Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Should these be modified?

Anonymous user:70.101.144.160 originally asked the following questions as a single post. They are really independent questions. I originally tried to answer them together. Since there seems to be a continuing discussion about each point, I've taken the liberty of breaking the discussion into the separate threads. I believe that will make it easier to work through the separate issues. If, in refactoring the discussion so far, I've changed the meaning or tone of anyone's comment, please fix it with my apologies. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Should these be modified?

[edit] In section "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought":

"Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. ..."

But, once your material has been published and peer-reviewed, can't your write your own article on it provided you don't let your feelings get in the way, stick to what's published, and don't stick in new unpublished theories, arguments, etc.? If so, should this be reworded to say that you could also write the article yourself provided you adhere to applicable policy? If it's not so, should this state that?

70.101.144.160 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you published the article yourself, you are almost always too close to it to evaluate it fairly. Even if it were technically allowable, it would be a bad idea. Be patient and let someone else start the page. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is totally and completely IMPOSSIBLE ("impossble" as in "it's impossible to prove 1+1=3" kind of utter impossibility ie you just cannot do it no matter how hard you try) for the author to EVER describe it neutrally (or even close enough to neutral that other editors could "finish the job", so to speak), even if they tried to distance themselves as far as possible from it? And even if they did, would it STILL be "forbidden"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! If so, that is definitely stupid!!!! 70.101.144.160 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, our experience to date shows that if it's not absolutely impossible to be sufficiently neutral, it so close to impossible that it's not worth arguing over the difference. I can't think of a single case such as you describe that's turned out well. On the other hand, I can think of several cases where the original author ended up getting banned from the project (and many more where they voluntarily left the project) because they were fundamentally unable to live up to the required standards as it applied to their own articles. Original authors tend to have serious problems with ownership. If you wrote something that special, let someone else find it and write the Wikipedia article. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you're the only one who has published some theory, then it is not some standard, accepted knowledge. If it becomes that, then there would be other sources to use in addition. —Centrx→talk • 07:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In section "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information":

"Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder."

However, if one has permission, license, etc. from the copyright holder to put the material here under the proper terms, one need not be the owner!!!!! This is misleading and should definitely be changed.

What do you think?

70.101.144.160 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The prohibition in the section on travel guides is required because Wikitravel is not licensed under GFDL. The original copyright holder is the only person who can release the information to the other project. Permission from the copyright holder to post the information here on Wikipedia does not automatically imply permission to post the same information on Wikitravel. This is in contrast to, for example, Wiktionary which is also licensed under GFDL. Content may be freely passed between those two projects. Specific permission from the original copyright holder is not required. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, what if the copyright holder does allow for the content to be posted on both? Then what?!?! Would it still be "forbidden" to post the travel guides on WP? If so, why? Are there other reasons that would remain as solid as ever regardless of copyright? If so, they should be included here. And why would information posted on Wikipedia _have_ to be posted on Wikitravel, anyway? Does it have something to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information, perhaps even that it is not a free advertising service? 70.101.144.160 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I see the misunderstanding. Let me start over. First, we don't want travel guide-like material here because it is content that's not traditionally found in an encyclopedia. It's detail that the community has decided is simply inappropriate given our mission. It's a specific example under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We are writing an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Whether the copyright holder granted multiple permissions or not, travel guide-like content is detail that we don't consider appropriate in the encyclopedia.
The second sentence in that clause suggests an alternate home for that level of detail - Wikitravel. The section about license incompatibility is a caution not so much to the original contributor but to subsequent editors who may be cutting content out of the Wikipedia article in compliance with the first sentence of this clause. Often, such editors want to find a better home for that level of detail. With other GFDL-projects such as Wiktionary, the subsequent editor can freely move the content to the other project. Since Wikitravel is not GFDL-compliant, the subsequent editor must be sure that the copyright holder has granted permission before adding the content there. However, that's almost impossible to confirm for the subsequent editor to confirm unless he/she is the copyright holder. If you somehow knew that the copyright holder had already granted permission to post the content under Wikitravel's license, you certainly could post it there - but you could do that anyway. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOT a mommy or daddy.

Hi.

Perhaps this should be included?:

"Wikipedia is not a mommy or daddy. Wikipedia can be potentially harmful to children.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and one with a very broad scope at that. As such it can and does include information and images that may be disturbing or harmful to young children. Also, we cannot completely stop children from divulging personal information about themselves. We have some rules in place for that, but the potentially harmful images and information are still accessible to everyone and Wikipedia cannot see who is on the recieving end and the rules have loopholes to avoid destroying core Wikipedia freedoms. If we were to put measures in to prevent these things from reaching children, they would most likely prevent us from having an open encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia lacks the "all-seing eye of God" any measures put in place would have to make sweeping assumptions and restrict everyone's access rights, such as forcing paid accounts to use the encyclopedia. We want a FREE encyclopedia and "free" means both "free beer" and "free speech". Wikipedia is NOT a substitute for a parent and will not protect your children from harmful information. You have to do that. You are their parent, not us."

What do you think? 70.101.144.160 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like everything you suggest here is already pretty much covered under the section titled "Wikipedia is not censored", or elsewhere within the Wikipedia namespace. Additionally, I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone that Wikipedia is not a mommy or daddy and that children have the same access to it as adults. Wikipedia welcomes children, but like the internet in general, contains adult content. I think that all responsible parents know that such content exists on the internet and will do what they need to do and/or what they can reasonably do to keep their children safe. Adding a section to say that "Wikipedia is not a mommy or daddy" would not make parents any more responsible for what their children do on Wikipedia.

