Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was nominated for deletion on May 15, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
[edit] All caps, part two
This was initially discussed in 2006, here, and the change was made to remove the "in your face, shouting at you" all caps. I am unsure when, or why it was reverted back to all caps, but I would tend to agree that it is a bit WP:BITE-y, and I really think that removing the caps, and instead using big tags, and bolding, would be more appropriate, and less authoritative. This page is helpful to direct new users to, but in doing so, it occurs to me that it may actually put some editors off, sort of as if they went to a new school, and upon walking in the door, were directed to the principal's office, where they met a drill sergeant who shouted the rules to them in their face. I would like to see a "quieter", gentler version of this page. Would anyone object if I redesigned it? (I would change no wording significantly.) Ariel♥Gold 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry but this page is INTENDED (scuse 'bitey' shouting) to be shouting in your face. It is its entire point. You should think about whether this is appropriate to the situation before you point people here. Genuinely confused but non-obnoxious newbies should not be sent here, of course, but to WP:5P. You are called to WP:UCS to evaluate which applies to a given case. dab (𒁳) 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please take a look at this alternate version that would be helpful to explain to younger editors, or very brand new editors, I think a middle ground is needed, instead of pointing someone to WP:NOT (which is not very short or to the point, but is a pretty long read that many younger editors would likely not bother with initially), to show new editors the very basics, summed up, without shouting at them or coming across as mean. I disagree that this page is intended to bite, if someone is acting inappropriately, that is what talk page templates are for, to notify them of what specific policy/guideline they have possibly gone against. This page should not be used to send someone here to be shouted at, in lieu of a warning about inappropriate behavior. I came across this page, while checking out a variety of welcome templates at the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee, and it was in this template. I honestly think that this page should not be used to send "obnoxious" editors to, and should instead, be used to direct very inexperienced editors to a very short, concise place that they can find a listing of what is, and isn't appropriate, without feeling shouted at. I do appreciate your input, but I would like to see it used to welcome those who don't want to wade through pages of policies, and to give a very broad overview of the project. Ariel♥Gold 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this page is appropriate as is. I fail to see how it qualifies as 'humour' (per the page's listed categories), and since when did we condone "shouting" at even our worst vandals and trolls? My common sense tells me that there's no good use for this current page as is; it's not particularly humorous or appropriately helpful. WP:CIVIL should always apply, even when needing to use the largest of cluesticks. ArielGold's improvements wouldn't alter the text but remove the bite. ~Eliz81(C) 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Humour cat removed, shouldn't have been there)
- I've never pointed other users to this page, so have no strong investment in how it ends up appearance-wise. Both perspectives make sense, and if it has conflicting usages, perhaps it should just be forked? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah actually, I was discussing the possibility of a fork with someone last night, one aimed perhaps at younger editors, (or those who have acted in an immature way), rewording it to be more in the context of MySpace, not a level-up game, not a chat room, homepage, etc. Sort of a children's edition, so if that seems a better compromise, it would be something I'd be happy to put together. Ariel♥Gold 04:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this page is appropriate as is. I fail to see how it qualifies as 'humour' (per the page's listed categories), and since when did we condone "shouting" at even our worst vandals and trolls? My common sense tells me that there's no good use for this current page as is; it's not particularly humorous or appropriately helpful. WP:CIVIL should always apply, even when needing to use the largest of cluesticks. ArielGold's improvements wouldn't alter the text but remove the bite. ~Eliz81(C) 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please take a look at this alternate version that would be helpful to explain to younger editors, or very brand new editors, I think a middle ground is needed, instead of pointing someone to WP:NOT (which is not very short or to the point, but is a pretty long read that many younger editors would likely not bother with initially), to show new editors the very basics, summed up, without shouting at them or coming across as mean. I disagree that this page is intended to bite, if someone is acting inappropriately, that is what talk page templates are for, to notify them of what specific policy/guideline they have possibly gone against. This page should not be used to send someone here to be shouted at, in lieu of a warning about inappropriate behavior. I came across this page, while checking out a variety of welcome templates at the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee, and it was in this template. I honestly think that this page should not be used to send "obnoxious" editors to, and should instead, be used to direct very inexperienced editors to a very short, concise place that they can find a listing of what is, and isn't appropriate, without feeling shouted at. I do appreciate your input, but I would like to see it used to welcome those who don't want to wade through pages of policies, and to give a very broad overview of the project. Ariel♥Gold 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has been changed to lowercase at least twice, and reverted back to all caps again. For my part I much prefer the all-caps version with the cute hourglass shape, and the original color scheme. - ∅ (∅), 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see that the page has been summarily reverted without discussion to the all-caps version, which is inappropriate given the continuing discussion here. Sanctioning the biting of newbies or even established vandals/trolls is counter to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and our goals as a community. ~Eliz81(C) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- My longer explanation edit-conflicted with the above. I certainly wasn't ignoring this discussion. • WRT "Sanctioning the biting of newbies": That is very severely misunderstanding the idea behind this page. That would be akin to suggesting that WP:BAN sanctions the biting of newbies. WRT "established vandals": WP:AGF does not apply; there's nothing to assume. By definition, they are established as deliberately making unproductive edits. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see that the page has been summarily reverted without discussion to the all-caps version, which is inappropriate given the continuing discussion here. Sanctioning the biting of newbies or even established vandals/trolls is counter to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and our goals as a community. ~Eliz81(C) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the change to mixed-case. I reverted it to the "ALL CAPS" version. Please understand: This page is a clue-by-four. It is supposed to SHOUT. This page is not supposed to be friendly. It has been like that from day one. Attempts to make this page by nice, welcoming, friendly, etc., are missing the point. This page is supposed to bite the reader. Note that that does not mean this page is in violation of anything. One should never refer a newcomer to this page. One should never reference this page when one should be assuming good faith. If someone does so, that someone should be called for it, because they're the one's using it wrong.
- Perhaps that means one should reserve mention of this page for the most egregious and flagrant of violations. Perhaps that means this page should only be used in conjunction with serious sanctions, or as a last-ditch alternative to same. Perhaps that means this page should never be referred to in any serious discussion. But this page is the way it is for a reason: Because some just don't get it, and indeed refuse to get it. There are already nice ways to say what this page says (WP:NOT and WP:5 come to mind); turning this page into them will just make this page redundant. Perhaps all that means this page should be deleted; dunno. But you can't make it warm and cuddly.
- I suspect the above is why this page was once tagged as funny -- because one can make the argument that any serious use of this page is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Though it may be worth pointing out that just because something is funny doesn't mean it's not true. "When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth." (George B Shaw) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Postscript: Another, even better suggestion for a page to send newbies to when AGF'ing would be Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
may I, somewhat facetiously, remind everyone that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! We should be writing articles, rather than wrack our brains in prolongued caucus over how to best cater to the "younger editors, or those who have acted in an immature way". dab (𒁳) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to add my voice to those opposed to the all-caps, BITE-violating tone of this page. It is completely inappropriate for this page to be linked from Wikipedia:Five pillars. I went there looking for helpful information to point a new editor toward, and instead found this piece of screaming rage linked from Wikipedia's core principles document. It seems to me that this page needs to either be toned way down, or the link from Wikipedia:Five pillars should be removed.--Srleffler (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would have to agree that a link to this page from WP:5 isn't really appropriate. • At the same time, again, this page does not violate WP:BITE any more than WP:BAN does. This page is not for newcomers. If someone sends a newcomer to this page, that someone has violated WP:BITE. • One thing that does occur to me is that perhaps the page title, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", is encouraging casual linking without really understanding the idea behind this page. Perhaps this page should be renamed and something else filed under the current title. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two points: 1) I don't see why a link to this page from Wikipedia:Five pillars is inappropriate. It is a bit of hyperbole to describe it as a "piece of screaming rage". 2) But at the same time, I don't see that using all caps is in any way effective. Such "shouting", IMO, does little more than make it easier for people to dismiss the page altogether (which is precisely counterproductive to the purpose). older ≠ wiser 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why do we link to this page instead of the established, uncontroversial Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not ? --Ryan Delaney talk 04:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is not myspace or not social networking service?
I think social networking service sounds too formal for a page of this tone. I'm changing it to wikipedia is not Myspace. (oops, forgot to sign...) Rustyfence (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What is this page for?
I'm opening a new debate here, as the one on capitalization seems to have digressed WAY off subject...
What exactly is the purpose of this page? in present form it seems to be nothing more than an extremely hostile rant, and one possibly violating a number of WP.
It is certainly unwelcoming for new editors.
I would also like to note that the page is simply a list of things that wikipedia is NOT; if it's to be kept in its present form, perhaps it should be re-named?
Lx 121 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Its the short version of not. If a new user is directed to read this, perhaps they are not here for what wikipedia is. :)--Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
