputed text, it is still a revert, Tony. Don't let's play that game.'' Do not again falsely accuse me of reverting. Do not again falsely accuse me of playing games.

First version: Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated). Articles should not contain needless usage of profanity or explicit images, but if the use of the word or image adds to the article, most editors believe it should be kept (see Talk:Clitoris for debate relating to an image). Guidelines for internal communications are at Civility; the intent and meaning of the message is much more important than the words used.

Second version: Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors' (G-rated). Firstly, anyone can edit an article and the results are displayed instantaneously, so we cannot guarantee that a child will see or read nothing objectionable. Secondly, Wikipedia has no organized system for the removal of material that might be thought likely to harm minors.

4. You've just said it is a matter of fact that it is not censored. No I have not.

5. It has been censored on the basis you say it should not be and I have given an example of this. I have not stated how it should and should not be censored. I have stated correctly that it is not censored for the protection of minors.

6. If the community does not agree, that is perfectly okay, but you cannot a priori delimit the range of views that are permissible. I have not done so. I have simply stated, correctly, that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. The fact that it could be or even that editors have decided to do so with specific parts of it in the past does not alter the fact that, as a whole, it is not.

I shall now submit a third version of the clause making it clear that this refers to the whole of the site. Blankfaze has reverted. I'll stick with what we have for now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deplore your rewriting the policy to something that is entirely antiwiki but I am fed up with fighting bigots and POV pushers for today. Wikipedia is neither censored nor not censored as a matter of policy. That is (or was, until you rewrote the policy) a statement of fact. I'm off to emplace the goatse picture. Cheers now. Dr Zen 06:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, I could get downhearted at your accusations, but I don't. I have not rewritten any policy at all. Have fun with Mr Goatse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably doesn't mean much, but I support the current version. --SPUI 06:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Is 'What Wiki is not' even the right place for this? I think this topic deserves it's own policy page. Further, it just seems slightly out of step with what the rest of the page is about. I can't quite explain what I mean by that, I'll just have to hope you understand :) Dan100 19:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think much of the dispute above between Dr Zen and Tony Sidaway may revolve around different possible interpretations of and ambiguities in the meaning of "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors". In particular it seems to me that possible interpretations include:


 * 1) Wikipedia is not censored (at all) for the protection of minors.
 * This is clearly not true, since of course, some self-censorship, both individually and collectively does take place (I can be certain of this since I engage in such self-censorship myself ;-) Dr Zen may be assuming this meaning.
 * 1) Wikipedia is not currently being nor has it been censored in such a way, that insures or can insure the absense of content which some might consider unsuitable for the protection of minors.
 * This is, of course, true. Tony Sidaway may be assuming this meaning.
 * 1) Wikipedia is not as a matter of existing general policy censored for the express purpose of the protection of minors.
 * This, as far as I can tell, is true. Tony Sidaway may also be assuming this meaning.
 * 1) Wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of minors.
 * This is a value judgement, which I assume some agree with and some do not, and which may, or may not, represent the consensus view. This is another possible source of differing interpretations and thus misunderstanding.

So perhaps this statement, now the title of the section, could be better worded.

The current text of that section (considerably different than the text as first presented above), seems to me to be more of a statement of existing policy and practices than an attempt to make new policy or to make value judgments concerning existing practices &mdash; that is to say, it is "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" or "proscriptive". It is more in the nature of a disclaimer or warning, and as such it now seems more consistent with interpretations 2 and 3 above, and could be reworded to make this clearer. Or not. We could simply let the meaning of the title be determined by the text that follows it.

Paul August &#9742; 19:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that very scholarly analysis. This is an unusual document, part prescription and part description. My intention in drafting this clause was to provide a reference point so that newcomers would know that there really is no organised mechanism charged with deciding what should and should not go in on the basis of whether it might be suitable for children. I emphasized the instantaneousness of changes and the lack of scrutiny--this is a valid point because, although a lot of us do Recent Changes duty, this is a voluntary task and does not constitute a viable content censorship mechanism in the absence of a policy to remove material for the protection of minors.

My personal opinion is that, while it may be possible to combine encyclopedic intent with a policy of avoidance of material likely to harm minors, it is not necessarily desirable to do so, and in any case I have not yet seen any proposals for targeted censorship that would not violate NPOV. Then again, NPOV need not be regarded as sacrosanct, it just happens that it has been set as a primary goal for this project since the beginning. I don't regard inclusion of controversial images as necessary, but with the exception of the borderline child pornography image at lolicon (caution advised), which I personally think should probably be removed from Wikipedia if only to avoid the risk of prosecution, I have not seen anything that I consider to be particularly controversial. Even images of the primary sexual organs have proven to enjoy a very wide consensus where they have been used in an appropriate article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also have a bit of a problem with:
 * Wikipedia's current policy is to include objectionable content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted.

"Wikipedia's current policy is to include objectionable content"? I don't think we have such a policy, but if so I guess I'd better get busy ;-) Of course, I don't think this is what is trying to be said here.  Overlooking that problem, a not unreasonable rewording of this text would be: "Wikipedia's policy is to follow Wikipedia's policy and the law".  Unless, that is,  it is Wikipedia's policy to follow the law, in which case it could be shortened even further to read: "Wikipedia's policy is to follow Wikipedia's policy".  In short, I think this text, as presently written, should go. Paul August  &#9742; 00:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

The version that I wrote (a few days ago) is out of date. Then the content disclaimer said:


 * In its ambitious mission of documenting all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles on a vast array of topics. A relatively small fraction of these topics are frequently censored by educational, governmental, corporate, parental and other filtering schemes.
 * Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered profane, vulgar or offensive by some readers. See profanity for more information.
 * Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy.


 * Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics. Some subjects that are discussed have criminal applications in some jurisdictions. Others contain information on dangerous or otherwise risky activities (see General disclaimer and Risk disclaimer).
 * Wikipedia contains spoilers.
 * Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
 * It should be noted that as Wikipedia is open to contributions from the public, there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia.
 * There may be medical, legal or other information that is normally also the subject of professional opinions; Wikipedia is not a substitute for seeking the help of a professional. Please note: Wikipedia does not give legal advice or medical advice.
 * Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not.
 * Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not.

Since then it seems that some people have rewritten the policy. I'll have a look at it and see if what I said previously still applies. Feel free to amend accordingly meanwhile, because if policy has changed meanwhile clearly my summary is no longer correct. Please excuse my genuine brainfart. At the moment (last edit 04:44 on 8 Jan 2004) it still does seem to say pretty much the same thing.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of my objections have now been taken care of, thanks to changes made by User:Kosebamse. The current language is now fine with me. Paul August &#9742; 21:45, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

JDG and "Wikipedia is not censored"
What is all this cruft??? It is obvious and utterly undeniable that Wikipedia is, in fact, censored. A moment's reflection will tell you that some images would never last on Wikipedia for more than a few minutes, and that if some misguided pathetic champion of free speech kept reverting back to it he would be banned. Please don't make me describe hypothetical images. So, I can only conclude that this "Wikipedia is not censored" entry on this page is here purely for the sake of geek cyberanarchists who need something official-looking to cite when engaged in unendingly repetitive arguments over photos of things like Autofellatio and Masturbation. I will await comments here for two days, then I will rename this section "Wikipedia is not guaranteed free of objectionable material in any given moment"... To be perfectly clear, I am referring to 1.8 on the Project Page, "Wikipedia is not censored". JDG 02:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Guaranteed" might not be correct, though. Wikipedia is not guaranteed to be anything at all. Perhaps "Wikipedia is not necessarily free..."? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is better. JDG


 * It's too verbose and weasely. I've restored the original "not censored for the protection of minors".  This is descriptive.  We don't remove material for the purpose of making Wikipedia suitable for unsupervised children to read.  Really we don't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to any construction including "Wikipedia is not censored", in whole or in part. Get honest, Tony. I'll give it another two days, then we'll try for some sort of loosely tallied community input. If nothing solid comes of that, we'll head to mediation. As I said, Wikipedia is most obviously and patently censored. Otherwise there would be no ban mechanism and Jimbo would never have countenanced the phrase "benevolent dictatorship". What use would such mechanisms and charactizations serve if Wikipedia were simply uncensored? There's also no doubt some of this censorship is with minors in mind. They are an important part of our audience and there's nothing wrong with bearing them in mind. Be honest about the fact of censorship, then you may have a chance to restrict it at a point amenable to you. JDG 03:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't engage in any more suggestions that I am dishonest.


 * On your claim "some of this censorship is with minors in mind", I don't have any problem with that. Yes, occasionally individuals pull this or that picture on the grounds that they personally believe that children should be protected.  By the same token (be bold) other editors remove pictures of people with nosebleeds because they think they're unpleasant. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia is censored for the protection of those who don't like looking at people with bleeding noses, or the protection of minors (the removed material tends to be restored--which is another way of saying there's no consensus on censorship against whatever damage is supposed to be done to minors).


 * The plainest and fairest way to put it to the editor is, I think, that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors--nobody can get away with removing a picture on the sole grounds that he believes that children will see it and be upset by it.


 * If you can find a way of describing the content disclaimer in a way that is as pithy as the current version but meets whatever your objection is, please try it out and we'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish there were a way to express what I think is happening here without resorting to ad-hominemish phrases like "Get honest", but I just don't see it. I hope you can tell I don't literally feel you are a prevaricator. It's more a matter of being honest with yourself. You have so much invested in freedom-of-expression ideals that blindspots have developed in those areas where other ideals that are not 100% compatible force a compromise. I say "force" rather than "call for" because we already see, by the mere existence of the ban mechanism and other well entrenched features of Wikipedia administration, that free-expression, as noble as it is, does not hold absolute sway-- and this is even before any organized movement to curtail its most extreme applications. From discussing this with a few key people I get the feeling that a strong backlash is ready to happen, maybe pushing the pendulum too far the other way for even my tastes. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to devote a lot of time/effort to this, because the best approach would be to organize almost a mini "constitutional convention" culminating in a fully debated, binding vote. As it is, I'll have to dive in and out making little adjustments to policy statements and seeing if I can defend them. Somewhere out there is a fair-minded, broad-minded editor ready to put in the time/effort. When he/she gets the "convention" rolling, well, it will be a milestone and the decisions will have a great impact on just how far this project can go. If your camp scores a total victory, Wikipedia will never be an academic staple and will never be citable among professionals. Gotta face it, a certain modicum of decorum is the price of admittance to these circles. If your camp is completely bulldozed, Wikipedia will gain a certain foothold but will not live up to the dynamism and universality it promises... JDG 18:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in promoting or defending freedom of expression--Wikipedia is not the venue for that. I am, however, interested in ensuring that Wikipedia's existing policies are reflected accurately in this document. Whenever they change, this document should change.  I don't think the changes you proposed were necessary to reflect a change in policy, and in terms of style they were not as good as what we have.  As I suggested earlier, please feel free to be bold and make edits that will accurately reflect policy and read at least as well as the current version does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is anarchy is action
I copied this from the page:


 * Wikipedia is not an anarchy
 * Wikipedia is free and open, but our openness goes no further than is necessary for creating an encyclopedia. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. If you want to do so, you can use the Wikipedia fork Anarchopedia. See also Power structure

This is like saying a natural disaster is not chaos. Wikipedia is very much anarchy in action. In fact I couldn't think of many better examples of "order without authority". Christiaan 14:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But there is authority: the Arbitration Commitee, the Wikimedia Foundation and as court of last resort, Jimbo, the Benevolent Dictator. There are also various sorts of emergent self-governance (for which the label "anarchism" is debatable). I think the point of the section you removed is that Wikipedia is not a place to simply do whatever one likes regardless of the community--that there are policies and guidelines for behavior, however tenuous, malleable, and inconsistently applied they might be. older &ne; wiser 15:02, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether Wikipedia, is or is not, to some extent anarchic, is not the issue. The point of that section is that anarchy is not, in any way part of its purpose. Paul August &#9742; 15:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * That should not have been removed without discussion. In fact on a policy page like "what Wikipedia is not" any substantive edit should be discussed and gain consensus before it is performed.


 * I happen to think it should stay, for several reasons. First of all, this statement in various forms has been part of this policy page for well over a year. Second, Wikipedia is not an anarchy at all. There are many kinds of both implicit and explicit authority. Wikipedia is not a command-and-control organization, and Jimbo does not micromanage. In fact he does whatever is the polar opposite of micromanage. That does not mean that Wikipedia is an anarchy. I like older's phrase "emergent self-governance," but at this point I would say self-governance has long since "emerged" and is now merely "evolving."


 * But in any case, the point of the paragraph is not an assertion about the nature of Wikipedia's governance, it is an assertion about Wikipedia's purpose. The key sentence is "Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact that paragraph dates back to November 2002 . Which does not make it sacrosanct, but as it has survived unchallenged for so long, one should have good reasons (such as consensus after discussion) to remove it. I don't believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy. I would rather say that there are many interwoven power structures and levels of hierarchy, some self-governed and some not so self-governed, most of which are not obvious to the casual visitor. If I had to pick one I would call it a meritocracy. Kosebamse 18:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. I've altered the header slightly to make it clearer, at least to me. See what you think. Christiaan 1:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with your new wording "Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy." (The big problem is trying to think of a phrase that is more precise while still being short, simple, and still beginning with the words "Wikipedia is not." Just thinking out loud here: "Wikipedia's governance is no more than a means to an end." That's more accurate, I think, but I don't like it). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link repository
Right now the article says: Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. I'd like it to go farther, and say that Wikipedia is not a link repository. It's not meant to provide every possible link relevant to a subject - that's what Google and DMoz.org are for. It's also not meant to advertise someone's personal fan site.

The "External links" section of a Wikipedia article should only contain links to primary news sites or well-established fan sites which directly contribute to the factual information covered in the article. For example: the polygamy article should not link to every web site having anything to do with polygamy. The Babylon 5 article should have a link to the Babylon 5 Lurker's Guide, which has been the definitive fan site on Babylon 5 since before the series began (and has even been referenced in the series itself), but someone else who is hoping to get more traffic by linking his own B5 fan site from the article doesn't deserve a link.

"External Links" should not contain links to:


 * discussion boards
 * web sites which happen to be on the same topic as the article but are otherwise not definitive sources of information
 * advertising sites
 * small personal fan pages (especially ones hosted on a free account like Geocities)
 * news articles which only cover one small aspect of the issue at hand (these should be linked in the relevant part of the Wikipedia article itself)

- Brian Kendig 17:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this article. I want to add that wikipedia is not a football squad. Can I?
I dispute the neutrality of this article, thats why I put an npov sign to it. But it was removed. I want to add in this article that wikipedia is not a football squad. Because a lot of people think that wikipedia is the place for them to put football statistics. Can I put that? What is the community consensus? Faethon 06:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article, it's a policy page in the Wikipedia namespace. Therefore, it doesn't have to be neutral.  I disagree with your suggested addition because I think football statistics are a perfectly appropriate subject for Wikipedia to cover.  Why do you feel we shouldn't? Tuf-Kat 21:54, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I counted 4 things that the article says Wikipedia "is not", but upon inspection of the "encyclopedia" itself, one can clearly see that it indeed "is". (anon)


 * Only temporarilly. (also anon)


 * Well, you can't add that Wikipedia isn't a football squad, because that doesn't make sense (Wikipedia clearly not being a group of 11+subs players engaging in a game of association football, or however many it is that are in the average American football team). You could try adding that Wikipedia isn't a sports encyclopedia, but many would oppose you. Including me. Average Earthman 10:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Try not to feed the troll. Faethon is a mischievous user who is widely suspect of being associated with User:Iasson. He created a number of accounts, starting with Faethon and proceeding to Faethon2, Faethon3, etc, which he called "public accounts," publicizing the fact that the password was the same as the username. He then complained bitterly that these accounts had been "robbed" (i.e. someone had changed the password). He also stated that he would use these accounts to vandalize Wikipedia but that he would sign all of his vandalism with his public key, so any vandalism that appeared to have been done by these accounts that was not signed could not possibly have been performed by him. He is a very plausible troll who has repeatedly succeeded in tying up Wikipedians in endless, pointless meta-discussions.


