Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Crystal ball

All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

I don't like this, because without clarification it could be misread as saying that the test of what is encyclopedic now is whether the event will be encyclopedic when it occurs.

I'd like to see this wording tuned to emphasis that what must be encyclopedic is not the future event, but the present preparations.

Event number 1. A modern-day Miller predicts the end of the world on June 8th. By the end of May, hundreds of thousands of followers have given away their belongings and assembled on Mt. Tamalpais awaiting the rapture. At the appointed time, the sun rises as usual on a beautiful California day. Miller declares that his calculations were off and the correct date is two years away, and he and his followers depart.

Event number 2. A modern-day Miller predicts the end of the world on June 8th in his blog. Almost nobody listens, but on June 6th he and half-a-dozen friends bring sleeping bags, sandwiches, and a cooler of beer to Mt. Tam. On June 8th they ascend to heaven and the world ends.

As of June 6th, event number 1 would merit an article and event number 2 would not not. After June 8th, event number 1 still merits an article. (In the case of event number 2 the issue would be moot).

The question is not "is the end of the world notable?"

The question is not "is the sun rising notable?"

The question is "is the gathering of hundreds of thousands of believers notable."

The question is never the presumed notability of the future event itself. The question is always the notability of what is actually happening now. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a nomic

As a sidenote to Wikipedia is not a democracy, how about "Wikipedia is not a nomic?" Morwen - Talk 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

But can you convince anyone of that? Benjamin Gatti 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If anyone thinks wikipedia is a game, I'm going home. No, wait, I'm already home. Morwen - Talk 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Although I am a bit late on this I feel it prudent to point out that Jimbo may disagree with the assertion that Wikipedia is not a nomic. ;) --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 05:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide

Recommend adding this under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Please discuss if you feel this addition is inappropriate. I have seen many articles that suffer from describing the strategies and tactics of video games in an overly precise way that is irrelevant to most readers. Argyrios 09:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This is redundant with "walk throughs" and "instruction manuals". Kappa 09:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Walkthroughs are different from game guides; a walkthrough is a description of how to advance through the levels of a single player game. Instruction manuels are also different; that would be instruction on how to operate the game (like what keys do what). I think "wikipedia is not a game guide" needs to be explicitly mentioned, especially given articles like Defense of the Ancients. I mean that shit is just preposterous, but the articles seem to be vigorously defended by a vocal minority of DOTA players who don't understand that they are writing an encyclopedia article, and shouldn't be writing a game guide. Argyrios 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Then, please, where in Wiki (which, as I understand it, is supposed to be making the global Information available to the Global (on-line) population) is ? Surely there is somewhere, and what would allow Wiki entries to be transferred to. --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


"Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons" - how does this tally with Wikepedia many articles containing Lists of people based solely on their occupation, beliefs, names, etc? Isn't that what categories are for? MartinRe 10:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

These lists have too many fans who feel WP:NOT doesn't apply to them. You would have to get a clear consensus that such lists do fit the definition to do anything about them, and I don't think that is going to happen. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Categories only list items that have articles written for them, and list fans want to include line items that are too trivial for articles or for which they don't want to spend the time writing articles. --Coyoty 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors section title

As two different editors have tried to shorten this heading to Wikipedia is not censored, I figured I would open a discussion here to see if in fact there is a consensus to make that change. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The section deals with more than just censorship for the protection of minors, so it seems that the shorter section title would be more accurate. Kaldari 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add some language to make the point clearer, such as:
Wikipedia is also not censored to reflect the official doctrine or dogma of any nation, state, religion, corporation, or other body or school of thought. In particular, Wikipedia takes no position on disputes over territorial sovereignty (such as the status of Taiwan or Kashmir); nor does Wikipedia exclude or censor information that governments (either of the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted, or elsewhere) may consider seditious or objectionable. This policy has resulted in at least one nation—the People's Republic of China—denying Wikipedia access to its citizens.
Many of these political issues are far thornier than the issue of censoring obscenity.--EngineerScotty 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the issue at hand is whether or not to shorten the section title. Let's figure that out first before we move into editing the section itself. Kaldari 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Methinks that the content should drive the title, not the other way round. However, even if the content continues only to relate to the issue of "obscene" or sexually explicit content, I feel the phrase "for the protection of minors" overqualifies and over-constrains the issue. Many opponents of free speech (while claiming "protection of minors" as a goal), have the larger aim of eliminating access to sexually explicit speech for everyone--protecting the kiddies is a red herring, used to get the foot in the door. If the section is to relate only to sexually explicit content, a better title would be "Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content". Other forms of content that some find offensive (violence, various isms, material considered seditious by governments, heresy/blasphemy, love/hate of Microsoft, etc.) can then be dealt with in other sections. --EngineerScotty 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
>Methinks that the content should drive the title, not the other way round.
Exactly! That's why the title needs to be changed. Kaldari 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As an example of why the section title needs to be changed, the section in question has recently been cited in a debate about whether or not an image of a woman with bare arms reading the Qur'an should be censored from Wikipedia. Certain fundamentalist muslims believe the image is obscene. "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" clearly addresses this situation, but the section title is not helpful, as the debate has nothing to do with children. If anyone wants to debate the contents of the section, please start a new discussion page section. This section is for discussing the title only. We don't need to have a week long debate about the entire section just to decide whether or not to change the title! Kaldari 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for changing it to simply "Wikipedia is not censored". Then we can discuss making it a bit more explicit that we're not just talking about content which might be offensive to fundamentalist Christians in the US; the "protection of minors" bit adds, I think, a rather U.S. slant to the debate. --EngineerScotty 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In many areas of the world the primary purpose of censorship is not to protect children, but to impose a certain moral, religious, or political viewpoint. The section content already addresses that fact to a degree. We just need to change the section title to match. Kaldari 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, Wikipedia is censored in the sense that we exercise editorial discretion and judgment all the time. Entries which violate NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V are censored out and appropriately so. Opening up the title too broadly invites further misunderstandings (or perhaps willful ignorance) by the people who don't understand that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts". Rossami (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Kaldari. The section already deals with censorship for reasons other than the "protection" of minors; only the title needs to be changed. The section specifically deals with censorship of what is deemed morally offensive, though -- we do not need to explicitly extend the policy to deal with political issues such as Taiwan or Kashmir independence.

Strongly disagree with Rossami. Censorship is not the same thing as editorial discretion. Censorship is the suppression of information for the purpose of stifling particular views (or, rarely, particular authors -- e.g. the censorship of Jewish authors in Nazi Germany). The goal of censorship is to make some view or information inaccessible, usually as a way of exerting power over the speaker or audience. We don't seek to stifle views here; we seek to represent them neutrally. --FOo 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about our goal but the definition you're using for "censor" is not exactly the definition used by Webster (for example). Their definition reads "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". As writers of an encyclopedia, we do consider unverified assertions or violations of the NPOV policy to be objectionable and we do suppress or delete those edits. I know that I'm splitting hairs but we're in this discussion because new users are misapplying the title of the paragraph and ignoring the content. We should spend at least a little thought to make sure that whatever new title we pick is not misapplied in the opposite direction. Rossami (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we can make clear that "censorship" doesn't include "editing" in the section itself -- and, indeed, I think we already do, with the specific reference to NPOV. Moreover, when the section is taken in the light of the whole rest of the page (e.g. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) it's clear that we intend to edit selectively without suppressing views.
By the way, it isn't that we find NPOV violations objectionable -- at least, I don't; I think they're perfectly fine for people to print wherever they like with their own resources. They just don't belong here because we have a policy against them. Censorship aims at suppressing ideas in general, not just in one particular forum; I've never heard of anyone saying, "Pictures of naked people are OK anywhere else, but they should be specifically against the rules on Wikipedia" -- rather, people who object to such pictures wish to eradicate them anywhere, or at least throughout the public sphere.
Oh, and FYI -- Webster's is a generic and refers to no specific dictionary. Wikipedia's own discussion of censorship points out that it "most formally involves suppression of ideas". That's what we're trying to get at here: Wikipedia does not accept the silencing of particular ideas or expressions, although we do require that they be presented neutrally rather than endorsed. --FOo 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Changing the section title to Wikipedia is not censored is potentially confusing and arguably contradictory, considering that it comes after a long list of things (including ideas) that are not acceptable on Wikipedia and will be removed (personal research, editorial opinion, advertising, vanity pages, etc.). Whether or not this editorial process constitutes "censorship" is a semantic debate; claiming that it is not censorship is simply one point of view. Entitling the section "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" (or, better yet, "Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material") means something specific; claiming that "Wikipedia is not censored" is ambigious, and arguably uses the word censorship not as a means of clarification but instead as a power word. --User:Kevin Myers
Personal research, editorial opinion, advertising, and vanity are not "ideas" in the sense being referred to. They're styles of writing or approaches to a subject. For instance, a person could write editorial opinion about why nuclear power is great ... or they could do research into the history of nuclear power advocacy and write an article about it. These both would cover the same ideas but one is out-of-bounds here whilst the other is. Censorship would entail suppressing discussion of the benefits of nuclear power; Wikipedia policy merely requires that it be addressed as cited research rather than as opinion.
I honestly don't think there's a confusion here. As I said above, when taken in the context of the rest of the page, "Wikipedia is not censored" is a clear and bold statement ... and it is more accurate than saying "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors," since Wikipedia is also not censored for the protection of adults, liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, feminists, Communists, racists, nationalists, fluffy bunnies, or Pastafarians. --FOo 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the change to Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors - it's a better description of the policy, and any possible confusion can be avoided through careful wording. --Singkong2005 04:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO "Wikipedia is not censored" is too broad -- it covers the political and other topics mentioned near the start of this thread, which should probably be dealt with in anotehr section; and it could be interpretd to mandate inclusion of PoV, OR, or other content already agaisnt our policy. Such a meaning would not be intended, but let's not invite misunderstandings, whether willful or accidental. I would favor "Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content" or "Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material" or some similar wording. DES (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not censored may be too broad, but in the same respect Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is not broad enough, as --FOo has clearly pointed out. Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content is, IMO, even more specific than the current title because "protecting minors" is not limited to sexually explicit material. Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material is not bad though, but its a bit wordy. When it comes down to it, I prefer the simple Wikipedia is not censored - its clear, bold, to the point, and anyone not trying to be facetious understands that "censorship" doesn't include "editing." --Naha|(talk) 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Censored For the Protection of Minors seems best. Wikipedia is in some cases censored. We monitor content to make sure it doesn't violate copyright, it fits in with a an encyclopedia, and is well written. What we don't do is go through it and make sure everything is okay for a 8 year old kid to read. You probably won't want go give the kids unlimited access to Wikipedia, and when a parent gets pissed after little johnny is caught looking at a page on anatomy, I want to be able to point him to this article in the FAQ. Saying it may contain "sexually explicit content" makes us sound like a porn site, instead of what we are: an encyclopedia, with some articles on sexuality.Brokenfrog 07:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll supoort keeping Not Censored For the Protection of Minors per the reasoning of Brokenfrog -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this isn't what's being discussed, but I have always had a different issue with the wording. As presently worded, I, at least, find it ambiguous. It can be read with either of two meanings. The intended meaning is that "Censorship for the protection of minors is a practice which Wikipedia does not engage in." The unintended meaning is "Censoring Wikipedia would injure minors, so, in order to protect minors, Wikipedia is not censored."
The latter meaning is so unlikely that there isn't much possibility of misunderstanding, but it still creates some jarring cognitive dissonance in my mind.
I'd like to see cleaner, less ambiguous wording, even if it meant abandoning the "Wikipedia is not..." formulation. E.g.
"Wikipedia does not attempt to prohibit "adult" content or information that might be considered inappropriate for minors.
Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent example of how the title of this section has been used to disregard or deny what the section actually says (taken from a recent template deletion debate):