Andrea Parton 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm thinking: parents might just assume this is like any other encyclopedia, ignorant of the diversity of topics it covers. So wouldn't a flat out, obvious statement (instead of innuendo and implications buried in other namespaces and pages) perhaps have a benefit? 70.101.144.160 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, no. Placing it under WP:NOT makes it as inaccessible to parents as burying it in other namespaces and pages. What makes you think that parents will stumble across this page while looking for information on how kid-friendly WP is or that they'll be able to look this page up without knowing the insides of WP? And if I remember correctly, biology textbooks and other encyclopedias do have pages of nudity (nude art, or anatomy) on them. ColourBurst 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy

disscusion?--158.123.153.254 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy. What makes you think it is? 70.101.144.160 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not always correct

I propose the following additional entry in the project page, which I do not seem to be able to edit myself:

Wikipedia is not always correct as demonstrated by Nature magazine in 2005 and reported in the Daily Telegraph October 28, 2006 [[1]]. The blind peer review undertaken by the magazine concluded that "The average science entry in Wikipedia contained about four inaccuracies, compared with about three in Britannica." Britannica responded that "the survey was fatally flawed", and claimed that "dozens of inaccuracies attributed to Britannica were not inaccuracies at all."Abtract 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That content belongs at Wikipedia:Replies since it discusses general criticisms of Wikipedia, not an elaboration of what content is or is not appropriate in the encyclopedia generally. (By the way, that general criticism is already there.) Rossami (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion was not intended as a criticism but as a contribution to a page titled "What Wikipedia is not" - rather than "what content is or is not appropriate in the encyclopedia generally" . Since it has been demonstrated to be "not always accurate" (not difficult to guess, I agree), it seemed to me IMHO that this did indeed belong here since this is something that Wikipedia definitely is not.Abtract 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on Issue

There is currently a huge loophole in the WP:NOT section. It portends to forbid directories, guides, and schedules but allows reference tables. Currenty there are AfD's pending on whether a list of channels is a directory or reference table. The section should be clarified to explicitly state which category List of TV stations fit in. To me, it's obviously a directory, however, reasonable people can differ. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikipedia is not censored" question

I was wondering about the Wikipedia is not censored section. I believe that Wikipedia should not censor anything that is necessary to an article regardless of what some people may believe about the said thing's morality, etc. However, who decides what falls under necessary and what is gratuitous? For example, some articles may be better off with photographs that could be considered questionable (such as the articles on reproductive organs). However some articles I come across have pictures that don't seem to be necessary to the article and it's not a matter of censorship as much as it is a matter of "is it really needed or is ONLY there for shock value?" I understand AND FULLY AGREE that Wikipedia should stay uncensored. However a lot of times I feel like some things may take advantage of this policy and aren't fully necessary. I think everyone knows the Bukkake article controversy, for example. But there are much more. I dunno, I'm just wondering. Please don't jump on me, I'm extremely opposed to any form of censorship, but I just was curious on who deems images as necessary and thus relevant, and who deems them as gratutious and irrelevant (and thus deleted not because of censorship but because they exist ONLY to shock and don't really help the article) --insertwackynamehere 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • We often have lengthy discussions of how best to illustrate such articles. These are generally held on the article's talk page. For instance, many sex-related articles use drawings rather than photographs. >Radiant< 10:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had good luck with polite discussion. An editor added a beautiful photo of a naked woman to an article I watch. The photo was relevant, but added little to the article. After some discussion on the article's talk page, it was agreed to remove the photo. It is still available under the appropriate topic on Commons, however.--Srleffler 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency between this and WP:EL

This page says that including a single fansite listing is appropriate on some articles whereas WP:EL states that it may be appropriate. I reckon the latter is better as it allows for greater flexibility in a variety of situations. Does anyone else agree?-Localzuk(talk) 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • In general, fansites do not qualify as reliable neutral sources. >Radiant< 10:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
But this isn't specifically about sources. It is about external links. I would never allow a fansite to be used as a source (unless the info was incontrovertible).-Localzuk(talk) 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense for the two to be consistent - there's another contradiction at WP:TV: "Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter. Things like forums or blogs should not be linked to." I assume an attempt to change that one would see some opposition, especially since many pages have links to two or more fansites. I don't really agree with the idea of a quota. I think it makes sense to just use WP's guidelines just like any other external links, if there is more than one that is appropriate I don't see why a reasonable number would be a problem. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have altered this policy to say 'may be' to allow for flexibility - as not all subjects deserve fansite listings.-Localzuk(talk) 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Material at Wikisource

This policy current distorts Wikisource's policy on reference material saying that it is accepted, which is not the case. It is only accepted as part of a larger source text. --Benn Newman 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that this is a distortion. As you say, Wikisource does accept such content if it is part of a larger source text. Whether or not a particular piece of content is permissible is something that any responsible editor would have to confirm under the then-current inclusion criteria for the target project. Your recent change to the WP:NOT page, on the other hand, tried to say that such content is explicitly excluded from Wikisource in all cases. That is not correct according to their own published standards. Rossami (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut out the specifics. People really should read the WS inclusion policy before putting anything over there anyways. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP != soapbox illustration

Wikipedia!=soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

(At right) Good idea or bad idea? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea of the relevance! WTF has a race car got to do with the soap box? Thanks/wangi 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Cute, but such images aren't really useful on a policy page. (Radiant) 10:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The illustration is of a soap box derby race car. A soap box derby is a downhill race between cars that are completely gravity-powered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See here: Soapbox. --Holderca1 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that an illustration isn't necessary for this sort of thing, it misses the whole point of what a soapbox is. The term in this context isn't about the car, it's about actually standing on a box of soap and using it as a makeshift podium from which to yell your message. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we should make a new page that explains WP:NOT in pictograms and hieroglyphics. (Radiant) 10:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three content policies, not four

This is not a content policy, in the sense of NOR, V, and NPOV, which are the core content/editorial policies. If you look at NOT, everything it says about content, rather than behavior, is premised on NOR, V, and NPOV. For example, this section: You're not allowed to engage in propaganda or advocacy of any kind (but you are, so long as you stick to the three content policies); you're not allowed to self-promote (but you are, so long as you stick to the three content policies; And you're not allowed to advertise (but you are, so long as ...).

This is why we say that NOR, V and NPOV are the three core content policies — because all other text-based editorial issues rest on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Most sections of WP:NOT indicate what kind of content is or is not acceptable on Wikipedia, such as dictionary entries, collections of links, travel guides or memorials. This does not automatically follow from the other content policies. By definition, any policy that governs content is a content policy, and that includes this one, and arguably WP:BLP as well. Note that this was discussed on WT:ATT. Now personally I don't see the point to label any group of policies as "THE <number> <Topic> Policies", but if you're going to list some of them as "basic" or "core" then WP:NOT is definitely one of them. (Radiant) 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
They are all dependent on the three content policies. You can add any text you want to Wikipedia so long as the articles you write (a) use reliable published sources for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; (b) reflect the majority and significant-minority published POVs in rough proportion to how they're represented in the relevant literature; and (c) don't synthesize published material in a way that produces novel arguments or creates primary sources.
That is what V, NPOV, and NOR say jointly. Every other text-based policy rests on the above, which means they are secondary policies, not core content. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary entries don't follow the three policies; travel guides don't; memorials don't. That's why they're not allowed. ANYTHING that follows V, NPOV, and NOR is allowed in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You forget (d) don't write about topics inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That's what this page is about. For instance, dictionary entries are verifiable, neutral and not original research. (Radiant) 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, and (e) is not a copyvio. (Radiant) 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
When dictionary entries get long enough, they become viable articles. An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary would likely be allowed on Wikipedia, as it would discuss origins, etymology, use, etc. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Radiant here. An article can be entirely consistent with the requirements in WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and yet is still not permitted on Wikipedia if it contravenes WP:NOT. Therefore, WP:NOT is a content policy.

The copyright policies are also content policies, as similarly, an article can be entirely consistent with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and yet still not be allowed as it violates copyright, or because the editor is unwilling to release his work under GFDL.

A content policy is just what it says on the packet - a policy that content must adhere to, jguk 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The three content policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A simple assertion does not prove anything, of course. A content policy, by definition, is a policy about content. That includes WP:BLP, for instance. (Radiant) 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
BLP is merely stating that we must adhere very strictly to the 3 core content policies when discussing living people. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the copyright policy is about content, though? jguk 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's about legality. The content per se is no the issue, but rather the fact that we would be sued if we included it. If the copyright expired tomorrow, we could include it. Don't forget, copyright is a law, found in most legal systems, not a Wikipedia-specific policy. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia-specific content policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The freedom of the content, under the GFDL, is as Wikipedia-specific as the other content policies. —Centrx→talk • 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
GFDL is again a legal definition, defined outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia could create a policy that said copyrighted content could be included, or that it owned GFDL content, but neither would be meaningful. Copyright and GFDL apply to all publishers. On the other hand, the content policies are unique to Wikipedia, and they uniquely define the type of content that Wikipedia includes. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Many newspapers and encyclopedias require articles to be neutral and verified. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, almost none of them do. Encyclopedias generally give you the Truth, and rarely cite any of their sources, except perhaps in the broadest of ways, and then sporadically. Newspapers generally have editorial policies designed to avoid lawsuits and promote whatever their political leanings happen to be, but they rarely cite sources, and their "neutrality" policies differ from Wikipedia's in significant ways. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that a policy is a content policy if it's a Wikipedia-specific policy, and otherwise it's not - it's some sort of other policy. (I should add that I agree that WP:Copyrights is a legal policy, it's just that I believe it is also a content policy.)

By biggest concern with that distinction is that I am not sure that it is helpful. We need to follow policy regardless. And pretending the non-Wikipedia-specific policies are not core appears to be plain wrong. Indeed, often they are more important (adherence to copyright law is important whether we like it or not, else the site gets shut down).

In particular, I think the distinction is unhelpful for newbies looking for content policy guidance. We're not giving them the whole picture if we say, you're ok if your edits comply with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. OK, the copyright policy might have been forced upon us - but it's right up there in importance whether we like it or not, jguk 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out that the core content policies are the ones that make Wikipedia unique; the ones that say how editing Wikipedia differs from writing a newspaper article, a book, an entry for another encylopedia, or your blog. Everyone has to comply with copyright laws regardless of who they're writing for, so that's not a core Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on who you are talking to. Are we explaining our policies to be able to answer the question "What makes Wikipedia different?". In which case, I would agree that respecting copyright is indeed not a difference. Or are we explaining our policies to someone wanting to write for us. In which case we're answering "What rules do we need to follow?". Respecting copyright is fundamental to answering that. jguk 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You could make the same argument for WP:VAND, that we must explain to editors that they should not put "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" repeated 100 times into Wikipedia articles, and that that is a content issue. As with copyright, it impinges on content, but the real issue lies elsewhere. People should know not to put copyrighted material into anything, just as they should know not to put nonsense into anything. All of our policies are rules editors need to follow, but the core policies which fundamentally define what Wikipedia is are the uniquely Wikipedian core content policies. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should they know? I'm not an expert in Floridian copyright law. I would not have personally seen any problems in linking to a site that itself has a clear copyright violation. Yet our copyright policy gives a good reason for us not to. If I kept a diary I'd have no difficulty in completely ignoring copyright law. And other websites, such as Napster and youtube have gotten into serious difficult because their contributors do not know not to put copyrighted material into anything. Personally, I'd say that the idea of respecting copyright is far from obvious when making contributions on the web. Remember, not everyone has the same outlook on life, and the same knowledge as you - some things that are obvious to you are far from obvious to others.

Adding "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" either once or 100 times is inconsistent with WP:NOT - or, to tie it into the instruction at the bottom of the edit box, it is not "encyclopedic content". I wouldn't be surprised if all vandalism that adds content will always break at least one of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:Copyrights. jguk 18:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your diary is not published, and WP:NOT doesn't cover "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"; what in WP:NOT would forbid it? As for "encyclopedic content", we could replace all of the content policies with "encyclopedic content", but that wouldn't really clarify anything, would it? Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We couldn't replace all of the content policies with the two words "encyclopedic content", even under your restricted definition of what a content policy is. Something can read like encyclopedic content and be completely made up. And many articles in encyclopedias would not comply with WP:V, and the mistakes in them suggest they don't always comply with WP:RS either. jguk 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, just as I said, we couldn't replace the content policies with "encyclopedic content". In addition, Wikipedia scope policies, like WP:NOT, don't deal with insertions like "AAAAARRRGGGGHHHH"; only the content policies do. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I realize that this may be discussed above, but I'm at a loss -- can I ask what the relevance of this discussion is? Are we trying to argue whether WP:NOT should be considered content policy or policy per se? If it's the former, then I must ask where it is stated that this is a content policy. If it's the latter, I can see some sort of point. If it's neither... then are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Thanks! --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean "arguing for the sake of arguing"? --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At the heart of this is a question of "What really should be considered a content policy?" It's relevant in terms of the idea that we should seek to merge our content policies - proposed by SlimVirgin and supported by Jayjg, myself and others. Although I do admit that this is more an aside encouraged by Radiant than anything else.
Certainly in the past WP has referred just to there being three content policies - V, NOR and RS. So it's not written anywhere that there are others. But the question now arises as to whether, in fact, that was a correct assessment: what do we want to suggest to contributors are our content policies? I suppose this comes down to the per se answer - although de facto might be a better Latin phrase for it. jguk 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Content policies differ from scope policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict - Maybe, but since it's become established policy, then it wouldn't really be de facto would it? Anyway, the argument began as SlimVirgin stated it shouldn't be a content policy, but no one that I could tell had put forward it should be. If nothing else, if it weren't established policy, it would be de facto policy, based on the three core, and the page itself is very useful in discussions of policy anyway. --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Psyphics: what is the point of this arguement? This is obviously a policy about content. What difference does it make if it's a Content Policy (whatever that means). A policy is a policy, does being a Content Policy make it somehow better, more important, or more powerful? It sure looks like this is an argument over semantics. What am I missing? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Having been watching this little argument unfold I have been finding myself torn both ways but have come to the conclusion that we need some examples in order to try and sort out this semantic mess we are in. Can someone give me an example of a topic which could be included in the site if it passed WP:V, WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:NOR but not WP:NOT? (ie. If WP:NOT didn't exist). I am finding it difficult to think of any subject that could be discussed with verifiable, reliable sources but isn't encyclopedic. Maybe its just me needing a break but maybe not...-Localzuk(talk) 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A telephone directory? --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a fair question. Two more answers: Textbooks (see, for example, Wikibooks)?, the Bible?, etc. jguk 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But do all of those simply come under the name of the site. Wikipedia is a wiki-encyclopedia. We don't really need a policy to tell us that do we? Whereas the content of articles that fit under the word 'encyclopedia' do need to be guided, by the 3 policies outlined above. -Localzuk(talk) 22:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Don't you think it's odd not having a policy saying what Wikipedia is, what its objectives are, who it is written for - and yet we have as a core policy what it isn't? jguk 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, lots of people did need explicit guidance on what does (and does not) fit under the word "encyclopedia". That's what most of this page is about. Explaining to users who don't quite get it that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, et al. The other part of the page reminds users that our primary purpose is the product, the encyclopedia, not the process. Hence all the "not a democracy" clauses.
Now having defended the value of this page, I have to agree with the comments above that this seems to be an argument over a semantic distinction without a difference. Regardless of any official count, this is a core part of our tradition, precedent and practice. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that this page should not exist. What I'm suggesting is that it is odd that there is no written policy saying what Wikipedia is, just what it isn't. Or in other words - something is missing, not that something has to go jguk 06:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was actually responding in parallel to your comment, trying to answer Localzuk's question about why the name of the site not not been sufficient to remind people that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Sorry for the confusion. Rossami (talk)
  • I simply think it is not necessary to separate policies into "ordinary" and "core" policies, nor to state explicitly on each policy page that "this is a content policy" or "this is a behavior policy". Simply put, policy is policy, further dichotomy is not needed. That certain policies are unique to Wikipedia is an interesting observation for such articles as Wikipedia, or essays on what is so special about us, but is irrelevant to the policies themselves. (Radiant) 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, the issue is that certain policies are, for reasons I don't quite follow, labeled as "the only content policies". First I don't see the need for pointing out that they are, in fact, content policies because that's obvious from the content; and second, to me a "content policy" is a "policy about content", and thus if (since) another policy can be found that is about content, it is simply incorrect for those certain policies to state that they are the only content policies. (Radiant) 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What glossaries are (NOT)

I just realized after closign an AfD that the glossary exemption has disappeared from WP:NOT. After reading the debate above, let me propose what a glossary is in general and for Wikipedia, and what a criterion for keeping should be.

What a glossary is (in general)

A glossary is a topical, quick-access dictionary. The line between the two might be blurry but the defining characterisitc of a dictionary is that it strives for scope and comprehensiveness while a glossary strives for focus and brevity. To explain the difference, this is the explanatory note to the glossary in the Oxford World's Classic edition of Kidnapped and Catriona: "This glossary has been compiled from the Scottish National Dictionary and the Concise Scots Dictionary, and includes words not glossed by R.L.S. in the text; it also includes words used more than once by R.L.S. but only glossed on a single occasion." In short a glossary is a RISC dictionary. It is not just an abbreviated dictionary like the Concise Scots Dictionary, but one that serves a specialized purpose. In this case to make reading the Scots vernacular in the two books easier.

What a glossary is (in Wikipedia)

Translating this into Wikipedian, a glossary is a list that makes it easier to read topical articles. To be considered a glossary it should meet two criteria: 1. It should contain only terms that make reading a certain topical article easier; and 2. the majority of terms listed should bluelinks, and the glossary itself should only contain a quick definition.

What a glossary is not (in Wikipedia)

Slang dictionaries, which contain mostly dicdefs and are not used to read an article (since we don't write in slang) are not glossaries under this definition. As such, since they are an end in themselves and don't link to Wikipedia articles, should be included in Wiktionary. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well summarized. Just an addendum - some of us have been distinguishing the two (in the prior discussion) as "topical glossaries" vs "lists of words".
Also per the prior discussion, Rossami is (was?) working on exporting an example article, Architectural glossary, to Wiktionary: wikt:Appendix:Architectural glossary. (As an example case for the 'pro-moving-them-to-Wiktionary' perspective)
The only alternative solution I've thought of so far, is to use {{wikt}} templates for any of the entries in a Wikipedia glossary that have articles at Wiktionary already. eg the top 3 entries here. But even that is generally unnecessary (imho), as articles like aisle and apse already link to Wiktionary on their own article pages. Anyway, that's my 10¢. --Quiddity 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Update on the pilot: The test was to cover the Architectural glossary and the Military slang page. Most of my time so far has been on wikt:Appendix:Military slang. Haven't had much help with either page in the pilot and the conversion is uncovering a large number of missing Wiktionary definitions. It's taking more time than I expected to get those pages properly built. (I've also had to cut back on my WikiMedia time recently to focus on some urgent projects at work.) More hands and eyes would be greatly appreciated. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clayboy's suspicuous edit

I am concerned about an edit made a few months ago. In it he seems to sneakily alter a few words to imply a different meaning. If you do not know Clayboy, I advise you to look at his page. Skinnyweed 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up? oTHErONE(Contribs) 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOTLEX

My fellow wikipedians: I have recently created an essay entitled Wikipedia:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer that I believe should be improved and eventually become part of wikipedia guidelines/policy. Not sure how to do this but I would appreciate if you would shepherd this essay into "goodness." Rossami rightly deleted it from WP:NOT because it is admittedly not ready for show time, but I think if it ever became a part of WP:NOT it would fit in the #soapbox section. The topic is whether/how to dispute a dictionary definition in the lead graf. IMHO, People should't omit quoting the dictionary WP:LEAD simply because they don't like what is presently defined there. MPS 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I must be slow today. Could you explain the relevance, please? Rossami (talk)
Wikipedia is not the place to reorder the English (or any other) language based on your utiopian vision for what words should mean. Dictionaries are generally authoritative sources to establish the current state of the lexicon, and articles should generally defer to the meanings of words as defined in these sources unless outweighed by other sources. MPS 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Entries for TV Show Characters

I've been looking for a policy or guideline on this but haven't found one. A Wikipedia entry was made for Marlowe Sawyer, a character from the TV show Nip/Tuck. I nominated the article for merging with the main show entry. Is there some guideline on when (or if) it is appropriate for a separate listing for characters? It seems rather excessive to me but perhaps I'm not appreciating the ability of Wikipedia to expand, provide disambiguation pages if there are conflicts, etc. Can anyone point me in the direction of such guidelines? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The closest we have is probably WP:FICT. In general, it depends on article length. If we have a dozen articles on a show's characters but all of them are three lines long (excluding redundant parts such as a description of the show), merging is a good idea (and you needn't propose it, just do it if you want). If those pages tend to be a page and a half, merging is probably not useful. (Radiant) 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucracy

Try counting the number of "policies", then you'll see it is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies it is expanding - in its bureaucracy, that is. Next point - Wikipedia is not censored; Oh yes it is! Try creating an article called Anarchopedia. Try setting up a talk page Talk:anarchopedia. Try mentioning Anarchopedia here. This is just one instance of censorship I've come across, and I didn't have to look very hard. Arcturus 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't care that your article on a non-notable wiki got deleted. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is an Anarchopedia? An encyclopedia of all things anarchy? Wouldn't THAT even have to be structured and ordered for it to work?
Try looking it up in Wikipedia - oh no - you can't. Arcturus 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. It is indeed a bureaucracy. There are bureaucrats, an "Arbitration Committee" to enforce policy, and a "last-resort" "editing office". There is also the "administrators", who are democratically elected (although perhaps by consensus instead of voting, but it is structured sort of like a vote to me and in any case it's the community (ie. the "people", "demo-") doing the ruling ("-cracy").)) to do maintenance, etc. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy of sorts, although perhaps much "looser" than most bureaucracies, but that does not mean a total absence of bureaucratic processes and structures. 170.215.83.4 04:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it uses a bureaucratic operation in certain respects. In the same manner, it is not a democracy, but uses democratic concepts and modified democratic processes in its operation. It's also not communism, anarchy, a republic, a monarchy, or girl's choir academy, but it borrows elements from each of those systems when beneficial. (OK, maybe not the choir academy.) At its base, Wikipedia is flexible. We reserve the right to use any system of government we think will be beneficial to us in a given area, or none at all.

Many of our processes are de facto reflective of the American governmental system, but only because those processes are familiar to our editors and have worked in real life. For example, you'll notice that we've incorporated the concept of judicial review in our Wikipedia:Deletion review, and one can draw strong parallels between the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee and the Supreme court. On the other hand, we don't have anything like a legislative branch and have rejected the idea of majority voting in nearly all cases. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of our processes are de facto reflective of the American governmental system, but only because those processes are familiar to our editors...' Well they might be familiar to those editors from the USA, but to the rest of us... perhaps not. As for We don't care that your article on a non-notable wiki got deleted. It wasn't my article, I just happened to come across the issue of its deletion, and - on whose behalf (we) are you speaking? I suspect no ones, apart from your own. You should be bothered that Wikipedia employs censorship. Arcturus 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not censorship to delete articles on non-notable subjects. --tjstrf talk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV Episodes

This doesn't really fall under WP:NOT but maybe someone can point me to the right page. There are a lot of TV Episodes articles that are basically a play by play of what happens on the episode. For example Ariel (Firefly episode) and The Hunted (TNG episode). Are there any policies against sort of thing? It's not really original research although it might fall under being a guide. And secondly what can we do about it? Thanks. Whispering 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out number seven under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at WP:NOT. WP:WAF and WP:FICT should also be useful. I completely agree that there are way too many plot synopses that are way too detailed to be encyclopedic - the guidelines on this one seem to be pretty widely ignored. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of those pages also skirt dangerously close to copyright violation. Remember that copyright extends to plot, not merely to the expression of the idea. The principle of fair use applies when the plot summary is in the context of a discussion about the work. But when our page is entirely or almost entirely a regurgitation of the work, then we may no be longer covered. Our inclusion of a plot summary must be in appropriate proportion to the rest of the article. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So at risk of making fanboy's and girls mad what do we do? Just chop out everything and make them in to stubs? Take out everything but the first paragraph? Maybe we should start a Wikipedia project for this hmmm... Whispering 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
According to wp guidelines, if there's nothing but synopsis, they shouldn't even have their own articles (which is how it's supposed to be in most cases). One option is chopping down the synopses and merging them into an episode list or synopsis of an entire season. This is actually proposed right now for the show Day Break, see What If They Run and other articles. Feel free to jump in and participate in that discussion - I think it's a good candidate for merge since there are only 12 episodes scheduled and it looks like it will be cancelled after that. For a show that I think is done well, check out Grey's Anatomy here: Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 1). --Milo H Minderbinder 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll try that for Firefly only 14 episodes so it shouldn't be too hard. Question is what gets cut and what doesn't? Whispering 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I highly suggest getting a little more discussion before doing anything drastic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you should WP:AGF Jeff. I was going to talk to the Firefly Wikipedia project first. Whispering 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Same to you, hehe. I just know the type of drama that comes with this territory, so I figured a warning of kindness, rather than a warning of something else as this apparently came across, was in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that came out rather harsh. That will teach me not to edit at work during a major snowstorm. Whispering
There is no such thing as "anything drastic". Encyclopedic articles about episodes/seasons are covered under the macro-to-micro principle that is a corollary of WP:NOT paper. So if an episode comes under AfD scutiny, cut the crap down to size, pull out a couple of reviews and cover the episode from secondary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy /guidelines on film lists needed

I have read the article and think that the case of lists of films is a special case that should be decided separately and mentioned right after "directory". There seems to be some indecision in Film Project about what guidelines we should give and policy doesn't help us decide. If no policy can be given, then maybe some guidelines above project level. Personally I think we should have a list of films as inclusive as possible, to help us determine notability, decide what articles are needed, etc. Hoverfish 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what is being asked, but I think WP:LIST might help you. It notes three most common roles that lists take here on Wikipedia: navigation, information, development. Under information, it's more of an article in a list format. Under the idea of navigation or development, a list doesn't necessarily have to be the encyclopedia content itself, but a method of finding it, if I understand it correctly. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize I was too vague about it. Here is an example of what I mean: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films. I hope this conveys what I attempted to say. Hoverfish 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"

I would like everyones' opinion on whether to specify that recipes fall under this banner (ie. to form the 8th example), and that any recipes found on Wikipedia be moved to Wikibooks then removed. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Recipes have traditionally been moved to the WikiBooks CookBook, since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and a recipe can hardly be considered anything other than a how-to. (Radiant) 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Recipes are already forbidden under #4, Instruction manuals. I think it's already pretty clear. Did you miss that reference, or do you just want to single it out and make it more obvious? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I reckon single it out. I know an admin who's about to be RfC-ed because they removed a recipe... Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Baked Ziti is an example that should definately stay - it's not a recipe, it's an article about a food. Trollderella 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Recipes themselves are not welcome because of the instruction manual, but if a recipe has been commented on as a cultural phenomenon (Philidelphia Cheese Steak, to choose a bad example) an article about the recipe, or including common varients of recipes for culturally commented-on foods would be relevant. Trollderella 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Trollderella. I don't think there's a need to add anything specific to WP:NOT, and to do so verges on instruction creep.
The consensus view has been that articles about foods that are culturally important are perfectly valid.
As Trollderella notes, Cheesesteak would be an example. (I'm not sure why he thinks it's a bad example). Some others are Pea soup, Pecan pie, Ham and cheese sandwich, and Rice pudding. Such articles do typically describe the typical ingredients and preparation. The tendency is to exclude recipes as such.
I don't think we need anything specific in WP:NOT to cover this.
In the case of Baked ziti there's no policy question. The policy or tradition is clear: recipes are out, culturally important foods are in. The question is which category the current Baked ziti article falls in. It looks borderline to me. I think it's a vaguely stated recipe that currently says nothing at all about whether baked ziti is culturally important. But that has nothing to do with policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the recipe part (which is currently not in the article) has now been removed, albeit contested. I have no objection to the article; just the recipe that it previously contained. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To clear this up, the article Baked ziti was never removed, someone just added a recipe, and that recipe was removed. It's all in the page history. And the person who added the recipe went pretty ballistic when it was removed, and continued to rant even after the explicit mention of no recipies in WP policy was pointed out. If there is a RfC or similar, I don't think it will go anywhere, removing the recipe was completely the right move. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To what extent is "Wikipedia... not a democracy"?

