Category talk:Wikipedia official policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I reworked the wording on this page, in particular changing the bit that said that Wikipedia doesn't have any truly official policy. "Key policies" like not infringing copyrights and NPOV are very fundamental to Wikipedia, and are well beyond the stage of "policies to consider". However, I agree that "official policy" might not be the best term to describe these policies - renaming the category to something like "Generally accepted policies" might make sense. Enchanter 22:28, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I chose "official policy" deliberately, realizing that at once it is:

• inherently contentious
• inherently inaccurate when applied to anything at Wikipedia
• still an important distinction and, over time, increasingly factual and more true than "policies to consider."

I think your edits are fine, and I do think that it is important to have some sort of categorization of the policies that are "official," those that were failed attempts at policy, and those that have some degree of backing without being quite exactly "official."

In reality, most of the Wikipedia policies evolved out of "semi-policy" that had no consensus when originally proposed and discussed. Over time, as more people started following the "semi-policy," it became clear that it was official.

uc 22:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 proposed distinctions 2 Add Verifiability to this category 3 Template is potentially misleading 4 Bad link on main article 5 Why are Talk:Terri Schiavo and User:Tezkah/uncensored linked? 6 Dachau massacre as a link? 7 Name 8 BInary Magic

[edit] proposed distinctions

I think this page needs reorganization. First, why is "Wikipedia:Sound" under the letter "S", but "Wikipedia:Blocking Policy" is under "W" and not "B?" If we are just providing an alphabetical index, we should ignore the "Wikipedia:"

Second, I propose divising these policies into at least two categories: "administrative" (e.g. three revert rule; policies primarily for administrators) and "editorial" (all the rest), or three categories, "admninistrative," "interpersonal" (or behavioral), and "editorial" (meaning, content-related). I think this would make it easier for people, especially newbies, to navigate. Slrubenstein

[edit] Add Verifiability to this category

I think that it is well past time to add Wikipedia:Verifiability to this category. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts. This policy meets all of the criteria listed on this main article pag. It has been discussed in-depth on the Wiki-En list, and pretty much everyone agrees that this already is Wikipedia policy. (The only disagreement seems to be how best to deal with people who violate it.) RK 21:13, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

As a corollary, we should add Wikipedia:Cite sources. RK

I agree.

James F. (talk) 17:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Me too! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ISTM there should be a vote or something on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been closely watching discussion on these issues on the Wiki-En list for the last two months. As far as I can tell, no one disagrees that these are now major policies. Interestingly, not a single person disagreed with me on the Wiki-En list or here after I made this proposal. Given the contentious way that many of us can argue over issues, this is nothing less than a miracle. At this point- still shaking my head in pleasant disbelief at the utter lack of disagreement on Wiki-En - I feel safe in adding these categories to this list. (Especially so, since it fits in with Wiki-En discussions.) Of course, I recognize that there still exists significant debate on how to enforce these policies, but that is another point. RK 20:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to take it back out. I will point out though, that silence is not a proof, and wikien-l ain't what it used to be. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree; that is surely correct. Generally speaking, just because no one vocally disagrees, doesn't mean that everyone agrees! I am only invoking "silence equals tacit approval" because of the extensive recent discussion of these issues on Wiki-En by many of our contributors, including Admins and Sysops. The only reason I am making apologetics for my addition of this category is that unlike other articles, this is a policy consideration, so I want to tread here lightly. (And I suppose that I would not argue much if other Admins and Sysops decide that this is a bad decision and come here to say why! ) RK 13:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template is potentially misleading