  • Delete and salt the earth in it's foul wake — Next the template will be used on religion articles for links to sites critical of the religion, or sites displaying bare skin of more than just the face (for the misogynist group of religions), or sites critical of governments, or sites containing swear words. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    You mean Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Once put that way it seems clear the argument you provide is irrelevant to the current discussion. No one has suggested the template should be kept/removed to protect/corrupt minors. Mikkerpikker 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the current section title is problematic. As much as I hate polls, it doesn't look like the current discussion is leading anywhere. Perhaps by guaging more people's opinions, we can figure out which section title will be acceptable to the most people. Kaldari 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, "censorship" is the deliberate removal of material which is seen as inappropriate for use by others. I.e. most editorial decisions. Wikipedia may not be censored for the protection of minors, but it certainly is censored. Pretending that (for example) autofellatio images were not censored (against the wishes of ultra-anti-censorship editors) is self-delusion. Keep the "minors" in the section title, relax, and spend your time building a useful encyclopedia instead. --Audiovideo 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that the current title is too narrow. While I favored soemthing more specific than just Wikipedia is not censored, I would prefer that to teh current overly-narrow title. DES (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If one title is too broad, and another title too narrow, then is it possible that the policy needs to be split into two or more policies that each has an title that fits well? DanielDemaret 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of Republicans

Could I propose this section. We have recent evidence that information which is unhelpful to right-wing interests is in fact being excluded, and maybe a policy against it would be helpful. Benjamin Gatti 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude ... how about some, like, references, so we can know what in the name of little fuzzy kittens you're talking about. --FOo 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Right - meant to be right back.
  1. The Right-wing wants to reintroduce nuclear power plants.
  2. To do that they need to convince people that both reactors and storage are safe.
  3. The [[NRC] stated in 1985 that the probability of a core-melt over 20 years for 100 reactors was ~45%.
  4. One editor has just argued before the Arbcom that this information should be excluded because of his personal assurance that it has been superceded by another unpublicised study.
"In a population of 100 reactors operating over a period of 20 years, the crude cumulative probability of such an accident would be 45%," said the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This statement is sourced seven ways to Sunday, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] originates from Congressman and Chairman Ed Markey and the NRC at an NRC Authorization Hearing April 17, 1985, [6] I introduced the item on the talk page about a month ago. [7] , and yet consensus continues to exclude it as here [8]- on the basis of original research, original conclusions, and unverifiable information.

:#This fact is from a 1975 study (WASH-1400) that has been replaced by the 1991 NUREG-1150, to which I have requested data from Sandia National Laboratories. In addition, the probability of containment building failure (1 in 100) was not considered in WASH-1400. Finally, NUREG-1150 found that source terms were better estimated at 1/20th the assumptions used for WASH-1400. All-in-all, WASH-1400 was a first-cut attempt, and Ben's factoid is very outdated. When Sandia NL responds (last message from them was January 4th), I will add to NUREG-1150 and, as appropriate, other articles. Simesa 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the NUREG link, you can find a power point presentation to a youth group cited as its source.(NUREG-1150 -> [[9]])(Diff=[10]).

Benjamin Gatti 07:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it's obviously not directly relevant to this page, so please take discussion of it back to the talk page in question. Nonetheless, any claim which purports to deal with "nuclear plants" without addressing specific designs of plants is guaranteed to be wrong, since there have been many designs of plants with varying safety. --FOo 09:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Take it to the talk page. I've seen no evidence at all of the bias suggested by Benjamin Gatti and it's not an appropriate discussion for this talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an anarchy section title

Actually, Wikipedia is an anarchy if you go by the definition that anarchists use. We certainly have eshewed hierarchy and centralized authority in favor of voluntary association, cooperation, and self-governance. Perhaps we should clarify this section title by changing it to Wikipedia is not an unstructured anarchy. Just a thought. Kaldari 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it is misleading to claim that Wikipedia is not an anarchy. The original (and factually correct) form of that title was "Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy." That is, while Wikipedia may in many ways be an anarchy, it is not a space to deliberately test the limits (or benefits) of anarchy. The section contents, though, still support the original proposition: "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."
As in the section above regarding censorship, the section title here has been amended to say something different from the section itself. The section here discusses Wikipedia not being an experiment in anarchy, but the title was erroneously amended to say something different. It should be restored to its previous accuracy. I'm restoring it to its original form. --FOo 07:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems like an experiment to me. (In fact, is seems like a very successful experiment to me. SB Johnny 14:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Moot Court?

Somebody added the section "Wikipedia is not a moot court" to the article. Has this been discussed here? Or should it be reverted? --EngineerScotty 05:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was discussed anywhere, I'm not aware of it. Looking at the content, I'm not sure that it's needed either. I don't feel strongly enough to revert it myself but without some discussion and justification, I have to wonder if it is instruction creep. Rossami (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it. Neutrality can come back, explain why he wants the section, and make sure there's consensus. Everyone should be able to weigh in on policy changes. That's how we do things here. As for now, I think this is (or at least can be) sufficiently covered in Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Superm401 | Talk 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality that Wikipedia's policies do not exist for the sake of punishment but instead are to help the community work toward true consensus and collaboration. I hope people aren't arguing wikipedia policies are a moot court...? zen master T 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they're arguing that this statement does not belong on WP:NOT. It probably belongs on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy or similar. -Splashtalk 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where (or if) Wikipedia is not a moot court belongs. I reverted Neutrality's last edit because he made a major change without any discussion. Changes to the content of this policy require consensus, and need to be proposed on the talk page, not added without notice to the policy page. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While what Neutrality says is undoubtedly correct, it is pretty much redundant with the paragraph "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". I've added a small remark there. Combating rules lawyerism is always a good thing. Radiant_>|< 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think Radiant's version succinctly expresses the idea in the right section. Thus, I'd like to keep it but I still want to allow some time to see whether we have consensus. Policy changes can't be made on a whim. Superm401 | Talk 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you're mistaken on that account. Policy pages can be (and regularly are) modified by anyone who cares. If we didn't want that, we'd protect the lot of them. This is neither a major change, nor was it done on a whim. The question you should ask is whether the line I've added is correct and/or a good idea (and you seem to agree to both) - not whether it's been properly discussed first. That's because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a bureucracy, but we do believe in consensus, as the section itself says. There's nothing wrong with waiting a few days to give others a say. Superm401 | Talk 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need every shortcut listed?

I suspect 3 shortcuts is plenty. If there is a good reason for having them, perhaps someone else can restore them. However, they're making the policy template look very bloated and ugly. Stevage 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, we don't need all of them. I'd suggest doing a Whatlinkshere to find out which ones are actually in use. Radiant_>|< 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary

There has always been a summary at the top, but a while ago I just turned that summary into a box. Therefore it's probably not a good idea to delete the summary altogether. Anyway, I'm changing the wording from the rather mysterious "Therefore there are some things that Wikipedia is not" to "Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not". That's really the essence of this policy after all, isn't it? Stevage 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're editorializing again with your one-sentence summaries. I don't see the justifucation in this text for summarizing this in terms of "kind of a community but maybe not". If you are going to insist one editorial, personal opinion based one sentence summaries, please discuss them and get them right before adding them to offical policy pages. Or, alternatively, just leave people to read the title, since it summarizes far more effecitively than any other sentence what the page is about. -Splashtalk 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
While I have my reservations about the "policy in a nutshell" experiment, Ashibaka corrected me earlier by pointing out that this sentence has been at the top of this page for a very long time. When I looked, I found versions of it all the way back to 2003. In this case, the summary pre-dates the experiment. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on censorship section title

Some editors, myself included, have criticized the current title of the section on censorship. Although the section addresses a broad range of censorship issues, the section title only mentions one type of censorship, specifically censorship "for the protection of minors". Other section titles have been proposed, but no consensus has been reached on how the title should be changed, if at all. In order to guage people's opinions on the matter, I would like to conduct a poll of what section titles people think are acceptable. Because several options are possible, I would like to implement this poll under approval voting methodology, i.e. vote for as many options as you approve of, but do not vote against any options. That should make guaging opinion quick and easy and keep the poll from devolving into a huge debate. Here are the current options (feel free to add more if they are serious proposals):

This seems to have stabilized with the greatest approval for "Wikipedia is not censored" followed closely by the status quo. Any objections to closing the poll and adopting the approved title? --FOo 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
A strong objection. There is clearly no consensus to change; there's no consensus for anything in fact. Besides, this poll hasn't particularly been advertized, as far as I know. -- SCZenz 09:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SCZenz, there is no consensus here. 42 votes, 29% for 'as is', 31% for 'not censored', and 40% for something else. That's more than two-thirds against just 'not censored'. We don't decide by plurality votes, we decide by consensus. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is clear consensus for a change (but not which change), so I will set up a separate poll with "Not censored for the protection of minors" and "Not censored" as the two options. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This was conducted as an approval poll, not a "plurality vote". That means people voted for as many options as they approved of. This means that the option with the most votes is the one that the most editors approve of -- not simply the plurality option. --69.111.163.161 08:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave the section title as it is: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors

  1. Clawed 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Andux 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dalbury(Talk) 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Radiant_>|< 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Ouuplas 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. AGGoH 09:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Rossami (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Brokenfrog 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Nfitz 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. SCZenz 09:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Cryptic (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. User:Noisy | Talk 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Halcatalyst 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Change to simply Wikipedia is not censored

  1. Kaldari 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mushroom 00:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Andux 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Don't be garrulous unless necessary. [[Sam Korn]] 00:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Radiant_>|< 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. FOo 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Karmafist 03:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Superm401 | Talk 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Ouuplas 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Naha|(talk) 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Kappa 10:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. cj | talk 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Chris M. 17:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. The text says that WP is not censored for minors or to adhere to social norms. The title should describe the text. Septentrionalis 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. This makes the most sense by far. --Cyde Weys 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. This says it as it is. The actual specifics don't need to be in the headline summary. Thryduulf 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Reisio 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. This is only my second choice, but I prefer it to the status quo ante. DES (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. My second choice too, since I imagine Wikipedia is censored by statute. More accurate would be Wikipedia does not censor itself. -Splashtalk 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. I agree with this definition. Censoring isn't always just in regards to minors. Paul Cyr 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia is not censored to remove potentially offensive material

  1. Kaldari 23:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Clawed 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mushroom 00:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Andux 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Superm401 | Talk 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Naha|(talk) 05:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. AGGoH 09:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kappa 10:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. EngineerScotty 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. This is my first choice. DES (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. This is probably the more accurate. -Splashtalk 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. ThreeAnswers 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia does not censor sexually explicit content

  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Note: Wikipedia does censor copyvios and many other things.
  2. Rossami (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) though if grates that it's not in the "Wikipedia is not..." pattern
  3. Brokenfrog 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Halcatalyst 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Change to Wikipedia is not guaranteed workplace-safe or child-safe

  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Oooh, I like it. Unambiguous and begins with "Wikipedia is not"
  3. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Brokenfrog 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Halcatalyst 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose "guaranteed" is not correct. We're not even suggesting that we're trying, let alone guaranteeing. It should be more like "Wikipedia is not necessarily work-safe, or appropriate for your children" Stevage 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support This is the only one I can support. All the others seem to play into the hands of those who would like to use this policy to argue against any sort of editorial discretion whatsoever. Johntex\talk 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, where the debate section? Voting without debating is evil or something. Anyway, I think we should aim to retain the "protection of minors" phrasing somehow (to make it blatantly clear that yes, your children will find photos of penises if they look for them), but at the same time, it's a misleading section title. Maybe a compromise like "Wikipedia is not censored. Parents be warned." ? Stevage 20:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just "Wikipedia is not censored: Be advised." I think part of the reason for this proposed change is to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia doesn't want to censor/restrict itself to satisfy any social mores (we do restrict content for legal reasons). We would rather focus on our policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR) and try leave decisions about appropriateness to the reader. Superm401 - Talk 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Runoff Straw Poll

Again, not a democratic decision but just to see if the 71% that voted for any change support the change to "not censored" (which had a plurality in the last poll). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave the section title as it is: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors

  1. Halcatalyst 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) I disagree that, in fact, Wikipedia is not censored. Whenever some troll is tossed out, that's a form of censorship, because it's done by an official board. Even it 99% of us approve the action, it's still a prohibition against expression. IMHO, saying there is no censorship is saying that we as a body never disallow anything. That's simply untrue and, in my judgment, undesirable. Do we really want to say anything goes, any time, anywhere? If so, are we doing anything more than asserting and protecting an abstraction? Freedom from censorship is not an absolute, in my book, because like all absolute ideas it's just an ideology, not a practical program.
  2. Rossami (talk) The alternative below is ambiguous and will likely be misused.
    Only if they don't read what it says. It's very obvious that freedom of speech and reversion of vandalism are not mutually exclusive. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia is censored for certain purposes, so the other title is misleading. -- SCZenz 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    If they actually read what the paragraph says instead of (deliberately?) misinterpreting the existing title, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. See, for example, the incident above which triggered this discussion. Rossami (talk)
  4. Dalbury(Talk) 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Johntex\talk 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC) - I dispute that the above poll has even had enough notice or participation to merit a run-off, but between these two choices I prefer this one.

Change to Wikipedia is not censored

  1. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Definitely this one. --Cyde Weys 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. This represents an accuarate, inclusive summary - details are provided below (exactly as you would expect). I also don't understand how this could be abused? Thryduulf 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Marskell 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kappa 13:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. cj | talk 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Of course it will be abused, as every Wikipedia policy, guideline, and procedure is. However, this title better expresses the broad nature of the actual section. Superm401 - Talk 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. This vote is unnecessary, since the above approval vote already indicated that this is the best-supported option. --FOo 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. A little late :) Kaldari 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The previous vote indicated that two-thirds of the voters preferred something other than Wikipeia is not censored. Hardly a consensus for a particular wording. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

changelogs

There is discussion in Talk:Movable Type over whether the changelog in article Movable Type is appropriate. It seems pretty obvious to me that it is not, but there is disagreement. Is it possible to pursue consensus that changelogs in general are not appropriate, and add a bullet point to the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" list of examples? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 09:06Z

Well, it seems to me fairly obvious that a summary of the history of a popular program should appear in the article on that program; the list of versions which appears at Movable Type does not seem excessive right now. What would be the point of removing it? If we simply hack out everything which someone thinks is "an indiscriminate collection of information", we are in danger of producing articles on programs which amount to little more than

Program X is a product of Company C. It does this whizzy thing and that whizzy thing and is used by quite a few people. For actual information, see the company website at http://www.example.com/

which IMNSHO is less than helpful, not to mention verging on speediable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Every other software article seems to get along fine without a changelog. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 05:40Z

Also, perhaps a more generic statement would be "Wikipedia is not Freshmeat." Freshmeat is where things like abbreviated changelogs, new version announcements, etc. go. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 05:41Z

What happened to common sense? A brief summary of versions is appropriate. Listing individual bugfixes as they appeared in v2.08 build 1037 is obviously over the top. Well, in the main article anyway. Stevage 20:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not MySpace

How does Wikipedia is not MySpace differ from Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider? And, why put it under What the Wikipedia community is not instead of What Wikipedia is not? -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it addresses things that go on primarily in the Wikipedia and User namespace. Whereas free host or webspace provider are generally more about why we don't let you put your fanfiction in the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read it. I disagree with your interpretation. It says categorically, "You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." It goes on to say that "Wikipedians have their own personal pages" (clearly referring to User namespace), then explains what constitutes abuse of this space. At the bottom of the page is "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well." It's clear that blogs (which Myspace is) are out. If your point is that Wikipedia is not a community for the sake of being a community, we should be able to phrase that better. Superm401 | Talk 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing was Jimbo's idea. Phil Sandifer 08:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Was Jimbo just making an observation, or was he specifying what wording he wanted in the policy? It would help the rest of us to fully understand what Jimbo wants if there is a source you can link. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"The phrasing was Jimbo's idea." What's your point? Superm401 | Talk 11:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the objection to including this section. Wikipedia clearly is not MySpace, and I think it's important enough for people to understand this to include it here, even if it is technically "redundant" with other sections. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The case against inclusion is that the page is already quite long. Whenever we expand a policy page, we reduce the number of readers by some small fraction. At some point, policy pages become so large and cumbersome that they become irrelevant. One way to prevent that from happening is to challenge the cost-benefit of each addition. See some of the discussion pages around m:instruction creep for more. I'm still undecided on whether this particular paragraph adds enough new clarity to balance out the added length. It's a small addition but, as you say, it seems to be mostly redundant with sections already here. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there's an important distinction between this and other sections. This section deals with communal fluff - other sections deal with individual fluff. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than adding another section, we should edit the relevant existing section. This needn't involve making it longer; rather, it could be trimmed to concentrate on the main points. I'd like to see a quotable section that clearly tells new editors in particular that the difference is that User pages are provided primarily for the purpose of constructing an encyclopedia, wereas blogs, myspace pages and the like are provided for the purpose of social networking. I fear that the latter function has assumed a disproportionate role owing to the fast expansion of the use of userboxes and personal categories. While a certain amount of community building is good, I suspect that what we're building here is not so much a community of Wikikpedians but a set of factions within Wikipedia whose influence is contrary to the interests of the overall community and of encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I support that idea. Superm401 | Talk 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As do I. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to integrate this info into #Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Tell me what you think. Superm401 - Talk 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. Now, if we can just get users to pay attention. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy

It is a sad commentary on the state of the Wikipedia community that you feel this is needed. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think putting this in the policy will deter anyone from being disruptive. Adding this to the policy probably isn't instruction creep, but seems analogous to it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really a bit more geared towards admins - we are, by and large, a sympathetic bunch, and it is occasionally necessary to remind ourselves that our sympathies shouldn't get in the way of making sure the project runs smoothly. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I came up with this line last summer; it was inspired by another either wise or snotty line (depending upon your point of view), "voting is not therapy". Here's the brief discussion from the archive. WP:CIVIL trumps "not therapy", but both of them are trumped by "it's the encyclopedia, stupid", in my formulation. As far as actions are concerned, it is more geared toward admins -- but it's also an indicator of what we will and won't put up with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It's yours? I thought it was David's. Dude, now I want to vote for you twice for arbcom! Phil Sandifer 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Not being an admin, I can't completely symphathize. However, I don't think any admins genuinely act as if Wikipedia were therapy, so I'd rather keep this section out right now. Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the point is that Wikipedia is not your therapist, and we are not require to oblige your personal dysfunctions, especially when they disrupt the process of writing an encyclopedia. I suspect this is largely responsive to all the recent talk about Asperger's syndrome and people who seem to expect us to give "special consideration" to anybody who slaps an "I'm an Aspie" tag on their user page. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
We have a winner. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Given the default anonymity of editors, all we can address is on-line behavior. That seems to be covered in Wikipedia:Etiquette. Wikipedia is not therapy, while catchy, sounds like a put down. If this needs to be addressed, it should be done in Wikipedia:Etiquette. We should avoid insulting editors who do have a medical problem, but still require everyone to be civil. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely a valid point, but I really don't think it will influence those who genuinely do need therapy. I think it's more likely that it will be used to justify incivility. I.E. someone will call another user a moron and slap down Wikipedia is not therapy on their talk. I'm wary of justifying this, even by accident. Superm401 | Talk 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a usage guide

I've made a small change to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, changing "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used" to "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." I also added emphasis to "it may be important [...] to describe just how a word is used".

It seems to me that, since WP is descriptive, not proscriptive (as usage guides tend to be), it is legitimate (and helpful) "to describe just how a word is used" (especially when that word has multiple senses that cannot be adequately addressed in a disambiguation page) as long as we do not state or imply that one particular usage is the "correct" or "real" usage or definition in all contexts. This came to my attention over at Talk:Myth and Talk:Mythology, but also applies (in addition to the examples of nation & freedom given) to notions such as theory.