The "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section of this policy shouldn't be modified in a manner contrary to the findings of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting. Despite the claim that "Arbcom rulings don't set policy on their own" [2], principles of Arbitration Committee findings are policy, and have far greater force and effect than anything we write on this policy page, since the Arbitration Committee, the highest authority on Wikipedia with the exception of Jimbo Wales, will rule on cases in a manner consistent with its own principles, even if such principles conflict with the "policy" that happens to be written on an official policy page at the time. Maintaining an official policy page that directly conflicts with Arbitration Committee principle(s) is misleading, since users who accept the "policy" written on the official policy page will be rather unpleasantly surprised to discover that the Arbitration Committee, and administrators who comply with the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, will enforce the Arbitration Committee principle(s) in preference to the text of an official policy page.

Quite apart from the undesirability of maintaining official policy pages that directly conflict with Arbitration Committee rulings, it is clear that this version of the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section does not, and never did, have consensus. Rather, the section was added to the policy with a citation to a remark by Jimbo Wales that was taken out of context, and misinterpreted as mandating the insertion of an anti-voting polemic into WP:NOT. In fact, Jimbo Wales' comments might have meant nothing more than "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy" in the sense that discussion-based consensus is preferable to voting, but that voting may be used to resolve difficult issues that cannot be resolved through discussion. Jimbo Wales might also have been referring, in part, to the fact that he retains ultimate authority on Wikipedia, and that no vote can overrule him. Due to a continued lack of consensus for giving anti-voting polemics the force of policy, or even guidelines, attempts to enact Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, an entire page devoted to anti-voting polemics, as a guideline have persistently failed. The content of Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote provides convincing evidence that a large number of established editors have recognized that Wikipedia frequently employs voting, in requests for adminship, the Arbitration Committee elections, to enact and amend official policies on a fair number of occasions, and for other purposes. However, this anti-voting polemic has remained a part of this policy simply because efforts to modify the policy section to reflect consensus and actual practice on Wikipedia have been quite limited, due to the mistaken impression that such a modification would somehow conflict with a determination of Jimbo Wales.

Now that the Arbitration Committee has declared a principle that partially overturns this version of the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section, the continued maintenance of this section as an anti-voting polemic, against consensus, is untenable. Users who claim that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting was incorrectly decided[3] retain the option of appealing the Arbitration Committee's ruling to Jimbo Wales, the only user on Wikipedia who has the authority to overturn the ruling. However, unless Jimbo Wales overrules the Arbitration Committee, or the Committee reverses itself, the principles in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting stand. This, of course, is not "policy making by the Arbitration Committee", but merely a recognition by the Committee of pre-existing consensus and practice. John254 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Incorrect. We do not modify policy pages to match ArbCom principles, simply because of the fact that the ArbCom is not the body that writes our policy. (Radiant) 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Any policy change needs to be done by consensus, not from a stone tablet handed down from above. If the guys on ArbCom think this policy should be changed, they're welcome to come here and build a consensus for that change. I agree with the long standing notion that generally discussion is preferred to polling. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In addition, the principle of "discuss, don't vote" is established at the Foundation level. That's why the source article is at Meta:Voting is evil. The Arbitration Committee, on the other hand, is basically limited in scope to the English-language Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the above comments are responsive to my argument as to why Arbitration Committee principles are policy, or why it is misleading to maintain official policy pages that are blatantly inconsistent with standards of user conduct that the Arbitration Committee will enforce: the above comments do not respond to my reasoning, but merely argue for an alternative conclusion. There has also been no response to my arguments as to why, ignoring rulings of the Arbitration Committee, there still is not, and never was, consensus for maintaining an anti-voting polemic in the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section of this policy. Additionally, Meta:Voting is evil is an essay, not a policy or guideline; consequently, the claim that "the principle of 'discuss, don't vote' is established at the Foundation level" is factually incorrect. In any event, even if principles of Arbitration Committee decisions are not properly part of an official policy itself, under circumstances in which an official policy radically conflicts with an Arbitration Committee principle, there is at least a need to provide due notice of the discrepancy, to avoid concealing the fact that the Arbitration Committee considers the behavior advocated in the policy to be misconduct. Therefore, I suggest that the following text be appended to the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section of this policy:

However, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting, the Arbitration Committee found that

Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion.

What weight, if any, editors reading this policy wish to assign to the rulings of the Arbitration Committee would be purely a matter of individual judgment and discretion. John254 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take exception to your claim that my statement is "factually incorrect". I very carefully did not use the words essay, guideline or policy to describe it. It is a guiding principle and a long-standing tradition. It is one of the oldest pages we have describing our methods of decision-making. And it is a Foundation-level principle - not something unique to any one project. Frankly, I think the entire debate over where a page fits in some hypothetical hierarchy of wiki-law to be more than a little silly. Whether it's an essay, a guideline or a policy doesn't change the fact that it accurately describes how we work when we're working at our best. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But if we tried to describe every possible exception, no one would read the page. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If "the entire debate over where a page fits in some hypothetical hierarchy of wiki-law..." were really "more than a little silly", then I'm sure that there would be no objections to changing the tag on WP:NOT from template:policy to template:essay :) But seriously, Meta:Voting is evil is tagged as an essay because the opinions expressed therein lack sufficient support to describe the page either as a guideline or a policy. Meta:Voting is evil is thus decidedly not a foundation-level principle, because it lacks consensus for this status. In any event, since there appears to be no objection to at least mentioning Arbitration Committee's ruling in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Non-Notability#Polls_and_voting, attributed to the Arbitration Committee and without specific endorsement as policy, I am adding this information to the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" section. John254 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The tags on meta have a different meaning. Several old "essays" on meta are important guiding principles and thus considered guideline on the English Wikipedia. (Radiant) 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As much as my esteemed Wikicolleague Radiant! here might like to have you believe, meta:Voting is evil does not have force as a guideline or policy. Its tag spells this out extremely clearly: This is an important essay written by the community. Although it doesn't have the force of policy or guideline, it is nevertheless heavily referenced on many Wikimedia projects, especially the English Wikipedia.. Just because it is on Meta doesn't give it any additional weight. On meta it has been around awhile and it is referenced frequently (much in the same way that m:Don't be a dick is and that certainly won't ever have policy or guideline status). Even on meta it is a bit contentious as demonstrated by this alternate essay: m:Voting is a tool. There are other ideas there expressed in essay form that haven't been referenced as much (ie: m:AFD is evil and m:NPOV is an ideal) have a look at the essay list. (→Netscott) 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Straw man. I never said that all Meta essays are important guiding principles, just that some old ones are (incidentally that does include m:don't be a dick, which is part of our Policy Trifecta). The boilerplate text for "this is an essay" was simply taken from our Template:Essay and copied on there earlier this year; it is obviously incorrect since meta doesn't have guidelines, and the page predates the concept of "guideline" on enwiki. There is no tag or place that gives it greater or lesser weight, it is given greater weight simply by the fact that it is a long-standing guiding principle. (Radiant) 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To see the relevance of the trifecta, you shouldn't check how many edits it has (it has few because it's a very simple page), but who and what links to it. Yes, the tag reads what it reads, but the tag is a lot newer than the page itself and was added in reflection of tagging on enwiki (so using it as the basis for tagging on enwiki is circular). The tag was added by one editor without discussion, and refers to things that don't exist as such on meta. (Radiant) 10:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm probably going be submitting WP:TRI for MfD per the rationale expressed over here. It is too official sounding particularly with a thrid of this "policy" page relying upon a non-policy. Radiant! I'd suggest that you refrain from trying to compare apple and oranges. Things are different on Meta for a reason (meta's a better follower of the ideas expressed in WP:CREEP). (→Netscott) 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While I would recommend against MFDing it, I agree with you that the Trifecta is misleading because it's called policy whereas it is not (the triad as a whole isn't, DICK is not, and when TRI was written IAR wasn't policy either but considered unclassifiable). Perhaps a rename would fix this. Ialso agree that things are different on Meta for good reason, and that's precisely why we shouldn't use the reasoning that some page must have the same tag on enwiki as it has on meta. (Radiant) 10:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Better yet, tag it equivalently... complete with the "this page is heavily referenced and important" part. (→Netscott) 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's heavily referenced and important, that makes it a guideline. The template on meta mistakenly implies that guidelines have "force"; guidelines are not such a big deal as some people seem to think. If it had force, it would be policy. (Radiant) 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the policy on having too much detail in an article?

What happens where an article has too much detail? For example what happens with an article that has 15 photos of its subject and includes details about its subject that are common to all items of that class? Curtains99 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Summary style would be relevant. Fifteen photos is overdoing it on just about any article; I'd suggest putting some of the less useful ones on WP:IFD. (Radiant) 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a textbook

   
“
 Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples.
   
”

I've seen far too many edits of this nature in many technical articles. See, for example, this series of edits. I believe that an improved version of my first paragraph should be included in WP:NOT, but the text I've provided is inadequate. Argyriou (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I put your ¶ into a quotebox ... I agree, perhaps appending, Wikipedia is not a collection of textbooks — but Wikibooks is![4] Please go there to contribute instructional articles. Whaddya think? — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 05:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind setting off the draft text from the commentary at all. However, I'd rather work a little more on what distinguishes a textbook from a reference before we start advertising other Wikimedia projects. Argyriou (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikipedia is not a résumé book"

Should we include this as #4 in either not a blog or not a directory? Résumés and CV in most cases suffer from WP:COI and WP:FU problems, even if it's not always readily apparent. And even if they don't have those problems, pure résumés are not encyclopedic articles. It should be noted that résumés and CV's can be used as primary resources to write an encyclopedic article and to flesh out biographical details about notable subjects, but they don't by themselves bestow notablity and articles that are pure résumé dumps cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What is encyclopedic and what is not is governed by Wikipedia:Notability (people) and wikipedia:Verifiability. CV is an issue of article style, not of inclusion into wikipedia. In addition, a CV dump may be deleted on the grounds of copyvio or WP:VANITY (after a due diligence of course, eg quick google, and keeping in mind WP:BITE). `'mikkanarxi 09:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a democracy, redux

It looks like we should work out our edits to the "Not a democracy" section. I've reverted to the version that lasted for the months before the last week's edits. Does anyone want to lay out what they think the current version omits or misrepresents, and what changes would be helpful? Thanks, TheronJ 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The current version encourages polling in difficult situations - however, difficult situations are precisely the time where polling generally polarizes and aggravates the situation. For instance, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), Wikipedia_talk:Schools3 and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people. (Radiant) 10:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How about this edit?[5] I tried to capture (1) that polls are occasionally used but that (2) polls often make disputes worse rather than better, should be used with caution, and may not be treated as binding. Please feel free to tweak or to suggest areas for revision or expansion. Thanks, TheronJ 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert per WP:NOT?

I am currently editing Taco Bell, and its "Media References" has gone too long and its content is not very encyclopedic. (McDonalds#Parodies is longer and is equally unencyclopedic (per:WP:NOT#INFO), IMO. Burger Kinf#Burger King in Popular Culture is slightly better.) I decide to delete this section, or remove the non-notables.

The problem here is, this section has an continous flow of updates. Is it wise to revert trivial updates there citing WP:NOT#INFO as reason? Or there are any procedure I can do with?

(My discussion on the section is Talk:Taco Bell#Cutting off "Media Reference" section.)--Samuel Curtis-- TALK 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EWhat_Wikipedia_is_not_79ff.html"