 * If he runs true to form he will claim that he doesn't understand the concept of "consensus" and demand that it be established by polling according to a complex voting rule of his own invention.

Suggested addition?
Under Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia articles are not:
 * Vehicles for fan site advertising. Depending on the subject matter, sites created by enthusiasts are sometimes the best source of information on a given topic.  However, debates about the quality of sites, and which fan sites should be included in an external links list, can sometimes be acrimonious. The general rule of thumb is that if the purpose of the link is to provide additional useful information to the reader, it belongs here; if the purpose is to bring traffic to the linked site, it doesn't. (Note that discussion forums and mailing lists are generally not appropriate links unless they are noted prominently within the article.)

Been seeing a lot of these lately, and would love to have an official consensus to point out to offenders. Can we discuss adding this to policy? &mdash; Catherine\talk 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Advertisements and superflous linking are both covered under existing sections. -- Netoholic @ 22:00, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)


 * A webmaster trying to promote his fansite will not see a prohibition on this under "self-promotion" (focused on autobiography, not fandom) nor "advertisement" (focused on commercial/product sites). "A mere collection of external links" has always been vague; appropriately, I think, since the variation in types of links is so vast, but it provides no guidelines for people trying to decide whether a particular link should be included.  If this should be included in one of the existing sections, rather than a new section of its own, so be it, but I'd like to at least see the issue addressed on this page.


 * Whenever you create a new page, you see a message at the top reading:


 * Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see What Wikipedia is not).


 * How could that possibly be any clearer? And what placement could possibly be more conspicuous then right above the box where you type in the new text?


 * Wordsmithing the verbiage on some policy page is not going to affect the behavior of people who see that notice right above their article at the moment when they create it, and don't understand it, or interpret it wishfully, or willfully choose to ignore it. Look, you could change that text so that ALL IT SAID was "Do not create an article to promote a fansite" and people would still say to themselves "what's a fansite," or "They don't mean my fansite," or "My site is more than just a mere fansite," or "Who cares what it says, they can't stop me." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggest to remove the "critical reviews" paragraph
There is a paragraph that's been around for more than three years and which reads in its current form: ''Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations. See also Guide to writing better articles." This wording is very unclear. What's the difference between a "critical review" and an encyclopedia article? The second sentence does not make much more sense. Why "direct observations"? I don't see see anything here that's not covered under NPOV or elsewhere in thesoapbox section, and quite frankly, I just don't understand what this is really about. Could somebody please try to enlighten me, or alternatively, agree that this paragraph is useless and should be discarded? Kosebamse 14:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this is bound to be a contentious issue at the current time, with several articles being nominated for VfD merely because their title is in the form of "Criticism of X" and this is somehow considered a "POV fork" (whereas "History of X" would not even be considered a "fork".) But the way I have always read that paragraph is to discourage things like "I went to see Highlander II, and even before the opening credits, I knew I'd want my money back" while not barring observations such as "Many critics have pointed to the 'letters in transit' as a particularly weak part of ''Casablanca's premise..."


 * Of course, this is not necessarily the correct interpretation of the paragraph, and even if so, it is clearly not as clear as it could be, but it seems consistent with Wikipedia's principles: People mistake Wikipedia as a place for their philosophical observations, their personal essays, and inevitably, their reviews of a movie or book; we wish to discourage that, but that doesn't mean we wish to bar all critical analysis of art from Wikipedia:  only that which is effectively personal opinion or original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine enough. But then we need a different way of expressing that concept. The language is crufty and unclear, and that's the last that such a page needs. Any ideas welcome. Thanks. Kosebamse 05:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

 * Note: A revised version of this proposal was placed in the article on 09:04, 8 Mar 2005. Since then, the section dealing with "words formed on a predictable numeric system" was moved from "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." The actual text as inserted on 8 March is shown below but please check the article and use it as the basis for any further discussion.

As inserted on 8 Mar 2005
Future events are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. There are exceptions, but that is the rule. In particular:


 * 1) Articles about books, movies, games, and software that are about to be released within the next few months should be considered advertising, unless convincingly shown otherwise.
 * 2) Individual items from a schedule of expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event, or unless preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion. The schedule as a whole may be appropriate but should presented in tabular or list form within a single article.
 * 3) Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical storm Alex, 2010" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur and receive that name.
 * 4) Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate "original research." Of course, we do and should have articles about well-known artistic works or essays that embody speculation. An article on Star Wars is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War IV" is not.
 * 5) Words formed on a predictable numeric system are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority (such as a dictionary or a standards organization), or can be shown to be in genuine widespread use. For example, if there were a word for 10174 it would arguably be "septenquinquagintillion"&mdash;but there is no such word, and there should not be an article about it. Even words in this category like "quattuordecillion" or "enneacontagon," which are real but obscure, should receive at most a table or list entry, not a Wikipedia article of their own, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Comments (some referring to earlier revisions)

 * All fair enough and I'm not objecting, but is there a need for this section? Are people putting such material into Wikipedia? WWIN is all already quite long. We could simply include the first part; all the rest are natural consequences so perhaps need not be explicitly stated. Dan100 18:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, people do put such material into Wikipedia, quite regularly. Nothing hypothetical here! Every one of the specific examples I cite is there because articles of this kind really do come up quite regularly. The whole point of the section is to affirm that there is consensus that, for example, an article on a forthcoming game counts as advertising. Just recently somone was creating a whole series of articles on elements like "Untripentium", which is what element number 135 will be called after it's discovered and before it is given another name. I put the section in because I wanted to have something to cite, instead of having to explain why I don't think element 135 merits and article, even if we know its name and how many electron shells it "has." Or will have. Or would have, if it existed. Maybe there's a way to shorten each of the examples to a single line so that it becomes a compact list of bullet items; I couldn't find one, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmpph. User:GRider just created an article on septenquinquagintillion. So, you see, the issue is not hypothetical. I suspect that he may think he's trying to test policy or something&mdash;so it doesn't really prove my point. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Further example: see Mario Party DS and PlayStation Portable 2. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Anything that helps stop John-1107 from putting his fanfic into articles under the label "predictions" is a potential good thing. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Untripentium and the like are bad examples, because articles on such elements are unequivocally encyclopedic. The chemical and physical properties of elements as yet unisolated or unsynthesized can be predicted fairly accurately, and their quantum states can be predicted very accurately. The name is that designated by IUPAC; its chemical symbol is Utp. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I essentially came to the same conclusion myself. I had been thinking about using it, which is why I blurted it out in the comment above, but decided that this was a borderline case and therefore not a good example. It was never used in any draft or in the text inserted in the article; I opted for "Tropical Storm Alex, 2010" as a better example. Actually I decided it was better for the policy to stay away from any old wounds. Now, I don't happen to think articles on nonexistent elements are unequivocally encyclopedic, but I don't think they're unequivocally unencyclopedic, either. Untripentium probably does meet the criterion I use in another section, "as predictable as an astronomical event." But I don't think an article the 2 Dec 4288 transit of Venus would be accepted as encyclopedic by the Wikipedian community. (I do hope nobody is going to create a test case for that statement.) Dpbsmith (talk) 16:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed "Articles about books, movies, games, and software that are about to be released within the next few months should be considered advertising, unless convincingly shown otherwise" as it is a clear violation of Assume good faith. - SimonP 16:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this removal because I don't agree with your reasoning. Users can and often do innocently contribute unsuitable material.  When we remove such material we do not implicitly assume bad faith--indeed it's fairly common to put up a friendly note explaining why the material was removed. Even one-off vandalism of articles is likely to be treated as a user test. (See template:test1 etc). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I object to the section. It does not state that people might innocently add unsuitable material, it states that all those who add articles on future books, movies, games, and software should be assumed to be guilty of self-promotion. There is no other entire class of articles where we assume the author added them in bad faith unless proven otherwise.  We delete vanity articles on bands, but we do not have, or need, a policy that states "all articles on bands are considered vanity articles unless proven otherwise." We should always assume that a user is trying to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, and whether or not an article should belong should be judged based purely on its content. Moreover this rule sets an impossible standard.  It forces those who want to keep the article to prove a negative, to prove that they are not advertising.  The burden should be to demonstrate that an article is advertising. - SimonP 17:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I take SimonP's point, and think he is correct as the item is worded. But I think it is an issue of wording and I also think that this is a very frequently contributed category of inappropriate article. How about the following statement, which I think is an accurate statement of the consensus judgement about most of the articles of this kind that we get? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles about books, movies, games, and software that are about to be released within the next few months are not usually encyclopedic, because the criteria on which such a judgement could be made are usually unverifiable prior to release.
 * I think this is better. But why limit it to "within the next few months" why not just say "in the future". Paul August &#9742; 18:19, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * The basic rule we seem to be working towards is that if all the information about a future topic comes from those producing it then an article is unavoidably promotional and unverifiable. A future topic needs to receive independent news coverage before it is verifiable and thus worthy of inclusion. - SimonP 18:44, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's getting close. And "independent news coverage" is good. However, I'm not sure how to word this succinctly, but to me an article of this kind is promotional even if it is created by fans rather than by people with a direct financial connection. And of course, it's never possible to verify the identity, much less the financial affiliations, of any contributor. I want Wikipedia to be somewhat hardened against buzz-creating publicity engines. Extreme 1: If there are tens of millions of fans and the New York Times runs an article on people who are camped out on the sidewalk a week before the box office opens, then the movie is notable before it opens. OK. Extreme 2: someone reads a video game magazine with a rumor column about a hot new game coming out real soon now, and writes an article about it. Not OK IMHO, not even if they aren't earning a penny from game sales and not even if they cite the magazine article. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What about movies, etc., which although as yet unreleased, are highly likely to be encyclopedic when released. For example, the next Star Wars film -- okay, its not months away any longer, but one could tell a long way of that it was always going to be encyclopedic. Of course, for less major films, maybe not -- but any movie on which enough money is spent is always going to be encyclopedic, even if only as a famous flop! So, I would argue that the encyclopedicality of articles about future movies/books/games/etc should be based on criteria of (1) is it likely to be sufficiently notable when released (for many of these, it is rather certain from months off that it will be), and (2) is sufficient verifiable information available at present (e.g. long before they even started making Star Wars III, everyone already knew the bare outlines of the plot.) --SamuelKatinsky 13:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm OK with SimonP's tweaks to explicitly allow "well documented speculation" and "Unless there is enough information for a stub, such as in the case of undiscovered chemical elements," (though I wonder whether the wording can't be tightened), but in the case of policy pages isn't it customary to reach consensus in Talk before boldly editing the page? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support what I take to be Dpbsmith's polite suggestion that we discuss and agree on  substantive changes here first. Paul August  &#9742; 18:24, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but I'm not sure consensus existed as to how this new section should be worded prior to it being added last week. - SimonP 18:44, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true, too. There didn't seem to be loud screams when I proposed this here, but there was much less discussion than I expected. Ditto for a similar proposal I made at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy which also garnered some favorable remarks, no loud screams, but not a lot of discussion. I'm not trying to freeze the present wording of WP:NOT but I'd rather not see the discussion conducted in the form of edit comments. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I'm coming round to the idea that future movies may be encyclopedic. I'm thinking of movies that were famous while they were still in production: notable examples include Titanic, Heaven's Gate, The Magnificent Ambersons, Gilliam's Baron Munchausen, Howard Hughes' Hells Angels, and so on.  I'd suggest that a good benchmark is when shooting has commenced.  This would have included articles about the Gilliam filmo of Munchausen while it was in production (if Wikipedia had been around in the late 1980s) but not, for instance, his recent project to shoot the Pratchett/Gaiman novel Good Omens, which has never progressed beyond preproduction planning. Unreleased video games? Perhaps when in beta test.  I recently opposed deletion of some medical software for palm pilots and pocket PCs that had not yet been generally released, because it was through one phase of beta tests and was being tested on the second platform.  It was thus well beyond the vaporware and demoware phases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Undiscovered elements The result of Votes_for_deletion/Element_extrapolation would seem to suggest that it is more accurate to say that articles on nonexistent elements are controversial than to say that they are "unequivocally encyclopedic," or that "Wikipedia has clearly determined that articles like Ununseptium are encyclopedic."
 * It seems that substubs, such as those listed at Votes for deletion/Element extrapolation get a strong majority in favour of deletion, but somewhat longer stubs such as Ununseptium receive an equally strong consensus to be kept. - SimonP 02:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback on this. To clarify, the use of the phrase "unequivocally encyclopedic" was my opinion expressed in complete ignorance of the possibility of this being seriously contested.  Obviously my statement isn't the consensus, and I withdraw it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the situation is much the same as it is with (do I dare mention this?) high schools. Undiscovered elements fall in some fairly broad borderline zone where there is no consensus. In this zone, I and others exhibit behavior which some find illogical: namely, we vote to keep high-quality articles that are well-written, comprehensive, thorough, and show evidence of serious work, and we vote to delete substubs. But that's a tangent, and I don't want to get into a sterile debate as to whether this behavior is defensible. The point is that there's no consensus and therefore simply should not be mentioned in the policy statement either way.
 * I'd like to point to the phrase used in the "future event" item: "not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event, or unless planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion." This comes close to what I think the general principle should be. There should also be "enough information for a stub," in SimonP's words, ruling out dictdefs for names produced by extrapolation. I'd like to add something about the event occuring in some reasonable timescale. You could use a computer program to produce a detailed three-dimensional view of how 2 Dec 4288 transit of Venus will appear, and paragraphs of prose about how, as viewed from thus-and-such location the sun would be rising majestically over thus-and-such mountain, but it still wouldn't IMHO be encyclopedic.
 * With regard to upcoming films, etc. obviously if there is widespread coverage in the mainstream press, that falls under the phrase "the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion." The problem is how to distinguish what is validly newsworthy from what is simply a publicity campaign. One extreme: The New York Times is reporting it. Another extreme: the creator of a very-low-budget film or self-published book personally creates an article about the upcoming release. Somewhere in the middle: the "press coverage" is from the rumor section of a gamer's website, or the "what's new" column of an industry trade journal that customarily prints any press release they are sent, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elements, specifically
Well, the discussion has sort of petered out again... Given the comments above, I'd like to rewrite the point that says "Unless there is enough information for a stub, such as in the case of undiscovered chemical elements," so that it no longer specifically mentions chemical elements. I want to leave that particular issue deliberately in limbo. I'd like to replace this with:


 * Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical storm Alex, 2010" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise.

If nobody screams, I'll do it.

(Yep, it's not clear whether the number of electrons in the outermost shell of binilnilium could be called "generic." That fuzziness is deliberate). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I fully support this change. - SimonP 14:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possibly trivial point, but
Sooner or later someone's bound to point this out: the reference to Star Wars in connection with fictional futures is inappropriate since SW takes place ''A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away''... Lee M 22:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct! Star Trek would be a proper example of a fictional future. --Dan East 03:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial, but we could be friendlier about it
I have reworded this:


 * It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them. Of course, you are free to write articles about notable people who have died.

Because the existing accent on "notable" struck me as quite rude, implying that people you know who have died are, "of course", not notable in any way except by sheer coincidence. I replaced it with this:
 * It's always sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honour them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.

The intent is not in any way to remove the aspect of notability, merely an attempt to reword what is there. You are, of course, free to improve upon it. 82.92.119.11 20:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's much better. Thank you. Please feel free to improve the language further (but note that this is a highly visible and important page so subleties of meaning may be relevant). Again, thanks. Kosebamse 05:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I also find anon's edit to be an improvement. Would you like to form a user account? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your kind words. I will only make piecemeal edits to policy pages and never without putting a notice on the talk page, for obvious reasons. And Sam, thanks for offering, but on my user page and my talk page I've already declined Wikipedia's kind offer. The gesture is appreciated, however. 82.92.119.11 18:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wording of title of censorship section
This has been nagging at me but I can't come up with a good solution.

"Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" just doesn't seem quite right to me, because it is susceptible of being parsed as "Wikipedia is not censored, for the protection of minors" or "For the protection of minors, Wikipedia is not censored."

I keep wanting to ask "Just how does Wikipedia's lack of censorship protect minors?"

Of course, it has always bothered me that the American Cancer Society does not call itself the American Society Against Cancer.

It's no biggie, but I wonder if there's a better phrase. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your worries are unfounded, because that comma would really need to be there in order for the second parsing to be valid. And, of course, it's absurd, so anyone reading it would either think "oops, wrong turn, I must be misreading this" or "this has been nagging at me but I can't come up with a good solution". :-D
 * That said, how about any of these?
 * Wikipedia is not Censorpedia.
 * Wikipedia is not a fucking embroidery club.
 * Wikipedia won't think about the children.
 * No, just kidding. How about "Wikipedia is not childproof"? 82.92.119.11 18:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Some Wikipedia content may be unsuitable for children"
 * "Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia"
 * "Wikipedia is not always suitable for children"
 * ....naaah.... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not Bambi"? ;) Kosebamse 20:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say "Wikipedia is not Barney & Friends". Bambi is capable of making kids cry. Few children have the good taste to cry after having Barney inflicted upon them. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not safe to read with your boss looking over your shoulder"? The censorship section need to be revised in the light of recent votes to remove images which one group of editors thinks is legitimate to demonstrate certain things have happened or are physically possible, but which a different group want removed as unsuitable for Wikipedia either because it will damage reputation unjustifiably or attract vandals.  We seem to be moving towards "Wikipedia is not a pornography gallery" (a welcome step in my view).--Audiovideo 22:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Memorial
If Wikipedia is not a memorial, what is? One of my work colleaques recently died in a car crash and I would like to write a Wiki memorial about her. &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopedia. All information has to be verifiable enough so that its neutrality and accuracy can be independently checked.  I am sorry for the loss of you collegue, but unless they were notable enough to be covered in a verifiable source such as major news outlet or a peer reviewed journal or publication they cannot be in the encyclopedia. - SimonP 20:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not asking what Wikipedia is, I am asking what Wiki project is a memorial. I want to write a memorial somewhere, not necessarily on Wikipedia.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. We do have a September 11th memorial wiki, but no current wikimedia project allows for general memorials. I believe McFly, an independent Wiki, is open to such memorials. - SimonP 20:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tone of the article
i started modifying this article to make the tone less informal. i stopped after realized that i was changing the tone of the article. i am new to wikipedia and i don't know how appropiate or inapropiate this is. any thoughts are welcome uri budnik 06:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Your additions were reverted by another user, because we don't observe such a formal tone on articles that aren't in the article namespace. There's no hard and fast rule, and wording changes are usually accepted if they make things clearer.  If you do want to make large-scale changes on an article in the Wikipedia namespace (or anywhere else, for that matter), it's usually considered good form to raise the issue on the talk page first.  Don't let this one reversion put you off: Be bold is one of the core dictums!  Noisy | Talk 09:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

...but please do not take discussion into articles
i wanted to make the above phrase "Taking discussion into articles is not allowed." but being new to wikipedia i did not want to make what may be a policy change. i was rewording some parts of the article and i settled on "Taking discussion into articles is not a good practice." i am looking for advice from more experienced wikipedians. uri budnik 06:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be policy, but it is a rule. I think the only reason that it is left in that form is for the sake of politeness.  Of your suggestions, the first is the better.  Noisy | Talk 09:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Add more WIN notices
I have encountered many loopholes on Wikipedia. Also, I have been in risk of being blocked for making further edits due to all these loopholes. Please add more "What Wikipedia is not" sections to help build knowledge on me. I also have been occused for Wiki-vandalism and have been messaged 40+ times about many article-related situations. Please, please detail this article up!!!!!!! IM BEGGING U! --SuperDude 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We already have a rule against FAQs there is no need for a specific rule against Game FAQs. - SimonP 00:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to find no reference to How-to guides in WP:WIN, as they are frequently asserted to belong in Wikisource. (btw imho, GameFAQS are a kind of how-to guide). I've added a line about that, I'd like your opinion on it. Radiant_* 08:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I take exception to this. How-tos, like articles on high schools, are an area where there is no consensus. It is frequently asserted that how-tos do not belong in Wikipedia, but there is also an article, How-to, which all but encourages their creation. I tried to resolve this once by nominating that article for deletion last year and there was no consensus. You might try nominating it again and see whether opinion has shifted. I am mildly sympathetic to how-tos (in the spirit of Diderot and the Britannica 11th) but have no strong feelings; however I do get annoyed at people constantly asserting "no how-to's" as policy, when, as nearly as I can tell, it is not. I asked about this on the mailing list to see whether any old-timers were aware of any policy or tradition on this, and nobody knew of any. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, I've removed it from the WIN page. We should probably hold some kind of poll on it, but the issue doesn't really come up that often. Radiant_* 13:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Correction: it is How-to that encourages their creation. That is the page I nominated for VfD on 30 Oct 2004. It didn't really fail VFD. See the discussion at [] which really amounted to nothing more than JamesDay saying that nominating it for VfD was the wrong way to change policy. JamesDay didn't point me to what he considered the right place for such a discussion. I think there should be some kind of poll or discussion. This page is probably as good a place for it as any. For the time being I think How-to is policy, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Quote, "Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not be mere sets of instructions, but additionally provide historical context and further information." Note that this isn't official policy, but a style guideline. WP:WIN original source may be appropriate. Radiant_* 13:52, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy
I've noticed that some people pay far too much homage to perceived rules and guidelines, and some people oppose ideas merely on the ground that the idea was not submitted by proper procedure. I believe Good Faith is more important, and an idea should be judged by its merits instead. WP is not a court of law. I've added a paragraph to reflect this, but it could use some feedback and revision. Radiant_* 09:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Looks great. --cesarb 22:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for orginal research
I was sure it was one of the policies here (it is invoked on FAC and PR from time to time), but now I am looking for any such rule and can't find it anywhere. Did I imagine it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You want No original research &rarr;Raul654 20:58, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the one. Shouldn't it be linked from WWIN main article? Or am I jut blind? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soap box, point 4 -- Personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. . &rarr;Raul654 23:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Another Wiki website with a What Wiki+ is not
I read this weblink: The "What Wikicities is not" article on the Wikicities website. Do you think Wikicities might outdo Wikipedia since their policy isn't as strict as Wikipedia? drop me a line if you have an answer. --SuperDude 02:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * UH, if you weren't aware, Wikicities is not an encyclopedia; it's a bunch of fan pages run for-profit. &rarr;Raul654 02:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Grace Note
This is Wikipedia space--we don't restrict content to NPOV here (it would make it impossible to advocate policies!) Obviously inappropriate material is material not relevant to the article illustrated. I have reverted Grace Note's edit because I think it was unnecessary and it made a pithy expression of policy into an ugly, contorted circumlocution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It won't surprise you to learn that I disagree, Tony. I don't think our policy documents should be any more biased than our articles. I don't think it's at all "obvious" that links to shock sites should be considered inappropriate. To give you some idea of why not, consider that to some, it's "obvious" that pictures of cocksucking are inappropriate. One editor's appropriate is another's poison. Let's reflect that, even if it means sacrificing a little inelegance in expression.


 * Having expressed my disagreement and reverted you once, Tony, let me say that if you feel very strongly that we need not apply NPOV to policy in this instance, you are welcome to revert again and I will leave your edit unmolested. It's certainly not worth a revert war over. Grace Note 05:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I note that you felt so strongly that your POV on shock sites should be included that you waited five minutes to revert. Fair enough. Grace Note 09:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Street addresses
Kingturtle edited the page to state that an article on Paris shouldn't include the address of your favorite hotel. I agree, but what if the hotel itself merits an article? For example, we have articles on many of the major Las Vegas casinos. Some of these articles provided the street address of the subject of the article. The issue arises because Kingturtle's removal of the addresses from those articles was questioned on Talk:Wynn Las Vegas. This page seems as good a place as any to solicit comments from people who don't have any casino articles watchlisted. My view is that a street address is perfectly acceptable in an article on a particular building. JamesMLane 08:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Addresses are used in many places, like Amtrak stations so that begs the question of where do you draw the line on what is acceptable. I agree with JamesMLane in not using addresses in city articles, but when you have an article about a specific building, a different policy needs to prevail.  I think that the city guideline would also apply to a discussion about a corporate office in a company article.  No mention of an address in the company article, but if the building deserved an article on it's own, then an address would be acceptable.  That allows someone to easily locate the building being discussed.  If you look at the Condé Nast Building AKA NASDAQ's MarketSite, it lists the address as Four Times Square.  There are even two redirect pages for this building one at Four Times Square and another at 4 Times Square.  Now, I know that One Times Square is worthy of several mentions since people know it as that from the New Years eve broadcasts, but how many others? Vegaswikian 19:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

WP is not a place to write about your personal experiences.
WP is not a place to write about your personal experiences. Should this be added to the page? We also need to mention not to use the word "I" in articles. Also PLEASE write in the 3rd person in articles. This drives me crazy, as many newbees make this mistake. I think this needs to be made clearer on this page. --michael180 22:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about "Wikipedia is not a blog"? I think this is a neat way to put it.  smoddy 22:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RFC
An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Verifiability could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in  subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at Requests for arbitration/RFC and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

 * Opinions and interpretations are standard for newspaper commentary, but should be absent from an encyclopedia. Enough "many feel" and "many believe." Encyclopedias should not present what people "believe" on a subject, only what that subject actually is. Instead of saying "many believe Company's policy on Blah is a scam," state the facts that support that belief: "John Smith created a protest website and gathered support against Company's new Blah policy." In that way many opinions can be factualized, and made appropriate for an encyclopedia.


 * The problem with this entry is that it is a "should not." Wikipedia articles almost always contain all manner of commentary, and as long as it's viewed as "balanced," people accept it.  Even though Wikipedia covers far more topics than a newspaper, most users contribute articles in newspaper tone and content. I frequently consult Britannica and always notice how its plain (and good) writing contrasts with that in Wikipedia.  &#9992; James C. 14:39, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Given the wording that you are suggesting, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is not the correct summary. "Wikipedia is not opinionated" would be a better summary.  However, that is adequately covered by our NPOV policy, which is a non-negotiable foundation issue that needs no restatement here.  The remainder of this proposal is already covered by avoid weasel terms.  Moreover: This proposal is predicated upon a misconception of what newspapers are.  Newspapers can be biased, and replete with editorial opinion pieces (and reader opinions, and journalist opinions).  But Wikinews demonstrates by existence that they are not required to be, and that opinion is not the fundamental function of a newspaper.  (The fundamental function is the dissemination of news, of course.) Uncle G 17:48, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip column?
Given Katie Holmes, this perhaps should be added? john k 20:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)