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the first part of the change. Your second paragraph, however, gives me pause. Perhaps you're thinking of a specific case but your wording above is very open-ended. In general, I would say that it is not particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia to describe "how a word is used". Encyclopedia articles should be about the "thing" (whether that this is an object, a social concept, etc.). Discussion about the "word" - including alternate definitions, usage, etc. - is better moved over to Wiktionary. There are exceptions - for example, a brief definition in order to introduce the concept and to eliminate ambiguity - but detailed discussion are better covered by linking to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I would be comfortable with "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are or should be used". I agree with Rossami that your added sentence is problematic. It seems to me to reverse the previous meaning. Pending development of a consensus otherwise, I will revert to the previous wording. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are or should be used" proposal from Dalbury, which covers the issue of not assigning "correct" or "real" labels to particular definitions. My concern is when you have one word indicating different things, it is reasonable to describe how the word is used to describe those different things.
For example, the current theory article could be seen as violating the "not a usage guide" rule. This article gives a number of different senses of theory: "an unsubstantiated guess or hunch"; "a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together"; "an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models"; "bodies of knowledge about mathematics, [consisting] of axioms, definitions, theorems and computational techniques, all related in some way by tradition or practice"; "a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms"; etc, etc, etc. According to the current policy, "disambiguation pages [...] are used to clarify differing meanings of a word"; by this standard, Theory should be a disambiguation page linking to Theory (scientific), Theory (popular sense), Theory (mathematics), etc.
However, since Theory gives encyclopedic treatment to each of these senses (i.e., to how they are used by different people in different contexts), this article is more than a disambiguation page (where each item has at most a brief description) or even a summary page (with summarized discussion of a number of related topics and links to main articles).
In other words, how do we word policy to allow for such articles, when
  1. there are multiple senses of a word,
  2. these senses are related closely enough that they should share an article for purposes of comparison & contrast,
  3. there is enough material for encyclopedic treatment of each sense, and
  4. the benefit of creating separate articles for each sense does not outweigh the benefits of #2,
so that such articles do not run afoul of #Wikipedia is not a dictionary? JHCC (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel this is already covered by "However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom." If we keep this but still change "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used." to "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used" all the concerns should be addressed. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I suppose that I'm just trying to clarify that "Usage guide" refers primarily to grammatical usage and writing style (see Style guide) and that #Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not preclude encyclopedic treatment of multiple definitions "as the main subject of an encyclopedia article" and not just "in the context of an encyclopedia article". JHCC (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that definitions, even multiple ones, should be the main subject. Can you give an example of such an article? Superm401 - Talk 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. The Theory article (cited above) begins with the sentence "Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies." It then goes on to describe these various meanings within the various fields, contrasting also with the popular dismissive usage of "theory = something not proven", as in "that's just a theory, it's not real." In this case, the skeleton of the article is the series of definitions of "theory", but the article is much more than just a series of definitions. Another article that has the potential to be such an example (if it weren't locked in edit wars) is myth; encyclopedic treatment of the sometimes overlapping, sometimes mutually exclusive senses of "myth = something false" (popular sense), "myth = story that a culture or religion uses to convey meaning" (academic sense, which also does not imply either truth or falsity), and "myth = story that conveys meaning" (religious sense, but specifically implies truth) could result in a more extensive article that is also more than just a list of definitions. JHCC (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

I don't know if this(Filmsite.org) would fall under an advertising label and shouldn't be here. If so, how would I lable these things or go about getting them fixed in the future? Thanks Chris M. 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There's the {{advertisement}} tag. If you really don't think something belongs though because it's advertising, you can take it to WP:AFD (articles for deletion) where such pages can be deleted. In this case, you might see WP:WEB for specific website guidelines. Hopefully I'm understanding your question correctly. --W.marsh 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Alkivar

This guy is looks like using their userpage as personal promotion and personal Homepage. Is just curious that he used their own photo to illustrate Wikipedia Disc jockey article, and added himself in APOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW. Wikimedia is not personal host, right? --Rick Browser 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, his user page is a bit excessive, but there's still an emphasis on Wikipedia (as shown by the contribs list at the end) and he only has two pages (one is a list of images uploaded). You'll also notice that he doesn't include his resumé, but only abstracts and links. As for the DJ article, that's all right, because pictures are truly needed. It would have been better if he had removed the logo, but it's not really effective advertising. Finally, he seems to deserve a place in the aPC article (which appears notable enough) . Superm401 - Talk 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an MMORPG

(A suggestion)

Wikipedia is not a massive multiplayer game. If you feel you're not interested or capable of writing real encyclopedic material, don't use this service. Just voting on WP:AFD, writing comments on talk pages, chatting with other members or having a vanity personal page doesn't make you an encyclopedist. Go read some books, learn something useful, then come back to contribute something real. --84.228.107.148 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • While I am quite uncomfortable with editors whose overwhelming contribution outside of user space is voting in AfD, there are many roles to be played in developing Wikipedia, and editors can contribute in many ways besides writing articles. You have the germ of a principal. It needs to be refined. - Dalbury(Talk) 11:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The more general term is "Wikipedia is not a nomic". The term "nomic" is not as well known as MMORPG but it's a more precise description of the phenomenon you are describing. See the short discussion above. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's use a really general term: Wikipedia is not a game. Stevage 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a clarification, how about, if you're unwilling or incapable of researching and writing encyclopedic material, you don't have the authority or understanding of what constitutes an encyclopedia to be making meta-changes like AfD.
You don't need to be an authority to contribute, but anyone can do research and write. If that's beyond you, why should I listen to you when you say something's not encyclopedic?--Mmx1 16:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Rob 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia is not a Memorial actually mean?

Does Wikipedia is not a Memorial mean that we should never list non-notable casualties of battles, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters? If so, it should state that. If not, it should state that as well. Right now it is quite ambiguous as to what constitutes a "memorial", and different editors interpret it differently, leading to things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York. Kaldari 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Different editors often interpret policy differently. Wikipedia is not particularly consistent. If you want consistency, you want a command-and-control encyclopedia. The policy seems clear enough to me: dying, even tragically, does not fulfill the criteria for inclusion of WP:BIO. Dying is an accomplishment which most people usually achieve eventually.
If you have specific suggestions for improving the wording of the section on memorials, propose them here and, if consensus is reached, edit the policy page accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a policy requirement that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." The current issue relates to lists of victims of an otherwise newsworthy and verifiable act of violence. Often the main article(s) about the event would be intolerably long if lists of names of the victims, let alone any biographical information about them, were included in the main article(s). It doesn't necessarily follow that an article that is little more than a list of the victim's names is unencyclopedic, let alone a "memorial." I think it serves a useful encyclopedic purpose to have such lists, preferably with nonintrusive verifiable facts about the victims (e.g, age, gender, nationality, maybe occupation...)--FRS 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that a nonintrusive list is necessary for an encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia-worthy event happened, and there were deaths. I think WHO died is necessary. Although info beyond a name should be used only sparingly. Chris M. 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear what encyclopedic purpose is served by a list of names of the people who died in a tragedy. And how big of a tragedy does it have to be? Should we have a list of everyone who died in the tsunamis of December, 2004? Should we have a list of everybody who died in the Lockerbie disaster? Of everybody who died in Hurricane Katrina? And all of the other air crashes and train wrecks and mine disasters and floods and earthquakes ad infinitum? -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
What about Kent State shootings? Do you feel like this article is in violation of policy for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I don't think a reasonable person would consider that a "memorial". I consider it an important and valid part of the article. Clearly there is some threshold at which listing casualties or victims of an event is acceptable. I'm just trying to figure out where that threshold lies. Kaldari 03:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That number of names can be included in the narrative flow of the article. An article such as Pan Am Flight 103 names some of the crew and passengers as part of vignettes, but the vast majority are not named. It's when you start having a flat list that I think it stops being encyclopedic. If you haven't got anything meaningful to say about a victim in the body of the article, leave them out. Listing names just to list names doesn't make sense to me. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
We have lists of names all over the place. Even lists of almost completely non-notable people. How about Karlovy Vary Award Winners 2005. I can name a dozen more articles just like that if you want. Wikipedia is full of them. People come to Wikipedia to find out all sorts of random information. Like "Who won best supporting actress in 1978?", "Who died in the Kent State shooting?", and even "Did so-and-so die in the World Trade Center attack?". How do I know people are looking for this information? Because they keep linking to the casualty lists in the memorial wiki from the article bodies. The only reason I brought this up in the first place is because I'm tired of removing inappropriate links to the memorial wiki. I'm happy with whatever the consensus is regarding memorials, but I'd really like to know What constitutes a memorial?. Kaldari 06:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
My position is that most lists belong in an almanac, not an encyclopedia. Lists in an encyclopedia should generally include only items that are deserving of their own articles. If you include names in a list simply because they died in a specific event, you're memorializing them. In United Airlines Flight 93 the crew and passengers who placed phone calls from the plane during the hijacking or are known or believed to have participated in the attempt to take back the plane are discussed in the article. But what is the point of simply listing everyone else? That's the part that becomes merely a memorial. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: "I would like to hear what encyclopedic purpose is served by a list of names who died in a tragedy," my view is that a record of the names along with basic demographic info about the victims (and perpetrators, where it's a man made incident) is a useful tool for future researchers. As long as the content of the article is NPOV, I fail to understand what makes a "list" a "memorial." To my mind, separating the list from the main article on the subject is simply a way to keep the main article from being unacceptably long. --FRS 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not, and should never be considered, a source for serious research. Everything in Wikipdia is supposed to be sourced. Any future researchers will need to go to the primary sources for reliable information, not to a tertiary source such as Wikipedia. -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My objection to these lists of victims is that there are generally better (ie. more authoritative) online sources for this information elsewhere, and we do our readers more of a service by linking to these sources than providing this information of doubtful encyclopedic value. Indeed some of these lists are potential copyvios of these authoritative sources. In cases where this is no authoritative list of casualties, and where we still have confidence in the accuracy of our claims, then I would be inclined to keep the material. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe a list of names is copyrightable, as a general rule, and while I certainly agree that links to external sources should be provided, I'm concerned that such external links can go dead or be moved at any moment.--FRS 19:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact of a name fitting a particular category (such as victim of X attack or disaster) is not copyrightable. A compliled list may be subject to copyright in some cases. Recreating the list via independant research (checking individual news stories, for example) or combining several separate lists into one)even if all are copyrighted) would not lead to a copyvio. But copyright issues aside, I tend to agree with User:Chalst above. Cases where there are no single outside lists available, and wher the topic depends on facts about the particualr people whose names are on the list such as List of Guantanamo Bay detainees should be exceptions to this rule, IMO. DES (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Creating a list by independent research sounds too much like OR. If you are taking the names from an existing list, you need to cite the source for the list. If you are creating a list from various sources, you need to cite the source for each item in the list. And how does an article about Guantanamo Bay detainees depend on the names of all of the detainees? -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
When i say "independant research" i mean indepndant of a particular copyrighted list. For example if one were to read various sources (news stories, etc) on an event, and note names mentioned in each source, to compile a list (citing the relevant sources, of course) that would not be OR in the wikipedia sense, but it would be IR in the copyright sense. As to the reasons for the list of names of Guantanamo Bay detainees, that has been discussed extensively on the relevant talk page, which i reccomend to you. In brief it is essential source data for statements in related articles about the individual cases and circumstances of the various detainees, which is very hard to verify without having the names avaialble. Ther eisa no single authorative list in this case, adn wikipedia's list has been created from multiple sources, which are (or were when i last looked at the article) properly cited. DES (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ideally a link should be accompanied by a citation to a published version of the same list, so that a dead link does not mean the info can not be found. DES (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Promotional use of edit summaries

(the following was initially copied from Wikipedia talk:Edit summary)

My watchlist is starting to get a substantial number of edit summaries that start with "Popups-assisted . . .". The way I see it, this is a misuse of the edit summary to promote some software, helpful though it may be, and sets a bad precedent. Interested editors may want to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups#Misusing edit summaries. —Michael Z. 2006-01-22 23:06 Z