I don't particularly care which category pages are in, but with the current categorization, the "policy" template will be misleading on some pages. It suggests that the current version is authoritative, and that changes without discussion should be avoided. I don't think that's quite appropriate for pages like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet or Wikipedia:Wikiquette. The basic idea behind that page is widely accepted, but I would still consider it editable. Certainly the current text as written isn't sacred. I'm definitely not in favor of making any new categories, so perhaps some pages should be migrated down to "guidelines"? Isomorphic 05:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My concern here, by the way, is that we could lose potentially useful edits to those pages because people think that the current text is officially approved and authoritative. Policies and guidelines should be kept up to date to reflect current opinions and practices. The more pages that need a vote or a long discussion to change, the more bureaucratic and inflexible Wikipedia gets. Isomorphic 05:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• The wording of the template has been somewhat in flux. Netoholic proposed something like "this is policy but please edit it anyway" which to me sounds like an invitation to ignore the policy. Quite possibly my version errs in the other direction. Ideally, I'd like to have some wording that persuades newbies to not edit the page and accept it as written, and for which people who know what they're doing realize they can edit it anyway.
• That said, I think WP:SOCK is still official policy, especially the paragraph 'Prohibited uses of sock puppets'. Also, people get instantly and permanently banned for abuse of socks. WikiQuette on the other hand reads more like a behavioral guideline, and while everybody agrees it's good to be nice to people it's hard to pin down as enforceable. On the other hand it has been in cat:policy since last october. Radiant_* 08:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppet page has been rewritten substantially since January. Given that, I don't think the page has reached the kind of stability where you want to say "don't edit this at all without discussion." It was never categorized as anything more than "semi-policy" before your recent tagging. Also, while the spirit of Wikiquette is important to the community, I wouldn't call it a "policy" because most of what's on the page is just advice. It's not enforceable, and unlike something like VfD procedures or WP:CSD, there's no need to lock it in. I'm going to move both to the "Guideline" category. If anyone strongly objects, undo and say why.

Here I am, already breaking my own advice about not getting overly concerned with what category things are in... shame on me. Isomorphic 05:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK has seen a lot of edits the past time, but so have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Protection policy. So simply being edited is not grounds for making it policy. I agree about Wikiquette, but WP:SOCK is instantly enforceable (and many socks already attempt to misquote WP:SOCK back at us in order to get unbanned, this would get worse if it appeared to be not policy). Also I agree that it's not something that should overly concern people :) Radiant_* 09:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad link on main article

There is a link on the main page to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2/Workshop. That does not appear to be an official policy, but a particular decision by the ArbCom. Either there has been vandalism, or there was an editing error. Can some admin clean up the page? Robert McClenon 16:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why are Talk:Terri Schiavo and User:Tezkah/uncensored linked?

I'm guessing these two links don't belong on this page, but I'm reluctant to start zapping things on such an important page, even if they do seem to me to be obviously results of vandalism or error.

Yeah that was put on the User:Tezkah page as vandalism (Intentionally), just removing it as a tag and recreating it as code fixed it.

[edit] Dachau massacre as a link?

Uh... I think somebody made a mistake with this, but I don't know how to fix it. "Edit this page" doesn't give me list-editing powers. --MattShepherd 13:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Why is the name Wikipedia official policy and not Wikipedia official policies/Wikipedia's official policies? There are more than one policy in the category. --Kkk 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BInary Magic

Binary Fractions and Base Twenty Magic simply converts the base two binary system into a hybrid mesoamerican abacus that allows not only the use of Binary Fractions but the color path of the Square Root of two function that naturally connects the points of each whole number as it is mirrored and rotated through the plane. Yes even the simple addition of the negative signs in the four number quadrants adds immensely to the limitations of our typical Internet.

The Square Root of Two is a decimal value that repeats infitismally. Each twenty digits could represent either giant steps or baby steps away from the dead center coordinates of a overlay of a cartesean system and counter clockwise and clockwise number spiral windings. Even more variations are added when shifting each of these planes values in minute steps through the pi function of a circle.

Expressing each step out as a function of the square root of two speeds computations and the same goes with the octal pattern that expands linearly throughout the expansion. A finite value for the number is better used when the standard can be viewed with the precision the user requires instead of the limitation of the calculator, machine or computer being used.

The Sundial Theory a registered copyright of James R. Gilliam Txu 713-907 allows the diamond and square patterns that replicate natural in each linear progression to be perfectly framed so that the 2 billion times or the 2 times the square root of two value is as precise a value as the 2 trillionith value of the square root of two function. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.142.5 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC).