Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a forum

Official stance on creation of an official linked forum
Sites such as Reddit, Disqus, Stackoverflow, Facebook, G+ etc... all have components required to have constructive debate/discussion about things. In order to serve as a lightning-rod for contentious issues - how seriously has the Wikimedia Foundation discussed the creation of a novel kind of discussion site? I envision a 4-column comment-site that incorporates aspects of all of the above sites - ideally, some level of compatibility or inter-operation with them: The idea is to debate, discuss and casually talk about articles and issues represented perhaps ideally one day becoming a source for some kind of casual-community-realtime-peer-review-site... or simply a place to find popular consensus on contentious issues.

Ie. Is Wikimedia keen to endorse such an experiment? Planning it? Willing to entertain the idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.103.34 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
So-called "moderators" They may even issue issue official user warnings to other editors. to They may even issue official user warnings to other editors. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To be used with caution
This is a useful page, but it must be used with caution. I have occasionally seen it (and the ideas herein) used to denigrate non-administrators, who may have no intentions other than a simple inclination to help. Because a non-administrator (even a young non-administrator) is interested in patrolling noticeboards and new pages, does not automatically mean that they have a "lust for power" as the last section seems to imply. It may indeed be true that power seeking is part of the picture for many, but without plenty of evidence it is not our place to theorize about such things, here. Instead, assume that the intentions of the editor are to help the new pages, and to help the noticeboards. Let us not patronize our volunteers. NTox · talk 19:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You may  also  wish  to  AGF on the good faith  of the author of this essay who is one of the pioneers of NPP research, reform,  and improvement, and who  does an enormous amount  of work  helping  new users and new,  New Page Patrollers. Reading between the lines is not productive, and often, criticisms of good faith  can themselves be construed as bad faith. A vicious circle indeed, however, Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies, and once they  are passed from  user space to  Wikipedia project  space, they  may  be freely  edited by  those who disagree with  them, but  preferably  after discussion. As you say yourself: 'information pages are usually fact-oriented summaries of current practices - this is an opinion page with factual support'. The essay  banner was changed to  an info  banner by  an anonymous user whose first  edit to  the encyclopedia was on  21 March 2012.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention to criticize you directly, nor any 'person' for that matter. Let this be a discussion of ideas only. Nothing is meant to be personal. The ideas I am looking at: how appropriate is it to assume that a young non-administrator who predominantly patrols new pages is power hungry? Is it consistent with the spirit of assuming good faith? Maybe, maybe not. These are questions to consider, and I have offered a possible viewpoint. I am not acting in bad faith by doing so, even if the ideas I challenge were made in the best of good faith, and by someone such as yourself. On the essay/info issue: I was aware that an IP user had changed the template, which is why I did not think changing it back would be sufficiently controversial to require discussion first. I am open to having a conversation on that point, however, if you wish to. NTox · talk 02:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing the info  banner back to essay is not  controversial  in  this instance, because it  was clear what  the original  author intended, and BRD is perfectly  acceptable. That said, there is unfortunately  plenty of evidence that  hat-collectible maintenance tasks might be done by  some new and/or young users for the wrong reasons or motivations (diffs available). Even on  Wikipedia there is a limit just  how far we are expected to  AGF ~ a policy  which  is all too often used in the very obverse of its intended semantics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a forum" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia is not a forum and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia not a social network?
It's the same small groups of people controlling any mildly controversial page. With less than 500 active administrators, who have tenure for life, they don't consort with each other? BS 2600:4040:4023:D600:71A5:9A9B:A396:4480 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to figure out how to reach an admin. I can't seem to find any anymore and these talk pages are dead. 2601:195:C581:26E0:9F0:7B04:491E:35A5 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)