I agree completely, these have been driving me nuts. We should not have to suffer advertisements on Wikipedia. We don't allow advertisements in articles, why would allowing them in edit summaries be okay? IMO we should create policy (not just a "guideline") specifically against this sort of activity - it would only take a minor alteration to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox to make it explicitly clear. ¦ Reisio 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. JHCC (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I temd to disagree. if a user is usign a tool to make an edit, knowing about the tool may help evaluating the edit, thsi is usefl info -- indeed there might be a case for objectign to ommiting such a link. Auto-Wiki Browser inserts simialr links in its edit summeries. it is not as if anyone is making money off these tools. DES (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
knowing about the tool may help evaluating the edit
How, for example? ¦ Reisio 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
By disclosing that the edit was made by a program rather than by a human and therefore may be deserve more careful scrutiny to ensure that the edit was appropriate. Humans remain far better at interpreting context than programs. While the instructions say that you should carefully check every edit before accepting it, you wouldn't be using this tool unless you were working on a "tedious repetitive task", the kind of effort where mistakes inevitably creep in. A quick review by another person is appropriate. Rossami (talk)
All edits should be scrutinized. As for repetitive tasks - because the person was using extra assistive software and the edit summary says so, you now know what?...That human error while using the default software (plain MediaWiki) also occurs while using even more software (Popups)? I'm still not seeing any evidence that it's useful to know an edit was done with help from Popups. ¦ Reisio 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It helps to know if a bad edit was made by a bot, so all its edits can be tracked down and fixed where necessary. An example is a recent wholesale Wikilinking of the word "giant" to Giant (mythology), which was a giant mistake. (It hadn't occured to me to track down the giants until now, so I should do that.) --Coyoty 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
it is not as if anyone is making money off these tools
Financial gain is not a requisite of advertisements, but they're annoying all the same. ¦ Reisio 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is, I believe, a homemade tool made and used by Wikipedians solely for use here. We require disclosure of edits by bots. This strikes me as the same basic idea. Note: The link takes you to this instruction page, not to an advertisement. Rossami (talk)
The _link_ is an advertisement for the page. I don't care what the page says, I don't have to look at the page in my watchlist constantly. Bots can usually only be used by a single person, so there are less edits by them per watchlist than Popups edits nowadays. ¦ Reisio 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Advertisement, perhaps, but helpful to consumers who would never have heard about the product if it wasn't for the advertisement. I'm happy I learned about the popup tool that way. Edit summaries like this are just a tad more informative than "rv", but the spam factor isn't very high either. --Eddi (Talk) 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never perceived these as being promotional. I've always perceived them as Rossami does: these are identified as bot-assisted edits to show that they should be reality-checked by a human to make sure they don't contain robotic-type mistakes, like the perennial incidents in which spelling checkers "correct" personal names in embarrassing ways (Google on "Jeff Jackboot" for one such case). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bot though (as I understand it). Bots run automated tasks with little interaction - this is assistive. It's like using a modified Mediawiki. ¦ Reisio 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to identify them, but put the link promoting the software at the end of the edit summary, to improve the readability of the actual summaries of the edits. The example with "... using Popops." is much better than the currently-used link. —Michael Z. 2006-01-27 22:11 Z

Lupin has changed his scripts to place the popups link at the end of the summary. I think that's a decent compromise solution. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Democracy is not equivalent to "voting"

Saying that Wikipedia is not a democracy because consensus is arrived at through discussion rather than voting seems very misleading to me. Democracy is not necessarily the same as "majority rule." It just means a government by the people. The consensus process is in many ways more democratic than the voting process.

When people say "Wikipedia is not a democracy," it reminds me of my elementary school teachers when they sought to assert their authority. The implication is that there is one person calling the shots and that people should just put up with it. This is actually the opposite of what we want to say about Wikipedia, isn't it? It seems to me that the point Wikipedians want to make with this phrase is that you can't just use the brute force of a majority opinion to decide what stays and what goes. Instead, you have to listen to people and reason it out until consensus is reached.

If I'm right in this interpretation, how would people feel about changing the wording to something like "Wikipedia is not based on majority rule"? This could then be followed by a short explanation of the consensus process or a link to the consensus page.

A separate issue is the distinction between maintaining a democratic process (which I think Wikipedia does) and being an "experiment in democracy." Perhaps people feel it's important to say something like "Wikipedia is not intended as an experiment in democracy"? This could then be explained as: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. The means employed are democratic, but democracy is not the primary goal." Personally, I don't see the need for this, but at least it would be clearer than what is there now. Sigrid 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is more that Wikipedia does not promise to be democratic. It may on occasion appear to be democratic, and democratic principles may occasionally apply. But you shouldn't be upset because you got overruled by someone you didn't vote for, basically. There are really no democratically elected positions - even ArbCom positions have "approval". You're probably right that there is a distinction between majority rule and democracy, but for most people, the terms are synonymous. Stevage 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your points, but I still think we want to avoid reinforcing the conflation of democracy and majority rule. I think you're right that they're the same in many people's minds, but it's a mistake nonetheless.
And it's a mistake with consequences. Think of how often people in the minority are silenced by their communities when they are simply voted down. This is justified or even celebrated in the name of "democracy." While voting may be necessary in many cases (when the participants are too many for effective consensus procedures), there are many, many other cases when consensus practices COULD be used. Instead of having winners and losers, consensus acknowledges everyone's input and attempts to address everyone's concerns. It would be great if more people were aware of this!
Now, obviously this represents my own political values, so that's not necessarily a reason to change the page (except that I get the sense that it also represents the values of many in the Wikipedia community).
But the crucial point is that as it stands the relevant paragraph implies that the consensus process is not democratic. Shouldn't that be changed? Sigrid 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I also feel that the phrase "latest transferable voting system" (not a direct quote) is a little patronising and displays English Wiki's Anglo-American bias. After all, it implies that a) TV systems are new and, to an extent at least, untested and b) unusual, merely because the English-speaking parts of the Northern Hemisphere (exclusing Ireland) do not use them. I know it's not the most important thing ever but I guess I'm feeling picky today...--Si42 21:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to travel agents

At the bottom of various country articles I see links to private travel agents. Is this in accordance with Wikipedia policies regarding advertisement? AucamanTalk 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, no. Commercial links are often immediately removed as "linkspam". However, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. If the travel agent's website has a drilldown page with information that would be really be helpful to a reader (more than just "here's how to buy a ticket") but that doesn't fit neatly into the article (or can't be included easily without violating copyright), a link may be appropriate.
Difficult judgment calls should be discussed and decided on the Talk page. Do you have any example pages that you'd like a second opinion on? Rossami (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If they're providing substantial information about the location, they may be useful. If they're only providing information about how to get to the location, they should be removed. Superm401 - Talk 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help. There were some in Iran's page and some are still in Turkey's page. That's why I was asking. AucamanTalk 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Section/comment about "sports journalism"?

I am troubled by the state of much of Wikipedia's coverage of sports-related topics - I think we are too quick to fall into the tone of so-called "sports journalism" rather than an unbiased encyclopedic tone. Although it applies directly to NPOV, I wonder if there might be others who feel a comment about it would be useful on this page... (ESkog)(Talk) 02:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out the discussion at User_talk:Leflyman/Not_a_Fansite, which is dealing with similar issues and explicitly mentions sports a couple times. Brendan 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for noticing, Brendan! Before bringing up the proposal to the general WWIN discussion for polling, I'm hoping to develop some consensus on language that expresses the appropriate content "depth" for topics of fan interest, such as those for sports, celebrity and fictional "worlds". I've asked a few people to review/comment on that sub-page, but I'd be pleased to have additional input, particularly from those whose fandoms are in other fields, such as athletics. I initially tried to stay simple in my proposed language, but some of the comments have indicated that phrases like "purely trivia" and "fancruft" might be objectionable. So I'm percolating some alternatives. Please feel free to add your suggestions. —LeflymanTalk 06:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel like criticism sections of players or teams (see Peyton Manning for one of many examples) get out of hand fast, as many people want to add their own opinions with the words "many fans think", "critics allege that" etc. Dealing with it is very frustrating... to say the least. Believe it or not the Manning section gets trimmed down every month or so then gradually balloons back up to where it is now. Other than just through endless reverting, I too wonder what can really be done in some of these situations. --W.marsh 04:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not an exchange rate site

I have come across a problem that occurs on a few articles and that is the quoting of multiple currencies in an example of a price. An example would be a previous incarnation of the Warhammer 40,000 article which at one point had USD, GBP and Euro listed for each price. Would it not be advantageous to have a section in this policy regarding this? In my opinion, if a price must be quoted as an example, it should be in the currency that is most likely in line with the form of English (ie US English, USD. British English, GBP). There could be exceptions such as historical comparisons - ie people can include an old currency value and include a new currency value (as in present day an example being 1000GBP from 1900 being ~100,000GBP now (figures made up). Does anyone else think this should be included? -Localzuk (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, it would likely be better in WP:MOS. -Localzuk (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Much more a style guideline than a "what wikipedia is not". Ideally we would have a template that could let you express the price in a currency at a date. Anyway, there is no danger of anyone treating WP as an exchange rate site, so no point bloating this article further with such a section. Stevage 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a minor issue that does not have a general relevance to WWIN; one could just as well say that "Wikipedia is not a stock quote site" or "Wikipedia is not a price comparison site", but these aren't really pressing concerns. —LeflymanTalk 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not censored - law of Florida

I apologise if this has been raised before, but I'm wondering about something. According to "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors": "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate... the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." But, according to meta we also have servers in Paris, Amsterdam and Korea. Surely the laws of these countries then also need to be respected? That is, since Wikipedia has servers in these countries, it is subject to the laws of the countries concerned. (Note: as far as I can tell from history the bit about Florida was added for the first time here - don't know whether this was before or after we got servers in places other than Florida). I might be completely off track here, so please do correct me if I'm wrong... Mikker ... 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, we've said that. However, I think it's actually more important that the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the state of Florida. Superm401 - Talk 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
(Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice) - It is my understanding that laws concerning objectionable content do not apply to servers that exist for the purpose of caching or transferral. In other words, only the database servers count towards countries we have servers in. Last I checked, the database servers were located only in the US. Raul654 17:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, that seems to make sense but, then again, perhaps this issue is governed by (variable) local law (not international law) so this might be something the Foundation needs to look into. What if, say, the laws of France do not accord with Raul654's reasoning and we have content (Nazi symbols or something) that is illegal in France? Mikker ... 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, the servers in other countries are caching servers only, so only act as relays. They don't store content of their own - ie. they aren't web servers in their own right. It would be similar to a web-browser's cache not being a copyright infringement. The database is in the USA and as the above poster stated, the foundation that runs the servers is in the USA so US laws apply. -Localzuk (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


What could be very helpful is exact information about what these laws entail (and which server you are writing from) provided by wikipedia. Personally I believe in complete freedom of information. But were someone to write a detailed article on, say, 'the chemical synthesis of semtex/mustard gas/LSD' (as a description of a practice, not a how-to guide, but detailed enough for an intelligent person with high school chemistry to follow) what would happen? I don't know. I think it is important to ensure the availability of information considered dubious in the fight against censorship. People should know exactly what the law (and by extension wikipedia) permits to ensure that all permited information is made available. Crippled Sloth 15:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd need an entire new project in order to document the laws of Florida + Federal law of the US... It is very complex! -Localzuk (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Your example would be more relevant to Wikibooks as how-tos are within the scope of that project (Wikibooks:Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf). A decent human readable guide to the Laws applicable to Florida would be good though! Thryduulf 13:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiREASON is a publisher of original thought/public forum

I've been working on a project called Wikireason which is an attempt to use a Wiki to structure debates. Would it be appropriate to publicize it on this page? Part of the reason that I ask is that I hoped that the existance of Wikireason would discourage debaters from using Wikipedia as a debating site, since they would have another option. Anyway, the project is still in the beta status, but if you guys think it would be appropriate to list it at the end of the "original thought" or "soapbox" sections, please do so. AdamRetchless 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait until the site is notable enough to get a Wikipedia article. Superm401 - Talk 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not gamefaqs

This doesn't seem to be included in the guidelines, and due to new articles and content pouring in, I think its quite plausible. May I inquire an second opinion..? -ZeroTalk 16:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Isn't that covered by saying Wikipedia is not for Instruction manuals, and that it's not a free host / webspace provider? That would seem to cover a lot of stuff I imagine you're talking about (fan pages for games, strategy guides, walkthroughs, etc.) There is a potential infinite number of specific things WP is not, but the page is most useful (and perhaps, only useful) if it contains general things to avoid that cover a lot of common problems. --W.marsh 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed; I indeed saw those general prerequisites. However, wikipedia is a furthur expanding site, and more people will want to contribute. That said, I simply wanted to make it clear for those who will say the curent guidelines in that area are too general. However, its fine one way or another. -ZeroTalk 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I see what you're saying, I just don't think WP:NOT is the place for this. There are pages like Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas for example, that exist to inform new users of specific problematic article types. WP:NOT may be what they're based on, but that doesn't mean it should be a list of them itself. --W.marsh 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    Okay. I was just putting forth some speculation; thank you for your input. -ZeroTalk 17:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's already covered under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #1 (not an FAQ) and # 8 (not an instruction manual). In the vast majority of cases, [[Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought will also apply. (Wikipedia:No original research is widely misunderstood.) However, those contributions would generally be acceptable at Wikibooks. You always have the option to immediately transwiki the articles to Wikibooks and to convert the Wikipedia entry to a soft-redirect to the Wikibook. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Source code

The current version says:

"Complete copies of primary sources (but not mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource."

Wikisource's FAQ says that it does accept source code, just not original works by contributors. Which is correct? Whichever is not should be updated. --bmills 05:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to start listing Wikisource's rules & regulations here, too — those can be read at Wikisource. Wikibooks is also linked throughout the page as the place to put original content. jm2¢s ¦
That's true, but we do need to make sure that policies that are already listed are accurate. --bmills 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean that astronomical tables are welcome at wikipedia? I'm currently involved in a conversation at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Astronomical catalogue to which this may be applicable. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Political advertising

Anonymous user:129.93.191.160 just added "politicians" to the list of topics for which advertising is discouraged. In principle, I strongly support this expansion. Advertising is advertising regardless of the product being sold. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it fits well with the rest of this section of the WP:NOT page. WP:CORP, in particular, does not apply to politicians. Including politicians in this paragraph as currently written may create more confusion than it clears up.

Mwalcoff has been working on a proposal for Candidates and Elections which is a nice elaboration on the principles of WP:BIO as they apply to politicians but the last I heard that was still in early draft. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, but the discussion has died down there. As it is very unsettled what WP policy should be on articles on politicians, I don't think it belongs here, yet (and I deleted the addition you mentioned above). -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates talks about biographies of legislative candidates, not advertising. The question I'm concerned with is "Can politicians post press releases on Wikipedia", not "Can someone make a biography of someone who ran for Senate from their state?" 129.93.191.160 01:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
With politicians, there's very little difference. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT Usage Guide - slang lists

Recently, AfD has dealt with several lists of slang terms like List of internet slang and List of marijuana slang terms. In those cases, it looks like there will be no consensus to delete, despite WP:NOT - a usage guide (the reason each was placed on AfD). Can (and should) we find a way to modify WP:NOT to draw the line between worthwhile and unencyclopedic slang lists, etc.?--ragesoss 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it's not worth the effort. For one, it would be instruction creep. For another, those people voting to keep cruft don't really care what policies and usage guides say. If anyone can ever figure out a workable reform for deletions that can gain a consensus, those problems may get fixed without adding to the existing policies and guides. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree that just because we have some cases that contradict "policies", this isn't a reason to change the policy. But, if there's a way to make the policy more accurately reflect what actually goes on without excessive creep, I'm not opposed to it either. Friday (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the best argument I've heard for keeping these is that they're "useful". That's not unreasonable. However, a phone book is useful also, and I think we can all agree that we don't want Wikipedia to be a phone book. Friday (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that they're allegedly useful is a good reason to keep them. They'd be just as useful at wiktionary, where they belong. By the "useful" criteria overriding policy, one might as well include pages on WP of only quotes, news, books, etc. because they are useful even though there are wiki devoted to those subjects. At the very least, if these lists must stay, require citations on every single entry that does not already have its own page in order to prove notability. Schizombie 18:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The last time I tried to take on one of these "useful" cruft lists, I had a lynch mob after me. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city nicknames in the United States. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes the best you can do is to ensure that the list is its own article, and the the actual article on, for instance, Internet slang is a good stand-alone article and not 95% list. —Michael Z. 2006-02-22 23:20 Z
I prefer to think that these lists are exceptions which have been decided on a case-by-case basis. I would not want to rewrite the policy just because of a few exceptions. I agree that most of these "list of ..." pages aren't really encyclopedia articles and would be better in Wiktionary but because of the nature of the contributions to those kinds of pages, they always gather a great deal of partisan support. (In my opinion, most of that support is from users who either don't understand or choose to ignore Wiktionary's mission and scope.) They are often compromise solutions - not ideal but certainly better than having a definition page for each individual slang word. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I would like to offer an apology for the edits made by several uncyclopedia contributors who attempted to add a link to the site and who engaged in inappropriate behavior when this edit was reverted. If this sort of thing ever becomes a problem, I and several other administrators at Uncyclopedia are willing to ban those users at our site, which could potentially be a greater deterrent. -- Isra1337@uncyclopedia / Isra1337 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

An expansion of this is at Wikipedia:Censorship for those interested. Gerard Foley 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed: Wikipedia is not an in-joke

Possibly a bad section title, but I think the sentiment is one that we need to spell out. There are certain subjects which in one way or the other involve a common un-serious pretense of some kind: the "Pastafarians"' pretense that they believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be real; the pretense by Holmesians that John Watson is the "real" author (biographer) of the Holmes stories and Arthur Conan Doyle merely his literary agent, any number of examples from pro wrestling, I'm sure... Inevitably contributors come along and assume that because they are more entertained by the idea of the kayfabe being reality, they can write as if the kayfabe was the reality.

Can we include a section in WP:WWIN that "Wikipedia is not an in-joke"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a compendium of book reviews nor an advertizing billboard

I would say that Wikipedia is not a compendium of book reviews (although it could be argued that Amazon.com is such a compendium). Likewise, Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. I read Dive into Python as at least a book review from a POV fan and possibly as much as an overtly-praising advertisement by those who profit from its sale. I usually focus on writing articles and expanding content rather than getting into the king-of-the-hill battles of policy debates, but this book-review/advertisement appears extraordinarily unencyclopedic to me. Perhaps the author of Dive into Python would like to start a new WikiReview body of work in WikiMedia but Wikipedia is the wrong place for book reviews. For any readers of this comment who think that Dive into Python is a good fit for Wikipedia, consider where such articles would lead when scaled up to the macrocosm: a faux-review article for every product in the world by its manufacturer who lauds praises on their own work under the guise of being presented in an otherwise objective website. Via such a faux-review article on Wikipedia the reader would be expected to reach the following conclusion: this review article on Wikipedia is the sum total result of all of the Wikipedia community's inherent debate in honing articles towards objective truthfulness, so this review must be approaching the truth as a limit over time. —Optikos 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification about the meaning of "personally involved"

Point 2 of "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", refers to an ArbCom ruling that states that "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV".

I fully agree with the statement about "articles about themselves", (as in WP:AUTO), but I have a concern is related to the ambiguos statement "personally involved". As currently stated, this means that a devout Christian should avoid editing the article on Jesus, an ortodox Jew should avoid editing the article on the Tetragrammaton, a card carrying member of the Communist party should avoid editing the article about Karl Marx, etc, etc. I would argue that this is both unenforceabable (how, by whom, and under which standards this could this ever be policed) and against the fundamental principles of this project. I always thought that WP:NPOV, WP:V provide the necessary framework for any of us people being able to usefully contribute, regardless of our bias. I would suggest to either remove the mention to "personally involved" or provide some clarification about what this means. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're trying to read too much into that. Personally involved is not the same thing as intellectually involved or emotionally involved. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hope you are right, but you may need to read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutrality_and_autobiography. I was surprised to see what some editors think on this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Genealogical entries

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states "Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Genealogical entries [...] See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." There are however a number of genealogical entries on WP such as Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and Family tree of Ali. Are these against the policy, or is there some reason why the policy does not apply? Esquizombi 04:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As you know, Family tree of Ali is now listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I believe the section in What Wikipedia is not is there to stop editors from inserting their own family trees. There is a better case for genealogies/family trees for familes with multiple notable persons (notable enough to have their own articles), such as Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The formatting of that Egyptian family tree is not very good. WP really isn't set up for family trees. Esquizombi 13:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In case a family tree is really needed to support an article, it could be put in an image, as was done here on the German Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As Dalbury says, the rule is almost certainly here to stop people from e.g. re-telling the story of how their otherwise non-notable Ruritanian grandpa had to change his unpronouncable name when arriving at Ellis Island in 1896. All encyclopedias I have ever known have genealogical articles and family trees when they are of more general interest. Royal dynasties, business dynasties like the Fuggers, Rothschilds or Vanderbilts, or other families with many notable members, where the relationship can be assumed to be of some interest to readers (as with the Darwin — Wedgwood family or the Bach family) are certainly legitimate and have long been accepted here. The policy needs to be modified to clearly say so. (In fact, some of the only borderline notable members of such families may perhaps best be treated within an entry on the family rather than in their own article. This is the way it is done, for instance, in the ODNB.) up+land 07:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox contradiction

This section points to the Carl Hewitt arbitration and quotes "The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so."

As written, this implies that people may not correct errors in articles about themselves, contradicting Wikipedia:Autobiography, which has recently had text added saying that you may correct mistaken facts about yourself. Ken Arromdee 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. "Editors should avoid" doesn't mean they must avoid in all circumstances. They are discouraged from writing new material about themselves, which can be self-promotion, but they may correct errors in existing material by third parties, where self-promotion is not a factor. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a distinction that splits hairs so finely that the people it is aimed at won't figure it out. If the intent is that people can't write new material but may correct errors in existing material, it should just say so. Newcomers won't understand that "should" and "must" are supposed to mean different things in this context, and they should not be expected to do so. Ken Arromdee 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The relevant clause in Wikipedia:Autobiography was added on 8 Jan 06 and expanded on 15 Jan 06 with remarkably little discussion. Before changing anything here, I would rather see a great deal more discussion about the change at WP:AUTO, confirming that the original change is not having unintended consequences and further confirming that the expansion was appropriate. I am withholding judgment on both those points for now. This page, after all, is a policy page. WP:AUTO is merely a guideline. Rossami (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I hope someone with authority is doing something about this. I can't "be bold" and change the What Wikipedia Is Not page because that's a policy page. Nobody's willing to discuss the guideline. Which leaves us with a guideline and a policy that contradict.
There also seems to be an idea, both here and in Wikipedia talk:Autobiography, that we should let people fix articles about themselves, but bury that permission inside verbiage and technicalities so that while anyone who really needs to do it has permission, nobody will casually do it. This fails utterly, because people like Siegenthaler are new to Wikipedia, and if you want to give them permission to do something, the permission must be simple and direct--not hidden or obscure. You can't give the permission to Siegenthaler and hide it from newbies--Siegenthaler is as new as the rest of them. Ken Arromdee 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your plaything

I think we should have a section under this title clarifying that Wikipedia is a serious project to build an encyclopedia, and that recreational use that falls outside this is a bad thing. Suggestions? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that there is a finite number of things Wikipedia IS and thus necessarily an infinite number of things Wikipedia is NOT so unless Phil demonsrates (with diffs if possible) why this addition is necessary, we shouldn't expand WP:NOT any further. I.e. to me at least, this seems like a solution looking for a problem. Mikker ... 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to use specific diffs to pinpoint an epidemic, that's somewhat like asking to provide the name of every AIDS sufferer as evidence that AIDS is a problem. But surely it's clear that vast sections of Wikipedia are devoted more to power games, melodrama, and other useless crap than to building an encyclopedia. It would also have the benefit of being a clear deterrent to trolling and vandalism, of which there are already many, but it would not hurt to have more. Also, it's a succinct summary of many existing policies, so ultimately it may serve to simplify policy rather than complicate it. I do find it troubling, however, that the first response to a new idea is to criticize it. That sort of atmosphere serves to make Wikipedia a stodgy and unchanging environment, which is radically anti-wiki. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 01:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you found my comment overly negative, all I was trying to suggest is that, as there is an infinite number of things wikipedia is not, we should focus on the core things wikipedia is not, i.e. the things it will most likely be mistaken for. In my view, not very many people mistake Wikipedia for a recreational area. I could be wrong. And I'm not asking for every single diff of every single person who has in the history of the project thought Wikipedia was a plaything, I was asking for a couple of examples. (i.e. show me a couple of HIV+ ppl, not every single one of them). I'm asking this as much as to clarify what you mean by your proposal as to "demand" evidence. (I saw the post on the mailing list but that didn't clarify matters). Mikker ... 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get something worked up then. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT is a content policy first and foremost. This is not a content exhortation, so it doesn't fit in the first part, or the principal mission, of this page. It doesn't fit in the 2nd part of the page either, since it doesn't mean to apply to the community. It's not clear to me that it fits at all, really. Perhaps over at WP:VAND there's a place for something like that. WP:NOT is not patronising, either, which this phrasing rather comes across as. -Splashtalk 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tribunal

Now that I'm an admin, I see a lot of users demanding 'justice'. While I see what they're trying to get at, when that word is used like that, it seems to make a lot of incorrect assumptions about how wikipedia works. Is there any chance something to that effect could be added to the page? --InShaneee 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the section immediately preceding this: WP:NOT is a content policy first and foremost. In any case, Wikpedia does essentially have a tribunal, it's just that admins aren't it. (In fact, the community of admins at large can act in the manner of a tribunal when they community-ban someone after discussion on ANI.) Perhaps something in WP:ADMIN about admins not being one-person tribunals or something. -Splashtalk 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists of definitions/usage guides...

WP:NOT is often used as rationale in VfD for articles such as List of ethnic slurs, List of sexual slurs, List of political epithets, Rail terminology, List of US railfan jargon, List of UK railfan jargon, etc. These lists consistently defy VfD because they're so damn useful and encyclopedic. I think it's time we acknowledged that, the long-standing version of WP:NOT notwithstanding, WP is sometimes a repository of useful lists of terms when those lists are handled in an encyclopedic manner. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that many people do not properly comprehend that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that dictionaries are where you go when you are looking up a meaning which is all these lists provide, in the rare event that they come within a mile of a reliable source. I do not acknowledge that they have much place in this project, I agree that they should be in a dictionary, and I observe that there is just such a thing over at Wiktionary. If a list of terms were being handled in a manner that was even faintly encyclopedic it would, by definition, be much more than a mere list and would quickly spawn subarticles as evidence of this. -Splashtalk 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Many of the terms DO have subarticles, attesting to the encyclopedic natures of the way that the list articles are being handled. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to take exception to that logic. The existence of articles for items on a list does not mean that the list is encyclopedic. Articles stand on their own. If the primary justification for having an article on an item is that the item appears on a list, then my position is that the article doesn't belong on Wikipeida. In many cases categories are more appropriate that lists. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't my logic, that was the logic that User:Splash was using. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Splash here. The vast majority of the "List of" type articles are very obviously contrary to the basic definition of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. M16 rifle in popular culture is a great example- This whole "article" would best be replaced by a sentence in M16 to the effect of "Due to its extreme popularity, this rifle is very commonly featured in video games." Such lists are a maintenance nightmare, and they don't tend to have any kind of encyclopedic value. To me, they're indiscriminate collections of information, not encyclopedia articles. But I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it- this type of thing is fairly deletion-resistant at Afd. And not because these articles are useful or encyclopedic- because we have more and more editors who are more interested in trivia than in making an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to object to this... people (Friday included) keep calling these articles "not useful", despite the great number of editors who find them useful and freely offer that information. I have yet to hear a single logical reason that shows why these articles have no usefulness, and I suspect that some editors forget that because THEY don't find something useful, or that it is not useful for X,Y,Z purpose, that it is not necessarily useless to everyone. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just guessing here, but I'd say the people who call them not useful really mean "not useful as an encyclopedia article". A phone book is very useful, when you need a phone book, but wikipedia is not a phone book. A cheat guide to a videogame is useful to those who play the game, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Sometimes, it's a matter of organization- the list of weapons available in a particular game could maybe be mentioned in the article on that game. But, creating an entire "article" that's a list of which videogames feature a certain rifle? Huh? Almost any modern military-themed game is going to have it. Anyway, I think the main point is that whichever side you fall on, usefulness is not a good criteria for inclusion. There are all sorts of things that aren't encyclopedias but are still useful- that doesn't mean Wikipedia is any of those things. A better criteria is, "could this reasonably belong in an encyclopedia?" To me, for lists of trivia, the answer is usually no. A lot of people seem to think that more articles is always better, even if they're not really articles at all. Friday (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess we disagree here then. I don't see (at least when I look at List of ethnic slurs) lists of "trivia", but rather as an attempt to create the most comprehensive legitimate source on the subject. That we have not yet succeeded in sifting through all the "joke" and nonce entries is no excuse for calling the article encyclopedically useless and calling for its deletion, but rather should be taken as a challenge to finish our work. But, that's just my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Splash here. List of ethnic slurs is not necessarily trivia but it's also not appropriate in the encyclopedia. It's a list of words and their definitions. The content is far more lexical than encyclopedic. That means that it should have been created as an appendix in Wiktionary and would still fit there much better than it fits in Wikipedia. See Wiktionary:Category:Appendices for a number of examples (some good, some not yet - but that's the nature of a wiki.) But as Friday says above, it's extremely difficult to get these articles moved where they belong because of the partisan feelings of the editors involved. Rossami (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not just words and definitions. It's usages, it's origins, it's connotation and history... I guess it hinges on what you consider to be "encyclopedic" as opposed to "lexicographic". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, origins, connotation and usage are all clearly lexical - exactly the content that I'm used to seeing in a good unabridged dictionary. History is more of a judgment call but I've not seen much history in the examples given above. I'm not so sure that it hinges on what we consider encyclopedic vs lexicographic. Unfortunately, I believe that is has more to do with people selling Wiktionary short and not really understanding what a great dictionary could/should be. If we'd put these things in Wiktionary where they belong, it could be as revolutionary for dictionaries as Wikipedia is for encyclopedias. Rossami (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no opposition to a comprehensive dictionary, but aren't we then crossing the border into "encyclopedic dictionary" territory? Surely at some point the line blurs. There must be borderline cases. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dante. Lists of these type serve a useful purpose in Wikipedia, and the evidence is not in some a priori analysis of the nature of the contents, but is purely empirical, as Dante points out: these lists have consistently failed AfD. We should find a way to formulate the policy so that it accurately represents reality.

As for Rossami's point that these articles should be in Wiktionary, I have to say that regardless of the theoretical merit of doing that, right now, moving content to Wiktionary is tantamount to consigning it to eternal neglect. There is a reason that Wiktionary isn't as successful as Wikipedia was at its age: efforts to improve the software used to run the Wikis have focused almost entirely on Wikipedia, and there does not seem to be much prospect for new features that will make collaboratively building a dictionary feasible. As it is, they're building a skyscraper with Legos. I heartily object to removing good content from Wikipedia to the information deathtrap that is the current sorry state of Wiktionary. Nohat 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to take umbrage at the implication that lexicographic information is somehow inherently unencyclopedic. Just as it is possible for any type of information to be unencyclopedic, it is certainly possible that a given piece of lexicographic information is unencyclopedic, but such information is not prima facie unencyclopedic. There are many Wikipedia articles that include lexicographic information for words that are related to the topic of the article, and I would be very much opposed to the suggestion that any instance of that kind of information should be removed to Wiktionary. Nohat 03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy

I have been working on this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy Fred Bauder 21:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Atavism

  • Most people think of a dictionary as something where you can easily and quickly find a word and its definition. But in wikipedia, even if is a 500-book encyclopedia, you can do just that.
  • Another reason for a dictionary is that you normally get ten times as many words as you do in an encyclopdia. But in wikipedia, you instead have ten times as many articles as in the wiktiory.

What other merit does "wikipedia is not a dictionary" have? Is it an atavistic rule?DanielDemaret 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's atavistic, I'd say it's vital. The articles in Wikipedia are not about words, they're about various topics. Besides, the size of wiktionary is irrelevant - the important factor is the size of the English vocabulary. There are at least 500,000 words in the English language (English_language#Number_of_words_in_English) and I've seen estimates of up to 1,200,000. We definitely don't want articles on all these giving the etymology and various meanings. WP:NOT a dictionary, and it should stay that way. Mikker (...) 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that we do not want that, then fine :) However, the argument about the number 1,200,000 seems immaterial to me, since we already have almost that number of articles. Is it an indexing problem here?
Besides, each topic that happens to be about a word should start with a definition or disambiguation and often includes its etymology. When you say "we" I am sure that you are speaking for all other 1,000,000 editors, but you can not include me in your "we". DanielDemaret 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to seek a new consensus on the place of dictdefs in Wikipedia, this is the place to start the discussion. I suspect you will not find much support, though. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Don. I thought I would at least mention what I thought, since my opinion differed. Your and Mikkers answers are as much of a "straw poll" as I need. I consider the matter closed.DanielDemaret 09:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an oligarchy or a dictatorship

Should this page state that Wikipedia is not an oligarchy or a dictatorship? While this may seem obvious to some people, I am aware of several critics of Wikipedia, as well as Wikipedians themselves who feel like this project is an oligarchy, controlled primarily by the administrators, stewards, and bureaucrats, or a dictatorship, under the rule of Jimbo Wales. Also, to state that Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, or a democracy, might lead some people reading this page to believe that it is an oligarchy or dictatorship. I'll wait to establish consensus before adding anything to the actual policy page. Andrea Parton 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... interesting. Question: won't this confuse people a bit? If it's not a democracy, and it's not a dictatorship and it's not an oligarchy, what is it? Mikker (...) 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, one might say that Wikipedia is a piece of property. The Wikimedia Foundation owns it, but they allow us to play with it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems obvious that Wikipedia *is* an oligarchy or dictatorship, albeit one where the dictator or ruler rarely gives commands. Ken Arromdee 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a laissez-faire dictatorship? Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Nobody has any particular rights here beyond those that Jimbo and the Foundation deem useful for preparing an encyclopedia. If they wanted tomorrow to go to requiring validated registration, for example, there's nothing the governed could do other than whine about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts

I rv an anon who added two new WP:XXX shortcuts to this page's header with edit sum Are we shortcut-happy on this page?. I think this is clear WP:POINT but the anon does have a point. Is there any compelling reason to provide, on the body of the page itself, multiple shortcuts? This is a different question from whether the redirects themselves should be retained. For obvious reasons, I think, all rd should be retained. But while anyone may choose to link through an rd of his choosing, I don't see any need to offer 5 different shortcuts.

This page is linked to so often and via so many different rds that I can't see any clear winner; it does seem that unusual spellings and wordings are link targets as often as any shortcut. My preference is for WP:NOT, with WP:WIN the runner up. Are these not sufficient? John Reid 01:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia

That right there contradicts this article. It looks like Wikipedia is so large, its own rules don't work with eachother. IP Address 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, it's stubborn users refusing to budge on lists. Can I enlist your for an anti-list cabal? On closer inspection, you're linking to a policy that seems pretty consistent. the problem is that nobody reads that guideline.--Mmx1 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

While I would like to see the number of lists trimmed down, the last time I nominated a list for AfD I came as close to being tarred and feathered as you can get on-line. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of songs which refer to Jesus IP Address 05:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"This guideline has been drafted to provide some general best practices as it pertains to the creation and maintenance of lists in the article namespace." This article isn't in the article namespace, it's in the Wikipedia namespace. No contradiction. Choess 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

new notability policy proposed

Please help build policy at: Wikipedia:Notability (memes). Thank you, --Urthogie 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Documenting Crystal Ball vs. scheduled products

Re: Articles or sections dealing with upcoming items that ARE allowed to be described.

I think the gist of the two snippets below should somehow be merged into the Crystal Ball section, in order to help document how exceptions should be handled:

  • Such items should be reported on factually, e.g. NOT "Their new album will be released on Month, Year" (no future tense) BUT "The band announced that their new album is tentatively scheduled for release on Month, Year" (present tense reporting a past fact).

Concrete examples:

  • An upcoming album, documented both at Cheap Trick (bottom of History section, bottom of Discography section) and Rockford (album) (in lead, and in infobox).

Notes:

  • Maybe a warning and link to this documentation should be put in the lead of each "future/upcoming item" template, so that people using {{future product}} etc. have a chance to know how to handle them more properly.
  • Yes, I have just doctored a bit the four pages cited as examples in order to make them fit the bill. Cf. previous note ;-)

-- 62.147.36.129 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I support your ideas concerning Wikipedia:Current and future event templates#Suggested templates? Some of these templates have been in use for over a year. It's a good method of keeping a closer eye on articles that may potentially be problematic. The articles generally are verifiable and notable, but editor enthousiasm may cause them to become of the Crystal Ball type. Using this template gives editors freedom in editing, while helping more experienced editors to be more vigilant about the contributions. I recently updated {{future tvshow}} with a warning notice like you implied above btw. - The DJ 15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a contest

Based on my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, Pegasus1138 just created the proposal page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a contest, which warns against one-upmanship in how many edits, FAs, etc. one user or another might have. I'm not necessarily proposing this as yet another "new WIN". I just thought I'd bring it to someone's attention, see how many others out there think this is a good idea. I can see this evolving into a "Wikipedia essay", not necessarily a new policy or guideline. szyslak (t, c, e) 07:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a contest, but anything that helps motivate people to do good work is OK by me. If some people are motivated by trying to make >n edits a month, or getting one article promoted to FA a month, or being more dilligent in their use of edit summaries, that is fine with me! Bring on the competitive spirit within each of us! On the otehr hand, some people get demotivated if they don't make their goal, or if they don't see themselves "advancing compared to others". I say "to each his/her own" - no need to 'warn' people to be more or less competitive. Certainly no need for a policy on this. Johntex\talk 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need for a new article on this. I would suggest you propose some wording to add to WP:NOT and see if other editors are willing to consider an addition to an already lengthy policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

removed proposed addition "Wikipedia is not communism"

I've removed the following text which was added by User:Bill Sayre: [11]

=== Wikipedia is not communism ===

In Wikipedia, anyone can freely advance in rank, from IP, to normal user, to admin and beyond by making good edits. Vandals are stopped by the good users. The admins have more power than regular users, but aren't an exclusive caste and aren't all-powerful dictators.

This seems like a good-faith addition, but I think there are some problems with it. The section title is witty, but not all that relevant. The idea of "rank" is not one that is likely beneficial to Wikipedia culture (even if it's a pretty common idea). And the dichotomy between "vandals" and "good users" is similarly troublesome - it suggests that vandals can never become productive editors. FreplySpang (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After I made a comment about the vandal, "Wikipedia is Communism," on that talk page, someone answered with something about WP:NOT, that gave me an idea, it was probably too rushed. So I'd have to agree with FreplySpang. Bill Sayre 03:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the text Bill added and FreplySpang removed does not seem to have anything to do with communism. The text seemed to be about the hierarchial system of Wikipedia, and communism is not necessarily hierarchial. Of course, Jimbo's goal all along has been for Wikipedia to have as little hierarchy as possible, but at this time, there has been a need for some in order to deal with various issues. Bill said "vandals are stopped by the good users". Well, any user can revert what they see as vandalism in any non-protected article. Well, that said, Wikipedia is written collaboratively by all of its users; if there were no administrators, stewards, or bureaucrats, Wikipedia would effectively be a system of anarchist communism, but because there are, Wikipedia cannot be said to be a system of anarchism. So Wikipedia could be considered a system of libertarian socialism or communism. Anarchist communism is essentially the final goal of all communists, but that term usually only refers to communists who do not believe in the necessity of a transitional socialist stage. When people think of communism, they tend to think of the near-totalitarian communist states, but in reality, communism is a very diverse concept. Wikipedia is supposed to be compatible with any political belief, and I think people all across the political spectrum should read and contribute to Wikipedia. Well, this is becoming a long post, but it seems to me like Wikipedia is communism. Of course, Wikipedia was not intended to be any kind of social experiment.

Andrea Parton 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, the vandal may have been right, but he's still a vandal and one is not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Blanking whole articles and replacing them with "Wikipedia is communism!" and the hammer and sickle graphic was definitely the wrong thing to do. Bill Sayre 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, vandals are highly unwanted on Wikipedia. I have reverted numerous vandalisms myself, most of them by anonymous users. I don't think "Wikipedia is communism" should be written in any article unrelated to Wikipedia, and even in articles related to Wikipedia, I don't think that exact phrase would be neutral or verifiable. I agree that the vandal "Wikipedia is communism" has done much more harm than good to this encyclopedia. As I said above, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not a political hierarchy, not a system of anarchy, and not a social experiment. Andrea Parton 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on speculation issue

Please feel free to redirect me if this is the inappropriate place to ask this. However, I have a question relating to the 'speculation' or 'crystal ball' issue and I'd like as much of an authoritative response as possible -- which doesn't seem to be available in the article as it currently stands. I seek this response both for my own knowledge and because I have the feeling that (unfortunately) I'm getting increasingly involved in a minor conflict with another user over a specific page. (The Audi S4 and my work on its 5th generation)

Here is the case: there is credible information from an industry publication that a redesign of car brand "X" is going to come out in year 2010. Now, for the last four or five previous redesigns over the last 15 or so years, car brand "X" has always released a "special model" one year after it releases it's standard redesign. If I can source the article which says "car brand X redesign is year 2010", is it okay to then go ahead and say ... actually, why don't I just quote the article. Here is what it currently states:

"Despite the recent release of the B7 platform S4 in 2005, it is not too early to begin speculation on the future direction of the S4. According to the industry publication Motor Trend, Audi plans on a complete redesign of the A4 for the 2010 model year.[1] If Audi maintains a historically consistent platform strategy, this would suggest that the B8 S4 will be released in sedan-form in the 2011, with a cabriolet version arriving for the following year."

Now, this seems a tricky issue. The redesign itself is capable of being sourced. There are also 5 historical precedents (5 earlier releases) which all follow this trend. Isn't this okay to have in the article?

I'd really appreciate advice on this issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.69.68 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2006 April 25 (UTC)

I think the example you give is fine. This is a future prediction being made by an external source. As an example, please see 2006 Formula One season. This article lists planned races for 2006, even though many of them have not happened yet. Sure, a terrorist attack or meteor collision could cause any of them to be cancelled - but as of now they are planned to occur according to the relevant organizing committee. The type of things we want to avoid are future predictions whhere it is us doing the speculating, for example, "Hybrid cars have become a popular option in the US and are likely to become more popular in the future as gasoline prices are probably going to continue going up." or "The 2010 A4 should sell well in Europe." That is the type of crystal ball stuff we should avoid. Johntex\talk 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The example is not fine. The nameless user is inferring from this site, which predicts the Audi A4 will have a redesign in 2010, that there will be a performance version named S4 in 2011, thereby going against official policy. No other reference was given with a release date for a supposed next-generation S4 (in fact, the current S4 debuted just last year). In the Audi S4 talk page, the nameless user has claimed to have an inside source working for Audi, going against more official policy. Apart from this piece of speculation, the user's only other contribution on the Audi S4 article is this: "More developments, especially regarding the proposed styling of the A4/S4/RS4, as well as more specific information on the mechanical and engineering aspects of the vehicle(s) will certainly arrive as the release year approaches", which is not informative at all. --Pc13 14:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have some solid facts about previous Audi design/marketting approaches - let's write about that. However there is absolutely no way to know whether they'll do the same thing again. After all, if you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads every time - the chance of getting a tail the next toss is still 50/50. Unless we know WHY previous cars followed this development pattern, we have no knowledge as to whether this was just a chance happening. If you are inferring information from this past history - then that's original research - which is a no-no. I don't see a need to add this specific kind of speculation to your article. SteveBaker 03:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)